Boanerghes = Dioscuri = the two thieves = Archons

Discussion about the New Testament, apocrypha, gnostics, church fathers, Christian origins, historical Jesus or otherwise, etc.
Giuseppe
Posts: 13732
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2015 5:37 am
Location: Italy

Boanerghes = Dioscuri = the two thieves = Archons

Post by Giuseppe »

It seems that the two thieves are evil figures in Mark: they are the false idols raised with the true idol (Jesus). Just as the Egyptian snakes against the snake of Moses.

Assume for a moment that the two thieves are James and John the son of Zebedee: then their being boanerghes makes them connected with atmospheric facts, cosmic forces.

But Paul despised anything in the air (remember the στοιχεία in Galatians, etc) as evil archontic forces. Hence the two thieves are archons. The two thieves who insult Jesus on the cross are the two dioscuri/boanerghes who throw thunders against Jesus.
Nihil enim in speciem fallacius est quam prava religio. -Liv. xxxix. 16.
User avatar
Ben C. Smith
Posts: 8994
Joined: Wed Apr 08, 2015 2:18 pm
Location: USA
Contact:

Re: Boanerghes = Dioscuri = the two thieves = Archons

Post by Ben C. Smith »

Giuseppe wrote: Tue Aug 20, 2019 8:50 am It seems that the two thieves are evil figures in Mark: they are the false idols raised with the true idol (Jesus). Just as the Egyptian snakes against the snake of Moses.

Assume for a moment that the two thieves are James and John the son of Zebedee: then their being boanerghes makes them connected with atmospheric facts, cosmic forces.

But Paul despised anything in the air (remember the στοιχεία in Galatians, etc) as evil archontic forces. Hence the two thieves are archons. The two thieves who insult Jesus on the cross are the two dioscuri/boanerghes who throw thunders against Jesus.
FYI, regarding the Boanerges: viewtopic.php?f=3&t=2282&start=10.
ΤΙ ΕΣΤΙΝ ΑΛΗΘΕΙΑ
Giuseppe
Posts: 13732
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2015 5:37 am
Location: Italy

Re: Boanerghes = Dioscuri = the two thieves = Archons

Post by Giuseppe »

Mark 1:19-20:
19 When he had gone a little farther, he saw James son of Zebedee and his brother John in a boat, preparing their nets. Without delay he called them, and they left their father Zebedee in the boat with the hired men and followed him.

The contrast may be between the free choice of James and John to follow Jesus not for money and the not-free choice of the servants to remain with Zebedee: they were hired men. Even if they were not precisely slaves, they wanted to be slaves. For money.

Joshua 7:1 raises a similar conflict between money and holy mission:
"The Israelites, however, acted unfaithfully regarding the things devoted to destruction. Achan son of Carmi, the son of Zabdi, the son of Zerah, of the tribe of Judah, took some of what was set apart. So the LORD’s anger burned against the Israelites

Nihil enim in speciem fallacius est quam prava religio. -Liv. xxxix. 16.
Giuseppe
Posts: 13732
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2015 5:37 am
Location: Italy

Re: Boanerghes = Dioscuri = the two thieves = Archons

Post by Giuseppe »

I find other clues supporting the my view that the two thieves were the two sons of thunder insofar they throw insults against the Christ on the cross:


38 But Jesus said unto them, Ye know not what ye ask: can ye drink of the cup that I drink of? and be baptized with the baptism that I am baptized with? 39 And they said unto him, We can.

That answer:

We can.

...is really full of hybris. Of archontic hybris, pace Obama. Basically, it was the same arrogant claim made by the Egyptian sorcerers against Moses: that also they could do "the same things":

But the Egyptian magicians did the same things by their secret arts, and Pharaoh's heart became hard; he would not listen to Moses and Aaron, just as the LORD had said.

(Exodus 7:22)

The result was that they will drink the cup of the death, but on the cross as the two thieves:

Those crucified with him also heaped insults on him

(Mark 15:32)
Nihil enim in speciem fallacius est quam prava religio. -Liv. xxxix. 16.
User avatar
Joseph D. L.
Posts: 1405
Joined: Sat Nov 11, 2017 2:10 am

Re: Boanerghes = Dioscuri = the two thieves = Archons

Post by Joseph D. L. »

What is Boanergas? The sons of Thunder.

What is thunder? The voice of God.

What is the voice of God? Logos.

John and James were the sons of Logos.

They serve the same role as Cautes and Cautopates in Mithraism. As well as at the crucifixion. (Note how the torch bearers have their legs crossed, btw).

They are not archons, Giuseppe.

They serve the same twin-allegory that is recurrent in the Gospels.

Jesus Christ.
Giuseppe
Posts: 13732
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2015 5:37 am
Location: Italy

Re: Boanerghes = Dioscuri = the two thieves = Archons

Post by Giuseppe »

You are totally wrong, as usual. Who insults/attacks Jesus is necessarily an euhemerization of archontic forces.
Nihil enim in speciem fallacius est quam prava religio. -Liv. xxxix. 16.
User avatar
Joseph D. L.
Posts: 1405
Joined: Sat Nov 11, 2017 2:10 am

Re: Boanerghes = Dioscuri = the two thieves = Archons

Post by Joseph D. L. »

Okay. Why is one thief saved because he accepts Jesus as the Christ in Luke?

Insults, slander and such is irrelevant. John and James serve the same theological function as Cautes and Cautopates, and are even titled as Castor and Pollux were, Boanergas.

And John and James were historical, so they weren't euhemerized.

John and James
Leucius and Karinus (Gospel of Nicodemus)
Jesus and Barabbas
Judas and Didymus Judas Thomas
Simon of Cyrene and Joseph of Arimethea

The twin idea is not about archons, nor are the theives crucified with Christ archons. The twin/doublet motif underlines the allegory of the transmigration of Christ from one host to another.

You're a fool, Giuseppe. A delusional, paranoid fool.
Giuseppe
Posts: 13732
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2015 5:37 am
Location: Italy

Re: Boanerghes = Dioscuri = the two thieves = Archons

Post by Giuseppe »

Joseph D. L. wrote: Tue Aug 20, 2019 8:54 pm Okay. Why is one thief saved because he accepts Jesus as the Christ in Luke?
It is evident that you don't read Robert M. Price. In the his book Incredible Shrinking Son of Man: How Reliable Is the Gospel Tradition?, this scholar says that the Good Thief was invented by Luke to disconnect Jesus from a dangerous association with the Zealots. It is part and parcel of the apology to overcome the embarrassment about Pilate, a Roman, crucifying Jesus.

But you are ignorant about Robert Price's views. I see you along the lines of The Jesus Mysteries of Timothy Freke, Peter Gandy.

Basically, the your heresy in my view is that you believe that the original Christianity was Paganism and cult of the Sun (or something of similar). No wonder that you talk about mithraism, etc.

I can accept only two kinds of Christian origins:
  • Essenian or like-Essenian origins.
  • Gnostic anti-Judaic origins.
Insults, slander and such is irrelevant.
No, they are not irrelevant. Once I have said you that I don't like Pagan-coloured lens to interpret the texts, then there is not more need by you to post a lot of posts about :
Cautes and Cautopates
… mithraism …
Hadrian …
solar cult
et similia.

Please go with Acharya. I go with Carrier, with Couchoud, with Alfaric, with RG Price, with Jean Magne (at most). But not with stupid astrotheology.

And note that I insult ideas, not the people having these ideas. Like the difference between myself and you.
Nihil enim in speciem fallacius est quam prava religio. -Liv. xxxix. 16.
User avatar
Joseph D. L.
Posts: 1405
Joined: Sat Nov 11, 2017 2:10 am

Re: Boanerghes = Dioscuri = the two thieves = Archons

Post by Joseph D. L. »

For starters, Giuseppe, I don't follow anyone. I follow the evidence. Ever notice how I never refer to anyone when constructing my arguments? Because I don't care what they have to say. My arguments are my own. You on the other hand always have to fall back on the word of others (most of whom are not recognized authorities) because alone your arguments are worthless. I like Price, but I'm not going to refer to him because what good would that serve my arguments? I don't like Carrier because his model is twisted and disingenuous. I don't like Achaarya because she overstates her arguments.

And the reason such slanderous attacks from the thieves are irrelevant, is because they could easily be later inserts, with Luke trying to correct this idea by having one of them accept Jesus.

And you don't like addressing the pagan aspects? Even though Boanergas is a pagan title for Castor and Pollux? Or the solar-Logos that even Justin Martyr acknowledges? Well too damn bad. That only shows your own failures.

You insult me with your smugness, Giuseppe. No one else on here besides Avery is as sure in his certainly yet so oblivious to his own ignorance as you.

Go f*** yourself.
Giuseppe
Posts: 13732
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2015 5:37 am
Location: Italy

Re: Boanerghes = Dioscuri = the two thieves = Archons

Post by Giuseppe »

Joseph D. L. wrote: Wed Aug 21, 2019 8:30 pm I like Price, but I'm not going to refer to him because what good would that serve my arguments? I don't like Carrier because his model is twisted and disingenuous.
This is sufficient, in my view, to judge you (or better: any your reconstructions of the Origins) negatively. Any rational people can't ignore Carrier, pace your boring rhetoric about the your presumed "independence". Who has an Acharyan and Atwillian forma mentis, is by definition not an independent scholar or amateur.

There is also a question relative to a difference of approaches, I think. I would like to put myself along a tradition of Mythicism, one that is already tested, even if with differences in the details, as dated from J. M. Robertson, Arthur Drews until today, with Carrier and RG Price. I don't see a tradition worthy of this name behind Atwill and Acharya and yourself, sorry.
And you don't like addressing the pagan aspects? Even though Boanergas is a pagan title for Castor and Pollux? Or the solar-Logos that even Justin Martyr acknowledges?
Beyond the hellenistic theme of the dying-and-rising god, some midrash from Homeric epics and some very late icons with Mary like the gooddess Isis and Jesus like Horus, etc, I reject all the rest from paganism. Both Gnostics and Essenes hated Pagans.

You insult me with your smugness, Giuseppe. No one else on here besides Avery is as sure in his certainly yet so oblivious to his own ignorance as you.
I hate with equal intensity all the Atwillism and the Astrotheologism and the Paganism in the blogosphera. But I say so also to make you reflect on another question: if we disagree totally, then I don't find very polite, on a human level, the fact that you post in the my threads. Do you see myself post comments in the your stupid threads seriously affected by atwillism ? If you enjoy to despise my views, please do so in the your threads, or at least in a thread where I don't write. I hope that the admin cleans rapidly this thread (and others) so full of vulgar insults.
Nihil enim in speciem fallacius est quam prava religio. -Liv. xxxix. 16.
Post Reply