Biblical Criticism & History Forum - earlywritings.com

Ethan wrote: ↑Mon Nov 18, 2019 8:17 am δημιουργός
one who works for the people, a skilled workman, handicraftsman, of medical practitioners, of sculptors.
in some Peloponnesian states, the name of a magistrate.
http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/mor ... ek#lexicon

This seems to be a form of cognitive dissonances with language.

Joseph D. L. wrote: ↑Mon Nov 18, 2019 10:09 pm. Paul's Epistles, which Marcion either wrote or adopted, make no mention, direct or indirect, of a "demiurge", δημιουργός.

The descriptions of the “relations between Ptah and Atum,” opines Iversen, “were not attempts to elevate one at the expense of the other, but purely theological attempts to define the difference between creator and demiurge.”... —Ptah was creator while Atum was demiurge (second god) who was a Memphite deity and “not his Heliopolitan counterpart and namesake.” Looked at in context with other Egyptian conceptions of creation—where there was an “immaterial creator responsible for creation as such,” who is “projected . . . into a second, sensible god” who carries out material creation—the Shabaka text was simply a treatise explicating the local Memphite version of creation... The Memphite Theology was clearly setting forth the idea of creation as a combination of both immaterial and material principles, with Ptah serving as the connection between the two. Creation, according to the Shabaka Stone, was both a spiritual or intellectual creation as well as a physical one. It was through the divine heart (thought)79 and tongue (speech/word) of Ptah as the great causer of something to take shape in the form of the physical agent of creation Atum, through which everything came forth. Importantly, creation was first and foremost an intellectual activity and only then a physical one. The intellectual principles of creative thought and commanding speech were realized in Ptah and could be said to be embodied in him. He is that which “causes every conclusion to emerge” (line 56)...

Giuseppe wrote: ↑Tue Nov 19, 2019 6:51 am

Joseph D. L. wrote: ↑Mon Nov 18, 2019 10:09 pm. Paul's Epistles, which Marcion either wrote or adopted, make no mention, direct or indirect, of a "demiurge", δημιουργός.

without offence, but this is the greatest idiocy from your mouth.

There Tertullian complains that Marcion left aside the 'in'/ἐν (τοῦ μυστηρίου τοῦ ἀποκεκρυμμένου ἀπὸ τῶν αἰώνων ἐν τῷ θεῷ τῷ τὰ πάντα κτίσαντι), hence understood the text as saying that the mysteries were hidden 'from' the God who created the all, hence the creator

http://markusvinzent.blogspot.com/2016/ ... n.html?m=1

Joseph D. L. wrote: ↑Tue Nov 19, 2019 9:20 am

Giuseppe wrote: ↑Tue Nov 19, 2019 6:51 am

Joseph D. L. wrote: ↑Mon Nov 18, 2019 10:09 pm. Paul's Epistles, which Marcion either wrote or adopted, make no mention, direct or indirect, of a "demiurge", δημιουργός.

without offence, but this is the greatest idiocy from your mouth.

There Tertullian complains that Marcion left aside the 'in'/ἐν (τοῦ μυστηρίου τοῦ ἀποκεκρυμμένου ἀπὸ τῶν αἰώνων ἐν τῷ θεῷ τῷ τὰ πάντα κτίσαντι), hence understood the text as saying that the mysteries were hidden 'from' the God who created the all, hence the creator

http://markusvinzent.blogspot.com/2016/ ... n.html?m=1

How does “τοῦ μυστηρίου τοῦ ἀποκεκρυμμένου ἀπὸ τῶν αἰώνων ἐν τῷ θεῷ τῷ τὰ πάντα κτίσαντι” equate to demiurge? It doesn’t you fucking moron.

Giuseppe wrote: ↑Tue Nov 19, 2019 9:37 am I have quoted it as an example of a passage where the creator is portrayed negatively by a false "Paul".

And I know only a negative creator: the one called demiurge.