Talk:Demiurge
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Umberto Eco's work on the subject should not be ignored.
In the Hinduism section, Brahma being empowered by Vishnu sounds like a Vaishnava (i.e. sectarian) view. Hope someone with more knowedge about the subject may correct this, or more carefully note what Purana is being cited, or cite the view as a Vaishnava one (if it is), or delete the section altogether. Eduardo Cuellar 21 June 2005
Can somebody explain the how Yaldaboath is Hebrew for "Go, Child" or for anything else? Gadykozma 06:36, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)
The Hebrew word for "child" is "yeled", and for "go" is "bo". Most probably "yalda" and "baoth" are declensions of "child" and "go" in a certain Semitic language (I doubt it's Hebrew), meaning together "child, come hither".
According to whom/what? Although it does appear that the first part could be related to "child" (which has a stem yald-), why suppose that "baoth" is related at all to "bo"? 24.159.255.29 06:25, 9 April 2006 (UTC) Update - there seem to be a lot of web pages giving the meaning as "child of chaos" (or, in one instance, "father of chaos" - perhaps that's a gloss on a phrase like "one whose child is chaos"?). In many of those pages it is spelled Jaldabaoth. I don't know if any of them is really reputable, so I'm not changing the actual entry, but I thought someone else might find this information useful. 24.159.255.29 06:58, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
Is it at all significant that "yalda" is the feminine of "yeled" and thus means "girl" in Hebrew? Or is this a modern conceit? --Aemilia 18:35, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
- Incidentally the feminine of child-boy has a different root in semitic languages: "BNT". The "a" at the end here is a kind of inflection, not feminine indication.--Connection 01:43, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
Hoi, how is it I can provide a specific etymology in Aramaic for Samael and have it deleted for an uncited and uncorroborated (and grammatically incorrect) definition instead? Samael is Aramaic for "God is Blind" (Syriac sæmʕa-ʔel). Emily Zilch 17 Jan 2006
Contents |
[edit] Iamblichus
Iamblichus (philosopher) was a neoplatonist who incorporated ides of a Demiurge into his philosophical ideas/system. Perhaps someone would like to add a bit to this article dealing with it. --DanielCD 20:45, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
What do you mean "incorporated ideas"? The Demiurge is a central principle of Neo-Platonism, identified as the Intellectual-Principle by the founder of Neo-Platonism Plotinus and descended from the Father: the Good - certainly not a doctrine peculiar to Iamblichus. --Nicander
[edit] Cerinthus
This section about "co-creators" is a pet theory and not substantiated here. Perhaps citation from the Book of Mormon, Pearl of Great Price, or statements from presidents of the Church of Latter Day Saints is wanted. - originally left by User:Castanea dentata as an inline comment
[edit] another visual error error
Christos never stated that Plotinus' targets where simple early christian. Christos state that the gnostics Plotinus attacked where christian gnostics. Big difference. LoveMonkey 04:46, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Merge Nebro?
The article about Nebro is very short and seems to be about the same Demiurge as Yaldabaoth. Ialdabaoth merges here and Yaltabaoth merges there. Should these articles be the same thing? Yahnatan 19:14, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
Seems sensible to me. I don't see any reason not to, if that section was just placed in this article. Does anybody have any reason not to do it? MrCheshire 20:21, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
- Seeing no objections or further discussion, I have merged Nebro into this article. Yahnatan 15:34, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
[edit] 'Already'
"It is used metaphorically of a creator (of the laws or the heaven) or even the Creator (of the World) in Plato already." I'd dearly love to know what the 'already' means here so I can put the sentence into English. Please guide me. Jigsawpuzzleman 19:29, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
[edit] vedic
Why is the word 'vedic' used when Brahma is not even mentioned in the Vedas? Besides, not all Hindus believe that the world was created by the demiurge- they may, for instance, hold the view that the creator (Hiranyagarbha/Brahma/Prajapati) is an aspect or name of the supreme being.
[edit] Ialdabaoth is not Demiurge
Why Ialdabaoth is confused with Demiurge? In gnostic traditions, Ialdabaoth is an Archon servant to the Demiurge, along with other figures. Citations please if you see otherwise.--Connection 01:49, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
[edit] On Ialdabaoth
You must understand,Christian gnosticism (of which Ialdabaoth was a key figure) spanned over many different sects and places, so things were bound to get confused after a while. So in some writings (mostly the later, Origen influenced ones), Ialdabaoth would be identified with the Cosmocrator, Sophia's abortion, and in others he would be identified with the first Archon, a role later given to Ialdabaoth's son, Sabaoth. Sometimes these two identites would get mixed, so it's only natural that Ialdabaoth would be identified as the Demiurge, the first Archon, and (as Origen put it), "Michael's second name".
[edit] the word was ?
kai theos ēn ho logos (word-for-Word "and god was the word"). problem!!! Greek has only a definite article similar to "the" and no indefinite article "a" or "an". A definite noun will have the definite article (ho) which translates "the" in english. An indefinite noun will have no (ho). Therefore, (logos) translates "a word" and (ho logos) translates "the word". The same applies to (theos) translates "a god" and (ho theos) translates "the god". Now English has both a common noun "god" and a proper noun "God". The proper noun "God" in english corresponds to the greek (ho theos) "the god".
In application to John 1:1 (kai theos ēn ho logos) translates "and a god was the word" and with proper grammar applied "and the word was a god". Careful study of the greek scripture reveals that "the word" was of the "god class" or more presisely "divine". Therefore John 1:1 actually translates into english as such "In the beginning the Word was, and the Word was with God, and the Word was divine. He was with God in the beggining."
This is the true translation. So check it out for yourselves. I am not clear on the date at this moment but around 400 C.E. maybe later, maybe a little earliar, John 1:1 was purposefully misinterpeted and later, mistranslated to prove the trinity. I think if the scriptures are going to be mentioned, then the mistranslation also should be explained because it is relevant. Because the early Christians, if the scripture are translated properly, were not influence by the Gnosic views of theology. In fact, the actual scripture of the entire bible, free from modern influences reveal a very different picture of both Jews and early Christians. Their beliefs at the most basic level were original. The problem is that no one actually looks at the scriptures to see. What is taught in the churches today are mainly influenced by the Gnostic theology. To look at the modern similarites and compare them to the bible reveals this. Interestingly despite the vandalism the chuches of Chistendom did, the truth has been restored thanks to many good discoveries and great investigations of historians and archeologists. Anyway the churches of Chistendom edited the bible a bit and accepted many pagan beliefs and customs into it to gain converts. This is in clear contrast with early Chistians such as Paul and the recovered early manuscripts show this. Maybe the main stream religions of the world influence each other but as long as we have honest archeologists and trustworthy historians the truth will always be revealed.
{So my suggest is to explain that the main stream religion after it was established was infultrated and influenced by pagans, holding to their prior beliefs and customs. Therefore it may seem that there are many similarities between the various religions.}
It is incorrect to present the corrupted versions of the scriptures as proof without presenting the context of history and the origin of the corruption and the time the corruption took place. Not doing this would be presenting a "lie" as an "established fact". I emplore you to correct your article and check your sources. When someone says that this religion influence that one, look for historical evidence to back it up. Explain how and why it did. There must be historical and cultural evidence. Not just a few similarities here and there. For example the Jews in captivity to Babylon still maintained there separate religion and customs. They mainly married Jews and maintained jewish customs and kept a record of there blood lines. Why would they do that? Because of there beliefs in a promised messiah born to the house of david. Non-gnostic belief. They believed in a mortal soul more presisely they believed that all animals, and humans were souls. For clarity they did not believe we have immortal souls but we are souls. (Genesis 12:13; 17:14; 19:19, 20; 37:21; Exodus 12:15,19; 31:14; Leviticus 7:20, 21, 27; 19:8; 22:3; 23:30; 24:17; Numbers 9:13; 15:30, 31; 19:13, 20; 23:10; 31:19; 35:11, 15, 30; Deuteronomy 19:6, 11; 22:26; 27:25; Joshua 2:13, 14; 10:28, 30, 32, 35, 37, 39; 11:11; 20:3, 9; Judges 5:18; 16:16, 30; 1 Kings 19:4; 20:31; Job 7:15; 11:20; 18:4; 33:22; 36:14; Psalms 7:2; 22:29; 66:9; 69:1; 78:50; 94:17; 106:15; 124:4; Proverbs 28:17; Isaiah 55:3; Jerimiah 2:34; 4:10; 18:20; 38:17; 40:14; Ezekiel 13:19; 17:17; 18:4; 22:25, 27; 33:6) The fact that they did not believe in an immortal soul tells us how they viewed heaven and hell and afterlife. One did not assend to heaven or to fall to a place of pain. Death was the opposite of life. (Ecclesiastes 9:5-10) This belief was with the Jews and in their scripture at the time of Jesus and his apostles. They were looking for the messiah at the time Jesus started his ministery. Many thought John the baptist was the messiah. Even though he pointed to Jesus as the messiah. The Jews were waiting for their promised King to lead them to freedom. My point is that these were not Gnostic beliefs. They were at the basic level Jewish beliefs of the common Jew of the time. Thats why they kept blood line records and married only Jews. Each one hope to be apart of the blood ancestry of the promised one. They believed in ressurection and redemption to a life on a paridise earth - Not heaven. All of which was linked to the messiah because he was key to eliminating sin - the source of death. These are not Gnostic beliefs.
I can go on and on about both the ancient Jews and early Christians and there belifs and how very unique they really were to they many other religions around that area and time. But you people have to do your own research and find out for yourselves. I am not going to do it for you. I have given you a few tiny details to work with. As for this article it needs clarity, definition, and historical context as well as cultural context. After reading it, it seemed as if everything was just one big bucket of premordial religious beliefs that everyone understood and believed. Such is not the case in "reality". I am aware the some people who call themselves experts spread their opinions around like butter on toast, but unless they have significant solid proof it is just an opinion. I am also aware that many modern religions have been and are influenced by past and current, religions, politics and social reforms. All that taken into consideration much of the distinct beliefs and reasons for those beliefs of each one have survived down to this day. And without speculation and presuming as many do we can actually compare them. It take hard work and Tons of deductive and inductive reasoning, and finally abductive resoning as well (see definitions). Use all tree type of logic, avoid circular logic, that's sales, and nobody's buying, so be conclusive. Sorry for the long paragraph, spelling errors and any unclear reasoning. 24.150.46.62 22:46, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
[edit] The word was Logos
I'm not really sure what you're trying to say...
The Jews had no clear concept of the Christian "Heaven and Hell", which is much more identifiable with the Roman afterlife than the Jewish one. The Jews believed (and still believe, I think) in Sheol (which is the basic place of rest for the dead), Gehenna (for those who were extremely wicked in this life), and a sketchy concept of Heaven (for the patriarchs, and those especially righteous). Some systems hold even seven heavens! Much more "pagan" than you would have us believe. And to say that Judaism came out of the Babylonian captivity the exact same religion that it was before is just ludicrous. Out of Babylon, they recieved the archangels (Michael and Gabriel), plus many different views of god and satan. Out of Babylon came the Talmud (though, to be fair, this was long after the captivity, and was only the Babylonian version - though this still shaped Jewish thought). You are right on one point, though: Judaism was unique - not in the way you meant, I'm sure, but still unique.
Christianity, on the other hand... it's much harder to make that distinction... It seems to me that Christianity as a whole takes much of its religious views from Mithraists (Christmas, the title "Pope (Papa)", etc.), and that the life of Jesus is much closer to that of Bacchus than we might have once imagined. I do not really care if one borrowed from the other, but only that you see that these religions did borrow. Judaism less so than Christianity. But look at some of the letters of Paul, which are filled with subtle gnostic dialogue! The prince of this world = Ialdabaoth. Before Paul, Judaism had never called the Devil this (though one might argue, the Essenes had), though one can see that it's readily compatible with Christian Gnostic thought. The thing is, you present your opinions as "facts", in the exact way that I have.
September 4, 2006
Sorry, if I presented my opinions as "facts" as you say. The only major fact that I was pointing out was the very commonly mistranslated John 1:1. Refering to "the Word was God" an incorrect translation. The correct translations are as follows "the Word was a god" or "the Word was divine" or if you really want to get crazy "the Word was of the god class" or " the Word was godlike." Which is cited in the Comparisons section under Cerinthus. And this needs to be cleared up that a misunderstandings of many throughout history have come from this mistranslation. Further there is documentation of many mistranslations and alterations that have be done the scriptures to conform the the customs that modern religions now practice. To compare modern practices to the first century scriptures would reveal this. One must also take into contideration that the language use was the common language of the people. The language was used differently by the religious leaders, teachers, philosophers, etc., and even by social class. The words (She'ohl') and (hai'des) are translated as "hell", "the grave", "the world of the dead," and so forth. These were all places where the people buried there dead when they died, from a historical vantage. Thus, these represent the common grave of humankind, apart from the religious and philosophical context many have stamped on them. The Greek word (ge'en•na) was used as a symbol of eternal destruction. From a historical vantage, it was a place outside the city where the people would burn their garbage and the dead not worthy of burial.
I only ask that the scriptures be considered a historcal document used within the context of original language. Not using religious dogma. These documents hold there own value, speak for themselves and show a very different picture that the one you paint. Even if no one wants to accept it. We have the reconstructed languages of those days and the history to reconstruct the context in which it was written. Thus we can reconsruct using all our resources the original meanings of what was written and the common beliefs of that time. Of all the Babylonian, Mede and Persian, Greek, and Roman religions, sriptures, and beliefs. It also sould be noted that people in captivity jealously guard their beliefs. People throughout history were willing and have died, even in masses to protect their beliefs. A persons beliefs are extremely difficult to uproot. Parents go to extreme length to garantee their children have their beliefs. And leaders of communities like parents do the same. Further, whole cultures have out survived envaders and occupation relatively intact. Religion is much more important than ones culture. Also take into account that they were enemies, slaves but enemies. There are many factors to consider when making such assumption. And they are just that assumptions of someone. Someone, like you and I with an opinion. I guess what I am saying is when someone presents someones opinion so steeped in uncertainty, and speculation, present it as an established opinion, but also present the evidence, and circumstance. I apologize if you were offended. If I were presenting my opinions as fact I would have just put it into the article, rather than discuss it.
As for things in the second half of the second century, thats when things started to go bad for Christianity. That's when the influences started to take place. From there on you will find up until the forth century then things got really really bad for christianity, in terms of maintaining it's original beliefs from the scriptures. An in that time period you will also find many groups fighting for their beliefs many unchristian. After that there has be a steady separation between the standing religious beliefs and the bible. Up until the major Protestant movements. If you study each time period working backward you will find where each influence came from. And If you continue back to the first century you will undoubtedly see a major difference from what exists today a Christian Religion and what existed then. Also the jews of the first century were violent to the early Christians. Even Paul who was Saul admitted to that fact. This Violence was not just with the Jews. This shows two things, first the Jews were very jealous religiously, clearly from occupation. Second, the surrounding nations also avoided religious contamination. So they were also vigilant in guarding there beilefs. Many lost their lives in those early centuries. Do you not know of the history of the Roman treatment of Christians. Not only was there governmental persecution but there religious also. That came to an end when one of the Cesars converted to Christianity, by then barly recognizable.
History, human behaviour, religion, culture, public opinion of the governing nation, the beliefs of the subjected people and many other thing must be considered. There was extensive racism, and frequent clashes of violence, with between Jews and Romans. The Jews being a proud people. That same pride going back many eariler centuries. Under the persians they found favour with the rulers but thier were many violent and deadly clashes among the Jews and many other nations under the persian empire and including the persians. Honestly, tell me considering the bitter hatred and divide on both sides coming from religious and racial sources that they would share their beliefs, even mimic them. These people were not friends, or allies, even though they had much freedom under their rule. Go back further to Babylon. Keep going and keep reconstucting the social climate in it's many areas. There is much to consider, many variables and factors. I again apologize for my opinions. History is hazy a best. And people will be reconstructing it long after you and I are dead. I am only interested in the discernable facts in our time not parts taken out of context, not speculations or opinions, unless there is more that a few similarities here and there. I am not interested in conjecture. On further note, Paul was not the first to establish the Devil as the ruler of the world. Check John, It was a teaching of Jesus. 24.150.46.62 05:14, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Systems Malfunction
I'm removing the odd "Systems Malfunction" quote in the "References in popular culture" because it seems to be from a home brew RPG thats run on a college campus and not from any form of Pop culture what so ever. In addition it seems to be of excessive length and has nothing to do with the subject except the world "Demiurge". If it pops up again, please be kind enough to remove it. PsyckoSama 03:35, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
