Gnosticism and Marcionism are Chaotically used terms

Marcion is one of many Christian Heretics who's name has become shorthand for just one particular idea he taught and thus Marcionism as a label will be applied to people or belief systems that are maybe even the opposite of Marcion on everything else.  In Marcion's case that is teaching that the God of the Hebrew Bible, YHWH, is not the same entity as The New Testament God who is The Father of Jesus.

I have recently learned that Marcion didn't even believe YHWH was Evil per se but more like Lawful Neutral to use some Gamer lingo. 

Others who separated the OT God from the NT God were even less hostile to the OT God.  Cerinthus separated them while still being a Legalist who said Christian should still keep The Torah.

Using Gnostic as a catch all term for everyone who believed anything even kind of like this or other related ideas was not being done at the time.  Irenaeus in Against Heresies used the word Gnostic only of the Valentinians and even that was not as a term to describe anything about their Theology or metaphysical world view but simply as his way of calling them pretentious.  Gnosis was a Greek word for knowledge, so you could translate calling someone a Gnostic as "know it all".

My past desire to define Gnosticism as simply the most extreme end result of 2nd Century Christians being too influenced by Middle Platonism and Neopythagoreanism is hindered by Wikipedia giving that label to Epiphanes who was clearly the opposite of that being more like a Zenonian Stoic.

The first theological system that tends to enter my mind when I think "Gnosticism" is primarily that of the Sethians.  So for example on my other blog in Gnosticism in Anime and Video Games the Sethian system is mainly what I had in mind when I suggested that SSSS.Gridman, Serial Experiment Lain and Revolutionary Girl Utena could perhaps be considered Reverse Gnosticism, using a Gnostic Mythological Framework but to actually convey the exact opposite attitude towards the material world.  

There are few topics where I am more susceptible to Godwin's Law then the subject of nominally Christian theologies that reject YHWH.  Thomas Carlyle had expressed a similar sentiment though he didn't go in-depth on it mostly not seeing himself as Christian at all anymore.  Volkish Antisemitism began doing this with Paul de Lagarde in the late 1870s.  Houston Stewart Chamberlain gave it a more refined expression in Foundations of the Nineteenth Century in 1899 followed by Rudolf Jung in 1919 and from there it was incorporated into the writings of NSDAP Propagandists like Alfred Rosenberg, Ludwig Muller and Ernst Bergman in forming their "Positive Christianity".  And in post-War Neonazism we see it even in how George Lincoln Rockwell describes the Old Testament in his Autobiography, but for him it lead to rejecting Christianity entirely.

However I have grown uncomfortable with calling this tendency "Nazi-Marcionism" as I have in the past, partly because of the above but also because I know plenty of others do not connect their rejection of the Jewish God to any hostility to Jews themselves.  There is definitely a type of Antisemitism in viewing The Jews as the ultimate victims of a cruel evil god who Jesus came to save them from rather then for.  But that would be distinct from Nazi Antisemitism.

If I were to compare any ancient Anti-Yhwists to those Nazis it would be the Cainites.  They were the ones who were explicit that the followers of the Evil God were also Evil.  And they also loved identifying themselves with those YHWH was seemingly hostile to in The Hebrew Bible.  

Houston Stewart Chamberlain argued Jesus was an Aryan by arguing he was a Canaanite, this and a few other ideas of his imply he felt the Aryans were Biblically Hamites, an idea that wouldn't hold up to historical scrutiny but I know a few still try to argue it in the obscure corners the Internet to this day.

Meanwhile Cain and his descendants are presented as the first violent warmongers in my reading of Genesis 4 making them natural people for Fascists to identify with.  Cain is the perfect Biblical Symbol for the Nietzschean conception of Master Morality.

And then there is the bizarre Islamophilia of the Nazis which would lend itself to identifying with the Arabian antagonists of Israel, Ishmaelites, Midianites and Edomites/Amalekites.  Meanwhile modern Palestinian nationalists often falsely claim descent from the Philistines and Canaanites. 

Now a lot of people online talking about the Nazis and Gnosticism tie into it some Conspiratorial belief in an unbroken continuity between Ancient Gnostics and groups active today.  That is obviously not the case, the Cainites died out during Late Antiquity. The Manicheans survived into the "Middle Ages" in the East but even they eventually died out.  Only the Mandeans survived to today but as isolated communities in the Middle East with no connection to any "Secret Societies" in The West.

Ignatius of Antioch was not an Apostolic Father

A tradition developed that Ignatius was another student of John alongside Polycarp and Papias.  But Papias doesn't mention Ignatius, Polycarp does mention someone by that name but not as a fellow student of the same teacher.  Nor does Ignatius in his seven authentic letters ever claim to be a student of John or to have a shared mentor with Polycarp.  Polycrates's letter defending Quartodecimanism doesn't mention Ignatius either.

The oldest surviving sources on Polycarp being a student of John are Irenaeus of Lyon (who is considered a student of Polycarp) and Tertullian of Carthage.  Neither of them says anything about Ignatius being a student of John or even mention him by that name at all.  Irenaeus does seem to quote an Ignatian letter once without naming who he's quoting.  (I now believe the John who Polycarp and Papias knew was not the son of Zebedee, but that's another topic.)

The teachings of these letters seem to me to be a clear product of the increasing Platonist influence on the early Church that in my view largely started following the death of Plutarch but even more so during the reign of Hadrian.

I have also come to agree with the theory that Ignatius of Antioch was the same person as Peregrinus Proteus.  Now this idea is usually promoted online by Atheists or others who believe a lot of other things about Early Christian History I don't agree with, but that's fine.  This website is one example.

https://vridar.org/other-authors/roger-parvus-letters-supposedly-written-by-ignatius/

Now I don't agree with everything about their particular way of arguing this theory.  I'm a lot less interested in arguing the Ignatian letters have been changed from their original form.  I believe the letter to the Romans is even in the text as we have it not actually claiming Ignatius is being taken to Rome, that's a misunderstanding of what it says.  I also disagree with their conclusion that Ignatius is an Apellean.  The aspects of the letters that lend themselves to seeing similarities to Marcion, Apelles or others called Gnostics are a product of Middle Platonist and/or Neopythagorean influence that started to increase in the Early Church in the mid 2nd Century.

I do agree on the mid 140s probably being when the letters were written and with the Philo mentioned in the letters possibly being Theophilus of Antioch who is often considered the first to explicitly teach Creation ex Nihilo.

Tatian and Athenagoras each referred to Peregrinus very negatively and Tertullian is a bit more sympathetic but still acknowledging he was an Apostate.  None of these three ever quote the Ignatian letters.  

Here is a list of similarities I'm going to copy/paste from one of virdar's articles.

• Both are prominent Christian leaders in the same part of the world and were active at about the same time, the second quarter of the second century.

• Both are reputed to be prophets. Peregrinus “had become their prophet, cult-leader, head of synagogue, and what not, all by himself.” The author of the letters claims to have spoken “with the voice of God” (IgnPhil. 3:1) and to receive revelations from the Lord (IgnEph. 20:2).
  • It is sometimes thought that Lucian made a mistake in saying that Peregrinus was head of a ‘synagogue.’ But that word means ‘assembly’ and the author of the letter uses it too to tell his readers to assemble more frequently: “Let synagogues be held more often” (IgnPoly. 6:2.)

• Both figures are associated with a convocation of Christians that drew participants “even from the cities in Asia.”

• Both wrote treatises and last-will type letters of advice and rulings. Peregrinus “sent letters to just about all the important towns, a sort of last will and testament, with advice and rulings… ” This description is an equally apt way to describe the letter collection.

• Both figures conferred titles on their messengers. Peregrinus called them “Death’s Messengers” and “Couriers of the Grave.” The author of the letters called his “God’s Ambassadors” and “Couriers of God.”

• Both figures display an unusual interest in taking on additional names. Peregrinus liked to call himself ‘Proteus’ (TDOP 1) and, later, Phoenix (TDOP 27), while the author of the letters is careful in all seven of them to refer to himself as “Ignatius who is also Theophorus.”

• Both figures have a remarkably similar death wish and loudly profess their desire for martyrdom. Peregrinus, while he was a Christian, wanted to “gladly die in order that he might leave behind him a reputation for it.” Later, after he became a Cynic, he longed “to die like Heracles, and dissolve into thin air.” Compare this to the author of the letters’ longing “to be an imitator of the passion of my God” (IgnRom. 6:3) and “to be visible to the world no more” (IgnRom. 3:2). Notice how in both cases the desire to imitate God is expressed. And in one instance we have total consumption by wild beasts, and in the other total consumption by fire. Do we not seem to be dealing with the same person whose mindset, despite a change of religious affiliation, remained basically the same? Earlier in life he wanted to die suffering like Christ; later, after a transfer of allegiance, he wanted to die like Heracles?

• Access to both prisoners by their religious supporters seems unusually easy. Peregrinus’ supporters “even slept inside with him after bribing the guards. Then elaborate meals were brought in, and sacred books of theirs were read aloud.” (TDOP 12, Harmon). Similarly, the author of the letters has no problem meeting with the Christian delegations that come to see him. He even asks the Ephesians to let one of their number – a deacon named Burrhus – stay on with him to keep him company (IgnEph. 2;1). When he writes to the Philadelphians he has with him a deacon named Philo “ministering to him in the word of God.” (IgnPhil. 11:1). And when he says his guards “are treated well” (IgnRom. 5:1) the reference is apparently to bribes.

• And both figures have a friend with a similar name. Peregrinus, while still a Christian, began to dress like a Cynic, and when he finally was expelled by the Christians he took up Cynicism under the guidance of someone named Agathobulus. The author of the letter collection too knows someone with a name like that: Agathop(o)us. And his description of him as a man “who has renounced this life” (IgnPhil. 11:1) has a Cynic-like ring to it. If Ignatius is Peregrinus, it may be that his Cynic friend too abandoned Christianity when Peregrinus was shown the door.

I find it odd that they mention Peregrinus liking to use multiple names but are still inclined to assume the name Ignatius came later.  I suspect the names he used in these letters were names mainly other Christians knew him by and that the names Lucian primarily used came from his later time as a Cynic.

I also find it interesting that they fail to notice Ignatius's role in popularizing Episcopal Polity as itself another reason to identify him with Peregrinus.  Because Lucian's account does stress that Peregrinus became a leader of the Christians claiming more authority for his office then any prior leader since Jesus Himself.

11.    "It was then that he learned the wondrous lore of the Christians, by associating with their priests and scribes in Palestine.   And—how else could it be?—in a trice he made them all look like children, for he was prophet, cult-leader, head of the synagogue, and everything, all by himself. He inter preted and explained some of their books and even composed many, and they revered him as a god, made use of him as a lawgiver, and set him down as a protector, next after that other, to be sure, whom¹¹ they still worship, the man who was crucified in Palestine because he introduced this new cult into the world.

So that should show how sus Episcopal Polity always was.  (Also note that Lucian doesn't question the existence of Jesus.)  

Kenneth A Strand wrote some articles theorizing about the origins of Episcopal Polity that I find useful but I disagree with some of his conclusions.  Even if the Angels of the Churches in Revelation are human members of those Churches that doesn't mean they had Episcopal Polity already just that they served the role of Messager.  

And his argument that the Churches Ignatius is stressing Episcopal Polity to in his letters to them were the ones that already had it I think is a mistake, in my view it's if anything the opposite, I think Ignatius was arguing for it to the Communities most strongly resisting it.  For example we know from Polycarp's own surviving Epistle that he was merely one among a group of Bishops/Elders at Smyrna.  Also later Church Historians like Eusebius couldn't even construct an imagined pre-Nicene line of Bishops for Philadelphia so I feel Philadelphia never became Episcopal till the Fourth Century.  Clement of Rome's authentic episode is evidence that Rome had Episcopal pretty early, as do traditions surrounding Hyginus.

Ignatius's Episcopal Polity is probably itself another Platonist influence, Plato argues for Monarchy being the ideal form of Government in both The Statesman and The Republic.  Plutarch was also strongly Anti-Democratic and he was a big influence on Second Century Platonism.

Ignatius, Justin Martyr and Tatian were the three earliest Christian to stress Free Will in a way that implies humans become Sinners of their own Free Will, planting the seeds of Pelagianism.  This was another influence from Plutarch who expressed the same Free Will sentiments in his criticism of the Stoics.  For Justin Martyr it also comes up in the context of criticizing the Stoics (these critics of Stoicism overstated how deterministic Stoicism was).  Tatian claimed to be an opponent of all Greek Philosophy including Plato, yet the Theology he developed is virtually indistinguishable from contemporary Middle Platonism.  That's because the Platonist influence on him was indirect with one key middle man being his old mentor Justin.

Peregrinus was excommunicated from the very Syrian Church he had lead, he should not be considered a reliable authority on anything.

Update August 13th 2025: Polycarp's letter mentions the name of Ignatius 4 times. The first of them in 9:1 is among a list of martyrs already passed but the other three in 13:1-2 seem to be to a still living contemporary.  They are I think separate individuals and the latter ones are to the authors of the Ignatian Epistles.  It's possible both were Antiochians, I now believe Peter was burned alive in Antioch in AD 67 so Ignatius could be a name multiple Antiochene Christians took as a reference to that.  The first could be the one who's time as a leading Christian at Antioch was 68-107 or 83-115, but the author of the letters who I view as Peregrinus Proteus was active in the 140s.

The Symbiotic relationship between the Ku Klux Klan and the Nazis.

Step Back History did a video once about the relationship between the KKK and Neo-Nazis that claimed up until the end of the Vietnam Era they were always two separate strains of White Supremacy that were if anything hostile to each.  And he even says that is partly because many Klansman were WW2 Veterans and WW2 Vets didn't like Nazis for "obvious reasons".

Sure would be embarrassing for him if any research at all would have shown that the founder of post-War American Self-identifying Nazism was a WW2 Veteran named George Lincoln Rockwell, and the first American Holocaust Denier was a WW2 Veteran named Eustace Mullins (see also Revilo P. Oliver and Willis Carlo).  You see a lot of the kinds of people who become Soldiers have a mindset that actually makes them inclined to respect and even admire the enemies they fought against, it's more the people back home cheering on the war effort from the sidelines who buy into propaganda that completely dehumanizes the enemy.  And in general the Warrior mentality inherently feeds into Nazism and Fascism.  So no fighting on the Allied side in WW2 didn't inoculate anyone agaisnt Nazism or Fascism.

But even leaving that point aside, the tendency towards partnership between the Klan and the Nazis goes back to way before WW2 and thus certainly before Vietnam.

In some of my recent posts I've gotten into the sticky question of how to define Nazism and Fascism, but for this post I shall use the strictest definition for what makes a Nazi, before and during the War it refers to documented confirmed members of the NSDAP or derived organizations like the SA (Stormtroopers/Brown Shirts), SD and SS, and groups in other countries openly operating as extensions of that Party like the German American Bund. I have another definition of Nazi that essentially includes groups like the Klan, and well this post is part of arguing for that really, and even that is more narrow then how I use Fascist.

The main philosophical difference that does exist is the Klan favors Anglo-Israelism to reconcile their Racial Antisemitism and White Supremacy with believing in a Bible entirely about Semites being God's Chosen people.  While Nazis, if they are actively Christian at all, favor Marcionism.

And it's important to remember that the Second Klan's main focus was never on Anti-Black Racism (The Segregationists had already won in The South, when they Lynched Black People they did it openly no Hoods necessary.)  It was opposition to Immigrants, Catholics and Jews, the same things that animate Nazism.

Lothrop Stoddard was a known member of the Second Klan, he'd been exposed as one as early as 1923 and his books were required reading for Klan members.  His books about White Supremacist Social Darwinism alongside Madisen Grant's work were an important influence on Alfred Rosenberg's Myth of The Twentieth Century.  In 1939 and 1940 he was a in Nazi Germany as a journalist and received preferential treatment.

In the mid 1920s there was a Klan offshoot operating in northern Germany founded by American Immigrants to Germany called The Knights of The Fiery Cross.  Information about it online is mainly through old Newspaper Articles, there really should be more research into it.  But it seems there is known to have been members of this Klan who were also SA (the SA was temporarily officially banned for a time in the 20s).  However the main German Political Party it was tied to was the Germany Social Party founded and lead by Richard Kunze, but that party's platform was essentially the same thing as the Nazis and by the end of the 20s they like a lot of other rival Volk Nationalist Parties had been absorbed into the NSDAP including Kunze himself who joined in 1930.

In the 1930s Britain had a Klan imitation group called the White Knights of Britain that operated out of the same building as the Nordic League.  The Nordic League was founded by agents of Alfred Rosenberg's Nordische Gesellschaft and Archibald Ramsay for the purpose of networking between different Nazi Sympathizing groups and politicians in Britain.  Oswald Mosley wasn't a member because he intended to model his Fascism more after Mussolini, but he did allow other BUF members to participate.  It had stronger ties to Arnold Leese's Imperial Fascist League which despite it's name actually hated Mussolini style Fascism and got into Street Fights with Mosley's Black Shirts.  The Nordic League was mainly lead by Archibald Maule Ramsay but the President of it's Liberty Restoration league front group was Lord Arthur Wellesley the 5th Duke of Wellington.

George W. Christians is another link between the Second Klan and actual Nazi Spies, by working with Klansman C. A. Hester and Nazi Spy Oscar C. Pfaus.

From 1938-1944 the House Un-American Activities Committee was lead by Maritn Dies and John E. Rankin, they were open Klan sympathizers and possibly even members, even compared to most other openly Racist Segregationist Southern Democrats their ties to the Klan were uniquely strong.  The KKK even sent a letter to the Committee informing them of how it had their full support.

This form of the Committee was already primarily doing what we would later call McCarthyism, what nominal effort it did put into investigating Nazi sympathizers was half hearted and came to naught.  Instead it's fixation on Communists resulted in it going after the Hollywood Anti-Nazi League, they considered being Anti-Nazi the same as being Communist.

Theodore G. Bilbo was an admitted KKK member and he also openly praised Nazi Race Laws.  (He was also closely associated with Earnest Sevier Cox co-founder of the Anglo-Saxon Clubs of America and future ally of Post-War SS survivors like Leers and even sent a letter of support to George Lincoln Rockwell.)

Eugene Talmadge was a Klan linked Governor of Georgia who bragged about reading Mein Kampf seven times.

But don't forget the Second Klan had Republicans too, like Oregon Senator Rufus C. Holman who expressed admiration for Hitler.

If you go to the Wikipedia Page for the man who was Grand Wizard of the KKK during WW2 James A. Colescott, it will talk about how the Kan had fought alongside Nazi Sympathizers in Race Riots like the one in Detroit in 1943. The National Workers League was the key front group for their collaboration.

Tyler Kent the American Ambassador to Britain who committed Treason helping Archibald Ramsay spy for the Nazis, went on to work for a KKK linked Newspaper in Florida.

In Chile in 1964 Franz Pfeiffer's Nazi party also founded a Chilean branch of the KKK.

The Platonist Pentateuch

 The Platonist Pentateuch

Timaeus = Genesis

Republic = Exodus

Gorgias = Leviticus

Critias = Numbers

Laws = Deuteronomy

When I criticize much of Mainstream Christianity for being more Platonist then Biblical, most of the Platonist ideas I have in mind are pretty much laid out in those five dialogues.  "Conservative" Christians of course want nothing to do with Symposium or Phaedrus.

The extent to which Christians are Platonists varies in explicitness more so then how Platonist.  For many it's all indirect and plenty are in outright denial of how much their beliefs come from Plato, some Full Preterists on Facebook had the gall to suggest it's us teaching a Bodily Resurrection and Soul Sleep who are the Platonists.  Some simply think it doesn't hurt to apply methods learned from Philosophy to your Faith, some believe Plato somehow simply is compatible with The Bible both Old and New Testament.  Some fall just short of full blown Marcionism in their attitudes towards the Hebrew Bible and basically wish they could replace the Old Testament with Plato like David Bentley Hart.  The people who are explicitly Modern Marcionites are sometimes also in denial of the Platonist roots of their Theology, I've yet to see someone who actually does explicitly replace the Old Testament with Plato, but if I ever do it won't surprise me.

I listed those five in that order not because that's their chronological order, Timaeus sets itself up as a sequel to The Republic and Critias in turn is explicitly a sequel to Timaeus.

Timaeus is the counterpart to Genesis because it contains the Pythagorean Creation myth, and it references Atlantis giving it a Flood Legend as well.  A Cosmology that after being filtered through Philo, Plutarch and Numenius of Apamea would give rise to the Gnostic Ialdabaoth, the Arian view of The Logos and Neoplatonist cosmologies.

Republic has some narratives but is basically Plato's major political Constitution.  While Exodus is named for it's most well known narrative more of the text is actually about laying out Israel's Constitution.

Gorgias is one of the five mainly because it's the Chief origin of the modern idea of Hell.  Leviticus doesn't contain any explicit references to Sheol, but that's not really where modern "Hell" comes from, to the extent it's Biblically justified at all it's largely a misunderstanding of what the purpose of Leviticus's Sacrificial system was.

Critias is most well know for being the fuller account of Atlantis.  And the Purpose the Atlantis myth is supposed to serve in relation to the Republic is seeing such an Ideal Republic in action.  But what many forget is that's actually Athens, Atlantis is the Evil Empire so it in this proposed Numbers comparison could be Balaac's Moab or the Amorites under Sihon and Og.  And the Amorites did exist this far south only because of Imperialism, their homeland was the Beqqa Valley by Mount Hermon but they kind of ruled the entire Levant by this time.  Also the Baal-Peor episode is one of The Bible passages abused by Anti-Miscegenationists, and the story of Atlantis has a proto-eugenicist subtext in the degeneration of it's Kings.

Deuteronomy means ""Second Law" because much of it is Moses repeating Laws from earlier, The Laws is likewise Plato's second hypothetical Constitution.   Both books are traditionally the last their traditional author wrote. Deuteronomy is believed by secular scholars to not have the same origin as the rest of The Pentateuch, and likewise Robert H. Allen argues that Plato's Laws isn't authentic Plato.

Deuteronomy is actually the most quoted book of the Pentateuch in the New Testament, with even some NT references to the Decalogue being based on it's version. A fact which I think fits in with the NT's theme that The Law should change.  The Laws of Magnesia however are reactionary and dystopian.

The Joshua to Plato's Moses wound up being Emperor Theodosius I.

Do we have a Promise that we will be with God as soon as we die?

We are definitely promised to be with God in Eternity.  My issue here is with the timing some people stress, often people tying this to rejecting a Physical Bodily Resurrection and/or Premillennialism.

As I've said in past posts about the issues of Soul Sleep and Annihilationism, I have become undecided on if we have a conscience state between physical death and Resurrection.  There is Biblical evidence that can go either way.

This post is partly my desire to respond to something I read recently on an article specifically against Premillennialism that cited the following verses as promises we will be with God as soon as we "die" and viewing this doctrine as being in conflict with Premillennialism.

(Luke 23:42-43; John 14:2-4; 17:24; Phil. 1:22-23; 2 Cor. 5:6-8; Heb. 12:22-24; 2 Pet. 1:11; Rev. 6:9-11; 14:1-5; 15:2; 18:20; 19:14)

I don't really feel like there necessarily is a conflict between this idea and Premillennialism, but I looked into these verses and I don't feel they make that argument. [Update 2024: I'm Post-Millennial Now but my position on Soul Sleep hasn't changed.]

But first, I want to respond to how this article refers to this "promise" as being "the central Hope of the Christian Faith", it most certainly is not.  The Gospel is the Resurrection, 1 Corinthians 15 doesn't talk about where we go when we die, neither did the Old Roman Symbol or the "rule of faith" cited by Tertullian and Ireneaus, nor did either the Nicene Creed or the Nicene-Constantinople Creed.  The Pre-Nicene Creeds even specifically stressed it as a carnal Resurrection.  I don't think the people at this website are necessarily intending to deny a bodily Resurrection, but claiming where our souls go when we die rather then the Resurrection is our central blessed hope shows how this idea can be a gateway to undermining The Resurrection.

Now as far as talking about these verses go, I want to save the Revelation ones for last since they are a special case.

First is what Jesus said to the Thief on the Cross.  I agree with Lex Meyer that the English Translations of this verse should move the comma.  "Verily I say unto thee to day, thou shalt be with me in paradise".  First off the thief probably wasn't even dead within 24 hours, Jesus died as soon as he did for a number of reasons, but standard crucifixion took days.  And Jesus didn't go directly to paradise either but descended into Sheol/Hades.  The "this day" timing referring to Jesus giving this promise not when it is fulfilled.

The Mansions in Heaven verse in John doesn't tell us when we enter those Mansions, I believe those Mansions are in New Jerusalem, the context talks about when he comes again, not when we die.  Hebrews 12 likewise is about New Jerusalem.

It's similar with most of these verses, they are about our promise to be with God but don't actually say anything about when that happens, these people quoting them as doing so are like Pre-Tribbers thinking every reference to there begin a Rapture proves their imminence doctrine.

The verses from Philippians and 2 Corinthians are perhaps best understood in the context of what InspiringPhilosophy explains about how Paul uses those terms in 1 Corinthians 15.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rffmrioFnBY

2 Corinthians 5's statement about "absent from the body and present with the Lord" is completely misquoted and taken out of context, it is not actually saying that is what happens at physical death.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aWDrOYi1UKA&fbclid=IwAR0Nb0wYGCCnEbWUPkPl5d3lrlSBNxSKugsibqEpoohHKlAm8-mM14UpVyE

1 Peter 1:11 explicitly refers to the Glory that follows the Suffering of Christ, that's clearly The Resurrection.

Before I go onto Revelation, one verse not cited on this list that I think is relevant is when Jesus said those who Believe in Him will Never Die.  That's why I say "Soul Sleep" not the Soul is dead, Paul repeatedly refers to currently physically deceased believers as being "Asleep".  In which case if we simply wake up at the Resurrection, it will still functionally seem the same as being with God as soon as we died.

Now onto the Revelation verses.  It's funny because as a non Premillennial this website clearly isn't taking all of Revelation literally at face value, but when it suits how they prefer to see things they will.  I suppose however to some extent there is no view of Revelation that can't be accused of to some extent picking and choosing where to take it literally.  So I won't throw stones in that regard, I'll just make my case.

Revelation 6:9-11 is the Fifth Seal.  Now as someone who tries to take Revelation as literally as I can, I really don't think this verse is telling us that all the Martyrs are literally dwelling under an Altar.  When we understand what the purpose of the Altar of Incense was in the Tabernacle, and connect this to what happens after the Seventh Seal is opened in Revelation 8, I think this is mainly about the Altar having their Prayers that they Prayed as they suffered for Christ.

Verse 11 also says they shall rest a little while longer.

The rest of their Revelation verses start in Chapter 14, I could actually add at least one from Chapter 13.  The end of Chapter 11 and beginning of Chapter 12 is where I place The Parusia/Rapture, that's why there are no Saints dwelling in Heaven.  Revelation 14 specifically uses language of the Resurrection like being the First Fruits and Redeemed of The Earth to describe the 144,000.

So indeed, none of these verses contradict the possibly that we are asleep between bodily Death and Resurrection.

The Resurrection of Jesus was of The Body

In the past when debating the Resurrection we look forward to,  I have stressed to it as being the same as Jesus Resurrection under an assumption that that itself proves it to be Bodily.  But now I know some people think Jesus Resurrection was not a Bodily one.  So I need to address that.

His Tomb was empty, that should be all I need to say.  I know some might teach something like his physical body was disintegrated, I think I heard the JWs teach that. But that is illogical, if The Gospel itself in your view is of us being liberated from this physical shell, why wouldn't the Gospel narrative make clear it existed separately post Resurrection?

One YouTube video I watched (it's one of those that annoyingly has no voice over) claims that the text of the Gospel proves Jesus was already out of the Tomb before the Stone was rolled away.

1. I believe our Post Resurrection bodies may well have abilities our current ones don't, that they won't be limited to three Dimensions anymore.  In fact Jesus seemingly showed such capabilities pre-Resurrection, like in the scene where a crowd if about to push him off a cliff but he then somehow just walks away, or in John 7 where he seems to show up out of nowhere during Tabernacles.

2. Regardless the narrative doesn't say that.  Again why even roll the stone away if you think the narrative wanted to tell us it wasn't even necessary? 

Mark 16, Luke 24 and John 20's account all clearly say the Stone was already rolled away before the Women came within view of it, that's three witnesses.  Only Matthew 28 seemingly says different, but the problem there is Matthew 28 verses 1-7 probably takes place over a longer period of time then a casual reading leads one to assume.

Matthew 28:1 does not say the women already arrived at the Tomb, it's recording them heading for it.  Between Matthew 28 verses 4 and 5 is probably when Jesus walked out of the Tomb, as well as the women first arriving at it as the other accounts of this Sunday morning record.

If Matthew was our only account that would maybe be a contrived interpretation of what it says.  But Matthew isn't our only account, we need two or three witnesses to build doctrine, and 3 out of 4 Gospels make it unambiguously clear that the Stone had been rolled away for awhile before the women arrived.  And if you're a Christian who accepts the consensus of Secular Scholars, the first 8 verses of Mark 16 are the oldest account of these events.

And don't think the women need to have seen this event for it be recorded.  In fact the text of Matthew 28 itself emphasizes the guards as being the ones who saw the stone rolled away.

It's interesting that only Matthew records this, Matthew was a former tax collector, which means he probably had some contacts within the local Roman government in Judea.  So it's easy to imagine why this event only Roman soldiers saw would have reached Matthew's ears before any of the other Gospel writers.  I suspect the same about it only being Matthew who mentions Pilate's Wife and her dream.

The Resurrected Jesus eat Bread on the Road to Emmaus.  He showed people His wounds, and offered to let Thomas but his fingers inside them.  Revelation 5 described him currently while at the right hand of the Father as "a Lamb as it had been slain", Revelation 1 and Zechariah 12 imply he'll still have the wounds following His Second Coming.

Some might wonder given how different I seem to think our Post-Resurrection bodies will be, what's even the point of stressing it as Physical rather then just Spiritual?  If I think we might have the ability to walk through walls and stuff, isn't it semantics at that point?

First of all I've talked about what I think the New Heaven and New Earth will be like on my Prophecy Blog.

Secondly, the key point is I believe it was in Genesis 3 things went wrong, and the Restoration we await is to the conditions of Genesis 2.  While Gnostics think Genesis 2 is where things went wrong.  I've shown on this Blog that the New Testament says Genesis 3 is where things went wrong.

The Serpent of Genesis 3 was Evil according to The New Testament.

There are some teachers out there seeking to suggest a Gnostic cosmology is compatible with The Canonical Scriptures.  Like David Vose on YouTube, who seems to be a Trump supporter which is mind boggling.

I've talked about the New Testament's usage of words the Gnostics also liked already.  The main reason I reject Gnosticism is because I believe in a Physical Bodily Resurrection, which I've talked about in posts on 1 Corinthians 15, and when talking about Lex Meyer's book.  And I've shown that the Resurrection of Jesus was Bodily.

But the big factor in how most people casually think of Gnosticism, is the idea that it was a good thing Adam and Eve eat the Fruit of the Tree of Knowledge, and perhaps involves identifying The Serpent with Jesus.  Here I'm going to address how The New Testament rejects that idea.

2 Corinthians 11:3

"But I fear, lest by any means, as the serpent beguiled Eve through his subtlety, so your minds should be corrupted from the simplicity that is in Christ."

And Paul is one of the NT authors most accused of being Gnostic.  The Greek word translated "beguiled" there also gets translated "deceived".  This is the same chapter that later refers to Satan appearing as an Angel of Light.  Paul also said Eve was deceived in 1 Timothy 2:13-15, a passage that can sound pretty sexist outside the greater context of Paul's message, that in the Church there is neither Male or Female as he taught in Galatians 3.

The Book of Revelation identifies this Serpent with Satan, The Devil and the Great Red Dragon in chapter 12 verses 9, 14 and 15, and Chapter 20 verse 2.  Being called the Old (Archaios) Serpent implies the intent is to refer to the first ever Serpent mentioned in Scripture.

Jesus typologically identifies himself with a serpent in John 3:14, but that is the Brazen Serpent Moses raised up in The Wilderness in Numbers.  Which is a pretty big contradiction to trying to view Jesus as opposing YHWH.

Some will tie into this that Jesus is called the Morning Star and thus identify him with Lucifer in Isaiah 14:12.  I've talked on my Prophecy blog about Jesus as the Morning Star.  However part of that is pointing out that there is NO basis in the Hebrew for translating Isaiah 14:12 as saying Morning Star, Lucifer or anything like that.  The rebel god of that verse is the same as The Dragon in Revelation 12.

Now as far as the reasons people feel like it should be a good thing we eat of the Tree of Knowledge, who don't like what it says about Yahuah that He seemingly didn't want us to have Knowledge.  I have two prior studies on the subject.

The Trees of The Garden of Eden.

Ye Hath God Said.  Which I also put on YouTube.

And additionally here is a post talking more about my understanding of the New Heaven and New Earth.

In which I address people who say YHWH is Satan

There are people out there teaching that YHWH (which I pronounce Yahuah) of The Old Testament in particular The Torah is NOT God The Father of the New Testament but rather is Satan.  The primary such teacher I have in mind in writing this post in a YouTube channel titled Good God.  Back in December I already addressed one particular argument of this channel, Is Yahuah described the same as Leviathan?

I'm not gonna address every single argument they make.  Just some basic key points.  In a way I shall be more understanding of their viewpoint then most who would seek to refute it.  And he is a Universalist, so in that area we agree.  I however believe The Torah is unviersalist as well.

In a lot of ways this view kind of follows the same logic as the Hebrew Roots movement, but draws opposite conclusions.  They follow a similar "God does not Change" mentality for example.  They feel simplistically that Paul teaching that The Law was a Curse and is done away with means we need to either reject Paul, reinterpret Paul, or view the God who wrote that Law as Evil.  My position however is that the Law had a role to play in the plan of Salvation, but it's job is now done.

A major starting premise of how this teacher builds his theology is saying the name YHWH was introduced at the Burning Bush.  I have already dedicated a blog post to refuting that common misconception.

He emphasizes the New Testament God's title as Father, yet acts like punishing his people for their Sins is inconsistent with that.  Which kind of shows a misunderstanding of what Fatherhood is that's similar to Muhammad's.

I do not myself know entirely how to deal with things like The Torah apparently endorsing genocide.  But what I do know is that everyone who has died in human history will be Resurrected.  And that punishing His Children when they transgress is part of God's responsibility as our Father.  But it is never a permanent disowning, His Mercy endures Forever.

This channel's doctrine is not Gnostic in the way a lot of people teaching something like this would be.  He does not teach that Jesus was the Serpent of Genesis 3 and it was a good thing that Adam and Eve eat the forbidden fruit.  The Serpent was Satan in his view.  However it is precisely that fact that leads us to a major issue in his internal logic.

He argues that the True God does speak through the name YHWH in some Old Testament passages.  Obviously that lends itself to a lot of him basically being able to pick and choose whatever he wants.  But his argument that we need to "rightly divide the Word of God" I would consider worth consideration, except...

He also clearly teaches that the Name YHWH belongs to Satan, and so we should never use it in worshiping the True God, and that's why it seemingly never appears in the New Testament.  But he also clearly teaches that Satan is a lair and the True God The Father never lies.

Therefore if a certain name is being used by both, if your quoting verses from the Prophets where the God speaking calls himself by the name of YHWH, and saying some are Satan and some are the True God.  It makes no sense to then say Satan is the one the name belongs to.  But that's what he does.

Much of why he needs to do this is because of narratives where clearly YHWH and Satan are both present as separate characters.  Starting with Genesis 3, and then going on to the Book of Job, I haven't seen him mention the scene in Zechariah yet. He could have argued that there are perhaps two Evil Gods in competition with each other, like Enki and Enlil.  Except he also loves to over emphasize and I feel misuse Jesus saying (when specifically talking about Demons) "A Kingdom divided against itself cannot stand".  The point of that quote was that you can't cast out Demons by Demons, that power comes from the Holy Spirit.  But we also see in Daniel 10 that the Nations are divided between Angelic Principalities who often are in conflict with each other.

However perhaps the most theologically important verse he feels the need to say was God The Father speaking in-spite of the speaker calling Himself YHWH is Malachi 3:6.

"For I am Yahuah, I change not; therefore ye sons of Jacob are not consumed."

First of all Malachi isn't even different revelations like some of the other Old Testament Prophets.  It's all essentially one speech Malachi dictated for a God calling Himself Yahuah  So if there is a single verse in Malachi that he needs to argue is Satan talking then he's written himself into a corner.

Second of all, this verse is NOT inconsistent in any way with the person speaking being the God who Wrote The Torah.  This teacher loves to talk about the Curses in Deuteronomy 29, but if you keep reading Deuteronomy into chapter 30, Yahuah does promise restoration, he does promise that in-spite of all these Judgments they will not be consumed.

In fact that wording in Malachi is specifically that because He is the one named Yahuah you can rest assured Jacob's children will not be consumed.  Ezekiel 16 also has this message.

He also teaches that the Sacrificial System is inherently Evil, and cites passages from the Prophets often taken as opposing it. The thing is, in the main passage from Jeremiah that is sometimes interpreted as opposing the Sacrificial system, the YHWH God speaking there also claims to be the God who brought Israel out of Egypt.  So again you can't have it both ways, you can't say He isn't the God who wrote the Torah because He's saying he didn't talk about Sacrifices, when He is clearly claiming to be that God because He brought Israel out of Egypt.

He likes to cite Acts 7 as saying it was an Angel who gave the Law to Moses.  Thing is the text of Exodus 3 also says it was the Angel of Yahuah who appeared to Moses in the Burning Bush, so that terminology does not contradict the author wanting us to think of Him as the True God since Exodus was definitely written under that pretense.  The Angel of Yahuah is The Word, because angel in both Hebrew and Greek means messenger or message.

Revelation 19 has characters say Alleluia while worshiping the same God at who's Right Hand The Arnion(Lamb in the KJV) sits, meaning they are worshiping him as Yah.  Jesus, coming from Yeshua via Iesous is a Yah theophoric name, it means Yahuah is Salvation.

There is a lot in Revelation that hurts his argument that the New Testament God would not or even cannot do certain things the Old Testament YHWH did.  Not to mention II Peter 2 and 3 clearly saying the God Peter worships is the one who sent the Flood and destroyed Sodom and Gomorrah.  And will in the future destroy the present world with fire.

He quotes certain verses from John's Gospel as saying no one had seen God before Jesus incarnation, to say Moses could not have been "Face to Face" with the True God.  But those verses mean something more specific, The Torah itself still puts a limit on how close even Moses was.  Jesus specifically said in John 8 that Abraham had seen him, and goes on to say "Before Abraham was I Am", identifying himself with the Angel of the Burning Bush, Jesus also quotes the Greek translation of "I Am that I Am" in Revelation 1.  And as far as The New Testament seemingly contradicting the Enoch and Elijah narrative by saying no one ascended to the Father before Jesus, that too I've already addressed.

He references the parallel Kings and Chronicles accounts saying in one place Satan and in another YHWH temped David to do the Census. This is explained by Job where it's clear Satan can't do anything without YHWH's consent, and the New Testament repeats that Satan can't touch us without God's permission, like Luke 22:31-32 and 1 Peter 5 and 1 John 5:15.  Satan serves as our accuser (prosecutor) but now Jesus is our Advocate (defense attorney), as 1 John 2:1 tells us.

He argues that YHWH is the Beast of the Sea of Revelation 13 by comparing the Second Beast to Old Testament prophets like Moses and Elijah.  And by citing Hosea 13:7-8's Lion, Leopard and Bear imagery being attributed to Yahuah.  Thing is Daniel 7 is clearly the more direct Old Testament reference in mind there, with the Ten Horns, and when you think about it even the Seven Heads are implied there.  And those Beasts also came from the Sea.  Now Hosea could also be relevant, but it's about Earthly Nations being tools Yahuah uses to Judge Israel, Revelation 13 is about the Nations themselves.

As far as the Beast from the Earth resembling an Old Testament Prophet.  Yes, that is why he's called the False Prophet.  He will seek to present himself as that, and I think maybe The Beast from the Sea will claim to be YHWH in some way.  But that doesn't make their claim true.  Remember that the Israelites identified the Golden Calf with YHWH.

Now it's true that Satan's New Testament depiction as the Archon of the Kosmos and God of this Aion can make it seem like New Testament Satan has a lot of Authority YHWH claimed for himself directly in the Hebrew Bible, when he calls himself the God of the Earth, the Lord of the Whole Earth and the Judge of the Earth.  But Daniel 10 shows us that each Nation has it's own Prince.  And the Hebrew word for Earth in those verses is sometimes used of specifically the Land of Israel.

I haven't watched all the material on this YouTube Channel yet, but I've watched hours of it. I definitely got the gist of how this argument goes.  From what I've seen though he hasn't mentioned Revelation besides chapter 13, and never Daniel.  My researching how to respond to his argument is kind of what caused to me to make some recent Revelation 11 observations.

Daniel could be interesting to his theory, since it only uses the name of YHWH in chapter 9 when Daniel is reading Jeremiah.  It's never used by the Angels who speak to Daniel or at all in the Aramaic chapters.  And only Daniel uses the names Michael and Gabriel for angels, which The New Testament also uses.  He could try to connect Daniel 7 to Hosea 13 being the fourth Beast is Ephraim, the subject of Hosea in that passage.

However, I think it's possible that Michael is The Angel of Yahuah.  Which would not be very compatible with his arguments.

Greek words that are viewed as Gnostic

Accusations of the New Testament being Gnostic or influenced by Gnosticism, or even just the Proto-Gnostic ideas of Philosophers like Plato and Philo.  Mostly come down to the New Testament using some key Greek words that the Gnostics also liked to use.  Even though they are all Greek words or at least roots that existed in the Greek lexicon before Plato.

This post is primarily a response to how this accusation is made with the intent of saying the New Testament is theologically inconsistent with the Hebrew Bible, especially The Torah.  If you want to argue that the Hebrew Bible presents a Gnostic cosmology, or is in some way consistent with interpreting the New Testament that way, (and that maybe the Greek philosophers were influenced by Hebrew ideas), we can have that discussion in the future.  This post is primarily to argue against the notion that these words make the New Testament philosophically Greek in exclusion or contrast to being Hebrew.

And even if you're not interested in that debate, it can be edifying to look into what Old Testament passages help us understand certain New Testament subjects.

Every Gnostic word that the New Testament uses has a Hebrew word that is equivalent and I feel can be shown is used in a similar way.  The New Testament does not use the words Demiurge or Ialdobath.  And Paul in Romans uses "Para Phusis" a term coined by Plato, in a way ultimately intended to refute the Platonic Philosophy behind it.

The most important is probably Logos, the Remember The Commands YouTube channel did an entire video about the Logos.

There are at least two Hebrew words Logos is used to translate in the Septuagint, though Rhema is also used for both those same words.  Dabar and Memra.  In my opinion a more coherent translation would just use Rhema for Memra and Logos for Dabar.  [Correction: Apparently Memra/Memar/Mamar is an Aramaic word appearing only in parts of the Scripture where Aramaic words appear, like Daniel 2-7. Imrah is what works better as the Hebrew equivalent of Rhema.  But Memra does seem to come from the same root as Imrah.]

Genesis 15 begins with "The Dabar of Yahuah came unto Abram" and it's in this chapter that Yahuah on His own performs the covenant ritual.  So this is a strong argument for Dabar being used of a very tangible manifestation of God, even though what it means is word or speech.  This is probably the basis for Philo identifying the Logos with the Angel of The LORD, since Malak in Hebrew and Angelos in Greek mean messenger or message, Malak and Dabar could be treated as synonyms.  The Dabar of Yahuah appears throughout the Prophets also and in Psalm 33:4 which has been called a key to understanding the beginning of John's Gospel.  Still I don't want this argument to be viewed as dependent on identifying the Word with the Angel of The LORD.

I think perhaps a better English translation of both Dabar and Logos would be Expression.  This came to me as I was thinking of making an analogy out of how artists sometimes use the word Voice.  Literally it means the sounds produced by our voice boxes via our mouths.  But artists speak of their Voice in the sense of how they best express themselves, as an aspect of who they are.  The Word of God is also the Expression of who God is, and Yeshua/Jesus is the ultimate Expression of who God is.  Now defining things that way too much can became a gateway to Modalism, which I do not support.  But I do think that is best translation of the word.

The Greek philosophical idea of The Logos as a "world permeating intelligence" is not really implied in any of John's usage of the word.  I also disagree with those who translate it The Logic.

A number of scholars have written on how John's Logos is distinct from Philo, you'll find a few different results just googling it.

Sophia is a grammatically feminine Greek word for Wisdom.  The New Testament basis for seeing Sophia as a being or spirit of some sort is mainly when Jesus said "Sophia is justified of her children" in Matthew 11:19 and Luke 7:35. 

The book of Proverbs (particularly chapter 8) repeatedly talks about Wisdom as if Wisdom is an entity or person of some sort (even telling us to call her Sister), and uses feminine pronouns for her.  More then three different Hebrew words are translated Wisdom in the KJV of Proverbs, most are grammatically feminine.  Some like Chuck Missler interpret the Wisdom of Proverbs to be Jesus, and I'm fine with that given my arguments for Jesus having female types in the TNAK in relation to the Song of Songs.

But Theophilus of Antioch makes what is considered the first Extra-Biblical reference to the Trinity, and refers to it as the Father, the Logos and Sophia.  New Testament support for identifying Sophia with the Holy Spirit would include Acts 3:3&10, Ephesians 1:17, James 3:17 and 2 Peter 3:15.  The only support for directly identifying Wisdom with Jesus is 1 Corinthians 1:30, but the context makes that not likely to be this same personified Wisdom, and either way Jesus had The Holy Spirit with Him during The Incarnation.

Isaiah 11:2 uses two of the words for Wisdom that Proverbs does and other feminine words with comparable meanings.  And is often considered necessary to understand the Seven Spirits of God in Revelation, tied to the Seven Horns of the Arnion(Lamb in the KJV).  Proverbs 8:14 uses the same words for Counsel and Understanding as Isaiah 11:2, and the word for Strength in the KJV of Proverbs 8:14 is Might in Isaiah 11:2.

Of the Hebrew words in question, Chokmah is considered the most likely to be the direct basis for Sophia.  And it is used of a Spirit in The Pentateuch twice, in Exodus 28:3 and Deuteronomy 34:9, and associated with the Spirit of God twice in Exodus 31:3 and 35:31., those verses use the same word for knowledge that Isaiah 11:2 does as well.  Deuteronomy 4:6 also pairs Wisdom and Understanding together in a similar way to Isaiah 11:2.

Pleroma is a Greek word that Paul is accused of using in it's Gnostic sense in Colossians 2:9 where the KJV translates it fulness.  This verse was already discussed in my Godhead post.  Paul also used Pleroma in Romans 11 where it's often viewed as a Greek translation of what Jacob says of Ephraim in Genesis 48 that the KJV renders "Multitude of Nations", and the Hebrew word there based on how it's used elsewhere can be argued to mean "fullness" rather then "multitude".

The Gnostic meaning of Pleroma is mostly as a synonym for Heaven or the Divine Realm.  No New Testament author uses it that way.

In fact it seems the first Gnostic usage of Pleorma was Valentinius quoting this quote of Paul for his own purposes.  So no, Paul's usage of the term is not evidence he was influenced by Gnosticism.

However Aion is the hardest Greek word to assert the New Testament uses the same way the Gnostics used it.  Aions to the Gnostics are a class of divine beings, similar to the Hitorigami and/or Kamiyonanayo in Shintoism.  The New Testament clearly uses it to translate the Hebrew Olam, which means Age or Eon but sometimes gets wrongly translated world, forever, eternal or everlasting.

Paraclete is a word that I know at least one Gnostic used, Mani.   In the New Testament only John uses it, most famously of the Holy Spirit but also of Jesus, the Advocate of 1 John 2:1.  It means Comforter.  From what I've read it apparently isn't used in the Septuagint, but I feel it should have been, it is a perfectly valid Greek translation of Nachem and Menachem/Menahem.  The Talmud quotes Lamentations as a basis for using Menahem as a name for The Messiah, and as such is used in the Sefer Zerubabel.

It's possible that Mani himself saw Paraclete as equivalent to Menahem and that he took the name Mani as a shortened form of that Hebrew name.  Noah and Menoah are other Hebrew names based on the same root.

The idea of God as Father is not accused of being particularly Gnostic, but has been accused by some of being not Jewish.  Here is a WordPress post about God as Father in the Old Testament.

Hypsistos is the Greek translation of Elyon, The Most High/Highest.

Monad doesn't seem to be accused of being used in a Gnostic way in the New Testament, either way it's Hebrew equivalent is Eched. In general though the idea behind calling God a title based on how old and ancient He is or being the first thing that existed, like Arche, has a basis in the title Ancient of Days in Daniel 7.  Daniel 7 also provides the main Old Testament basis for Son of Man as a Messianic Title.

Kosmos is the most difficult Greek word to find a Hebrew equivalent for, and ironically is not particularly Gnostic, Gnostics used it I'm sure but it's not one people act like should be ringing Gnostic alarm bells every time you see it.  Erets and Adamah equate to Ge/Gaea and Chthon in Greek, and Olam=Aion as I went over already.  Tebel is another word translated world, but also does not seem to include outer space/the sky/heavens the way Kosmos does, or maybe Kosmos did not originally include all that as it does in how we use Cosmos now? Tebel seems like the best bet.

There are no shortage of Hebrew words that Archon could equate to.  Arca, the root it comes from that gets translated "principalites", no doubt equates to the use of Sar in Daniel 10 and 12.  And that use of Sar I think is also the basis for calling Michael the Archangel.  So Archon could also be a type of Sar, or of others words for ruler.

Satan is depicted as the King of Babylon in Isaiah 14 and the King of Tyre in Ezekiel 28, and the Pharaoh of Mizraim is called the Great Dragon in Ezekiel 29.  So there is some Old Testament basis for the New Testament's depiction of Satan as ruling the world.

Kosmokrator is a word that the Gnostics might have used as a synonym for Archon of the Kosmos.  Paul in Ephesians 6 uses this word in Plural form and that's the only place the New Testament uses it.  It's been my hunch in the past that the Kosmokrators are Angels ruling stars, while the Principalities and Powers rule nations and regions on earth.  I may have to abandon that in light of recent theories of mine, but maybe not.

Update February 9th 2018:  David Vose, who I mentioned in my post on The Serpent, is teaching a Gnostic Interpretation of The Bible but also combining it with a lot of Ancient Aliens type stuff.

So in addition to words that are more commonly labeled Gnostic, he's gone and used just more general Greek Mythology linked terms as evidence The New Testament was using more then the Hebrew Bible or even other Jewish texts as it's theological and cosmological source material.

Tartaros is the first such name he sites, that name appears only in II Peter 2.  Tartaros is either a synonym for Hades/Sheol, or it's a specific part of Hades/Sheol, or it's the Abyss/Bottomless Pit (the last two options could go together) the third option is most likely.  I've learned that in II Peter the word is used as a verb, so I now translate kata-tartara as "cast down".

Abusous from which comes the word Abyss, and is translated "Bottomless" in the phrase "Bottomless Pit", also gets translated Deep in Luke 8:31 and Romans 10:7.  It is the Great Deep (Tehom) of the Hebrew Bible, from which came the Flood Waters.  And the equivalent word for Pit (Phrear) would be in Hebrew (bowr) used in places like Isaiah 14:15.

The name Abaddon from Revelation 9:11 also appears in the Hebrew Bible, Strong Number 11.  Though it is seemingly being used of a location rather then a personage.  How it's used there could be equivalent to the Greek Apoleia in the New Testament, often translated Perdition, Destruction or Damnation.  Like in the phrase "Son of Perdition" or "the Beast the ascends out of the Bottomless Pit and goes into Perdition".

Then there is the Hebrew word Shachath which gets translated both Pit and Destruction.

Vose also claims the New Testament refers to the Titans being cast into Tartaros.  The word Titan isn't used in the New Testament, but again if he's referring to II Peter 2 and Jude 6, many see that as about Genesis 6 though I think it could be about Korah's rebellion which I talked about in my post The Nephilim and the Sons of God, where I also talk about the Rephaim.

Satan being cast into the Abyss in the future has an Old Testament precedent in Isaiah 14:15.

More Pre Augustine examples of Greek Philophical ideas infecting Christianity

This is meant to lend further credence to the thesis I presented in Plato, Augustine and Traditional Christianity.

Aristides of Athens, He is believed to have died in the 130s AD his only surviving writing is an Apology to Hadrian.  Eusebius and Jerome both agree he had studied Philosophy before his conversion, nothing wrong with that, but it can have an influence.  He could be cited as the first Christian writer to unambiguously condemn Homosexuality, however his allusion to Romans 1 in Section 9 paragraph 3 isn't definitive, the grander context is also emphasizing the Paganism.  But those who would seek to cite him as not condemning all homosexuality would have to be consistent and say he didn't condemn all incest which he mentioned right before.

However since he is writing that Apology to someone known to have engaged in Homosexual behavior, he certainly didn't share the popular modern IFB "Reprobate" doctrine that says Gays aren't eligible for Salvation and thus shouldn't be evangelized at all.

At the end of the Apology he identifies himself as a Philosopher.  Still I feel any negative impact that Philosophy had on him was minimal.  But it is difficult to determine from this writing what exactly his soterology was.

Clement of Alexandria. his passages cited as condemning Homosexuality (the two I'm aware of at least) I already addressed in an earlier post.  They are not necessarily condemning all Homosexuality either, but also do not contradict the notion that he condemned it as broadly as Plato did.  He expresses in his writings an admiration of Plato and Euhemerus and other Rationalist Greek philosophers.

Some of Clement's views include.

His belief that matter and thought are eternal, and thus did not originate from God, contradicting the doctrine of Creatio ex nihilo.
His belief in cosmic cycles predating the creation of the world, following Heraclitus, which is extra-Biblical in origin.
His belief that Christ, as Logos, was in some sense created, contrary to John 1 but following Philo.
His belief that Eve was created from Adam's sperm after he ejaculated during the night.

Origen Adamantius.  Had been greatly influenced by Clement.  He was raised Christian yet his parents also gave him a Hellenistic education.

Origen, reportedly trained in the school of Clement and by his father, has long been considered essentially a Platonist with occasional traces of Stoic philosophy. Patristic scholar Mark J Edwards has argued that many of Origen's positions are more properly Aristotelian than strictly Platonic (for instance, his philosophical anthropology). Nonetheless, he was thus a pronounced idealist, as one regarding all things temporal and material as insignificant and indifferent, the only real and eternal things being comprised in the idea. He therefore regards as the purely ideal center of this spiritual and eternal world, God, the pure reason, whose creative powers call into being the world with matter as the necessary substratum.

He believed in the Pre-Existence of Souls which is unBiblical.  And he's been cited as supporting Prayer for the Dead.

Origen [185-254] Director of the School of  Alexandria. Origen alluded to
homosexuality in the context  of a discussion  of temptation in his  book "On
Prayer".

He proposed that God does not give us over to temptation with the intent that
we should succumb. God  does not  direct anyone to  evil. "Good  orders every
rational soul with a view to eternal life . .  . it always maintains its free
will and of  its own direction either mounts  ever higher and higher until it
reaches  a  pinnacle   of  virtue,   or on the    contrary  descends  through
carelessness  to this  or that excess   of wickedness. If persons persist  in
sinful activities, they become ensnared by their sin, exchanging the glory of
the immortal God for image made to look like mortal man."  [Romans 1 :23] And
thus  being  of a "depraved  mind"  they  turn to  sexual  and  other  social
exploitation.

Origen was the first to teach something like the modern "Reprobate" doctrine and connected it to Romans 1 ignoring Romans 2.

Both Origen and Clement were often condemned centuries later as Heretics, but that didn't happen immediately.

Plato, Augustine, and Traditional Christianity

[Update: This is out of date.]