Wheat and weeds, Part 6

The Prometheus material is similar. There are indeed fascinating thematic parallels between Prometheus and later ideas of Satan or Lucifer: a figure who defies the high god, brings knowledge or fire to humans, suffers for it, is bound and tormented. Ancient authors themselves sometimes played with these resonances. But those are literary and philosophical parallels, not genealogical ones. There is no historical chain that runs “Enki → Prometheus → Satan → Jesus,” as if these were successive masks of the same being. The video treats them that way, because it is always looking for a single hidden pattern, but that is a choice of interpretation, not something the sources force on you.

If we zoom out over all video last sessions, we can see the structure clearly. First, the video undermines the uniqueness of Jesus by lining him up with a parade of earlier gods and heroes who supposedly share his biography. Then it undermines the stability of Christian doctrine by showing a chaotic early landscape of sects, each with wild beliefs, and suggests that what we now call “orthodoxy” is just the faction that won. Finally, it undermines the historical grounding of the Bible by tying it to Sumerian myth, alien theories, and psychedelic experiences.

The emotional effect is powerful: you feel like the floor has dropped out from under the entire Christian story. But that effect depends on a series of moves that historians simply do not accept: treating late sources as early, treating polemical caricatures as neutral descriptions, treating similarity as proof of dependence, treating numerology as evidence of fabrication, and treating speculative modern authors as if they were on par with trained philologists.

When the “Jesus in the Park” video is then used by another creator as a kind of “see, this guy knows all the scholarship and he left Christianity,” it becomes a rhetorical weapon. The authority is not real; it is performed. The speaker has read a lot, yes, but reading a lot is not the same as reading carefully and understanding what he reads. He strings together names and texts in a way that sounds erudite, but he consistently ignores context, genre, dating, and the difference between mainstream and fringe positions. That is why, whenever you actually go back to the primary sources or to serious secondary literature, the grand pattern he draws starts to dissolve.

Take the Hilaria festival: Roman sources and modern reference works agree that the Hilaria of Cybele and Attis was a spring festival, with mourning on March 24 and rejoicing on March 25, celebrating the mythic “return” of Attis and the renewal of nature. There is no evidence that early Christians in Judea were aware of this festival or that they timed Easter to match it; Easter is tied to Passover, which is tied to the Jewish lunar calendar and the Exodus story.

Historically, Hilaria is a Roman celebration associated with the cult of Cybele and Attis, tied to the spring equinox and the renewal of vegetation. The sequence of mourning and rejoicing around March 22–25 is real: mourning for Attis’ death, then joy at his symbolic “return” or the renewal of nature. But the video turns this into a one‑to‑one template for Easter: three days, death, resurrection, same week, therefore Christianity copied it. That sounds compelling until you remember a few basic facts. Christian Easter is anchored to the Jewish Passover calendar, which is centuries older than Rome’s adoption of Cybele’s cult.

The earliest Christians were Jews in Judea, not Romans in Asia Minor. The theological content is different: Attis is a vegetation god whose “resurrection” is a mythic symbol of seasonal renewal; Jesus’ resurrection is a once‑for‑all eschatological event tied to Israel’s scriptures and covenant. And most importantly, seasonal death‑and‑renewal rituals are everywhere in agrarian societies. Similarity of timing and mood is not evidence of direct borrowing. The video never shows a line of influence; it just stacks similarities and calls that proof.

On Marcion: Marcion is a good example. He really did teach that the God of the Old Testament was a lower, harsh demiurge and that Jesus revealed a higher, previously unknown God. Our knowledge comes from writers like Tertullian and Irenaeus, who attack him but also preserve enough detail to reconstruct his views. He rejected the Old Testament, edited Luke and Paul, and taught two gods. But he is clearly reacting to an already existing body of Christian scripture and practice; he is not the source of it. Marcion and the demiurge, and the sensational line that “the oldest gospels say God was Satan.”

Marcion was a real almost late second‑century Christian teacher, active around 140–160 CE. Our knowledge of him comes mainly from his opponents, especially Tertullian’s five‑book work “Against Marcion” and Irenaeus’ “Against Heresies.” They agree on the essentials: Marcion taught that the God of the Old Testament was a lower, harsh, legalistic creator god, and that Jesus revealed a higher, previously unknown God of love. Marcion produced his own canon: a shortened version of Luke and ten Pauline letters, edited to remove what he saw as “Jewish” elements. This is where the demiurge idea comes in: Marcion’s “creator god” is not Satan in the later Christian sense, but he is inferior and in some sense hostile to the higher God.

The video takes this and suggests that this might have been the original Christian view, that the earliest Christians thought the Old Testament God was evil, and that later orthodoxy suppressed this. The problem is chronology. Because, by the time Marcion appears, we already have Paul’s letters, which repeatedly identify the God of Jesus with the God of Israel, and we already have Gospels that quote the Jewish scriptures as authoritative. Marcion is clearly reacting to an existing Christian tradition that sees continuity between Jesus and the God of the Old Testament; he is not the source of that tradition.

There is no “oldest gospel” that calls God Satan. What we have are later Gnostic and Marcionite reinterpretations that demonize the creator god, and orthodox writers who argue against them. The video 'collapses' that whole debate into a slogan that sounds shocking but has no textual basis.

Marcion edited existing Christian texts to fit his theology, not the other way around. The video flips that too: it suggests that Marcion’s view — that the Old Testament God is evil — might have been the original Christian view, and that later “orthodoxy” rewrote everything. That is not what the sources show. The sources show a movement that began inside Second Temple Judaism, arguing about how Jesus fulfills Israel’s scriptures, not a movement that began by rejecting the Jewish God as Satan.

On the Valentinians and gematria: we have fragments and reports of their teachings, and they do indeed play with numbers, aeons, and emanations, but nowhere do they say, “We invented Jesus as a numerological construct.” They assume Jesus exists and then interpret him through their system.

The same inversion happens with the Valentinians and the Trinity. Valentinians were a sophisticated Gnostic school in the second century that loved numerology and Pythagorean symbolism. They did play with gematria; they did see meaning in the numerical value of names like “Jesus” in Greek. But the video treats their speculative numerology as if it were the blueprint for Christianity itself. It suggests that because “Jesus” adds up to 888 in Greek, and because you can divide the Greek alphabet into groups of eight, this proves that Jesus is a constructed Pythagorean symbol rather than a historical figure. That is backwards.

On Abraxas: the name appears in Gnostic contexts, and the composite figure appears on amulets, but there is no evidence that first‑century Christians worshipped such a being or that the apostles taught anything like it. Abraxas and Basilides are another place where the video makes a lot out of a little. Basilides was a second‑century Christian teacher in Alexandria, known to us mainly through Irenaeus, Clement of Alexandria, and Hippolytus, who all attack him. They report that he taught a complex cosmology with multiple heavens and powers, and that he used the name Abraxas for a high ruler associated with the number 365, the days of the year.

Later magical gems and amulets show a composite figure with a rooster’s head, human torso, and serpent legs, often inscribed with “ABRASAX” or similar. These are fascinating artifacts of late antique religious imagination, but they are not evidence that first‑century Christians worshipped such a being or that the apostles thought of God as a 365‑day calendar deity. Basilides is a second‑century speculative theologian; Abraxas is part of his and later Gnostic symbol systems. The video treats Abraxas as if it were the hidden original face of the Christian God, when in reality it is a late, marginal development that orthodox Christians rejected.

The Abraxas material is another case where the video takes a late, symbolic figure and treats it as if it reveals the “real” God behind Christianity. Basilides did exist, and later Gnostic amulets show a composite figure with a rooster’s head, human torso, and serpent legs, labeled “Abraxas.” But that iconography is not a window into first‑century Christian belief. It is a second‑century Gnostic symbol system, one of many, and it is not representative of mainstream Christian theology. The video collapses that distinction and uses Abraxas as if it were a key to decode the Christian God as a cosmic calendar‑deity, again without any primary text that actually says, “This is what the apostles believed.”

On the Sumerian flood: the Atrahasis and Gilgamesh texts are older than Genesis and share motifs, which strongly suggests literary dependence or shared tradition, but that is a far cry from saying “the Bible is just a copy of Sumerian myth,” and it has nothing to do with aliens. The Anunnaki and Nephilim claim is where the video steps furthest away from any scholarly footing. The Sumerian and Akkadian texts do indeed speak of the Anunnaki, a group of deities associated in different texts with the underworld or the heavens. The flood stories in Atrahasis and the Epic of Gilgamesh describe a divine decision to send a flood, a chosen man warned in advance, an ark, animals, and the sending out of birds to test the waters.

The parallels with Genesis 6–9 are real and widely acknowledged: the biblical flood story is clearly in conversation with older Mesopotamian traditions. But from there, the video jumps to Zachariah Sitchin’s idea that the Anunnaki were literal extraterrestrials from a planet called Nibiru, that they engineered humanity, and that the biblical Nephilim are the same beings. Assyriologists, including those with no religious agenda, have repeatedly pointed out that Sitchin’s translations are not supported by the cuneiform texts.

“Nibiru” in the sources does not mean a rogue planet inhabited by aliens; it is a term used in astronomical and astrological contexts with meanings like “crossing” or a specific celestial point. The Nephilim in Genesis 6 are obscure figures described as “mighty men of old,” possibly giants, possibly “fallen ones,” but the text does not connect them to Sumerian gods or to spacefaring engineers. The video acknowledges that the speaker cannot read Sumerian, yet it leans on Sitchin as if he were a reliable translator. That is not a small slip; it is a complete break with how historical claims are evaluated.

Finally, the supposed “oldest gospels say God was Satan” is really just a sensational way of talking about Gnostic and Marcionite reinterpretations. Some Gnostic texts, like those found at Nag Hammadi, do portray the creator god of the Old Testament as ignorant or malevolent, and they sometimes identify him with the demiurge or with a lower archon. But these texts are second‑century and later, written in Coptic and Greek, and they presuppose an already existing Christian story that they are re‑reading. They are not “the oldest gospels”; they are alternative gospels written in reaction to what was already becoming mainstream.

The canonical Gospels, which are earlier, never call the God of Israel Satan. They present Jesus as fulfilling the law and the prophets, not overthrowing the God who gave them. The video takes the most radical later reinterpretations and projects them backwards as if they were the starting point.

When we walk through each of these claims with the actual sources in view, the pattern becomes clear. There are real overlaps, real parallels, real borrowings in the ancient world. The Bible is not a book that fell from the sky; it is part of a wider Near Eastern and Mediterranean environment. But the video’s narrative depends on exaggerating those overlaps, ignoring chronology, and treating late, marginal, or polemical texts as if they were early, central, and straightforward.

Once you respect the dating, the languages, and the genres, the grand conspiracy dissolves. You are left with something more modest and more interesting: a Jewish movement that interpreted its scriptures in a new way around Jesus, a Roman world full of cults and philosophies that sometimes influenced and sometimes resisted Christianity, and a long, messy process of debate and canon formation.

**********************************************************************

©Ca De Luce> MINDFUL MIND Medium Blog 2025. Unauthorized use of text or media is not allowed. All images and photo are fulfilling the copyrights regulations. Much obliged to you all!