Jesus, savior or demiurge?
wantt...@aol.com
innuendoes as to the later. What Gnostic groups believe this is a
mystery to me. One of several arguments I've heard: "Our
Father....hallowed be thy name" and since the Gnostic Father is
nameless in Gnostic texts, therefore Jesus is worshipping the
demiurge. Then there's the passage where Jesus states he hasn't come
to do away with the smallest bit of the Law (which few understand,
it's a metaphysical statement and I don't interpret in that context
that he's from the demiurge, but that's a whole other can of worms).
And all the questionable passages in the New Testament that on poor
interpretation seem un-Jesus like, such as the hating your mother and
father, which is clarified with an entirely different meaning in
Gospel of Thomas. (And of course, the texts were written afterwards,
and flawed, according to one poster Philip claimed none of them got it
right. Philip interestingly is the designated scribe in Pistis
Sophia.)Please, no "it's allegory it's allegory" because we're still
then left with the same question, except phrased as allegory of what?
I haven't heard the latter theory explained to any great depth, nor
which Gnostic group believes this (except maybe the Mandeans but what
I know of them is sketchy, and these were "modern" Gnostics who claim
this). I've even read one post claiming he's the devil because of
Lucifer translated into Latin from morning star, and the "I am the
morning star" reference in Revelations (although doubtful, he keeps
telling Nick to take a hike in the rest of the New Testament, but this
may be a reference to him as being some part of the fallen Sophia).
It seems like if he'll ever come again, some people will think he's
the Christ, others will think he's the Antichrist. Not a pretty
scenario.
Comments?
wantt...@aol.com
I also forgot to mention the whole business of throwing people into hell.
rom...@webtv.net
reference to consider when one refers to christ is christ
consciousness-or the universal aspect of consciousness which acts on and
in the world through compassion and wisdom in the way of the
Bodhissattva-a thousand petaled lotus which is a wheel operating from
its own center-a human incarnation of the godhead in the field of time.
Katherine Tredwell
> I happen to think the former, but have interestingly enough heard
> innuendoes as to the later. What Gnostic groups believe this is a
> mystery to me. One of several arguments I've heard: "Our
> Father....hallowed be thy name" and since the Gnostic Father is
> nameless in Gnostic texts, therefore Jesus is worshipping the
> demiurge.
Maybe the terms the Gnostics used to describe the supreme being*are*
names: the Father, the Metropater, Mind or Nous, God.
What are "the two names which create a single name" in the Thought
of Norea? Maybe this refers to the Logos, since all words are
names?
I am just tossing out some thoughts here, not trying to overturn
someone's esoteric interpretation. This argument is new to me.
> Then there's the passage where Jesus states he hasn't come
> to do away with the smallest bit of the Law (which few understand,
> it's a metaphysical statement and I don't interpret in that context
> that he's from the demiurge, but that's a whole other can of worms).
Which has to be reconciled with all the passages where Jesusrejects,
overturns, or omits some part of the Law--not the acts of
someone in the employ of the Lawgiver. I agree with you. Either
the passage has to have a metaphysical interpretation, or you toss
out one or the other side of the Jesus of the canon. (I have not
decided which yet, myself, but I lean towards the latter.)
> And all the questionable passages in the New Testament that on poor
> interpretation seem un-Jesus like, such as the hating your mother and
> father, which is clarified with an entirely different meaning in
> Gospel of Thomas.
I do not see Thomas giving a novel way to interpret this saying,unless you
are reading in something about the carrying the cross
business. I agree, there are ways to interpret this, I just do not
see it from Thomas. Can you explain?
> (And of course, the texts were written afterwards,
> and flawed, according to one poster Philip claimed none of them got it
> right. Philip interestingly is the designated scribe in Pistis
> Sophia.)
I dunno about Philip, but this is something like my approach. To me,the
important thing is the gnosis, and the canon has elements of
gnosis and elements that are not gnosis, and it is up to us to figure
out which. Whether it reflects what "Jesus really said" is not what
matters, ultimately, but the inner meaning and effect.
> Please, no "it's allegory it's allegory" because we're still
> then left with the same question, except phrased as allegory of what?
Is this not what you are saying when you argue for a
metaphysicalinterpretation? We are all allegorizing to some extent. If
you take
the whole thing literally, you end up with a bunch of schizophrenics
in parallel universes.
> I haven't heard the latter theory explained to any great depth, nor
> which Gnostic group believes this (except maybe the Mandeans but what
> I know of them is sketchy, and these were "modern" Gnostics who claim
> this). I've even read one post claiming he's the devil because of
> Lucifer translated into Latin from morning star, and the "I am the
> morning star" reference in Revelations (although doubtful, he keeps
> telling Nick to take a hike in the rest of the New Testament, but this
> may be a reference to him as being some part of the fallen Sophia).
> It seems like if he'll ever come again, some people will think he's
> the Christ, others will think he's the Antichrist. Not a pretty
> scenario.
> Comments?
Oh yes, Revelations. Never stand in the way of someone giving an
interpretation of Revelations, as you are apt to get run over. My
take on Revelations is that it was included in the canon as an anti-
Gnostic text, because it has the only passage in the Bible that gives
a basis for equating the serpent with the Enemy. Thus, I am rather
suspicious of arguments based on Revelations, unless it is window
dressing to a rather more substantial claim. In fact, I am dubious
of arguments from the canon in general, since it was authorized in
response to fear of heresy. I prefer it as a supplement.
Dreamsnake
Isabella
wantt...@aol.com wrote:
> I happen to think the former, but have interestingly enough heard
> innuendoes as to the later. What Gnostic groups believe this is a
> mystery to me. One of several arguments I've heard: "Our
> Father....hallowed be thy name" and since the Gnostic Father is
> nameless in Gnostic texts, therefore Jesus is worshipping the
> demiurge.
Hi,
I think that when Jesus speaks of the father, it is not in reference to
the
God of the OT, or demiurge and I think that he demonstrates this in his
descriptive references to the father(what he is like) that differ entirely
from the God of the OT.
>
> Then there's the passage where Jesus states he hasn't come
> to do away with the smallest bit of the Law (which few understand,
> it's a metaphysical statement and I don't interpret in that context
> that he's from the demiurge, but that's a whole other can of worms).
The way I see it is that he hasn't come to do away with the law, but to
show
that there is something above and beyond the law. I think the law is
something
that is part of the physical, so it is not something that can be done away
with,
rather transcended or overcome.
>
> And all the questionable passages in the New Testament that on poor
> interpretation seem un-Jesus like, such as the hating your mother and
> father, which is clarified with an entirely different meaning in
> Gospel of Thomas.
I don't think that the GoT presents an entirely new meaning on this
passage, but,
a passage like this taken within the context of the GoT(which IMO shows
more
clearly that the teachings of Jesus are esoteric and not literal), could
show a very
different meaning; that such a passage is not talking about hating of
human beings
but rather something internal that needs to be overcome that came from
this
mother and father.
> (And of course, the texts were written afterwards,
> and flawed, according to one poster Philip claimed none of them got it
> right. Philip interestingly is the designated scribe in Pistis
> Sophia.)Please, no "it's allegory it's allegory" because we're still
> then left with the same question, except phrased as allegory of what?
>
> I haven't heard the latter theory explained to any great depth, nor
> which Gnostic group believes this (except maybe the Mandeans but what
> I know of them is sketchy, and these were "modern" Gnostics who claim
> this). I've even read one post claiming he's the devil because of
> Lucifer translated into Latin from morning star, and the "I am the
> morning star" reference in Revelations (although doubtful, he keeps
> telling Nick to take a hike in the rest of the New Testament, but this
> may be a reference to him as being some part of the fallen Sophia).
> It seems like if he'll ever come again, some people will think he's
> the Christ, others will think he's the Antichrist. Not a pretty
> scenario.
> Comments?
I haven't been able so far to make heads or tails out of the morning star
bit in Revelations, and it's definately something that has come to mind
before. Honestly, I can't really make sense out of Revelations in general,
though I have some observations; I think Revelations is mixed with two
viewpoints - it's as if sometimes it is from the viewpoint of the demiurge
and sometimes not, it also seems to read a lot like a dream and that
throws me off , and it seems that most of the things Jesus says are just
very
out of character. I have heard so many stories about this book (such as
that it was very clear, and was later scrambled up on purpose by
the Jesuits), so many people claim to know what it all means, but yet I
can't find any understanding in it - this is what really is puzzling to me
since
I can read the GoT(for example) and almost every time I read it, I find
some new insight.
Isabella
Jeremy Reaban
The Gospel of Thomas reads like (and seems to be ) words almost
straight from Jesus's mouth. (Almost, but not quite - some seem to be
out of order)
The Book of Revelation OTOH was apparently written by a raving
lunative, and apparently has no bearing to what the real Jesus said or
did. Just hallucinations of him.
Kater Moggin
> The way I see it is that he hasn't come to do away with the law, but to
> show that there is something above and beyond the law.
But according to the NT -- which is what you're discussing
-- he _did_ do away with the law, contrary to the passage
(Matthew 5:17-19) where he affirms all of its details. Even in
the canonical Gospels, Jesus rejects the Creator's law on
repeated occasions: he throws out "an eye for an eye," teaches
against the dietary laws, breaks the sabbath, defends his
disciples when they do the same, stops a stoning, makes the law
and the prophets history, etc. Same in Paul. The epistles
describe Jesus erasing the law, they say he ended the law, he's
abolished the law, lifted its curse, etc.
> something
> that is part of the physical, so it is not something that can be done
> away with, rather transcended or overcome.
But in the NT (again, even the canonical NT), the idea the
physical can't be done away with doesn't apply. In the
synoptic apocalypse -- for example -- Jesus prophesies that the
arrival of the kingdom of God will be preceded by the
destruction of the cosmos. 1 Corinthians 15:50 says "Flesh and
blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God." Etc.
-- Moggin
to e-mail, remove the thorn
Kater Moggin
> I happen to think the former, but have interestingly enough heard
> innuendoes as to the later. What Gnostic groups believe this is a
> mystery to me.
Just look at the sources. The Mandaeans say he claimed to
be God (GR 1.181), but they also say he's a liar, and they
report he made various other assertions they don't seem to take
all that seriously, although they do believe he has some
dangerous spiritual powers. Their advice is to return his lies
but "afford him no recognition in your hearts."
Ptolemy of course distinguishes very clearly between Jesus
and the demiurge -- also between Christ and Jesus -- but
Irenaeus says at one point he compares the two. AH 1.4.5 talks
about the help Jesus -- not Christ -- gives Achamoth, the
lower Sophia by separating her from the terrible feelings she's
plagued by. He isn't able to destroy them, because they've
grown too strong, so he settles for pinning them down, changing
them into solid form. Thus the analogy to the demiurge:
"That is why they say the savior acted virtually as a craftsman."
Another Valentinian, Theodotus, tells the same story (with
a few variations) and offers the same comparison. The
Excerpta Ex Theodoto 43-47 explains that the savior descends to
give the fallen Sophia "healing from her passions" by
separating them from her and making them by stages (he's unable
to do the job all at once) into "compounds and bodies."
Therefore Theodotus (described by Clement, naturally) refers to
him as a demiurge. The Excerpta also uses the term for the
lower Sophia. But it distinguishes them both from the demiurge
himself, that is, the god who makes "the heaven and the
earth," forms Adam in his image, creates wicked spirits, and so
on.
> One of several arguments I've heard: "Our
> Father....hallowed be thy name" and since the Gnostic Father is
> nameless in Gnostic texts, therefore Jesus is worshipping the
> demiurge.
God the Dad is given many names by the gnostics. Take the
Valentinians, who called him "Bythos," "Propater," and
"Proarche." One could argue those are titles rather than names.
Still, they work the same way.
> Then there's the passage where Jesus states he hasn't come
> to do away with the smallest bit of the Law
Which allies Jesus with the demiurge, no question. But in
the Gospels, Jesus is repeatedly depicted denying the
Creator's law. Same in Paul, where he's called "the end of the
law" (Romans 10:4), described erasing the law (Colossians
2:14), abolishing the law (Ephesians 2:15), said to have lifted
its curse (Gal. 3:13), etc.
> And all the questionable passages in the New Testament that on poor
> interpretation seem un-Jesus like, such as the hating your mother and
> father
Unquestionably Jesus-like -- i.e., like the Jesus pictured
elsewhere in the scriptures -- since it rejects the life and
values of this world. Note that it places him in opposition to
the demiurge, both as a matter of law (he's implicitly
rejecting the 5th Commandment -- the one about honoring mom and
dad) and principle.
> which is clarified with an entirely different meaning in
> Gospel of Thomas.
No, it's more or less the same in the Gospel of Thomas and
the Gospel of Luke.
Luke 14:26-27:
If any man come to me, and hate not his father, and
mother, and wife, and children, and brethren, and sisters,
yea, and his own life also, he cannot be my disciple. And
whosoever doth not bear his cross, and come after me,
cannot be my disciple.
Thomas 55:
Whoever does not hate his father and his mother cannot
become a disciple to me. And whoever does not hate his
brothers and sisters and take up his cross in my way will
not be worthy of me.
Kater Moggin
> To me,the
> important thing is the gnosis, and the canon has elements of
> gnosis and elements that are not gnosis, and it is up to us to figure
> out which.
An ancient gnostic principle. AH 1.7.3: "They divide the
prophecies, maintaining that one portion was spoken by the
mother, a second by her seed, a third by the Demiurge. In like
manner, they hold that Jesus spoke some things under the
Saviour's influence, others under that of the mother and others
under that of the Demiurge."
Isabella
Kater Moggin wrote:
> Isabella <Isab...@21stcentury.net>:
>
> > The way I see it is that he hasn't come to do away with the law, but to
> > show that there is something above and beyond the law.
>
> But according to the NT -- which is what you're discussing
> -- he _did_ do away with the law, contrary to the passage
> (Matthew 5:17-19) where he affirms all of its details. Even in
> the canonical Gospels, Jesus rejects the Creator's law on
> repeated occasions: he throws out "an eye for an eye," teaches
> against the dietary laws, breaks the sabbath, defends his
> disciples when they do the same, stops a stoning, makes the law
> and the prophets history, etc. Same in Paul. The epistles
> describe Jesus erasing the law, they say he ended the law, he's
> abolished the law, lifted its curse, etc.
Hi Moggin,
I'll be the first one to completely agree with you, I guess I'm not
explaining
myself very well. What I'm saying is that I think that when he said he has
not come to
do away with the law, this did not show his support for the law like many
think, but rather
that the law has nothing to do with his teachings. Maybe the law exists for
those that
have not gone beyond it and broken free from it. Perhaps the law in a broader
sense could
mean what is inborn in all individuals that is not spirit, the part of man
that is metaphoricallly
from the demiurge. I think in that sense it is not something that is done
away with, it is
something that is passed beyond and overcome.
>
>
> > something
> > that is part of the physical, so it is not something that can be done
> > away with, rather transcended or overcome.
>
> But in the NT (again, even the canonical NT), the idea the
> physical can't be done away with doesn't apply. In the
> synoptic apocalypse -- for example -- Jesus prophesies that the
> arrival of the kingdom of God will be preceded by the
> destruction of the cosmos. 1 Corinthians 15:50 says "Flesh and
> blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God." Etc.
>
> -- Moggin
>
Of course I agree with the above, but, until the destruction of the cosmos
or on a smaller scale, until each individual's physical death, we all have
the physical to contend with and getting rid of the physical is not an
option,
it is at that point an internal struggle.
Isabella
Katherine Tredwell
I just wanted to say how impressed I was with what you wrote below.
You have a real gift for explaining difficult matters.
Dreamsnake
Isabella wrote:
[...]
> What I'm saying is that I think that when he said he has
> not come to
> do away with the law, this did not show his support for the law like many
> think, but rather
> that the law has nothing to do with his teachings. Maybe the law exists for
> those that
> have not gone beyond it and broken free from it. Perhaps the law in a broader
> sense could
> mean what is inborn in all individuals that is not spirit, the part of man
> that is metaphoricallly
> from the demiurge. I think in that sense it is not something that is done
> away with, it is
> something that is passed beyond and overcome.
[...]
Isabella
Thanks, glad to hear that I'm able to put some of these ideas into words and they
make some
sense,
Isabella
Kater Moggin
> What I'm saying is that I think that when he said he has
> not come to do away with the law, this did not show his support
> for the law like many think, but rather that the law has nothing
> to do with his teachings. Maybe the law exists for those that
> have not gone beyond it and broken free from it. Perhaps the law
> in a broader sense could mean what is inborn in all individuals
> that is not spirit, the part of man that is metaphoricallly
> from the demiurge. I think in that sense it is not something that
> is done away with, it is something that is passed beyond and overcome.
All perfectly good ideas, but I don't know if they fit the
passage. The verse about fulfilling the law rather than
destroying it has some ambiguity, since to fulfill doesn't mean
to preach or obey. But the next verse affirms the law's
permanence by declaring not a dot or an iota will pass, and the
following one teaches to obey even the least of the
commandments. That does support the law. Of course it's badly
in conflict with many of Jesus' other teachings. Some
scholars believe it's an interpolation, not an authentic saying.
Moggin:
>> But in the NT (again, even the canonical NT), the idea the
>> physical can't be done away with doesn't apply. In the
>> synoptic apocalypse -- for example -- Jesus prophesies that the
>> arrival of the kingdom of God will be preceded by the
>> destruction of the cosmos. 1 Corinthians 15:50 says "Flesh and
>> blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God." Etc.
Isabella:
> Of course I agree with the above, but, until the destruction of the cosmos
> or on a smaller scale, until each individual's physical death, we all have
> the physical to contend with and getting rid of the physical is not an
> option, it is at that point an internal struggle.
Yeah, I've noticed, too. I've never been to a party where
anybody turned water into wine, and I've never gone on a
picnic where a single egg-salad sandwich was enough to feed the
whole crowd.
Isabella
Kater Moggin wrote:
> Isabella <Isab...@21stcentury.net>:
>
> > What I'm saying is that I think that when he said he has
> > not come to do away with the law, this did not show his support
> > for the law like many think, but rather that the law has nothing
> > to do with his teachings. Maybe the law exists for those that
> > have not gone beyond it and broken free from it. Perhaps the law
> > in a broader sense could mean what is inborn in all individuals
> > that is not spirit, the part of man that is metaphoricallly
> > from the demiurge. I think in that sense it is not something that
> > is done away with, it is something that is passed beyond and overcome.
>
> All perfectly good ideas, but I don't know if they fit the
> passage. The verse about fulfilling the law rather than
> destroying it has some ambiguity, since to fulfill doesn't mean
> to preach or obey. But the next verse affirms the law's
> permanence by declaring not a dot or an iota will pass, and the
> following one teaches to obey even the least of the
> commandments. That does support the law. Of course it's badly
> in conflict with many of Jesus' other teachings. Some
> scholars believe it's an interpolation, not an authentic saying.
Moggin,
Exactly - fulfill does not mean to preach or obey,
By the way, while on the subject, I have a book which talks of the Talmudic
source for this and
says that there are two possibilities for this passage;
'I am not come to take away from the Law of Moses and I am not come to add to
the Law of Moses'
or
'I am not come to take away from the Law of Moses but I am come to add to the
Law of Moses'
I don't know if this is true or not, but interesting anyway.
The rest appears to be a sticky situation, but upon closer reading,
I think there is room here for a different interpretation.
The passage which talks about not a single stroke passing away starts with
'until
heaven and earth pass away' and ends with 'until all is accomplished' - this
seems
to me to be a statement about the condition in which the law exists - after this
is gone, it seems the law will too be gone. So, to me, it seems to be more a
statement
of fact, rather than an upholding of the law. True, then the passage follows
'whoever
then annuls the least of these commandments, and taches tohers to do the
same...'
I'm not sure what this means, but I would think that this does not mean what it
appears to mean on the surface. I wonder, does commandments refer to the Law?
I notice that the next verse talks of how your righteousness must surpass that
of the scribes,
then he passages after that are all contradicting the Law(you have heard it
said..., but I say to you...)
It's just strange that this all comes after 'whoever then annuls the least of
these commandments',
maybe these are the commandments? Just some ideas,
Isabella
Kater Moggin
[Matthew 5:17]
> Exactly - fulfill does not mean to preach or obey,
> By the way, while on the subject, I have a book which talks of the
> Talmudic source for this and says that there are two possibilities for
> this passage; 'I am not come to take away from the Law of Moses and I
> am not come to add to the Law of Moses' or 'I am not come to take away
> from the Law of Moses but I am come to add to the
> Law of Moses' I don't know if this is true or not, but interesting anyway.
It's true, although the idea that the Talmud is the source
of Matt. 5:17 is pretty questionable. Shabbath 116b. A
"certain philosopher," apparently a Jewish-Christian, is quoted
saying that "...the Law of Moses has been superseded and
another book given." But at the same time -- actually it's the
next day, as the Talmud tells the story -- he asks his
listeners to "Look at the end of the book, wherein it is
written, 'I came not to destroy the Law of Moses, nor to add to
the Law of Moses...'"
> The rest appears to be a sticky situation, but upon closer reading,
> I think there is room here for a different interpretation.
> The passage which talks about not a single stroke passing away starts
> with 'until heaven and earth pass away' and ends with 'until all is
> accomplished' - this seems to me to be a statement about the condition
> in which the law exists - after this is gone, it seems the law will
> too be gone. So, to me, it seems to be more a statement
> of fact, rather than an upholding of the law.
One could argue that it's a comment about the impermanence
of the law, which is due to pass with the heavens and the
earth, i.e., within decades, going by the prophesies that Jesus
makes later in Matthew. But the verse doesn't have a
disparaging tone. On the contrary, it sounds boastful, and its
got only a hint of eschatology. It doesn't contend every
piece of the law will vanish with the cosmos -- it insists even
the smallest items in the law will last as long as the
universe. In other words, "Till heaven and earth pass away" is
an affirmation, not a qualification.
> True, then the passage follows 'whoever then annuls the least of
> these commandments, and taches tohers to do the same...' I'm not sure
> what this means, but I would think that this does not mean what it
> appears to mean on the surface.
Sure it does. I think maybe you just don't like what it's
saying. Me neither; but there it is. The verse criticizes
people who break even the smallest commandments, and it praises
those who follow them.
> I wonder, does commandments refer to the
> Law? I notice that the next verse talks of how your righteousness
> must surpass that of the scribes, then he passages after that are all
> contradicting the Law(you have heard it said..., but I say to you...)
Agreed. The later verses in the chapter either add to the
law -- in violation of Deut. 4:2 and Deut. 12:32 -- or they
contradict it directly, which also puts them into conflict with
Matt. 5:18-19.
> It's just strange that this all comes after 'whoever then annuls the
> least of these commandments', maybe these are the commandments? Just
> some ideas
It's definitely strange, since the chapter gives Jesus two
conflicting views on the law. But there's nothing unusual
about contradictions in the scriptures, which reflect more than
one point of view.
wantt...@aol.com
> wantt...@aol.com wrote:
>
> > I happen to think the former, but have interestingly enough heard
> > innuendoes as to the later. What Gnostic groups believe this is a
> > mystery to me. One of several arguments I've heard: "Our
> > Father....hallowed be thy name" and since the Gnostic Father is
> > nameless in Gnostic texts, therefore Jesus is worshipping the
> > demiurge.
>
> Maybe the terms the Gnostics used to describe the supreme being*are*
> names: the Father, the Metropater, Mind or Nous, God.
> What are "the two names which create a single name" in the Thought
> of Norea? Maybe this refers to the Logos, since all words are
> names?
>
> I am just tossing out some thoughts here, not trying to overturn
> someone's esoteric interpretation. This argument is new to me.
Names by definition are images. Unfortunately, in this world, all we
can do is experience God by his image. YWHY is not God, it's the
*name* of God, and therefore an image itself. I have to look up the
specifics of the Metatron , but that too is not the primary God, and
the Metatron was what Gershom Scholem claimed appeared to Moses.
Images, apparently, are not a good thing, not the way to go. Just look
at all the prohibitions against idolatory. In Nag Hammadi Jesus makes
a comment about how we'll suffer when we behold our images. GoT 83,
"The images are manifest to men, but the light in them remains
concealed in the image of the light of the father. He will become
manifest but his image will remain concealed by his light. Jesus said
"When you see your likeness, you rejoice. But when you see your images
which came into being before you, and which neither die nor become
manifest, how much you will have to bear!". (Now, someone PLEASE
explain this quote to me. How can the image come into being before the
object? And if images are "bad" then why is he even referring to the
image of the Father at all. Apparently, likeness and image are also
two different things. Just one more perplexing quote.)
Mind's a tricky concept too, because in Paraphrase of Shem it's a
property of evil. Good has "thought and word", not the same thing
apparently. Very Buddhist. I read a Buddhist story where Mara appears
to some teacher to tempt him and ask "how will you escape me, I am
mind".
>
> > Then there's the passage where Jesus states he hasn't come
> > to do away with the smallest bit of the Law (which few understand,
> > it's a metaphysical statement and I don't interpret in that context
> > that he's from the demiurge, but that's a whole other can of worms).
>
> Which has to be reconciled with all the passages where Jesusrejects,
> overturns, or omits some part of the Law--not the acts of
> someone in the employ of the Lawgiver. I agree with you. Either
> the passage has to have a metaphysical interpretation, or you toss
> out one or the other side of the Jesus of the canon. (I have not
> decided which yet, myself, but I lean towards the latter.)
Jesus in the New Testament comments that even David ate the grain from
the temple when the troops were hungry. The teaching was to
distinguish between dogma and law. Jesus a very interesting comment in
the teaching about divorce, that God made his (inaccurate) rule on
divorce *because we were so difficult to teach*. He's basically
admitting that God had to compromise. So much for hard-line dogmatic
literalism of any religious texts. What he does is shift focus of the
knowledge of the law from outer written spoken dogma to an inner
knowledge from spirit. So then why the seemingly opposing statements
about not doing away with the law, and yet doing away with it? Well,
the law seems to be a function of dualism. And Jesus preached about
the rejection of the material, the rejection of the world, and how the
world was to be destroyed. That most certainly would do away with the
law. Just guessing, but *the law* is a property of the physical
universe. In order to do away with it you have to transcend it.
>
> > And all the questionable passages in the New Testament that on poor
> > interpretation seem un-Jesus like, such as the hating your mother and
> > father, which is clarified with an entirely different meaning in
> > Gospel of Thomas.
>
> I do not see Thomas giving a novel way to interpret this saying,unless you
> are reading in something about the carrying the cross
> business. I agree, there are ways to interpret this, I just do not
> see it from Thomas. Can you explain?
>
He qualifies it. The New Testament quote is incomplete. No wonder it
sounds sinister. He adds on after the "hate" sentence, GoT 101, And
whoever does not love his mother and father as I do cannot become a
disciple to me. Because my mother (gave birth to me?) but my true
mother gave me life".
A contrast between birth in the world versus life in a spiritual
realm. A very different overall meaning.
> > (And of course, the texts were written afterwards,
> > and flawed, according to one poster Philip claimed none of them got it
> > right. Philip interestingly is the designated scribe in Pistis
> > Sophia.)
>
> I dunno about Philip, but this is something like my approach. To me,the
> important thing is the gnosis, and the canon has elements of
> gnosis and elements that are not gnosis, and it is up to us to figure
> out which. Whether it reflects what "Jesus really said" is not what
> matters, ultimately, but the inner meaning and effect.
>
> > Please, no "it's allegory it's allegory" because we're still
> > then left with the same question, except phrased as allegory of what?
>
> Is this not what you are saying when you argue for a
> metaphysicalinterpretation? We are all allegorizing to some extent. If
> you take
> the whole thing literally, you end up with a bunch of schizophrenics
> in parallel universes.
The allegorical is based on the literal. It's trying to make sense of
real world. You can't separate it from the literal. You can claim by
non-literal that it's just code for something else, and therefore did
not occur in a historical sense. But even that doesn't satisfy me. Why
can't there be both?
If allegory is a roadmap, then it's still trying to point to
something, the authors were still trying to get some philosophical
point across. Assuming they knew what they were doing, which is
another matter.
>
> > I haven't heard the latter theory explained to any great depth, nor
> > which Gnostic group believes this (except maybe the Mandeans but what
> > I know of them is sketchy, and these were "modern" Gnostics who claim
> > this). I've even read one post claiming he's the devil because of
> > Lucifer translated into Latin from morning star, and the "I am the
> > morning star" reference in Revelations (although doubtful, he keeps
> > telling Nick to take a hike in the rest of the New Testament, but this
> > may be a reference to him as being some part of the fallen Sophia).
> > It seems like if he'll ever come again, some people will think he's
> > the Christ, others will think he's the Antichrist. Not a pretty
> > scenario.
> > Comments?
>
> Oh yes, Revelations. Never stand in the way of someone giving an
> interpretation of Revelations, as you are apt to get run over. My
> take on Revelations is that it was included in the canon as an anti-
> Gnostic text, because it has the only passage in the Bible that gives
> a basis for equating the serpent with the Enemy. Thus, I am rather
> suspicious of arguments based on Revelations, unless it is window
> dressing to a rather more substantial claim. In fact, I am dubious
> of arguments from the canon in general, since it was authorized in
> response to fear of heresy. I prefer it as a supplement.
>Dreamsnake
Who said the serpent was good? There's a lot of contradictory stuff
written about that damn serpent. Even in the Old Testament. If he's
evil by Old Testament standards, then why does YWHY change Moses'
staff into a serpent? Why does Moses hang up a bronze serpent on God's
orders to save people, and later Jesus makes a comment "As Moses
lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so must the Son of Man
be lifted up". In the Zohar, the serpent in the garden of Eden is
named Samael, blind god. Interesting because Samael is from Gnostic
literature, so perhaps they adapted it, but it's also the name for the
demiurge. In the Zohar, the gnostic name for the demiurge is given to
the serpent and not Elohim. The serpent is also accompanied by his
offspring, a screaming baby, that gets cooked and eaten by one of the
OT husband and wife biblical characters. (found in Mystic Tales from
the Zohar, paperback and inexpensive)
The serpent may be the bringer of wisdom, but it's not an easy road,
and a price is paid. Look what happens to poor Adam and Eve. They
certainly had it easier in the garden. In eastern mythologies
Kundalini, the awakening of the serpent power, is NOT a fun thing to
undergo, and may not be something you want. It can bring about mental
and physical suffering and tear you life into shreds. It's effects
sometimes resemble psychosis. The end result is desirable but the path
is extremely difficult. The illustrations of the Serpent are pretty
frightening too, I've seem some that make him look like a vampire.
Despite what you think of Revelations the fact still stands that Jesus
calls himself "the morning star" in it, which is basically Lucifer in
Isaiah
Isa 14:12 How art thou fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the
morning ! how art thou cut down to the ground, which didst weaken the
nations!
Now, all this is referring to a Babylonion King, but even so, it's
allegory, then of what?
Revelation 22:16 I Jesus have sent mine angel to testify unto you
these things in the churches. I am the root and the offspring of
David, and the bright and morning star.
The "Jesus was not the Messiah" websites love to point out this fact.
If Revelations is supposed to be fundamentalist anti-gnostic
literature than this is a strange turn of events.
Considering all of Revelations is supposed to be some "code" it's
unlikely to think the author didn't know what he was referring to.
Lucifer (which is an artificial term because it's Latin translated
from Hebrew) is not considered by some to be the same as Satan. Satan
is a specific entity referred to in both the Old and New Testaments by
his name.
So what is the morning star? It seems to have "fallen" like our Sophia
did.
Isaiah 14:13
For thou hast said in thine heart, I will ascend into heaven, I will
exalt my throne above the stars of God: I will sit also upon the mount
of the congregation, in the sides of the north:
I will ascend above the heights of the clouds; I will be like the most
High.
Yet thou shalt be brought down to hell, to the sides of the pit.
Which is very much like the story of Sophia in Gnostic literature, she
want to ascend above her place and takes a tumble.
Sophia after she falls loses some of her light, says gnostic
literature. Look at the Black Madonna icons. And the Jesus sitting on
her lap is also black.
What does this all mean?
wantt...@aol.com
be God (GR 1.181), but they also say he's a liar, and they
report he made various other assertions they don't seem to take
all that seriously, although they do believe he has some
dangerous spiritual powers. Their advice is to return his lies
but "afford him no recognition in your hearts.">>
I've read theories that the Mandaeans are descendents of the followers
of John the Baptist who did not accept Jesus as the Messiah and
migrated to other lands. Also, that the Nazoreans where a specific
Jewish sect with it's own body of literature, and that perhaps both
John and Jesus belonged to it, and the Mandaeans are it's descendents.
Then again, some of the scholarship is suspect, for example, Ethel
Drower has been accused of making her stuff up.
Kater Moggin
> Names by definition are images. Images, apparently, are not a good
> thing, not the way to go. Just look at all the prohibitions against
> idolatory. In Nag Hammadi, Jesus makes a comment about how we'll
> suffer when we behold our images.
But the Gospel of Philip says that the "names given to the
worldly are very deceptive" (53:24), including names like
"God," _and_ that "truth brought names into existence in the
world for our sakes because it is not possible to learn it [the
truth] without these names" (54:14-15). So names are
necessary, according to this passage, even tho they can be very
misleading.
[GTh 83]
> "The images are manifest to men, but the light in them remains
> concealed in the image of the light of the father. He will become
> manifest but his image will remain concealed by his light. Jesus said
> "When you see your likeness, you rejoice. But when you see your images
> which came into being before you, and which neither die nor become
> manifest, how much you will have to bear!".
> Now, someone PLEASE
> explain this quote to me. How can the image come into being before the
> object?
Easily. Think of Plato's Forms. Objects are no more than
copies of the ideal images which precede them. The images
Jesus mentions "neither die nor become visible" (GTh 84), which
is also true of Plato's.
> And if images are "bad" then why is he even referring to the
> image of the Father at all.
Maybe you should check your assumptions.
> Jesus in the New Testament comments that even David ate the grain from
> the temple when the troops were hungry.
Jesus in the NT is repeatedly -- although not consistently
-- depicted changing, breaking, or erasing the Creator's
commandments. In the case that you're referring to, he defends
the disciples when they violate the sabbath, i.e., the 4th
Commandment, by picking corn on the sabbath-day -- an act which
is clearly forbidden in the OT.
> The teaching was to distinguish between dogma and law.
The disciples violated the Creator's law -- one of the Ten
Commandments, no less -- by the Creator's own standards as
recorded in the OT. Yet Jesus defended them. That puts him in
opposition to the Creator's edicts.
> Jesus a very interesting comment in the teaching about
> divorce...
Jesus' teaching against divorce is another case where he's
at odds with the Creator's law. The OT allows divorce.
According to the Gospels, Jesus doesn't. (In Matthew he leaves
one exception; in Mark and Luke, none.)
> ...that God made his (inaccurate) rule on
> divorce *because we were so difficult to teach*.
No, Jesus rejects divorce in both Matthew 5:30-31 and Luke
16:18 w/out mentioning the idea you've misquoted, which
appears only in the stories where he's is cornered by the
Pharisees. (Mark 10:2-12 and Matthew 19:3-9.) They accurately
observe that his teaching against divorce is contrary to the
Mosaic code. That puts Jesus in a tight spot. If he says, "To
hell with the law," he's given them the evidence that they
need to convict him of blasphemy -- exactly what they're trying
to tempt him into. But he can't accept the law unless he
abandons his own position. He gets out of the trap by claiming
the law allowing divorce represents a compromise with the
hard-heartedness of men. Note he offers no scriptural evidence.
He can't, since there isn't any.
> He's basically admitting that God had to compromise.
You've ignored the context, where he's basically trying to
escape the Pharisees' trap.
> So much for hard-line dogmatic
> literalism of any religious texts. What he does is shift focus of the
> knowledge of the law from outer written spoken dogma to an inner
> knowledge from spirit.
What Jesus does is reject the Creator's law time and again.
He denies the law on divorce. In the law, it's permitted.
In Jesus' teaching, it's not an "inner knowledge" -- it's a sin.
Jesus denies the lex talionis ("eye for eye"), telling his
listeners to do the exact opposite in practice -- "turn the
other cheek" -- and principle ("resist not evil" stands opposed
to "put the evil away from among you"). He doesn't change
focus to "an inner spiritual knowledge" of taking an eye for an
eye -- he throws away the whole idea.
Jesus abrogates the dietary laws when he states, "There is
nothing from without a man that entering into him can defile
him." (Mark 7:15.) Doesn't make the law "inner knowledge from
spirit" -- makes it meaningless.
Jesus stops the Creator's law from being applied by saying
"He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a
stone." Doesn't preach the "inner spirituality" of stoning the
adultress -- saves her from the stones.
Same goes for assertions of principle. Jesus states, "The
law and the prophets were until John: since that time the
kingdom of God is preached...," turning the Creator's scripture
into a thing of the past and distinguishing it from his own
teaching. I've already pointed to similar declarations in Paul.
Jesus is called "the end of the law," he's said to abolish
the law, to erase the law, to lift the law's curse and to bring
freedom from its bondage.
> So then why the seemingly opposing statements
> about not doing away with the law, and yet doing away with it?
Why not? The Bible's full of contradictory ideas. No big
surprise some of them are assigned to Jesus.
> GoT 101, And
> whoever does not love his mother and father as I do cannot become a
> disciple to me. Because my mother (gave birth to me?) but my true
> mother gave me life".
> A contrast between birth in the world versus life in a spiritual
> realm. A very different overall meaning.
No, the same meaning. In all three cases -- I'm referring
to Luke 14:26-27, Thomas 55, and Thomas 101 -- Jesus very
plainly teaches to hate one's mom and dad. He even says nobody
can be his disciple unless they do so. Thomas 101 adds a
distinction between a birth-mother and a "true mother." That's
no qualification of the teaching to hate one's parents. On
the contrary, it implies that a birth-mother is a _false_
mother, and sets up a very gnostic-ish opposition between birth
and life.
> The serpent may be the bringer of wisdom, but it's not an easy road,
> and a price is paid. Look what happens to poor Adam and Eve. They
> certainly had it easier in the garden. In eastern mythologies
> Kundalini, the awakening of the serpent power, is NOT a fun thing to
> undergo, and may not be something you want. It can bring about mental
> and physical suffering and tear you life into shreds.
But in Genesis the story goes very differently. The snake
tells Eve to eat the apple, promising "your eyes shall be
opened, and ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil." Turns
out he's right on all counts. (See Gen. 3:7 and 3:22.)
Notice Adam and Eve are still in Paradise even after they snack
on the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil.
Their exile and its related sufferings are the _Creator's_ work.
He evicts them from the Garden and curses them as they go.
He's also careful to guard the path back with angels and a
flaming sword, implying that they otherwise could have strolled
in again, apple or no apple.
> Satan
> is a specific entity referred to in both the Old and New Testaments by
> his name.
The name "Satan" is applied to two different entities, one
in the OT and one in the NT.
Katherine Tredwell
I have heard these, also a theory that John the Baptist is a later
addition to Mandean liturgy, because he is not an essential part of
some texts. I have no idea which of these is right, if any.
The last scholarly thing I read on the Mandeans, I found so easy to
poke holes in some of it, that I have come to the conclusion that
nobody knows much about the Mandeans, except maybe the
Mandeans.
Dreamsnake
Glenn (Christian Mystic)
Holding the High Office of being the "Light-Bearer" {Heavenly Gnosis}
(Lucifer) and / or being the Devil, are two diferent things !!