Gurdur

Terry Pratchett's fantasy novel, Small Gods, as well as being a rollicking satire on the perils and contradictions of absolutist religions, has a hell of a lot of rather subtlely deep speculations in it.

In his book, a god is being kept alive only through the belief / faith power of his sole remaining believer. Without faith that god will die.
However that god is also under criticism for his past actions (telling prophets in former times to smite and wipe out the heathens without mercy, juvenile showing-off with burning bushes, etc.) from that sole remaining believer.

The god faces a dilemma when his sole remaining believer faces the Inquisition of that day; i.e. the believer's up for the chop.
The god all this time is stuffed up by having made a small mistake of having incarnated himself in physical form for a quick visit to the earthly realm, but because there was so little faith around in that particular god (only one true believer left) the god found himselfv incarnated as a small and rather elderly tortoise, and does not have enough faith power to escape from his earthly shell.
The god saves his sole remaining believer by committing a suicide dive straight into the head of the Chief Inquisitor (it's a long story to descibe just how), an action that kills the god - but owing to the public situation of the suicide mission, the god comes back alive immediately (in a non-corporal form) buoyed on the belief / faith power of thousands of suddenly-new believers (as well as saving that previously sole remaining believer).
That god then enters into a new 'Covenant' with his believers (led by the previously sole remaining believer) whereby the god promises to be nice in future and to command his followers to be nice (no more smiting the heathen, just trying to verbally and nicely persaude the heathen for example).
There is a clear parallel being drawn by Terry Pratchett between the flipover from the Cosmic Sadist of the Pentateuch, through (more or less) death and resurrection into the God of The Sermon On The Mount, turn the other cheek and all that.

The implications are clear:
A death and resurrection of the god - who dies for His own sins rather than the sins of humanity or whatever.
______________

So my question is:

Has this idea, or anything like it, ever cropped up in Judaic or Christian theological speculations before in history (or indeed in any other religious speculation) ?

I would be very grateful for all and any info, thanks.
I posted this on a couple of theology boards (and got thrown off one for this), but no-one could answer my question, though one helpful theologian suggested I look at the early Christian Gnostics.
I am afraid to admit I know very little about early Gnostic speculations, and have little desire to try getting into them in any deep way just in case they did discuss it.

So: anyone can help me, please?

Amos

It is clear from the bible that we must pick up our cross and die for the sins of our world just as Jesus died for the sins of his world.

Gurdur

Amos, you missed the point and introduced preaching as well as being completely irrelevant.
Please leave this thread and do not intervene again.

This is a question about historical theology, not a topic for debate or an opportunity for preaching.

boneyard bill

I'm not sure that all gnostics held this view but at least some claimed that the world was not created but had always existed. A non-creator god sent Christ to redeem the world from its un-created evil ways and therefore bring everlasting life to the good and the faithful. It seems similar to Buddhism since knowledge (gnosis) of Christ rather than grace is what brought salvation just as it is enlightenment that brings salvation in Buddhism. Of course, this doesn't mean that god died for his own sins. These gnostics rejected the old testament.

Boshko

Well Gnosticism says that the Demiurge (the creator of the material world/God of the OT) is generally not a terribly nice guy, but then he's not connected to Jesus in Gnostic theology, its the creator of the spiritual world God who in charge of Jesus and whatnot (I think, I'm a bit sketchy on Gnosticism as well).

Toto

Check out Jack Miles latest book, Christ.

There was a review in the LATimes last week, and an interview with Miles.

<a href="http://www.latimes.com/features/printedition/books/la-000097621dec09.story" target="_blank">Jesus The Sequel</a> reviewed by John P. Meier

<a href="http://www.latimes.com/features/lifestyle/la-000097658dec09.story" target="_blank">Confessions of God's Extreme Biographer</a>

[ December 17, 2001: Message edited by: Toto ]</p>

CX

I'm a little sketchy on what you are trying to say here, but here's a little bit about the Gnostic Xians of the 1st and 2nd century, especially the Marcionites. This is an over simplification and for a better treatment I strongly recommend Dr. Elaine Pagels' landmark work in the field of gnostic study, "The Gnostic Gospels".

Marcionite gnostism basically said:

1)The god of the OT and the Hebrews was one of the Archons of gnostic thought. An evil deity bent on confusing mankind and keeping it from the true creator god.

2)Jesus was imbued with the logos, which is to say the spirit of the true god in order to reveal a hidden knowledge to those who would receive it. Jesus was merely a human vessel for that knowledge.

3)Salvation comes purely and only from knowing that which is hidden (i.e. man's true nature, god's true nature and the hostile nature of existence in the material universe under the oppression of the Demiurge (the evil Archon who blinds man to the truth).

Marcionism was apparently extremely influential in 1st and 2nd century Xianity. Although most of the texts are no longer extant thanks to the orthodox church's very efficient program to eradicate all traces of heretical thought, we still have a fairly good record from the scrolls at Qumran and the words of the Church Fathers. Notably, it is Irenaeus' 5 volume work "Against Heresies" that tells us much about the nature and prevalence of gnostic Xianity in the 2nd century. We also find traces of it in some of Paul's letters as was the Gospel of John (which seems not trivially influenced by gnosticism).

Toto

I haven't read Miles' book, but John P. Meiers really skewers it in his review as a post-modern fantasy. I wonder if Miles got his ideas from sci-fi, or if the sci-fi writer read Miles?

I highly recommend the interview with Miles in the LA Times. Miles says that he had nightmares as a child from reading Biblical stories - he was afraid Herod's soldiers would come and get his little brother.

Here's the amazon link to <a href="http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0375400141/internetinfidelsA" target="_blank">Christ: A Crisis in the Life of God</a>

and

<a href="http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0679743685/internetinfidelsA" target="_blank">God: A Biography</a>

and

<a href="http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0061092177/internetinfidelsA" target="_blank">Small Gods</a>

gruveguy

Jesus was sent to fulfill the old way of the OT. God made no mistakes for which Jesus came to in some way correct, nor did He have any sins for which to atone. Also, when Jesus came, the people to which He came to, the Jews, had not lost faith in Him. There were many people who strictly lived by OT laws. How does this apply?

Gurdur

Gruveguy, I've stated twice in this thread that this is a request for information, not a thread for arguing or preaching.

If you want to debate this matter, go make your own thread in the appropriate forum such as Misc. Religious Disc., not in this thread.
_____________

To everyone else:

Please ignore any more suchlike posts as in the manner of Amos or Gruveguy in this thread --- I really would like as much info as possible, and I don't want to see my request for info hijacked by such rude interjections as above.