Bede

Toto's analysis (I think based a bit on Rodney Stark whom I think we have both read and partly approved of) is fair but for the obvious point that I don't agree christianity is quite the disaster he maintains.

But also, I think F&G are doing something similar to many new religions. They have invented a new one, like Wicca, and have sought to give it some sort of legitimacy by quote mining ancient sources so they can claim they have actually rediscovered an ancient religion. Of course, any real 1st century religion would not live up to F&G's new age ideas (Mithrism was for men only, for instance).

By sublime irony this is almost exactly what Justin Martyr is doing with his First Apology. Christianity was a new-fangled thing so Justin tries to give it a pedigree by comparing it to accepted ancient religions. But like F&G he has to slag off the old religions and say that in fact the real truth is his new one.

There really is nothing new under the sun!

Yours

Bede

Bede's Library - faith and reason

ichabod crane

Can I say that I think that the history of Christianity as outlined by Toto is one-sided and essentially accepts orthodoxy's claim to be the legitimate heir of early Christianity. But that is entirely debatable. For example, Marcion and the Gnostics presented an alternative form of Christianity that arguably has as legitimate a pedigree as orthodoxy. Throughout the ages dualistic forms of Christian belief flourished (e.g. Manichaeans, Paulicians, Bogomils, Cathars, etc.), often severly persecuted by the orthodox church (hundreds of thousands of Cathars were slaughtered by the orthodox church in the Albigensian Crusade, for instance). Maybe F&G's attempt to understand early Christianity is shoddy and unscholarly or whatever, but that doesn't mean that we shouldn't try to understand it, or that we have to connect early Christianity with the monster of orthodoxy. Orthodoxy came to dominate the picture for one reason and one reason only: because it sold out and became the state religion under Constantine. From them on, it was enforced in the most bloody manner imaginable. But I am more interested in the poor people who struggled to understand Christ and follow him in the shadow of orthodoxy.

From my reading of the New Testament, I would say that F&G are no further away from the faith of its writers than is orthodox theology.

Magdlyn

Are you gentlemen saying, IYOs, neo-gnosticism bears little resemblance to 1st century gnosticism?

Some of you non-USA people may not be aware, there are actual gnostic churches in this country, with affiliates in other countries. It seems to me this organization, the Ecclesia Gnostica, uses original gnostic texts, as well as the canon of the orthodox, in its services and teachings, in a reconstructionist manner. I guess we all understand the difference between a religion that is "new" and one that is at least making an honest attempt at historical reconstruction?

http://www.gnosis.org/eghome.htm

Gnosticism was rather fluid and in favor of variety in the early centuries. One can see that by the variety found in their gospels, acts, apocalypses, etc. These books are not found mostly in quotes from the church "fathers," GD, but in the huge cache of literature found at Nag Hammadi.

I understand initiates were invited to create midrash as part of their spiritual unfolding. If they really cared whether J was an historical person, they would not have been quite so creative at imagining new stories about his life. That just doesn't make sense.

For ex, one book says Christ was created by a joint effort of the Aeons on a rescue mission, who each contributed a bit of their essense to his spiritual being. This supposedly explains his title the All of All.

Another one tells how, as part of her initiation, he takes Mary M up a mountain, makes a women out of his side, and makes love to her to express a pneumatic "truth" to his student. I do not think flesh and blood humans can do this.

Another one relates how the Christ was the snake in the Garden of Eden, come to help Eve (Sophia) fight the evil blind demiurge and his henchmen the archons.

I have to say, I disagree. (Some may have, but that does not seem to be the main focus.) The gnostics do not even focus on "belief" per se, but seeking and experience. They also have Jesus being an emanation of the ineffable God (not YHWH, whom they call the demiurge or Iadabaoth), and his consort, the upper Sophia. Mary M was seen as the lower Sophia (whom the Christ is sent to rescue), the wandering prostitute, understood to be a symbol of humanity, a spark of spirit lost in the evils of the fleshly experience. Parts of the SofS reflect this aspect--the bride wandering at the walls of the city, stripped of her garments, unable to find her lover, then finally reunited. Also seen is the theme of the prostitute Israel found in at least one one of the Prophets of Tanakh (forget which at the moment), with her deformed children, the daughter of YHWH, a metaphor too, of course. How could any of this reflect an historical Christ or MM? The gnostics were focused on the risen Christ (as was Paul), not the wandering Jewish rabbi. Mary was the Tower, Thomas was the Twin, b/c they had the gnosis, more than all the other disciples; Peter esp., getting it wrong.

The resurrection understanding of Paul and the gnostics was one of rebirth (or waking up) into a pneumatic view of life, as opposed to a fleshly one. ("Flesh and blood [including Jesus'!] can not inherit the kingdom.") Waking up to spiritual reality, to Unity, has nothing to do with an actual bloody sacrifice on a cross a la Mel Gibson. In one gnostic book, Jesus appears to the mourning disciple John at a cave (world womb) next to an olive tree (symbol of Sophia/Wisdom) during the crucifixion to tell him that is not really him on the cross. You can't kill the spirit. In another, Jesus rises up above the crucifixion as it is happening, and looking down upon the spectacle, he laughs.

I have gleaned the above from Pagels and reading of The Other Bible. I may not have it all quite right, but this is my best stab at it.

As far as the gematria, perhaps a more thorough source than TJM for it is Starbird's Magdalene's Lost Legacy: Symbolic Numbers and the Sacred Union in Christianity, which I have browsed. She may be a bit over-enthusiastic, as are F&G, but you might find info of interest, along with your grain of salt.

GakuseiDon

Can you list any primary sources they say that Gnostics didn't believe in an actual Jesus who walked the earth?

That sounds right. The early gnostics believed that, because the demiurge created all matter, therefore all matter was corrupted. Jesus, being perfect, couldn't have a body composed of corrupted matter. Marcion, for example believed that Jesus had a body like the angels that appeared to Lot in the OT, and so He physically interacted with the world, though His body wasn't composed of flesh. Apelles believed that Christ's body was composed from basic elements. But AFAIK, gnostics believed in a historical Jesus who physically walked the earth.

Ted Hoffman

Link not working but I can't wait.

In my understanding, gnosticism has become quite amorpous and different gnostic sects focused on different issues. Some mixed up many beliefs etc.

For example, from our glossary, the Bogomils were both adoptionists (those that held that Christ had a human body that became divine upon baptism) and Manicheans. They rejected pneumatic Christianity, monachism and some of the docetic teachings. They strongly repudiated infant baptism and baptism to them was not by water or oil but involved prayers, self-abnegation and chanting of hymns. They taught that God had two sons; Satanail and Michael. Michael, the elder one, rebelled and became evil then he created the earth. and the lower heavens. Michael was later sent by God as Jesus to redeem mankind. They were persecuted to the point of extinction between the 12th and 14th centuries until the Turks conquered Bosnia.

The Borborites were inspired by Sethianism (Sethians held Seth as their saviour figure). In their rituals, Borborites practiced sexual sacramentalism, homosexual sex, and for the eucharist, consumed menstrual blood and semen. They were said to consume fetuses extracted from pregnant women.

The Carpocratians believed in reincarnation and held that in order to achieve gnosis and in order for the soul to escape this world, one had to experience everything. That included performing even acts that were considered horrible and morally repulsive.

The Carthars believed the world was evil and was created by Satan. Leading an ascetic lifestyle and renouncing the world gave one perfection. They believed Jesus was an apparition that came to show the way to God all physical objects, they held, were sinful.

Then we have the Marcionites, Albigensians(?) etc. Before we focus on gnostic beliefs, I think we must first set a time frame and must have a basis for doing so, because gnosticism evolved over time, then there was a multiplicity of gnostic sects. Otherwise, we will be shooting in the dark.

So, first we must decide: are we looking at gnosticism as per Marcion and Valentinus? Or even latter gnostic sects? AFAIK, gnosticism proper was a theology that valued revealed knowledge as a means to apprehending spiritual truth and attaining salvation and that wisdom was secret (ie. not available to every Tom Dick and Harry) and could only be arrived at via some stages/rituals. That, IMO, is the core. The rest are just details.

Glossary link below:
http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.p...threadid=66829

Magdlyn

Come on, GD, do you think a gnostic evangelist would preface a fantastic, obviously allergorical myth/story/treatise by saying something like, "I am writing this far-fetched thing to propose a pneumatic psychological archetype of a mythical godman for your consideration. Any resemblance to flesh and blood is purely accidental"? This is not a subject about flesh, mind and rationality. This is a subject concerning the unconscious mind, visions and dreamscapes. This is obvious to me and I do not know why it is not to you.
Have you read, for ex: The Gospel of Truth? Do you see a flesh and blood Jesus anywhere in it? Excerpts:



Marcion was not gnostic. Where does Marcion talk about Lot, BTW, I thought he rejected Tanakh?

"Physically" is a questionable term. How would a spirit being "interact" with matter? In visions, I would think. Gnsotics saw Jesus in different forms, an old man, a young man, morphing before their eyes.

I reiterate, it was not about belief. Do you honestly think (all or most) gnostics were literalists? You're just ignoring my examples of fantastic stories? You're even assuming all early Xtians were literalists? Do you think intelligent men took seriously stories a century or more old, that a being passed though a door, then ate fish, after his death? Was that their basis of understanding? Would that have been important to them?

GakuseiDon

It wasn't obvious to the early Gnostics, either. See the link I provided earlier. Why did they argue over the make-up of Jesus's body if they didn't believe that He existed on earth anyway?

Um, Madglyn, the Gnostics didn't believe that Jesus was flesh and blood.

Could you quote the part that says that Jesus didn't physically walk the earth?

Marcion wasn't a gnostic? I think you better check that. (Even F&G refer to Marcion as "the Gnostic sage"). Marcion rejected the OT as being the scriptures of the demiurge, and in fact, Tertullian made almost the same criticism about Marcion using the OT! From here:
Well, tell it to the gnostics. That's what they seem to have believed. If you could show me differently, I'd be interested.

No, I'd just like for you to show me where they say that Jesus didn't physically walk the earth.

Magdlyn, it is fairly clear what I am asking. Show me the primary sources that indicate that the early Gnostics believed that Jesus never walked the earth. I'm not trying to be difficult about this. All I'm asking for is the evidence.

ichabod crane

I haven't been reading much of late on the Gnostics in the narrow sense, but I am currently preparing to do a major project for my M.Div.on the Manichaeans, who certainly come under the Gnostic camp in the broad sense. Here is what Prof. Samuel Lieu, a leading expert on the subject, has to say - it seems to me relevant to the debate between GD and Magdlyn, and seems to support what GD was saying:

"Mani's claim to have received this special teaching by divine revelation means that the word "myth" which is so often used to designate Mani's cosmogonic drama never enters into the sect's own evangelistic vocabulary. Every part of his teaching on the origins and the present day workings of the universe is intended to be literally understood and supposed to be scientifically accurate. Similarly the myriads of deities and demons involved in the cosmic drama are meant to be historical and not fictional characters." (pp. 22-23, "Manichaeism", Manchester University Press).

Magdlyn

OK, I concede the point about body substance! You are absolutely right.

I found this:

But as far as Marcion being gnostic, it seesm there is debate.

Seems I have read this article before, remembered one part and forgotten the other.

http://www.tyndale.cam.ac.uk/Tyndale...ad/Marcion.htm

As far as F&G describing Marcion as a gnostic sage, well, now, I used to take their word for that (and a lot of other stuff)!

Funny that Tertullian and I agree on something--Marcion's selective use of Tanakh.

GakuseiDon

Interesting! I'd always thought that Marcion was firmly believed to have been in the gnostic camp, but it looks like I was wrong. I see you are correct, in that there does seem to be some debate on that notion.