Gnosticism

[Amilius777]

Just watched a special on CNN on Early Christianity.

At last someone expressed my point! And it was a Jewish Rabbi defending the 4 Gospels.

"The Gnostic Gospels should be discarded by Christianity and majority of people at large. They are extremely antisemitic, they do not really give any wisdom, and they weren't written by the followers of Jesus. They are a mix of Greek Philosphy which is EXTREMELY Dualistic and Jesus was NOT dualistic, and a mix of old Egyptian religions." - from an Orthodox Jewish Rabbi!


The only reason why I am posting this is because my previous posts on "Self-realization" are NOT Gnostic. From what Jesus meant by Self-realization he meant the realization that you are a Son of God and must enact the consciousness of God in the Earth realm to help grow the kingdom of God. That is it.

Jesus is very much into self-realization, but not the one we know of today. Majority of Self-Realization beliefs have a hatred towards matter. In fact Jesus embraced matter and this physical Realm.

And from my own realization this realm is inherently Divine.

It is heresy to believe the natural world to be a tragic mistake. Yes I used the word heresy. Why? Because it causes people to hate and crucify the natural world.

Ironically majority of Christian Fundamentalists today sound MORE Gnostic than First Century Christianity.

Jesus didn't come to create an evacuation plan to heaven like Fundamentalists and Gnostics believe. Jesus came to bring down the heavenly consciousness to make the Earth a place of God's Kingdom.

[Reverend Keith]

Couldn't agree more. And I actually find more anti-Semitic sentiment in the official canonical gospels than in most of the Gnostic ones, particularly Thomas.

[Amilius777]

Sadly John's Gospel is very much antisemetic.

The crowds that condemn Jesus, Barabbas, Pilate's dilemma, the Jews seen as corrupt, etc in John's Gospel is all ideas written by the author.

Are they historically true? Probably not. But the message John was getting
across is that Israel chose violence and not Jesus. And thus they lost their Temple, dignity, and nation.

Kinda mean from the Author of John's part. Very unnecessary. This is why I don't believe the Bible is infallible. It is in fact fallible- especially historically.

The Jews didn't condemn Jesus. A very few Pharisees wanted to keep peace and saw Jesus as a jerk for ruining this Roman-Jewish peace. So they pawned him off to Pilate. Pilate mercilessly killed many in the past. Jesus would not have triggered any sympathy in Pilate. Pilate hated self-proclaimed messiahs. Jesus was killed by Pilate and Rome. Even if crowds did spit and curse Jesus among the Jews I doubt they knew who he was. Public execution was a fine day out with the kids back then! And besides history shows us that more Jews accepted Jesus in the 1st Century than rejected him,

John's Gospel is the least historical but most metaphysical.

I believe that each Gospel came from a specific traditional view on Jesus. Whoever John the Author was influenced by, possibly the Apostle John, passed down the proclamations of Jesus such as 'I and the Father are One".

I believe these are truths that Jesus knew his oneness with God, but historically some suspect whether Jesus said this in public or with his human lips.

But if you read Matthew and Mark they are very much for the Jews. The original quote IS "And he shall save his people from their sins". Later it was added- "Shall save the world from it's sins"

This is messed up because Jesus never said he came to wipe the slate clean and just believe in him and your good to go. In fact he said he was going to die for the sins of many and those many were his People. He was VERY Jewish and very concerned about Israel as their king and promised savior.

Not that Jesus was exclusive. But Jesus made it clear that he came first for the Jews and the house of Israel as their promised savior and prophet.

Would you also dismiss what the Gnostic Gospels say about Mary Magdalene? They seem to give her a prominence not seen elsewhere. Could we be given a missing piece of what took place, but edited out of the bible, by mysogynist views? For instance, that Peter questions whether Jesus would talk privately to a woman. Jealousy or disbelief?

[peteyzen]

I agree with Amilius assertion that this world is very important and divine and should not be dismissed. I would go as far as to say this is the training ground for us.
I do however agree with the gnostics and feel that a lot has been lost in terms of the true nature and teachings of this human divine incarnation of Jesus. I do not think the gnostics were dismissive of this world at all I think they understood Christ`s real message, which was closer to Indian yoga than people realise now. As far as Jesus dying for our sins, again I think this is not correct, that is the concept of his death wiping clear the slate for us all, is off the mark. I believe that when he died, as a divine being , he had taken on certain devotees negative karma when he chose to die.
I dont agree that John was being antisemitic, what happened happened. Christs death was as a result of fear and people chose him rather than Barrabas out of fear. Our fear of the divine is a constant that people suffer with to this day, the same thing could have happened in any other group or culture anywhere in the world. It wasn`t a `Jewish` reaction, but a human one.When god manifests, people struggle to believe in him/her, it is after all a very difficult thing to believe. Believing in a divine incarnation from thousands of years ago, is easy, possible even, but standing before and believing in a living breathing human, who claims to be the divine now, is, for most people, a far bigger ask. And that is how I think it was for the people who chose Barrabas over Jesus.

[Amilius777]

I wouldn't dismiss completely what the Gnostics say about Mary Magdalene.

I just don't think anything was taken out of the Gospels because they weren't written by the apostles. And besides the apostles and early Christians were not completely misogynist. They even had Female priests.

Mary Magdalene might have been an advanced disciple. But if your trying to make some connection where her and Jesus married it is completely ridiculous.

Ridiculous because Jesus was part of a human demographic of men who could not and did not marry in the 1st Century Judaism.

But I wouldn't be surprised if Mary Magdalene was a highly regarded female priest in the Christian community who knew Jesus in a more personal way.

But I don't think what the Gnostic Gospels say of her are completely accurate. She would have been dead before the 4 Gospels were written and whatever written about her is mixed with truth and myth.


The misogyny actually happened later when the Church was formed in the 3rd and 4th Centuries. They made her into the prostitute. She wasn't the prostitute.

----

Peteryzn,

I have heard this before about Jesus taking on his devotee's karma from Yogananda. But I just don't believe it. The reason is because Jesus didn't seen himself as a guru or master in the way Yogananda believed. Sadly Yogananda was extremely ignorant and relied on his own "intuition" which means he had an outrageous ego. And sins or "karma" in the Bible are not really washed away by someone's blood. Jesus says that your sins or karma is forgiven when you forgive someone else or try to do something to take it away. Jesus' sacrifice was actually taking "ON" the karma or sins of the people and world. He was embracing the "violent cycle" of the world which is the real sin, the real bad karma. He embraced it to expose it and destroy it but giving graces in exchange of curses by the masses.

Jesus wasn't interested in personal karma or sin. We can make that up ourselves by living a good and forgiving life to others. Jesus was interested in the universal sin that the Hebrew Prophets pointed out which was Violence and "Ignorant Hostility" to another and God.

Originally Posted by Amilius777

I wouldn't dismiss completely what the Gnostics say about Mary Magdalene.

I just don't think anything was taken out of the Gospels because they weren't written by the apostles. And besides the apostles and early Christians were not completely misogynist. They even had Female priests.

Mary Magdalene might have been an advanced disciple. But if your trying to make some connection where her and Jesus married it is completely ridiculous.

Ridiculous because Jesus was part of a human demographic of men who could not and did not marry in the 1st Century Judaism.

But I wouldn't be surprised if Mary Magdalene was a highly regarded female priest in the Christian community who knew Jesus in a more personal way.

But I don't think what the Gnostic Gospels say of her are completely accurate. She would have been dead before the 4 Gospels were written and whatever written about her is mixed with truth and myth.


The misogyny actually happened later when the Church was formed in the 3rd and 4th Centuries. They made her into the prostitute. She wasn't the prostitute.

Thank you for this post. I will admit to being fairly patchy in my Gnostic knowledge. My understanding is that, when the 1945 Gnostic records were found, that some of it was established as being as old as the Gospels; most dating later though i.e. 2nd - 4th century. Apparently they depict Mary Magdalene as being a key disciple in her own right and that she understood Christ's message better than the male disciple (which would explain Peter's questioning and denouncing of her experience - in the Gospel of Mary). No I was not alluding to any marriage.

The written biblical records would not have needed to have been completely misogynistic for her to be largely edited out, i.e. only briefly mentioned. Interesting what you say about the later occurrences of misogyny.

[peteyzen]

Firstly I would say that anyone who would say that only through him can we reach god, would very much see himself as a teacher / guru. I think its pretty undoubtable that `the messiah`was a master. Secondly, and I am not a follower of Yogananda, but to say Yoganada was `extremely ignorant` is merely your opinion, and I think very unfair. I have read many of Yoganada`s works and he doesn`t appear as an egotistical man. I would say that a lot of the present devotees of Yogananda do try to make out that he was an avatar (a divine incarnation of god, like Jesus) This is patently not true when you read his story of development, and to my knowledge Yoganada never expressed this belief.
I disagree with your assertion that Jesus wasn`t interested in personal karma or sins, Jesus worked on many levels, ie on a personal level with his disciples, who he was growing spiritually ready to take on his teachings after he left, with them he would be altering their karma. I know this through my many years of studying avatars.
But, that is just my opinion through my experience, yours may differ, god is a big elephant and we each only see small parts of him.

[Amilius777]

Sorry Peter

Probably went too far there. I get very offensive towards some of the things Yogananda said. He even declared to be an "avatar". I think that is scary.

Majority of the great souls never call themselves anything like Jesus and Buddha.

Hi everybody!
What I find strange about all this, is that the apostles and the clergy were apparently all married. I am new so I can't post links, but it seems to have historical foundations. Google: clerical celibacy history.
Have a nice day!