The Gnostic Gospels: Self-knowledge is knowledge of God; the self and the divine are identical.

[Guest guest]

>

> Today, February 15, 2008, i cannot explain how massive the ever

> cresting tidal wave of truth is. All i can say is that its sheer

> weight is enough to pulverize all falsehood in its path, reducing

> religious organizations to their bare foundations, scouring and

> smashing into smithereens centuries of their false teachings, dogma

> and indoctrination.

>

> But i feel that many of you here are still unable to grasp the sheer

> size and power of this tidal wave that the Adi Shakti has unleashed.

> Probably the only way will be to read all the articles on the sites

> and forum, and remember the different topics that are covered.

> Perhaps over time you may be able to finally see the entire height,

> breath, depth and, most important of all, the direction of this

> tidal wave of Truth that the Comforter triggered in order to bring

> forth the emancipation of the human race. It is beyond anything we

> humans have ever witnessed!

>

> There is a very deep reason i emphasized " the direction " of this

> tidal wave of Truth. That direction cannot be pointed but only

> realized.

>

 

Gnostic Gospels

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

The term gnostic gospels (pronunciation: naws-tik) refers to gnostic

collections of writings about the teachings of Jesus, written around

the 2nd century AD.[1] These gospels are not accepted by most

mainstream Christians as part of the standard Biblical canon. Rather,

they are part of what is called the New Testament apocrypha. However,

public interest has been spurred by recent novels and films which

refer to them.[2][3]

 

History

 

The gnostic gospels were named after the Greek word gnosis which

means " knowledge " and is often used in Greek philosophy in a manner

more consistent with the English " enlightenment " . Gnostic philosophy

and religious movements began in pre-Christian times. During this

time, ideas from Greek Gnosticism intermingled with Early

Christianity. The name " Christian gnostics " came to represent a

segment of the Early Christian community who believed that salvation

lay not in merely worshipping Christ, but in psychic or pneumatic

souls learning to free themselves from the material world via the

revelation.[4] According to this tradition, the answers to spiritual

questions are to be found within not without.[2] Furthermore, the

gnostic path does not require the intermediation of a church for

salvation. Some scholars, such as Edward Conze and Elaine Pagels,

have suggested that gnosticism blends teachings like those attributed

to Jesus Christ with teachings found in Eastern traditions.[1]

 

www.en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gnostic_Gospels

 

Notes

1 Elaine Pagels. Extract from The Gnostic Gospels. pbs.org. Retrieved

on 2007-04-22.

2 Elaine Pagels and Michael Licona. Gospel of Thomas debate. Pax TV.

Retrieved on 2007-04-22.

3 Lance S. Owens. An Introduction to Gnosticism and The Nag Hammadi

Library. The Gnostic Society. Retrieved on 2007-04-22.

4 Stephan A. Hoeller. The Gnostic World View: A Brief Summary of

Gnosticism. gnosis.org. Retrieved on 2007-04-22.

 

 

The Gnostic Gospel

Elaine Pagels

Vintage Books, 1979

 

1) " Orthodox Jews and Christians insist that a chasm separates humanity from its

creator: God is wholly other. But some of the gnostics who wrote these gospels

contradict this: self-knowledge is knowledge of God; the self and the divine are

identical.

 

Second, the " living Jesus " of these texts speaks of illusion and enlightenment,

not of sin and repentance, like the Jesus of the New Testament. Instead of

coming to save us from sin, he comes as a guide who opens access to spiritual

understanding. But when the disciples attains enlightenment, Jesus no longer

serves as his spiritual master: the two have become equal - even identical.

 

Third, orthodox Christians believe that Jesus is Lord and Son of God in a unique

way: he remains forever distinct from the rest of humanity whom he came to save.

Yet the gnostic Gospel of Thomas relates that as soon as Thomas recognizes him,

Jesus says to Thomas that they have both received their being from the same

source. " page xx

 

 

2) " Contemporary Christianity, diverse and complex as we find it, actually may

show more unanimity than the Christians churches of the first and second

centuries. For nearly all Christians since that time, Catholics, Protestants, or

Orthodox, have shared three basic premises. First. they accept the canon of the

New Testament; second, they confess the apostolic creed; and third, they affirm

specific forms of church institutions. But every one of these - the canon of

Scripture, the creed, and the institutional structure - emerged in its present

form only toward the end of the second century. Before that time, as Irenaeus

and others attest, numerous gospels circulated among various Christian groups,

ranging from those of the New Testament, Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John, to such

writings as the Gospel of Thomas, the Gospel of Philip, and the Gospel of Truth,

as well as many other secret teachings, myths, and poems attributed to Jesus or

his disciples. Some of these, apparently, were discovered at Nag Hammadi; many

others are lost to us. Those who identified themselves as Christians -

entertained many - and radically differing - religious beliefs and practices. "

page xxii - xxiii

 

 

3) " The efforts of the majority to destroy every trace of heretical " blasphemy "

proved so successful that, until the discoveries at Nag Hammadi, nearly all our

information concerning alternative forms of early Christianity came from the

massive orthodox attacks upon them. " page xxiv

 

 

4) " Gnostic Christians undoubtedly expressed ideas that the orthodox abhorred.

For example, some of these gnostic texts question whether all suffering, labor,

and death derive from human sin, which, in the orthodox version, marred an

originally perfect creation. Others speak of the feminine element in the divine,

celebration God as Father and Mother. Still others suggest that Christ's

resurrection is to be understood symbolically, not literally. A few radical

texts even denounce catholic Christians themselves as heretics, who, although

they " do not understand mystery . . . boast that the mystery of truth belongs to

them alone. " " page xxxv

 

 

5) " But when we examine its practical effect on the Christian movement, we can

see, paradoxically, that the doctrine of bodily resurrection also serves an

essential political function: it legitimizes the authority of certain men who

claim to exercise exclusive leadership over the churches as the successors of

the apostle Peter. From the second century, the doctrine has served to validate

the apostolic succession of bishops, the basis of papal authority to this day.

Gnostic Christians who interpret resurrection in other ways have a lesser claim

to authority: when they claim priority over the orthodox, they are denounced as

heretics. " page6

 

 

6) " Whatever we think of the historicity of the orthodox account, we can admire

its ingenuity. For this theory - that all authority derives from certain

apostle's experience of the resurrected Christ, an experience now closed forever

- bears enormous implications for the political structure of the community.

First, . . . it restricts the circle of leadership to a small band of persons

whose members stand in a position of incontestable authority. Second, it suggest

that only the apostles had the right to ordain future leaders as their

successors. . . . Any potential leader of the community would have to derive, or

claim to derive, authority from the same apostles. Yet, according to the

orthodox view, none can ever claim to equal their authority - much less

challenge it. What the apostles experienced and attested their successors cannot

verify for themselves; instead, they must only believe, protect, and hand down

to future generations the apostles' testimony.

 

This theory gained extraordinary success: for nearly 2,000 years, orthodox

Christians have accepted the view that the apostles alone held definitive

religious authority, and that their only legitimate heirs are priests and

bishops, who trace their ordination back to that same apostolic succession. . .

..

 

But the gnostic Christians rejected Luke's theory. Some gnostics called the

literal view of resurrection the " faith of fools. " " pages 10 - 11

 

 

7) " The orthodox Christian believes " the one and only truth from the apostles,

which is handed down by the church. " And he accepts no gospels but the four in

the New Testament which serve as the canon (literally, " guideline " ) to measure

all future doctrine and practice.

 

But the gnostic Christians, whom Irenaeus opposed, assumed that they had gone

far beyond the apostles' original teaching. Just as many people today assume

that the most recent experiments in science or psychology will surpass earlier

ones, so the gnostics anticipated that the present and future would yield a

continual increase in knowledge. " page 21

 

 

8) " But what the gnostics celebrated as proof of spiritual maturity, the

orthodox denounced as " deviation " from apostolic tradition. Tertullian finds it

outrageous that

 

" every one of them, just as it suits his own temperament, modifies the

traditions he has received, just as the one who handed them down modified them,

when he shaped them according to his own will. " " page 23

 

 

9) " The controversy over resurrection, then, proved critical in shaping the

Christian movement into an institutional religion. All Christians agreed in

principle that only Christ himself - or God - can be the ultimate source of

spiritual authority. But the immediate question, of course, was the practical

one: Who, in the present, administers that authority?

 

Valentinus and his followers answered: " Whoever comes into direct, personal

contact with the " living One. " They argued that only one's own experience offers

the ultimate criterion of truth, taking precedence over all secondhand testimony

and all traditions - even gnostic tradition! They celebrated every form of

creative invention as evidence that a person has become spiritually alive. On

this theory, the structure of authority can never be fixed into an institutional

framework: it must remain spontaneous, charismatic, and open.

 

Those who rejected this theory argued that all future generations of Christians

must trust the apostles' testimony - even more than their own experience. For,

as Tertullian admitted, whoever judges in terms of ordinary historical

experience would find the claim that a man physically returned from the grave to

be incredible. Whatever can never be proven or verified in the present,

Tertullian says, " must be believed, because it is absurd. " Since the death of

the apostles, believers must accept the word of the priests and bishops, who

have claimed, from the second century, to be their only legitimate heirs. " pages

25 -26

 

 

10) " When these same sources tell the story of the Garden of Eden, they

characterize this God as the jealous master, whose tyranny the serpent (often,

in ancient times, a symbol of divine wisdom) taught Adam and Eve to resist:

 

.. . . God gave [a command] to Adam, " From every [tree] you may eat, [but] from

the tree which is in the midst of Paradise do not eat, form on the day you eat

from it you will surely die. " But the serpent was wiser than all the animals

that were in Paradise, and he persuaded Eve, saying, " On the day when you eat

from the tree which is in the midst of Paradise, the eyes of your mind will be

opened. " And Eve obeyed. . . she ate, she also gave to her husband.

 

Observing that the serpent's promise came true - their eyes were opened - but

that God's threat of immediate death did not, the gnostic author goes on to

quote God's words from Genesis 3:22, adding editorial comment:

 

.. . . " Behold, Adam has become like one of us, knowing evil and good. Then he

said, " Let us cast him out of Paradise, lest he take from the tree of life, and

live forever. " But of what sort is this God? First [he] envied Adam that he

should eat from the tree of knowledge. . . . Surely, he has shown himself to be

a malicious envier.

 

As the American scholar Birger Pearson points out, the author uses an Aramaic

pun to equate the serpent with the Instructor. . . . Other gnostic accounts add

a four-way pun that includes Eve: instead of tempting Adam, she gives life to

him and instructs him:

After the day of rest, Sophia [literally, " wisdom " ] sent Zoe [literally,

" life " ], her daughter, who is called Eve, as an instructor to raise up Adam. . .

When Eve saw Adam cast down, she pitied him, and she said, " Adam, live! Rise up

upon the earth! " Immediately her word became deed. For when Adam rose up,

immediately he opened his eyes. When he saw her, he said, " You will be called

'the mother of the living,' because you are the one who gave me life. "

 

The Hypostasis of the Archons describes Eve as the spiritual principle in

humanity who raises Adam from his merely material condition:

 

And the spirit-endowed Woman came to [Adam] and spoke with him, saying, " Arise,

Adam. " And when he saw her, he said, " It is you who have given me life; you

shall be called " Mother of all the living " - for it is she who is my mother. It

is she who is the Physician, and the Woman, and She Who Has Given Birth. " . . .

Then the Female Spiritual Principle came in the Snake, the Instructor, and it

taught them, saying, " . . . you shall not die; for it was out of jealousy that

he said this to you. Rather, your eyes shall be open, and you shall become like

gods, recognizing evil and good. " . . . And the arrogant Ruler cursed the Woman

.. . . [and] . . . the Snake. " pages 29 - 31

 

 

11) " Clement argues that God, the God of Israel, alone rules all things: he is

the lord and master whom all must obey; he is the judge who lays down the law,

punishing rebels and rewarding the obedient. But how is God's rule actually

administered? Here Clement's theology becomes practical: God, he says, delegates

his " authority of reign " to " rulers and leaders on earth. " Who are these

designated rulers " Clement answers that they are bishops, priests, and deacons.

Whoever refuses to " bow the neck " and obey the church leaders is guilty of

insubordination against the divine master himself. Carried away with his

argument, Clement warns that whoever disobeys the divinely ordained authorities

" receives the death penalty! "

 

This letter marks a dramatic moment in the history of Christianity. For the

first time, we find here an argument for dividing the Christian community

between " the clergy " and " the laity. " The church is to be organized in terms of

a strict order of superiors and subordinates. Even within the clergy, Clement

insists on ranking each member, whether bishop, priest, or deacon, " in his own

order " : each must observe " the rules and commandments " of his position at all

times.

 

Many historians are puzzled by this letter. What, they ask, was the basis for

the dispute in Corinth? What religious issues were at stake? The letter does not

tell us that directly. But this does not mean that the author ignores such

issues. I suggest that he makes his own point - his religious point - entirely

clear " he intended to establish the Corinthian church on the model of the divine

authority. Ad God reigns in heaven as master, lord, commander, judge, and king,

so on earth he delegates his rule to members of the church hierarchy, who serve

as generals who command an army of subordinates; kings who rule over " the

people " , judges who preside in God's place. " pages 34 - 35

 

 

12) " The Tripartite Tractate, written by a follower of Valentinus, contrasts

those who are gnostics, " children of the Father, " with those who are

uninitiates, offspring of the demiurge. The Father's children, he says, join

together as equals, enjoying mutual love, spontaneously helping one another. But

the demiurge's offspring - the ordinary Christians - " wanted to command one

another, outrivalling one another in their empty ambition " ; they are inflated

with " lust for power, " " each one imagining that he is superior to the others. "

pages 40 - 41

 

 

13) " How did members of this circle of " pneumatics " (literally, " those who are

spiritual " ) conduct their meetings? Irenaeus tells us that when they met, all

the members first participated in drawing lots. Whoever received a certain lot

apparently was designated to take the role of priest, another was to offer the

sacrament, as bishop; another would read the Scriptures for worship, and others

would address the group as a prophet, offering extemporaneous spiritual

instruction. The next time the group met, they would throw lots again so that

the persons taking each role changed continually.

 

This practice effectively created a very different structure of authority. At a

time when the orthodox Christians increasingly discriminated between clergy and

laity, this group of gnostic Christians demonstrated that, among themselves,

they refused to acknowledge such distinctions. Instead of ranking their members

into superiors and inferior " orders " within a hierarchy, they followed the

principle of strict equality. All initiates, men and women alike, participated

equally in the drawing; anyone might be selected to serve as priest, bishop, or

prophet. Furthermore, because they cast lots at each meeting, even the

distinctions established by lot could never become permanent " ranks. " Finally, -

most important - they intended, through this practice, to remove the element of

human choice. A twentieth-century observer might assume that the gnostics left

these matters to random chance, but the gnostics saw it differently. They

believed that since God directs everything in the universe, the way the lots

fell expressed his choice.: pages 41 - 42

 

 

14) " Tertullian also objected to the fact that

 

Their ordinations are carelessly administered, capricious, and changeable. At

one time they put novices in office; at another, persons bound by secular

employment. . . Nowhere is promotion easier in the camp of rebels, where even

the mere fact of being there is a foremost service. So today one man is bishop

and tomorrow another; the person who is a deacon today, tomorrow is a reader;

the one who is priest today is a layman tomorrow; for even on the laity they

impose the functions of priesthood! "

 

This remarkable passage reveals what distinctions Tertullian considered

essential to church order - distinctions between newcomers and experienced

Christians; between women and men; between a professional clergy and people

occupied with secular employment; between readers, deacons, priests, and bishops

- and above all, between the clergy and the laity. " pages 42 - 43

 

 

15) According to Irenaeus: " If God is One, then there can only be one true

church, and only one representative of God in the community - the bishop. " page

44

 

" Unlike many of his contemporaries among the deities of the ancient Near East,

the God of Israel shared his power with no female divinity, nor was he the

divine Husband or Lover of any. He can scarcely be characterized in any but

masculine epithets: king, lord, master, judge, and father. Indeed, the absence

of feminine symbolism for God marks Judaism, Christianity, and Islam in striking

contrast to the world's other religious traditions, whether in Egypt, Babylonia,

Greece, and Rome, or in Africa, India, and North America, which abound in

feminine symbolism. Jewish, Christian, and Islamic theologians today are quick

to point out that God is not to be considered in sexual terms at all. Yet the

actual language they use daily in worship and prayer conveys a different

message. . . " page 48

 

 

16) " Another newly discovered text from Nag Hammadi, Trimorphic Protennoai

(literally, the " Triple-formed Primal Thought " ), celebrates the feminine powers

of Thought, Intelligence, and Foresight. The text opens as a divine figure

speaks:

 

am [Protennoia the] Thought that [dwells] in [the Light] . . . [she who

exists] before the All . . .I move in every creature . . . I am the Invisible

One within the All. "

She continues:

" I am perception and knowledge, uttering a Voice by means of Thought. am the

real Voice. I cry out in everyone, and they know that a seed dwells within. "

The second section, spoken by a second divine figure, opens with the words

I am the Voice. . . [it is} I [who] speak within every creature. . . Now I have

come a second time in the likeness of a female, and have spoken with them. . . .

I have revealed myself in the Thought of the likeness of my masculinity.

Later the voice explains:

I am androgynous. [i am both Mother and] Father, since [i copulate] with myself.

.. . . [and with those who love] me . . . I am the Womb [that gives shape] to the

All . . . I am Me[iroth]ea, the glory of the Mother.

Even more remarkable is the gnostic poem call the Thunder, Perfect Mind. This

text contains a revelation spoken by a feminine power:

I am the first and the last, I am the honored one and the scorned one. I am the

whore, and the holy one. I am the wife and the virgin. I am (the mother) and the

daughter. . . . I am she whose wedding is great, and I have not taken a husband.

.. . I am knowledge, and ignorance. . . I am shameless; I am ashamed. I am

strength, and I am fear. . . I am foolish, and I am wise. . . I am godless, and

I am one whose God is great. " pages 55 - 56

17) " Some gnostics adopted this idea, teaching that Genesis 1:26-27 narrates an

androgynous creation. Marcus . . . not only concludes from this account that God

is dyadic ( " Let us make humanity " ) but also that " humanity, which was formed

according to the image and likeness of God (Father and Mother) was

masculo-feminine. " His contemporary, the gnostic Theodotus (c. 160) explains

that the saying " according to the image of God he made them, male and female he

made the, " means that " the male and female elements together constitute the

finest production of the Mother, Wisdom. " Gnostic sources which describe God as

a dyad whose nature includes both masculine and feminine elements often give a

similar description of human nature. " pages 56- 57

18) " Our evidence, then, clearly indicates a correlation between religious

theory and social practice. Among such gnostic groups as the Valentinians, women

were considered equal to men; some were revered as prophets; others acted as

teachers, traveling evangelists, healers, priests, perhaps even bishops. This

general observation is not, however, universally applicable. At least three

heretical circles that retained a masculine image of God included women who took

positions of leadership - the Marcionites, the Montanists, and the

Carpocratians. But from the year 200, we have no evidence for women taking

prophetic, priestly, and episcopal riles among orthodox churches.

This is an extraordinary development, considering that in its earliest years the

Christian movement showed a remarkable openness toward women. Jesus himself

violated Jewish convention by talking openly with women, and he included them

among his companions. Even the gospel of Luke in the New Testament tells his

reply when Martha, his hostess, complains to him that she is doing housework

alone while her sister Mary sits listening to him: " Do you not care that my

sister has left me to serve alone? Tell her, then, to help me. " But instead of

supporting her, Jesus chides Martha for taking upon herself so many anxieties,

declaring that " one thing is needful: Mary has chosen the good portion, which

shall not be taken away from her. " Some ten to twenty years after Jesus' death,

certain women held positions of leadership in local Christian groups, women

acted as prophets, teachers, and evangelists. " page 61

19) After discussing Biblical passages in which Paul both " claims that their is

neither male nor female " and that women should be subordinated to men, Pagels

writes:

" Such contradictory attitudes toward women reflect a time of social transition,

as well as the diversity of cultural influences on churches scattered throughout

the known world. In Greece and Asia Minor, women participated with men in

religious cults, especially the cults of the Great Mothers and of the Egyptian

goddess Isis. While the leading roles were reserved for men, women took part in

the services and professions. Some women took up education, the arts, and

professions such as medicine. In Egypt, women had attained, by the first century

AD, a relatively advanced state of emancipation, socially, politically, and

legally. In Rome, forms of education had changed, around 200 BC, to offer to

some children from the aristocracy the same curriculum for girls and boys. Two

hundred years later, at the beginning of the Christian era, the archaic,

patriarchal forms of Roman marriage were increasingly giving way to a new legal

form in which the man and woman bound themselves to each other with voluntary

and mutual vows. The French scholar Jerome Carcopino, in a discussion entitled

" Feminism and Demoralization, " explains that by the second century AD,

upper-class women often insisted upon " living their own life. " Male satirists

complained of their aggressiveness in discussions of literature, mathematics,

and philosophy, and ridiculed their enthusiasm for writing poems, plays, and

music.

Under the Empire, women were everywhere involved in business, social life, such

as theaters, sports events, concerts, parties, traveling - with or without their

husbands. They took part in a whole range of athletics, even bore arms and went

to battle . . . and made major inroads into professional life. Women of the

Jewish communities, on the other hand, were excluded from actively participating

in public worship, in education, and in social and political life outside the

family. " pages 62 - 63

20) According to the Gnostics " The purpose of accepting authority is to learn to

outgrow it. " page 131

Thanks for visiting Sunshine for Women

http://www.pinn.net/~sunshine/book-sum/gnostic.html