Posted on 09/22/2009 10:48:30 AM PDT by Teófilo
Speaking of Gnosticism (since yesterday we were speaking about C.G. Jung) , I want to share with you yet another table, this one comparing two diametrically opposed “Jesuses” and what they say and think, the biblical Jesus held by Catholics and other Christians as “the Only Son of God, begotten from the Father before all ages,” and the one proposed by the Gnostics, today’s dabblers in the Occult, hermeticism, religious syncretism, and the New Age on the other. The table is inspired by the one printed in the book Stolen Identity: The Conspiracy to Reinvent Jesus, by Dr. Peter Jones, a professor of New Testament at Westminster Seminary in Escondido, California. I added some details where I thought needed it, since I don’t have the same limitations Dr. Peters faced on the printed page, and changed one or two details to bring a couple of statements in line with Catholic teaching.
| Jesus’ |
|
Gnostic |
|
Biblical |
|
God |
|
Universal, impersonal spirit God in everything who hates the blind creator God – the God of the Bible |
|
God of creation, good Father; Redeemer who reveals himself and requires obedience from His creatures |
|
Message and Ministry |
|
Speaks of no kingdom because there is no king; states that the Kingdom is completely within, that created reality is evil and that anyone claiming to be “king” must be defeated. |
|
God rules over his creation; He is the rightful King over his people; His Kingdom is not univocally within; transforms the earthly into the heavenly. |
|
Birth |
|
Jesus not born physically, no family lineage, not born of a woman. |
|
Jesus of Jewish lineage, really born as a human baby from a real woman; born under the law, in time and space. |
|
Humanity |
|
No interest in history; no chronology; no context for Jesus’ life. |
|
Jesus really embodied; suffered temptation; knows physical weakness. |
|
Divinity |
|
Everyone is divine, nothing special about Jesus’ divinity; not His disciples’ Master; everyone’s a Messiah. |
|
Jesus is the only begotten (monogeneis) God; the disciples fear Jesus; He’s Master over his creation; with God before creation. |
|
Spirituality |
|
Quiet the mind; knowledge, not worship; meditation, not prayer; spirituality of “joining opposites.” |
|
Faith, not gnosis; rational reflection; prays to the Father in heaven. |
|
Sexuality |
|
Sex a spiritual experience; androgyny; ecstatic unity with all things; extreme libertinism or extreme asceticism. |
|
God-created heterosexuality; meant for producing physical offspring; unity, communion, and communication between one man and one woman. |
|
Morals |
|
No law, therefore no sin (“Sin is ignorance”); the Creator regarded as evil; we make our own law; we have no king, no master. |
|
Sin is judged; sin demands punishment; God’s law defines sin; we are made righteous by the Spirit of God. |
|
Death |
|
Physical life is to be despised; death cannot touch divine soul; someone else died in place of Jesus; the death of Jesus illusory. |
|
Death is an enemy; Jesus’ death is redemptive; it was a real, physical death; death was defeated by His resurrrection. |
|
Resurrection |
|
Resurrection is symbolic; it’s a escape from the body’s prison; it’s spiritual, not physical. |
|
Resurrection is physical; a transformation; a New Creation. |
I believe we can recognize the Gnostic “Jesus” in many major religions, movements, and “spiritualities” throughout the world past and present. The Gnostic Jesus is the Jesus of Islam, who didn’t die in the Cross but who was replaced by Judas; is the Jesus of Theosophy, one “ascended master” among many others and not necessarily the highest or most important one; it’s the Jesus who blesses homosexual activity, same-sex marriage and gender identity-ism for whom objective masculinity and femininity do not exist. He’s Nietzsche’s Übermensch who transcends every value and moral category by forging his own; a Jesus who would’ve approved of something like the Heaven’s Gate cult, whose members thought their bodies hindrances and suicide a liberation.
One item that is not recorded in this table but that I think should be in it is that the Gnostic Jesus is both Anti-Semitic and Anti-Judaic, that is, he hates Jews as a people and Judaism as a religion. That’s why Gnostic hate the Old Testament or Hebrew Scripture, because they were inspired by the evil creator or demiurge of this world, and also hates the Jewish people as the standard-bearers of these Scriptures. Throughout history we have seen where this has led and what has happened whenever and wherever we have allowed this Gnostic illness to infect the attitude of too many Catholics against the Jews.
Ironically, it is the Gnostic Jesus the one that gets all the good press nowadays, while the real one is reduced to the status of fable, legend, and “big misunderstanding.” Place the template of Gnosticism against many of the things that are happening today in the world and you will understand the meta-text behind the history of our times better.
What kind of a nonsense is that? How is Gnostic anti-Semitism different form the Church's anti-Semtism?
It is an entirely discrete matter. It is an entirely discrete matter. Any attempt to conjoin the two is a project of flawed interpretation.
Anti-Semtism is just that. Both groups engaged in it, even if for different reasons, and accusing one of it while the other side is equally guilty of it is hypocrisy, plain and simple.
Gnostic sources have been destroyed and we are forced to rely on the adversaries of the Gnostics, this complaint has been registered and found wanting by many scholars
I am sure, and I can guess which ones.
To mention just one common refutation of your comment, Phillip Jenkins in his work the "Hidden Gospels" mentions this banal criticism and replies that the writing of Irenaeus was one of the most comprehensive polemics on this subject
I repeat: the oldest copy of Irenaeus' complete works is a late 4th century Latin copy. There is no original Greek. One can't take copies to be originals. Ancient copying methods and styles were prone to errors and redact ions to keep up with evolving doctrines. Neither you nor Philip Jenkins have any proof that what we have from Irenaeus is indeed what Irenaeus wrote. You an only say that a later copy of his work says such and such...
Jenkins states that while Irenaeus writings made no pretense at objectivity, they were richly informative about the core ideas of various Gnostic movements and as more heretical texts have been found scholars can see that the early church fathers were quoting their enemies opinions quite fully and accurately
Which early Church Fathers outside of Irenaeus? Even using the term "heresy" would be an oxymoron given than no set doctrine or canon existed in the Church as a whole until the 4th century. There were groups within the heterodox Christian movement that has serious disagreements with each other theologically and canonically.
Given judgments rendered on this subject by present day scholars, and absent the introduction of empirical evidence to refute the his credibility of Irenaeus , your contentions must be summarily dismissed as having no substantive basis
You have the nerve to talk about empirical evidence when the only evidence you rely on is a copy of Irenaeus' work 200 years later? You better summarily dismiss yourself if you think this is "evidence." The only thing we can conclude from the preserved Irenaeus' works is to determine which faction of the heterodox Christian amalgam became dominant, namely the one that calls itself (naturally) orthodox.
It appears that you are greatly troubled by the failure to possess the original copy of the Irenaeus work . Since published reputable scholars such as Raymond Brown Fitzmyer and others have noted this fact and after rigorous intellectual scrutiny have accepted its validity, I find your commentary without merit. These academics are published are you? Again, what empirical evidence can you produced to vitiate their arguments? None; that is what I thought. The Burden Of Proof rests with you and your efforts to refute have been found wanting.
The unmitigated audacity in steadfastly holding to such a fragile position is not an efficacious avenue for success. You need to remember that most evidence introduced in courts is circumstantial evidence. You must specifically refute the sources I have provided but you are at a loss to do so. Offering your own self serving testimony is without value.
But this is a decent summary of some of the various beliefs.
Not at all. The argument is not that there were no other versions, but precisely that there were, which are no longer extant. They were all replaced by "orthodox" versions. Conveniently.
The verse is quoted by other Fathers before Eusebius.
In the extant copies, all of which are, conveniently, post-Nice.
The only copies of books the Church destroyed survive in Nestorian Syrian churches, and the Ethipian Orthodox Church. The conspicuous absence of any non-"orthodox" sources is too obvious.
And to my knowledge, there are several Pelagian manuscripts, just not contemporary with the controversy.
Which ones? There are two expositions, one a 9th century copy of an earlier Italian manuscript, and another a 15th century copy. There are also some 7th century fragments. The complete copies are apparently the expositions of Pelagius in the form of his commentaries on Pauline Epistles. The two expositions differ to a degree, both missing some of the material the other includes. But non has Pelagius' name on it.
Let me just remind you that no one has had a copying machines for the past 2,000 years and that all copying until Gutterberg in thew 15th century took place by manually copying word for word with plentitutde of errors.
There were also no laws regulating or proofing the copies. Copies were used to make more copies and all the errors contained within were multiplied in addition to new errors being made. Many times, someone's marginal comments on manuscripts were made part of the text thereby being peddled as "inspired" in the case of biblical text.
Historical Church documents, including the Bible, must never been confused with pristine originals of which practically none are extant in most cases.
But the assertion that there was a systematic book-burning by the Catholic/Orthodox Church is one that needs to be substantiated to my satisfaction. After all, we still have those books around
I never said it was systematic. But we know that, beginning with the late 3rd century and onward, especially during the 4th century, and early 5th century, books were destroyed. Nestorian books, for example, survive only in Syriac. None of the Gnostic Gospels survived except those that were buried in the Egypt. None of the Enoch's copies exit except in the Ethiopian Orthodox Church, which is completely outside the loop.
So, to put it plainly, we don't have any such books. We only have "orthodox" versions.
The only thing that's strange is the fact that you chose to mention in it since it was not part of the topic discussed, but it was an attempt to further downgrade Pagels and Gnostics.
My reasons are simple, not strange: it's hypocritical to talk about Gnostic anti-Semticism (as if it were relevant here), and ignore the fact that anti-Semticsm (indeed Torah burning) was part of the developing "orthodoxy."
I hadn't mentioned Orthodoxy's bent towards anti-Semitism in my post
What's Orthodoxy got to do with the 4th century Church? If you mean, eastern, Greek Fathers, St. John Chrysostom's homilies are a perfect example that anti-Semtism, based on anti-Judaizing agitation, was part of the early Church, East and West.
But, that's not one thing the Gnostics and Christians differed on very much, was it? Which is perhaps why it wasn't one of the topics in the chart. Which is why it was completely uncalled for to be introduced as a topic by you. Why would you introduce something both sides were guilty of in a topic which deals with their differences?
It appears that you are greatly troubled by the failure to possess the original copy of the Irenaeus work
Not greatly troubled, just cognizant that it is not the original and that copying error and developing doctrine had played a significant part in the copying process in those days. In fact, it is impossible to ascertain that the extant copy is the exact true copy of the original and therefore cannot be used with absolute certainty.
Since published reputable scholars such as Raymond Brown Fitzmyer [sic] and others have noted this fact and after rigorous intellectual scrutiny have accepted its validity, I find your commentary without merit
You mean Raymond E. Brown, S.S., and Joseph A. Fitzmyer, S.J.? Neither exactly non-partisan authors...
And just how was it established that a copy is an 'exact' and trustworthy replica of the original, having been made 200 years after the original? What sources do you have to offer?
These academics are published are you?
Elaine Pagels is published, yet you question her scholarship. It seems to me you have your own criteria, and being published is just an obfuscation when it suits you. What have you published?
Again, what empirical evidence can you produced to vitiate their arguments? None; that is what I thought
About as much as you have. Besides, I am not making extraoridnary claims of authenticity, when there is sufficient justifiable doubt in a copy, especially when the original doesn't exist...
The Burden Of Proof rests with you and your efforts to refute have been found wanting
The burden of proof about what? Doubt in someone's extraorindary claims? Or proof of the anti-Semtisim in the Church?
One of the problems with the Latin copy from the late 4th century is that Irenaeus refers to Mary as advocata. Your scholarship should tell you that, translated into Greek, it means the Paraclete! In other words, Irenaeus is equating Mary with the Holy Spirit! How 'orthodox' is that?
You must specifically refute the sources I have provided but you are at a loss to do so. Offering your own self serving testimony is without value
All you did was accuse Gnostics of anti-Semitism as if it was something the Church is not guilty of, and mentioned a couple of names without even mentioning specifically the name of the sourse, page and pragraph itself. You call that testimony? More like self-flattery. All in all, you provided zilch and plenty of high-ended condescension.
I acknowledge receipt and read all you’ve said.
Pardon my intrusion, but, I thought you were Greek Orthodox. It sounds to me that you’re asserting that Orthodoxy is at the very least a partial corruption of “original” Christianity.
I don’t know where are you going with all this, but would advice caution.
In Christ,
-Theo
Thank you Theo. I was baptized Eastern Orthodox, and have been an active member of the Church for many years, and have read much about the topic, so I am familiar with the liturgy and theology of the Church.
While I think nothing but the best of the Church in spirit, I also find a divergence between the image, teaching and the canon painted by the Church and the one presented by historical evidence. This may place y posts in better context.
The EOC remains mostly unchanged liturgically since the 4th century (minor changes notwithstanding the Divine Liturgy is the same as it was 1600 years ago).
Eastern Orthodox is of course corruption of original Christianity. Original Christianity was Judaism, not Eastern Orthodoxy or Roman Catholicism.
I don't understand what "caution" are you implying.
Well, for a moment it seemed to me that you were "going Gnostic." I caution you against it, as I would caution anyone else.
Have you read the books by N.T. Wright?
-Theo
-Theo
You would be well advised to study Gnostic works and their attendant critiques before entering a discussion of this topic as to avoid embarrassment. Provide source materials as verification for your contentions.
Great, start there. It certainly doesn’t compare to the contents of your chart.
Glad to see you approve of the Gnostic site.
I posted about it today. I didn't see anything there that would dissuade me that my chart was incorrect. In fact. It confirms it.
Do you wish to go "blow by blow"?
-Theo
Go for it.
OK. Give me some time.
BTW, your chart didn’t confirm it unless you have a very poor interpretation of Gnostic beliefs. That’s why I made my initial comment in the first place.
You seem to think that just because someone is a scholar he or she is automatically right. Being a scholar doesn't mean that at all. There are good drivers and bad drivers, yet they are all licensed to drive.
How much of his interpretation is what was in the original manuscript, and how much was added with developing doctrine 200 years later remains undetermined because the original is missing. Given some of the other things he wrote, his orthodoxy was probably not as orthodox as some try to make him. Based on the canon of his Bible (which included some books now rejected) that is almost a certainty.
As I have asked throughout this “Discussion” show me the scholarly verification for your contentions not mere conjecture. Since you have offered nothing of substance case closed. I wish I could face you in open debate as you would be easy to refute Good By
And in an open debate you would present evidence that you can’t present in a written debate? Thanks for making me laugh.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.