sophiaserpentia: (Default)
Mel Gibson said in September, of his rendition of Jesus, "I wanted to mess up one of his eyes, destroy it."

So, what other one-eyed, spear-pierced deity hanged from a tree for the betterment of humankind comes to mind? :-O

Anselm, who changed Christianity forever by promoting the Christology of substitution atonement, was an 11th Century Archbishop of Canterbury. That he might have been influenced by Anglo-Saxon myths about Wodan is not far-fetched. The theory was first taken up after him by others (Abelard and Bernard) who also hail from northern Europe.

Human sacrifice appears to have been a widespread practice in northern Europe. Even if it was despised by northern-European theologians, they would have considered it thinkable that a human being would have to die to appease God.

This idea does not seem to have really entered Christianity prior to the northern influence. As noted in the essay I linked to, it was hinted at by thinkers like Origen who thought that perhaps Jesus was an atonement ransom to Satan (not God) based on the passage in Matthew about having to pay the jailor before one can be freed. This has Gnostic overtones; for example, in the Cosmic Ascension described in the Gnostic literature, due has to be paid to each ruling archon in the form of tokens before one can proceed to the next aionic sphere.

The net effect of the vicarious atonement doctrine is dehumanization; the separation from God is described as a fundamental nature of human existence, a deep chasm that separates the "sinner" from God and which can only be bridged by God. Nothing the human can do is sufficient. The net effect of this is not love but fear. "Oh, I am not worthy! What if my belief fails me, I will be destroyed!"

Writings to Jewish Christians dealing with "the blood of Jesus" appear to be theological legalism intended to end Jewish reliance on blood sacrifice in the Temple. They argue, for example, that Jesus' one-time sacrifice was superior to the yearly sacrifices that had to be conducted; that Jesus entered not a 'copy' of God's presence (an insult to the asserted holiness of the Temple in Jerusalem) but entered heaven itself. Jesus, as a priest in the order of Melchizedek (who preceeded Aaron!) conducted a sacrifice of himself in the "heavenly temple." This was not done for atonement of sin but in consecration of the heavenly temple (the cosmos), in consecration of the new, superior covenant. Not, in other words, as ransom, but instead to imbue the "heavenly temple" and the new covenant with the substance of life.

ExpandHebrews 9:19-28 )

crossposting to my journal and crossposting to [livejournal.com profile] challenging_god
sophiaserpentia: (Default)
Earlier this morning I wrote this as an extended answer to a post in [livejournal.com profile] challenging_god and wanted to recorded it here for posterity and reference.

ExpandRead more... )

To put this in perspective. At the time of Jesus there was a movement, represented by figures such as Rabbi Hillel, to interpret "Torah" to mean not so much the physical manifestation of the Law in words on paper, but rather the process whereby divine guidance comes to humankind and the cosmos.

To describe this using the helpful language of programming, this would make the written Torah an instance of class "divine guidance and governance." How else could Hillel have claimed to teach the Torah in the time he could stand on one foot ("That which is hateful to you, do not do unto your neighbor; the rest is commentary")? The written Torah contains the key elements that defined Jewish identity and Jewish religious practice. Hillel's summary of Torah doesn't reflect that at all; instead it reflects a teaching that has arisen in all cultures in all times and places.

Hillel is not the only rabbi to have argued along these lines; similar thought was expressed by Akiva and other influential rabbis of the period.

My argument, then, is that Jesus was a rabbi of this tradition -- and so was Paul.

ExpandRead more... )
sophiaserpentia: (Default)
From the Valentinian standpoint, this passage from First Corinthians was of primary importance. My exegesis will compare and contrast the ancient Valentinian view with the hermeneutic of my modern "Renewal Gnosticism."


[I Corinthians 2:4] My message and my preaching were not with wise and persuasive words, but with a demonstration of the Spirit's power,
[5] so that your faith might not rest on men's wisdom, but on God's power.


Paul says here that it is not words or reason that will convince someone that what he is saying is true, but a demonstration of the pneumatic power. IOW, someone has to have the experience of Gnosis for herself. This will be clarified in the coming verses, but the important part here is that Gnosis means direct apprehension of divine presence, and does not stem from "men's wisdom" -- which I read to mean any and all religious teaching.


ExpandRead more... )

crossposting to [livejournal.com profile] cp_circle and crossposting to my journal
sophiaserpentia: (Default)
A post on [livejournal.com profile] challenging_god this morning has me thinking about the Pauline comments on "powers and authorities."

The Gnostics had a special way of reading the words ruler (arche) and authority (exousia). I also speculate, based on other evidence, that the Gnostics also had esoteric meanings for thrones (thronos) and dominions (kyriotes).

Many scholars do not think that the Pauline epistles to the Colossians and the Ephesians were not written by Paul but by members of his community or by some of his students. I think it is likely that they were written by Pauline followers with a considerably Gnostic bent, because there are many statements therein which have strong Gnostic significance.

ExpandColossians 1:15-20 )

I have a related earlier entry which contains a Gnostic exegesis of Ephesians 6:12.
sophiaserpentia: (Default)
I found this while pouring through The Gnostic Paul by Elaine Pagels. Now, while I describe myself as Gnostic, and in particular one who is heavily influenced by the Valentinians, this is one area where I don't simply buy into the Gnostic "party line."

Still, their solution to a particularly contentious passage of scripture is rather intriguing. Romans 9 deals with the subject of predestination and the idea that some people are created explicitly for destruction.

The Valentinian answer to this passage is to suggest that predestination applies primarily to two sets of people. ExpandRead more... )

crossposting to [livejournal.com profile] questionofgod
sophiaserpentia: (Default)
This is in response to [livejournal.com profile] davidould's questions in this old thread about contradictions I perceived in the writings and acts of Paul. This response was long and important enough to merit a new post and a new thread.

Answering your questions will involve rehashing some of the discussions I've had recently in communities like [livejournal.com profile] challenging_god. If you've kept up with my posts there none of this will be new to you.


Expandpredestination vs. choosing salvation )


Expandfood sacrificed to idols )


Expandantinomianism vs. theonomy )


Expandfreedom from law vs. moral pronouncements )
sophiaserpentia: (Default)
This weekend I've been working quite heavily on my book. Applause is welcome but not required. ::grin::

I was examining Paul's letter to the Colossians and noticed something interesting. This book and Ephesians are generally considered by scholars to have been written after Paul by members of the "Pauline school," and it has been my contention for some time that these two books actually represent a pro-Gnostic plank of the Pauline school.

Expandmysticism vs. magic )
sophiaserpentia: (Default)
Posted this just now in Beliefnet, in response to a question that asked, essentially, whether Jesus is an essential part of Gnostic teaching.


It is the teachings that matter, not the messenger.

That said, the Christ -- as distinct from Jesus -- is an essential aspect of Gnostic teaching. Keep in mind that the Gnostic teaching that each of us must work to realize that we are each "a" Christ seems counter to the mainstream Christian teaching that Jesus is "the" Christ. However in practice it is not that far removed from mystical Christian teaching rooted in passages such as Galatians 2:20.

In Gnostic teaching the Christ is a uniquely 'personal' pneumatic presence that calls us to live a life defined by compassion and mindfulness. This message was the root of Jesus' teachings and so it seemed to early Gnostics that Jesus was "a" Christ.

Not coincidentally this message of compassion and mindfulness was also the heart of the teachings of Socrates, Buddha, and Lao Tzu, among many, many others. In Gnostic parlance each of these people, and any who perfectly embody their ideals, is "a" Christ.

So, I guess to address your question specifically, it is certainly possible to remove Jesus from the Gnostic teachings, though it would be a loss, because in his life and his words he embodied them so well. It is even possible I suppose to remove the word "Christ" and replace it with another. But the spirit of Jesus and the spirit of Christ cannot be removed from Gnostic teaching, because they ARE Gnostic teaching.
sophiaserpentia: (Default)
crossposting to [livejournal.com profile] cp_circle

I expressed these thoughts in a discussion on Beliefnet regarding reincarnation in Christian thought. I am modifying it here somewhat.

I do not believe in the concept of the "immortal soul" as such, but I do believe there is a form of eternal existence that we can obtain.

ExpandRead more... )
sophiaserpentia: (Default)
Gnosticism question and answer I posted (in a couple of different places) today on Beliefnet.

ExpandRead more... )
sophiaserpentia: (Default)
[livejournal.com profile] aarondarling has a knack for asking good questions, and I'm going to "kangaroo" our discussion a second time into a new journal entry in order to answer his last question on this thread:
http://www.livejournal.com/users/sophiaserpentia/186888.html

Once you commit the act...you have stepped across boundaries that the NT does deal with however. I woudl say that you love yourself and how you feel more than you love GOd...if you are attempting to be both actively homosexual...and a NT christian.


I can't dodge this question, so I will address it head-on.

ExpandRead more... )
sophiaserpentia: (Default)
Hmm, no replies yet to my post this morning in [livejournal.com profile] questionofgod. Too early perhaps to declare it a ZRP? The question isn't too tough, is it?
sophiaserpentia: (Default)
[livejournal.com profile] aarondarling requested more about the Spirit from the Bhagavad-Gita. Here is a passage that seems to exemplify the Gita's teaching on this subject.

[Bhagavad-Gita 6:20] When the mind is resting in the stillness of the prayer of Yoga [yoga-sevaya, the science of union], and by the grace of the Spirit [atmana] sees the Spirit and therein finds fulfillment;
[21] then the seeker knows the joy of Eternity: a vision seen by reason far beyond what senses can see. He abides therein and moves not from Truth.
[22] He has found joy and Truth, a vision for him supreme. He is therein steady: the greatest pain moves him not.
(trans. Juan Mascaro)

To verse 20, compare:
[Matthew 6:6] But when you pray, go into your room, close the door and pray to your Father, who is unseen. Then your Father, who sees what is done in secret, will reward you.

To verse 21, compare:
[I Corinthians 2:9] As it is written: "No eye has seen, no ear has heard, no mind has conceived what God has prepared for those who love him"
[10] --but God has revealed it to us by his Spirit.

[Acts 2:1] When the day of Pentecost came, they were all together in one place.
[2] Suddenly a sound like the blowing of a violent wind came from heaven and filled the whole house where they were sitting.
[3] They saw what seemed to be tongues of fire that separated and came to rest on each of them.

Edit: I should comment here on the mention of grace in verse 20 above. In the esoteric tradition it is indicated that the experience of union depends upon two conditions: the readiness of the aspirant, and the descent of grace. The aspirant signals readiness by cultivating control of breath and posture and by focusing attention on the sahasrara or crown of the head (possibly the "upstairs room" mentioned in Acts 1:13?).

This readiness however does not guarantee the descent of grace, as anyone who has spent time in contemplative prayer or meditation will tell you, it is possible to do this for months or years without any result resembling dhyana or samadhi. Therefore the experience of union is described always as a revelation.
sophiaserpentia: (Default)
In the Bhagavad-Gita Krishna describes an attitude towards the Vedas very similar to that of Paul towards the Law of Moses.

Sacred action (karma) is described in the Vedas and these come from the Eternal, and therefore is the Eternal everpresent in a sacrifice. Thus was the Wheel of the Law set in motion, and that man lives indeed in vain who in a sinful life of pleasures helps not in its revolutions. But the man who has found the joy of the Spirit (atma-ratihh) and in the Spirit has satisfaction, who in the Spirit has found his peace, that man is beyond the law of action. He is beyond what is done and what is not done, and in all his works he is beyond the help of mortal beings. Bhagavad-Gita 3:15-17, trans. Juan Mascaro


Compare this to:

So, my brothers, you also died to the law through the body of Christ, that you might belong to another, to him who was raised from the dead, in order that we might bear fruit to God. For when we were controlled by the sinful nature, the sinful passions aroused by the law were at work in our bodies, so that we bore fruit for death. But now, by dying to what once bound us, we have been released from the law so that we serve in the new way of the Spirit, and not in the old way of the written code. Romans 7:4-6, NIV


Both passages can be read in light of the Gnostic psychic/pneumatic distinction to read thus: religious codes are good as far as they go, in maintaining the social harmony and encouraging people to live better lives. But they do not represent the pinnacle of human spiritual awareness; direct spiritual awareness supercedes the religious codes, as one who always acts from compassion does no wrong.
sophiaserpentia: (Default)
I Corinthians 15:44 Speiretai swma psuxikon, egeiretai swma pneumatikon. Estin swma psuxikon kai estin swma pneumatikon.
Translation: [It] is sown/planted an animal body, it is raised/awakened a spiritual body. There is an animal body and there is a spiritual body.

The common translation makes this a contrast between a natural (or animal) body and a spiritual one. But this begs the question, what is a "spiritual body"?

ExpandRead more... )
sophiaserpentia: (Default)
I've been largely silent for the past few days because I've spent most of my spare time, which hasn't been much lately, putting together this post.

In a comment on Beliefnet's Progressive Christianity board, user Sparrowhawk mentioned a concept by theologian Walter Bruggemann, that each Christian has about 40 passages which serve as a basis for her faith and actions. Inspired by this, I thought it might be an interesting exercize to see what passages have central importance for me.

This list is not meant to be exhaustive -- and at this point excludes sources outside the regular canon, a shortcoming I will have to rectify at some point -- but it helps put a lot of my ideas into perspective. I found the exercize very helpful.

ExpandRead more... )
sophiaserpentia: (Default)
Hmm, I haven't written about scripture for a while. The idea of struggling with or against turbulence has been on my mind lately, as I contemplate the effectiveness of my actions and the sphere of influence I want to exemplify in my own life.

[Ephesians 6:12] Our struggle is not with blood and flesh, but with the archons, with the exousias, with the cosmic rulers of the darkness of this aion, with the spirits of wickedness in the heavens. (Adapted from Young's Literal Translation)


The usual interpretation of this verse insinuates merely that the primary struggle is not against human enemies but against demons. The Gnostic reading goes much deeper, as is readily obvious.

"Spirits of wickedness in the heavens" suggests a reference to the planets as agents of fortune. This view of the planets as evil survives today in Mandaeism (whose surviving adherents reside today in southern Iraq; may the principle of mercy protect them). I suggest though not a literal struggle against the planets but against the imposition of fate.

"Cosmic Rulers of the Darkness of this aion": Aiwn could refer to "age" or "world" or "realm" or "facet of the divine," and in a sense all of them apply simultaneously. Darkness is that which prevents one from seeing; and in the Valentinian reading the "cosmic rulers of darkness" would be the agents of illusion who like Mara the Tempter weave a cloak of deceit around us.

Exousia: This is an interesting term that any student of the New Testament can't but wonder over. In many instances this refers to the "authority" by which Jesus spoke, a kind of forceful charisma that astounds his listeners. It refers to the ability to give commands and have them carried out, or the power of choice, the ability to do as one pleases. IOW it refers to agents possessing free will.

Archons: Specifically the Greek word arxh implies the principle of dominion. There is no "victory" against the forces of nature, any more than one can prevail against the wind by huffing and puffing against it. The archons are deluded though in thinking they have ultimate dominion over Earth. In this sense they represent us, when we have surrendered to the illusion that we have dominion.

Strugging with (not necessarily against) fate, free will, illusion, and dominion sounds like a metaphysical struggle, not against demons but against conceptual errors that separate us from clearer awareness of what is. In a sense what this means is that we struggle with our own ego, our sense of importance and of self-determination. This struggle, writ large, appears like a cosmic struggle between a liberator (Christ or Buddha) and a weaver of illusion (the Tempter).

It seems to me that in the end we learn how to carve a course that matches the watercourse way -- because this is the way of things.

Profile

sophiaserpentia: (Default)
sophiaserpentia

December 2021

S M T W T F S
   1234
567891011
12131415161718
19202122232425
2627282930 31 

Syndicate

RSS Atom

Most Popular Tags

Style Credit

Expand Cut Tags

Expand All Cut TagsCollapse All Cut Tags
Page generated Jul. 20th, 2025 10:21 am
Powered by Dreamwidth Studios