The Second Coming of Christ 1945 - a new interpretation

[Thomas]

Greetings Thomas,
An interesting conversation we’re having.

Indeed.

Helmut Koester may not be above criticism, but he was a very influential and highly regarded New Testament scholar

Oh, I'm not knocking him ...

He was Elaine Pagels’ professor at Harvard as well.

You can't blame him for that!

let’s consider the absence of apocalyptic sayings in the Gospel of Thomas, and sayings where Jesus speaks of himself as the Son of man.

OK.

It may be these sayings were revealed in resurrection appearances to one or more disciples of Jesus within the Q community, after the common oral tradition had spilt between his Gnostic and proto-orthodox followers, and were added to Q but not Thomas.

That's a rather large assumption, though, isn't it? I don't think we have evidence to support it. A possible supposition, of course.

Theology evolves over time for both Gnostics and Orthodoxy.

I'm not sure we can, or should, assume a distinction on those terms.

There was certainly a distinction between 'the Gnostics' (a whole range of circa 2nd century cosmologies) and 'the orthodox' – but take the opposition of Cerinthus and John, without going into too much detail, Cerinthus is regarded as 'a gnostic' but to suggest that his opponent John was not, is clearly erroneous.

We'd have to draw a distinction between the Gnostic teachings and gnosis as such.

From hereon, I'll use the term jnani from the Hindu tradition, to avoid confusion.

Unfortunately, the orthodox have always taken a dim view of those who refuse to accept their creeds. “Anathema sit” as the saying goes.

As did the Gnostics, to be fair.

This stems to some extent from the idea that believing the correct doctrine is essential for salvation ...

Which both sides adhered to 'religiously'

... but also reflects the need of the powerful to control peoples’ minds.

Now we're getting into a whole other argument, and frankly I'm not interested in that. Again, the argument applies both sides.

Gnosis cannot be conveyed in words and doesn’t come from reciting a creed.

The same goes for faith, though, doesn't it?

And yet, the right word at the right time ... and the Gnostics have their credo.

I’ll revise to say Jesus was a wisdom teacher who taught salvation through Faith and Gnosis. Not every Christian will achieve Gnosis; not every Buddhist will achieve enlightenment, yet Jesus and Buddha offer salvation to all who follow their path.

I rather say it as Jesus taught salvation. Being who He is, there is inherently stuff for the jnani, for the bhakti ... He's addressing humanity as such, rather than a particular inclination ...

For those Christians who receive Gnosis from Jesus, the Kingdom of God is a present reality, and his Second Coming is less of a concern; they already dwell in His Kingdom as perfect light, just as a living Buddha dwells in Nirvana. Hence the lack of an apocalyptic interest in Thomas.

I think that's a rather large statement, and I rather this it's mistaken. I have met the 'simple faithful' who are saints and have tasted the parousia.

As for Thomas, that's a hypothesis, but really without evidence.

I'm not decrying the jnani, I rather reject the idea that the jnani path is superior to the bhakti, that's all.

Some of our best mystics show both jnani and bhakti in balance, really you can't have one without the other – it's just that the jnani likes to organise, classify and put words on the experience, whereas the bhakti is not so inclined ...

René Guénon was undoubtedly a gnostic – but lived the life of a bhaktic – a rather mundane existence, a European Muslim living in a quiet Cairo backstreet...

Compare these sayings from Paul, in his (authentic) letter to the Corinthians, and Jesus in the Gospel of Thomas:
Already you are filled! Already you have become rich! Without us you have become kings! And would that you did reign, so that we might share the rule with you!
- I Corinthians 4:8 (RSV)

Cf. Apocryphon of James:
He [The Savior] said, 'Verily I say unto you, no one will ever enter the kingdom of heaven at my bidding, but (only) because you yourselves are full. Leave James and Peter to me that I may fill them.' And having called these two, he drew them aside and bade the rest occupy themselves with that which they were about.
- NHC I, 2,29-40 (Translation Francis E. Williams)

It's curious that in the so-called Gnostic Gospels, Jesus is always taking someone or other aside for special education ... I think it says more about the author than about Jesus.

- Disclaimer alert: I came to Gnostic Christianity by way of Buddhism and Yoga.

I came to Christian Gnosis by way of the Sophia Perennis.

This seems to suggest if you don’t have Gnosis, you don’t get in.

If it does, it's wrong.

Surely ordinary Christians like you and me who establish a sincere relationship with Jesus and strive to follow his teaching will also be saved.

Yes.

Jesus died for us too.

Yes.

But great holy men such as St Anthony and the Desert Fathers, who achieve Gnosis and become “full” abide at a higher level.

That's a whole other discussion right there.

I go with the Parable of the Sower (Matthew 13). "But he that received seed into the good ground is he that heareth the word, and understandeth it; which also beareth fruit, and bringeth forth, some an hundredfold, some sixty, some thirty."

So each produces fruit according to their measure – some 100, some 60, some 30 – but all enter paradise, and for them, the experience of the beatitude is 100% ... what matters is I give my 30 everything I've got. That's what counts, not the 30.

- Bear in mind, I’m a heretic.

Well none of us is perfect!

Let us continue our search in fellowship.

Indeed.

 

[muhammad_isa]

Well none of us is perfect!

You can say that again!

People say we've got it made,
Don't they know we're so afraid,
I-i-solation.
We're afraid to be alone,
Everybody got to have a home, isolation…
- Lennon -

 

[Autogenes]

Greetings Thomas,

I’m a little slow getting back to you this time. We may not be as far apart as it might seem. You accept the soteriological value of Gnosis, but apparently don’t like the Christian Gnostic sects that emerged in the second century. Your objections seem to be primarily moral and philosophical. Bear in mind, other than the Nag Hammidi Library, most of what we know of the Gnostics was written by their opponents. Your opponents are sure to portray you in a negative light. The Romans said some pretty nasty things about the Christians that weren’t so nice. It may be true that some who believed they possessed Gnosis where “puffed up” about it, or maybe venerated by their peers. The same was probably true among Buddhists who became enlightened and attracted a circle of reverent admirers.

Within three centuries of the Buddha’s Parinirvana (I wouldn’t say “death,” that would be inaccurate) eighteen different schools, or sects of Buddhism had emerged, each with its own version of the abhidhamma, the metaphysical and philosophical writings that were added to the earlier Sutras (sayings) and Vinaya (moral and monastic orders) as part of the Buddhist Tripiṭaka. Later came the Mahayana and the esoteric Tantric Vajrayana, completing three turnings of the Wheel of Dharma.

My own preference back in the day was Samkhya, the Hindu philosophy connected with the Yoga Sutras of Patanjali. I became something of an authority on the subject, much to the amusement of my engineering office co-workers at the time. Eventually I realized great saints and buddhas have emerged from many diverse traditions, and the philosophical and theological disputes are a secondary concern. Are only those who believe the “right” philosophy or theology welcomed into heaven? That would be quite a mishap for someone who mistakenly chose the wrong philosophy at the start of their journey, unless they made a coursev adjustment later on. (I don’t mean to suggest philosophical discourse is without merit.)

Your comment:

“It's curious that in the so-called Gnostic Gospels, Jesus is always taking someone or other aside for special education ... I think it says more about the author than about Jesus. It's curious that in the so-called Gnostic Gospels, Jesus is always taking someone or other aside for special education ... I think it says more about the author than about Jesus.”

Consider Matt 13: 10-11: The disciples came to him and asked, “Why do you speak to the people in parables?”
He replied, “Because the knowledge of the secrets of the kingdom of heaven has been given to you, but not to them.

Every good teacher tailors the lesson to the student. You can’t teach calculus to someone who hasn’t mastered algebra. Teachers of esoteric Wisdom have always delivered teachings privately to advanced students when they are perceived ready to receive. Teachers within esoteric traditions also preach to the masses and officiate at public ceremonies and religious festivals.

When Jesus teaches love and forgiveness, this is clearly a message for all to hear. When Jesus speaks of the Kingdom of God as a present reality people don’t perceive, this would be the time for the “secret teachings.” Two thousand years later, people are still debating what He meant.

From an earlier post:

Autogenes:
Do you see Jesus as primarily an apocalyptic teacher?

Thomas:
I see Him primarily as a Redeemer.

What do you mean by that? From what are we redeemed, and how is the redemption accomplished?

As I understand orthodox theology, we are redeemed from the original sin committed by Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden. Death entered the world as a consequence of original sin, and salvation from sin and death was accomplished when Jesus sacrificed Himself and rose bodily from the tomb 3 days later. To receive the gift of salvation and ultimate bodily immortality, one must believe the bodily resurrection of Jesus is true, and presumably make at least some effort to follow His teachings.

If this doctrine were true, there could be no real salvation outside of Christianity, because you have to believe Christian doctrine to be saved.

I realize original sin is interpreted to mean separation from God. But how did this separation occur and how are humans at fault? Humans aren’t the only ones separated from God. The other animals are separated from God as well, and all are subject to death. Animals suffered and died long before humans appeared on Earth. If death didn’t enter the world from original sin, then Christ’s atonement for original sin wouldn’t convey victory over death for the believers.

That may be more than you want to answer with one post.

I can’t accept the traditional theological interpretation of Jesus’ death and resurrection. I see the resurrection as a spiritual event, both for Jesus and for us. Jesus appeared to His followers in a subtle body, not the fleshly body He wore before His crucifixion.

It’s easier for me to recognize Jesus as a teacher who shows a path to salvation, much as Buddha had done in India five centuries earlier. Jesus is unique for His emphasis on love and forgiveness; a true teacher of both Bhaki and Gnosis.

A teacher can also be a redeemer, freeing one from ignorance (separation from God) to Gnosis, (union with God), though only for those who listen and understand.

From whence did ignorance arise? Original sin?

We’ve shared a high-level discussion of some controversial topics, with differing opinions and without hostility. That’s rare in today’s world, almost a miracle.

Praise be to God.

 

[Thomas]

I’m a little slow getting back to you this time.

So am I!

You accept the soteriological value of Gnosis, but apparently don’t like the Christian Gnostic sects that emerged in the second century.

I'm not alone in that. Some contemporary Greek philosophers were equally caustic of certain syncretic aspects of the so-called 'Gnostic' movements ... of course, we need to be careful here, as 'Gnostic' itself was a label quite liberally applied many centuries later.

Your objections seem to be primarily moral and philosophical.

I don't think so.

My issue is syncretism, as opposed to synthesis.

Some of the Gnostic cosmogonies cannot sit alongside Genesis without contradiction, for example, whereas I've seen comparisons between the Biblical account and other religious systems as, if not complementary, at least not contradictory.

Then we have different narratives for the same event – was Christ crucified, apparently crucified, was an angel crucified, was Judas crucified, was another crucified in His place? Depends on who's Gnostic account you rely ... but they all reject the idea of crucifixion and resurrection without sound reasoning.

So in terms of historical movements, I'm far more a supporter of the various Platonic schools of gnosis than the 2nd century movements badged 'gnostic' – allowing that the only resources we have are pejorative.

If pushed, I'd say their 'fault' is the mixture of mythos and logos without clear metaphysical insight. The Kabbalah (and I'm no Kabbalist) manages to combine the two and present a clear metaphysic.

Your comment:
“It's curious that in the so-called Gnostic Gospels, Jesus is always taking someone or other aside for special education ... I think it says more about the author than about Jesus... "

Every good teacher tailors the lesson to the student. You can’t teach calculus to someone who hasn’t mastered algebra. Teachers of esoteric Wisdom have always delivered teachings privately to advanced students when they are perceived ready to receive. Teachers within esoteric traditions also preach to the masses and officiate at public ceremonies and religious festivals.

Agreed, and Peter, James and John seemed to have been picked out from the Twelve at times ... but that's not my point.

None of the canonical scribes claim their teaching is a secret teaching imparted to them only, whereas a number of the 'Gnostic' texts do just that.

What do you mean by that? From what are we redeemed, and how is the redemption accomplished?

From the separation from God – 'their hearts are far from me' (cf Isaiah 29:13; Ezekiel 33:31; Matthew 15:7–9) – achieved by a change of heart.

If this doctrine were true, there could be no real salvation outside of Christianity, because you have to believe Christian doctrine to be saved.

That's the hardline view ... not one that I subscribe to, personally, nor is

I realize original sin is interpreted to mean separation from God. But how did this separation occur and how are humans at fault?

One might argue that 'the Fall' was inevitable, and perhaps so, but it was not God-ordained.

The fault is putting oneself first – love is putting the other first.

In terms of Gnosis, I'd say the practice is of detachment and humility (I'm not sure you can have one without the other – whether the two terms are an objective and subjective term for the same thing).

Animals suffered and died long before humans appeared on Earth.

I think Scripture is perhaps talking of a spiritual death.

I can’t accept the traditional theological interpretation of Jesus’ death and resurrection. I see the resurrection as a spiritual event, both for Jesus and for us. Jesus appeared to His followers in a subtle body, not the fleshly body He wore before His crucifixion.

To me that's the old dualist dichotomy.

If something can be real in the spiritual domain, why not real in the physical domain – 'as above, so below'.

Jesus is unique for His emphasis on love and forgiveness; a true teacher of both Bhaki and Gnosis.

I'm not so sure He's unique in that regard, although I could be wrong.

A couple of points:
I probably push the envelope further than most in that I do not accept this world as merely a staging post to a better place.

I believe this world is just one aspect of the multitudinous states of being, and that my being is an instance of 'Being-as-such'; in that sense this world is as important as as valid as any other – although Buddhism does declare that this particular instance of being is rather special compared to other possible modes of being – and that deliverance from this mode or state of being to the Ultimate State, if you will, is a possibility.

I think that an element of our particular mode of being is 'reflective' in the sense of a particular awareness of the Divine and a sense of union that might not be conscious throughout the entire animal kingdom.

+++

Must go now ... but I have been enjoying our conversation immensely.

Peace be with you.

 

[Autogenes]

Greetings Thomas, and others who may be following our discussion,

From your last post: My issue <with Gnosticism> is syncretism, as opposed to synthesis.

I’m not sure the distinction, but the Gnostic mythology and philosophy certainly drew from multiple sources, mostly Jewish, Egyptian and Greek. I like the way they put it all together to express a revolutionary religious idea. I agree it’s not compatible with Genesis, much to the point. I can understand the notion of the Creator as a malevolent being might be objectional to Christian belief. The creator God of Israel, Yahweh, is worshipped as God the Father. Elaine Pagels glossed over this detail in The Gnostic Gospels, which offers a somewhat promotional view of Gnostics. I didn’t begin to grasp Gnostic mythology until I read Kurt Rudolph’s book Gnosis.

The Hindus have a Trinity of Brahma, the Creator, Vishnu, the Sustainer, and Shiva, the Destroyer. Brahma is not considered evil, but most Hindus worship Vishnu or Shiva, who destroys illusion which binds us to this world. Buddhism teaches cyclic reality, both in terms of personal reincarnation, and cosmological cycles. There’s no creation that sets the ball in motion, just endless cycles, without beginning or end. But samsara is duhkha, which doesn’t translate as “a nice place.” Better to awaken to nirvana. Yet Mahayanists famously insist samsara and nirvana are one. Perhaps as the Kingdom of God is a present really, if one could but realize it.

The Gnostics are the only ones to proclaim outright that the Creator God is evil, as far as I know. But as mentioned in an earlier post, I believe that stemmed from what happened (or didn’t happen) at Qumran, not to mention Masada and Jerusalem. The Essenes and other Jews believed, when push came to shove, their God would save them, as the Holy Scriptures and Teacher of Righteousness promised. But He didn’t… It’s not hard to see why Yahweh suffered a diminished reputation in the second century, at least in some circles. And if samsara is dukkha, perhaps the Creator isn’t so nice after all. I don’t have a problem with that. I see it as creative mythology, consistent with the Gnostic ideal of transcendence from the physical realm. I don’t see the physical universe as created by a higher being with salvific intent. I don’t know what caused the big bang, but I don’t believe it was Yahweh. I see the gods of all religions as anthropological personalities given to spiritual beings to enable their devotees to worship and enter into relationship. Yahweh in the Torah is quite different than Jesus in the Gospels.

Gnostics do have a harsh view of the world, no doubt. Hard to reconcile with the feeling one receives from witnessing a moonrise over the Cascades. Certainly, much of the evil that circulates in the world is of the manmade variety, perhaps a kinder and gentler beast might have fared better, but suffering and death come with the territory.

- I agree Jesus’ message of love and forgiveness was not unique, but strongly emphasized in His teaching and a distinguishing characteristic of His ministry.

From your post:

Autogenes said:

I can’t accept the traditional theological interpretation of Jesus’ death and resurrection. I see the resurrection as a spiritual event, both for Jesus and for us. Jesus appeared to His followers in a subtle body, not the fleshly body He wore before His crucifixion.

To me that's the old dualist dichotomy.

If something can be real in the spiritual domain, why not real in the physical domain – 'as above, so below'.

I’ll confess to dualism. I don’t believe the spirit realm and the physical universe are the same. Consciousness is, by nature, aware of the physical world, and seems to become fragmented when experiencing the world through the sense of an embodied being. I don’t believe a divine creator being intervenes in the world in a supernatural manner, Yahweh parting the Red Sea or Jesus walking on water in defiance of gravity, though all religions seem replete with stories of this nature. I do believe in psychic phenomenon however, clairvoyance and precognition, because I have experienced them myself. Science provides no explanation, so a spiritual realm we can interact with must exist. Spirit pervades the physical realm, but are they the same? Not to me.

I wasn’t sure if I believed in nirvana at first, until I realized the Dead Sea Scrolls were discovered only a year after Nag Hammadi. I had three thoughts in rapid succession:

Thought No. 1: My God, that’s the Second Coming of Christ.
Thought No. 2: I can’t just keep this to myself, but how would I explain it, and who would believe it.
Thought No 3: I’ll be an old man someday, pitching an idea everyone thinks is crazy.

Your closing remarks:

I believe this world is just one aspect of the multitudinous states of being, and that my being is an instance of 'Being-as-such'; in that sense this world is as important as as valid as any other – although Buddhism does declare that this particular instance of being is rather special compared to other possible modes of being – and that deliverance from this mode or state of being to the Ultimate State, if you will, is a possibility.

I think that an element of our particular mode of being is 'reflective' in the sense of a particular awareness of the Divine and a sense of union that might not be conscious throughout the entire animal kingdom.

- The world we inhabit is vast and mysterious no doubt, and underlain, I believe, by an eternal, omnipresent consciousness, also the root of our individualized consciousness; the Atman and the Brahman, or the Divine Spark within. To awaken that spark to eternal consciousness is to become one with God. We share much with our fellow beasts, but the capacity for oneness with God seems to be uniquely human, at least on this planet.

More to say, but I’ll leave it here for now.

I hope it won’t offend anyone if I wish you a Merry Christmas!

 

[Thomas]

Greetings –

From your last post: "My issue <with Gnosticism> is syncretism, as opposed to synthesis."

I’m not sure the distinction ...

Synthesis is contemplating A in the light of B, and B in the light of A, and arriving at a conclusion.
Syncretism is contemplating A, and 'redefining' B according to A.

+++

... the Gnostic mythology and philosophy certainly drew from multiple sources, mostly Jewish, Egyptian and Greek. I like the way they put it all together to express a revolutionary religious idea.

Well we'd have to discuss the ideas, as the Gnostic masters each had their own system.

I can understand the notion of the Creator as a malevolent being might be objectional to Christian belief.

I would have thought that was objectionable to any belief?

The Hindus have a Trinity of Brahma, the Creator, Vishnu, the Sustainer, and Shiva, the Destroyer.

Indeed, and some Hindu authorities argue that Westerners don't quite grasp the Trimurti, but rather present it as a Hindu version of the Trinity. That's syncretism. The Hindu teachings are quite distinct.

Perhaps as the Kingdom of God is a present really, if one could but realize it.

I'd say so.

The Gnostics are the only ones to proclaim outright that the Creator God is evil, as far as I know.

Quite. I'd say it's a logical nonsense.

'Evil' is by definition contrary to the Will of God – so the Gnostics came up with the creator Demiurge who was, unaccountably, ignorant about his/her own actions and the outcomes – for me there's simply too much imprinting the gods with human shortcomings.

Plato argued the same against the Greek pantheon – if they are Gods, why are they subject to the worst human vices?

It’s not hard to see why Yahweh suffered a diminished reputation in the second century, at least in some circles.

I'm not sure how Jewish those circles were.

I see it as creative mythology, consistent with the Gnostic ideal of transcendence from the physical realm.

I see that as the same-old, same-old.

I see the uniqueness of the Judeo Christian ideal as transcendence within the physical realm – that's far more exciting for me – not just the soul, but all creation finding its end in the Divine.

The old model is basically Platonic:
The souls exist in the eternal contemplation of the Divine;
They inexplicably fall away;
The Divine creates the physical world to catch and contain the falling soul.

(Some Gnostic schools introduced an abortive attempt at a creation to explain the necessity to create the world to contain the soul.)

In Greek the triune is Stasis (rest) Kinesis (movement/fall) Genesis (becoming – the world) via a series of emanations from the higher to the lower.

The view was the world was a place of punishment.
A later refinement, for example Origen, had the world a place of pedagogy, where souls learned to be good to return to the source.

The whole thing was turned on its head by the Genius St Maximus the Confessor:
Genesis (becoming, or coming into being, from nothing to something, creatio ex nihilo, the Alpha) – Kinesis (movement) – rest (in the Divine, the Omega)

I don’t see the physical universe as created by a higher being with salvific intent.

Nor do I.

I see the gods of all religions as anthropological personalities given to spiritual beings to enable their devotees to worship and enter into relationship.

I can agree – although I see that 'relationship' predates the gods.

And I think the Johannine scribe said it best: "Dearly beloved, we are now the sons of God; and it hath not yet appeared what we shall be. We know, that, when he shall appear, we shall be like to him: because we shall see him as he is." (1 John 3:2)
I think the gnosis implied in that statement is a benchmark test for every other model.

Gnostics do have a harsh view of the world, no doubt.

I see that as its primary flaw. A lack of metaphysical insight.

Autogenes said:
I’ll confess to dualism.

And the Gnostics read Scripture (non-dualist) through dualist eyes – we still tend to do so, a leftover of the profound impression of Hellenistic thought that underpins philosophy.

I don’t believe the spirit realm and the physical universe are the same.

Nor do I, but they are One, Or 'all in all'. Each in its oewn domain is 'good'. The human walks – or should – in both worlds.