| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
penitent leper
Guest
|
 Posted: Mon Feb 09, 2004 6:23 am Post subject: Gibson's 'Passion of the Christ' |
 |
|
It's a strange and interesting thing to contemplate all the furor
about Mel Gibson's new movie from a Gnostic perspective. As truly
"Catholic" iconography, the film surely promises more than one
cinematic meditation on "the Precious Wounds and Blood of Our Savior"
- which suggests some interesting Gnostic-related thoughts, e.g.:
1) Did Jesus really come "in the flesh"?
2) If he really came in the flesh, was he a human being who through
Gnostic insight realized himself as divine?
3) Was he a human being on whom/in whom the Logos/Spirit/Heavenly
Christ descended/or dwelled?
4) If an external spirit dwelled in Jesus' human persona, was It
consistently "there", or did it come and go? More importantly, did it
"abandon" Jesus at his death?
5) Can an external spirit undergo suffering? Did Jesus' "spirit"
suffer along with his human personality and his ape body?
6) Was Jesus' death on the cross a victimization, a martyrdom, or a
literal sin-expiating blood sacrifice? Did it happen in historical
spacetime or was it a mythic enactment projected on the material
plane?
7) If it was a literal sin-expiating blood sacrifice, what might
this say about the nature and "psychology" of Jesus and his God? What
kind of human being and what kind of deity collude to mutilate and
kill the said human being for "sins" committed by others?
 If Jesus and his God were in sacrificial collusion, was his God
therefore the Demiurge? If so, was Jesus entirely hylic and mistaken
about the nature of God and our relationship to God?
9) While conservative Christians are flocking to the film - which
hasn't opened yet, but for which they are pre-purchasing mass tickets
- many Gnostics may be laughing up their collective sleeve - since for
many Gnostics, "the body avails nothing", and Jesus' death at most was
a hylic function, or a divine charade played out for the benefit of an
ignorant humanity. (As Pagels points out, they also took the same
view toward Christian martyrdom, which for them was a fruitless hylic
exercise.)
10) The film is said to contain a brief resurrection sequence. From
a Gnostic perspective, what does a resurrection mean, if the
resurrected One was always a pure spirit docetically appearing among
us? Jesus' "transformation" from mortal body to matter-manipulating
immortal spirit via the resurrection is only a true transformation
from the hylic perspective that he had been "in the flesh". From a
certain Gnostic viewpoint, since Jesus was always pure spirit, the
resurrection either didn't happen, or if it did, it was largely
irrelevant to his true nature and status.
= = =
Anyway, just some random thoughts while waiting for the debut of
this "much-awaited" film. Opinions most welcome.
- pl - |
|
| |
|
 Back to top |
Carlcat
Guest
|
| Posted: Mon Feb 09, 2004 12:30 pm Post subject: Re: Gibson's 'Passion of the Christ' |
|
|
penitent leper wrote:
| Quote: | 1) Did Jesus really come "in the flesh"?
|
What do you mean by flesh? Freke and Gandi in the Jesus Mysteries, and
other works, argue that Jesus was not a historical person, but a
spiritual reality depicted to convey the Wisdom of the Mystery Religions
and Gnostic insights, in the writings that we have, the canonical
Gospels being the writings for outsiders and new initiates, to supply a
common teminology, themes, and story to work with, to be supplemented by
deeper spiritual and allegorical interpretations once found to be more
mature, as Paul said, offering mysteries to those who were ready to put
asside milk for meat. Valentinians, Ptolemy, and others, spoke of a
psychic/soul/animal body, supremely made, distinct from mere hylic
material substantiality. Some argue that his body appeared tangible at
times. But what does the question mean? By 'flesh' do you mean sin,
lack, ignorance, etc.? Then no. If by 'flesh' you mean something that
could be touched, well it appeared to be 'flesh', at least. Why argue
one way or the other? I personally don't see the need to press one view
over another.
| Quote: | 2) If he really came in the flesh, was he a human being who through
Gnostic insight realized himself as divine?
|
I think Christ is the Fullness of God. I think agents from God, or from
spiritual realities closer to God, have been working throughout human
history, to convey teachings, to encourage spirituality, but that Christ
and his story, has a Fullness of Divinity, that is pronounced and has
its unique aspects.
| Quote: | 3) Was he a human being on whom/in whom the Logos/Spirit/Heavenly
Christ descended/or dwelled?
|
What do you mean by 'human'... my humanity is not defined by materiality
or 'flesh' in the sense of ignorance and bondage to forces of nature,
etc. It does seem that some sort of apparently bodily vehicle received
an annointing at Baptism. To say that a body of SOME sort (again, why
emphasize flesh?), received the Divine Fullness of Spirit at Baptism,
could explain things. Or it was at least some special annointing.
| Quote: | 4) If an external spirit dwelled in Jesus' human persona, was It
consistently "there", or did it come and go? More importantly, did it
"abandon" Jesus at his death?
|
Again, what died? The world was crucified, and shown as crucified. If
Jesus cried "my God my God why did you abandon me", what does it mean?
More importantly, what does it refer to? Sophia's passion? Sophia
encountered the limit (Horos), the cross (Stauros). She repented, and
then here lower manifestation wondered what happened when the higher
Sophia went above, when the Aeon's appeared and retreated. Irenaeus,
Against Heresies, Book I, is a good read as a whole.
| Quote: | 5) Can an external spirit undergo suffering? Did Jesus' "spirit"
suffer along with his human personality and his ape body?
|
Well Aeons are described as disturbed or undergoing a passion or desire
to Know the transcendent God fully...
But another question is, does knowing pain and having full compassion,
involve some sot of clear appreciation of such a passion?
But is clear insight, appreciation, and awareness of what others go
through, make a spiritual entity LOSE anything?
Caught up in the controversy over suffering, is the notion of suffering
real insult or lack. There is no way that God was actually diminished,
or suffered a real lack. Likewise with Christ's Spirit. The psyche can
be scarred, and also healed. The body is worm food, under the laws of
ordinary matter. What kind of ordinary body could resurrect? NO
ORDINARY BODY.
So what KIND of body? Not matter. Material flesh and blood will never
inherit the kingdom. Not matter as we know and experience it here. To
make matter that radically different is to destroy matter and put
SOMETHING GREATER in its place.
| Quote: | 6) Was Jesus' death on the cross a victimization, a martyrdom, or a
literal sin-expiating blood sacrifice? Did it happen in historical
spacetime or was it a mythic enactment projected on the material
plane?
|
God, Christ,....
Victim? Not in any sense that makes ordinary sense. God, Christ denied
by this world and its powers and authorities? All the time, including
all crucifixions and deaths by torture, rape, etc.
Martyr? What was martyred? A psyche? A lower psychic aspect? What?
If I were to martyr, what would I be giving up? Nothing essential to
me. So nothing essential to me was martyred.
Sin-expiating blood sacrifice? Sacrifice to WHO? Satan? The World?
The Old Testament prohibits human sacrifice, yet could a supreme psychic
vehicle could contain all accepted sacrifices within it? Saying "Jesus
is my Sacrifice" is, as Marcus Borg put it, a way of saying to the
Temple, that they can't exclude you or pronounce you impure or sinful,
because the True God accepted you, through Jesus. I.e. no need for
sacrifice or the Temple. To overemphasize a few such rare passages, and
take it literally and attempt to tie it into Hebrew sacrifice, is a
perversion, distortion.
Historical spacetime? What does that mean? I am not required to have
faith in this world and its historians or Church authorities, mere
humans. Did you discover a Spirit within you, in your own historical
spacetime?
Mythic enactment projected on the material plane? Soime Myths are more
real than literal historical materialistically verifiable occurences.
| Quote: | 7) If it was a literal sin-expiating blood sacrifice, what might
this say about the nature and "psychology" of Jesus and his God? What
kind of human being and what kind of deity collude to mutilate and
kill the said human being for "sins" committed by others?
|
Well I think Marcion felt that the sacrifice was to the Demiurge of this
world, depicted as ignorant, bloodthirsty, and condemning. Some might
say Satan and/or Death took the bloody human sacrifice, because they,
unlike the source of the Law, have no such prohibition against it.
| Quote: | If Jesus and his God were in sacrificial collusion, was his God
therefore the Demiurge? If so, was Jesus entirely hylic and mistaken
about the nature of God and our relationship to God?
|
What part of Jesus would have colluded in such an arrangement, and why?
Is tricking an ignorant being to save others, not praiseworthy?
| Quote: | 9) While conservative Christians are flocking to the film - which
hasn't opened yet, but for which they are pre-purchasing mass tickets
- many Gnostics may be laughing up their collective sleeve - since for
many Gnostics, "the body avails nothing", and Jesus' death at most was
a hylic function, or a divine charade played out for the benefit of an
ignorant humanity. (As Pagels points out, they also took the same
view toward Christian martyrdom, which for them was a fruitless hylic
exercise.)
|
Although some Gnostics disagree on that. Some saw the crucifixion as
portraying, for all to see, elements of the passion of Sophia, through a
non-spiritual vehicle or appearance.
The passion demonstrates the nature of the body, a great contemplation
on death and this bloody existence, the nature of the world's bondage,
and the nature of the world's rulers and authorities (the Romans who
executed, and the Temple Hierarchy that instigated, and the
metaphysical/psychic and demonic realities behind them) What's more,
some conventional psychic/soulish ordinary Christians do grasp these
teachings, demonstrating much Spiritual/pneumatic/mystical potential.
| Quote: | 10) The film is said to contain a brief resurrection sequence. From
a Gnostic perspective, what does a resurrection mean, if the
resurrected One was always a pure spirit docetically appearing among
us? Jesus' "transformation" from mortal body to matter-manipulating
immortal spirit via the resurrection is only a true transformation
from the hylic perspective that he had been "in the flesh". From a
certain Gnostic viewpoint, since Jesus was always pure spirit, the
resurrection either didn't happen, or if it did, it was largely
irrelevant to his true nature and status.
|
Resurection docetically? Not all Gnostics were docetists or strict
docetists, apparently. The body is worm food, yet a psyche can be
scarred and healed, and the status of psyche's potential, IN GENERAL,
can be expanded. Resurrection demonstrates Christ's Spiritual nature,
and this is why it matters, because Spirit can perhaps transform and
heal souls, but more importantly, Spirit can plant Spiritual seeds that
will return to the Divine Fullness.
Transormation... the Gospels indicate miracles that defied mere
materiality, and Jesus appearing as a great light on the mountain,
etc... these transformations existed pre-resurrection. The
transformation was a psychic/soul appearance of the passion of Sophia
being transformed by the presence of Spirit, the Savior.
If Jesus had a soul body, a psychic vehicle, then its substance was a
part of the lower Sophia, involving the Power the Demiurge stole from
Sophia and was tricked into releasing into Adam, and involving shaping
by the Demiurge or other shapers of the cosmic/psychic/soul realm. To
show a death and resurrection parallel to the passion of Sophia through
his psychic/soul body, would be a profound thing. If our Soul accepts
the Spirit then the Spirit ascends. Whether the soul is fully healed
and reclaimed, or left behind on a lower level, it is still significant
that inside it a Spirit can emerge and return to God. Doing this with a
borrowed or 'put on' psychic body, is still ground-breaking and
earth-crucifying. |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
penitent leper
Guest
|
| Posted: Mon Feb 09, 2004 1:57 pm Post subject: Re: Gibson's 'Passion of the Christ' |
|
|
On Mon, 09 Feb 2004 06:30:44 GMT, Carlcat <booboo@booboo.net> wrote:
| Quote: | penitent leper wrote:
1) Did Jesus really come "in the flesh"?
What do you mean by flesh? Freke and Gandi in the Jesus Mysteries, and
other works, argue that Jesus was not a historical person, but a
spiritual reality depicted to convey the Wisdom of the Mystery Religions
and Gnostic insights, in the writings that we have, the canonical
Gospels being the writings for outsiders and new initiates, to supply a
common teminology, themes, and story to work with, to be supplemented by
deeper spiritual and allegorical interpretations once found to be more
mature, as Paul said, offering mysteries to those who were ready to put
asside milk for meat. Valentinians, Ptolemy, and others, spoke of a
psychic/soul/animal body, supremely made, distinct from mere hylic
material substantiality. Some argue that his body appeared tangible at
times. But what does the question mean? By 'flesh' do you mean sin,
lack, ignorance, etc.? Then no.
|
Possibly. But his appearance along with "sinful Israel" to be
baptized indicates his commonality with unregenerate man, just as his
transformation by descent of the spirit might indicate his departure
from that commonality.
| Quote: | If by 'flesh' you mean something that
could be touched, well it appeared to be 'flesh', at least. Why argue
one way or the other?
|
The argument is forced on us by the christological question
generally, by the Gnostic/Orthodox conflict, and by such social events
as Gibson's new flick.
The question is important because "where your treasure lies, there
also is your heart". If JC was flesh, a different set of issues flow
from that than from the opposite position that he was not flesh. This
conflict split the Church, and is still debated.
Moreover, it matters whether Jesus was the projection/incarnation
of God, a deity, a supernatural being... or whether he was a human
being who realized his "Christhood" or Buddhahood.
The first proposition suggests that he was ontologically "Great".
The second suggests that his "Greatness" was a transformative
experience of a human being.
- snip -
By "flesh" I mean "human being" - body, soul, mind, spirit. One of
us.
| Quote: | 2) If he really came in the flesh, was he a human being who through
Gnostic insight realized himself as divine?
I think Christ is the Fullness of God. I think agents from God, or from
spiritual realities closer to God, have been working throughout human
history, to convey teachings, to encourage spirituality, but that Christ
and his story, has a Fullness of Divinity, that is pronounced and has
its unique aspects.
|
Fine, but the question was, Was he one of us, and if so did he
undergo a transformation from commonality to enlightenment. If he was
nothing but god's fullness, then presumably your answer is No, he was
always pure spirit. Yes, he had unique aspects, but were these traits
of a personal transformation in/of the flesh; or were they his traits
ontologically as a pre-existent spirit being?
| Quote: | 3) Was he a human being on whom/in whom the Logos/Spirit/Heavenly
Christ descended/or dwelled?
What do you mean by 'human'...
|
Body, brain. Mind, soul, spirit. One of us.
| Quote: | my humanity is not defined by materiality
|
But presumably your humanity reacts to materiality, such as hunger,
desire, and death...?
| Quote: | or 'flesh' in the sense of ignorance and bondage to forces of nature,
etc. It does seem that some sort of apparently bodily vehicle received
an annointing at Baptism. To say that a body of SOME sort (again, why
emphasize flesh?), received the Divine Fullness of Spirit at Baptism,
could explain things. Or it was at least some special annointing.
4) If an external spirit dwelled in Jesus' human persona, was It
consistently "there", or did it come and go? More importantly, did it
"abandon" Jesus at his death?
Again, what died?
|
Depends on who he was.
One of us? Then he died - was annihilated or survived spiritually in
the afterlife.
A docetic projection? Then the whole thing was a masquerade - he
neither lived nor died.
| Quote: | The world was crucified, and shown as crucified.
|
According to Paul and "Pauline" authors. The world was surely shown
to be powerful and evil.
| Quote: | If
Jesus cried "my God my God why did you abandon me", what does it mean?
More importantly, what does it refer to? Sophia's passion? Sophia
encountered the limit (Horos), the cross (Stauros). She repented, and
then here lower manifestation wondered what happened when the higher
Sophia went above, when the Aeon's appeared and retreated. Irenaeus,
Against Heresies, Book I, is a good read as a whole.
5) Can an external spirit undergo suffering? Did Jesus' "spirit"
suffer along with his human personality and his ape body?
Well Aeons are described as disturbed or undergoing a passion or desire
to Know the transcendent God fully...
But another question is, does knowing pain and having full compassion,
involve some sort of clear appreciation of such a passion?
|
Good question. Jung suggested that the creator needed to incarnate
in order to experience physically, emotionally - in the flesh - the
full panoply of human living, including suffering.
| Quote: | But is clear insight, appreciation, and awareness of what others go
through, make a spiritual entity LOSE anything?
|
Excellent consideration. Jesus' incarnation is called in the NT a
kenosis or self-emptying into servitude and death. Is this a literal
description or a metaphor? Did god/Christ lose a measure of deity
while simultaneously gaining personal physical experience?
| Quote: | Caught up in the controversy over suffering, is the notion of suffering
real insult or lack. There is no way that God was actually diminished,
or suffered a real lack. Likewise with Christ's Spirit. The psyche can
be scarred, and also healed. The body is worm food, under the laws of
ordinary matter. What kind of ordinary body could resurrect? NO
ORDINARY BODY.
|
Exactly, but don't tell the fundies.
| Quote: | So what KIND of body? Not matter. Material flesh and blood will never
inherit the kingdom. Not matter as we know and experience it here. To
make matter that radically different is to destroy matter and put
SOMETHING GREATER in its place.
|
Yes, a body that can levitate, bilocate, pass through solids, is not
really a body at all.
| Quote: | 6) Was Jesus' death on the cross a victimization, a martyrdom, or a
literal sin-expiating blood sacrifice? Did it happen in historical
spacetime or was it a mythic enactment projected on the material
plane?
God, Christ,....
Victim? Not in any sense that makes ordinary sense.
|
Unless Jesus was a mortal human being who became enlightened and
whose message caught him in a messianic police sweep.
| Quote: | God, Christ denied
by this world and its powers and authorities? All the time, including
all crucifixions and deaths by torture, rape, etc.
Martyr? What was martyred? A psyche? A lower psychic aspect? What?
If I were to martyr, what would I be giving up? Nothing essential to
me. So nothing essential to me was martyred.
|
Right, if you're a Gnostic, but the question is, Was Jesus such? The
Gospels express his doubt and fear re: his own death.
| Quote: | Sin-expiating blood sacrifice? Sacrifice to WHO? Satan? The World?
The Old Testament prohibits human sacrifice, yet could a supreme psychic
vehicle could contain all accepted sacrifices within it? Saying "Jesus
is my Sacrifice" is, as Marcus Borg put it, a way of saying to the
Temple, that they can't exclude you or pronounce you impure or sinful,
because the True God accepted you, through Jesus. I.e. no need for
sacrifice or the Temple. To overemphasize a few such rare passages, and
take it literally and attempt to tie it into Hebrew sacrifice, is a
perversion, distortion.
|
I agree with Borg here. It would seem that the earliest group to
align Jesus' death with Jewish sacrifice were Jews who followed Jesus.
"Christ, our Passover, has been sacrificed", while a Pauline citation,
almost certainly reflects early Jewish Christian soteriology.
| Quote: | Historical spacetime? What does that mean?
|
The realm of body and ego and matter - and their stream of action
through time.
| Quote: | I am not required to have
faith in this world and its historians or Church authorities, mere
humans. Did you discover a Spirit within you, in your own historical
spacetime?
|
Yep, "in" spacetime, but not "of" it.
| Quote: | Mythic enactment projected on the material plane? Soime Myths are more
real than literal historical materialistically verifiable occurences.
|
True, as Jung, Eliade, and Campbell, among others, have shown.
| Quote: | 7) If it was a literal sin-expiating blood sacrifice, what might
this say about the nature and "psychology" of Jesus and his God? What
kind of human being and what kind of deity collude to mutilate and
kill the said human being for "sins" committed by others?
Well I think Marcion felt that the sacrifice was to the Demiurge of this
world, depicted as ignorant, bloodthirsty, and condemning. Some might
say Satan and/or Death took the bloody human sacrifice, because they,
unlike the source of the Law, have no such prohibition against it.
|
Did Marcion say that Jesus was aware of this subterfuge? Surely
Marcion's Jesus was not a dupe?
| Quote: | If Jesus and his God were in sacrificial collusion, was his God
therefore the Demiurge? If so, was Jesus entirely hylic and mistaken
about the nature of God and our relationship to God?
What part of Jesus would have colluded in such an arrangement, and why?
Is tricking an ignorant being to save others, not praiseworthy?
|
Maybe that's what Marcion held?
Tricking a dope deity to save others is fine as an allegory, but
imho is a childish story if taken literally.
| Quote: | 9) While conservative Christians are flocking to the film - which
hasn't opened yet, but for which they are pre-purchasing mass tickets
- many Gnostics may be laughing up their collective sleeve - since for
many Gnostics, "the body avails nothing", and Jesus' death at most was
a hylic function, or a divine charade played out for the benefit of an
ignorant humanity. (As Pagels points out, they also took the same
view toward Christian martyrdom, which for them was a fruitless hylic
exercise.)
Although some Gnostics disagree on that. Some saw the crucifixion as
portraying, for all to see, elements of the passion of Sophia, through a
non-spiritual vehicle or appearance.
The passion demonstrates the nature of the body, a great contemplation
on death and this bloody existence, the nature of the world's bondage,
and the nature of the world's rulers and authorities (the Romans who
executed, and the Temple Hierarchy that instigated, and the
metaphysical/psychic and demonic realities behind them)
|
Those are nice thoughts there.
| Quote: | What's more,
some conventional psychic/soulish ordinary Christians do grasp these
teachings, demonstrating much Spiritual/pneumatic/mystical potential.
|
Right, and some of these include writers like Borg.
| Quote: | 10) The film is said to contain a brief resurrection sequence. From
a Gnostic perspective, what does a resurrection mean, if the
resurrected One was always a pure spirit docetically appearing among
us? Jesus' "transformation" from mortal body to matter-manipulating
immortal spirit via the resurrection is only a true transformation
from the hylic perspective that he had been "in the flesh". From a
certain Gnostic viewpoint, since Jesus was always pure spirit, the
resurrection either didn't happen, or if it did, it was largely
irrelevant to his true nature and status.
Resurection docetically? Not all Gnostics were docetists or strict
docetists, apparently.
|
Yes, I know. I was speaking of those who did so regard Jesus as a
docetic phenomenon.
| Quote: | The body is worm food, yet a psyche can be
scarred and healed, and the status of psyche's potential, IN GENERAL,
can be expanded. Resurrection demonstrates Christ's Spiritual nature,
|
In early Jewish Xty, Jesus' resurrection also demonstrated his
messianic significance, as well as the response of God to Jesus'
execution. Jesus was chiefly revealed as a spiritual being via his
resurrection, whereas, in Marcus Borg's terminology, the "pre-Easter
Jesus" was generally bound by body/space/time.
| Quote: | and this is why it matters, because Spirit can perhaps transform and
heal souls, but more importantly, Spirit can plant Spiritual seeds that
will return to the Divine Fullness.
Transformation... the Gospels indicate miracles that defied mere
materiality, and Jesus appearing as a great light on the mountain,
etc... these transformations existed pre-resurrection. The
transformation was a psychic/soul appearance of the passion of Sophia
being transformed by the presence of Spirit, the Savior.
|
Yes, that works as one interpretation. Another is that in the
Transfiguration, Jesus radiated the Kavod or Glory of YHVH.
Of course, from the perceptive level, Jesus was seen to be
transformed by the resurrection in a different way than he was in the
Transfiguration.
| Quote: | If Jesus had a soul body, a psychic vehicle, then its substance was a
part of the lower Sophia, involving the Power the Demiurge stole from
Sophia and was tricked into releasing into Adam, and involving shaping
by the Demiurge or other shapers of the cosmic/psychic/soul realm. To
show a death and resurrection parallel to the passion of Sophia through
his psychic/soul body, would be a profound thing. If our Soul accepts
the Spirit then the Spirit ascends. Whether the soul is fully healed
and reclaimed, or left behind on a lower level,
|
Could you expand on this - what's "in it" for the soul abandoned by
its Spirit? It seems a rather parasitic relationship for both.
| Quote: | it is still significant
that inside it a Spirit can emerge and return to God. Doing this with a
borrowed or 'put on' psychic body, is still ground-breaking and
earth-crucifying.
|
Again, how does the soul benefit from "possession" by a Spirit?
Perhaps the soul would opt for self-redemption as in Buddhism, and
leave the Spirit to incarnate in someone else.
- pl - |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
Guest
|
| Posted: Mon Feb 09, 2004 8:52 pm Post subject: Re: Gibson's 'Passion of the Christ' |
|
|
Carlcat <booboo@booboo.net> writes:
| Quote: | penitent leper wrote:
1) Did Jesus really come "in the flesh"?
What do you mean by flesh? Freke and Gandi in the Jesus Mysteries,
and other works, argue that Jesus was not a historical person,
|
of course it isn't a historical person,
as decent scholars like Robert Price, Gustaaf Adolf van den Bergh van Eysinga,
Acharya S, Arthur Drews know.
Klaus Schilling |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
Carlcat
Guest
|
| Posted: Tue Feb 10, 2004 10:59 am Post subject: Re: Gibson's 'Passion of the Christ' |
|
|
pessolo@freemail.it wrote:
| Quote: | Carlcat <booboo@booboo.net> writes:
penitent leper wrote:
1) Did Jesus really come "in the flesh"?
What do you mean by flesh? Freke and Gandi in the Jesus Mysteries,
and other works, argue that Jesus was not a historical person,
of course it isn't a historical person,
as decent scholars like Robert Price, Gustaaf Adolf van den Bergh van Eysinga,
Acharya S, Arthur Drews know.
Klaus Schilling
|
And they make valid points, like, why in an era with more immediate
historical evidence than most other historical eras, is there so little,
in a whole roomful of works of history for the first century, only 4
historical references, all of which say nothing of any importance about
Jesus or Christ, 2 of which are understood to contain editorial
insertion/forgery, and the other 2 which say nothing about what Jesus
was, Jesus's name in Palestine being a common name anyhow, and nothing
substantial about what the Christians were other than the name and
concerns about whether it is authentic or meaningful at all. We are
talking about 4 short passages, that don't say much anyhow. Otherwise
we have religious documents like the New Testament and early church
writings, which have a bias from the religious community and religious
viewpoint, and are of more value of comparative religoin than to history.
So if you believe Jesus was a historical person, it is an opinion, one
without historical substantiation, but with a religious tradition that
can be taken for granted, or assumed. If you believe anything else
about this assumed historical Jesus, you are in the realm of religious
interpretation, philosophy, and opinion, i.e. some sort of faith and
iterpretation of scriptures, traditions, etc. beyond the bounds of
scientific/historical probability on any of the issues that crop up as
controversies.
Conclusion:
Historical data is not sufficient to conclude what a historical Jesus
would have been like, or very much about him, if he did exist, and there
are only 4 very shoddy and dubious sources, 2 demonstrable forgeries,
asside from religious traditions and scriptures, to go on. So there
really isn't anything solid to base a historical Jesus on, using only
purely historical information. Using the religious materials that are
available, one gets into the realm of faith and comparative religion,
not a clear view of history.
Several frameworks of interpreting the data in religious/philosophical
terms are available, so it really SHOULD boil down to your Spiritual
Knowledge, guided by Spiritual Fruit in your own experience,
contemplating the matters and themes. That is the beginning of Gnostic
thought or at least independent mystical exploration.
The clearest view of Jesus is through personal mystical exploration of
the themes, something that leads often to some Gnostic perspectives. |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
Carlcat
Guest
|
| Posted: Tue Feb 10, 2004 11:41 am Post subject: Re: Gibson's 'Passion of the Christ' |
|
|
penitent leper wrote:
| Quote: | On Mon, 09 Feb 2004 06:30:44 GMT, Carlcat <booboo@booboo.net> wrote:
penitent leper wrote:
1) Did Jesus really come "in the flesh"?
But his appearance along with "sinful Israel" to be
baptized indicates his commonality with unregenerate man, just as his
transformation by descent of the spirit might indicate his departure
from that commonality.
|
Or it indicates his reception of a special grace beyond what the others
received, i.e., the descent of the Dove, his Christ nature spirit, or a
psychic initiation rather than a bodily flesh purification.
| Quote: | The argument is forced on us by the christological question
generally, by the Gnostic/Orthodox conflict, and by such social events
as Gibson's new flick.
|
Ok, if there is no spiritual Christ, why bother. If there is no
material body, so what? Perhaps we should say so much the better. A
good spiritual vision is often far more insightful than recounting human
episodes.
If there is no Spiritual truth to Christ and various aspects of
Christianity or Gnosticism, or anything else, then what is of value in
it anyway?
If there is no material bodily materialization, then what do we loose,
in terms of Siriutal Fruit? By the fruits ye shall know them.
I deny the validity of the question "did Jesus come in the flesh" and
answer, I do not deny or affirm it, because the questioner cannot answer
truly what the flesh or the spirit is, without Gnosis. And even with
SOME spiritual insight, what are words for spirit, and what is matter?
I cannot affirm or deny a poorly phrased and loaded question, with any
meaning to either my affirmation or my denial. The point from the NT
regarded those who denied it. I do not deny it because I don't
understand the question. Not to be tricky, but really, what does the
question mean?
| Quote: | The question is important because "where your treasure lies, there
also is your heart". If JC was flesh, a different set of issues flow
from that than from the opposite position that he was not flesh. This
conflict split the Church, and is still debated.
|
The orthodox position is that Jesus was both. They do not deny that
Jesus was Spirit, they do not deny that Jesus was human. They go
further and go on about 'flesh' or something. It is not either-or for
them, but a both-and in terms of human and spirit. But they do not
clarify the importance of or meaning of 'the flesh', in this matter.
Human? In form and some metaphysical essence, yes. Isn't that what
matters? Anything said about human transformatoin is affirmed if Jesus
was Human in form and metaphysical essence. Even that is debated, but
Gnostics affirm he had human form, because they acknowledge human
appearance.
But the Divine/Spiritual nature is most important, as Orthodox and
Gnostic agree.
| Quote: | Moreover, it matters whether Jesus was the projection/incarnation
of God, a deity, a supernatural being... or whether he was a human
being who realized his "Christhood" or Buddhahood.
The first proposition suggests that he was ontologically "Great".
The second suggests that his "Greatness" was a transformative
experience of a human being.
|
Jesus IS the incarnation of a Spiritual reality, that is ontologically
'Great', as well as involved in transformation of others, and in
transformation of his appearance/human form (psychic/soulish vehicle)
| Quote: |
- snip -
By "flesh" I mean "human being" - body, soul, mind, spirit. One of
us.
|
Is a soul body a body? Yes. If you mean material body, what sort of
material body has radience like when Jesus was said to be on the
mountain.... what sort of material body does what Jesus while living was
claimed to do? No ORDINARY body, and he was claimed to be sinless, no
ORDINARY STATE of existence, in any material sense or in terms of
'flesh' as understood in Paul, etc.
| Quote: | 2) If he really came in the flesh, was he a human being who through
Gnostic insight realized himself as divine?
Fine, but the question was, Was he one of us, and if so did he
undergo a transformation from commonality to enlightenment.
|
If he was more than one of us, what then of your question? I see no
reason to say he transformed from ignorance or commonality associated
with flesh and matter, because his essence was Spirit.
| Quote: | 3) Was he a human being on whom/in whom the Logos/Spirit/Heavenly
Christ descended/or dwelled?
my humanity is not defined by materiality
But presumably your humanity reacts to materiality, such as hunger,
desire, and death...?
|
My psyche responds to that. My body merely feeds and fuels it in this.
My humanity is my Spirit. Anthropos is a Spiritual reality.
| Quote: | 4) If an external spirit dwelled in Jesus' human persona, was It
consistently "there", or did it come and go? More importantly, did it
"abandon" Jesus at his death?
Again, what died?
Depends on who he was.
One of us? Then he died - was annihilated or survived spiritually in
the afterlife.
|
No one claims that God actually died, or that Jesus' Spirit actually
died, do they? What the claim is, is that the human form/appearance
confronted death. Why make this material?
There is no essence of Humanity in the material, and so there is no
relation to salvation in the material, or material states.
| Quote: | A docetic projection? Then the whole thing was a masquerade - he
neither lived nor died.
|
What about a soul reality, an appearance of a vehicle not simply matter,
but animate and supremely made? If it seems tangible, we say tangible,
if it seems to be an ordinary body, we call it flesh, but is that what
it is? Why insist on THAT?
Our body wasn't saved, our soul was, right?
| Quote: | 5) Can an external spirit undergo suffering? Did Jesus' "spirit"
suffer along with his human personality and his ape body?
Well Aeons are described as disturbed or undergoing a passion or desire
to Know the transcendent God fully...
But another question is, does knowing pain and having full compassion,
involve some sort of clear appreciation of such a passion?
Good question. Jung suggested that the creator needed to incarnate
in order to experience physically, emotionally - in the flesh - the
full panoply of human living, including suffering.
|
Well the psyche can experience that on its own, being given the right
stimulus, without a material body... if you say it can't, why not? And
on what basis?
| Quote: | But is clear insight, appreciation, and awareness of what others go
through, make a spiritual entity LOSE anything?
Excellent consideration. Jesus' incarnation is called in the NT a
kenosis or self-emptying into servitude and death. Is this a literal
description or a metaphor? Did god/Christ lose a measure of deity
while simultaneously gaining personal physical experience?
|
Servitude and death sounds like the form/appearance shown to the world.
| Quote: | ordinary matter. What kind of ordinary body could resurrect? NO
ORDINARY BODY.
Exactly, but don't tell the fundies.
|
Actually, some Pentecostals I talked with some years ago said that it
was a glorified body. Glorified is a key term, here, bridging the
Orthodox and Gnostic conceptualizations.
| Quote: | Yes, a body that can levitate, bilocate, pass through solids, is not
really a body at all.
|
Ah, perhaps a psychic body, a soulish (or if you will accept the
occult/new age term 'astral') vehicle can. What about ectoplasm? Lots
of theories one might use.
| Quote: | 6) Was Jesus' death on the cross a victimization, a martyrdom, or a
God, Christ,....
Victim? Not in any sense that makes ordinary sense.
Unless Jesus was a mortal human being who became enlightened and
whose message caught him in a messianic police sweep.
|
That's not the way I look at it. Yet some Gnostics say a mortal Jesus
did in fact die, etc., but that isn't the savior, but a vehicle for the
Savior, the Christ. I understand the theory, but I prefer to emphasize
the Spiritual reality. The Spiritual Christ/Savior underwent no process
of enlightening, the way I understand it, but was always Full of Divinity.
| Quote: | God, Christ denied
by this world and its powers and authorities? All the time, including
all crucifixions and deaths by torture, rape, etc.
Martyr? What was martyred? A psyche? A lower psychic aspect? What?
If I were to martyr, what would I be giving up? Nothing essential to
me. So nothing essential to me was martyred.
Right, if you're a Gnostic, but the question is, Was Jesus such? The
Gospels express his doubt and fear re: his own death.
|
Psychic/soulish phenomenon of appearance? Or symbolic of the passion of
Sophia. Her anguish, terror, grief, created the elements, just as
Jesus' grief, doubt, etc., is involved in the passion of crucifixion of
the world.
| Quote: | Historical spacetime? What does that mean?
The realm of body and ego and matter - and their stream of action
through time.
|
Ok, could be psychic/soulish/'astral'.
| Quote: | 7) If it was a literal sin-expiating blood sacrifice, what might
Well I think Marcion felt that the sacrifice was to the Demiurge of this
world, depicted as ignorant, bloodthirsty, and condemning.
Did Marcion say that Jesus was aware of this subterfuge? Surely
Marcion's Jesus was not a dupe?
|
I think Marcion had Jesus as appearance, but perhaps a psychic body was
made by the Demiurge, and so was capable of duping? Not sure. Been a
while since I read about it.
| Quote: | If Jesus and his God were in sacrificial collusion, was his God
therefore the Demiurge?
What part of Jesus would have colluded in such an arrangement, and why?
Is tricking an ignorant being to save others, not praiseworthy?
Maybe that's what Marcion held?
Tricking a dope deity to save others is fine as an allegory, but
imho is a childish story if taken literally.
|
Unless the dope diety really is in charge of matterial reality and the
souls trapped there, and the True God is NOT.
| Quote: |
9) While conservative Christians are flocking to the film - which
hasn't opened yet, but for which they are pre-purchasing mass tickets
Although some Gnostics disagree on that. Some saw the crucifixion as
portraying, for all to see, elements of the passion of Sophia, through a
non-spiritual vehicle or appearance.
The passion demonstrates the nature of the body, a great contemplation
on death and this bloody existence, the nature of the world's bondage,
and the nature of the world's rulers and authorities (the Romans who
executed, and the Temple Hierarchy that instigated, and the
metaphysical/psychic and demonic realities behind them)
Those are nice thoughts there.
|
I'm greatly indebted to Borg (Heart of Christianity) and Valentinus (as
recounted in Irenaeus).
| Quote: | What's more,
some conventional psychic/soulish ordinary Christians do grasp these
teachings, demonstrating much Spiritual/pneumatic/mystical potential.
Right, and some of these include writers like Borg.
|
Agreed. To a point anyhow. A good thing, to be sure.
| Quote: | 10) The film is said to contain a brief resurrection sequence. From
a Gnostic perspective, what does a resurrection mean, if the
resurrected One was always a pure spirit docetically appearing among
us? Jesus' "transformation" from mortal body to matter-manipulating
immortal spirit via the resurrection is only a true transformation
from the hylic perspective that he had been "in the flesh". From a
certain Gnostic viewpoint, since Jesus was always pure spirit, the
resurrection either didn't happen, or if it did, it was largely
irrelevant to his true nature and status.
Yes, I know. I was speaking of those who did so regard Jesus as a
docetic phenomenon.
|
Well yes.
| Quote: | The body is worm food, yet a psyche can be
scarred and healed, and the status of psyche's potential, IN GENERAL,
can be expanded. Resurrection demonstrates Christ's Spiritual nature,
In early Jewish Xty, Jesus' resurrection also demonstrated his
messianic significance, as well as the response of God to Jesus'
execution. Jesus was chiefly revealed as a spiritual being via his
resurrection, whereas, in Marcus Borg's terminology, the "pre-Easter
Jesus" was generally bound by body/space/time.
|
I don't distinguish a pre-Easter Jesus, myself. That presumes too much
of a picture of a non-miraculous, non-spiritual human before
resurrection, historicizing.
| Quote: | If Jesus had a soul body, a psychic vehicle, then its substance was a
part of the lower Sophia, involving the Power the Demiurge stole from
Sophia and was tricked into releasing into Adam, and involving shaping
by the Demiurge or other shapers of the cosmic/psychic/soul realm. To
show a death and resurrection parallel to the passion of Sophia through
his psychic/soul body, would be a profound thing. If our Soul accepts
the Spirit then the Spirit ascends. Whether the soul is fully healed
and reclaimed, or left behind on a lower level,
Could you expand on this - what's "in it" for the soul abandoned by
its Spirit? It seems a rather parasitic relationship for both.
|
The individual Spirit seeds have a noble role in helping redeem some of
what was stolen. Also, it heals souls, making them MORE than they were
under the Demiurge alone. For the Soul, it is an improvement, too.
| Quote: | it is still significant
that inside it a Spirit can emerge and return to God. Doing this with a
borrowed or 'put on' psychic body, is still ground-breaking and
earth-crucifying.
Again, how does the soul benefit from "possession" by a Spirit?
Perhaps the soul would opt for self-redemption as in Buddhism, and
leave the Spirit to incarnate in someone else.
|
Yet the soul by its own efforts is limited and bound to cause and effect
(action in the psychic and other realms, or some would say 'karma') and
the balancing/justifying forces of the cosmos and Archons, etc., without
help from Spirit. It achieves MORE through Grace from Spirit.
Welcoming the seed of Spirit allows for more healing and transformation
and guidance, more quickly, with less bondage to the processes of
development, etc., less effort.
I can see the spirit as an inherent part of me, sown long ago as
potential within soulish reality.
But the seed could also be seen as the call to awakening. But I can
also see a spirit sown from outside, that transforms, heals, and makes
more possible than what would have been otherwise. |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
Glenn (Christian Mystic)
Guest
|
| Posted: Sun Feb 15, 2004 9:10 am Post subject: Re: Gibson's 'Passion of the Christ' |
|
|
We are in agreement. In context with John 17, Jesus needed have been
"historic" or literally a person of flesh, to "come in the flesh". For a
believer, He is in 'the flesh' simply by being in us !
"Carlcat" <booboo@booboo.net> wrote in message
news:sa_Vb.406$1B6.9@nwrddc03.gnilink.net...
| Quote: | penitent leper wrote:
On Mon, 09 Feb 2004 06:30:44 GMT, Carlcat <booboo@booboo.net> wrote:
penitent leper wrote:
1) Did Jesus really come "in the flesh"?
But his appearance along with "sinful Israel" to be
baptized indicates his commonality with unregenerate man, just as his
transformation by descent of the spirit might indicate his departure
from that commonality.
Or it indicates his reception of a special grace beyond what the others
received, i.e., the descent of the Dove, his Christ nature spirit, or a
psychic initiation rather than a bodily flesh purification.
The argument is forced on us by the christological question
generally, by the Gnostic/Orthodox conflict, and by such social events
as Gibson's new flick.
Ok, if there is no spiritual Christ, why bother. If there is no
material body, so what? Perhaps we should say so much the better. A
good spiritual vision is often far more insightful than recounting human
episodes.
If there is no Spiritual truth to Christ and various aspects of
Christianity or Gnosticism, or anything else, then what is of value in
it anyway?
If there is no material bodily materialization, then what do we loose,
in terms of Siriutal Fruit? By the fruits ye shall know them.
I deny the validity of the question "did Jesus come in the flesh" and
answer, I do not deny or affirm it, because the questioner cannot answer
truly what the flesh or the spirit is, without Gnosis. And even with
SOME spiritual insight, what are words for spirit, and what is matter?
I cannot affirm or deny a poorly phrased and loaded question, with any
meaning to either my affirmation or my denial. The point from the NT
regarded those who denied it. I do not deny it because I don't
understand the question. Not to be tricky, but really, what does the
question mean?
The question is important because "where your treasure lies, there
also is your heart". If JC was flesh, a different set of issues flow
from that than from the opposite position that he was not flesh. This
conflict split the Church, and is still debated.
The orthodox position is that Jesus was both. They do not deny that
Jesus was Spirit, they do not deny that Jesus was human. They go
further and go on about 'flesh' or something. It is not either-or for
them, but a both-and in terms of human and spirit. But they do not
clarify the importance of or meaning of 'the flesh', in this matter.
Human? In form and some metaphysical essence, yes. Isn't that what
matters? Anything said about human transformatoin is affirmed if Jesus
was Human in form and metaphysical essence. Even that is debated, but
Gnostics affirm he had human form, because they acknowledge human
appearance.
But the Divine/Spiritual nature is most important, as Orthodox and
Gnostic agree.
Moreover, it matters whether Jesus was the projection/incarnation
of God, a deity, a supernatural being... or whether he was a human
being who realized his "Christhood" or Buddhahood.
The first proposition suggests that he was ontologically "Great".
The second suggests that his "Greatness" was a transformative
experience of a human being.
Jesus IS the incarnation of a Spiritual reality, that is ontologically
'Great', as well as involved in transformation of others, and in
transformation of his appearance/human form (psychic/soulish vehicle)
- snip -
By "flesh" I mean "human being" - body, soul, mind, spirit. One of
us.
Is a soul body a body? Yes. If you mean material body, what sort of
material body has radience like when Jesus was said to be on the
mountain.... what sort of material body does what Jesus while living was
claimed to do? No ORDINARY body, and he was claimed to be sinless, no
ORDINARY STATE of existence, in any material sense or in terms of
'flesh' as understood in Paul, etc.
2) If he really came in the flesh, was he a human being who through
Gnostic insight realized himself as divine?
Fine, but the question was, Was he one of us, and if so did he
undergo a transformation from commonality to enlightenment.
If he was more than one of us, what then of your question? I see no
reason to say he transformed from ignorance or commonality associated
with flesh and matter, because his essence was Spirit.
3) Was he a human being on whom/in whom the Logos/Spirit/Heavenly
Christ descended/or dwelled?
my humanity is not defined by materiality
But presumably your humanity reacts to materiality, such as hunger,
desire, and death...?
My psyche responds to that. My body merely feeds and fuels it in this.
My humanity is my Spirit. Anthropos is a Spiritual reality.
4) If an external spirit dwelled in Jesus' human persona, was It
consistently "there", or did it come and go? More importantly, did it
"abandon" Jesus at his death?
Again, what died?
Depends on who he was.
One of us? Then he died - was annihilated or survived spiritually in
the afterlife.
No one claims that God actually died, or that Jesus' Spirit actually
died, do they? What the claim is, is that the human form/appearance
confronted death. Why make this material?
There is no essence of Humanity in the material, and so there is no
relation to salvation in the material, or material states.
A docetic projection? Then the whole thing was a masquerade - he
neither lived nor died.
What about a soul reality, an appearance of a vehicle not simply matter,
but animate and supremely made? If it seems tangible, we say tangible,
if it seems to be an ordinary body, we call it flesh, but is that what
it is? Why insist on THAT?
Our body wasn't saved, our soul was, right?
5) Can an external spirit undergo suffering? Did Jesus' "spirit"
suffer along with his human personality and his ape body?
Well Aeons are described as disturbed or undergoing a passion or desire
to Know the transcendent God fully...
But another question is, does knowing pain and having full compassion,
involve some sort of clear appreciation of such a passion?
Good question. Jung suggested that the creator needed to incarnate
in order to experience physically, emotionally - in the flesh - the
full panoply of human living, including suffering.
Well the psyche can experience that on its own, being given the right
stimulus, without a material body... if you say it can't, why not? And
on what basis?
But is clear insight, appreciation, and awareness of what others go
through, make a spiritual entity LOSE anything?
Excellent consideration. Jesus' incarnation is called in the NT a
kenosis or self-emptying into servitude and death. Is this a literal
description or a metaphor? Did god/Christ lose a measure of deity
while simultaneously gaining personal physical experience?
Servitude and death sounds like the form/appearance shown to the world.
ordinary matter. What kind of ordinary body could resurrect? NO
ORDINARY BODY.
Exactly, but don't tell the fundies.
Actually, some Pentecostals I talked with some years ago said that it
was a glorified body. Glorified is a key term, here, bridging the
Orthodox and Gnostic conceptualizations.
Yes, a body that can levitate, bilocate, pass through solids, is not
really a body at all.
Ah, perhaps a psychic body, a soulish (or if you will accept the
occult/new age term 'astral') vehicle can. What about ectoplasm? Lots
of theories one might use.
6) Was Jesus' death on the cross a victimization, a martyrdom, or a
God, Christ,....
Victim? Not in any sense that makes ordinary sense.
Unless Jesus was a mortal human being who became enlightened and
whose message caught him in a messianic police sweep.
That's not the way I look at it. Yet some Gnostics say a mortal Jesus
did in fact die, etc., but that isn't the savior, but a vehicle for the
Savior, the Christ. I understand the theory, but I prefer to emphasize
the Spiritual reality. The Spiritual Christ/Savior underwent no process
of enlightening, the way I understand it, but was always Full of Divinity.
God, Christ denied
by this world and its powers and authorities? All the time, including
all crucifixions and deaths by torture, rape, etc.
Martyr? What was martyred? A psyche? A lower psychic aspect? What?
If I were to martyr, what would I be giving up? Nothing essential to
me. So nothing essential to me was martyred.
Right, if you're a Gnostic, but the question is, Was Jesus such? The
Gospels express his doubt and fear re: his own death.
Psychic/soulish phenomenon of appearance? Or symbolic of the passion of
Sophia. Her anguish, terror, grief, created the elements, just as
Jesus' grief, doubt, etc., is involved in the passion of crucifixion of
the world.
Historical spacetime? What does that mean?
The realm of body and ego and matter - and their stream of action
through time.
Ok, could be psychic/soulish/'astral'.
7) If it was a literal sin-expiating blood sacrifice, what might
Well I think Marcion felt that the sacrifice was to the Demiurge of this
world, depicted as ignorant, bloodthirsty, and condemning.
Did Marcion say that Jesus was aware of this subterfuge? Surely
Marcion's Jesus was not a dupe?
I think Marcion had Jesus as appearance, but perhaps a psychic body was
made by the Demiurge, and so was capable of duping? Not sure. Been a
while since I read about it.
8) If Jesus and his God were in sacrificial collusion, was his God
therefore the Demiurge?
What part of Jesus would have colluded in such an arrangement, and why?
Is tricking an ignorant being to save others, not praiseworthy?
Maybe that's what Marcion held?
Tricking a dope deity to save others is fine as an allegory, but
imho is a childish story if taken literally.
Unless the dope diety really is in charge of matterial reality and the
souls trapped there, and the True God is NOT.
9) While conservative Christians are flocking to the film - which
hasn't opened yet, but for which they are pre-purchasing mass tickets
Although some Gnostics disagree on that. Some saw the crucifixion as
portraying, for all to see, elements of the passion of Sophia, through a
non-spiritual vehicle or appearance.
The passion demonstrates the nature of the body, a great contemplation
on death and this bloody existence, the nature of the world's bondage,
and the nature of the world's rulers and authorities (the Romans who
executed, and the Temple Hierarchy that instigated, and the
metaphysical/psychic and demonic realities behind them)
Those are nice thoughts there.
I'm greatly indebted to Borg (Heart of Christianity) and Valentinus (as
recounted in Irenaeus).
What's more,
some conventional psychic/soulish ordinary Christians do grasp these
teachings, demonstrating much Spiritual/pneumatic/mystical potential.
Right, and some of these include writers like Borg.
Agreed. To a point anyhow. A good thing, to be sure.
10) The film is said to contain a brief resurrection sequence. From
a Gnostic perspective, what does a resurrection mean, if the
resurrected One was always a pure spirit docetically appearing among
us? Jesus' "transformation" from mortal body to matter-manipulating
immortal spirit via the resurrection is only a true transformation
from the hylic perspective that he had been "in the flesh". From a
certain Gnostic viewpoint, since Jesus was always pure spirit, the
resurrection either didn't happen, or if it did, it was largely
irrelevant to his true nature and status.
Yes, I know. I was speaking of those who did so regard Jesus as a
docetic phenomenon.
Well yes.
The body is worm food, yet a psyche can be
scarred and healed, and the status of psyche's potential, IN GENERAL,
can be expanded. Resurrection demonstrates Christ's Spiritual nature,
In early Jewish Xty, Jesus' resurrection also demonstrated his
messianic significance, as well as the response of God to Jesus'
execution. Jesus was chiefly revealed as a spiritual being via his
resurrection, whereas, in Marcus Borg's terminology, the "pre-Easter
Jesus" was generally bound by body/space/time.
I don't distinguish a pre-Easter Jesus, myself. That presumes too much
of a picture of a non-miraculous, non-spiritual human before
resurrection, historicizing.
If Jesus had a soul body, a psychic vehicle, then its substance was a
part of the lower Sophia, involving the Power the Demiurge stole from
Sophia and was tricked into releasing into Adam, and involving shaping
by the Demiurge or other shapers of the cosmic/psychic/soul realm. To
show a death and resurrection parallel to the passion of Sophia through
his psychic/soul body, would be a profound thing. If our Soul accepts
the Spirit then the Spirit ascends. Whether the soul is fully healed
and reclaimed, or left behind on a lower level,
Could you expand on this - what's "in it" for the soul abandoned by
its Spirit? It seems a rather parasitic relationship for both.
The individual Spirit seeds have a noble role in helping redeem some of
what was stolen. Also, it heals souls, making them MORE than they were
under the Demiurge alone. For the Soul, it is an improvement, too.
it is still significant
that inside it a Spirit can emerge and return to God. Doing this with a
borrowed or 'put on' psychic body, is still ground-breaking and
earth-crucifying.
Again, how does the soul benefit from "possession" by a Spirit?
Perhaps the soul would opt for self-redemption as in Buddhism, and
leave the Spirit to incarnate in someone else.
Yet the soul by its own efforts is limited and bound to cause and effect
(action in the psychic and other realms, or some would say 'karma') and
the balancing/justifying forces of the cosmos and Archons, etc., without
help from Spirit. It achieves MORE through Grace from Spirit.
Welcoming the seed of Spirit allows for more healing and transformation
and guidance, more quickly, with less bondage to the processes of
development, etc., less effort.
I can see the spirit as an inherent part of me, sown long ago as
potential within soulish reality.
But the seed could also be seen as the call to awakening. But I can
also see a spirit sown from outside, that transforms, heals, and makes
more possible than what would have been otherwise.
|
|
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
|
