Theos-Talk Archives (February 2005 Message tt00022)

--- In theos-talk@yahoogroups.com, "Perry Coles" <perrycoles@y...> > 
I remember in Elaine Pagel's book on the Gnostics gospels she pointed
> out how the Gnostics did not put much importance on the historical
> Jesus but rather on a personal revelation of the gnosis.


What I got out of it was that they placed emphasis on a whole lot of 
very mystical ideas and, yes, cared little about whether Jesus wept 
or slept or whatever he did.


> This of course infuriated the Bishops and clergy as it put them out 
of
> a job if you don't need sacraments and apostolic succession you 
loose
> your power over the people.


True, but what infuriated the bishops was that esoteric ideas 
originally reserved for them were revealed to outsiders. Valentinus, 
who claimed initiation into the esoteric system of Paul, was a rising 
star in the ancient church who went to Rome to promote his career and 
was beaten out for promotion by a more able office politician. He 
then removed to Alexandria where he started teaching the secret 
teachings to anyone with the cash. Almost all the gnostics branched 
off from his school with the exception of that of Basilides, who 
claimed the secret teachings of Peter, and the Naasenes, who claimed 
the secret teachings of James. Apostolic succession was an idea 
originated by the gnostics and taken up by their adversaries and not 
the other way around. The gnostics also used sacraments.


Pagels is OK but did not have much insight into the subject IMO.


> according to the orthodox view, none can ever claim to equal their
> authority - much less challenge it.


Not quite right. After the crucifixion a whole bunch of characters 
claiming to be "relatives" of Jesus popped up and claimed authority 
for themselves which equalled that of the apostles. James the Just 
was one of these "relatives" but there is good reason to think he was 
imposing on the community for personal gain. After he was murdered 
in 62 the "relatives" demanded the right to choose his successor and 
chose another "relative" named Symeon to be the second bishop of 
Jerusalem. Eusebius says by the end of the first century people 
claiming to be "relatives" were running the whole shabang, all the 
apostles except John being dead. There is considerable doubt whether 
any of these "relatives" were who they said they were.

> This theory gained extraordinary success: for nearly 2,000
> years, orthodox Christians have accepted the view that the apostles
> alone held definitive religious authority, and that their only
> legitimate heirs are priests and bishops, who trace their ordination
> back to that same apostolic succession. . . .


That is only true of catholics. Others claim no apostolic succession 
and would be embarrassed to do so, since they do not teach what was 
taught in ancient times, but strange modern concoctions.


> But the gnostic Christians rejected Luke's theory. Some gnostics
> called the literal view of resurrection the "faith of fools."


Which gnostics rejected Luke? Marcion rejected everything but Luke. 
Marcion did reject the nativity story in Luke, which was missing from 
the oldest and most authentic manuscripts, and which he believed was 
added later, probably in connection with the ben Azzai controversy.


The idea that rotting corpses come hurling bodily out of the ground 
struck ancient philosophers as extremely distasteful and was rejected 
by the esoteric Christians, who maintained that the "body" which 
rises is an ethereal clothing of the soul and not the corpse. 
The "resurrection" simply meant that they believed life of some sort 
continued beyond the grave and that the soul was not confined to the 
grave but rose from it.


> The bishop,
> questioned, points to Matthew xvi, 19, for the source of his 
authority
> to bind and loose on earth those who are to be blessed or damned in
> heaven; and to the apostolic succession for proof of its 
transmission
> from Simon Bar-jona to himself.


I don't think I still have it, but I found the text of a terrible 
prayer the bishops say to damn people who piss them off. It was 
discovered in England in the seventeenth century during the 
investigation of the popish plot to murder the king. It was among 
the papers of one of the priests arrested in connection with the 
plot. Naturally it cannot be found in a catholic bookstore since it 
is one of the "secrets." It is as monstrous as it is preposterous. 
If I ever see it again I will put it on line and catholics can use it 
against their friends and relatives.


There is an esoteric significance to the original idea, although let 
it be said I spit in the wind at pretensions that the pope or anyone 
else can pray people into hell.


Gershom Scholem says in his book ON THE KABBALAH AND ITS SYMBOLISM 
that the Jews had a peculiar meditation in which they believed they 
could descend into hell in imagination and draw out souls they 
considered worthy. This was an esoteric idea unknown to garden 
variety Jews. Here is a quote:


"Once the devotee has risen to the highest heights, ... he is 
supposed to leap into the abyss of the 'other side,' in order, like a 
diver, to bring up sparks of holiness, there held in exile." (p. 133)


It was believed to be extraordinarily dangerous since the person who 
did this risked being trapped iu hell himself - or so they thought. 
In his Key of the Mysteries Eliphas Levi tells a story of something 
like this, but with his tongue apparently implanted in his cheek. 
Scholem says this idea was first put into writing in the thirteenth 
century, but there is plenty of evidence that it was known to first 
century Christians, which says that it is much older. The original 
idea was therefore not that people could be prayed into hell the way 
catholics believe, but that they could be LEFT in hell and not 
rescued. We can also see in this the origin of the idea that 
Jesus "saved" people from hell and that he "descended" into hell and 
all that. I suspect the name Jesus (literally "he who saves") was an 
initiatic name, and that his real name was something else, probably 
Joseph (Yusuf). The Jewish Kabbalah is the key to unriddling all 
this, and early Christian literature is useful to the student of the 
history of ideas because ideas not put into writing by the Jews until 
the middle ages can be clearly traced in Christian texts, showing 
that they were transmitted orally from very ancient times. Similar 
notions were found among the Greeks. In his twelfth labor Hercules 
was charged with descending into hell and bringing back the dog 
Cerberus, who in mythology guarded the gates and prevented the dead 
from escaping. In order to do so he got initiated into the 
Eleusinian Mysteries. In process he rescued one of his friends but 
had to leave another. The rest of the ghosts did not interest him, 
so he said "Screw it" where they were concerned. Despite his 
niggardly ways he was still regarded as a savior. The Greeks were 
easy to please. One lousy soul does not seem like much of a savior 
to me.


As for Blavatsky, like Pagels, she had little insight. The 
unfortunate thing is, there is no book which is much worth reading 
IMO but maybe someone will write one someday.