Theos-Talk Archives (February 2005 Message tt00030)

Excellent post Steve, thanks you obviously have done your homework
I think I'll have to do some more reasearch into this, at some point.

Perry


--- In theos-talk@yahoogroups.com, "stevestubbs" <stevestubbs@y...> 
wrote:
> 
> --- 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.