Re: Vatican

From: <RFaussette@aol.com>
Date: Thu Nov 10 2005 - 19:11:15 EST

In a message dated 11/10/2005 8:47:42 AM Eastern Standard Time,
gmurphy@raex.com writes:
Neither the Nag Hammadi texts nor Jewish concepts of the Messiah carry much
weight for anything approximating orthodox Christian theology. There are good
reasons why the church did not include the former in the canon - primarily
because of the gnostic ideas which they convey. & it's clear that the sense in
which Jesus is the Messiah is very different from the predominant popular
Jewish messianic concept at the time, the leader who would throw out the Romans and
establish Jewish domination

As for the weight of the nag hammadi texts or Jewish theology vis a vis
orthodox Christian theology, this is your opinion. One of your burdens is a literal
reading of the Bible and thinking you can ignore something because it is
"non-canonical" such as the Dead Sea scrolls and the Nag Hammadi texts, both
discovered within our lifetimes. Based on Jewish literary devices such as the
reversal of absolutes, it is very probable that both the virgin birth and Jesus'
celibacy are ontological statements employed to establish Jesus' messiahship,
not literal renderings of actual verifiable states or events, so much for
Christian orthodoxy which is in flux if the abandonment and liberalization of the
churches is any indication. This kind of decay occurs when a paradigm fails such
as a 6 day creation and everything that implies. When you see that these
concepts were drawn directly from Jewish theology and patriarchal order (virgin
birth makes Jesus literally the Son of God and therefore the highest ranking
Jewish male - celibacy implies no desire - a being complete in himself - the
"undivided" pre-fall Adam as Jesus identifies himself in the gospel of thomas) to
establish Jesus' divinity, you see a Jewish mind at work in the NT. To suggest
that Jewish thought does not "carry much weight for anything approximating
orthodox Christian theology" is to say we should ignore prophecies in the OT
that predict the nature of the messiah and point directly at Jesus and ignore
Jewish literary devices used by the NT authors to establish Jesus as the messiah.
I say you have to know what the Jewish mind thought to know why it wrote what
has been passed down to us. A literal reading and dismissal of non-canonical
sources doesn't allow you the freedom to explore Jewish literary devices in
the Scriptures. The 6 day creation is one such literary device. The fall of Adam
and Eve to explain the nature of man is another one / virgin birth / Jesus'
celibacy.
In genesis, when Adam and Eve eat the apple, they become afraid and ashamed.
Not only are these states psychologically correct for a self conscious human
being, but in the gospel of thomas Jesus says when you can walk around naked
without shame, you will not fear - demonstrating that the author of the gospel
of thomas understood the ontology of the fall so well, he could quote Jesus
describing the fall - in reverse. The chances that the author of the gospel of
thomas did not understand the fall completely are simply dismissed when Jesus
describes a redemption that dovetails perfectly with the fall in genesis.

The self sacrifice of the cross is a manifestation of the gnosis which
requires the self to be sacrificed. It also emerged spontaneously from the Vedic
caste system when Buddha intuited the ancient self sacrifice. It is no
coincidence that each Dalai Lama is trained to be celibate, nor is it a coincidence that
the Buddhist and Christian ontologies both evoke celibacy as an ideal and
reject hierarchalization. Remember, Jesus is of the order of Melchizedek, who is
priest and king. There is no separate priest and warrior class in the order of
Melchizedek. Tripartition is dissolved since one man performs both functions,
just as it was in patriarchal society.
The gnosis was rejected by the early church because gnostics were not
amenable to hierarchalization and would not submit to a priestly caste which is
required for a tax system (oops - a church) to operate. Constantine not only
established a state religion, requiring a priestly caste, he also built many
churches in the East on his Parthian frontier, he also completed Diocletian's reform
of the tax system of which the churches were a part. Was his concern theology
or taxes?

Pope Paul in Crossing the Threshold of Hope said gnosticism has always been
with the Church but he rejected it, but you have to wonder why Pope Paul had to
comment that the gnosis has always existed side by side with the church even
after 2,000 years of hostile rejection. Could it be that an element of
gnosticism is innate in Christianity and the sacrifice of the Cross. I believe it is.
In order to achieve gnosis, one assumed a rigid self discipline. In order to
sacrifice one's self on a cross, one has to rigidly discipline one's self to
do the will of the Father. The same discipline is employed to reach gnosis or
take up a cross.

We are at a crossroads. Creation was not in 6 days. And since that is the
case, you have to penetrate the literary devices/allegories/tales in the Bible
and the scribes who would posit a 6 day creation and why before you can say you
understand the Bible. If you reply to me by simply saying my sources are not
canonical you have to be willing to argue, which sources you are referring to
and why they were not canonical and be more specific but to simply dismiss the
Nag Hammadi texts and the theology of Jewish mysticism?

rich faussette
Received on Thu Nov 10 19:13:33 2005

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Thu Nov 10 2005 - 19:13:33 EST