Below we examine some of the religions and philosophies discussed above in the rough Chronological order in which they were formed. These religions have been classified as 'monotheistic' which is in the broadest sense true, although not entirely. However, the terminology is used for convenience and to save screen space! This page clearly focusses on Christianity, and related philsophies and esoteric Christianity, and reflects BlackSpy's own exploration of his Christian faith.
To read about BlackSpy's own views on spirituality and belief, please see the Spiritual Beliefs section on the Focus, Belief and Physiology page (it is also worth reading the rest of this Focus and Belief page!); and also the article on the Gnostic Offshoots, specifically the Afternote section; and also the article on the CoS, specifically the final section. To read about the history of Personal Development, and its esoteric and masonic origins, please see the Psychology Links page.
This page is dedicated to Brad. Rest in peace, my brother.
There are four Vedas, the Rig Veda, Sama Veda, Yajur Veda and Atharva Veda. The Vedas are the primary texts of Hinduism. They were no doubt a major influence the religions of Buddhism, Jainism (which appeared in the 9th Century BC), and Sikhism. These Vedas can be read on line at the link below.
Sri Nisargadatta Maharaj (birth name: Maruti Shivrampant Kambli) (April 17, 1897 Ð September 8, 1981) was an Indian spiritual teacher and philosopher of Advaita (Nondualism), and a Guru, belonging to the Ichegeri branch of the Navnath Sampradaya.
One of the 20th century's exponents of the school of Advaita Vedanta philosophy (nondualism), Sri Nisargadatta, with his direct and minimalistic explanation of non-dualism, is considered the most famous teacher of Advaita since Ramana Maharshi.'
In 1973, the publication of his most famous and widely-translated book, I Am That, an English translation of his talks in Marathi by Maurice Frydman, brought him worldwide recognition and followers.'
Judaism is described on Wikipedia at the link below. It was formed in roughly 2000 BC by the covenant between Abraham and God. It is one of three Abrahamic religions that regard Abraham as one of their prophets, the other two being Christianity and Islam. Discussion on the New Testament and Old Testament and how they related can be found in the section on Christianity below.
http://whatjewsbelieve.org
There are various texts in Judaism including the Tanakh (Hebrew Bible or Old Testament), Talmud and Mishna, Haggada, Kabbalah, Midrash and other works from the Middle Ages and also modern works. These texts can be read on line at the link below.
The Hebrew Kabbalah is defined below. It is a series of books claimed to represent Jewish mysticism and esoteric knowledge about God not mentioned in the Tanakh or Old Testament. It is labelled dualistic by many critics because of its split between a good power and an evil power.
The earliest documents which are generally acknowledged as being Kabbalistic come from the 1st Century AD, but it is suspected that the Biblical phenomenon of prophecy may have been grounded in a much older oral tradition which was a precursor to the earliest recognisable forms of Kabbalah. Some believe the tradition goes back as far as Melchizedek. There are moderately plausible arguments that Pythagoras received his learning from Hebrew sources. There is a substantial literature of Jewish mysticism dating from the period 100AD - 1000AD which is not strictly Kabbalistic in the modern sense, but which was available as source material to medieval Kabbalists. On the basis of a detailed examination of texts, and a study of the development of a specialist vocabulary and a distinct body of ideas, Scholem has concluded that the origins of Kabbalah can be traced to 12th. century Provence. The origin of the word "Kabbalah" as a label for a tradition which is definitely recognisable as Kabbalah is attributed to Isaac the Blind (c. 1160-1236 C.E.), who is also credited with being the originator of the idea of sephirothic emanation. Prior to this (and after) a wide variety of terms were used for those who studied the tradition: "masters of mystery", "men of belief", "masters of knowledge", "those who know", "those who know grace", "children of faith", "children of the king's palace", "those who know wisdom", "those who reap the field", "those who have entered and left". Jews often state the Kabbalah is the secret knowledge given by God to Adam and to Moses, which was 'secretly' encoded in the Old Testament (Tanakh) - hints at mysticism - but which was explicitly recorded in Kabbalistic texts much later.
Many Christians regard the Kabbalah as a series of occult and spiritualist texts, the knowledge received in visions whilst in a 'trance'. It has been linked to Hermeticism and the Hermetic Qabalah (a Western European Hermetic religion largely based on the Jewish Kabbalah), the magical/occult tradition, and in particular made up a major part of the Hermetic Order of the Golden Dawn theology and practice. Some may argue that this is not the fault of the Kabbalah if it is adopted by occultists, however one could argue that for it to be used in this manner there must be some underlying Hermetic magical quality to it. The Kabbalah was adopted in certain Christian circles starting from the 13th Century onwards, there known as Christian Kabbalah or Cabbalah, and was as stated was later adopted by the Rosicrucians, Freemasons and Hermetic Order of the Golden Dawn (as the Hermetic Qabalah).
Zoroastrianism was formed somewhere between 1200 and 1500 BC by the prophet Zoroaster in the area of Afghanistan and Iran. In the first and second centuries BC, Zoroastrianism was linked with Gnosticism although it predates this movement by well over 1000 years. More information on Gnosticism can be found further below. When trying to understand Zoroastrianism, it is best to do so from a Zoroastrian perspective, rather than a Gnostic perspective, as Gnosticism has reinterpreted Zoroastrianism to an extent.
Fravashi (guardian spirit) of Faravahar (or Ferohar), one of the primary symbols of Zoroastrianism, is shown above.
The Jains follow the teachings of the 24 special Jinas (conquerors) who are known as Tirthankars (ford builders). The 24th Tirthankar, Lord Mahavira lived in ca. 6th century BC. One of the main characteristics of Jain belief is the emphasis on the immediate consequences of one's physical and mental behavior. Parshvanatha was the twenty-third Tirthankara (ford maker) in Jainism and is the earliest Jain leader that can be reliably dated. According to scholars he probably flourished in 9th Century BC. Jainism is a polytheistic religion that uses the concept of reincarnation. It shares Hinduism's belief in reincarnation but regards all life as sacred, from small insects upwards, as they are all incarnations of life and the soul may go from one form to another; all being equally deserving of life. Jainism preaches pacifism, but there is more emphasis on this than say Christianity.
Taoism is described on Wikipedia at the link below and also on the Taoism.net web site. Taoism teachings were formed from the 6th to 3rd Centuries BC. Lao-Tze is the founder of Taoism and wrote the pivotal book Te Tao Ching. Taoism could be perhaps regarded as a pantheistic religion or philosophy.
Sun Tzu's Art of War is regarded as being a classic Taoist influenced book on the art of wisdom in combat and warfare. It can be read on line at the link below.
Buddhism is described on Wikipedia at the link below. Buddhism was founded in the 4th or 5th Century BC in India. Buddhism uses the concept of rebirth and the withdraw from earthly existence and its pleasures and pain, to ascend to a state of Nirvana.
Various Biblical and non-canonical Christian texts are examined below. This section reflects a general exploration of BlackSpy's Christian faith. BlackSpy has endeavoured to examine some of the more debated issues about Christianity and theological and canonical issues and problems, and to look at them from both sides, for the benefit of Christians and non-Christians alike. The purpose of all the questions raised in the text of this section is really to probe the reader into asking questions about what one actually believes in and considering the meaning of what one believes, and to explore Christianity from all possible angles. It is not necessarily intended to direct the reader to certain specific beliefs, to 'attack' Christianity, but to adopt an open mind and consider various alternative interpretations. The reader does not necessarily have to accept any or all of these premises. BlackSpy adopts the philosophy that by being honest about the history of one's religion and also by examining its origins and inconsistencies, one can try to explore what constitutes spiritual truth and what a faith is/was really about; and be certain about those areas one can be certain about, and keep an open mind (relatively speaking) about those areas that one cannot. BlackSpy does not view inconsistencies within the theology or religious texts of a Religion or known historical wrongdoings as a reason to necessarily dismiss the faith behind a religion. One's approach does not have to be all or nothing.
The Masoretic Text (MT) is the Hebrew text of the Jewish Bible (Tanakh). It defines not just the books of the Jewish canon, but also the precise letter-text of the biblical books in Judaism, as well as their vocalization and accentuation for both public reading and private study. The MT is also widely used as the basis for translations of the Old Testament in Protestant Bibles, and in recent decades also for Catholic Bibles. The MT was primarily copied, edited and distributed by a group of Jews known as the Masoretes between the seventh and tenth centuries CE.
The Septuagint (aka LXX) is the Koine Greek version of the Hebrew Bible, translated in stages between the 3rd and 1st centuries BC in Alexandria. The Septuagint also includes some books not found in the Hebrew Bible.
Many people believe that the first 5 books of the Bible (Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers and Deuteronomy), known as the Pentateuch, were actually written by Moses in Sinai desert around 1000 BC. The Pentateuch are sacred books to Jews, Christians and Muslims. However, it would appear according to archaelogical evidence and from early manuscripts, that the first 5 books were most likely written in 800 BC. If so, then they were probably written by intellectuals and theologians of the time. There were 4 different versions of each of the 5 books, each with slightly different interpretations. The theory goes that the four versions of each book were combined, even though they didn't fully agree, into one single version.
The Pentateuch was influenced by the King Hezekiah of Judah, who ruled a country containing different branches of monotheism. He no doubt wished to unite the people, to worship only at the temple, and to create a single Jewish religion. The victory of Jerusalem over the Assyrians was apparently due to the Jews paying off the Assyrians who were on the verge of conquering Judah. The Bible records it as a great victory. Perhaps the Biblical account contains a little 'spin'. Politics has always played a major part in religion. According to Dr Robert Beckford, King Hezekiel was murdered by another King who he met with, rather than dying of disease.
The exodus of the Jews from Egypt is not supported by historical and archaelogical facts. This is however not to say that it did not occur in some form.
Other books were added to the Tanakh (Old Testament) and perhaps written to give the Jews hope and pride in difficult times. It was really only when the book of Isaiah was written that the Old Testament became not just a 'Jewish' book but a book for all nations, and prophesied for the first time the coming of a new King of Israel, who would be a King for all nations. There was perhaps some spin here too, but that is not to say that any of these books weren't written with people inspired by God and with revelations from God.
Prior to the religion of Abraham, Jewish religion had arguably been about being dependent on external forces or deities for own's survival, whereas Judaism brought with it a sense of personal responsibility, in the sense that one was responsible for one's own destiny, guided by whether one sinned or not. Archeological evidence suggests that Judaism was not as widely practiced amongst the Jewish people as we once believed. It does not appear to have been widely taken up until around 500 B.C., pagan religions instead being practised by the majority of Jews up until this point. It is not until the exile in Babylon, many Jews converted to Babylonian paganisn. However the idea of the Jewish people being God's chosen people started to became popular, as it gave them hope, and their situation confirmed the concept of sin, that they had not embraced God's message and were being punished for their sins. Thus, rather than give up Judaism in adversity, it took hold stronger than before. It is in exile that the Jewish unifying and arguably Nationalist monotheistic religion was born and was to influence the majority of the people on the planet in one form or other.
The Dea Sea Scrolls were discovered in 11 different caves in the area of the ruins of Qumran at the northern part of the Dea Sea (in Israel), between 1947 and 1956. The documents have been dated to between the 2nd Century BC and the 1st Century AD. The Scrolls so far discovered represent a library of 900+ documents, making up as many as 350 separate works in multiple copies, many of which are represented only by fragments. Cave 4 alone contained 520 texts in 15,000 fragments. When they were first discovered and studied, many fragments were incorrectly matched up, and modern imaging technology will no doubt help the correct matching of fragments in the present and future. The Dea Sea Scrolls were hidden by the Essenes probably in the 4th Century before they were defeated by the Romans. The Essenes were an ascetic, mystical Jewish Sect that predated Christ. Contrary to popular opinion, Judaism was not as homogeneous as some imagine, with a number of different Sects. The Dea Sea Scrolls consisted of a number of copies of books from the Old Testament and alternative versions. It is likely that the books found in the Old Testament are based on combining a number of older historical versions written by different authors. The Dead Sea Scrolls (DSS) also contain a number of other non-canonical writings. Translations of parts of the DSS can be found at the Gnosis web site below.
Jesus life and teachings were communicated verbally in the 20 years or so after his death. Christianity at that time was very much an oral tradition. It was only as the Apostles began to die that gradually religious books began to appear. The first Christian text is reputed to be called 'Q' which the NT synoptic gospel writers (of the first three gospels, Matthew, Mark and Luke) allegedly based their writings upon. John's Gospel was written slightly later and is considered to be 'slightly Gnostic' by some in that it contains certain Gnostic elements, although clearly not the Gnostic cosmology.
The earliest non-canonical Christian texts which still exists today is viewed to be the Didache. The Didache was discovered first in 1056, and again in 1873. It is believed to have been written either in the 2nd or 3rd Century AD. A translation can be found at the first of the two links below.
'Codex Sinaiticus is a 4th century uncial manuscript of the Greek Bible, written between 330 and 350. While it originally contained the whole of both Testaments, only portions of the Greek Old Testament or Septuagint survive, along with a complete New Testament, the Epistle of Barnabas, and portions of The Shepherd of Hermas (suggesting that the latter two may have been considered part of Biblical canon by the editors of the codex). Along with Codex Vaticanus, Codex Sinaiticus is one of the most valuable manuscripts for textual criticism of the Greek New Testament, as well as the Septuagint. It is the only uncial manuscript with the complete text of the New Testament, and the only manuscript of the New Testament written in four columns per page.'
'For most of the New Testament, Codex Sinaiticus is in general agreement with Codex Vaticanus and Codex Ephraemi Rescriptus, attesting an Alexandrian text-type, but in John 1:1-8:38 Codex Sinaiticus is in closer agreement with Codex Bezae in support of a Western text-type. This portion has a large number of corrections...But there are a large number differences between Sinaiticus and Vaticanus. Hoskier enumerated 3036 differences:
- Matthew: 12:47, 16:2-3
- Mark 16:8-20
- Luke 22:43-44 marked by the first corrector as doubtful, but a third corrector removed that mark.
- John 5:4, John 7:53-8:11 (Pericope adulterae), and John 21:25
- Romans doxology followed after 16:23, v. 24 omitted.
As can be read from Mark, the omission of verses 8 to 20 from chapter 16, removes all of the post-resurrection narrative, after Jesus meets the disciples in the garden outside the tomb.
'The Codex Sinaiticus Project is an international collaboration [between the British Library, National Library of Russia, St Catherine's Monastery and Leipsig University Library] to reunite the entire manuscript in digital form and make it accessible to a global audience for the first time. Drawing on the expertise of leading scholars, conservators and curators, the Project gives everyone the opportunity to connect directly with this famous manuscript.'
The current books united within the scope of the project to date are listed at the link below. Translations are being made and may not be available at the time of writing this. It is however possible to view the actual Greek scrolls.
Many people also believe that the Canonical Gospels of the New Testament were written 40 years or so after Christ died by the disciples and close brothers of the disciples.
The four canonical gospels were written to different audiences. They are four different views of Jesus. There are facts and sayings missing from some that are mentioned in others. Their focus and 'purpose' is different, not that there should really be an agenda with a gospel.
The Gospel of Mark was the first of the four gospels to be written and was aimed at the Romans. It focussed on the acts of Jesus rather than his teachings and missed large sections of his teachings out. Perhaps Marks' gospel was based directly on 'Q'. The author of The Gospel of Mark was written by a Jew who was hiding in the catacombs in Rome from persecution of the Christians by the Romans. It was written at a time of much Christian suffering and sacrifice, and was perhaps written to bring out Jesus' sacrifice, and was very gritty. It could be considered arrogant of a person to write the first gospel of Jesus Christ, as he had most likely never met him. Mark begins his gospel with Christ as an adult.
The Gospel of Matthew was written for the Jews, to emphasise continuity with the prophecies of the Old Testament and to proclaim Jesus as the King of Israel, King of the Jews. Matthew's Gospel was based on Mark's Gospel. It could be argued that he plagiarised Marks' Gospel. Matthew wanted a record of the sayings of Jesus and mainly focussed on his Galilee ministry. He perhaps felt that Mark wasn't bringing out the lineage of Christ and the fulfillment of prophecy for the Jews, and the fact that Jesus was King of the Jews.
The Gospel of Luke was aimed mainly at the Greeks, with the focus being on Jesus as the Saviour of all nations. Luke's Gospel was also based on Mark's Gospel. Luke also wanted a record of the sayings of Jesus and mainly focussed on his Galilee ministry. Luke perhaps felt that Matthew's gospel was perhaps too focussed on the Jews, and wrote the gospel to make Christianity seem more respectable and mainstream-acceptable to the Romans and Greeks. He also wrote Acts, describing the formation of the early Church.
John's Gospel was written much later and was very different from Matthew and Luke. It was more focussed on the mystery of the incarnation, on symbolism and proclaiming the glory of the only-begotten son of God. The author of Luke sought to supplement the other 3 gospels, and focusses more on Jesus' Judaean ministry. Whoever John was, he wasn't a disciple either as this gospel was probably written 70 years after Christ's death. John no doubt meditated on the other gospels and wanted to paint a complete picture of Christ, that the other gospels seemed to presented.
Each gospel is by no means a complete record of the life, actions and sayings of Jesus. For example, Luke 2:1-20 tells the story of a group of shepherds that after having been visited by an Angel of the Lord, went to look for Jesus who was wrapped in swaddling clothes and lying in a manger. The 'babe' had been recently born. There was no room at the inn in Bethlehem, so one can assume this took place in or immediately outside Bethlehem. It is not specified where the manger was, and in what type of building. Matthew 2:1-14 examines the story of the visit of the 'wise men' (not Kings), who followed the star to Bethlehem, bearing gifts of gold, and frankincense, and myrrh. They visited the 'young child' of Jesus in a 'house'. It is not stated how old Jesus was at this time. The wise men 'stood over' him. Now some consider these two accounts contradictory. However, the way most people interpret the accounts is that Jesus was visited by shepherds in or around Bethlehem when newly born. Mary and Joseph then settled down in Bethlehem, after the census had taken place (we assume). When the child was very young, perhaps a few years old or so (we assume), he was visited by the three wise men. After this, Mary and Joseph fled to Egypt with Jesus to escape Herod's men. These accounts are not inconsistent but require a little extrapolation. It is odd that Luke and Matthew do not both mention these two events.
It could be argued that other, non-canonical gospels also contain facts about the sayings or actions of Jesus, such as the Gospel of Thomas (from the Nag Hammadi library). However, this is difficult to prove, but it is not inconceivable. This is discussed elsewhere.
In only small respects is there any discrepency between them however (e.g. the events following Jesus' resurrection). The fact that the gospels don't completely fit together is not really the point. They were books written by men inspired by the Holy Spirit, but obviously who being flesh had views, interpretations and had a point to get across. That doesn't mean that they are not true of course. To take all these books, and the old testament books as literal historical facts might be considered unwise by some. Large parts are historical facts, but they are not all totally historically correct according to historical records and archeological evidence. The spirit and religious teachings could be considered to be what the Bible is really about. To dismiss the Bible because of any historical inaccuracy would be foolish and missing the point.
The Canonical Gospels could today be integrated into one 'super' gospel (which wouldn't be that hard to do - which is something that happened with the early Aramaic Peshitta Bible). For historical reasons, this will probably not be done in any formal capacity. They were included as four separate gospels to try to make the Bible as universally acceptable as possible, back in the fourth century AD.
Some scholars argue that there has been a degree of amalgamation of different versions of each of the four gospel books which may have been circulating during the fourth century, as well as a little creative editing, to tailor the books to their target audience and to emphasise certain aspects of Jesus background or life. For example, the birth of Jesus in the current city known as Bethlehem may not actually be correct, and his real birthplace may well be further north. However, Jesus had to be shown to be born in the City of David, with the connection to David being emphasised. Unfortunately we may never know as part of the ruins of the village in question has been asphalted over by a main road!
It is postulated that Luke's account of the census being the reason for the pregnant Mary to have come to Bethlehem as being incorrect, examining the writings of contemporary Jewish Historian Josephus, who recorded the activities of Herod in great detail, but never once mentioned an empire-wide census.
The Roman Emperor Constantine came up with the first formal Bible in 310 AD - Codex Vaticanus. Those books that we now know as the New Testament were formalised and agreed by the Catholic Church, in the Codex Vaticanus, to provide a unity and consistency as to what Christians should actually be reading (or rather be read in churches, as the public distribution of Bibles in people's own language would not occur for 500-1000 years later!) It is likely that those books that emphasized certain aspects of Jesus' nature were included, perhaps John being included as a compromise in some capacity (containing certain gnostic concepts but not the gnostic cosmology). The formation of the 'Bible' is discussed in the section below on Early Christianity.
Obviously there was much debate over what stayed in and what went out, and it is likely that books were removed or omitted that had fallen in disuse by early Christians, that has been written relatively late in the 2nd and 3rd centuries, that didn't quite meet with full agreement and which didn't fit the politics of the early Church.
The Jerome Bible could be perhaps considered a somewhat dubious translation of Greek into Latin. It was the first Latin Vulgate Bible available in Western Europe and was an important version in Western Christianity.
The Bible was kept in Hebrew, Greek and Latin only until around 1500, and was generally read and translated to Church congregations. No Bibles in other languages were available and Christians in general did not have Bibles to refer to or to study. They had to rely on the interpretation of the Bible versions from Church. The Churches of Western Europe were keen to keep hold of the Bible and thus retain a degree of monopoly and also control over their congregations.
In 1370 in England, John Wycliffe translated the Jerome Bible into English. The Wycliffe Bible was the first English Bible and it was actually illegal! Wycliffe was an early dissident in the Roman Catholic Church in the early 14th Century and was a precursor to the Protestant Reformation.
Tindal's English version of the Bible was used by King James in 1604, who wanted to unite the Country and also have his own Bible separate from the Catholic Church. So he took this last translation, took a big team of English Biblical scholars encompassing all the different camps, and came up with an amalgamation. The resulting King James Version, a.k.a. KVJ, Authorised Version (AV), was finalised in 1611. It was 85% Tindal.
King James was himself a Freemason. Please see the links below for more information. Please see also the page on Freemasonry in the Religion - Other section.
The Authorised Version of the Bible issued by King James in 1611 did include the Apocrypha and it was the formal Bible for use in Protestant England! It was widely adopted by both Protestants and Catholics alike. The 1611 AV Bible was originally issued including the Apocrypha (aka The Maccabees Bible), which were deemed to be non-essential but still spiritually inspired books to be included in this Bible.
The Bible has been translated into a number of different versions since the 1611 Bible, e.g. New American Standard Version, New International Version, Revised Standard Version, and Good News Bible are amongst the most popular. The New King James Bible is a version of the King James Bible translation reputed using more modern English. There are various arguments for and against this version as it makes rather unusual changes. BlackSpy's personal opinion is that if you want to read the KJV, then read the KJV and not the NKJV. If you want to read a modern Bible, then read a modern Bible. Please see the section below on Christianisation for more information.
The KJV Bible is now to be retranslated by a group of Vatican approved scholars, incorporating certain elements of the 'Dea Sea Scrolls'. These are literally only certain passages from the books written/stored by the Essenes, one of many Jewish Sects around before the birth of Christ. The Dea Sea Scrolls of course are different versions of books belonging to the Old Testament, and were written at a time of the Roman occupation of Judea. They do not affect the New Testament, which is probably the main area of contemporary debate. They certainly would never include the Nag Hammadi Library, which is reflective of the Gnostic tradition, and mainly concern the events of the New Testament and include completely new gospels and Codexes describing the Gnostic Cosmology, which the Catholic Church, or indeed most other churches, would never accept. It is perhaps ironic that the KJV is now to be re-written by Catholics, whereas in 1611 it's construction was instigated by Protestants. A certain number of Freemasons were involved in the writing of the 1611 Bible, so it will be interesting to see if any Freemasons will again be involved in the re-translation of the KJV. Hopefully it will not make the same 'errors (of judgement)' that the NKJV made.
'The influence of radical Jewish groups who wanted to overthrow Roman rule is likely to feature in the new Bible, bolstering those who interpret Christ as a revolutionary who fought political oppression.'
BlackSpy is not knowledgeable enough about the Essenes to ascertain what the general view is amongst Christians. They appear to have displayed some elements of Christianity and ascetism even before the birth of Christ. What influence they actually had on Christianity is hard to determine.
It should be noted that some contemporary scholars consider the Apocrypha (the 'optional books' in some editions of the KJV), those books most often used by Catholics than any other denomination, to reflect the more 'warrior' side of Judaism and Christianity, and these books were used/included by those that wanted to emphasise the dominance side of Christianity. BlackSpy does not have an opinion about this at this stage. Perhaps this applies to some books of the Apocrypha, but certainly not all e.g. the tale of Daniel in the lion's den. Some of the Apocrypha books seem to BlackSpy to be 'missing parts' of the Old Testament, whereas others do perhaps seem 'supplemental' in nature.
The Peshitta Old Testament is the earliest piece of Syriac literature of any length, probably originating in the second century. Whereas the majority of the Early Church relied on the Greek Septuagint, or translations from it, for their Old Testament, the Syriac-speaking church had its text translated directly from the Hebrew text, similar to the proto-Masoretic texts. In some passages the translators have clearly used the Greek Septuagint. Supporters of the Peshitta OT argue that the Greek translation of the Hebrew is problematic in places.
The Peshitta New Testament is a reworking of Old Syriac texts (combined with some Western and some Byzantine renderings) to form a unified version of the scriptures for the Syriac-speaking churches, in the early 5th Century. It however does not include the books 2 Peter, 2 John, 3 John, Jude and Revelation. Almost all Syriac scholars agree that the Peshitta gospels are translations of the Greek originals. A minority viewpoint is that the Peshitta represent the original Aramaic New Testament (Aramaic being the actual language of Jesus and his disciples and the first Christian Churches in the East); the Greek New Testament being a translation of the 'original Aramaic NT'.
The Peshitta, lightly revised and with missing books added, is the standard Syriac Bible for churches in the Syriac tradition: the Syriac Orthodox Church, the Syrian Catholic Church, the Assyrian Church of the East, the Indian Orthodox Church, the Chaldean Catholic Church, the Maronite Church, the Malankara Syrian Orthodox Church, the Mar Thoma Church, the Syro-Malabar Church and the Syro-Malankara Catholic Church.
There are a number of translations of the Peshitta into English, including the Younan Bible, Lamsa Bible, Murdock Bible, Etheridge Bible and Khabouris Codex.
The most complete of these versions is arguably The Holy Bible from Ancient Eastern Manuscripts, aka the 'Lamsa' Bible, first issued in 1933. This was translated from the original Aramaic Peshitta by Dr George Lamsa. It is argued that this version of the Bible is truer to the original texts. The Lamsa Bible uses ancient Aramaic scrolls for its translation, but in places reverts to the King James Bible where translation becomes difficult. The main area of contension is in the dying words of Jesus, in Matthew 27:46, which the Lamsa Bible translates differently. KJV:"My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?" vs the Lamsa Bible: "My God, my God, for this I was spared!"
The Ethiopian Orthodox Tewahedo Church is an Oriental Orthodox church in Ethiopia, that was formerly part of the Coptic Orthodox church until 1959, which it was granted its own Patriarch. It is one of the few pre-colonial churches of Sub-Saharan Africa, and is the largest of all Oriental Orthodox churches. It is thought to have been formed in 346 AD.
Some have observed that the Ethiopian Church is a shining example of Christianity working with the traditions of Judaism. The Ethiopian Church regards the Old Testament as as sacred as the New Testament, if not more so. Ethiopian Orthodox Christians observe many Jewish customs such as dietary customs and indeed circumcision, and some believe that Jewish practices and culture in the area predate Christ, which is not unfeasible or that unlikely given the history of the Jewish people. Perhaps the Jewish people should take note that it is possible to embrace both Judaism and Christianity together in a number of forms.
'The [Ethiopian Orthodox] Tewahedo Church Canon contains 81 books. This canon contains the books accepted by other Orthodox Christians.
- The Narrower Canon also contains Enoch, Jubilees, and three books of the Meqabyan
- The Broader Canon includes all of the books found in the Narrower Canon, as well as the two Books of the Covenant, four Books of Sinodos, A Book of Clement, and Didascalia.
There have been no printings of the Broader Canon since the beginning of the twentieth century. The Haile Selassie Version of the Bible, which was published in 1962, contains the Narrower Canon.'
The Gospel of Mary was acquired by a German scholar in 1896 in Cairo, Egypt. It is known as the Berlin Gnostic Codex. It is written on a 5th Century papyrus but may have originally been written in the 2nd Century AD. It could be viewed as evidence of the Catholic Church suppressing the truth about the role of women in the early church, as evidence of the political struggle between recognition of the Apostles after the death of Christ, or alternatively as total rubbish and a fabrication (wishful thinking). Some regard it as a 'evidence' of Jesus having a relationship and children but this is pure speculation and has no basis in any historical evidence whatsoever.
The Nag Hammadi Library was discovered at Nag Hammadi, which is close to the River Nile in Egypt, in 1945. Many of these were damaged in storage by white ants who ate parts of the scrolls, but all in all they have been preserved in remarkable condition considering the time elapsed. These scrolls date back roughly to 4th Century (at the time of writing of these copies), although the exact date of the writing of the original versions is a matter of debate and could be much earlier, for example the 2nd Century. They were written in Coptic and not Aramaic like the original synoptic gospels. A list of Codexes and scrolls of the NH library can be found at the Nag-Hammadi web site below. The translated versions of the Nag Hamadi library, can be found on the Gnosis.org web site below and on various other web sites.
The Nag Hamadi Library contains 'lost' gospels. Some argue that they are 'lost' and others that they were purposely excluded from the Biblical Canon because they deviated with the accepted view of Jesus and the Trinity in Christian tradition and existing texts of the time. Many of the Gnostic Codexes arrived much later than the synoptic gospels for example.
Some of gospels, like The Gospel According to Thomas ('The Secret Sayings of Jesus'), contain minor Gnostic references and some Gnostic concepts and elements (more than in the Gospel of John in the Bible for example), but certainly not the whole gnostic cosmology. Whilst still contested, they are not considered as controversial as some of the others. An analysis of the Gnostic content and ideas in the Gospel of Thomas can be found in the Gnosticism section below. The Gospel According to Thomas is probably the most widely accepted scroll of the Nag Hammadi library and certainly the most complete, accessible and readable.
Other gospels of the Nag Hammadi library are more contentious and contain more controversial Gnostic elements, and more clearly contradict the teachings of the Bible. Some are clearly dualistic or even pagan in interpretation. Some, like the Gospel of Philip, focus more on Jesus' humanity and his relationship with Mary Magdalene, which contradicts the account in the Canonical Gospels - this is in a sense more controversial and political than those texts with a just few Gnostic Elements in them. This is discussed below.
The Nag Hammadi Library is clearly very diverse, and it is up to the individual as to which are given any credibility and which are to be ignored as just someone's opinion and idealised view of how they would like the teachings of Jesus to be (i.e. an excuse to promote the Gnostic message). The Nag Hammadi library has been adopted by Gnostics and Gnostic Christians, but also by many Christians who are not Gnostic Christians.
The Nag Hammadi library is defined and translated below.
Much has been said about Mary Magdalene by the Catholic Church and other churches over the last 2000 years. She is rumoured to have been a prostitute and immoral woman before meeting Jesus. However, these rumours have no basis in historical fact or in Biblical evidence. A female prostitute is mentioned in the gospels but she is not identified as being Mary Magdalene. Indeed no mention of Mary Magdalene's past in mentioned in the gospels. Mary Magdalene was the disciple/follower of Jesus who first saw Jesus after the resurrection and clearly had a pivotal role in the four canonical gospels. She was a intelligent, level headed and independent woman of the day. It is likely that these rumours were spread initially by the Catholic church to reduce her importance in the Biblical story, perhaps to ensure male domination of the early church, and have stuck largely to this day. Was Mary Magdalene's role played down in the canonical gospels? Was she 'edited' down to give Jesus' story more credibility - female legal testimony of the day was not regarded as equally trustworthy as that of a male. Perhaps this had an influence in the canonical gospels. The Bible did not really offer much in the way of sexual equality and good, balanced role models for women, with specific exceptions. The Catholic Church has actually recently acknowledged that there was no Biblical basis for calling Mary Magdalene a prostitute and has acknowledged her role as an apostle to the apostles.
Mary Magdalene is identified as the person who first found Jesus' tomb open (verse 1). She ran to meet Simon Peter and the other disciple whom Jesus loved (verse 2). Why does John refer to 'the disciple who Jesus loved' which is much more long winded than referring to his or her name? If John identifies a specific disciple as being more loved than the others, then why not name him or her? John does refer to the disciple that Jesus loved in the masculine gender (verse 5). John states that Simon Peter and the disciple who Jesus loved both ran to the tomb to investigate (verse 3). The two disciples then went away (verse 10). But then John refers to Mary Magdalene as being outside the tomb, weeping (verse 11). It is not very hard to mention that Mary Magdalene ran back to the tomb. Why the inconsistency? Is it a case of bad writing? Or a case of bad 'editing'? Was the disciple of Jesus loved in fact Mary Magdalene? And the attempt to separate out her role into two people confused by the 'editors'? Was the attempt to describe both 'Clark Kent' and 'Superman' being in the same place at the same time always going to be prone to confusion? Was the role of Mary Magdalene separated out into two characters to give the Biblical story maximum credibility and Jesus a more divine sounding nature? If Jesus did love Mary Magdalene more than the other disciples, then what kind of love was this? Brotherly/sisterly love? Or romantic love? Clearly evidence for the latter scenarios is speculation and not actually based on Biblical fact. You decide!
The Gospel of Philip contains a an incomplete verse (the last few words eaten by ants): 'Mary Magdalene. [...] loved her more than all the disciples, and used to kiss her often on her...' This verse has been 'completed' by certain translators and speculative people as to saying 'on her mouth' - as in the Gnostic Society Library translation. However this has just been made up. That this is evidence for Jesus marrying and having children with Mary Magdalene has no basis in historical evidence whatsoever and is pure speculation. Works on fiction such as the Dan Brown's Da Vinci Code extrapolate such theories even further with more fanciful fictional additions.
The above is assuming that the Gospel of Philip itself is a valid and trustworthy text, which may not necessarily even be the case. Those that believe in the 'blood line of Christ' base their ideas upon dubious evidence such as the Da Vinci Code and false claims and falsified documents about the Merovingians (based on claims from one rather shifty and sleazy looking Walter-Mitty type that he was a surviving Merovingian, who later admitted it was all falsified). Of course, there is no record of what Jesus did before his ministry in his 20s and one could speculate anything, even if it totally goes against what he did in his ministry. However, using historical evidence, then one could assume that Jesus' brothers and sisters, who are mentioned in the New Testament in passing (i.e. the sons and daughters of Mary and Joseph), could well have been married and had children. These children would have had the bloodline of Mary (the mother of Jesus), which goes back to that of David, however this is not the same as having common ancestry with Jesus. At best they were 'half brothers'. It is no doubt possible that there are people alive today who are descended from Mary, but there was never anything supernatural about her DNA, and it is about as relevant as claiming ancestry to Ethiopians 20,000 years ago.
More 'evidence' to prove that Jesus had a child with Mary Magdalene is provided by the finding of the family tomb of a wealthy person called Jesus, outside Jerusalem, and not in Nazareth. It is estimated that up to 10% of the population had the name Jesus. The tomb is of a man called Jesus, son of Joseph and related to a woman called Mary in some capacity, with a brother called James. These were not uncommon names at the time. Mary could have been his sister rather than his wife. The Bible states that Jesus was not the son of Joseph but only the son of Mary. It was Jospeh's lineage to David that was seen as important even though he was not Jesus' father according to Matthew 1:16.
Another version of Jesus is described on Jeff Rense's 'conspiracy theorist' web site below - that of Jesus as a magician. Many Hermeticists and perhaps some Fringe Gnostics may have regarded / may regard this as a likely picture of Jesus. The belief in the extent of Hermeticism in Jesus' philosophy/practices varies amongst such persons, from a little to total. Egypt did spend his early youth in Egypt, and it is not unfathomable to believe that he was at least familiar with early Egyptian Hermetic or even Gnostic teachings.
Some argue that most Jewish men were married at the time of Jesus, and also that all of Jesus' disciples were married (but which is not documented either in the Canonical Gospels; and that if Jesus was married, it probably would not have been written about in the Gospels anyway as it would not have been considered important to the 'narrative'; and that if he was married, he would have certainly had children; and that not all of disciples and followers believed he was equal to God, although the Canonical Gospels cite as many examples of instances where they do.
It should however be noted that there was significant number of Jews at the time of Jesus that chose celibacy for spiritual reasons. These include the Essenes, the Jews that are believe to have written and stored the Dead Sea Scrolls in Qumran, at the northern point of the Dead Sea. Some Gnostics believe that Jesus visited the Essenes and was inspired by their philosophy, which included a belief in a soon coming end time and ritual cleaning. One could also view the fact that some of Jesus teachings pointed to his bleief in representing the Kingdom of Heaven on earth. One of his teachings was to disregard the family. In the New Testmanet :
Matthew 19:29:
"And every one that hath forsaken houses, or brethren, or sisters, or father, or mother, or wife, or children, or lands, for my name's sake, shall receive an hundredfold, and shall inherit everlasting life."
Matthew 22:23-30:
"[23]The same day came to him the Sadducees, which say that there is no resurrection, and asked him,
[24] Saying, Master, Moses said, If a man die, having no children, his brother shall marry his wife, and raise up seed unto his brother.
[25] Now there were with us seven brethren: and the first, when he had married a wife, deceased, and, having no issue, left his wife unto his brother:
[26] Likewise the second also, and the third, unto the seventh.
[27] And last of all the woman died also.
[28] Therefore in the resurrection whose wife shall she be of the seven? for they all had her.
[29] Jesus answered and said unto them, Ye do err, not knowing the scriptures, nor the power of God.
[30] For in the resurrection they neither marry, nor are given in marriage, but are as the angels of God in heaven."
A major conceptual problem for those that theorise about Jesus' alleged physical relationships and his alleged children, is that they largely draw upon Gnostic gospels as opposed to the New Testament. The argument is that Jesus was more 'man' than 'God', or that his 'manliness' was the entirety of the male experience, with all its desires, lusts and longings. These people (on the whole) believe that Jesus was not crucified, but had one or more children. However, the problem here is that Gnosticism (the philosophy behind the Gnostic Gospels) holds that Jesus was not a man at all, but an Aeon, a spiritual essence, imitating human form. Gnosticism holds that Jesus was not crucified but that his spiritual essence simply reunited with God, and that his crucifixion was a myth. So those that believe in his physical form are relying on texts that suggest he was not physical at all. It would be wise to consider these facts, and the cosmology of the Gnostic Gospels, before using any one Codex or archeological find as 'evidence', but try to find a consistent story or thread. The Gnostic Gospels are rather varied in the picture they paint and information/teachings/narrative they impart, so if one is to use certain specific Gnostic Gospels as evidence, then one must have good reason to believe that these are true and reliable, and that others are not reliable, true or relevant; rather than just pick the few Gnostic Gospels that suit one's argument, and ignore the others.
The question of who Jesus was in a complex one. And the question of what he taught is another. Ultimately, our view of who or what God is and what he represents actually defines for us who Jesus was and what he was about. If we start at the top and work down, everything should hopefully be clearer. If we are uncertain about who God is, if he represents a monotheistic God, Jehovah, a panentheistic God, or a pantheist monist ideal or essence, like the Gnostic Monad, and if the latter, in what context and what this actually means, then we are unlikely to have any idea who Jesus was either.
There is clearly a trend in post-modern and post-enlightenment society to increasingly distrust authority, the authorites and establishment's account of 'truth', and to believe in 'pseudo-science' and to question any established religious doctrine and theology. To the point where a 'conspiracy theory' or version of events is automatically given more credence than an official version! This applies to Christianity too, and the example of The Da Vinci Code proves this point. People are more likely to believe unsubstantiated allegations and theories, and fiction, than actual historical documentation, because it is the sort of thing they would like to believe.
There is perhaps a tendency to view the Gnostic Gospels in this manner, with rose tinted spectacles, and to interpret them in the way we would like the theology to be, and to interpret the role of women in the early Church in a way that we'd like it to be. However, we should try to stick to the actual documents themselves and not wildly speculate too much. Whether the Gnostic Gospels are pure fiction anyway is another question entirely! If we are to look specifically at the role of women in the early Church, then there are not really specific positive statements about the role of women made in the Gnostic Gospels in general.
Mary Magdalene is mentioned specifically in a number of the Gnostic Gospels, and the exact relationship between Jesus and Mary is not explicit or clear. However, if one was to wildly extrapolate from the Gnostic Gospels, and assume that she was Jesus' lover, 'bitch' or 'bit on the side', it does not really tell us anything positive necessarily about women in general in early Christianity. One can draw one's own conclusions about how the references to Mary Magdalene relate to women in general in Gnosticism and the Early Church, but the physical evidence is not there. It all comes down to speculation at the end of the day, and theories. And personal opinion. But you can't really prove anything, either way!
Early Christianity: Non-Canonical Texts, Cults and Concepts of Jesus:
Please note that the Berlin Gnostic Codex, the Qumran Library, the Nag Hammadi Library and other 'gnostic' texts are often all referred to as the Dea Sea Scrolls, although this may cause more confusion than anything else as the history and origin of these different texts is very different.
It is important to try to understand the Dea Sea Scrolls and other non-canonical texts in proper historical perspective in as much as is possible. The books of the New Testament were allegedly written in the middle and end of the first century AD, in many cases after the apostles had since passed away. Some date the books to the second century. The canonical gospels are traditionally ascribed to being written by the actual apostles themselves, although there is little historical data to support this, and they were perhaps more likely to have been written by others. They were originally circulated anonymously.
In the 300 years or so after Jesus' death, the concepts of early Christianity were far from widely accepted by Christians, and there were a large number of Christian books in circulation. There are considerable debate about the nature of Jesus, and the nature of the trinity, and whether Jesus was solely God, solely man or somewhere in between. And in the latter cases, there was considerable debate as to how much man and how much God! This related to the concept of the trinity and its exact nature - clearly a complex concept when one delves into details. Some theories were more leftfield and had radically different concepts of the trinity and even of multiple Gods (Jewish God and Jesus)! The vast majority of Christian sects however viewed the OT as sacred, Jesus having been a Jew and observed most but not all Jewish religious practices. For some philosophers of the time, the extent of separation of Christianity from Judaism was a matter of debate.
Perhaps an indication of the confusion that arose is documented in the canonical gospels, where the disciples sometimes refer to Jesus as teacher or Rabbi, and at other times Lord. These are very different roles. One would think it disrespectful surely to refer to the Son of God as just teacher or Rabbi? Perhaps Jesus only really portrayed himself as a Rabbi. There are some odd passages in the New Testament in this respect. Some passages refer to Jesus both as Rabbi and the Son of God. Others do not.
In John 3:2 (KJV): 'The same came to Jesus by night, and said unto him, Rabbi, we know that thou art a teacher come from God: for no man can do these miracles that thou doest, except God be with him.'
Is God with him (i.e. an enlightened prophet or teacher) or is he God? The verse above implies the former.
Luke 18: 18-19 (KJV) states:
'18: And a certain ruler asked him, saying, Good Master, what shall I do to inherit eternal life?
19: And Jesus said unto him, Why callest thou me good? none is good, save one, that is, God.'
Is Jesus implying that he is not God?
In addition, later in this chapter of Luke, Jesus implies that giving one's wealth to the poor (in addition to following the Scriptures) is enough to receive 'treasure in heaven' and eternal life.
'20: Thou knowest the commandments, Do not commit adultery, Do not kill, Do not steal, Do not bear false witness, Honour thy father and thy mother.
21: And he said, All these have I kept from my youth up.
22: Now when Jesus heard these things, he said unto him, Yet lackest thou one thing: sell all that thou hast, and distribute unto the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven: and come, follow me.'
Jesus adds at the end 'and come follow me'. Is this then necessary for the ruler to have eternal life and treasure in heaven? Or is the following Jesus necessary as well? And when Jesus says 'follow me', does he just mean follow him or does it mean that the ruler had to accept Jesus as God rather than just a teacher or prophet whom one might follow to become wiser and more spiritually fulfilled? You decide!
Jesus refers to himself as the Son of Man and Son of God in the New Testament, but it should be noted that the term 'Son of God' is also used to describe others. This is inconsistent. Does this detract from the meaning intended by Jesus' own use of this term? Or is this just a result of poor use of terminology, the lack of proper referencing to other work, excessive personal choice of symbolism or error in translation? Or a result of creative editing to emphasise certain aspects of the text to promote certain meanings to the target audience?
Adam is referred to as the Son of God:
Luke3:38 (KJV): 'Which was the son of Enos, which was the son of Seth, which was the son of Adam, which was the son of God.'
Israel is referred to as the Son of the Lord:
Exodus 4:22 (KJV): 'And thou shalt say unto Pharaoh, Thus saith the LORD, Israel is my son, even my firstborn:
23: And I say unto thee, Let my son go, that he may serve me: and if thou refuse to let him go, behold, I will slay thy son, even thy firstborn.'
King David is referred to as the Son of the Lord:
Psalms 2:6: Yet have I set my king upon my holy hill of Zion.
7: I will declare the decree: the LORD hath said unto me, Thou art my Son; this day have I begotten thee.'
Those who believe in Jesus Christ are referred to as Children of God:
Galatians 3:26 (KJV): 'For ye are all the children of God by faith in Christ Jesus.'
The Gospel of John refers to God, the Light, and John the Baptist, and then makes the following statement where the 'he' and 'him' one can assume most likely refers to God.
John 1:12-13 (KJV):
'[12]But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name:
[13] Which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God.'
Those who follow the teachings of Jesus are referred to as Children of God:
Matthew 5:9 (KJV): 'Blessed are the peacemakers: for they shall be called the children of God.'
Certain types of human behaviour were not accepted by followers of Peter who would later make up the Catholic church (e.g. romantic, sexual or other manly behaviour). There is a big gap in the story of Jesus of roughly 30 years where nothing is actually known. What were his relationships like with Mary and his brothers and sisters? After his birth and childhood, and a brief period of teaching in synagogues when he was a child, nothing is mentioned of Jesus until his thirties when he began his ministry. He seemed to have a huge command of the Hebew Bible and scriptures from an early age. Did he study these further over the next 25 years? Was he just helping his family, working as a carpenter and had a normal circle of friends and acquaintances? Was his carpentry any good?! What were his friends like and what were these relationships like? Did he show an interest in any women during these years? If so, how 'innocent' was it? After all, Christians date before marriage, and many abstain from physical contact during this period, and sometimes even kissing! Did he preach or teach in any capacity during these 'in between years'? Was he getting to grips with being merely human prior to beginning his ministry? Was he human just like any other man? Was he influenced by any fringe Jewish sects (e.g. The Essenes) in his own philosophy (as a man)? How much of a 'man' really was he or was he 'allowed to be'?
One book that claims to document the adolescent life of Jesus is The Urantia book. This was written between 1924 and 1955 by unknown sources, and it is claimed to have been written by 'spiritual relevation from celestial beings to the planet of Urantia' (a funny name for the planet Earth). It is intended to be a complete work on science, religion and philosophy, using many Christian and Gnostic Christian concepts with a little new age science fiction. The Urantia Book can be read on line at the second of the links below.
There are many unanswered questions about the life of Jesus, and the implications may affect our understanding of his place in the trinity to an extent. The early Christian sect known as Adoptionists viewed him as being fully human only during his early adult life, only reaching a state of perfection and Godliness (at one with God) later in his life (i.e. adopted by God). This was not however the mainstream view of Jesus in early Christianity. Many Christians are/were clearly uncomfortable with many of the human aspects of Jesus. How human was he allowed to be? Did he go to the toilet? What did he talk about prior to his ministry? Was he just a regular guy?
There was apparently also a power struggle between followers of Paul the Apostle (Paul of Tarsus) and followers of James the Just (Jesus' brother, the son of Mary and Joseph). This struggle was most likely really about the centre of Christianity, in Jerusalem or Rome. James was the first bishop of Jerusalem, and Peter could be viewed as the first Pope of what would become the Catholic Church, based in Rome. James and his followers had known Jesus in person intimately whereas Paul had never met Jesus and had found faith by hearing about Jesus alone. Could Paul have heard a slightly distorted or exaggerated version of the story of Jesus (relayed second or third hand)?
Some might argue that as Saul or St Paul had never actually personally known Jesus, physically, and could only go by what he'd heard and his own personal experience, that he was not really in a position to guide the direction of the religion and change it (allegedly). St Paul could perhaps be compared to the founder of Mormonism, Joseph Smith, who came up with a new type of Christianity from his own head - and question the reliability and appropriateness of such a source. Smith did not try to replace any other type of Christianity that went before him and homologate it in the way that Paul did of course. One could view this as a negative or a positive. Some might argue that Christianity needed this to survive - but at what cost (assuming there was a cost and that he actually did change Christianity to a 'cult of Jesus worshippers' rather than 'religion about the sayings of Jesus'.
James' Epistle features in the New Testament but is greatly overshadowed by the writings of Peter and Paul. Some argue that James' focus was more on God, and Jesus role as a teacher than on Jesus' divinity than the writings and words of Peter and Paul who were perhaps more keen to emphasise Jesus' divine nature. Whether James was actually suggesting that Jesus was just a man, just a prophet, or a man given power to heal and resurrect by God and the most significant prophet to have lived (in line with the Muslim view of Jesus), or that he was both God and man, but stressing his human side as much as his divine nature, is another matter and subject to speculation. Please note that whilst Gnostics may share some of these views, they do not believe that Jesus was a man at all, but just an angel (Aeon) imitating physical form (no physical resurrection), which of course contradicts the New Testament.
In the first century, there were three main Christian sects, those who the followers of James the Just (including Jesus' disciples and their followers), Pauline Christians - the followers of Paul the Apostle (aka Paul of Tarsus), and the Gnostic Christians. Pauline Christians began to dominate from the first century onwards. It should however be noted that Christians of all branches or Sects were equally persecuted by the Romans in the centuries prior to the 4th Century AD. Gnostic Christians were however regarded as the biggest threat to Christianity besides Roman persecution.
On the subject of James the Just being the brother of Jesus, there is a reference to Jesus' brothers in the gospels of the New Testament. James the Just was reputed to be one of his brothers. In Matthew 12:47 (KJV), they are referred to as his 'brethren'.
'47: Then one said unto him, Behold, thy mother and thy brethren stand without, desiring to speak with thee.'
In the New International Version, this is translated as his 'brothers'.
'47: Someone told him, "Your mother and brothers are standing outside, wanting to speak to you."'
The context is clear from Jesus subsequent response (Matthew 12:48-50 (KJV), as he refers to family members, i.e. mother, brothers and sisters:
'48: But he answered and said unto him that told him, Who is my mother? and who are my brethren?
49: And he stretched forth his hand toward his disciples, and said, Behold my mother and my brethren!
50: For whosoever shall do the will of my Father which is in heaven, the same is my brother, and sister, and mother.'
One could argue that this teaching of Jesus was against family values, in opposition to what most modern Christians regard as being something Christian. It of course depends largely on your interpretation, and in what spirit you adopt Jesus Christ.
Clearly before the introduction of a formalised New Testament, and indeed before the writing of the first of the canonical gospels, between 50 and 90 AD, Christianity had an oral tradition. During these years, it is highly likely that memory of the events surrounding Jesus and also subsequent versions of accounts of Jesus' life and teachings would gradually become somewhat distorted, embellished or mutate somewhat, certain aspects being emphasised and others forgotten; much like what happens in an office when trying to recall a procedure that has been used by staff not actually read for several years - recollections of the procedure will vary quite considerably. Can you accurately remember the exact words and context of your conversations with family members, 10, 20 or 30 years ago?
Based on the four main areas of Christian tradition, namely Scripture, schooling, singing and the sacraments, it would appear that there is no basis for Gnostic Christianity in these, but that certain aspects of its theology is derived from other sources or ideas (i.e. Zoroastrianism). The Hebrew Bible was widely acknowledged as the main source of Scripture, with some new sporadic Christian books being utilised by communities, depending on the location. Gnostic Christianity rejects the use of the Hebrew Bible and the idea of a physical resurrection, both of which deviate from Christian tradition at the time.
This is not to say that the four main areas of Christian tradition are completely accurate or complete with respect to the exact wording and completeness of Jesus teachings, the nature of Jesus humanity (i.e. his God/man nature) and indeed in the role of Mary Magdalene and the other disciples. And indeed that the gospel writers and their editors/compilers accurately reflected all of these things (i.e. some of the aforementioned Codexes that are considered controversial or with 'Gnostic elements' in them, but not containing the Gnostic cosmology.
In subsequent centuries, other Christian sects arose included the Adoptionists, Arians, the Ebionites, the Montanists, the Marcionites and amongst others. Some even speculate that the Essenes (a Jewish sect) could have influenced early Christianity and even Jesus himself.
The Ebionites were a Jewish ascetic Christian Sect that lived in Palestine and Judea between the 1st and 4th Centuries. They acknowledged Jesus Christ and also strictly adhered to Jewish Law and customs. They however followed the Adoptionist view of the Trinity, which is discussed in the section below on the Trinity.
It is understood that there is some Essene influence on early Jewish Christianity.
During the 2nd Century, Montanus claimed to have received a series of direct revelations from the Holy Ghost, but personally to be the incarnation of the paraclete mentioned in the Gospel of John 14:16. Montanus was accompanied by two women, Prisca, sometimes called Priscilla, and Maximilla, who likewise claimed to be the embodiments of the Holy Spirit that moved and inspired them. They were known as 'the Three'. They spoke in ecstatic visions and urged their followers to fast and pray, so that they might share these personal revelations.
In the 4th Century, Arius started a movement called Arianism. This is discussed in the section below on the Trinity.
Marcionism is the dualist belief system that originated in the teachings of Marcion of Sinope at Rome in the year 144. Marcion affirmed Jesus Christ as the savior sent by the true God, Monad, and regarded Paul as Jesus' most important apostle. He however rejected the Hebew Bible and the Hebew God Yahweh. He saw Christianity as totally separate from Judaism and in a sense tried to 'de-Judaize' Christianity and separate it from the Old Testament. He regarded Yahweh as the creator God, but a wrathful and vengeful lower being compared with the loving and all powerful God of the New Testament. This was certainly one way to resolve the conflict between some of the concepts of Judaism that seemingly conflict with the New Testament! Marcionism regarded Jesus in a Docetic way (see Gnosticism below), i.e. that Jesus was not a man and did not take physical form, but was the saviour sent by God in spirit form, but who resembled physical form. Thus Marcionism did not believe in a physical resurrection, in a similar manner to Gnosticism. The two Gnostic religions Manichaeism and Mandaeanism are both thought to have been influenced by Marcionism. There are important differences between Marcionism and Gnosticism however, and Marcionism is not considered to be Gnostic by many. This is because Marcion relied on the Epistles of Paul and took the Christian view that belief in Jesus Christ and asking for forgiveness of one's sins was enough to be a Christian and go to heaven. Gnostics had a different view, involving reincarnation and of breaking free of the cycle of rebirth by attaining Gnosis or secret knowledge. Marcion did not belief in the concept of secret knowledge or of discovering one's true nature in this manner, but through direct belief in Jesus Christ. Marcion was however regarded as a heretic.
The Gnostic Christians and more cerebral or philosophical Christians were less focussed on sacrifice and faith being defined merely by believing in Jesus and the Resurrection, but by a more internal, intellectual and philosophical approach to Christianity, and gaining salvation through understand deeper and hidden meanings in religious texts. This was perhaps more elitist and less open than the faith adopted by Peter and his (later Catholic) followers, which was more explicit in its theology (to an extent), and emphasized more the sacrifice of Jesus and gave people strength and the willingness to die for their faith. It is perhaps likely that Gnosticism's tendency towards minority and 'elitist/intellectual' uptake and philsophical and esoteric meaings lended itself well to being preserved in Masonic Temples in later centuries.
However, more philosophical Christian sects did not perhaps hold such strong beliefs with regards to conversion. Finding God through philosophical reflection does not lend itself to a strong belief in seeking to convert others. ÔConversionÕ is not such a simple concept as there are simply different shades of understanding God on a sliding and perhaps infinite scale. Spreading the word of God or knowledge of God is more a process of offering information and Ôplanting seedsÕ that may seem obscure to some, but more often than not make an impression on the subconscious mind whether the conscious mind recognises this or not. Some clearly grow these ÔseedsÕ more than others (i.e. a seed landing on fertile soil rather than on rocky ground). To just keep oneÕs enlightenment to oneself unless others particularly express an interest in it and ask one directly (assuming that they are even aware of oneÕs beliefs which they may not be) would perhaps be just a glorification of the self. One could be sitting next to the most enlightened or wise person on the planet, but if he never opened his mouth, one could easily miss it, even if one had a genuine desire to learn!
Mainstream Christian theology and teachings had an inbuilt duty to convert others and to preach the (Biblical) word of Jesus, via ministries. This inbuilt self-replicating tenet is present in other religions such as Islam, which seek to convert as many people as possible to their respective faith/denomination. This could be compared with a ÔvirusÕ or a ÔreplicantÕ (from the Sci Fi Series Stargate SG1), that exists only because of its replication from others. Or perhaps just similar to the way that human and animal life procreate in order to maintain the survival of their 'genes'. Is this approach to religion then a mechanism or programming to ensure the survival of the Ôspiritual geneÕ in future generations? If oneÕs ideas and beliefs are merely the result of inbuilt self-replication, to what extent is one enlighened, intelligent and acting according to free will? Such a view/approach may be justified by Old Testament interpretations of God punishing mankind or populations for being too ÔsinfulÕ in statistical terms. It could be argued that such core beliefs were introduced into the theology in order to preserve the continuity of the religion and to ensure that its teachings are not lost or do not just disappear into obscurity like many religions and teachings before it - does this 'practical' element however detract from the spirit of the actual teachings themselves? Perhaps it depends on what you believe those actual teachings really are. Are such core beliefs there to ensure its dominance over other religions which were considered to be false or inappropriate. Other religions were/are competing for people's minds, so perhaps it was felt that Christianity should be competitive also, given the hostile response and persecution early Christians received from the Romans. However, this is a sceptical view of course. Overzealousness to convert and strong conviction in oneÕs position as ÔrightÕ and another as ÔwrongÕ can often lead to division and judgementalism if one is not careful, which goes against the spirit of the actual teachings. Some more philosophical forms of Christianity regard living and behaving in a way where one does not know God or is separated from god as just ignorance rather than sin.
One could equally argue that if one has experienced peace, calm, beauty and enlightenment, and one feels compassion towards oneÕs neighbour and fellow man, then one would wish to help others and to let the other person know what one has learnt and to develop their own relationship and feeling/understanding of God. Oh course, one cannot ÔforceÕ anyone to believe anything - except if one is using the old Islamic doctrine of offering people a ÔchoiceÕ of Islam or the Sword. One can however choose to plant seeds by helping others and leading by example; by preaching the gospel (repeatedly) at people until they start to listen (or who avoid you because they are fed up with hearing it repeatedly); or by making the relevant information readily available to people should they wish to take it up. Clearly, approaching people and discussing spirituality with them may be more effective at some times than others; and it depends on what has gone on before and if any others seeds have been planted or not. However, to what extent is it caring to respect someoneÕs beliefs and freedoms to do and think what they like, and to respectfully offer up information in a semi-passive manner; and to what extent is it more caring to actively try to convert them as you deeply care about them? Clearly the latter position assumes that one is right and they are wrong or ignorant. It requires certainty. One can be certain about certain precepts in a philosophical approach too, but here there are many grey areas, leading it to be more open and acceptable to discuss with others than a more fixed position.
As part of the drive to unify Christianity, there was an increased drive to eradicate those books which were deemed unsound. There were a large number of different books in circulation, written by people belonging to a variety of Christian sects. It is likely that a letter in the 4th Century AD from the church in Alexandria to the Egyptian bishops encouraging them to unify in their formal adoption of the 27 approved books (of what would become the New Testmanet), and to dispose of any other unapproved gospels, resulted in priests or bishops taking some of the other texts and hiding them in the caves at Nag Hammadi so that they would not be destroyed. The Roman Emperor Constantine I become the first 'Christian' emperor, although the extent of his faith could be debated as there was still Gladiator fighting permitted under his rule! Constantine wanted to unite Christians under his rule, which later led to the formation of the Catholic or Universal Church. The Roman Empire later became known as the Holy Roman Empire.
Over time, the Catholic view predominated and those of other schools of thought were excommunicated or otherwise persecuted, along with their books and works. Constantine would perhaps have never taken up a faith that was fragmented, and so perhaps a more powerful, unified faith helped to spread Christianity throughtout the Roman Empire and into Europe. It is likely that what was the Catholic Church at the time held that a simple view of faith was easier for the 'masses' to comprehend and take up, more accessible and more effective in achieving mass conversions. That is not to say that that way of viewing the Christian faith was wrong, but it was perhaps necessary for its survival. The more mystical and philosophical forms of Christianity and Gnostic Christianity, theological and cosmological differences aside, were perhaps too elistist to really spread and survive, and would only ever really have found favour with the intellectuals of the time and the future. That is not to say that that view or approach to Christianity is wrong.
If Constantine had never converted, then perhaps Christianity would have died out or never actually spread to Europe, leaving Europe to be dominated by pagan religions, and morely likely by Islam in later centuries. Without Christianity in Europe, we would never have seen a Protestant Reformation, which was one of the key instigators to modern capitalism, democracy and individualism. One can of course speculate about the scientific, cultural, commercial and other benefits that Europe would have gained from a moderate Islamic faith.
As we know from history, Catholicism, Orthodox Christianity and later Protestantism prevailed over more philosophical forms of Christianity or Christian influenced movements. However, since the 19th Century and particularly since the late 1940s after the discovery of the Qumran and Nag Hammadi 'libraries', there has been an increased interest in the more philosophical aspects of Christianity, which are often at the expense of core Christian beliefs. Many mainstream Christian Churches are now trying to modernise, embracing environmentalism and sexual equality amongst the clergy, and even accepting homosexual priests and bishops. The Catholic Church is trying to face up to its 'errors' of the past in protecting child molesting priests. There appears to be a move towards more accountability and equality in the modern Church; a stronger desire to appeal to the young in order to survive. This is not universally so, as some Evangelical, Baptist and 'Fundamentalist' Churches, particularly in the USA, reject this modern progressive movement. To what extent will more modern and progressive churches embrace the more philosophical side of Christianity (e.g. Desert Christians and even some aspects of Gnostic Christianity) in order to survive or to grow? Who is to say in what direction Christianity will take in the future. It will be interesting to see.
Gnostics ironically have adopted the Gospel of John, but it is not actually Gnostic and was used by proto-orthodox Christians as a basis for argument against the ideas of the Gnostic cosmology. Carbon dating identifies some of the Dea Sea Scrolls as being written during the fourth century. It is possible that the original writings were written before this, as what we had at Nag Hammadi was copies stored and hidden. However, it is likely that the later emergence of these texts compared with the four gospels we know of today counted against their inclusion into the New Testament. Ideas of the role of women in the church perhaps also played a part in the selection of the gospels for the NT. It is understandable that there was a drive to create a more coherent Christian message as some ideas floating around were clearly contradictory and controversial. One may however debate about the validity of the end result.
So whilst there were many different Christian books in circulation in the first few hundred years after Jesus' death, and many different sects and views of Christ, the vast majority of these books were destroyed and became lost. What we have today is just a small part of this in the Nag Hammadi library, much of which is heavily fragmented, damaged and hard to piece together. The different views of Christ can be understood in many different ways. One may take a rigid view of the NT being correct and other gospels being heretical. Or one may take a view that recollections of Jesus, his teachings and his nature became fragmented and distorted by subjectivity, and that only by taking in a variety of views about Jesus and his life and teachings can one really get a glimpse of what the real Jesus was like; and perhaps take all the different views with a pinch of salt (as being interpretations and no one giving us a complete and unbiased view of Jesus) and understand where they are coming from and what they are trying to achieve and project. What we do know is that had Christianity not unified it might not exist today, but that perhaps in its present form or historical form has not perhaps embodied the true cross section of ideas and beliefs that were in evidence at the time of Christ and shortly after his death, and that perhaps the rigid view of Jesus that we find today may perhaps have alienated some who might potentially otherwise be attracted. Given the difficulty or near impossibility of piecing together all the Dea Sea Scroll fragments, then perhaps we will never know fully! It is important to try to understand the history of Christianity and also the respective beliefs of the various denominations and branches (viewed as 'cults') that deviate in their teachings from the Bible - both in the past and present - to understand where the respective ideas came from and who has shared them in the past and present.
Of the present denominations of Christianity, there are those that seek to preserve their own historical traditions, there are those that seek to preserve the historical traditions of the early Church, there are those that seek to dispense with tradition (to varying degrees, although never completely) and stick to the core message of and spirit of Jesus, and there are those that seek to recreate past or lost traditions of the early church based on references in the Bible and 'filling in' or making up the gaps.
Many denominations (of the latter category) are often regarded as cults by mainstream Christianity (the 'respected denominations' such as Anglicanism, Catholicism, Lutheranism and Orthodoxy, etc.) However, there is debate as to whether the Catholic Church is strictly Christian in all of its ideas and practices (hence resulting in the breakaway denominations). For example, there are a number of practices and beliefs which have no Biblical basis, for example, the concept of Purgatory, the veneration of the Virgin Mary and the Saints and others. Are these supplementary activities and beliefs of pagan origin, taken up by the Catholic Church to keep the pagan converts happy? Or were they brought in by pagan converts? Or are they in fact supplementing and enhancing what is written in the Bible, adding new traditions to enhance the faith and the follower's relationship with the trinity? This is for Catholics to decide for themselves. What indeed is a 'proper' Christian other than one who believes Jesus Christ is the Messiah? We should remember that it is not only Catholics who took on certain pagan traditions in their faith. Other Christian denominations have done the same, for example, baptism originates from ancient Egyptian Religion. Pagan festivals were replaced by Christian festivals on the same dates, etc. So one should get it all in proportion.
Catholics are criticised for using 'non-canonical books' i.e. the Apocrypha, but the Authorised Version of the Bible issued by King James in 1611 did include the Apocrypha and it was the formal Bible for use in Protestant England! It was widely adopted by both Protestants and Catholics alike. The 1611 AV Bible was originally issued including the Apocrypha (aka The Maccabees Bible), which were deemed to be non-essential but still spiritually inspired books to be included in this Bible.
The problem we have is that of history and wanting to know the historical truth about who Jesus was; and to what extent we can rely on the written gospels as they are today; and indeed the question of rewriting 'history' or accepted accounts based on questionable evidence. There was no formal church structure in place at the time of Christ, so one could argue that it is not necessary today to belong to a church to engage in a full spiritual life. Churches do offer the advantage of fellowship with other Christians, but this is not unique to a church. Early 'churches' were home groups, a small number of people collecting in someone's home. In a sense, no matter what books you decide are valid and to be read, the whole point of Christianity is a relationship with God and Jesus, and the opening of one's heart to the Holy Spirit. So any text is secondary to this experience.
Calling oneself a Christian could also be viewed as somewhat pretentious, as it implies that a one off decision or commitment is sufficient to ensure one has 'eternal life' and will go to 'Heaven', as opposed to being a day to day relationship and way of being in the 'here and now'. Clearly the whole concept of Christianity is forgiveness, and the concept of who you were before believing being irrelevant. One can only comment on the here and now, and ultimately it is not up to us to make that kind of claim, it is for God to decide! A little humility goes a long way. Early Christians did not refer to themselves as Christians but as 'brethren'.
Biblical texts can be interpreted in a number of different ways, and it is easy to read them and understand them in an intolerant manner (e.g. attitudes to 'sinners', gamblers, tax collectors (!) and homosexuals), and lose the whole purpose and spirit of the New Testament (the good news!) BlackSpy views any kind of spiritual enlightenment to be a matter of philosophical meditation on life rather than a simple and easy formula. But clearly this is a personal decision, choice and understanding.
Indeed, Islam sought to remove all idolatry from Middle Eastern religious practices. Some 'left overs' from pagan idolatry can be said to be found in Christianity, such as the depiction of Biblical characters, saints and so on. Such pictures include frescos, stain glass windows and carvings. In addition, relics and particular churches or Biblical places are often 'venerated' by Christians, even those that may be fakes, such as the Shroud of Turin (probably) or alleged 'bones' of Jesus or Apostles. Even if they are not fakes, it is somehow missing the whole point.
Exodus 20:4 (KJV) states: 'Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth'
Islam does away with all this and no pictures, symbols or images are permitted inside a Mosque. Perhaps Christians could learn a few things from Islam! To eliminate all unnecessary distractions and maintain a better focus during worship. Why Christians must all face the alter whilst praying is beyond BlackSpy. In early Mosques, there would often be no central focus, but a more egalitarian approach to worship and prayer.
In more modern times, other attempts to recreate 'primitive' or 'original' Christianity inlucde the New Thought Movement, as discussed on the Psychology Bibliography and Reviews page.
Christianisation is the process by which entire populations are converted 'officially' to Christianity has historically also included the practice of converting native pagan practices and culture, pagan religious imagery, pagan sites and the pagan calendar to Christian uses, reinterpreting them as their own.
Placing churches over temples of pagan worship was an easy way to maintain loyalty amongst the local population, as they were used to worshipping at certain 'sacred' locations, rather than trying to demolish such temples. Adopting pagan festivals and giving them a Christian interpretation could be either seen as early Christian attempts to appease local populations (or to distract them from their pagan Gods) and incorporate their festivals into the Christian Calendar, or perhaps 'counter festivals' conducted at the same time as pagan festivals, to symoblically oppose the spiritual activity taking place around them, or perhaps as a way to avoid persecutation by 'mingling in' and celebrating when other pagans were celebrating.
It is likely that early converts from Anglo-Saxon paganism to Christianity merely saw Jehovah as just another God that they could worship or include in their array of deities they worshipped, so conversion was not as troublesome as one might imagine; but in the UK for example, resulting in a mish mash of Celtic Christian, Roman Catholic and Anglo-Saxon pagan warrior and honour traditions and values - creating new forms of cultural identity (much like cultural evolution today). One could view this practice as a Catholic Church, already having incorporated its own 'pagan' practices into its structure, further diluting or losing the original Christian message - or merely as a cultural evolution of it.
We should not assume that Christianisation is a thing of the past, and that it was solely conducted by the early Catholic Church. Christian churches have become 'practical' and acknowledge that certain populations simply will not give up their traditional pagan practices and particularly festivals, as they are deeply ingrained in their cultural fabric, and are part of their identity, and they simply carry on these practices in parallel to their Christian faith. In an attempt to make themselves feel better, church leaders try to take over these festivals and rituals and give them nominally Christian references. Does this really mean anything though? For example, in the Philippines, in certain communities, there are fertility festivals that include dancing in the streets. These have been nominally Christianised and now are actually organised by the local Catholic Church! The basic content and spirit is however little different to the original pagan practice. In other parts of Asia for example, animism and ancestor worship occur in parallel to Christian beliefs, and the local churches have often arrived at a compromise, allowing locals to continue their older beliefs and practices whilst singing a few hymns and avoided blantant references to pagan practice, whilst still actually doing it. However, in some communities, such as in aboriginal communities in Australia, aborigines who are converted to Christianity still continue their older pagan practices, but they are now merely ceremonial and the spiritual meaning and knowledge behind them has been lost forever - the rites are merely a case of 'going through the motions'. Whilst not strictly Christianisation, in Africa, missionaries were disturbed by the sexual practices of local Christian converts, and thought them 'unholy' and wished them to only have sex in a certain manner that was considered 'Christian', which is where the expression 'the missionary position' came from.
'Reformatting native religious and cultural activities and beliefs into a Christianized form was officially sanctioned; preserved in the Venerable Bede's Historia ecclesiastica gentis Anglorum is a letter from Pope Gregory I to Mellitus, arguing that conversions were easier if people were allowed to retain the outward forms of their traditions, while claiming that the traditions were in honour of the Christian God, "to the end that, whilst some gratifications are outwardly permitted them, they may the more easily consent to the inward consolations of the grace of God". In essence, it was intended that the traditions and practices still existed, but that the reasoning behind them was forgotten. The existence of syncretism in Christian tradition has long been recognized by scholars, and in recent times many of the instances of syncretism have also been acknowledged by the Roman Catholic church.'
Christianisation can also be seen in the context of the reasons for conversion, which in Northern Europe, were often for socio-economic reasons, and that becoming a Christian was an opportunity to associate with modern Celtic technology, wealth, prestige, which was in fact the polar opposite situation when the Anglo-Saxons invaded Britain (Christians and 'Britons' (if such a thing existed) associating/identifying themselves with Anglo-Saxons for economic reasons, as they were more likely to get ahead in society if they did). For many such converts, they are unlikely to give up all of their old culture and traditions, and in order to assist in the conversion and retention of conversions, and to provide an incentive, direct replacement or mimmicking of pagan traditions was necessary.
Today, the Christian adoption of early Pagan festivals means for many pagans that much of the essence of these pagan festivals has been preserved and brought into the 20th Century, which they can enjoy and celebrate along with the Christians and non-Christians alike, but knowingly ignoring the Christian parts and focussing on the pagan parts that remain (very strongly!) The pagans are probably wiser to the situation than the Christians who are under the impression for the large part that all these festivals are of Christian origin! So in a sense it is a win-win situation! If you don't consider the perpetuated ignorance of most modern Christians about their own religion and heritage.
One can view Christianisation and adoption of spiritual ideas from other religions in a number of ways. One can view it in a fundamentalist manner, and try to remove all the aspects that you can clearly identify as being pagan from your religion, and depending on how far you want to be, it could adopting a stance similar to Baptist's or Jehovah's Witnesses in certain areas. One could simply be aware of them and just take the more borrowed or comical aspects with a pinch of salt, knowing the historical roots of all the different traditions you are involved with, placing your emphasis, focus and faith elsewhere. One could view it another way and give up on one's religion as it does not seem 'authentic' any more. Or one could acknowledge the spiritual heritage of your religion, and the fact that few if any religions appear out of 'nowhere' and do borrow ideas heavily from other religions, each time creating something different and unique, not necessarily 'better' and all others that you have borrowed from being 'wrong' - perhaps it is a mutation, assimilation or evolution. One could alternatively view the common elements amongst different religions and see the elements of perceived spiritual truth in a number of religions. Or perhaps just put all religions into context and try to differentiate between cultural heritage, appropriation, myth, fantasy and actual concrete spiritual truth free from dogmatic rules, and just understanding and working with the rich variety of spiritual principles available in the world's rich spectrum of religious experience. As long as one is honest with oneself, that is what counts.
The Roman festival Saturnalia was converted to Christmas. The Northern European pre-Christian celebration of Yule, in the middle of the Winter Solstice, was Christianised to become Christmas also. 'Jul' in several Scandianavian tongues refers to 'Christmas'. Contrary to the beliefs of many Christians, the date was not picked in December as a likely historical date of birth of Jesus of Nazareth, which was more likely to have occurred some time in the September in 4BC, according to evidence based on astronomical estimates and the actual start of Augustus rule under the name Octavian 4 years earlier. There are several theories, most assuming Jupiter to be the 'star' in question, in rare retrograde motion (changing direction across the sky over a period of weeks) in Pisces. However, other theorists base their assumptions on a date of 1BC, on account of a transcription printing error in the Josephus' manuscript, which arrives at a date of 25th December - this view is not widely accepted..
'Santa Claus, also known as Saint Nicholas, Father Christmas, Kris Kringle, or simply "Santa", is a historical, legendary, and mythical figure in folklore who, in Western cultures, is described as bringing gifts on Christmas Eve or Christmas Day, or on his feast day, December 6. The legend may have its basis in hagiographical tales concerning the historical figure of Saint Nicholas.'
This date or celebration of the non-canonised saint Nicholas has been combined with the 'birthday' of Jesus, on the 24th or 25th December (depending on location), as part of the modern Christmas Tradition. Are we confusing Nicholas with Jesus and with someone dressed in red and with a white beard who uses 'magic' to travel through the sky and give presents to 'good children'? The tradition is somewhat confused as 'Santa Claus' does all the giving, with the children just 'receiving'. Isn't it about giving?! It is held that there are many parallels between the Germanic pagan god Odin and Santa Claus in appearance.
The tradition of the Christmas Tree or Yule Tree dates back to Pre-Christian Europe, where the keeping of an evergreen tree inside the house during the winter was a common site. The tradition derives mainly from the patron trees of Germanic pagan tribes, e.g. Irminsul, Thor's Oak and the figurative Yggdrasil. Saint Boniface in Germany is credited with the invention of the Christmas Tree with a Christian significance, when he chopped down Thor's Oak in a stage managed confrontation, using the Oak instead as a Christian symbol. Throughout history, evergreen plants have been used for decoration in the winter, from laurel, mistle or conifer, and trees had a cultural importance like the maypole, the Saturnalia or the Gerichtslinde. Other notable traditions in relation to Christmas have also been derived from Germanic pagan practices, including the Yule log, Christmas ham, Yule Goat, stuffing stockings, elements of Santa Claus and his nocturnal ride through the sky, and surviving elements of Pre-Christian Alpine traditions.
The concept of Christmas is particularly confused, because on the one hand you have the birth of Jesus in the desert, and on the other hand you have winter imagery of snowscapes, snowmen, and the 'veneration' of a Tree in the home, clearly a tradition of pagan origin; and then you have Father Christmas! And also the modern commercial concepts of consumerism and children receiving/expecting/demanding expensive presents and toys. What exactly does Christmas represent? An excuse to feast and get drunk, in the pagan tradition (a Pagan Alcoholiday!)? A time of prayer, austerity and celebrating the birth of Jesus? A time of good will to all mankind? A time for families to get together, a celebration of the family (which Jesus was quite clear that he was opposed to!) A time to sit on one's 'butt' and watch television and James Bond movies? Many people assume that eating turkey and a 'Christmas lunch' or 'dinner' is traditional for all Christians, but in the West Indies, the tradition is to eat Oranges! A far cry from the Northern European pagan-influenced festivities.
Is the whole concept of celebrating one's birthday pagan? One could argue that it is as it is a celebration of a specific day of the year, according to the part of the season one was born in. Jehovah's Witnesses do not celebrate birthdays, nor Halloween, Christmas or Easter as they are considered to be pagan.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jehovah's_Witnesses
However, there is no Biblical evidence or guidance on the issue of birthdays, so whether it is or not is anyone's guess and up to the individual as to whether they regard the concept as ridiculous or not. Clearly the authors of the various books of the Bible expected readers to use their brains a little and to think for themselves.
Clearly no one likes the sudden increase in age on one day of the year and kidding oneself that one is not older the other 364 days of the year because one's age number is the same! But everyone likes presents and bonding with friends and family on one's birthday. Surely one should celebrate one's birth, i.e. life, every day? Food for thought.
'The name "Easter" originated with the names of an ancient Goddess and God. The Venerable Bede, (672-735 CE.) a Christian scholar, first asserted in his book De Ratione Temporum that Easter was named after Eostre (a.k.a. Eastre). She was the Great Mother Goddess of the Saxon people in Northern Europe. Similarly, the "Teutonic dawn goddess of fertility [was] known variously as Ostare, Ostara, Ostern, Eostra, Eostre, Eostur, Eastra, Eastur, Austron and Ausos." Her name was derived from the ancient word for spring: "eastre." Similar Goddesses were known by other names in ancient cultures around the Mediterranean, and were celebrated in the springtime.'
People often assume that Easter represents the resurrection of Jesus Christ, and that the egg represents the stone that blocked Jesus' tomb, that was moved as Jesus was resurrected. However, just how is a rabbit connected with an egg? Clearly rabbits do not lay eggs as they are mammals! The imagery of hares/rabbits and eggs in fact derives again from pagan traditions.
'In second century Europe, the predominate spring festival was a raucous Saxon fertility celebration in honor of the Saxon Goddess Eastre (Ostara), whose sacred animal was a hare. The colored eggs associated with the bunny are of another, even more ancient origin. The eggs associated with this and other Vernal festivals have been symbols of rebirth and fertility for so long the precise roots of the tradition are unknown, and may date to the beginning of human civilization. Ancient Romans and Greeks used eggs as symbols of fertility, rebirth, and abundance- eggs were solar symbols, and figured in the festivals of numerous resurrected gods. Pagan fertility festivals at the time of the Spring equinox were common- it was believed that at this time, when day and night were of equal length, male and female energies were also in balance. The hare is often associated with moon goddesses; the egg and the hare together represent the god and the goddess, respectively.'
'The date of Easter is very close to that of the pagan/Satanic festival of Walpurgis Night or Walpurgisnacht. Walpurgis Night is a traditional Pagan holiday, Roman Catholic Saint's day, and Satanic [1] holiday celebrated on April 30 or May 1 in large parts of Central and Northern Europe. The current festival is in most countries celebrating it named after Saint Walpurga, born in Devonshire about 710. Due to her holy day falling on the same day, her name became associated with the celebrations. Walpurga was honored in the same way that Vikings had celebrated spring and as they spread throughout Europe, the two dates became mixed together and created the Walpurgis Night celebration. Early Christianity had a policy of 'Christianising' pagan festivals so it is perhaps no accident that St. Walpurga's day was set to May 1st.'
'May Day occurs on May 1 and refers to any of several public holidays. In many countries, May Day is synonymous with International Workers' Day, or Labour Day, which celebrates the social and economic achievements of the labour movement. As a day of celebration the holiday has ancient origins, and it can relate to many customs that have survived into modern times. Many of these customs are due to May Day being a cross-quarter day, meaning that (in the Northern Hemisphere where it is almost exclusively celebrated) it falls approximately halfway between the spring equinox and summer solstice.' May Day, or Labour Day, is generally 'celebrated' by socialists and anarchists and is an excuse for a protest march in many European cities, and in some isolated cases, a cheap excuse for a riot to show 'solidarity with the workers and poor of the world'.
The celebrations of the Roman Feast of the Lemures and of Celtic festival Samhain combined and transferred to the eve of All Saints' Day a.k.a. Halloween.
'All Saints' Day, All Hallows, Hallowmas is a feast celebrated on November 1 in Western Christianity, and on the first Sunday after Pentecost in Eastern Christianity in honour of all the saints, known and unknown. In terms of Roman Catholic theology, the feast commemorates all those who have attained the beatific vision in heaven, while the next day, All Souls' Day, commemorates the departed faithful who have not yet been purified and reached heaven.'
'In Roman religion, the Lemuralia or Lemuria was a feast during which the ancient Romans performed rites to exorcise the malevolent and fearful ghosts of the dead from their homes. The unwholesome spectres of the restless dead, the lemures or larvae were propitiated with offerings of beans. On those days, the Vestals would prepare sacred mola salsa (salt cake) from the first ears of wheat of the season.'
'Samhain (from the Old Irish samain) is the word for November in the Gaelic languages. The Scottish Gaelic spelling is Samhainn or Samhuinn (for the feast), or an t-Samhain (for the month). The Festival of Samhain is a celebration of the end of the harvest season in Gaelic culture, and is generally, though incorrectly, regarded as 'The Celtic New Year'. The same word was used for a month in the ancient Celtic calendar, in particular the first three nights of this month, with the festival marking the end of the summer season and the end of the harvest. A modernized version of this festival continues today in some of the traditions of the Catholic All Souls' Day, the secular Halloween, and in folk practices of Samhain itself in the Celtic Nations. It is also been appropriated and twisted slightly by some variations of Neopaganism.'
One may choose to take the dates and the celebrations of the above Christianised festivals with a pinch of salt, as they are perhaps slightly pantomime in nature and today highly commercialised and more about children, and consumer products and eating chocolate, receiving presents and pictures of a dude with a red hood and a beard than the actual spiritual meaning. However, this is not to say that one should not celebrate the Christian religious meaning behind the festivals, and indeed that one should not do so on other dates or indeed every day! Although it feels better when celebrating something jointly with a large number of other people, one does not necessarily have to stick to arbitrary pagan celebration dates.
Biblical figures such as Mary, the mother of Christ, and Satan, could be seen to have been given non-Biblical interpretations after the Canonical Gospels were written and finalised. The veneration of Mary, and the image of the mother with child could be compared with the pagan and indeed neo-pagan concepts of Mother Earth and the Sun God. Please see the section on The Devil below.
One could also argue that early Christianity borrowed heavily from other religions, but whether the concepts were ideas that happened to be common to a number of different faiths or whether they were plagiarised is a matter of debate and clearly must be evaluated on a case by case basis. Whether early Christians were influenced by such ideas and concepts and incorporated them into their own faith (being reluctant to give up the ideas of their old religions), or whether they were later traditions or refinements that coincided with other religions, or whether these were concepts taught directly by Jesus, but not recorded, is a matter of debate. Most of the concepts and festivals that are considered 'plagiarised' or 'Christianised' appear to derive from the time between the 1st and 4th Centuries AD.
There are a number of parallels between some of the core concepts of Christianity and Zoroastrianism. Zoroastrianism, examined above, introduced concepts of Heaven and Hell, an independent force of evil on the earth, the concept of a saviour born of a virgin birth, judgement at death and also the Final Judgement. Zoroastrianism as a religion however was very much racially and geographically focussed, whereas Christianity made a break from Judaism as the religion for the Gentiles as well as the Jews. One can speculate to what extent the New Testament and canonical Gospels were influenced by Zoroastrianism, and to what extent they 'sexed up' the story of Jesus and the new concepts (above) that did not exist in Judaism. One could also conclude that it was either simply a coincidence, or a partial acknowledgement/realisation of (a version of) spiritual truth, before the time of Christ. The virgin birth story would clearly have to have been a coincidence if one is to believe this - or it was directly copied. Zoroastrianism does not encourage conversion, but holds that other religions offer an equally valid spiritual truth. This is not the case with Christianity, which held the exact opposite philosophy in this regard.
Please click here to read an article on how Zoroastrianism is seen to have influenced Christianity and Islam.
Whilst not a direct influence on the religion of Christianity, Zoroastrianism is thought to have a place in the NT story of Jesus. The wise men or magi mentioned in the Gospel of Matthew were thought to be Zoroastrian priests or astrologers, travelling from Persia in the East towards Israel, driven on the star of Bethlehem. There is no mention of there being three Magi or wise men, but it has often been assumed or depicted like this, on account of the reference to three gifts to the newborn Jesus.
In biblical times, there was no separation of astronomy and astrology, and science and religion, as we know them today, but they were one and the same. All famous historical astronomers were astrologers and often priests. They combined the scientific study of the stars and the visible universe with 'non-scientific' predictions based on the movement of the planets within (i.e. in front of) different constellations (corresponding to astrological symbols and representations of animals).
The three Magi are thought to have been Zoroastrian astrologers. In the stars, they likely saw a symbolic representation of the birth of a new ruler or king of Israel, and the star led them to Bethlehem. The magi played an important part in the story of the birth of Jesus. They were adding weight to the notion of Jesus being the Messiah and the King of the Jews, but also in that although they alerted Herod to the star, which he had clearly not noticed himself, and Bethlehem being the birthplace, they were warned by God in a dream not to return to Herod to reveal the exact location of Jesus and returned home by another route, avoiding Herod. So in short, we have several Zoroastrian astrologers who were believers, and who did not give up their astrology disciplines or Zoroastrian religion, but seemed to merely adopt/integrate a belief in Jesus. Astrology therefore has an important part to play in the Bible. God did not denounce their astrology or existing beliefs. God did not choose to communicate with many people in the Bible in a dream, so clearly the magi were held in high regard and were special or chosen. So whilst, Christians denounce Astrology as being pagan, God has no problems communicating with Persian astrologers who came to worship the newborn Jesus. This is not quite the same as the modern Christian church's view of astrology. BlackSpy is not necessarily promoting astrology, but it should be seen in its right context. Perhaps now that astrology is a separate discipline to astronomy, we can discard astrology as being historically outdated, but if the wise men were merely astronomers, and had no belief in the meaning of the observed star, they would never have come to Bethlehem nor been spoken to by God. So it is not so clear cut. Did astrology have any part to play in early Christianity? Much like other 'scientific' views of the day were a little superstitious?
'The obvious connection to Jewish rituals of Christian practices such as the Eucharist and Baptism, is often argued to be by design. Christian tradition places these Christian use of these activities as having originated in the life of Jesus, as attested by the Biblical narratives (e.g. the Baptism of Jesus for Baptism, and Last Supper for the Eucharist), and the Biblical incidents are said to be examples of Jewish ritual (e.g. Baptism as ritual cleansing, and the Last Supper as a passover seder). However, these practices are also present in several non-Christian, non-Jewish, ancient religions, a fact that made several church fathers uncomfortable. So similar were the practices of major rivals, such as Mithraism, and so obviously did they occur before the existence of Christianity, and unconnected to Judaism, that church fathers such as Tertullian and Justin Martyr argued that Satan himself had given the rituals to the rival religions, as a sort-of prophetic mockery.'
Mithraism was an initiatory order in the 1st to 4th Century Roman Empire, drawing on Zoroastrianism and perhaps Manichaeism (or perhaps it was the other way around).
As discussed below, the concept of the Trinity was already present in other religions, such as in Hinduism (Brahma, Vishnu and Shiva), Babylonian mythology (Anu, Bel and Ena) and Roman mythology (the trinity of Jupiter, Juno and Minerva - ignoring the other Gods).
Hinduism perhaps influenced Christianity in other ways, such as the use of Angels (Devas - "Beings of Light") and Archangels (Mahadevas - "Great Beings of Light"). In Hinduism, Mahadevas are worshipped, as deities, whereas Devas are just thanked for their good works. Angels in Christianity and Judaism appear to carry out the will of God, either to exact vengeance or to pass on a positive message from God to specified individuals, for example.
Some say that Krishna, the 8th incarnation of the deity Vishnu, was a carpenter, but there is no scriptural evidence to BlackSpy's knowledge to base this belief upon. Krishna was born of a virgin birth, of the Virgin Devaki, who was impregnated with the hairs from the head of Vishnu placed into her womb. Some say that this myth relates very closely to that of Jesus. However, there are of course differences in context and narrative, as Krisha was merely a incarnation in a long line of incarnations, whereas Jesus came only once (and is said to return for a second time only at the 'end of days'). Jesus was also prophesized in the Old Testament a thousand years before his birth, depending on how you interpret the scriptures, whereas Krishna was not. Krisha's mother was impregnated with 'hairs' from Krisha whereas Jesus' mother was impregnated with the Holy Spirit. However, the similarities are quite striking. If the latter is correct, are later renditions, refinements or culture/racial-specific versions of the same or similar story indicative or a primal truth or just appropriations of other traditions? For example, if a prophet, son of God or 'Aeon' was born of a virgin birth, were they all born of a virgin birth? For each prophet/holy man to be born of a virgin birth seems rather far fetched, so either one must be correct and the others are 'copies', or they are all based on ancient myths perhaps. There are of course many different possible explanations that one might consider.
Were the above merely influence, a coincidence or an acknowledgement of a spiritual reality derived thousands of years before? Or perhaps a reflection of the rivalry and/or influence on a given religion by those that went before it, perhaps to 'sex up' it's own spiritual texts and traditions from historical figures, or to try to convert followers of other related religions by including elements of their religious traditions within it (by making them feeling comfortable or at home with Christianity) - to ensure maximum conversions. Or perhaps these elements became adopted as the message of Jesus was spread throughout Asia as it mixed with indigenous religious practices and ideas, just as occurred in modern times with the spread of Christianity across the globe, where the church sanctions local mixing of indigenous pagan/animistic/spiritualist practices and fertility rites but branded as nominally Christian to appease the locals and so they do not lose touch with their old traditions that they love.
The Eucharist, or Holy Communion is the ceremony of the breaking of bread and sipping of wine, taking in the body of Christ and the blood of Christ, as in the Last Supper. It could in some respects be classed as a form of Theurgy, a symbolic ritual where one takes in 'God' into one's body in order to elevate oneself spiritually and become 'more divine'. The Holy Communion as a practice suggested by Jesus to be taken up by the disciples is described by Paul in the First Epistle to the Corinthians (c 54-55). It is described as something Jesus did but not something Jesus instructed his disciples to do in the Gospels of Matthew, Mark and Luke. John's Gospel does not mention it at all. BlackSpy wonders why Holy Communion often occurs with congregations looking so bored, unemotional or being so quiet, and often performed using 'mini-glasses' and 'mini-wafers' so that those of weak faith need not have their faith challenged by their weak, neurotic hygiene issues. In addition, do congregation members look ecstatic or enlightened after taking Communion? Not in BlackSpy's experience, in Baptist, Anglican and Evangelical churches. Is there really any need for it? In BlackSpy's opinion it all seems rather ridiculous - not unlike an overly ceremonial and pompous magic ritual. Unless the spirit of the Communion is there, the passion and fire, then surely it's not Communion and it shouldn't be taking place.
'Theurgy (from Greek) describes the practice of rituals, sometimes seen as magical in nature, performed with the intention of invoking the action of one or more gods, especially with the goal of uniting with the divine, achieving henosis, and perfecting oneself.'
Theurgy derives from Neoplatonism, the philosophy and religion so despised by many Christian Churches as heretical.
'The Neoplatonist writer Plotinus urged contemplations for those who wished to perform theurgy, the goal of which was to reunite with God (called henosis). Therefore, his school resembles a school of meditation or contemplation. Iamblichus of Calcis (Syria), a student of Porphyry (who was himself a student of Plotinus) taught a more ritualized method of theurgy that involved invocation and religious, as well as magical, ritual. Iamblichus believed theurgy was an imitation of the gods, and in his major work, On the Egyptian Mysteries, he described theurgic observance as "ritualized cosmogony" that endowed embodied souls with the divine responsibility of creating and preserving the cosmos. Iamblichus' analysis was that the transcendent cannot be grasped with mental contemplation because the transcendent is supra-rational. Theurgy is a series of rituals and operations aimed at recovering the transcendent essence by retracing the divine 'signatures' through the layers of being. Education is important for comprehending the scheme of things as presented by Aristotle, Plato and Pythagoras but also by the Chaldaean Oracles. The theurgist works 'like with like': at the material level, with physical symbols and 'magic'; at the higher level, with mental and purely spiritual practices. Starting with correspondences of the divine in matter, the theurgist eventually reaches the level where the soul's inner divinity unites with God.'
'Some regard the Roman Catholic mass as a form of theurgy, in which the being of Christ is called down into the Host and hence into the communicant. By a broader interpretation of the term, the mass could be considered theurgy in the sense that it contributes to the divinization of the participants. In Greek Orthodox Christianity, many of the services, including even baptism may contain theurgy (as Vladimir Lossky refers to Christian theurgy) in a thaumaturgical way, unlike magic, and not considered such within the tradition.'
Theurgy in Judaism can be found in The Tree of Life in the Kabbalah.
According to several secular scholars, the fact that even early Christian church fathers admitted that the other religions used these rituals, and that they admitted the other religions used them first, suggests that Christianity adopted them from these sources, and the biblical narrative was invented later to justify Christian usage. However, it could also be argued that the biblical narrative refers to the practices as they were known in Judaism, while the forms in traditional Christianity were taken from other religious sources.'
The use of bathing in Judaism as a form of ritual cleansing, the Mikvah, is slightly different to the meaning of Baptism in Christianity. The Essenes, a Pre-Christian Jewish Sect, bathed several times a day as part of their ritual purification.
The concepts of baptism were present in Pre-Christian Egyptian pagan traditions (e.g. Horus), and it has been argued that Coptic Christianity absorbed such traditions (assuming the Canonical Gospels were altered later to reflect this) or perhaps these traditions influenced the actual characters (John the Baptist, Jesus) in the Bible in the time of Jesus.
The Bible has been translated into a number of different versions since the 1611 Bible, e.g. New American Standard Version, New International Version, Revised Standard Version, and Good News Bible are amongst the most popular. The New King James Bible is a version of the King James Bible translation reputed using more modern English. There are various arguments for and against this version as it makes rather unusual changes. BlackSpy's personal opinion is that if you want to read the KJV, then read the KJV and not the NKJV. If you want to read a modern Bible, then read a modern Bible. Please see the section below on Christianisation for more information.
The NKJV uses the Triqueta on the cover. It is claimed that it is a Christian symbol representing the Trinity.
Exodus 20:4 (KJV) states: 'Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth'
Let us consider the origin of the Triquetra. Quoted from Altreligion's web site:
'The triqueta symbol predates Christianity and was likely a Celtic symbol of the Goddess, and in the North, a symbol of the god Odin. Although it is often asserted that the triquetra is a symbol of a tripartite goddess, no such goddess has been identified with the symbol. Similar symbols do occur in some Norse and Celtic goddess imagery, but most likely represents the divisions of the animal kingdom and the three domains of earth mentioned above. Triplicities were common symbols in Celtic myth and legend, one of the possible reasons Christian beliefs were so easily adopted by the Celtic people.'
'The triquetra (often, triqueta) is a tripartate symbol composed of three interlocked vesica pisces, marking the intersection of three circles. It is most commonly a symbol of the Holy Trinity (Father, son, Holy spirit) used by the Celtic Christian Church, sometimes stylized as three interlaced fish'
'In Wiccan and Neopagan belief, the triqueta symbolizes the triple aspected goddess (maid, mother, and crone). Some Christians have protested this "appropriation" of the symbol...however, ironically enough, the original Christian fish symbol was derived from an early symbol of venus, one representing female generative organs- making the triquetra perfectly appropriate symbol for a Goddess revival. The triquetra is also considered to represnt the triplicities of mind, body, and soul, as well as the three domains of earth according to Celtic legend- earth, sea, and sky.'
The fish symbol, or Ichthys, used by early Christians and in modern times, by Evangelical Christians has its roots in pagan religion. Is this really a suitable symbol for modern evangelical Christians to use? Why do they indeed need a symbol? If they are not to use the Cross, then why bother using any symbol at all? The fish symbol is often jokingly referred to as the 'Jesus fish'.
Counter arguments from a Christian perspective can be found at the link below. These rely on the idea that just because pre-Christian pagan traditions 'may' have used the fish to represent various concepts of fertility etc., this does not mean that its use automatically means that it is non-Christian. However, adherents of this theory probably would like to imply that there is no Christianisation whatsoever, or at least not draw attention to it!
Above is the symbol 'Ouroboros', the Serpent eating its Tail, has been used to represent many different concepts throughout history, mainly cyclicality, divine life, infinity and unity. It is sometimes used to represent the concept of Reincarnation.
'"Coiled dragon" forms have been attributed to the Hongshan culture (4700 BC to 2900 BC). One in particular, in the shape of a complete circle, was found on the chest of the deceased. The notion of a serpent or dragon eating its own tail can be traced back to Ancient Egypt, circa 1600 BC. From ancient Egypt it passed to Phoenicia and then to the Greek philosophers, who gave it the name Ouroboros ("tail-devourer").'
The Ouroboros has also appeared in Norse mythology, Hinduism, Alchemy, Aztec religion and also in Gnosticism.
'Christianity adopted the ouroboros as a symbol of the limited confines of the material world (that there is an "outside" being implied by the demarcation of an inside), and the self-consuming transitory nature of a mere "worldly existence" of this world, following in the footsteps of the preacher in Ecclesiastes 3:9-14. G. K. Chesterton, in The Everlasting Man, uses it as a symbol of the circular and self-defeating nature of pantheistic mysticism and of most modern philosophy. Additionally, the ouroboros has been incorporated into the crests of the Hungarian and Romanian Unitarian churches.'
It is reputed that the Ouroboros was a 'secret code' used to demarc early Christian graves.
Obelisks were a prominent part of the architecture of the ancient Egyptians, who placed them in pairs at the entrance of temples. The obelisk symbolized the sun god Ra, or Re as some know him, and during the brief religious reformation of Akhenaten was said to be a petrified ray of the Aten, the sundisk. It was also thought that the god existed within the structure.
The Vatican moved the giant Obelisk from Rome to a position in front of the main building at St Peter's Square in the 16th Century AD. It had originally been excavated in Egypt in the 13th Century BC, brought to Rome in the 1st Century AD by the pagan Roman rulers. The Obelisk has a nominal cruficix on the top. This is a classical case of Christianisation! What this has to do with St Peter or Christianity is not clear! It is not the first time that Egyptian religious symbolism has appeared in a Catholic context.
The use of ancient Eyptian symbols in a political/religiouscontext is discussed elsewhere on this site on the Freemasonry page and the Bavarian Illuminati page.
Many people assume that the cross is of Christian origin, and that other uses of the cross are copies of Christianity's symbols. It probably originates from Ancient Babylon and the corresponding worship of the sun gods Mithra and Tammuz, where usage of the cross was widespread in an almost identical form.
The Emperor Constantine, the former pagan sun worshipper, was reputed to have envisaged the cross in front of the sun, in a dream according to Lactantius, and in the heavens/sky just before the battle at Milvian Bridge, according to Eusebius (depicted below). This was Constantine's Cross, called the Chi Rho, as opposed to the cross we see today in predominant use with the corpse of Jesus nailed to it.
The Chi Rho is the earliest of the Cruciform symbols used by Christians, formed by superimposing the first two letters of the word 'Christ' in Greek, Chi = ch, and rho = r. It is not technically a cross but invokes the crucifixion of Jesus as well as symbolising the status of Jesus as the Christ (later with the letters Alpha and Omega on either side of the Chi Rho. The two bar cross was adopted afterwards, as a literal crucifix.
Other parallels to the unification of Sun God worship with Christianity (perhaps to ease uptake or because Constantine was still very fond of his old religion) include the declaration of the Roman Sun Day to be the Christian Sabbath (not Saturday like in Judaism) of the Nicene Creed of the First Council of Nicene in 325 AD:
'The Roman calendar included the day of the Sun [Latin dies Solis] for worship of the sun (see Sol Invictus). On 7 March 321, Constantine I, Rome's first Christian Emperor (see Constantine I and Christianity), decreed that Sunday (dies Solis) would be observed as the Roman day of rest [CJ3.12.2]:
"On the venerable day of the Sun let the magistrates and people residing in cities rest, and let all workshops be closed. In the country however persons engaged in agriculture may freely and lawfully continue their pursuits because it often happens that another day is not suitable for grain-sowing or vine planting; lest by neglecting the proper moment for such operations the bounty of heaven should be lost. "'
The adoption of the cross was arguably a form of idolatry and focussing on the Pauline emphasis of the resurrection of Christ as being at the forefront of Jesus' message and purpose rather than what he actually said about the kingdom of heaven and everything else. The Apostles certainly never walked around wearing Crosses or would ever have conceived of doing so! Imagine that.
Some variants on the cross can be seen at the links below.
The cross's pagan origins are displayed in the 19th century secret society, the Hermetic Order of the Golden Dawn, discussed on the Fringe Religions page, whose Rosy Cross incorporates other magical elements. Some Christians confuse the Christian Cross with the Ankh, the ancient Egyptian symbol, and BlackSpy even heard of one Christian wearing one, thinking it was a crucifixion symbol.
The use of the word 'amen' in Christianity, can trace its origins to various religious traditions and points in history. Whilst Amen is probably derived from the Hebrew 'aman' meaning to nourish or make strong. In Judaism it may be an acronym for El Melech Ne'eman meaning Mighty, Faithful King. Islam also uses the word 'Amin' in the same way as Christianity to end prayers (a non-Quranic tradition). Amen can also potentially be traced to Hindu and Buddhist traditions, containing the sound of the word 'Om'. 'Amen' also has origins in Ancient Egypt. The Sun God or creator God, Amun, a.k.a. Amen, Amaon, Ammon, Amounra, Amen-Ra was a lesser God in Egyptian Mysticism until 1500BC when he was raised to the level of monotheistic national God. It is possible that Jewish settlers in Egypt at this time may have incorporated the term 'Amen' into their own language or religious symbolism.
Is the concept of a Trinity and of Angels strictly monotheistic? Or is it a form of polytheism? There are five beliefs behind the Trinity:
1. There is only one God
2. The Father is God
3. Jesus is God
4. The Holy Spirit is God
5. The Father, Son and Holy Spirit are three distinct Persons
The OT and NT do not mention the term 'Trinity', but it was adopted in probably the 3nd Century AD, after the Canonical Gospels were written. The concept of the trinity, i.e. the separate persons of the trinity but also their equivalence to God, is stated/implied in pieces in various places in the Bible. There are various passages in the both the OT and NT that can be used as references for the above (e.g. OT passages referencing The Holy Spirit or Holy Ghost). For examples, see the link below.
As the link above shows, there are references to the Father being God, to the Son being God and to the Holy Spirit being God. However, some passages are slightly unclear. Are there any actual passages that mention all three together conceptually?
Let us look at The Gospel of John.
John 1:1-18 (KJV):
[1] In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
'The Word' is not really defined in the first verse, but being somehow equivalent to God. Did anyone really speak to 'The Word' prior to Jesus' ministry? Who did Moses and Abraham speak to? Was The Word differentiated here? If the Word has always existed, then why is it not mentioned in the OT?
[2] The same was in the beginning with God.
[3] All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made.
[4] In him was life; and the life was the light of men.
[5] And the light shineth in darkness; and the darkness comprehended it not.
Above, John defines the 'light' as being life in/through God.
[6] There was a man sent from God, whose name was John.
[7] The same came for a witness, to bear witness of the Light, that all men through him might believe.
[8] He was not that Light, but was sent to bear witness of that Light.
[9] That was the true Light, which lighteth every man that cometh into the world.
The 'light' has a slightly different meaning here, which we can assume to mean Jesus, although it is could still just mean 'life in/through God', John being a witness of God.
[10] He was in the world, and the world was made by him, and the world knew him not.
[11] He came unto his own, and his own received him not.
[12] But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name:
Here we have a reference to men becoming 'sons of God' as discussed elsewhere on this page, as 'son of God' is not an exclusive term used for Jesus Christ. But who is the 'him' and the 'he' here? And 'his name'? We would assume that the 'he' and 'him' meant God, but the reference to 'his name' would suggest/imply the 'son' or Jesus, from what we know elsewhere in the gospels.
[13] Which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God.
This is a reference to being born again in the spirit, that Jesus describes later on.
[14] And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth.
We can assume that 'the Word...made flesh' is referring to Jesus, as Jesus, the son of man, is said to be God made flesh. This is further elaborated on by 'the only begotten of the Father', implying it was the Father's only Son. However, this is implied rather than stated.
[15] John bare witness of him, and cried, saying, This was he of whom I spake, He that cometh after me is preferred before me: for he was before me.
'Him' we can assume refers to Jesus, from the narrative elsewhere int he gospels and the above verses, but it could perhaps also refer to just 'God' or 'the light'.
[16] And of his fulness have all we received, and grace for grace.
[17] For the law was given by Moses, but grace and truth came by Jesus Christ.
Verses 14 refers to grace meaning 'The Word made flesh' and verse 16 also refers to grace. Verse 17 states that grace and truth came by Jesus Christ.
[18] No man hath seen God at any time; the only begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him.
What exactly does this verse mean? Is it suggesting that man can now only see God through Jesus Christ, the only begotten Son (presumed to be the same thing)? What of the experience of those who communicated with God in the OT?
1John.5:7 (KJV): 'For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one.'
1 John 5:7 above states that the Father, the Word and the Holy Ghost are as one. Who is 'The Word'. 1 John does not define this, but it is implied from John above that it is the 'Word...made Flesh' or Jesus. This is probably the closest that one can get to a statement regarding the 'Trinity' in the NT.
Matthew 28:18-20:
[18] And Jesus came and spake unto them, saying, All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth.
[19] Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost:
[20] Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you alway, even unto the end of the world. Amen.
Here is another statement close to the concept of the Trinity, spoken to Jesus after his resurrection.
John 14:11: 'Believe me that I am in the Father, and the Father in me: or else believe me for the very works' sake.'
The above verse may be read that Jesus and the Father are both God, as one is in the other.
1John.4:15: (KJV): 'Whosoever shall confess that Jesus is the Son of God, God dwelleth in him, and he in God.'
However, the verse above from 1 John 4 suggests that he who believes in Jesus as the Son of God is defined in the same way. It would be helpful if this had been elaborated more fully as according to Christians, there is a HUGE difference! A man cannot become God! Having God dwelling in one and oneself dwelling in God does not make one God. So what does this say about Jesus statement about this?
John 14:16-17:
'[16] And I will pray the Father, and he shall give you another Comforter, that he may abide with you for ever;
[17] Even the Spirit of truth; whom the world cannot receive, because it seeth him not, neither knoweth him: but ye know him; for he dwelleth with you, and shall be in you.'
In John 14:16-17, Jesus first introduces the concept of the Holy Spirit, a gift from the Father to mankind to be with us when Jesus had risen from the dead and returned to Heaven. Jesus states that the Comforter/Spirit of Truth/Holy Spirit shall dwell in believers. According to the New Testament, there was no Holy Spirit experienced on the earth. However, what was the spirit of God felt by believers? What is the relationship between the 'spirit' sent by God in various passages in the OT, which are not references to angels, but in some form the embodiment of God (as discussed below)?
John 14:20: 'At that day ye shall know that I am in my Father, and ye in me, and I in you.'
However, in verse 20, Jesus states that again he is in the Father, and that we are in Jesus, and also that Jesus is in us. He already stated that the Holy Spirit will be in believers, so is this a contradiction, a blurring of distinction between Jesus and the Holy Spirit, or do they both reside in one? Most modern Christians attend churches where Jesus is said to be among us. However, are they really referring to the Holy Spirit? Few churches are churches to the Holy Spirit, but are dedicated to Jesus. If one believes in the name of Jesus, Jesus as the only begotten Son of God, then what is the relationship between the Holy Spirit and the Father? God is only the father in the sense that Jesus is the Son. Presumably the Holy Spirit is not another 'son', and was never made flesh. What exactly is the Holy Spirit? Is it the feeling of Jesus inside one? If the Holy Spirit was part of the 'one' from the beginning, along with the Word, then is it really just a Trinity? Are there not other aspects or manifestations of God that are not arbitrarily considered part of the Trinity that have been described in the OT? And if the Word had been one with God from the very beginning, and the Word can be seen as the 'spirit of God' or the 'teaching of God', then why did the spirit of God change from the Old to the New Testament? Surely God's wisdom in Jesus was present all along? Sometimes people use the phrase 'the Word' to describe the Bible as a whole, as if it is literally the spoken word of God in its entirety.
Jesus himself told his disciples that the Kingdom of God shall not simply be defined clearly to the world, but that it shall be communicated in a slightly metaphoric manner or with parables. This is a theme that is common to both the Canonical Gospels and the Gnostic Gospels. Jesus disciples spent much of his ministry misunderstanding him, and only seemed to have grasped his true message at the very end of his life and even only after his resurrection when he departed back to heaven. Is it not likely that in subsequent years, that believers in subsequent centuries would also not be in complete agreement or misunderstand his message, perhaps so much more so as they did not actually know him? One could arguably say this about Paul. What of the Gospel writers themselves? And the translations we have now, and modern versions based on older English versions which were themselves erroneously translated in places? Slightly variations in wording can have a profoundly different effect on the meaning.
Whilst the Father, Son and Holy Spirit are all God, they are considered by most Christians as three distinct persons. That is, they are the same 'what', but not the same 'who'. Not all Christians accept all 5 premises, and some accept only the first four, e.g. Modalism. This is in a sense a blurring of the three Persons of God. For example, the doctrine of the trinity led to many to pray to the trinity. Instead of addressing the Father as the one we pray to and Christ being our Mediator to bring our petitions on our behalf, the doctrine led to people blending the three together so strongly that there was little distinction between the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit.
Modalism accepts the first four premises, but denies that The Father, Son and Holy Spirit are three distinct Persons. Modalism is the view that there are no distinctions within God, threefold or otherwise, but that in God's external relationships with his creation, he assumes different modes in which to make himself known and to accomplish his purposes amongst humankind. The implication or argument is that the modes are successive not simultaneous and thus not representative of 'different Persons'. Modalism is the view most frequently held by Oneness Pentacostals and United Pentacostal Church. There are however references in the Bible to two or three Persons acting. Some examples of these are discussed at the link below.
The other extreme is to view all three Persons of the Trinity as being too separate, to the point of Polytheism; that they are three separate Gods, one central God and two lesser Gods (i.e. Mormonism - examined also on the Other page). The other view is that there is one central God and the other two are of equal status to 'angels', widely held by Jehovah's Witnesses. Both views have little Biblical basis however and certain passages imply that the concept is incorrect. Mormons are often classified as polytheistic, although they claim only to worship one of the Gods they recognise. These beliefs are derived from Arianism.
Arianism is an early 4th Century view that God is so transcendent and separate from all of existence that he needs a 'mediator' for every relationship or interface with the world. Jesus, the Logos, is then the semi-divine, and lived so perfect a life that he was given the title Son of Man or Son of God. Jesus is thus viewed as being created and not as strictly eternal (always having existed and always will exist), but rather immortal, i.e. Jesus is not God but is not just man either. The New Testament does state that the child named Jesus was conceived by the Holy Spirit entering into Mary, so in what sense is this a creation event. If the human form of Jesus was created from the Holy Spirit entering into Mary, to what extent was the entirety of Jesus eternal prior to this and to what extent is he a 'product' of the Holy Spirit and a woman? i.e. his divinity coming from the Holy Spirit? What was Jesus role in the trinity prior to his birth? Was he on the right hand of the Father through all of time prior to this? There is no mention of the Son, Jesus Christ, explicitly in the OT, although there are references to one that will come and to the future Messiah.
Indeed, to what extent is the human soul eternal (given by God)? Did the human soul exist prior to conception? Is the soul just allocated a physical body at the point of conception? If so, what was it doing for all eternity before this? Was it in Heaven? Or somewhere else? Did it have any self-awareness?
The formation of the modern concept of the Trinity that the vast majority of Christian denominations accept is actually based on a compromise reached by Constantine to appease both opposing factions in the 4th Century AD, namedly the Nicene Creed (325), The Council of Sardica (342), The Niceno-Constantinopolitan Creed (381). Thus the concept of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit arrived at and used ever after was a concession and compromise of differing opinions rather than rooted in Biblical scripture. That is not to say that it is not correct. The Trinity are all divine, but that in Jesus, his divine nature was integrated with his human nature. Opposing parties had previously believed on the one hand that Jesus' two natures were distinctly separate (giving the problem of how God could also be a distinctly separate human), and on the other hand that they were one and the same. Arianism held that Jesus was created by God, and the opponents that he had existed all the time. Arianism has been said to have influenced Islam in its view of Jesus, and also the modern Christian movements Unitarianism and Jehovah's Witnesses.
Similar to the Arianist view is that of Adoptionism (aka Dynamic Monarchianism). This the view regarded Jesus as merely human, but that he became divine later on in his life. This however denies that Jesus as a Person of the Trinity was co-eternal. It holds that God is one being, above all else and wholly indivisible and of one nature, it reconciles the "problem" of the Trinity (or at least Jesus) by holding that the Son was not co-eternal with the Father, and that Jesus the Christ essentially was granted Godhood (adopted) for the plans of God and his own perfect life and works. Adoptionism, in addition to contradicting the Canonical Gospels, does not also explain the Biblical references to Jesus preaching with profound wisdom in the synagogues as a child. Was he then just a 'wise' at an early age? However, arguably this could be explained by the Transfiguration, the moment when Jesus went from being merely a man and a wise teacher to becoming divine and God-like. The concept of the transfiguration is problematic when trying to determine just how human Jesus was before this and how human he was after this. Few Christians are completely comfortable with the balance of his humanity vs his divinity. How Jesus had such a in depth knowledge of the scriptures as a child? It is possible that he studied them from an early age, as there are childhood prodigies. Perhaps this knowledge was of a divine source. If so, then to what extent was Jesus divine all along and the Transfiguration not really what it is made out to be? Different types of Adoptionism hold that Jesus was "adopted" either at the time of his baptism or ascension. An early exponent of Adoptionism was Theodotus of Byzantium. The Sects that adopted Adoptionism (no pun intended) were the Ebionites and the Monarchians (Dynamic Monarchianism). The Monarchians also adopted a Modalist view of God (Modalist Monarchianism).
The Christian practice is usually to pray not to the Father but to the Lord Jesus Christ (e.g. beginning with 'Dear Lord' or 'Dear Lord Jesus'; and ending with 'in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ, Amen'); but it is not uncommon for prayers to be directed at the Father. The general convention seems to be to pray to the 'Lord' (which could be either the father or the son) or 'Father' and to sign off with a statement that the prayer is 'in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ', before ending with 'Amen'. It seems that the Holy Spirit is the one Person not often prayed to. What is the logic here? To what extent should Christians (be allowed to) pray to just God? When one feels God, which Person is one feeling? The Holy Spirit? As described by Jesus after his resurrection? Jesus taught the disciples the Lord's prayer, where one prays to the Father. This is the matter in which one should pray he taught. He did not teach them to pray to him. Jesus himself prayed to the Father (or God). Not to himself. Should we not also pray to the Father and not to Jesus, as Jesus did and told us to do? Does it matter? Why is the father (or just plain 'God' -God is God after all) not prayed to more often Christians? Do they feel bad if they neglect Jesus? Sometimes, Lord is used in prayer to imply either God or Jesus, is it important which one in the mind of the worshipper? What part of the Trinity is Lord referring to? Jesus? Or the Father?
Christians believe that our covenant is with Jesus Christ, regardless of Jesus own covenant with the Father. Because the Father sacrificed Jesus for the sins of the world, we are able to ask Jesus for forgiveness and to pray to God in the name of Jesus in order to communicate with the Father, rather than make sacrifices as a way of asking for forgiveness as described in the pre-Jesus OT. Christ in a sense is the ultimate sacrificial offering to God. By using Jesus' name and praying to the Father in Jesus name, we are representing Jesus as a sacrificial offering to God, and hence we are no longer bound to the letter by the laws of the OT. To mention 'in Jesus' name' we are communicating directly with the Father but mentioning that 'Jesus sent us'. Jesus is said to represent the ultimate level of holiness that we as humans strive to achieve, and that we pray to God AS Jesus, as hopefully representatives of Jesus Christ. Whilst there is a certain logic here, it is still a rather strange concept to many believers and non-believers, and hard to many Church ministers to grasp or teach correct. Indeed, this probably why there is so much variation in the understanding of the concept.
There appears to be some confusion in terms of the concept of Blessings in Christianity. Who gives them and where do they come from? Christians often say ÔGod Bless YouÕ? Why is this? Are they asking God to Bless them? Or do they believe that they are in command of blessings or in directing them on some level? Is it an encouragement to the receiver to feel blessed? The saying often results in an elevated state in the receiver, or a sense of feeling closer to God, if they believe in God. Why do Christians not say ÔJesus Bless YouÕ rather than ÔGod Bless YouÕ? If they pray to Jesus? Why is the phrase GBY used on receipts in the retail section in the USA? What has retail consumer capitalism to do with religion and Jesus? If retailers can utilise religious feeling to create a good feeling and of Godliness associated with their store, customers are more likely to come back and spend again. As if one associates good feelings with buying from a certain vendor, or rapport with a salesperson, then repeat business is more likely. Is this exploitation of Christianity viewed as acceptable by Christians? Why about references to God on the Dollar Bill? What has God got to do with Central Banking and capitalism?
It could be argued that if we pray to Jesus and notice an immediate result or a miracle, then is this because we prayed directly to God, the whole of the Trinity, or just one of the Persons of the Trinity? If we assumed for a moment that Jesus was just a prophet, and not the Son of God, and that the Trinity did not exist, but that there was one God alone, Jehovah aka Jahweh - would a prayer to Jesus Christ/Lord Jesus actually work and would God listen. Clearly we can see examples of prayer to Jesus working, sometimes even with miraculous results - is this because we were directly openning our hearts to Jesus, or was God listening (the Father - assuming no Trinity), but regardless of the words and titles used, the spirit of God being prayed to was the same, and that God recognised it and answered it? If we pray to Jesus Christ in this way, we are conceiving of God in a certain way, not in intellectual tems, but a certain aspect of God, a certain Person of God. This may be very powerful way of connecting to God, regardless of whether Jesus is God, or whether it is just the Father who is God. Presumably the theology is irrelevant when entering a deeply spiritual state, letting go of the ego and feeling God with one's heart. Does God really hear the words or is one really just communicating in spirit, in emotion of joy and love for God, which God can feel? Prayer is/should be an opportunity for humility, honesty with self and with God, and to open one's heart. It should not really be an opportunity for gratuitous self-serving thoughts of 'I want that Ferrari' or 'I want that parking space' etc., even though positive visualisation according to the principles of the law of attraction may indeed set up one's mindset and mental resources in order to make it happen. Prayer in a sense is a direct way to 'see' God. Perhaps the emotional association with each term for God thus triggers our emotional state when we use it and try to connect to that Person of God. Perhaps one could use it as a metaphor for connecting to one's higher self and that with positive visualisation and the mind and body working at the optimum level of positive 'vibration', that miraculous results can be possible. Clearly one can view the Trinity and prayer in any number of critical ways! However, we are here just concerned with why it works and the mechanism, considering all possible different scenarios for the reader's benefit.
On the subject of prayer, miracles and the Trinity, there are a large number of documented miracles that have occurred through the power of prayer. The revivalist web site below contains a list of verified testimonies. The main page is www.ibethel.org
One can see the Biblical references that imply that there is a trinity. We can see the what and who. One could indeed ask why there is a trinity however. Could it purpose not be served by just one Person? Can anyone truly understand the exact nature of the trinity? To what extent can they all be God but simultaneously be separate People? And how separate are they if they are all God?
The First Vatican Council called the Trinity a Mystery, a truth that we are usually incapable of discovering or understanding apart from through Divine Revelation; and even then which when revealed may still remain hidden by a veil of faith and enveloped by a kind of darkness, most impenetrable to reason.
In some respects, one could argue that excessive intellectualisation misses the point and one should just feel and communicate with God. However, is this a form of Modalism? Christians expect non-Christians to comprehend this and often have difficulty themselves! The Trinity is one of the most misunderstood aspects of Christianity. Clearly the concept of the Trinity deserves more study and thought.
The Muslim view of the Trinity is slightly skewed by Mohammed's misinterpretation of Catholicism, with its focus on the veneration of the Virgin Mother Mary. Thus, Islam came to view the Trinity as being the Father, Jesus and Mary, instead of the Father, Jesus and the Holy Spirit. Muslim ideas about Jesus and the Trinity can also be read in the section below.
One may acknowlege the Biblical evidence for a Trinity, but to really understand why there is a Trinity and really the relationship between the 'what' and the 'who' is another matter, and something many Christians still struggle with. Both the Trinity concept and Arianism regard Jesus and the Holy Spirit as 'mediators' in some sense, but that the Trinitarian view is that Jesus as a mediator is God, whereas the Arian view is that Jesus as mediator is semi-God and not actually God.
Judaism regards the Trinity as a false doctrine and is some sense could be considered the basis for Arianism. Jews argue that the OT is quite clear that God, The Eternal, is indivisible and one, and that the Jews were taught by Moses to only pray in the one God's name. Isaiah writes of God's words that he was the first and the last, and besides him there is no God. Jews do also not accept that Jesus was God, but instead a heretic. Judaism argues that there is no direct reference to the word Trinity, or complete single verse explanation of it, in the Old Testament (which is true). Judaism also argues that certain passages from the NT state that not all parts of the trinity have equal power, nor is the punishment for blasphemy against any one person of the Trinity the same.
Judaism also points to the passages from the New Testament as evidence questioning the validity of the concept of the Trinity:
1) Jesus does not have the same power as the other Persons of the Trinity - presumably Jesus should be forgiving them in any case as he is God?
Luke 23:34 (KJV): 'Then said Jesus, Father, forgive them; for they know not what they do. And they parted his raiment, and cast lots.'
2) Jesus will is not quite the same as the Father.
Matthew 26:42: 'He went away again the second time, and prayed, saying, O my Father, if this cup may not pass away from me, except I drink it, thy will be done.'
Jesus was man as well as God, but his will should be that of the father - even in times of weakness? As when he was tempted by the devil in the desert. Indeed one could argue that Jesus should not need to pray to the father if he is already God - unless his human side is somehow separated from his God-side, compartmentalised somehow. If Jesus prayed to the Father, and showed us the Lord's prayer beginning 'Our Father..', why do most Christians pray to the 'Lord Jesus' and not just to the Father?
3) Jesus did not have the knowledge of the Father - one can presume that his includes both Jesus and the Holy Spirit?
Matthew 24:36: 'But of that day and hour knoweth no man, no, not the angels of heaven, but my Father only.'
Mark 13:32: 'But of that day and that hour knoweth no man, no, not the angels which are in heaven, neither the Son, but the Father.'
Judaism also argues that God has sent many spirits to mankind, apart from Angels, for example:
1) The Spirit of God - Genesis 1:2 (KJV): 'And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.'
2) Evil Spirit of God - I Samuel 16:23 (KJV): 'And it came to pass, when the evil spirit from God was upon Saul, that David took an harp, and played with his hand: so Saul was refreshed, and was well, and the evil spirit departed from him.'
3) The Lying Spirit of God - I Kings 22:23 (KJV): 'Now therefore, behold, the LORD hath put a lying spirit in the mouth of all these thy prophets, and the LORD hath spoken evil concerning thee.'
4) The Destroyer - Exodus 12:23 (KJV): 'For the LORD will pass through to smite the Egyptians; and when he seeth the blood upon the lintel, and on the two side posts, the LORD will pass over the door, and will not suffer the destroyer to come in unto your houses to smite you.'
5) The Burning Bush - Exodus 3:2-4 (KJV):
'2: And the angel of the LORD appeared unto him in a flame of fire out of the midst of a bush: and he looked, and, behold, the bush burned with fire, and the bush was not consumed.
3: And Moses said, I will now turn aside, and see this great sight, why the bush is not burnt.
4: And when the LORD saw that he turned aside to see, God called unto him out of the midst of the bush, and said, Moses, Moses. And he said, Here am I.'
These are described or implied in the Bible as being aspects of God in some sense. However, Judaism argues that if one is to adopt a concept of the Trinity, or multiple Persons of God, or 'mediators, then surely these forms should have been included too? Or none included at all. It is thus thought that Christians and the NT in general have arbitrarily chosen the Holy Spirit and the Son and ignored the others. Jews often accuse Christianity of wanting a concept of 3 Persons, in similar keeping to other religions like Hinduism (Brahma, Vishnu and Shiva), Babylonian mythology (Anu, Bel and Ena) and Roman mythology (the trinity of Jupiter, Juno and Minerva - ignoring the other Gods). However, if one is to take the New Testament as fact, then it is clear that this is not what Jesus taught.
Judaism argues that many of the concepts of the New Testament are out of keeping with the teachings of the Old Testament, for example, returning to the pagan concept of human sacrifice, not sticking to just the one Person of God, different concepts of Hell and of Satan, introducing the concept of 'original sin', using the concept of another dying for one's sins (not permitted in OT); and Jesus not fulfilling many of the Messianic prophecies, and thus in some sense it is not valid as it breaks with God's teachings.
Christians argue that the purpose of Jesus ministry was to act as a more effective 'mediator' to mankind than to necessarily fulfill every prophecy of the Tanakh. Indeed, Jesus was not recognised as the Messiah by many Jews for this reason, as he was not seen as a literal, powerful, political King for the Nation of Israel.
Judaism believes that man cannot become God and God cannot become man. This is the pagan tradition of the Pharaohs and Roman Emperors who claimed to be Gods and were worshipped.
Hosea 11:9 (KJV): 'I will not execute the fierceness of mine anger, I will not return to destroy Ephraim: for I am God, and not man; the Holy One in the midst of thee: and I will not enter into the city.'
Numbers 23:19 (KJV): 'God is not a man, that he should lie; neither the son of man, that he should repent: hath he said, and shall he not do it? or hath he spoken, and shall he not make it good?'
Muslims deny the divinity of Jesus and the concept of the Trinity, but believe Jesus to be a prophet, a man born of immaculate conception of Mary and the Holy Spirit; a man who was miraculously endowed by God and able to perform miracles; and who did not die on the cross; there being no physical resurrection but Jesus was carried up to God in a spiritual resurrection.
Qur'an 4:156-157: '(156)And because of their saying: We slew the Messiah, Jesus son of Mary, Allah's messenger - they slew him not nor crucified him, but it appeared so unto them; and lo! those who disagree concerning it are in doubt thereof; they have no knowledge thereof save pursuit of a conjecture; they slew him not for certain. (157) But Allah took him up unto Himself. Allah was ever Mighty, Wise.'
Muslim academics claim that Paul changed Christian doctrines and incorporated Pagan Roman Traditions and Platonic philosophy. Paul is considered to have added the following ideas to Christianity:
1) That Jesus is the Son of God
2) The concept of Atonement
3) The renunciation of the Law of the Torah
It is claimed that Paul did this to try to win over the Gentiles (non-Jews) and that the actual followers of Jesus and those who had known Jesus strongly resisted these ideas.
Muslim academics often point to the Gospel of Barnabas as evidence. The disciple Barnabas is reputed to have written a gospel documenting the 'real' Jesus. Muslim academics claim that the Gospel of Barnabas dates back to perhaps the first century, and claim it was accepted as Canonical Gospel in the Churches of Alexandria until 325 AD. Saint Iranaeus (130-200 AD) is claimed to have been a staunch opponent of Paul and his ideas about Jesus and is claimed to have quoted frequently from this gospel in his writings.
Two versions of the Gospel of Barnabas have been found, one in Spanish and one in Italian, not Aramaic or Hebrew. Experts have dated it to the 14th or 16th Century at the earliest. The text contains a number of anachronisms and geographical errors. It is generally believed to be a Medieval forgery, a pseudepigraphical work.
It is likely that Muslim academics are confusing the Gospel of Barnabas the Epistle of Barnabas, written in the first Century, or perhaps even the Acts of Barnabas and the Epistle of Barnabas:
The Epistle of Barnabas was written between AD 70 and 135. It is traditionally ascribed to the Barnabas who is mentioned in the Acts of the Apostles, though some ascribe it to another apostolic father of the same name, a 'Barnabas of Alexandria', or simply attribute it to an unknown early Christian teacher. Toward the end of the second century Clement of Alexandria cites the Epistle. It is also appealed to by Origen. Eusebius, however, objected to it and ultimately the epistle disappeared from the appendix to the New Testament, or rather the appendix disappeared with the epistle. The epistle generally sided with the Pauline view of Christianity and is not considered Gnostic in general. Perhaps the association of the Epistle of Barnabas with Clement of Alexandria is behind the Muslim academic claim that the 'Gospel of Barnabas' was part of the accepted canon of the Churches of Alexandria at this time.
The Acts of Barnabas has been identified by its use of language as a 5th Century AD work. The text of the pseudepigraphical (falsely attrituted work of the) Acts of Barnabas claims to identify its author as 'John Mark', the companion of Paul, as if writing an account of Barnabas, the Cypriot Jew who was a member of the earliest church at Jerusalem. The convert Saul was welcomed into the apostolic community through the services of Barnabas.
Saint Irenaeus was bishop of Lugdunum in Gaul, now Lyons, France. He was an early church father and apologist, and first great Catholic theologian. His writings were formative in the early development of Christian theology. He was a disciple of Polycarp of Smyrna, who was said to be a disciple of John the Evangelist. His most famous book 'Against Heresies' (180 AD) was a detailed attack on Gnosticism. More recent findings from Nag Hammadi however show that Irenaeus' view of Gnosticism and his claims were highly inaccurate. Perhaps Muslim academics believe he quoted from the Epistle of Barnabas, which they are perhaps confusing with the Gospel of Barnabas.
This is not to say that the Muslim view of Jesus is necessarily wrong, but that the evidence cited could be considered as highly flawed and inaccurate.
If one views spiritual fulfillment as being in tune with God, and if there is only one God, then evil could be viewed as the absence of spiritual awareness and a moving away from God and connectedness; towards the ego, and self-power through negative and hateful actions. Clearly one requires an ego in certain respects to interact with the world and to survive. The ego is in a sense a defense mechanism ingrained from our animal 'fight or flight' days. Is it important to literally believe in the concept of the Devil, and in Satan as a self-conscious being? Does belief in God necessarily mean that one has to believe in the Devil? The Devil is often cited as being the 'opposite' of God, and as such, is given the status of a 'God', albeit an evil one! As a fallen angel, surely Satan is just an evil spirit, as other demons are. The 'enemies' of being with God in our day to day experience are demons, or evil spirits, who normally reside in the astral plane. Does one really need to know the exact hierarchy and which exact evil spirit is trying to mess us around? Do demons have to necessarily have a 'big boss'? Probably not. To what extent can Christian beliefs be considered dualistic in terms of two 'Gods', one good and one evil, (i.e. ditheistic - two opposing Gods, as opposed to bitheistic meaning two complimentary Gods!), and to what extent can it be considered monistic, monotheistic and/or panentheistic? Can an angel, whether fallen or not, exert such a big influence on the minds and hearts of humanity? Or is he working with considerable help from 'friends', i.e. other evil spirits? Or is 'evil' just the sensation of egotism and turning away from God, in its lowest form?
Dualism when applied to theism is the belief in two Gods, either complimentary (bitheism) or in opposition to one another (i.e. ditheism). Many Christians have a perception of Satan as a 'God' and being the polar opposite to God. This is a somewhat dualistic (ditheistic) interpretation of Christianity. Those of this perspective may view evil as being that which highlights the good that there is, and in a sense good and evil having some kind of symbiotic relationship, one 'needing' the other.
Some Christians point out the difference between believing 'in' something and believing 'against' something. Clearly if you focus on what you believe is what you don't want, you are more likely to subconsciously embrace it rather than reject it. Not all Christians believe 'in' the Devil or a concept of Satan. Karl Barth once remarked that it is impossible for a Christian to believe 'in' the devil, since the devil deserves only an attitude of utter disbelief. Thus Christians do not believe in him, but against him. If you want to 'believe in' something, it’s much better to believe in God! It could be argued that a belief in God is itself also a denial and rejection of the powers of nothingness and of all the dark glory of their parasitic pseudo-existence.
One could argue that Christians, believing in God, cannot believe in the devil and demons as they may believe in angels. Christians are supposed to have a positive relationship to that in which we believe. There is no positive relationship to the 'devil' and/or demons. Christians perhaps can only know that they oppose them with the most radical unbelief (i.e. a strong belief in the power of God). So in a sense the 'devil' or demons are just a myth, the lie which is the basis of all other lies - i.e. to believe in the devil is to believe in a lie!
However, perhaps this is just a matter of focus and that one is still in effect believing in the existance of 'Satan', but that one is choosing not to focus on him or give him any power. Is this a more enlightened view or just burying one's head in the sand? Does one have to fool oneself to just avoid focussing on the Devil? Is one's faith that weak? It could be argued that this is still a dualistic (ditheistic) view. Interpreting anything that moves away from God as 'Satanic' can sometimes help to reinforce the dualistic interpretation and understanding of Christianity, which often misses the point. It could be argued that practices such as Exorcism are in some way dualistic or give significance to 'devils' or 'the devil'.
Unless one acknowledges that the 'devil' is just a belief (convenient term) in 'non-God' or absence of God, in a literal sense, or an embrace of the more destructive parts of one's ego, then only this is arguable truly monotheistic. Whether one believes in fallen angels and evil spirits any more than one believes that some peoplein the past and present have committed cruel, 'evil' deeds and atrocities against humanity actually has anything to do with God or has any bearing in one's concept of God is another matter. The concept of God does not need a 'formal opponent' as such. Does one need to understand exactly the nature of 'non-God' in order to understand one's faith in God? Does it matter if 'non-God' is just the destructive side of the ego, or where one is vulnerable to literal 'spiritual attack' by an evil spirit or spirits, or whether it is the influence of 'Satan' is perhaps largely irrelevant.
If one believes in a formal entity or opponent, how powerful is one to assume that it is - as powerful as God? That would truly be dualistic.
Whether 'Satan' then is a fallen angel generally associated with a person's rejection of God, of 'devils' or just symoblic is a matter for personal interpretation. Christianity should presumably be focussed on God (what one wants) rather than on the 'devil' (what one doesn't want). The confusion over terminology in the New Testament and how literal or symbolic it is clearly does little to help Christians understand what they really believe in.
To make matters more confusing, one should consider what Jesus actually believed as a man, and what he believed, being 'God'. Jesus was brought up in the faith Judaism. He regarded the Scriptures as divine. Judaism as discussed above does not believe in a literal concept of the Devil. Presumably Jesus then as he regarded the Scriptures with great reverence did not believe in the concept of the Devil either? The New Testament has numerous references to 'the Devil' and Satan in the Christian rather than Jewish context. Was this creative writing or interpretation by the gospel writers/editors, or did Jesus actually radically differ from the books of the Old Testament in his beliefs? What is the exact nature of the relationship between the Old Testament and the New Testament? In many respects, Jesus was providing some new interpretations of how one should reach God and how to interpret the spirit of the Scriptures. He was declaring himself to be the Son of God (according to the Bible). But otherwise, as a man, he followed Jewish customs and Jewish laws (with certain exceptions!) To what extent did Jesus share the scientific views and beliefs of the Jews? To what extent did he possess divine knowledge of these and to what extent did he possess the same knowledge as everyone else (e.g. the earth being the centre of the universe, the earth being flat and having windows in the sky to let the water in etc.)? Are the references to 'devils' or the 'devil' in the New Testament just a reflection of Jesus power over the dead and evil spirits? And have nothing actually to do with 'the devil'?
Hesychasm (Greek 'hesychasmos', from 'hesychia', "stillness, rest, quiet, silence") is an eremitic tradition of prayer in the Eastern Orthodox Church, and some other Eastern Churches of the Byzantine Rite, practised by the Hesychast; based on Christ's injunction in the Gospel of Matthew to "go into your closet to pray", Hesychasm in tradition has been the process of retiring inward by ceasing to register the senses, in order to achieve an experiential knowledge of God (Theoria).
'Theoria is Greek for contemplation or perception of beauty as a moral faculty. From within Eastern Orthodox theology it is "the vision of God" and theoria then also takes on a number of meanings that pertain to union with God (theosis), (theo-) and holiness, the quintessential goals of Christianity. The love of beauty, transcending the love of wisdom, manifesting in the love of God (theophilos). The vision of God being the culmination of Theophilos through hesychasm. The word has its origin in the Greek language as being akin to the word theory, or speculation as in "Beauty shall Save the World". This expression of the idea comes from a religious gnosiology perspective (rather than say, a scientific or cultural one), that apperception through faith in God (action through faith), leads to truth through our contemplative faculties.[1] It is used to express the experience of life as "one who watches a play or activity", the state of "being" is defined as spectator. Hence it means to focus one's attention exclusively to one thing and separate that object (by focus) exclusively, Beauty or God being the object of focus. The act of experiencing and or observing is through the nous or "eye of the soul". Matthew 6:22-6:34
Theoria is beyond knowledge or gnosis. It is when the mind is placed in the heart (kardio) and the nous is focused on the immediacy or immanence of the Trinity of God rather than foresight (freewill and faith) and rather than hindsight (determinism and knowledge). It is much like the difference between reading about an experience and reading about an experience one has already experienced. Thus theoria is an expression of the latter, and is deeply focussed on the 'now', the 'immediate', the 'present'. Theoria is akin to acting by freewill and by conscious choice rather than deterministically. It holds that, one moves through time into the future without knowing, but that we proceed by faith (faith is meta-gnosis or beyond knowledge). Theoria means placing the actual experience above recollection of an experience (Anamnesis) or memory, knowledge of the experience (gnosis). As it is the contemplation of the present while in the present rather than the past or future, it is ultimately the experience of the hypostasises of God. Or in other words, Theoria means primacy of observation over rational analysis (Orthodox Empirical theology).'
Eastern and Western Orthodox Traditions vary in general, as Western Orthodox Christianity holds that the essence of God is unknowable and cannot be directly experienced.
'The Desert Fathers were Christian Hermits, Ascetics and Monks who lived mainly in the Scetes desert of Egypt, beginning in around the third century. Very few of the Desert Fathers lived in other deserted regions of Egypt. The original desert hermits were Christians fleeing the chaos and persecution of the Roman Empire's Crisis of the Third Century. Christians were often scapegoated during these times of unrest, and near the end of the century, this persecution was made systematic by the emperor Diocletian. In Egypt, Christian refugee communities formed at the edges of population centers, far enough away to be safe from Imperial scrutiny, but still close enough to have access to civilization. Records from this time indicate that Christians often lived in tombs and trashheaps on the edges of major cities, more or less protected by their obscurity. In 313, when Christianity was made legal in Egypt by Diocletian's successor Constantine I, a trickle of individuals, many of them young men, continued to live in these marginal areas. The solitude of these places attracted them; the privations of the desert were a means of learning stoic self-discipline. These young men saw in Jesus' fasting on the mountain and in his cousin John the Baptist (himself a desert hermit) two models for such self-discipline. These individuals believed that desert life would teach them to eschew the things of this world and allow them to follow God's call in a more deliberate and individual way. Thus, during the fourth century, the empty areas around Egyptian cities continued to attract Christians from the world over, wishing to live in solitude. As the lifestyle developed, these men and women developed a reputation for holiness and wisdom. In its early form, each hermit followed more or less an individual spiritual program, perhaps learning some basic practices from other monks, but developing them into their own unique (and sometimes highly idiosyncratic) practice. Later monks, notably Anthony the Great, Pachomius and Shenouda the Archimandrite, developed a more regularized approach to desert life, and introduced some aspects of community living (especially common prayer and meals) that would eventually develop into Christian monasticism. Many individuals who spent part of their lives in the Egyptian desert went on to become important figures in the Church and society of the fourth and fifth century, among them Athanasius of Alexandria, John Chrysostom, John Cassian, and Augustine of Hippo. Through the work of these last two, the spirituality of the desert fathers, emphasizing an ascent to God through periods of purgation and illumination that led to unity with the Divine, deeply affected the spirituality of the Western Church and the Eastern Church. For this reason, the writings and spirituality of the desert fathers are still of interest to many people today.'
http://home.newadvent.org/cathen/01623c.htm
'Apophthegmata Patrum' are the sayings of the early Christian Desert Fathers. Various collections exist of aphorisms and anecdotes illustrative of the spiritual life, of ascetic and monastic principle, and of Christian ethics, attributed to the more prominent hermits and monks who peopled the Egyptian deserts in the fourth century. Three or four such collections in Latin were edited by Rosweyde, one in Greek by Cotelier, and a Syriac collection included in the editions of Anan Isho's Paradise by Bedjan (Paris, 1897), and Wallis Budge (London, 1904), the latter supplying an English translation.'
'The Philokalia (Greek for "Love of the Beautiful") is a collection of texts by masters of the Eastern Orthodox, hesychast tradition, writing from the fourth to the fifteenth centuries on the disciplines of Christian prayer and a life dedicated to God. The work was compiled by St. Nikodemos of the Holy Mountain and St. Makarios of Corinth. In the introduction of Palmer, Sherrard, and Ware's translation of the collection into English, Philokalia is defined as, "love of the beautiful, the exalted, the excellent, understood as the transcendent source of life and the revelation of Truth." The original authors were mostly monks, whose striving for purification of the heart and spiritual perfection are recurring themes in the Philokalia. Although these works were widely known before their initial publication in the Greek language in 1782, they have since been published in this collection in many languages, including a seven-volume translation into Russian (Dobrotolyubie) by St. Theophan the Recluse in the nineteenth century. Other than the Bible, and a handful of writings by early Christian Fathers, the Philokalia is by far the most influential and widely admired example of Eastern Orthodox piety in print today. It is featured prominently in another much shorter well-known book called The Way of a Pilgrim, in which a Russian traveler learns to pray from various people he meets on his travels and by reading the Philokalia.'
One of the most commonly used symbols of Gnosticism is the simplest form of the Sun Cross, often referred to as Odin's Cross in North-West Europe, aka Gnostic Cross (shown above).
The Sun Cross is defined at the link below. It was used by pagans in pre-historic times. It is also used by Neo-Nazis.
The word 'Gnosticism' is a modern construction, though based on an antiquated linguistic expression: it comes from the Greek word meaning 'knowledge', gnosis. However, gnosis itself refers to a very specialised form of knowledge, deriving both from the exact meaning of the original Greek term and its usage in Platonist philosophy.
Gnosticism takes the view that there are two Gods: the creator of the world being 'Demiurge', an imperfect deity, inflicting suffering on all living beings (considered to be evil by some Sects, or just ignorant by others); and also a benevolent, mysterious and unknowable God, which in some sense one can become part of or connected with to be liberated from the physical world. Gnosticism and Zoroastrianism use the Buddhist concept of earthly and material form being the root of all suffering.
Monad, the One, The Absolute, Aion Teleos (The Perfect Aeon), Bythos (Depth or Profundity), Proarkhe (Before the Beginning), or as E Arkhe (The Beginning). God is the high source of the Pleroma, the region of light...Pleroma generally refers to the totality of God's powers. The term means fullness, and is used in Christian theological contexts: both in Gnosticism generally, and in Colossians 2.9 (KJV): 'For in him dwelleth all the fullness of the Godhead bodily.'' The various emanations of God are called Aeons, or angels. These are the messengers of light that bring Gnosis or Knowledge to mankind. Jesus Christ is considered by many (by not all) Gnostics to be an Aeon.
Gnosticism (in its different forms) draws upon a variety of syncretic monotheistic and pantheistic belief systems and philosophies from different parts of history, including initially Platonism and Greek mythology, Neo-Pythagoreanism (1st Century AD), Neoplatonism (3rd Century AD) - for the large part (Gnosticism being a more dualistic form of Neoplatonism), Zoroastrianism (founded in 1000 B.C.), Buddhism (6th Century BC) and Christianity (1st Century). Some texts from the Nag Hammadi library and other non-canonical texts were written by Gnostics as a Gnostic interpretation of Christianity, and were in the 20th Century to become an influence again on modern Gnosticism after having been lost for 1500 years.
To some extent Gnosticism combines elements of some or all of these belief systems. Early Gnostic ideas emerged in the two hundred years or so before Christ, drawing on Platonism, Hellenic polytheism, Babylonian Astrology and perhaps some elements of Buddhism, Zoroastrianism and even a reverse-Judaism), but the classic Gnostic cosmology (of Evil Creator God and mysterious Good God, and reuniting with the Good God through Gnosis) did most likely not really develop fully until the advent of Neopythagoreanism in the 1st Century and (mainly) Neoplatonism in the 3rd Century which first refined and brought these concepts together, albeit in a slightly different spirit (i.e. introducing the concept of matter being evil or bad and spirit being good). How much some of these early direct influences on Gnosticism were in fact later influences on Gnosticism via Neoplatonism is a matter of debate and beyond BlackSpy's limited knowledge at the stage.
'Gnosis is a Greek word, originally used in specifically Platonic philosophical contexts. Plato's original use of the terms gnostikoi and gnostike episteme were in his text known as Politikos in Greek and Politicus in Latin (258e-267a). In this work, the modern name of which is the Statesman, gnostikoi meant the knowledge to influence and control. Gnostike episteme also was used to indicate one's aptitude. In Plato's writings the terms do not appear to intimate anything esoteric or hidden, but rather express a sort of higher intelligence and ability akin to talent.'
Neoplatonism elaborated on the writings of Plato, but also subscribing to the view that the spiritual seed is in every human, and that the highest goal of existence was to return to the One, or Monad. It elaborated on the concept of Gnosis to mean a spiritual insight to connect with the One. Neoplatonism was not dualistic as such as was later Gnosticism, but regarded the physical world as beautiful. The rejection of physical existence and association of Demiurge as being 'misguided' or 'evil' was a Gnostic interpretation, as is reflected in the Gnostic texts.
The individual religions, faiths and writings which are classified as Gnostic are not necessarily themselves associated with the movement known as Gnosticism, but are adopted and often reinterpreted by Gnostics and given a 'Gnostic slant'. Gnostic Christianity can be considered a sub-set of Gnosticism, but not all Gnostics recognise Christ and could be called Christians in any sense. Some Gnostics recognise Jesus as well as other prophets. The biggest influences on Gnosticism are probably Zoroastrianism, Neo-Platonism, Christianity and Buddhism. Gnosticism is thought to have had an influence on the Jewish Kabbalah, and certainly on the Hermetic Qabalah.
The term Sophia (Greek for "wisdom") refers to the final and lowest emanation of God. Sophia gave birth to the Demiurge, who in turn brings about the creation of materiality. Sophia, Greek for "wisdom", is a central term in Hellenistic philosophy and religion, Platonism, Gnosticism, Orthodox Christianity, Esoteric Christianity, as well as Christian mysticism. Sophiology is a philosophical concept regarding wisdom, as well as a theological concept regarding the wisdom of God. A Feminine figure, analogous to the human soul but also simultaneously one of the Feminine aspects of God and the Bride (counterpart) of Christ, she is considered to have fallen from grace in some way, in so doing creating or helping to create the material world.
The Gnostic texts vary in their interpretation. Some (e.g. the Nag Hammadi text 'The Apocryphon of John') state that Sophia first reached out of the Pleroma and created instability. . Pistis tried to procreate on her own and gave birth to Demiurge, and then created Sophia as a 'saving grace'. Pistis thus gave rise to both Sophia and Demiurge. Other accounts (e.g. the Nag Hammadi text 'On the Origin of the World') state that Pistis (faith) first reached out from the Pleroma and created the instability. Pistis-Sophia (together) gave birth to Ialdoboath (Demiurge). The Aprocryphon of John accounts appears to be more representative of Gnostic beliefs.
The positive or negative depiction of materiality depends to an extent on mythic depictions of Sophia's actions. She is occasionally referred to by the Hebrew equivalent of Achamoth (this is a feature of Ptolemy's version of the Valentinian gnostic myth). Jewish Gnosticism with a focus on Sophia was active by 90 AD.
Those Gnostic Sects that acknowledge Jesus believe that he was sent from the Pleroma (the godhead, divine 'fullness'), by the Aeon Pistis (meaning faith), to bring awareness and gnosis to mankind and to free mankind from the 'prison of cyclic existence.' The Gnostic Goddess Sophia (Serpent of Garden of Eden) is sometimes seen as Jesus' counterpart, in such that the divine spark/seed is Sophia/wisdom. That is the wisdom of the 'Beast' and the 'Beast is Man'. On the Origin of the World describes Saboath as the son of Ialdoboath. Saboath-Pistis gave birth to Zoe (meaning 'life'). Zoe-Sophia was sent to assist man and to act as their instructor, the 'Beast'.
Demiurge was seen to have created the world poorly and imperfectly, resulting in a material world filled with decay, suffering, weakness and death. Human beings are thus imperfect vessels trapping the human spirit and a spark of a higher spiritual reality within; holding the human spirit 'captive'. The spark of the higher spiritual realm, or gnosis, trapped inside every living human, if developed fully, is believed to liberate a person and help him evolve into spiritual perfection. This is a process of self-discovery, whereby one discovers one's divine identity, one separates from the psychical world by stripping away the consciousness of the physical body, whereupon one can finally experience God's kingdom of peace, light and life.
'Demiurge - the Latinized form of Gk. demiourgos, literally "public or skilled worker" (from demos "common people" + ergos "work") and hence a "maker", "artisan" or "craftsman". In later philosophical and religious language it became a term for a creator deity, responsible for the creation of the physical universe. In the sense of a divine creative principle as expressed in ergon or en-erg-y, the word was first introduced by Plato in Timaeus, 41a (ca. 360 BC). It subsequently appears in a number of different religious and philosophical systems of Late Antiquity besides Platonic realism, most notably in Neoplatonism. In Neoplatonism, Plotinus identified the demiurge as nous (divine mind), the first emanation of "the One" (see monad). Neoplatonists personified the demiurge as Zeus, the high god of the Greeks. The term also appears in Gnosticism and within Gnosticism, the material universe is seen as evil or at least created by a lesser and or inferior creator deity. The Gnostics attributed much of the actions and laws that in the Tanach or Old Testament are attributed to the Hebrew God Yahweh to the Demiurge (see the Sethians and Ophites). Alternative Gnostic names for the Demiurge, include Yaldabaoth, "Samael", "Saklas", and "Kosmokrator", and several other variants. He is known as Ptahil in Mandaeanism. The figures of the "Angel of YHWH" and the "Angel of Death" may have contributed to the Gnostic view of the Demiurge.'
Demiurge is associated with the creator deity of the Old Testament (i.e. Jehovah/Yaweh). Demiurgus is associated by Neoplatonism as being the Greek God Zeus, the father of all other Gods; the Roman equivalent being Jupiter.
The Catholic Encylopedia cites Origen as defining the chief archon Jaldabaoth (later Demiurge) as being the planet Saturn. This is a feature of Eastern-Persian Gnosticism which drew on Babylonian Astrology.
'Origen (Contra Celsum, VI, xxxi), referring to the Ophitic system, gives us the names of the seven archons as Jaldabaoth, Jao, Sabaoth, Adonaios, Astaphaios, Ailoaios, and Oraios, and tells us that Jaldabaoth is the planet Saturn.'
'In the hellenized form of Gnosticism either all or some of these names are replaced by personified vices. Authadia (Authades), or Audacity, is the obvious description of Jaldabaoth, the presumptuous Demiurge, who is lion-faced as the Archon Authadia.'
'Zeus in Greek mythology is the king of the gods, the ruler of Mount Olympus and the god of the sky and thunder. His symbols are the thunderbolt, eagle, bull and oak. In addition to his Indo-European inheritance, the classical "cloud-gatherer" also derives certain iconographic traits from the cultures of the ancient Near East, such as the scepter. Zeus is frequently depicted by Greek artists in one of two poses: standing, striding forward, with a thunderbolt leveled in his raised right hand or seated in majesty. Zeus was the child of Cronus and Rhea, and the youngest of his siblings. In most traditions he was married to Hera, although, at the oracle of Dodona, his consort was Dione: according to the Iliad, he is the father of Aphrodite by Dione. He is known for his erotic escapades, including one pederastic relationship with Ganymede. These resulted in many godly and heroic offspring, including Athena, Apollo and Artemis, Hermes, Persephone (by Demeter), Dionysus, Perseus, Heracles, Helen, Minos, and the Muses (by Mnemosyne); by Hera, he is usually said to have fathered Ares, Hebe and Hephaestus.'
'In Roman mythology, Jupiter [aka Jove] held the same role as Zeus in the Greek pantheon. He was called Iuppiter Optimus Maximus (Jupiter Best, Greatest); as the patron deity of the Roman state, he ruled over laws and social order. He was the chief god of the Capitoline Triad, with Juno and Minerva. In Latin mythology Jupiter is the father of Mars. Therefore, Jupiter is the grandfather of Romulus and Remus, the founders of Rome.'
Quoted from Manly P. Hall's 'Masonic, Hermetic, Quabbalistic & Rosicrucian Symbolical Philosophy':
"After dismembering him, the Titans first boiled the pieces in water and afterwards roasted them. Pallas [Athena] rescued the heart of the murdered god, and by this precaution Bacchus (Dionysos) was enabled to spring forth again in all his former glory. Jupiter, the Demiurgus, beholding the crime of the Titans, hurled his thunderbolts and slew them, burning their bodies to ashes with heavenly fire. Out of the ashes of the Titans - which also contained a portion of the flesh of Bacchus, whose body they had partly devoured - the human
race was created. Thus the mundane life of every man was said to contain a portion of the Bacchic life."
From the Rites of Ecstacy, on The Bacchants:
'Although the image [of the soul as a raven] recalls the beliefs of the primitive shamans, such tales of soul journeys - and the ability of a disembodied spirit to function independently of the constraints of the physical form - mark a significant advance in the concept of the soul. This notion of the soul freed from the body was a core belief of a cult devoted to the worship of Dionysos, the Greek god of wine.'
A history of Neo-Platonism and Gnosticism can be found in the book 'Ancient Beliefs in the Immortality of the Soul with Some Account of Their Influence on Later Views 1931'
by Clifford Herschel Moore. This book can be read on line by clicking here.
This same story is relayed in Moore' book, that the titans ate the god Dionysus thereby taking into themselves the "divine spark" at which time Zeus [Demiurgus] destroys the titans and humans sprung from the ashes of the Titans. Thus, humans are seen to have this same divine spark trapped within them. This is the same concept of divine spark trapped within humanity as Neoplatonism and Gnosticism. The concept of the soul escaping the trappings of the human body can be found mentioned in the Rites of Ecstacy c/f the Cult of Dionysus above.
Rosicrucianism holds that Freemasonry's Great Architect of the Universe, the creator, is the same as the Supreme Being. Much of Luciferianism holds the same premise (except Gnostic Luciferianism). This is perhaps in slight opposition to the Gnostic concept of the 'evil' or 'ignorant' Demiurge, the creator. However some forms of Gnosticism hold that Demiurge was 'benevolent' but perhaps a little 'ignorant'.
'Neoplatonism (also Neo-Platonism) is the modern term for a school of religious and mystical philosophy that took shape in the 3rd century AD, founded by Plotinus and based on the teachings of Plato and earlier Platonists. The term was first coined by Thomas Taylor, in his translation of Plotinus' Enneads. Taylor was the first to translate Plotinus' works into English. Neoplatonists would have considered themselves simply "Platonists", and the modern distinction is due to the perception that their philosophy contained enough unique interpretations of Plato to make it substantively different from what Plato wrote and believed. The Neoplatonism of Plotinus and Porphyry has been referred to as really being orthodox (neo)Platonic philosophy by scholars like Professor John D. Turner. This distinction provides a contrast with later movements of Neoplatonism, such as those of Iamblichus and Proclus. Movements which embraced magical practices or theurgy as part of the soul's development in the process of the soul's return to the Source. This could also be due to one possible motive of Plotinus, being to clarify some of the traditions in the teachings of Plato that had been misrepresented before Iamblichus (see Neoplatonism and Gnosticism). Neoplatonism took definitive shape with the philosopher Plotinus, who claimed to have received his teachings from Ammonius Saccas, a dock worker and philosopher in Alexandria.[3] Plotinus was also influenced by Alexander of Aphrodisias and Numenius of Apamea. Plotinus's student Porphyry assembled his teachings into the six Enneads. Subsequent Neoplatonic philosophers included Hypatia of Alexandria, Iamblichus, Proclus, Hierocles of Alexandria, Simplicius of Cilicia, and Damascius, who wrote On First Principles. Born in Damascus, he was the last teacher of Neoplatonism at Athens. Neoplatonism strongly influenced Christian thinkers (such as Augustine, Boethius, Pseudo-Dionysius, John Scotus Eriugena, and Bonaventura). Neoplatonism was also present in medieval Islamic and Jewish thinkers such as al-Farabi and Maimonides, and experienced a revival in the Renaissance with the acquisition and translation of Greek and Arabic Neoplatonic texts.'
'Neoplatonism (also Neo-Platonism) is the modern term for a school of Hellenistic philosophy that took shape in the 3rd century AD, based on the teachings of Plato and some of his early followers. Neoplatonism took definitive shape with the philosopher Plotinus, who claimed to have received his teachings from Ammonius Saccas, a dock worker and philosopher in Alexandria. Neoplatonists considered themselves simply "Platonists", although they also wished to distinguish themselves from various earlier interpreters of Plato, such as Arcesilaus and the New Academy. A more precise term for the group, suggested by the scholar John D. Turner, is orthodox (neo)Platonism.'
'Gnosticism is a term created by modern scholars to describe a collection of religious groups, many of which thought of themselves as Christians, and which were active in the first few centuries AD. There has been considerable scholarly controversy over exactly which sects fall within this grouping. Sometimes Gnosticism is used narrowly to refer only to religious groups such as Sethians and Archontics who seem to have used the term gnostikoi as a self-designation, even though early Platonists and Ebionites also used the term and are not considered to be Gnostics. Sometimes it is used a little more broadly to include groups similar to or influenced by Sethians, such as followers of Basilides or Valentinius and later the Paulicians. Sometimes it is used even more broadly to cover all groups which heavily emphasized gnosis, therefore including Hermetics and Neoplatonists as well.'
'There are four major epocs in the history of Platonic thought: the "Old Academy," the "New Academy," Middle Platonism and Neoplatonism. After Plato's death in 348 BC, the leadership of his Academy was taken up by his nephew, Speusippus, and then by Xenocrates, Polemon, Crantor, and Crates of Athens, who had been leaders of the "Old Academy." Following Crates, in 268 BC was Arcesilaus of Pitane who founded the "New Academy," under the influence of Pyrrhonian scepticism. Arcelisaus modeled his philosophy after the Socrates of Plato's early dialogues, "suspending judgment". Antiochus of Ascalon, who headed the Academy from 79-78 BC, sought to intellectually maneuver around the scepticism of the New Academy by way of a return to the dogmata of Plato and the Old Academy philosophers. Antiochus argued that the Platonic Forms (see Platonic realism) are not transcendent but immanent to rational minds (including that of God). This position, along with his treatment of the Platonic Demiurge (from the Theaetetus) and the World-Soul (a notion from the Timaeus that the physical world was an animated being), framed the work of other middle Platonists (such as Philo of Alexandria) and later Platonists such as Plutarch of Chaeronea, Numenius of Apamea, and Albinus. These treatments of the forms and of the Demiurge were crucially influential to both Neoplatonism and Gnosticism. Neopythagoreanism seems to have influenced both the Neoplatonists and the Gnostics as well. Further, Neopythagoreanism and Middle Platonism seem to be important influences on Basilides and on the Hermetic tradition, which seem in turn to have influenced the Valentinians. Indeed, the Nag Hammadi texts included excerpts from Plato, and Irenaeus claims that followers of Carpocrates honored images of Pythagoras, Plato, and Aristotle along with images of Jesus Christ.'
'Scholarship on Gnosticism has been greatly advanced by the discovery and translation of the Nag Hammadi texts, which shed light on some of the more puzzling comments by Plotinus and Porphyry regarding the Gnostics. More importantly, the texts help to distinguish different kinds of early Gnostics. It now seems clear that "Sethian" and "Valentinian" gnostics attempted "an effort towards conciliation, even affiliation" with late antique philosophy, and were rebuffed by some Neoplatonists, including Plotinus. Plotinus considered his opponents "heretics", "imbeciles" and "blasphemers" errorniously arriving at misotheism [hatred of God or Gods, i.e. hatred of Demiurge] as the solution to the problem of evil, taking all their truths over from Plato. Coupled with the idea expressed by Plotinus that the approach to the infinite energy which is the One or Monad can not be though knowing or not knowing. Although there has been dispute as to which gnostics Plotinus was referring to it appears they were indeed Sethian. The earliest origins of Gnosticism are still obscure and disputed, but they probably include influence from Plato, Middle Platonism and Neo-Pythagoreanism, and this seems to be true both of the more Sethian Gnostics, and of the Valentinian Gnostics. Further, if we compare different Sethian texts to each other in an attempted chronology of the development of Sethianism during the first few centuries, it seems that later texts are continuing to interact with Platonism. Earlier texts such as Apocalypse of Adam show signs of being prechristian and focus on the Seth of the Jewish bible (not the Egyptian God Set who is sometimes called Seth in Greek). These early Sethians may be identical to or related to the Ophites or to the sectarian group called the Minuth by Philo. Later Sethian texts such as Zostrianos and Allogenes draw on the imagery of older Sethian texts, but utilize "a large fund of philosophical conceptuality derived from contemporary Platonism, (that is late middle Platonism) with no traces of Christian content." Indeed the Allogenes doctrine of the "triple-powered one" is "the same doctrine as found in the anonymous Parmenides commentary (Fragment XIV) ascribed by Hadot to Porphyry ... and is also found in Plotinus' Ennead 6.7, 17, 13-26." However, by the 3rd century Neoplatonists, such as Plotinus, Porphyry and Amelius are all attacking the Sethians. It looks as if Sethianism began as a pre-Christian tradition, possibly a syncretic Hebrew Mediterranean baptismal movement from the Jordan Valley. With Babylonian and Egyptian pagan elements, Hellenic philosophy. That incorporated elements of Christianity and Platonism as it grew, only to have both Christianity and Platonism reject and turn against it. Professor John D Turner believes that this double attack led to Sethianism fragmentation into numerous smaller groups (Audians, Borborites, Archontics and perhaps Phibionites, Stratiotici, and Secundians).'
'Gnostics borrow a lot of ideas and terms from Platonism. They exhibit a keen understanding of Greek philosophical terms and the Greek Koine language in general, and use Greek philosophical concepts through out their text, including such concepts as hypostasis (reality, existence), ousia (essence, substance, being), and demiurge (creator God). Good examples include texts such as the Hypostasis of the Archons (Reality of the Rulers) or Trimorphic Protennoia (The first thought in three forms). Gnostics structured their world of transcendent being by ontological distinctions whereby the plentitude of the divine world emerges from a sole high deity by emanation, radiation, unfolding and mental self-reflection. Likewise the technique of self-performable contemplative mystical ascent towards and beyond a realm of pure being is rooted in Plato's Symposium, and common in Gnostic thought, was also expressed by Plotinus (see Life of Plotinus). Divine triads, tetrads, and ogdoads in Gnostic thought often are closely related to Neo-Pythagorean Arithmology. The trinity of the "triple-powered one" (with the powers consisting of the modalities of existence, life and mind) in Allogenes mirrors quite closely the Neoplatonic doctrine of the Intellect differentiating itself from the One in three phases called Existence or reality (hypostasis), Life, and Intellect (nous). Both traditions heavily emphasize the role of negative theology or apophasis, and Gnostic emphasis on the ineffability of God often echoes Platonic (and Neoplatonic) formulations of the ineffability of the One or the Good. Nonetheless there were some important philosophical differences. Gnostics emphasized magic and ritual in a way that the more sober Neoplatonists such as Plotinus and Porphyry would have been uncomfortable with (although perhaps not later Neoplatonists such as Iamblichus). But Plotinus' main objection to the Gnostics he was familiar with was their rejection of the goodness of the demiurge and the material world. He attacks the Gnostics as vilifing Plato's ontology of the universe as contained in the Timaeus. Plotinus accused Gnosticism of vilifying the Demiurge or craftsman that crafted the material world, even thinking of the material world as evil or a prison. As Plotinus explains in his works that the demiurge is the nous (as an emanation of the One). The nous is the ordering principle or mind also reason. Plotinus was also critical of the gnostic origin of the demiurge coming from wisdom as a deity. Wisdom (called Sophia) being anthropomorphically expressed as a feminine spirit deity not unlike the goddess Athena or the Christian Holy Spirit. Plotinus stating at one point that if the gnostics did so believe this world was a prison then they could at any moment free themselves by committing suicide. These charges do seem to hold for some of the texts discovered in Nag Hammadi, although others such as the Valentinians, or the Tripartite Tractate, wished to insist on the goodness of the world and the Demiurge.'
The 'Gnostic' gospels are seen by some critics as using the purported conversations of Jesus with his disciples as a framework for imparting Gnostic doctrine and theology.
Whilst there are similarities between the Biblical Jesus and the Gnostic Jesus, for example, the concept of the truth setting you free (in different senses), and Jesus coming to earth to free one's soul from the trappings of the physical realm (in one capacity or other), there are some significant differences also. Firstly, there is the concept that self-consciousness of one's own divinity is the first step to salvation, rather than a new awareness of sinfulness, salvation and the true spirit of the Scriptures.
E.g. Thomas 3: 'Jesus said, "If your leaders say to you, 'Look, the (Father's) kingdom is in the sky,' then the birds of the sky will precede you. If they say to you, 'It is in the sea,' then the fish will precede you. Rather, the kingdom is within you and it is outside you. When you know yourselves, then you will be known, and you will understand that you are children of the living Father. But if you do not know yourselves, then you live in poverty, and you are the poverty."'
The Gospel of Thomas also promotes the idea of casting aside our physical nature to achieve salvation. This is slightly different to the Biblical concept of giving one's worldly possessions to the poor and following Jesus, or to not worry about tomorrow, or indeed that God will provide for one's subsistence.
e.g. Thomas 37: 'His disciples said, "When will you appear to us, and when will we see you?" Jesus said, "When you strip without being ashamed, and you take your clothes and put them under your feet like little children and trample then, then [you] will see the son of the living one and you will not be afraid."'
The Gospel of Thomas also implies the Gnostic distaste for the concept of the physical resurrection, in opposite to the Bible's quote from Jesus as claiming that the temple of his body would be destroyed and rebuilt (resurrected) in 3 days.
e.g Thomas 71: 'Jesus said, "I will destroy [this] house, and no one will be able to build it [...]."'
John 2:19 (KJV): 'Jesus answered and said unto them, Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up.'
There are clearly a variety of views of Jesus within Gnosticism, reflected in the diversity of Gnostic sects:
1) Jesus is identified by some Gnostic sects as an embodiment of the supreme being who became incarnate to bring gnosis to the Earth. This is the view of Christian Gnosticism (aka Gnostic Christianity).
2) In other sects he was thought to be an 'angel' or Aeon (a servant or instrument of God, not actually God himself), taking human form in order to teach gnosis to humanity.
3) Others regarded Jesus of Nazareth as a man, a wise prophet.
4) And finally some Gnostic sects regarded Jesus of Nazareth as a man and a false prophet and disregarded his teachings entirely.
For example, the Gnostic view of Jesus as the most enlightened and holy prophet, born of immaculate conception and one who was not physically resurrected ties in with the Muslim view of Jesus in these respects (i.e. somewhere between 2 and 3).
In general, Gnosticism regards Jesus as just spirit, imitating physical form, but not actually a mortal man. Gnosticism denies the physical resurrection of Jesus and believes that he was instead resurrected in spirit, i.e. his spirit simply ascended to heaven. This is a belief known as Docetism. This is an important distinction between the Christian and Gnostic view of Jesus.
Biblical Christianity teaches us that humanity needs a way beyond its power to approach God, and that Jesus Christ needed to die for the sins of humanity, so that peoples sins could be forgiven if one repented. The early Orthodox Church insisted that one could only approach God through the Church, and specifically through apostolic succession, bishops, priests and Popes would acts to lead the souls of humanity to salvation. Without the church, there was considered to be no way of salvation. This is of course not the view of much of contemporary Christianity.
While Gnostics believe that Jesus Christ was indeed the saviour, they do not look to salvation from sin, but rather, to salvation from the ignorance of spiritual realities. Gnostics believe this ignorance will only be relieved through gnosis or 'knowledge'. Thus it is considered that humanity will be saved through Jesus' life and teachings rather than his suffering and death (i.e. the sacrifice of God's sons for the sins of the world.) Gnostics view could be said to be a different interpretation of Christ’s life and message. Gnosis or the knowledge of humanity's true nature is something that has to be discovered and nurtured from within the individual, but has to come initially from outside sources, i.e. from the messengers of light/Aeons, such as Seth, Jesus and the prophet Mani. The exact messenger or messengers that are most revered depends on the exact Gnostic Sect in question.
Jesus explained to the disciplines in Mark 4:11-12 (KJV) why he spoke in parables:
11: 'And he said unto them, Unto you it is given to know the mystery of the kingdom of God: but unto them that are without, all these things are done in parables:'
12: 'That seeing they may see, and not perceive; and hearing they may hear, and not understand; lest at any time they should be converted, and their sins should be forgiven them.'
The method Jesus used to communicate the Kingdom of God to the Jewish people was indeed indirect, and arguably in a format that appeals to Gnostics - i.e. to be understood upon reflect on a seed having been planted earlier in time. The sayings of Jesus in the Canonical Gospels are more than just a simple rulebook for the unimaginative. They can be reflected on over many years. The Gnostic or Forbidden Gospels are very similar in this respect, perhaps more diffuse still. This is also discussed in the section on the Trinity. There are a number of references in the Bible to ways of understanding the Kingdom of Heaven. Many Freemasons say that the Bible contains many hidden secrets. Is this a literal truth? Or do Gnostics and Freemasons take certain verses and give them a more Gnostic or panentheistic slant and interpretation, reading more into them than there really is? This is perhaps unlikely given that many of the sayings of Jesus were intended to say much in few words, and only really to be understood by the wisened ear.
Gnostics, particularly early Essenians and later Rosicrucians, often refer to this quotation from Jesus below.:
Luke 8:10 (KJV): '8:10 And he said, Unto you it is given to know the mysteries of the kingdom of God: but to others in parables; that seeing they might not see, and hearing they might not understand.'
Luke's gospel is considered slightly Gnostic in nature by many Christians. What the exact nature of the 'mysteries of the kingdom of God' are is of course open to personal interpretation.
'According to the Esoteric Christian tradition, Essenian and later Rosicrucian, the proximity and entrance in the Age of Aquarius - occurring after the present Age of Pisces (or age ruled by the "Sword") - will bring to the majority of human beings the discovery, true living and real knowledge of the inner and deeper Christian teachings which the Christ spoke of in Matthew 13:11 and Luke 8:10. This age is regarded as an intermediary preparation toward the Christ in the etheric plane, the New Galilee: the "new heavens and a new earth" to come in a future not identified time. In the Aquarian age at hand it is expected a great spiritual Teacher to come ("is coming"), through the school which works as herald of this age, in order "to give the Christian Religion impetus in a new direction". Others who do not herald the idea of a physical spiritual teacher in contrast to the AntiChrist believe that the Spiritual Teacher will truly be themselves, and that Christ will manifest himself within those who seek these Inner Teachings.'
Gnosticism is in many sense more individualistic than Christianity, more about self-conscious spirituality. In some respects NLP has a similar philosophy to Gnosticism, in that one is nurturing one's own psychological self-awareness and wellbeing from within, and not relying necessarily on an external agent or relationship with a divine spirit to change our state of mind.
Some Gnostics, perhaps more Gnostic Luciferians or alchemaic Gnostics, believe that Jesus was leading others to become Gods like he was. It depends to what extent one believes that 'Gnosis' is 'experiencing God', being 'closer to God', 'God-like' or literally an aspect of being a deity that one can embody to become part of that deity oneself (self-deification).
The Gnostic concept of life and death is that at the point of death, if the level of Gnosis is lacking throughout a person's lifetime, the spark of Gnosis/the soul will be thrown back into the 'slavery' of the physical world and 'trapped' inside a new body (i.e rebirth or reincarnation). The process will repeat until the individual achieves a satisfactory level of Gnosis at which point the spark/soul is released from its physical 'prison' (breaking the cycle of reincarnation) and ascends to be reunited with the pleroma for eternity.
In Gnosticism, there are different degrees of dualism, ranging from extreme or radical dualism (in Manichaeanism), to weak or mitigated dualism (classic Gnostic movements) or to qualified monism (in Valentinianism) at the other extreme.
The Catholic Encyclopaedia categories Gnosticism into the Syrian School, the Hellenistic or Alexandrian School, the Dualistic School and the Antinomian School.
The section below follows Wikipedia's broad definition of categories of Gnosticism.
The Eastern/Persian Schools possess more demonstrably dualist tendencies, reflecting a strong influence from the beliefs of the Persian Zoroastrians. They formed religions in their own right, namely Mandaeanism and Manichaeism. Radical dualism is a form of absolute dualism that posits two opposite forces that are equal to one another. In the Manichaeanism form of dualism, the Good and Evil (or Light and Darkness) are existing independently of one another. Quoted from Wikipedia:
Mandaeanism is a dualistic religion that reveres Adam, Abel, Seth, Enosh, Noah, Shem, Aram, and especially John the Baptist. It regards Abraham, Moses, Jesus, and Muhammad as false prophets.
Mani, the founder of Manichaeism, was likely influenced by Mandaeanism. He is alleged to have received a revelation as a youth from a spirit, whom he would later call his Twin, his Syzygos, his Double, his Protective Angel or 'Divine Self'. It taught him truths which he developed into a religion. His 'divine' Twin or true Self brought Mani to Self-realization and as such he becomes a 'gnosticus', someone with divine knowledge and liberating insight. He claimed to be the 'Paraclete of the Truth', as promised in the New Testament: the Last Prophet and Seal of the Prophets finalizing a succession of figures including Zoroaster, Buddha, and Jesus. This clearly did not go down very well with Orthodox Christianity! Another source of Mani's scriptures was a section of the original Aramaic 'Book of Enoch', the 'Book of Giants'. This book was quoted directly, and expanded on by Mani, becoming one of the original six Syriac writings of the Manichaean Church.
Indeed Luciferian Gnosticism appears to draw heavily on Manichaeism. Bestian Gnosticism, aka Aesthetika, is a modern variant of Luciferian Gnosticism. Please see the link below and also the section on Luciferianism and other deities on the Occult page for more information.
Among the Syrian-Egyptian Schools and the movements they spawned embodied a typically weaker (or mitigated) dualism and even qualified monism (whilst still using the concept of Demiurge, or imperfect creator). Notable exceptions include relatively modern movements which seem to include elements of both categories, namely: the Cathars, Bogomils, and Carpocratians.
Quoted from Wikipedia:
'The Syrian-Egyptian School derives much of its outlook from Platonist influences. Typically, it depicts creation in a series of emanations from a primal monadic source, finally resulting in the creation of the material universe. As a result, there is a tendency in these schools to view evil in terms of matter which is markedly inferior to goodness, evil as lacking spiritual insight and goodness, rather than to emphasize portrayals of evil as an equal force. These schools of gnosticism may be said to use the terms 'evil' and 'good' as being relative descriptive terms, as they refer to the relative plight of human existence caught between such realities and confused in its orientation, with 'evil' indicating the extremes of distance from the principle and source of goodness, without necessarily emphasizing an inherent negativity. As can be seen below, many of these movements included source material related to Christianity, with some identifying themselves as specifically Christian (albeit quite different from the so-called Orthodox or Roman Catholic forms).'
'Almost all Gnostic systems of the Syrian/Egyptian type taught that the universe began with an original, unknowable God, referred to as the Parent or Bythos, as the Monad by Monoimus, or the first Aeon by still other traditions. From this initial unitary beginning, the One spontaneously emanated further Aeons, pairs of progressively 'lesser' beings in sequence. The lowest of these pairs were Sophia and Christ. The Aeons together made up the Pleroma, or fullness, of God, and thus should not be seen as distinct from the divine, but symbolic abstractions of the divine nature.'
More information on the Cathars can be found on the Church of Satan page.
Aeons are regarded as angels that eminate from the original, unknowable God and that come to earth to impart the ancient knowledge of gnosis for the benefit of mankind. Gnostics recognise the prophets of Islam (e.g. Biblical prophets, Jesus, Buddha, Mohammed etc.) as Aeons and prophets, to varying degrees. The difference between Islam and Gnosticism is that Islam believes that the one God is the creator also, unlike much (but not all) of Gnosticism.
The books and Codexes of Syrian-Egyptian Gnosticism are predominantly from Nag Hammadi in Egypt and include Sethian works, Thomasine works, Valentinian works and Basilidian works.
The Catholic Encyclopedia defines Gnosticism into the Syrian and Hellenistic/Alexandrian Schools of Gnosticism, the latter group being more abstract, philosophical and self-consistent. The Encyclopedia cites the Basilidians and Valentinians as the defining groups of Hellenistic/Alexandrian Gnosticism.
'The Syrian school represents the oldest phase of Gnosticism, as Western Asia was the birthplace of the movement. Dositheus, Simon Magus, Menander, Cerinthus, Cerdo, Saturninus Justin, the Bardesanites, Sevrians, Ebionites, Encratites, Ophites, Naassenes, the Gnostics of the "Acts of Thomas", the Sethians, the Peratae, the Cainites may be said to belong to this school. The more fantastic elements and elaborate genealogies and syzygies of æons of the later Gnosis are still absent in these systems. The terminology is some barbarous form of Semitic; Egypt is the symbolic name for the soul's land of bondage. The opposition between the good God and the World-Creator is not eternal or cosmogonic, though there is strong ethical opposition to Jehovah the God of the Jews. He is the last of the seven angels who fashioned this world out of eternally pre-existent matter. The demiurgic angels, attempting to create man, created but a miserable worm, to which the Good God, however, gave the spark of divine life. The rule of the god of the Jews must pass away, for the good God calls us to his own immediate service through Christ his Son. We obey the Supreme Deity by abstaining from flesh meat and marriage, and by leading an ascetic life.'
The classification below is therefore slightly inadequate, but hopefullly BlackSpy will refine this in the future!
Sethian works include:
- The Apocryphon of John
- The Apocalypse of Adam
- The Reality of the Rulers, Also known as The hypostasis of the Archons
- The Thunder-Perfect Mind
- The Three-fold First Thought (Trimorphic Protennoia)
- The Holy Book of the Great Invisible Spirit (also known as the (Coptic) Gospel of the Egyptians)
- Zostrianos
- Allogenes
- The Three Steles of Seth
- Gospel of Judas
In weak or mitigated dualism, one of the two opposing forces is inferior to/weaker than the other, but both are still divine. This form of dualism is common in classic Gnostic movements, especially Sethian Gnosticism. In the classic Gnostic creation myth, the world was created by an inferior god, Demiurge. Because the inferior Demiurge is responsible for the creation of the material world, it is understandable that the Pleroma created by the True God is radically different from the material world and is abode of enlightened individuals.
Sethian Gnostics regard Seth as the chief saviour or Aeon, rather than Jesus Christ, and regard themselves as direct descendants of Seth.
Thomasine works are so-named after the School of St. Thomas the Apostle. (c/f Thomasine Church). Thomasine Gnostics embrace the philosophy of Illuminism. The texts commonly attributed to this school are:
- The Hymn of the Pearl, or, the Hymn of Jude Thomas the Apostle in the Country of Indians (a.k.a. The Acts of Thomas)
- The Gospel of Thomas
- The Book of Thomas: The Contender Writing to the Perfect
According to the lore of the Thomasine Church, Thomas the Apostle was called the "Twin" of the Savior because Christ referred to him as his spiritual twin and as an intimate confidant; according to the Church, the Thomasine movement began in Edessa, a city in eastern Syria. The modern Thomasine Church originated in the USA and is a revivalist movement for what is seen to be the Thomasine teachings.
The Thomasine Church subscribes to the philosophy of Illuminism (as mentioned above). It is considered a philosophy not religious dogma. Thomasines claim to seek to Know, to Will, to Dare and to Keep Silent. Ignorance is considered the cause of the suffering associated with the human condition, rather than sin; ignorance being the pretext to incorrect thoughts, words and deeds. Ignorance is regarded as the Delusion of the Mind, and keeps one from attaining Understanding, Knowledge and Wisdom. Illuminism then is regarded as the knowledge of the Truth being the goal regardless of religious or philosophical affiliations; through direct experience of the Supreme or Transcendental Light, God, Allah, Tao and Nature, one is said to attain Illumination or Awakening; this goal bringing the unification of all oppositions. Thomasine Church encourages individualised practices and accepts those of any particular religious belief or those with no belief in God. It is said to draw from a variety of sources, including Gnostic texts (i.e. those Thomasine Gnostic texts but no doubt other Gnostic texts that embody the full Gnostic cosmology), the teachings of Jesus, Muhammed, Bah'a'u'llah, Zoroaster, Buddha, and Hindu, Sikh and Jewish texts. Such knowledge or illumination is said to appeal to few; faith is seen as an empty vessel without a corresponding action or application.
'The word Illuminism implies enlightenment and a logically sound understanding of Reality. Illuminism as a term, relates to a philosophical tradition rather than a religious one, and is based on direct objective experience of Reality. Faith and mystical speculations are therefore not preferred. From time immemorial, the wisest among us have discovered that the aim of humanity is to attain Wisdom, Enlightenment or as we call it, the Light of Truth. Only by a combination of two elements, Knowledge and Understanding, can one find the path which leads to Wisdom. The Light of Truth shines with splendor regardless of time or space. The Thomasine Church teaches that certain universal Truths become clear to anyone who seriously and open-mindedly examines Reality by the light of the awakened, intuitive Mind. This paradigm shift from a Fictitious to an Awakened Mind is called metanoia in Greek. These Truths are therefore 'revealed' to the consciousness of the individual. When these universal truths become known to the individual in this way, it is called Revelation. Along the path of enlightenment the initiate becomes cognizant to certain spiritual gifts or abilities; they are; the gift of healing, prophesy, revelation, discernment of spirits (diakresis) and gnosis.'
Jesus is seen as a prime example as he was the 'quaintessential disturber of the status quo, constantly being accused of having relations with those who were the most unpopular or assen as unreligious; Jesus ate,slept and drank with those who were considered sinners and heretics.' Jesus is seen as the inspiration for the Thomasine's ecumenical movement.
The Thomasine Creed is summed up in this prayer:
'I seek the illumination of the Light of Truth.
I seek reintegration with the Living Father, the Ruler of Rulers, the Silence and the Deep.
I seek the annointing of the Mother, the Holy and Comforting Spirit, who is the front of all wisdom, to guide me to find that which internal, invisible, universal and secret.
I seek the knowledge of the Master, the Living Jesus,
upon whom the annointing of Truth, Light and Life was given.
I seek to remove the veil of the Wicked Ones, so that I may obtain true
understanding and attain liberation.
Amen'
The Thomasine Church is a philosophical body that employs an ecclesiastical structure but claims to not use this structure to create and enforce dogma or to instill a sense of superiority or to subjugate its members. The clergy have merely an advisory role. Members are encouraged to study theology and have a good working understanding of a variety of philosophies and religions. The focus of practice is on Hesychasm (see above).
'Illuminists adopt a critical skepticism not unlike the modern scientific method. The major distinction is that the Illuminist laboratory rests within the Mind. The Illuminist even makes an assault on his or her preconceived opinions. A favorite saying of Thomasine Illuminists is 'be slow to agree or disagree'. The Thomasine method of hesychasm is much like that of its orthodox counterpart. The initiate learns methods of detachment and contemplation which are prescribed by an approved master. There are essentially three fluid stages of Enlightenment. The first stage involves detachment from the emotions and is called apatheia. The second is called hesychia or stillness, which requires detachment from the discursive intellect, the imagination, and opinions. The final step is an abiding state of illumination called reintegration or perfect union with the Light of Truth. A Thomasine hesychastic teacher will prescribe a combination of very specific chants, meditations, and readings for the individual initiate. Rather than trying to obtain knowledge about Reality through emotive thought, the Illuminist is seeking to awaken the mind into higher levels of consciousness in which the object of inquiry can be interacted with directly without the intermediary of generalizations. In many diverse religions around the globe one may notice a halo in their iconography. This light around the head is there not by chance or mistake. Illuminists say that when people give up their dogmatic stances and begin to listen to their inner voice again, they begin to radiate a glow about them. The Light of Truth seen by Thomasine hesychasts is the same as appeared at Christ's Transfiguration. He was reintegrated with the Light of Truth and everyone was able to see this Light physically manifest.'
The Truth has never been written down by any spiritual master, e.g. Buddha, Jesus, Muhammed etc. The Kingdom of Heaven has never been described verbally (successfully). Thomasines argue that the Truth has been preached and championed over the course of human history by those who do not understand it.
The Thomasine Church states that it is in the business of living in harmony with the Earth and its environment, rather than dominating it. However, even the Catholic Church is now preaching on the subjects of global warming, so this is not something that is completely novel for Christian or Fringe Christian churches.
'We encourage initiates of the Thomasine Church to study their own ancestral traditional life ways. It is by understanding the physical world that surrounds us that we may better understand the world within. For those seeking more information of the Druid Way go to http://www.druidry.org.'
It would appear that although nominally embracing the Thomasine Gnostic Gospels, the Thomasine Church appears to embody a somewhat wider form of Illuminism, in its embace of 'Nature' and more specifically Druidry. Druidry is a modern 'revivalist' pagan and occult movement. The church would therefore appear to accept actual occult practitioners, although it could be argued that these are people who are seeking enlightenment and ultimate understanding of Reality. To what extend Druidic practices make up the practices of Thomasines, it is not know by BlackSpy. It is certainly not quite the 'standard' practice of Hesychasm. There seems to be a little sycretism within the Thomasine Church, with its central focus on God; although perhaps members do not believe so and believe it to be more a 'pick and mix' and personalised type of 'illuminism'. It is certainly not quite the same type of 'Illuminism' as that of say, Gnostic Luciferians, for example, which clearly varies in practice, approach, goal and ideology - where the focus is more on the occult, hedonism, balance and perhaps the ego side of the Ego/Self dichotomy. However, how much overlap there really is is difficult to determine in absolute terms without complete immersion in both. If the web site had not mentioned Druidry or Rosicrucianism (see below), then BlackSpy might have believed it to be the least dualistic and most accessible of the Gnostic groups. However, the way the Thomasine Church portrays itself is a little misleading, as it is highly likely that Rosicrucianism and Gnosticism's cosmology of rebirth/reincarnation is a key component of many of the philosophies and religions examined, and that it is highly likely that the mainstream religious texts are interpreted within the Gnostic context/cosmology.
BlackSpy would be interested to know where the approved advisors of the Thomasine Church draw the line in terms of the occult and pagan religions. There clearly is one, but it is not really elaborated on on their web site. Clearly it is up to the individual as to which philosophies ring true the most, but there are presumably boundaries of some sort. A clear statement of intent would seem appropriate.
To what extent other Gnostic sects adopt the philosophy of Illuminism (which is another word for seeking Gnosis in some sense) and adopt astrological and druidic practices is not certain, but there are clearly some elements of these within Gnosticism as a whole. BlackSpy subscribes to the philosophy of intellectual Illuminism on some level, but has not found any 'fringe' groups that really embody his personal tastes, preferences and slants that he feels 100% comfortable with. That is after all the whole point of illuminism, that is a personalised experience, but clearly there must be some common ground in terms of approach and actual practices.
The Rose Cross is a Thomasine Church society dedicated to researching and preserving religious texts and 'methods of Illumination'. The Thomasine Church cites publication of the Rosicrucian work 'Fama Fraternitatis Rosae Crucis' in 1610 as the beginning of the shift in European thought towards Illuminism. The name 'Rose Cross' clearly derives from the Rosicrucian 'Rosy Cross'. To what extent Rosicrucianism (itself influenced by Gnosticism) plays a role in the Thomasine Church is not known by BlackSpy, but it clearly significant. Below is the Thomasine symbol of the Rose Cross - perhaps there is some parallel to the Chaos Magic symbol (8 pointed star?)
Valentinian works are named in reference to the Bishop and teacher Valentinius (aka Valentinus), circa 153 AD. Valentinius developed a complex Cosmology outside of the Sethian tradition. At one stage he was close to being appointed the Bishop of Rome (of what is now the Roman Catholic Church). Works attributed to his school are listed below, fragmentary pieces directly linked to him noted with an asterisk:
- The Divine Word Present in the Infant (Fragment A) *
- On the Three Natures (Fragment B) *
- Adam's Faculty of Speech (Fragment C) *
- To Agathopous: Jesus' Digestive System (Fragment D) *
- Annihilation of the Realm of Death (Fragment F) *
- On Friends: The Source of Common Wisdom (Fragment G) *
- Epistle on Attachments (Fragment H) *
- Summer Harvest*
- The Gospel of Truth*
- Ptolemy's Version of the Gnostic Myth
- The Prayer of the Apostle Paul
- Ptolemy's Epistle to Flora
- Treatise on Resurrection (Epistle to Rheginus)
- Gospel of Philip
In qualified monism, only one of the forces is considered divine. The Valentinians are perhaps the best example of those that believe in a qualified monist theology. To the Valentinians, the Demiurge created the world, not out of any moral failing on his part (or an 'evil' nature), but simply because he was ignorant of any higher being. Because of this ignorance, the Demiurge was not divine. If Demiurge had known that there was a true God Monad, and had still created an imperfect material world, then it would have been an evil act of contempt or malevolence. Valentinian Gnostics have less cause to treat the physical world with contempt than those that practice Manichaean Gnosticism or Sethian Gnosticism.
Valentinius, an early Gnostic Alexandrian theologian, regarded Jesus as an 'Aeon'. He was seen as trying to combine Christianity with the philosophies of Aristotle and Plato. The Nag Hammadi Codex, the Gospel of Truth, is most often associated with the ideas of Valentinius.
Bardaisan Gnosticism combined Valentinian Gnosticism with Babylonian astrology. The belief system is likened to those of Origen (who combined Christianity with Neo-Platonism).
Basilidian works are named after the founder of their school, Basilides in 132 AD. These works are mainly known through the criticisms of his main opponent, Irenaeus, in his work Adversus Haereses (Against Heresies). The other pieces are known through the work of Clement of Alexandria. Basilidian Gnosticism is known for its belief that Jesus did not die on the cross but swapped places with Simon of Cyrene who helped Jesus carry his cross.
- The Octet of Subsistent Entities (Fragment A)
- The Uniqueness of the World (Fragment B)
- Election Naturally Entails Faith and Virtue (Fragment C)
- The State of Virtue (Fragment D)
- The Elect Transcend the World (Fragment E)
- Reincarnation (Fragment F)
- Human Suffering and the Goodness of Providence (Fragment G)
- Forgivable Sins (Fragment H)
'The Egyptian Gnostic Basilideans referred to a figure called Abraxas who was at the head of 365 spiritual beings (Irenaeus, Adversus Haereses, I.24); it is unclear what to make of Irenaeus' use of the term 'Archon', which may simply mean 'ruler' in this context. The role and function of Abraxas for Basilideans is not clear. The word Abraxas was engraved on certain antique stones, called on that account Abraxas stones, which may have been used as amulets or charms by Gnostic sects. In popular culture, Abraxas is sometimes considered the name of a god who incorporated both Good and Evil (God and Demiurge) in one entity, and therefore representing the monotheistic God, singular, but (unlike, for example, the Christian God) not omni-benevolent (See Hesse's Demian, and Jung's Seven Sermons to the Dead). Opinions abound on Abraxas, who in recent centuries has been claimed to be both an Egyptian god and a demon, sometimes even being associated with the dual nature of...' Lucifer/Satan or perhaps even God/Satan.
The Ophites or Ophians (Greek for snake) is the term used to refer to any of numerous Gnostic sects in Syria and Egypt around 100 AD, who gave great importance to the serpent of the biblical tale of Adam and Eve, connecting the Tree of Knowledge (of Good and Evil) to gnosis. In contrast to Christian interpretations of the Serpent as Satan, Ophites viewed the serpent as the hero of Genesis, and in line with classic Eastern/Persian Gnosticism, regarding the Hebrew God of the Old Testament as the the 'evil Demiurge'.
The following Sects are regarded as being/having been Ophite Gnostic Sects:
- Naasseners (from Hebrew na'asch = snake)
- The Sethians
- The Mandaeans are considered an Ophite religion that has survived (up to and including the present day).
- The Perates (from the Greek language peras, "to penetrate")
- The Borborites
Ophites should not be confused with Orphites, who were followers of the Greek God Orpheus. It is speculated that Ophites were inspired by the earlier Orphites, but perhaps this is simple word association. However, it is clear from examination of Greek mythology that the myths around Zeus and the Titans, and also the ideas of Plato had a major influence on Neoplatonism and hence Gnosticism, which developed these ideas further, Gnosticism further incorporating religious figures and prophets from other religions within this framework.
'Orpheus is a figure from Greek mythology born in the Rhodope Mountains of Thrace (now partly in Bulgaria), king of the Thracian tribe of Cicones. His name does not occur in Homer or Hesiod, but he was known by the time of Ibycus (c.530 BC). Orpheus was called by Pindar "the father of songs". He was a son of the Thracian river god Oiagros and the Muse Calliope....The Greeks of the Classical age venerated the legendary figure of Orpheus as chief among poets and musicians, and the perfector of the lyre invented by Hermes. Poets like Simonides of Ceos said that, with his music and singing, he could charm birds, fishes and wild beasts, coax the trees and rocks into dance, and even divert the course of rivers. He was one of the handful of Greek heroes to visit the Underworld and return; even in Hades his song and lyre did not lose their power. As one of the pioneers of civilization, he is said at various times to have taught humanity the arts of medicine, writing (in one unusual instance, where he substitutes for the usual candidate, Cadmus) and agriculture, where he assumes the Eleusinian role of Triptolemus. More consistently and more closely connected with religious life, Orpheus was an augur and seer; practised magical arts, especially astrology; founded or rendered accessible many important cults, such as those of Apollo and the Thraco-Phrygian god Dionysus; instituted mystic rites both public and private; and prescribed initiatory and purificatory rituals, which his community of followers treasured in Orphic texts. In addition, Pindar and Apollonius of Rhodes place Orpheus as the harpist and companion of Jason and the Argonauts.'
'When Orpheus' wife, Eurydice, was killed by the bite of a serpent, he went down to the underworld to bring her back. His songs were so beautiful that Hades finally agreed to allow Eurydice to return to the world of the living. However, Orpheus had to meet one condition: he must not look back as he was conducting her to the surface. Just before the pair reached the upper world, Orpheus looked back, and Eurydice slipped back into the netherworld once again. Orpheus was inconsolable at this second loss of his wife. He spurned the company of women and kept apart from ordinary human activities. A group of Ciconian Maenads, female devotees of Dionysus, came upon him one day as he sat singing beneath a tree. They attacked him, throwing rocks, branches, and anything else that came to hand. However, Orpheus' music was so beautiful that it charmed even inanimate objects, and the missiles refused to strike him. Finally, the Maenads' attacked him with their own hands, and tore him to pieces. Orpheus' head floated down the river, still singing, and came to rest on the isle of Lesbos. Orpheus was also reputed to be the founder of the Orphic religious cult.'
'Friedlander goes on to set forth the daring hypothesis that such 'Christian' heresies as those of the Ophites, the Cainites, and the Sethians, as well as the Melchizedekians, are the progeny of the radical antinomians against whom Philo had polemicized. According to the oldest patristic accounts, the Ophites-who according to some accounts are closely associated with the Sethians -were antinomian and venerated the serpent as the revealer of gnosis and as an incamation of the divine Wisdom. Reflected in these ideas is the Alexandrian-Jewish doctrine of the divine dynamis. Philo and other Alexandrian Jews regarded Sophia as a divine dynamis. The Ophites simply took up this doctrine and interpreted it in a heretical fashion.'
Gnostic codes of morality and behaviour have varied from historical time period, Sect and from its culture of practice, and at varying times have embodied both the morality of Christianity and even the spirit of free love. As a general principle, Gnosticism, with its pursuit of knowledge or gnosis and rejection of the trappings of the physical world (as in Buddhism), is ascetic rather than hedonistic or indulgent.
There were notable exceptions, for example, the Phibionites.
'The Phibionites in Alexandria were a Gnostic sect described by Epiphanius. They gathered at banquets that became ecstatic orgies. Married couples changed partners for dramatic sexual performances. Sperm and menstrual blood were gathered and offered as a gift to God before being consumed as the Body and Blood of Christ. By such erotic communions they sought to regather the elements of the world-soul (psyche) from the material forms into which it had been dispersed through a cosmic tragedy at the beginning of time. The regathering amounted to salvation, for all things would be gathered up into the one glorious body of Christ.'
The accuracy of these claims by Epiphanius regarding the Sethian inspired Phibionites, aka The Libertine Gnostic Sect of Borborites cannot be verified and it is possible that he was exaggerating slightly or even grossly exaggerating and slandering them in an attempt to denigrate their spiritual ideas, which was not uncommon in this era. Perhaps it was subjective by perception but not entirely untruthful. The article 'The Libertine Gnostic Sect of the Phibionites According to Epiphanius' by Stephen Benko, published in the Vigiliae Christianae, Vol. 21, No. 2 (May, 1967), pp. 103-119, examined the myths around the Phibionites. Does anyone have a copy?
'Clearly, then, the mythical serpent worshipped by the Ophites cannot be equated with the reptilian predators described in Gnostic texts and the Dead Sea Scrolls. More likely, the Ophite serpent is not entirely a mythical version of the serpent of Eden, but is identical with Kundalini, the serpent power that resides at the base of the spine in human anatomy. This being so, sexual orgies among the Gnostics would not have been merely for the pleasure and indulgence (although they would not have excluded that, either!). They worshipped the supernatural force that resided in their own bodies. In fact, the word 'orgy', Greek orgia, means simply, 'working, activation'. The orgia of the serpent power was a rite for activation of Kundalini in Tantric and Gnostic practices alike.'
Reviewing the Valentinian Sacrament of Bridal Chamber from the Gospel of Philip, and the above links between Tantra and Gnosticism, there is probably a good chance that sex rites were incorporated into the practices of certain Gnostic sects.
Gnosticism was viewed by proto-orthodox Christianity as heresy and the greatest threat to Christianity, and rejected its dualistic cosmology. Gnostics and Zoroastrian priests intensely hated each other. Gnostic priests and Christian priests also similarly detested each other. Whilst many of those of the Jewish religion regard Jesus as a heretic and false-prophet, Gnosticism raises an interesting debate about the nature of God before and after Christ. Gnosticism predated Christianity as we have discussed above. It is likely that its predominant Zoroastrianism incorporated some of the beliefs and ideas of Christianity into the Zoroastrian belief system, combining the two religions in effect. Gnostic Christianity in some respects deviates from other Christian Sects and is regarded as heretical by many Church denominations.
However, it should be noted that many of the Nag Hammadi and related texts bear some elements of Gnosticism, but are by no means Gnostic in the fullest sense. These are most commonly those of the Syrian-Egyptian School of Gnosticism, in particular those Gnostic Christian Codexes. That is, they do not contradict the traditional Christian understanding of Jesus as God, the Trinity and do not embrace the idea of Demiurge. They just give a different recorded insight into the life of Jesus, the relationship between the disciples and the nature of some of the teachings of Jesus, e.g. The Gospel of Thomas (a matter of debate!) It is naive to think that those texts that contain Gnostic elements are necessarily the property of Gnostics and are only read by Gnostics, as there are many shades between a fully blown Gnostic and a Catholic, Protestant or Evangelical Christian, that do not believe in the concept of Demiurge and acknowledge Jesus as both God and man. Where one draws the line is of course a matter of personal judgement.
Gnosticism was no doubt influenced by Buddhist concepts of earthly suffering and achieving Nirvana, and also Plato's ideas about the evil creator God. However, certain aspects of Gnosticism or even Buddhism could be applied to Christianity without actually incorporating the concept of Demiurge. For example, the goal of Buddhism and Gnosticism is the spiritual ascension from the material world and material suffering, to attain enlightenment by becoming spiritually at one (equal on some level) with God or the essence of God. This is similar in concept to embracing the Holy Spirit, but may be expressed a little differently. One may view God as being a figure of an intelligent, self-conscious deity (monotheism), or a spiritual essence which occupies the entire physical Universe (pantheism) and all of reality (panentheism and/or monism), the good, creative force of the Universe, that is a part of everything, that is in everything, that one can tap into and take notice of, and tune into, to become a better person, for spiritual enlightenment and for the good of humanity. Or one can view God as being both. Or perhaps in an Agnostic sense that one is not sure on specifics and can never be 100% sure, but has some ideas on how one's faith might be (i.e. Christian Agnostic - Agnostic in the first instance, Christian in the second instance) . Or perhaps in an Existentialist manner, in which God comes to you as an individual and that Biblical truths are only applicable when they are embraced on some level. There are clearly many ways of looking at what God is. Various Biblical and non-canonical texts touch on this, but ultimately it is up to the individual to figure out for himself.
'One could argue that ascribing fixed personal traits to a particular deity (whether Pan or Jehovah) is not really very realistic. Why should a deity have such a crude and undeveloped personality? And keep this same mode for all eternity, like some kind of circus act, for occult practitioners to use for their own titillation and when they feel like using them for whatever reason or purpose? If humans can develop their personality in many directions to become balanced over time, then surely a deity can manage this, as it will exist throughout all eternity (allegedly) and is not limited by the neuro-associative programming of the physical and electrical brain? However perhaps this is an example of anthropomorphic expectations of what a deity could be. The idea of an anthropomorphic entity that answers all prayers directed to it is a little far fetched in some respects. For Allah/Jehovah this could be billions of prayers every day. God must be in some way at least a panentheistic essence from this perspective. One might even argue that the person praying is merely using visualisation and emotional intensity to create focus, humility and to reach certain parts of their subconscious. The prayer perhaps then is answered by the self.'
A view of how Gnosticism has been adopted and influenced modern philosophies and literature, including William Blake, Carl Jung, Theosophy (Helena Petrovna Blavatsky), Thelema (Aleister Crowley) and Rosicrucianism can be found on Wikipedia at the link below.
If the literal Gnostic interpretation of Jesus was in fact true, and that the Hebew God was not actually the true God, but the 'evil' or 'ignorant' Demiurge, then one should consider the following. Jesus was preaching to the Jews in Israel, and was indeed well versed in Judaism and the Torah of the time, according to the New Testament. The Torah were his scriptures. It is unlikely that if this was the case that he would have held the belief that the God of Judaism was in fact not God at all! One would therefore have to reject nearly the whole New Testament and assume that Jesus was very much anti-Jewish religion. If he had indeed believed that the Hebew God was in fact not God at all, then this would have been a core teaching in his ministry. He was preaching to Jews and would have had to have been very clear in this respect. The Gnostic Gospels, whilst containing various gnostic elements regarding gnosis, do not contain the entirety of the Gnostic Cosmology, and as such do not back up the idea that Jesus was in opposition to the Hebew God. To find the full Gnostic Cosmology one has to turn to other Gnostic texts, which do not mention Jesus or describe the life of Jesus.
One could argue that Gnosticism in some sense misunderstands the creative principle of the universe and does not link this with the divine or spirituality, which is the core concept of most religions and indeed the new age. The creative principle of the universe, the psychological state of creativity and spontaneity could be considered to be synonymous with a Person (e.g. Jehovah) or could be considered to be an essence that is in everything in the Universe (panentheism) or a combination of both. It is not an all or nothing choice.
To expand on this concept, in nature, destruction often results in the creation of life, e.g after forest fires, the burnt ashes can serve as fertiliser for buried seeds and cones, to grow into new trees. Creation and the generation of new life, through seeds and cones, through the growth of algae, is a dynamic and virtually unstoppable process. It is not akin to the slightly anaethetised state of much of Western industrial societies. It is vibrant and takes everything it can get. Sperms rush through the womb and fight with everything they have to reach the egg first. Plants grow in the most unlikely places. Life seemingly springs out of nowhere, and what was once a disused area of ground can grow into a magnificent forest over many years. On our planet, life just 'sprung up' out of the protein soup, when the right combinations of amino acids were formed in the water and mud, life just materialised. Is that incredible? Or is it just a 'drag'. Modern people in our clinical, modern societies (of our own making) are the only animal that considers life dull. And whilst our environment could always be better, humanity has always caused its own problems and the mind causes one's own personal 'prison', regardless of how good or bad the environment may be. Indeed, these arbitrary judgements of the external environment and our bodies are just that. Arbitrary. It is the meaning that you associate with them that counts. Negative judgements and meanings sap that creative force and that sense of creativity. One allows oneself to be conditioned by one's environment, by sticking to rigid routines, by what people say to us, by what we 'say' to ourselves (i.e. our criticising and judgemental ego that tells us we were rubbish at something or that we cannot do something) and by our fears. This in turn results in limiting beliefs and restricts our behaviour, freewill and sense of creativity. It strangles us. And it disassociates us from God, from the divine. This is explored more in the Psychology section under Focus and Belief.
Death is a natural part of life. It could even be seen as poetic as birth can also be, or rather the spirit can be. Many corpses look more relaxed and at peace than they ever did during life, because the facial muscles actually relax/release tension for once! This assumes that the corpse has a head of course. Could life exist without death? Death and ageing bring change, allow the opportunity for new ideas, new life to come up to replace it. Reproduction is not only enjoyable but is the process whereby we create our 'replacements'. Your children are there to 'replace' you. And your job is to help them grow up and look after them and nurture them until they can fend for themselves, to help them think and look after themselves. Life without reproduction and without death would be ever so boring. Imagine how dull life would be if it had no end. Confining life to a given period of time gives it a sense of vitality and urgency, and a sense of dynamism and purpose. One's outlook can evolve and mature as one goes through the different phases of one's life and life cycle. If one looks to Adam and Eve in the garden of Eden, and the Biblical account of the creation of the human species, they were designed from the beginning with the reproductive organs. These organs were not formed when they were cast out. It was inbuilt from the beginning that this was the way it should be. If you live forever, you would never have been 'young'. Of course, this is no reason to abuse your body and to wreck it, in the interests of short term pleasure, but to keep it as vital and energetic for as long as possible, and extent your life as long as possible, whilst maintaining good health and vitality. Wouldn't you rather feel like you were 30 when you are 60 rather than be confined to a nursing home or even dead? To view death as bad or birth as bad is in BlackSpy's opinion missing the point somewhat. Do plants sit around moping or feeling sorry for themselves? No! They grow as much as they can, given the right amount of water, fresh air and natural light/dark. And so it should be with human life. No matter how much we pollute or encroach on natural environments, plants and animals, persist and survive, albeit with certain specific casualties that cannot adapt. Life is a vital state.
If one considers this nature of creation and of life, then one can in many ways connect it to the principle of creativity and ideas. Creativity is what makes us human. The ability to go outside one's comfort zone. The desire to express oneself. It must be an aspect of the divine. If one acknowledges that creation itself possesses this desire, this passion, to survive, be all it can be and to reproduce, then one can see creation as also divine. Perhaps some people regard creation as a virus, such as Gnostics. However, is creativity a virus? In what sense can one separate the positive vibration and creational energy that is used in healing? An element of our lifeforce and that which gives us our ability to interpret our environment and situation and express ourselves within in and through our physical bodies, and through art. The creative mind set is very closely tied in with this positive vibration and creational energy. They are different aspects of our lifeforce. Where there is no ability to create or a sense of desensitisation, lifeforce itself, the creation force, is weak. It is strong where there is creativity, in an expressive sense. Life itself is a form of expression and art. Forget fine works of art in a museum, YOU are a work of art. In your healthy, natural, positive, energised and creative state, you are a magnificent beauty, a true work of art. Animals, it can be noted, are less inhibited and 'uptight' than humans, and do not adopt unhealthy postures or recreational pasttimes such as sitting in front of electronic boxes, and stiffening their muscles on account of stress or keyboard use, but move with fluidity, precision and elegance. This fluidity and 'no mind' state is what has inspired the martial arts, where the copying of animal movements, and taking on a moving art form, allows us to develop our internal life force and vitality, calm the mind and ego, and perform 'superhuman' feats. An article by Reverand Peter Owen Jones on the nature of creativity can be found at the link below. Whether you want to view the divine or God as a Person and our relationship with God as divine; or an all encompassing 'essence', in a more panentheistic view of God, where healing power is basically part of this essence or 'God' (and where self-awareness and awareness of this divinity makes you 'wise' or a better and/or more mature person); or a combination of the two; is clearly an individual choice but the same principles apply in all cases.
BlackSpy thinks there is a great deal to admire and like about Gnosticism, in particular, Gnostic Christianity (i.e. those Sects who regard Jesus as the Saviour). BlackSpy likes the aspect of spiritual self-consciousness and knowledge, and whilst this is a different interpretation to the Canonical Gospels, believes that perhaps the truth (or rather BlackSpy's personal interpretation) lies somewhere in the middle. However BlackSpy has a number of issues with Gnosticism. Gnosticism is a bit of a 'pick and mix' framework. It provides Neo-Platonic/Buddhist influenced ideas of an evil creator God and a mysterious, benevolent God, and slots various prophets from the same or different religions into this framework as Aeons or those teachers that reached the highest level of Gnosis. BlackSpy does not personally believe in a Demiurge and is doubtful about reincarnation, although he keeps an open mind. BlackSpy is also open minded about the concept of the 'devil' and believes that there may not actually be a 'devil' at all.
Surely one can appreciate other religions and belief systems as exploring slightly different aspects of the same basic source of 'light' divinity, i.e. God, the teachings of which are embedded somewhat in their respective cultures, without having to adopt the actual Gnostic cosmology? Does one have to believe in an evil God whatsoever in order to appreciate the teachings of Krishna? Or of Buddha? Of Moses? Or indeed of Jesus? Does not have to regard the creator of the physical world as evil? Does the creator of the world have to be different to the true source of the divine? Does not creation and life come out of the divine? Is life and the creation of life not something beautiful? If Gnostics regard the cycle of birth and death as a prison, then why do they have children and bring souls back into the world if it is so terrible? Perhaps so they can achieve Gnosis and be freed, to ascend to Pleroma. Indeed, does one have to believe in reincarnation to learn from the teachings of the great prophets? Does one have to believe in reincarnation to believe that some sense of spiritual self-awareness and self-nurturing is a good thing? Clearly not. It could go either way. There does not have to be an implied cosmology necessarily. One may choose to adopt the Gnostic cosmological framework if one believes in it. But equally one may choose not to, and use one's own 'pick and mix' philosophy. For example, one may choose to interpret other religions such as Buddhism, Hindu or Islam within the framework of Islam (all prophets being men), or indeed interpret the ideas from Buddhism, Hindu and Taoism within the framework of Christianity or progressive Christianity. Or indeed one could interpret these religions from a Buddhist or Atheist perspective.
Indeed, one does not necessarily have to accept any ideas or cosmologies if one does not want to. Can one justify having to rewrite a huge part of a religion or optimistically and excessively reinterpret it in order to make it fit into the Gnostic cosmology? And redefine the nature of the prophet in question? Some critics regard the story of Jesus being man and God as being far-fetched, and that dying on the cross, then moving the rock and appearing again was 'not realistic' or 'believable'. And that perhaps he was just a man and his story was elaborated on. However, surely arguing that Jesus was not even a man at all but was a spirit imitating physical form is even more far-fetched, especially as it goes against all the records of the Canonical Gospels, written in the 1st Century? One could argue that if one is to re-define an entire religion to make it fit in with Gnosticism, to what extent should one not reinterpret what the Gnostic view of that religion is, and just recreate one's own personal version? Where does one draw the line?
One could also view that fact that if one venerates multiple prophets from different religions, and perhaps focusses on one at a time (one cannot focus on them all at once in totally, perhaps partially if one is smart), then does this not mean that each faith has less intrinsic value? Is one not lessening the importance one ascribes to one particular faith or prophet's teachings if one highly rates many others? To what extent is one just scratching the surface of many belief systems, rather than getting 'stuck into' one particular belief system? And to what extent is one confusing oneself? And achieving very little? Even if one interprets them as aspects of the same source, it is still too much for the brain to truly comprehend given the complex nature of the scriptures and books of each faith - and the work of combining them in some fashion in one's mind is not simple! Having to learn about one religion is hard work enough, without having to contend with two or three! However, if one has the time, it is clearly very rewarding to study other 'related' religions. One does not have to be a gnostic to be a universalist, but the two can be synergistic.
The concept of attaining enlightenment (to be at one with God), as described above in the Gnosticism section, may compared in some respects to the theistic/atheistic Satanic goal of achieving 'God-like' status, but in that example, it is done for the benefit and massaging of the ego and the pursuit of personal power, rather than pursuing the goal of non-attachment. There is a difference of course between embracing the Holy Spirit, non-attachment and having a relationship with God, and seeking personal and spiritual power to further the ego. The CoS is examined on the Left Hand Path page.
Is Gnosticism an 'each man for himself' concept of spirituality? In opposition to the actual relationship Christians have with God as a Person, i.e. you love God, God loves you, you fill yourself with that feeling of love, i.e. you feel God's love.
It could be argued that Gnosticism fizzled out largely by the 4th Century AD as it was logically flawed in comparison to proto-orthodox and orthodox Christianity. This is the view taken by many Christians. Gnosticism was in many cases elitist, in that it was the preserve of intellectuals rather than a religion/philosophy for the common man. One could argue that the Gnostic gospels were written to merely express the ideas and theology of Gnosticism rather than being an accurate portrayal of the life of Jesus. One could argue that the Gnostic Gospels say more about 2nd to 4th Century Gnostic Christianity and the conflict within Christianity, rather than they do tell us anything about Jesus and his disciples in the 1st Century AD.
However, it could also be argued that Gnosticism fizzled out by the 4th Century largely on account of persecution and repression by the early church, that saw Gnosticism as its biggest threat.
Some argue that Gnosticism is more pessimistic than Buddhism, the religion most commonly attributed to it. Indeed, Catholic scholars have argued that Gnosticism was a 'last ditch attempt' to revive Hellenistic pagan traditions, a last evolution (Neo-Platonism) of Hellenistic mysticism, magic and paganism before it finally disappeared. This view may be consistent with the trend that Gnosticism has towards enveloping Neo-Pagan and Hermetic Magical traditions, in the form of Rosicrucianism, the Golden Dawn and Gnostic Luciferianism. Some have accused Gnosticism of adopting Christian terminology and using it in a completely different context; of adopting Christianity and Christian principles, adapting them to the Gnostic cosmology, in order to give itself new authority, credibility and relevance in the first few years after the death of Christ. The theology of Gnosticism lends itself well to adopting other religions and their prophets or messiahs, and redefining them to fit in to the existing theology. Gnosticism has portrayed itself as the true Christianity and orthodox Christianity as a subversion, whereas most followers of Jesus Christ argue the exact opposite. The evidence for the Gnostic position over Christ was reinforced in the 1940s and 50s with various finds in Egypt, and interest in Dan Brown's Da Vinci Code has rekindled interest in the Gnostic Gospels, to the point that they have become quite fashionable again in Christian circles.
Some could argue that the cosmology and belief in Gnosticism that the physical world is the root cause of suffering and human body is a 'prison' for the human soul is missing the point. For the vast majority of people, the body, the vessel that carries the human soul, is more of a prison than it actually need be. Here we are talking about health, fitness and energy levels. The average Western diet is not brilliant by any means. You can read about this in the health section of this web site. The cumulative effect of most modern diets is to clog up the colon and small intestine, gradually depriving the body of the nutrients it needs. In addition, the amount of additives, herbicides, pesticides and preservatives in food, coupled with toxins inherently present in the soil on account of pollution that increase in concentration as they work their way up the food chain (particularly in fish, e.g. mercury), and the gratuitous use of pharmaceuticals, sulphur-based antibiotics and even recreational drug use, mean that the average human body is incredibly polluted and unable to function as efficiently as it should. This results in decreased energy levels, worse health and premature aging. This is not to mention stress and addictive negative psychological patterns. One could argue that the individual is often responsible for putting 'additional' locks on the door of their own private prison, or indeed closing the door of their cell in the first place; and perhaps creating or reinforcing the idea of being 'trapped in the prison of the body' for many. Perhaps Gnostics should consider proper diet and detoxification as the first port of call, before worrying too much about reincarnation and being freed from the human body.
The belief that the soul is trapped in the prison of the physical body, in the prison of the physical world, is a negative belief however you look at it, whether it is true or not. Surely it is better to have a more empowering and positive belief about yourself and about the world around you, regardless of whether it is true or not? A negative belief in one area usually results in negative beliefs cropping up in other areas, strangling your being and limiting your self-expression, affecting how you feel and your ability to enjoy your life and ultimately your potential happiness. If one subscribes to the law of attraction, then if one believes that one's body is a prison and one believes that physical existence is a 'swamp' or 'prison', i.e. oppressive, then it will appear so and indeed become so, with this perception reinforcing itself and the beliefs that create this perception. It will feel more and more oppressive. Indeed, if one does not hold this belief, but instead, believes that the chance for physical life and the possibilities of the physical world for self-expression are a blessing, a positive thing, then that will 'attract' positive feelings, a sense of freedom and a 'natural high'. Of course, this is not to say that religions like Buddhism are automatically attracting bad things and states of mind into their followers lives - there are many different types of Buddhism and many personal interpretations. However, Gnosticism seems to takes this one step further with Zoroastrian and Neoplatonic views of creation. Tibetan Buddhism may more closely align itself to the Gnostic cosmological concept of a 'cyclic swap of existence' (quoted from the Tibetan Book of the Dead), and may be regarded as more 'pessimistic' than other forms of Buddhism.
BlackSpy personally views knowledge or gnosis as including the principles of positive proliferation and creation/creativity/source, as without it, gnosis is only half 'gnosis' or half the truth. Sometimes knowing only half the truth can lead to an enormous amount of pain or blundering. Perhaps this is a more modern masonic way of looking at God and Gnosis than the context in which Gnostics view it (i.e. the Gnostic cosmology).
The book of Job in the KJV Old Testament mentions 'Satan' in chapters 1 and 2, implying he is an angel or judge. The OT or Tanakh is the central book of Judaism, which is also used by Christians in addition to the New Testament. Judaism was first formed roughly 2000 years before Christ. There is a concept of Satan in Judaism, but not of a Devil. The concept of The Satan (aka HaSaTan or Ha-satan) used in the OT or Torah is in terms of a prosecuting attorney, who is not a deity and has no power unless given by the judge God himself. Ha-satan asks permission from God before he can act. Ha-satan is a servant of God whose job it is to test humankind. References to this role of 'Satan' can be found in the following passages: Job 2:3-6, Zechariah 3:1-2, Psalm 109:6-7 and Isaiah 45:5-7.
The serpent in the Garden of Eden, in the book of Genesis, is regarded by Judaism to be just a snake, albeit one that could talk! The serpent is not equated by Jews to being the 'devil'. It is however often interpreted by Christians as being Satan. Gnostics regard the serpent as being the Gnostic Goddess Sophia, which Luciferian Gnosticism associates with being Lucifer. Baphomet is a kabbalistic cipher for the Gnostic Goddess Sophia.
Perhaps the myth of the snake being a representation of the devil was enhanced by the legacy of Vlad III, Pinrce of Wallachia, in the 15th Century, aka Vlad the Impaler.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vlad_III
'His Romanian surname Dr?culea, is derived from his father's title Dracul, meaning 'son of Dracul'.[3] (see Vlad II Dracul); the latter was a member of the Order of the Dragon created by Emperor Sigismund. The word "dracul" means "the Devil" or "demon" in modern Romanian but in Vlad's day also meant "dragon", and derives from the Latin word Draco, also meaning "dragon". The old Romanian word for serpent (Cf. drac) is nowadays the most common and casual reference to the devil Ñ while the people of Wallachia did give Vlad II the surname Dracu (Dracul being the more grammatically correct form), any connection with a dark power was most likely coincidental. .[citation needed]. His son Vlad III would later use in several documents the surname Draùculea. Through various translations (Draculea, Drakulya) Vlad III eventually came to be known as Dracula (note that this ultimate version is a neologism).'
Vlad III was the inspiration for Bram Stoker's 1897 novel Dracula, associating Transylvania with the occult thereafter.
The context in which 'Lucifer' is mentioned in the Old Testament is probably not in the role of 'the Devil'. e.g. Isaiah 14:12. (KJV): 'How art thou fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the morning! how art thou cut down to the ground, which didst weaken the nations!'
The articles below examine the translation of Isaiah 14:12. The first article examines other references in the NTfor Satan and how they associate Satan with lighting and light, and examines Isaiah's use of Lucifer, which is most likely to actually symbolically refer to the Babylonian deity morning star that is not able to help the rogue Babylonian king, and not actually the Devil himself.
It is alleged in the Latin Vulgate, in 2 Peter 1:19 and Revelation 22:16, 'Lucifer' is used to refer to Jesus Christ. The KJV uses the terms 'day star' and 'morning star' in these passages respectively.
Are demons in fact just deep rooted negative beliefs, addictive patterns of negative behaviour and self-perpetuating negative energy, a force locking in ill-health and negative frames of mind into a person? Or are they literal? Or a combination of the two? Is Satan just a state of mind? You decide!
There is some debate and confusion over the concept of the Devil in Christianity. In some parts of the canonical gospels of the New Testament, the text refers to a devil entering into a person. And in some places as a person being 'a devil' - meaning an evil person? Or a person influenced or entered into by the 'devil'? e.g. John 6: 70-71 (KJV) states:
'70: Jesus answered them, Have not I chosen you twelve, and one of you is a devil?
71: He spake of Judas Iscariot the son of Simon: for he it was that should betray him, being one of the twelve.'
In other parts the text refers to 'devils' in the plural (e.g. Legion), presumably meaning evil spirits or demons in the plural. In other sections the text refers to 'the' devil. This mixed usage of the term 'devil' may confuse the reader. Is the term 'devil' thus taken to mean a demon or evil spirit in one context and the Satan in the next. The usage of 'Satan' in the New Testament appears to refer to the fallen angel Satan rather than just a demon or evil spirit, although one cannot be 100% sure. Satan or 'the devil' is often used to refer to evil spirits in general who are assumed by some to be under the 'command' of a central evil entity or demon or fallen angel.
In Revelations, references are made to a beast or beasts. Some interpreters have linked this 'beast' in Revelations with a variety of historical figures, e.g. the Roman Emperor Nero, the Roman Emperor Caligula and even the Pope Benedict.
The books 1 John and 2 John of the New Testament mention the 'antichrist'. Many Christians and indeed non-Christians have taken this term to refer to a mythical 'son of Satan' figure, who will come to bring destruction on the world. The notion has spread in popular culture and through movies such as The Omen. However, this is a misinterpretation of what the Bible actually means. There is no single 'antichrist' as such in BlackSpy's opinion. The term simply means someone who is against Christ. They are anti-Christianity and anti-Christ (assuming modern Christianity reflects what Jesus actually taught). They do not have to literally even belief in 'the devil', worship 'the devil' or even be the 'son of the Devil'. It is a term that early Christians used to label those Roman rulers and others who were against Christians in general. It has however been used gratuitously in horror films and novels in another context entirely.
In Matthew 24:14-15, Jesus is discussing the end times and states the following.
'[14] And this gospel of the kingdom shall be preached in all the world for a witness unto all nations; and then shall the end come.
[15] When ye therefore shall see the abomination of desolation, spoken of by Daniel the prophet, stand in the holy place, (whoso readeth, let him understand:)'
Some interpret this as meaning the coming of the 'Antichrist'. However, if we look at Daniel's reference to the 'abomination of desolation', then it seems to refer to the historical figure, the Seleucid ruler Antiochus IV, aka Antiochus Epiphanes.
If we consider the context of Matthew 24, Jesus is discussing the end times, the end of the world, the chaos, destruction and debauchery and false teachings before Jesus comes again. In verse 15 onwards, he talks about the 'abomination of desolation' - is this really however the 'Antichrist'? If one follows this concept of a single Antichrist, there cannot be multiple throughout history presumably. Is Jesus merely stating that amidst the chaos, destruction and false teachings, it will happen again that an agressive ruler or tyrant will come to the Jewish Temple (which has not officially been discovered or rebuilt as yet) and defile it as Antiochus once did? Jesus does not however suggest that this one figure is the 'Devil' incarnate, nor that he will necessarily unite all the forces of darkness against God and mankind. To make the jump to him being the single 'Antichrist' type figure implied by Revelations (a set of visions or dreams of one of the Apostles (allegedly) and often interpreted metaphorically by Christians) is another step in the logic, and not something Jesus actually stated explicitly. It could be argued that the figure in Revelations is also an allegory for Nero, another historical figure.
Why is it that in some Christian schools that children sing hymns that mention the devil? Surely such subject matter is a little beyond young children and all it does is to scare them and make them worried of horned monsters? In the same way that nursery rhymes may be allegories for quite nasty events, and parents think they are funny or educational (or at least used to in the 19th century) - these serve to just scare innocent children unnecessarily! BlackSpy watched a play at an evangelical church in London in 1996 and it was like the TV show Casualty, a few people were pictured, discussing religion, then one person would be in a sudden fatal accident and either go to heaven or hell. This would repeat endlessly and the devil was portrayed in a very nasty way. At the end of the play, young kinds were invite to give their lives to God to avoid hell. Clearly this was just scaring young, inmpressionable children into becoming Chrsitians, hardly the right way to spread the message of God! Even some Christians in the audience thought it almost dubious.
Judaism, and the Old Testament uses the concept of fallen angels, but relies on them to a much lesser extent than the New Testament. In Judaism, only human kind have freewill, no other creature has the ability to differentiate between good and evil and to make a choice on what path to go. Angels are said to have no freewill but are sent to earth to perform a single task.
Judaism does have an angelology that includes angels and what one might term 'demons'. However, they are reputed to be extensions of God's will. The angels (and especially demons) are a much, much smaller part of Jewish theology than in the Christian tradition. The purpose of the demons, which are delineated only in Kabbalistic texts, is an attempt to understand the nature of evil. They supposedly come out of, rather than cause, evil. In Judaism there is therefore no need to cast out of demons or the concept of demonic possession. Judaism does use the concept of Spirit Guide, a dybbuk, which may attach itself to a person, usually in a positive sense. However, there are procedures for exorcising a dybbuk in Kabbalistic practices.
Some people claim that the Archangel Michael was actually adopted from the Mesopotanian mysticism, the deity Marduk, the patron deity of Babylon, who was 'downgraded' by Christians to the role of an 'vengeful' Archangel.
The book The Archangel Michael: His Mission and Ours, by Rudolf Steiner, can be read by clicking here, which considers this issue.
Kabballistic texts such as the Zohar mention fallen or 'evil' angels. The notable examples are Uzza and Azazel, who provided the evil prophet Bilaam with valuable information. Whether these in some sense were performing the 'will of God' is a matter of debate! Azazel is the deity believed by Theistic Satanists to be Satan (e.g. Church of Azazel).
Of the books of the New Testament, Ezekiel 28:13-16 is often quoted by Christians as being evidence of Satan being a fallen angel. However, this is perhaps an interpreted or implied meaning, and there is no mention of the 'devil' or 'Satan' in these verses. A discussion on this point can be found at the link below.
There are various indirect references in the New Testament to fallen angels, but the most direct reference can be found in the book of Revelation 12:4-9, where the 'devil' and 'Satan' are mentioned.
So if one is to conclude that whilst Judaism does not rely (so heavily) on concepts such as exorcism and possession, Christianity and Islam do use these concepts. It is useful to cross reference the occult here, because the vast majority of occultists do believe in possession and exorcism, albeit in a slightly different manner. Whilst coming from two completely different standpoints, the two camps do agree on certain themes. For example, occultists use invocation to invoke a deity either into the room or into an individual (oneself) - using a pentagram as 'protection' - with the banishing ritual used to reverse the invocation. Occultists maintain that whilst some spirits are benevolent, others are neutral or more self-interested, and others still are considered to be malevolent towards one or more persons. Christians also share this concept of malevolent spirits, whether they possess an individual or less frequently, occupy a specified geographic area (e.g. haunted house). Banishing spirits from haunted houses is usually the domain of Occultists and Spiritualists (often New Agers) but on occasion Islamic or Christian Priests.
For example, a Christian exorcism may well include Holy Water, prayers, mantras, quotations from the Bible, etc.
'The Catholic Church revised the Rite of Exorcism in January 1999, although the traditional Rite of Exorcism in Latin is allowed as an option. The act of exorcism is considered to be an incredibly dangerous spiritual task; the ritual assumes that possessed persons retain their free-will, though the demon may hold control over their physical body, and involves prayers, blessings, and invocations with the use of the document Of Exorcisms and Certain Supplications. Other formulas may have been used in the past, such as the Benedictine Vade retro satana. In the modern era, the Catholic Church authorizes exorcism rarely, approaching would-be cases with the presumption that mental or physical illness is in play.'
An Occultist exorcism takes a very different format. We shall not examine a banishing ritual here (this is not within BlackSpy's repertoire/expertise). However, one example of an Occultist methodology for driving a spirit from a house is the light incense or incense sticks all far corners of the house, furthest away from the doors. Then the practitioner may make a banging or crashing sound, e.g. with cymbals or pots/pans or other metallic objects, starting from the rooms furthest away from the door and moving towards the front/back door. This is said to drive out any spirits from a house. Apparently. It would certainly drive out physical person!
References to what we can assume is 'Hell' in the New Testament gospels include phrases such as 'furnace of fire' or 'outer darkness, with a weeping and gnashing of teeth.' These references are not explicitly described as 'Hell' and are used in Jesus' parables, and may well be metaphoric in some sense (separation from God, being tormented by one's self hatred, worry and fears, or one's ego, or perhaps being tortured by evil spirits/demons or the 'devil' himself) Other religions such as Buddhism use the concept of self-torture after death depending on spiritually ascended (or not) one is.
The modern view of Hell is very much influenced by that pictured in Dante 's Inferno. The Divine Comedy was written by Dante Alighieri between 1308 and his death in 1321. Not exactly a Biblical source!
Eugène Delacroix, The Barque of Dante, 1822, (oil on canvas, 189 x 246 cm), Louvre, Paris:
This built up on the early views of Hell being linked with images of abysses, pits, lava, fire, volcanos, perhaps built upon earlier pagan views of the Underworld, the place of the dead; and the belief that heaven is up and hell is 'down', and as the Earth has molten lava beneath the surface, and hell being 'hot', then this picture seemed to satisfy early Christians.
Erta Ale, in Ethiopia, the oldest lava lake in the world is believed by local tribemen to be the gateway to 'Hell'.
There are explicit references to hell in the Old and New Testaments, as being a low and firey place or pit. However the meaing is very different.
In the OT, the Hebrew Sheol is translated as meaning 'grave' or 'pit'. The Septuagint (the oldest Hebrew Bible, i.e. OT) translates Sheol as Hades. Hades is not generally intended to be a place of eternal damnation in the Christian sense, but a (temporary) resting place of the dead (all dead souls including 'good' and 'bad') or the place where the wicked await (temporary?) damnation. The OT does not however link Hell with Satan or with a fallen angel, whereas the NT does. Judaism does not have the same concept of Hell as Christianity.
The Jewish 'Hell' is known as Gehanna (a.k.a. Gehenna) and is more a form of purgatory, a temporary place of cleansing for souls. It is the abode of the damned in the afterlife in Jewish and Christian eschatology (the doctrine of last things). Named in the New Testament in Greek form (from the Hebrew Ge Hinnom, meaning valley of Hinnom), Gehenna originally was a valley west and south of Jerusalem where children were burned as sacrifices to the Ammonite god Moloch by the Israelites. Gehenna also lends its name to the Islamic Hell 'Jahannam'. In Jahannam, Muslims are eventually forgiven whereas non-Muslims are not.
Gehanna is fairly well defined in rabbinic literature. It is sometimes translated as "hell", but one should note that the Christian view of hell differs greatly from the classical Jewish view. In Judaism, Gehinom while certainly a terribly unpleasant place or state is not hell. The overwhelming majority of rabbinic thought maintains that souls are not tortured in gehinom forever; the longest that one can be there is said to be twelve months, with extremely rare exception. This is the reason that even when in mourning for near relatives, Jews will not recite mourner's kaddish for longer than an eleven month period. Gehinom is considered a spiritual forge where the soul is purified for its eventual ascent to Gan Eden ("Garden of Eden").
In the OT, Hell is also used to describe physical death.
Below are excerpts from the OT that seem to suggest that Hell is a place for all the dead, good and bad, and that souls are delivered from hell unto the Lord.
2 Samuel 22:6: 'The sorrows of hell compassed me about; the snares of death prevented me;'
Psalms 16:10: 'For thou wilt not leave my soul in hell; neither wilt thou suffer thine Holy One to see corruption.'
Psalms 18:5: 'The sorrows of hell compassed me about: the snares of death prevented me.'
Psalms 86:13: 'For great is thy mercy toward me: and thou hast delivered my soul from the lowest hell.'
Psalms 116:3: 'The sorrows of death compassed me, and the pains of hell gat hold upon me: I found trouble and sorrow.'
Proverbs 15:24: 'The way of life is above to the wise, that he may depart from hell beneath.'
Proverbs 23:14: 'Thou shalt beat him with the rod, and shalt deliver his soul from hell.'
Psalms 139:8: 'If I ascend up into heaven, thou art there: if I make my bed in hell, behold, thou art there.'
The following passages are slightly ambiguous, and could either be interpreted in the sense that God wishes to kill the wicked or in the Christian sense of sending the evil only to hell (but non-specific about duration).
Psalms 9:17: 'The wicked shall be turned into hell, and all the nations that forget God.'
Psalms 55:15: 'Let death seize upon them, and let them go down quick into hell: for wickedness is in their dwellings, and among them.'
Isaiah 5:14: 'Therefore hell hath enlarged herself, and opened her mouth without measure: and their glory, and their multitude, and their pomp, and he that rejoiceth, shall descend into it.'
In Babylonian mythology, the underworld or place of all the dead was known as Kurnugia. In Mesopotamian mythology it is known as Irkalla. The queen of the underworld was Ereshkigal, 'great lady under earth'.
According to Babylonian mythology, Inanna (Ishtar), the goddess of heaven and earth, and the sister of Ereshkigal, descended into the the underworld, Irkalla, in the pursuit of knowledge - to understand the depths of the spiritual world in which she reigned. This is perhaps a pre-Jungian metaphor for the process of personal growth by exploring one's 'shadow', known as Individuation.
Inanna and Ereshkigal are considered by some to be one and the same, different aspects of the same goddess. Ereshkigal is perhaps the aspect of Inanna that did not receive love and nurturing and was bitter and hostile. Upon descending into Irkalla (a.k.a. Inanna's Descent), Inanna was killed by Ereshkigal. Unsuccessful individuation perhaps!
Another figure that briefly visited the underworld to gain wisdom was the Babylonian hero Gilgamesh.
The term Irkalla was also used to describe Ereshkigal, the goddess of the underworld, as well as the underworld itself, in the same way the Greek mythological term Hades is used to describe both the underworld (the abode of the god Hades) and also the god of the dead, Hades.
'In Christian theology, the term hades refers to the abode of the dead or Sheol (also Hell), where the dead await Judgment Day either at peace or in torment.
Like other first-century Jews literate in Greek, early Christians used the Greek word Hades to translate the Hebrew word Sheol. Thus, in Acts 2:27, the Hebrew phrase in Psalm 16:10 appears in the form: "you will not abandon my soul to Hades." Death and Hades are repeatedly associated in the Book of Revelation.
The ancient Christian Churches hold that a final universal judgement will be pronounced on all human beings when soul and body are reunited in the resurrection of the dead.
Some other denominations, such as the Jehovah's Witnesses, hold that, until the resurrection, the dead simply cease to exist or, if they exist at all, do so in a state of unconsciousness.' (a.k.a. soul sleep).
'In Christian theology, soul sleep is a belief that the soul sleeps unconsciously between the death of the body and its resurrection on Judgment Day. Soul sleep is also known as psychopannychism (from Greek psyche (soul, mind) + pannuchizein (to last the night)).
A similar belief is thnetopsychism (from Greek thnetos (mortal) + psyche (soul, mind)), the view that the soul dies with the body to be recalled to life at the resurrection of the dead, or that the soul is not separate from the body and so there is no "spiritual" self to survive bodily death.
In both cases, the deceased does not begin to enjoy a reward or suffer a punishment until Judgment Day.
The more common Christian belief about the intermediate state between death and Judgment Day is particular judgment, that the soul is judged at death. In Roman Catholicism, the soul is judged to go to heaven or hell immediately after death, a belief also held by most Protestants. In Catholicism some temporarily stay in purgatory to be purified for heaven. In Eastern Orthodoxy, the soul waits in the abode of the dead until the resurrection of the dead, the saved resting in light and the damned suffering in darkness. This Eastern Orthodox picture of particular judgment is similar to the 1st-century Jewish and early Christian concept that the dead either "rest in peace" in the Bosom of Abraham or suffer in Gehenna. This view was also promoted by John Calvin in his treatise attacking soul sleep.
Soul sleep was promoted by some Reformation as well as some minor Protestant denominations.'
'The Christian doctrine of hell derives from the teaching of the New Testament, where hell is typically described using the Greek words Tartarus or Hades or the Hebrew word Gehenna. Hell is taught as the final destiny of those who have not accepted Jesus Christ as their savior after they have passed through the great white throne of judgment, where they will be punished for sin and permanently separated from God after the general resurrection and last judgment. However, many Christian theologians of the early Church and some of the modern Church subscribe to the doctrines of conditional immortality ("annihilationism") or universal reconciliation.' [Please see below for discussion of Conditional Immortality]
The following excerpts from the New Testament (NT) seem to reinforce the NT Christian view that hell is a place where the wicked are sent for eternal damnation.
Matthew 10:28: 'And fear not them which kill the body, but are not able to kill the soul: but rather fear him which is able to destroy both soul and body in hell.'
Matthew 16:18: 'And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.'
Matthew 18:9: 'And if thine eye offend thee, pluck it out, and cast it from thee: it is better for thee to enter into life with one eye, rather than having two eyes to be cast into hell fire.'
Matthew 23:33: 'Ye serpents, ye generation of vipers, how can ye escape the damnation of hell?'
Luke 16:23: 'And in hell he lift up his eyes, being in torments, and seeth Abraham afar off, and Lazarus in his bosom.'
The following NT passages seem to imply Hell is another word for physical death (in the OT sense).
Revelation 1:18: 'I am he that liveth, and was dead; and, behold, I am alive for evermore, Amen; and have the keys of hell and of death.'
Revelation 6:8: 'And I looked, and behold a pale horse: and his name that sat on him was Death, and Hell followed with him. And power was given unto them over the fourth part of the earth, to kill with sword, and with hunger, and with death, and with the beasts of the earth.'
The following passages seem to suggest that the dead either go straight to heaven or straight to hell.
Luke 23: 42-43: '[42] And he said unto Jesus, Lord, remember me when thou comest into thy kingdom. [43] And Jesus said unto him, Verily I say unto thee, To day shalt thou be with me in paradise.'
The following NT passages could be interpreted to mean Hell in the OT sense of a resting place for all dead who are all punished to varying degrees before being reunited with God; or in the sense that all dead go to Hell to await final/last judgement prior to either eternal damnation or going to heaven.
Matthew 5:22: 'But I say unto you, That whosoever is angry with his brother without a cause shall be in danger of the judgment: and whosoever shall say to his brother, Raca, shall be in danger of the council: but whosoever shall say, Thou fool, shall be in danger of hell fire.'
Acts 2:27: 'Because thou wilt not leave my soul in hell, neither wilt thou suffer thine Holy One to see corruption.'
Acts 2:31: 'He seeing this before spake of the resurrection of Christ, that his soul was not left in hell, neither his flesh did see corruption.'
2 Peter 2:4: 'For if God spared not the angels that sinned, but cast them down to hell, and delivered them into chains of darkness, to be reserved unto judgment;'
Revelation 20:13: 'And the sea gave up the dead which were in it; and death and hell delivered up the dead which were in them: and they were judged every man according to their works.'
One could therefore conclude that the New Testament, the Biblical basis for mainstream Christian thought, seems to suggest that the Christian Hell is not a place for all dead souls, but for those that are to be punished - the suggestion being that souls that are destined to be with the Father at death go straight there.
Catholicism uses the concept of Purgatory as a temporary place where all souls go, for punishment, prior to their final destination in Heaven or Hell. This would be similar to the Jewish concept of Gehenna if it were not for the possibility of going to Hell afterwards. Purgatory has no Biblical basis in this context and is not a belief shared by Protestants.
Clearly the concepts of Hell, Hades, Sheol, Gehanna are somewhat confused between the New and Old Testaments. Is it correct to reinterpret the Old Testament in terms of the intended meaning of the New Testament? Followers of Judaism may not necessarily agree! Presumably if there was a major problem with the concept of Satan and Gehanna or Sheol in the Scriptures, Jesus would have clearly pointed it out, rather than making indirect references to it (in passing) in his teachings?
Other non-Biblical concepts replacing 'hell' have arisen in Christianity, which clearly must have different concepts regarding the 'devil', 'evil spirits' and demonology. These include:
Conditional Immortality, or Conditionalism is the belief that man is mortal and that immortality is given only by God, i.e. when one dies, God may give us eternal life in 'heaven', or we will just cease to exist rather than go to a formal Hell. This doctrine is in opposition to the generally accepted notion of the immortality of the soul. Conditionalism has grown in acceptance by the Eastern Orthodox Church and Evangelicalism. It is often associated with Annihilationism.
Ezekiel 18:4: 'Behold, all souls are mine; as the soul of the father, so also the soul of the son is mine: the soul that sinneth, it shall die.'
In the above instance, the soul that dies could be interpreted literally, in the precise terms that Ezekiel was used to using, to support the above idea, or metaphorically to mean 'eternal damnation' or 'not heaven', i.e. life meaning the kingdom of heaven and death meaning hell.
Universalism is the belief that all life comes from God, and that the dead are reconciled with God, in one way or another. Universalism is increasingly marginal as a Christian belief in the present day, although much more prominent up until the 6th Century AD.
One could argue that our moment to moment experience is our consciousness being dragged around by our conscious minds and subject to the thought patterns and 'software' programming of our unconscious minds. But that these things do not constitute our 'soul' or consciousness. Our consciousness is simply a 'passenger' to this 'computer' or 'vessel' of the brain. If one subscribes to this understanding, one could perhaps consider that your programming dictates your actions and that your concept of freewill is indeed somewhat limited; and that when you die, your soul is released from your body, and is still separate from the body/mind/brain, and basically it makes no difference what you did in your life, your soul rejoins God and the Universe, knows peace once again. The 'hell' or 'heaven' you experience perhaps depends on your programming and state of mind that you drag yourself through whilst you are alive. Of course, this view may not necessarily be true. Perhaps this is an interpretation of Universalism, where the exact mechanism of reconciliation is varied according to the exact belief.
The question of the starving child who doesn't know Jesus is as old as the Bible itself. If a starving child has not accepted Jesus into his heart, will he go to Hell? What about toddlers who cannot yet speak? Must they believe in Jesus to be go to Heaven if they were to be killed in an accident? Does it depend on whether the child was baptised or christened? Or the spirit and atmosphere around the child, specifically the parents, and the vibe that the child picks up? And to what extent is this within the todder's control? Are we expecting children, toddlers, infants and the child in the womb to make adult decisions? To what extent does a child's faith really mean anything as the child has yet to experience life, appy his faith in life situations and to know himself? Of course, not all children lack self-knowledge.
Videos showing clips from Oprah Winfrey's show denying the need for Jesus can be viewed below. She cites the famous example of the child who never heard about Jesus. This is listed as many Oprah fans are probably under the impression that she was a Christian.
Last Judgement is the belief that after the return of Jesus, that all souls, both living and dead, will be judged again. Those that have already gone to Heaven will be judged again and if deemed worthy, will remain in Heaven, or otherwise be cast out. This is a view held by both Protestants and Catholics. However, some Protestants believe that the dead souls rest in another place whilst waiting for the Final Judgement. Esoteric and Gnostic traditions however do not believe in the Final Judgement as it is at odds with God's nature.
What is truly meant by the 'Kingdom of God'? It is mentioned in both the OT and NT. Jesus often spoke of the Kingdom of God as the theme of his ministry as well as the destination for the righteous in the end of days. Those who believed in him would join him in the Kingdom of God, i.e. Heaven, when they died, and receive eternal life, but only truly experience the full kingdom of God after the Last Judgement at the end of days. Some Christians interpret the Kingdom of God to be all around us in the physical world, a state of mind that one attains through faith, rather than just being a final destination. On some level in the latter philosophy it is very similar in concept to the Holy Spirit, or perhaps a panentheistic view of the Kingdom of God. It is the journey and not the destination. Some minority Christian groups believe in different types of Heaven, for the faithful, and for the good that do not believe in Jesus or God, etc. Some scholars have interpreted the Kingdom of God as referring to a literal geographic power group, meaning the Jewish people in Israel (being Godly - with a 'King', i.e. Jesus) versus the Roman rulers (not the Kingdom of God, but Kingdom of sin etc.) Muslims interpret the Kingdom of God as being in everything good, including people who do good deeds and who trust in God, but not in those things that do not. Jesus uses some elaborate language when describing the Kingdom of God, and indeed there are several possible interpretations. Gnostics interpret the Kingdom of God as being Gnosis or indeed the Pleroma.
Judaism does not have a concept of Original Sin that mankind inherited from Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden. Babies are born free of sin, and become sinful through fleshy desires and rebellion against God, in opposition to mainstream Christianity's view that one is born sinful and only through faith in Jesus and being 'born again' and asking Jesus for forgiveness can one be cleansed of sin. However, the concept of Original Sin did not appear in Christianity until the 4th Century AD, when St Augustine of Hippo, the Bishop of Hippo Regius, created it through his own interpretation of the Bible, basing this notion on 2nd Century anti-Gnostic teachings. The concept of original sin was one of the factors that held down the power of women in the early church and even today, as woman are in some sense believed to be blamed for the fall of mankind from grace, and giving 'ancestral sin' to their children. The story of Jezebel, the proud Queen who refused to give up her own culture and religion in her new surroundings, much like Christian rulers would not give up their own religion and impose it on others, but who was thought of as an example of the 'evil' of women, is also a contributary factor to misogyny and sexism in Christianity.
Even if one was to assume that Original Sin WAS Christian from the beginning, but was not understood properly prior to the 4th Century AD, then to what extent were Jews then free of sin before the coming of Christ, but then by default sinful until they believed in him after his ministry? Were the teachings of the Torah on this wrong? The Scriptures were the teachings that Jesus himself studied and followed prior to his ministry. Jews argue that Genesis does not actually state that Adam and Eve were sinful, but first mentions 'sin' in conjunction with Cain and Abel. Adam and Eve stated as being thrown out of the Garden of Eden because Eve listened to the speaking Serpent and tasted fruit of the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil, and God did not want Adam and Eve to taste fruit from the Tree of Live and receive Immortality. Thus it could be argued that humanity experiences mortality and physical death as it is the intended natural cycle of life that God intended and that he never intended for humankind to be physically immortal. However this is a matter of debate as Genesis refers to extended life spans of early man, and the fact that God was not pleased with Adam and Eve for disobeying his instructions. Was this then 'sin'?
Christians believe that man is born into sin, and that Jesus came to save mankind from damnation, rather than comdemn people to (eternal) damnation. From the Father comes the Final Judgement.
John 5:24: 'Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that heareth my word, and believeth on him that sent me, hath everlasting life, and shall not come into condemnation; but is passed from death unto life.'
Christians believe in the concept of being born into sin and condemnation, and the purpose of Jesus was/is to save mankind from condemnation, and not to condemn him. The Father performs the Final Judgement.
John 5:24: 'Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that heareth my word, and believeth on him that sent me, hath everlasting life, and shall not come into condemnation; but is passed from death unto life.'
What does the evangelical/born-again Christian concept of being 'saved' actually mean. Is it a single decision or event in one's life that 'guarantees' that one will go to heaven regardless of how one behaves in the rest of one's days? The way many Christians use it does instill a somewhat false belief in this regard, like it's in the past tense.
Does being saved to mean escape condemnation? Or does it mean to actually go to heaven? The latter meaning is unlikely. However, to be saved in the Christian sense may mean that one may enjoy some fruits early on but that as one grows in one's faith one can enjoy many other fruits of one's relationship with Jesus.
In romans 10:9 the word save is a greek word, "sozo." It means to save, "keep safe and sound, to rescue from danger or destruction one (from injury or peril);
to save a suffering one (from perishing), i.e. one suffering from disease, to make well, heal, restore to health, to preserve one who is in danger of destruction, to save or rescue.
To save could therefore mean to deliver from the penalties of the Messianic judgment or to save from the evils which obstruct the reception of the Messianic deliverance.
The word saved is often used in a single sense rather than in the above usages, but after one has embraced God, one's spiritual wellbeing is up to the individual and his ongoing relationship with God.
After Abraham, God was clearly opposed to human sacrifices to God. Yet God gave his son Jesus to be sacrificed for the sins of mankind. Did this action then cleanse mankind of its sins (and original sin) only if they believed in Jesus? To what extent was God breaking his own rules?
The historical relationship of science and religion, specifically Christianity, has been rocky in places, with the Catholic Church suppressing and persecuting early scientists that challenged the authority of the Church. Natural events were thought of simply as the Will of God. Over time, the scientific perspective has more and more formulated our society and its technology. It should however be noted that not all religions have dismissed Science that challenged their cosmological view. Indeed, Islamic scholars and scientists were at the cutting edge of scientific development before the Enlightenment.
One may view Genesis (or other parts of the Bible) as being literal truth. Or indeed as a spiritual understanding of the creation of the universe applied to historical concepts of 'physics' and 'astonomy', i.e. a human interpretation of divine truth and inspiration. i.e. the Bible is not the same as the Koran which is believed to be the literal word of God as spoken to Mohammed, observed orally until the death of Mohammed, but after which time was recorded by scribes. The Bible is clearly not an all or nothing book. It is a collection of many different books written by different people in different cultural surroundings, for different reasons. There is not one single mode of interpretation that applies to all books equally, one has to take each book on its own merits, and indeed each verse on its own merits even, understanding its context, to arrive at sensible interpretation. All or nothing arguments are outmoded and inappropriate in BlackSpy's opinion.
Perhaps if Genesis had been written today, then it would be very different, but still convey a similar spirit and meaning. For example, would it include a description of the Big Bang or Super String Theory, i.e. the creation of the universe and not just the Earth, by God?
Many theoretical physicists have no explanation why a singularity should suddenly explode and many cite it as evidence that there must have been some form of divine intervention, including Professor Stephen Hawking himself. Modern physicists marvel at the exact relationship between the fundamental forces, as any minor deviation would have meant that life could never have existed anywhere in the universe. M-Theory may provide an explanation of the big bang in terms of colliding membranes. However, it cannot be proven yet.
If one regards the laws of physics, and cause and effect on a large scale and also quantum level as being the mechanics of God, then every action and result is the will of God on some level (God being in all things and in those that choose to accept and feel God's spirit and without ego.) One could then argue that separation from God, in worry, anger, depression and other negative emotions, thus attracts a negative consequence and this is the will of God in some sense; as opposed to the 'wrath of God'.
Clearly the understanding of science in this manner is a case of accepting scientific discoveries and theories, and using faith as an add on, to explain the unexplained that physics often creates. Physics is unable to explain why, and the further it progresses, the more unanswered questions it raises. To adherents of this view, including Vatican astronomers, they do not reject any scientific discoveries, but are actually seeking to advance knowledge of science and astronomy. They do not regard Genesis as literal truth, but as an allegory as described above, with the spirit of God in it. As Genesis is not a fundamental tenet of the Christian church, then they feel comfortable with accepting the scientific explanation of the creation and age of the Universe with no problems at all. However, if one day science was to disprove the existence of Jesus, then this might present a problem. This is not likely. The Bible as a religious and spiritual work can be viewed as never dating over 1000s of years, not being a scientific work, whereas science books and papers go out of date in a matter of years.
Of course, not all scientists have any spiritual belief, and from a strictly scientific perspective, one cannot prove or disprove the existence of God. However there is not hard data to go on for scientists, and thus the idea cannot be discounted but is not a theory in progress.
Most (Western) Christians would concede that the creation story is an allegory or a metaphor based on Jewish traditions and not perhaps the literal word of God. However, there are Christians that reject any scientific theory that provides a conflict with the Bible, and indeed may adapt/distort/reinterpret contemporary scientific evidence to make it fit in with the Bible story, even if this means ignoring a huge amount of data from geological dating etc. Even if one does not believe in God one can view Genesis as a piece of beautiful poetry and worth reading on its own merits.
Those of an atheistic disposition who dismiss Genesis as outmoded myth, perhaps underestimate the importance of storytelling and myth. Human beings have been telling stories for as long as language has existed. We understand ourselves and see insights into the human condition through storytelling and myths, and the tales of the actions of others. Atheists who reject any story or myth of creation may consider themselves as being educated and rational, but the vast majority still enjoy escapism and myths, in the form of novels, television and cinema. Is it rational to watch a low quality soap opera for many years and on some level the brain considers it to be 'real'? Clearly there is a human need for such abstractions or fantasies. Does this make a spiritual person less rational?
What Genesis does do however is quite new from the pre-existing Jewish pagan religions of the time. Other pagan and monotheistic religions that predate Judaism view creation as something that was born out of conflict between opposing forces or rival deities. Genesis describes acts of creation not as dramatic explosive results of spiritual conflict but as serene, calm and deliberate acts of a single creative force. There is no conflict.
Would a modern version of Genesis (if written today) use the concept of Darwinist evolution or not? There are many Christian evolutionists, so it is not just a debate between atheist scientists, creationists and 'intelligent design' proponents. The fossil record is used by some Christians to justify creationism, to the extent that Christian museums exist today featuring Homo Sapiens together with dinosaurs - despite the fact that no human/proto-human remains are found in the same geological period as dinosaurs and large reptiles. Literalists who believe Genesis to the letter do not always have the same sense of following every letter in the Bible, as often key teachings of Jesus, such as forgiveness and turning the other cheek, are ignored when it suits, for example, when it concerns the death penalty, engaging in warfare and in matters of foreign policy. So it is a form of selective 'fundamentalism'. Science does not have to be at odds with spirituality, but in fact both should enhance each other, and should be simply different ways of expressing the same thing (on a Quantum level).
The UK movement known as the 'Sea of Faith' is a network of religious individuals who believe wholeheartedly in science. They acknowledge that the idea of creation in Genesis is an allegory, and that God might not exist, and that Jesus probably existed but may not have been a supernatural figure or had a resurrection. Strangely some with these views are practising bishops and priests! However, their open mindedness in their beliefs, perhaps largely Agnostic, favouring science and psychology over religion, does not stop them practising their religion personally and in the service of others. This is justified by the logic that rather than reject their faith and practice, they choose to embody it as it answers many spiritual questions and provides a valuable method of developing positive relationships with others, cultivating happiness and stillness, taming the ego and providing a positive social fabric and guidance for society. The Bible is viewed as a narrative of describing human nature and a better way to live, and which may or may not be the literal word of God. Clearly this perspective is non-dogmatic in its approach, but is a personal view of faith or a personal Agnostic view of faith. Whilst this clearly only has a minority membership with the UK Churches, it is still significant and growing. There are many ways of viewing faith, and the concept that there is a default clash with science is not correct. There can be, but equally there does not have to be.
Whilst Western Christianity, particularly Catholicism, stifled the growth of science for many centuries, it did slowly adapt to embrace scientific enquiry and not view it as a threat. When Darwin first presented his theory, it started a religious argument that has ensued to this day. Many contemporary Christians at the time were concerned about the comparison with monkeys and the literal interpretation of Genesis, and later on when Darwin was used as a rationale for atheism and a divergence from Christian morality, they were understandably concerned that survival of the fittest would replace helping the poor and needy. Indeed, the excesses of this philosophy can be seen in its misapplication in Eugenics and indeed Nazi Germany's policies. Clearly there was good reason to be concerned about the excesses of Neo-Darwinism and applying Darwin's theories outside of it's actual scientific 'home'. Creationism, some might argue, is the application of religious beliefs and ideas into domains where it does not belong either, and is not a true reflection of religion or spiritual belief. Unfortunately, many atheists point at creationism to dismiss all religion as being unscientific, much as some anti-Darwinists point to Nazism to dismiss all of Darwin's ideas, which is not fair either. It should be remembered that Darwinism does not necessarily have to conflict with religion, although it clearly can for Creationists and those who take religious texts completely literally in their entirety. Darwinism and the Theory of Natural Selection, like any scientific theory, is true as far as it goes and we can measure it today - on the whole, although that is now in question following the latest studies in genetics - but it is by no means a complete theory. It is a part theory, explaining only a small part of the overall empirical picture. It is the theory of the how, but does not tell us 'why'. Religion can be used to explain the why as plausibly as atheism and chaos theory can. Atheism in this sense is not proven by Darwin. And neither is Religion. What meaning one chooses to associate is down to personal choice and interpretation.
Darwinism and specifically Social Darwinism is examined in the Religion Other section.
Did God really part the Red Sea for Moses or is this a mistake in translation - the correct translation being 'Reed Sea' or the marshy area on the north coast that separates Egypt from Israel? One theory is that the Reed Sea could potentially have been drained for 45 minutes during an earthquake emanating from the middle of the Mediterranean and causing a huge flood up the river valleys thereafter, which either killed the Pharoah's army or inspired a little elaborating of the story of Exodus. This opens up the debate of if the Old Testament does not contain literal spiritual truth from God, then to what extent is it an interpretation and 'tradition' and 'myth' and how should one interpret it to gain the spirit of what is being said. It is clearly a matter of interpretation and one should formulate one's own opinion on the subject.
Christian Interpretation of the Old Testament and Antisemitism
Christians acknowledge that God sent Jesus to preach a different message than was evident in the less forgiving and vengeful (on occasion) God of the Old Testament, and that over time, God came to want to reach humankind (and not just the Jews) in a slightly different way. One could debate as to why God wasn't like this from the beginning. One way of interpreting this is clearly to separate the aspects of God into two separate Gods, as the Gnostics have done. Another way is to completely reject the Old Testament as being false or confused religion and not embodying the true spirit of God. Another is to regard the Old Testament as really being a collection of books describing Jewish religious history, traditions and 'myths' with less global application than the New Testament. Or one could view the struggle Jesus had with the Jewish religious establishment as evidence that the Jewish religion had slowly become corrupted (no fault of the Old Testament or Torah itself), and that there is no real inconsistency between the Old and New Testaments, but the New Testament is merely adding an additional layer on top of spiritual understanding and way of coming to God. One could take the view that much of the New Testament as largely irrelevant or lesser in importance, and just stick to reading the four canonical gospels, as anything that the apostles said or did would be of secondary importance to the word and actions of Jesus.
At the time of Jesus ministry, his audience had only had sight of the Scriptures, or the Old Testament and other books of the Torah. Jesus was teaching a slightly different message about the spirit of God. In some sense, before the arrival of Jesus, it was 'enough' to just believe in God to 'go to heaven'. However, after Jesus ministry and death on the cross, his message was on the whole if one believes the canonical gospels, that one had to believe that Jesus was Lord. How can one reconcile these two different positions based on a difference of say 50 years? Clearly if Jesus was the son of God, and one believed in God, then there would be no reason not to believe in him. Does this mean that those Jews who continue to follow Judaism are then considered 'hard of heart' and not worthy of going to heaven? Does this mean that God should have communicated the commandments differently to Moses and his message differently to Abraham and Isaiah? Or was it because of the way the message from God from the prophets adopted by the Jewish people had changed over the subsequent years?
To what extent was Jesus preaching to the Jews and simply fulfilling Jewish prophecies from the Scriptures? To what extent was his story 'sexed up' so that he would fulfil these predictions and prophecies to the letter and fullest extent, to appeal to the Jews more? To what extent was his message Universal and the history of the Jewish people and Israel irrelevant? Jesus, being a Jew and following the Scriptures, preached a message to mankind which was not strictly based on the Scriptures or tied to the Scriptures - to what extent should those who follow the word and spirit of Jesus actually pay attention to those same Jewish customs and Scriptures?
Jesus was fully versed in the Torah and Scriptures and indeed so were his Jewish audience and followers. The Kabbalah did not become part of the Torah until much later, probably the 13th Century AD. The Bible has explicit mention of evil of the occult, and if the Kabbalah did represent the secret, esoteric knowledge given by God to both Adam and Moses, then Jesus would no doubt have been aware of it, being God, and would have communicated this in his teachings, assuming this was something that was valuable and congruent with a belief in God and in Jesus, and that it had disappeared from Hebew texts of the time.
Many view the early teachings of Jesus as a refinement of Judaism, being that Jesus was well versed in the Scriptures (i.e. Torah) and used to teach from the Scriptures in Synagogues himself as a youth. Has the Jewish component of Jesus been lost? History and the NT show us that Paul's vision of Christianity became increasingly dismissive of the Jews, who were not worthy of the Kingdom of Heaven unless they accepted Jesus as the Son of God. Paul became increasingly dismissive of the Torah or OT and associated books. This general attitude prevailed within the early orthodox (Catholic) church.
Further demonisation of Jews perhaps occurred because of the perception of Judas, the Jew - his name sounding a bit like 'Jew-das', being the Christ killer, and his image being portrayed in religious art as having increasingly Jewish features; Jesus becoming more classically 'white European' or Gentile in his appearance; and the story of the death of Jesus 'at the hands of the Jews' rather than Pontius Pilate; has resulted in a huge amount of anti-semitism over the last 2000 years. Jews were demonised in Christian art as being the enemy of Christianity. In England, stories of cannibalism of Christian babies by Jews was spread resulting in incidents of mass executions of Jews. Some perhaps regard this as being insecurity of the offspring religion of it's parent religion, a form of Oedipus complex.
Rome made its first Jewish Ghetto in 1555 at the bequest of the Roman Catholic Pope, as it was felt that Jews and Christians living in harmony was undesirable, as the Christians might become 'tainted' somehow. This lasted until 1870 when it was finally abolished. The Vatican did not make an official statement about Jews not being 'Christ killers' until 1965!
Martin Luther's 'One the Jews and their Lies' (1543) was arguably anti-semitic in content, although to regard it as a precursor to Nazism would be highly anachronistic and misuse of hindsight. It was one book of many, and his main focus was on the nature of salvation. Some scholars view Luther's influence as limited and the Nazi party's use of his work as highly opportunistic. In any case, the Nazis in general were not interested in religion and indeed persecuted Christianity as it promoted the idea of universal brotherhood. Some Nazis were indeed Christians and perhaps they cited this book of Luther to justify what they already believed and acted upon. It is of course no reason to dismiss Luther's ideas about salvation, as indeed the vast majority of priests, scholars, intellectuals, politicians and so on were predominantly ethnocentric and racist to some degree up until some time in the early or middle of the 20th Century.
A critical view of Martin Luther and his anti-semitism can be found at the link below. Indeed, Hitler regarded Luther as one of Germany's great reformers - which sounds rather like an opportunistic use of his name, as Hitler perhaps wanted to associate himself with 'household Germanic names'.
Of course, the holocaust of WWII was not a Christian instigated programme, but it is clear that Aryan Christianity in Germany at the time had some influence on Adolf Hitler's own ideas, amongst a whole host of philosophical and Germanic mythological influences. However the holocaust affected not just Jews but also Christians, non-desirables, political prisoners and non-ethnic Germans. There are various incidences of the Vatican turning a blind eye to the Nazis and assisting them (discussed elsewhere on this site), and also certain Catholic populations assisting the Nazis, for example, the Croatians, that creates further friction between Catholics and Jews. The fact that the current Pope was once a (forced) member of the Hitler Youth has of course opened old wounds, but whether this is of any actual consequence is another matter.
Will the Jewish people regard Jesus to be one of the finest teachers and prophets of Judaism? Will Christians come to recognise Judaism and attribute it with its just significance and part in Christianity? And understand Christianity through Judaism? This might occur if the NT was not comprised mainly of texts by Paul and did not perhaps overemphasise Jesus' divinity, but more his teachings. One could view that modern Christianity as having its Jewish origins and Jewish practices, that Christ would have himself performed and been involved with, removed, to leave certain simple aspects remaining such as Baptism and the Resurrection/Forgiveness of man's sins formula remaining. Were John the Baptist and Jesus inspired by the Essenes, the Jewish sect that practiced regular ritual washing. Are these practices in fact a reflection of Christianity as a special Galilean Jewish sect, rather than being a completely new religion? Jesus was said to be the fulfillment of prophecy and the King of the Jews, to enhance and refine the Jewish religion and bring one's relationship with God back to the living and everyday existence rather than something one waited for after one was dead and the hypocrisies and showiness of contemporary Judaism of the time. Some Jews argue the concept of the 'messiah' of the OT was not necessarily of a Son of God, but a Son of Man, someone who would show the path to God and to liberate the Jewish people from Roman rule and bring truth and justice to Israel. Like a religious and military figure, a true King in that sense. Some Jews regard Jesus as being a failed messiah, in that he did not deliver in the physical world, but promised the Jews and everyone salvation after death, and in a sense during one's life through a full relationship with God; but that his physical messianic role was never fully realised. Christians argue that the second coming will result in the fulfillment of prophecy, which is either true or a convenient way of explaining around the fact that Jesus 'got himself killed' and 'failed'. Was Jesus then really resurrected? Is it possible for Jews to accept Jesus as their greatest teacher - and if so, what must be changed or adapted from the modern Christian account of who Jesus was and what he said?An examination of some of the Jewish sects and early Christian sects as above sheds some light on this, but we are still far from an easy answer or reconciliation between the two religions.
To what extent were they just a product of Jesus' humanity and his geographical location and the social traditions and culture in which he existed? If Jesus did not follow the Scriptures to the letter but more in their true spirit, were they not best communicated to the Jewish people in their Scriptural format?
To what extent are those followers of other religions, that embody a similar spirit to that of Jesus, but not quite the same, and who perhaps only recognise Jesus as a prophet, are they 'wrong' or at 'sin'? And to what extent do religions embody and deviate from the Universal Truth about God, and to what extent to they embrace it? Do they embrace it 'enough'? With the rise of atheism, secularism, individualism and hyper-capitalism, and the parallel rise in 'fundamentalism' of different faiths, are we likely to see any other prophets? And if we do, would anyone recognise them or give them any credibility? Followers of various religions are often quick to proclaim a figure a prophet or even an incarnation of God (e.g. Hindus proclaiming a deformed baby with two faces to be an incarnation of God) on a minimal sound basis.
Whilst virtually all Christians follow the teachings of Jesus in the Bible in terms of the need to pray and the need for fellowship, the vast majority of Christians do not fast and lack any kind of physical discipline. There has been a huge embracing of consumerism within Christianity, even if many Christians claim this is not the case, and a corresponding lack of respect for the body and physical discipline, and the spiritual discipline which comes from this. This is partly a case of selectively reading the Bible. Fasting was common amongst early Christians.
Some modern 'fringe' branches of Christianity have incorporated holistic ideas about health and looking after the physical body into their overall theology, for example, Jehovah's Witnesses and Seventh Day Adventists (SDA). Is this considered a 'reintroduction' of such ideas into Christianity?
It is a shame that Christian denominations tend to focus on their differences and what they do not like about each other, or live in insular worlds where other denominations do not exist - as if their version of theology and the teachings of Jesus as the only true path; rather than focus on Jesus' teachings and his positive message. Many atheists who regard Jesus as just a wise teacher who was 'hijacked' by religious zealots might become much more interested in the teachings if the focus was here rather than on the 'formula of Jesus' - the idea that the Bible clearly states he said he was the son of God and there is no possibility that he was just a wise teacher. During Religious Education classes at school, BlackSpy and a number of other students were genuinely interested in Jesus, but the teacher insisted this could not be so, presumably to try to bring in people to the faith with his written 'proof', but all it did was to turn everyone offand lose interest entirely. Is this a wise way to preach the message of Jesus?
Is a literal belief in the Christian 'Formula' necessary? That of God giving his only Son to be sacrificed so that the sins of man could be forgiven; and that in order to achieve this he had to die on the cross and be resurrected? And to taste eternal life, one must believe in this formula and accept Jesus as one's saviour, and one has a guaranteed seat in Heaven when one dies; rather than really try to understand the very deep sayings of Jesus and try to apply them to the complex situations and ethnical dilemmas of merdern living? Is the exact nature of the formula so important to 'faith' or to feeling God? BlackSpy (at the time of writing) acknowledges Jesus as a wise teacher, a source of illumination and being from God, but does not worship Jesus directly - but more prays to God and 'vibes' with Jesus. BlackSpy believes in the Trinity as much as he is agnostic about the Trinity. Perhaps this is a Gnostic interpretation.
To search on individual words or phrases in the Bible or individual books, one may use various on-line Bibles. Here is the search page for the on line KJV:
BlackSpy concedes that there are issues with some of the wording in places in the OT. There was indeed politics and culture seeping into the Bible at various times when the books were being written. If we look at things historically, everyone of every religious faith, pagan or otherwise, was butchering people for varying reasons. It is easy to impose our hypocritical, pro-human rights, modern, selfish, consumer culture onto culture of the past and criticize it, but values were very different. People went to gladiator fights! Now we have similar urges, but we repress them, and we are not honest with ourselves, and it comes out in nationalist conflicts, road rage, bullying in the workplace, yob culture, watching violent films and TV shows, listening to 'gangster' rap music or 'death metal', drug culture and racial hatred etc. BlackSpy personally has an issue with the people the OT says to put to death. Just because one or more defining books of a religion has a few issues or contradictions doesn't necessarily mean that it is bad or everything in it is wrong, as you can appreciate. It depends on the individual what he chooses to believe and apply to his own life. Books are written and edited by men, and men are imperfect after all, whether they were divinely inspired or not. Politics and culture always have an effect on some level. We need to be conscious of this before passing judgement.
Videos showing clips from Oprah Winfrey's show denying the need for Jesus can be viewed below. This is listed as many Oprah fans are probably under the impression that she was a Christian.
To read about BlackSpy's own views on spirituality and belief, please see the Spiritual Beliefs section on the Belief page in the Psychology Section (it is also worth reading the rest of the Focus and Belief pages!); and also the article on the Gnostic Offshoots, specifically the Afternote section; and also the article on the Left-Hand Path and the article on the CoS, specifically the final section. To read about the history of Personal Development, and its esoteric and masonic origins, please see the Psychology Links page.
Islam, Christiantiy and Judaism co-existed in relative harmony in Cordoba, the cultural and scientific capital of Europe, during the Moorish occupation of Andalucia in Spain during the 10th Century, for example, and one should not assume that they are incompatible on religious or cultural grounds by default, on account of modern historical events, nor that fundamentalism and politicisation is by default part of these faiths. Of course, Cordoba was not the model of religious harmony, as non-Muslims were generally treated like second class citizens, and there was an underlying resentment of the Muslim occupation. But beyond this, there was a great deal of harmony in the society, more than we see anywhere today. Once the Moors left Spain, Christian kings, whilst on occasion spoiling Mosques to Christianise them as a kind of insult to Islam and a representation of religious victory, were in many cases still inspired by Moorish architecture and culture, which was often viewed as being more evolved and superior. For example, the 14th Century Alczar palace was build in the same style as the Alhambra. Southern Spain would cease to be the cultural and scientific centre of Europe. One might even argue that Spanish palate for pork and pork based food products was perhaps a reaction to the Islamic past, and a sign of cultural and religious defiance. The Crusades can be seen as an inferior or more backward culture attacking a more sophisticated one (in terms of philosophy, education, science and culture). During the latter half of the last millennium, Islamic countries and empires have been in decline with Europe and later the Americas rising to economic dominance in the world. Christianity itself has declined as well as Islam, and it is possible that in the Middle East there is a socio-economic rivalry of the West, and a jealousy of prosperity which is used by unscrupulous religious and political figures for politicial end, turning it into a religious issue.
The Crusades of the Holy Land by Roman sponsored forces were never viewed by the Arabs as being a religious war, despite the religious rhetoric, but merely as a brave attempt at imperialistic style conquest. Whilst there were some religious fundamentalists amongst their ranks, most of the Crusaders were motivated by money (being very poor) and the chance to sack and pillage those they defeated, and in some cases to rape their women (not unlike the Vikings). Raiding loot has been a common theme amongst invading armies for several millennia. King Richard's Crusaders, whilst on route to the Holy Land, stopped off at Lisbon and the soldiers attacked the city, looting, killing Jews and Muslims, burning down homes and raping women. Many were arrested and only released when their ships were about to leave dock.
The Muslims reconquest of the Holy Land and Bizantium was also just a conquest for land and spreading Islam. It was not anti-Christian as such. Indeed for all the religious rhetoric of the Crusaders, the Christian inhabitants of the captured territories got along very well with the Islamic inhabitants. The Crusaders were not really embodying Christian values in any sense nor seeking to spread Christianity as they actually invaded and sacked the Orthodox Christian captial Constantinope (named after the first Christian Roman Emperor Constantine)! Ironically, the Byzantine Empire, the largest Christian Empire at the time, had requested the assistance of the Pope against invading Muslim forces. It was really just about showing who was boss and settling old scores as much as capturing land and seizing wealth. Recruits were motivated by fictitious stories of acts of barbarism by moslems against Christian pilgrims to Jerusalem, and by promises of salvation if one died in combat in this 'Holy War'. The Crusades were pitched by the Pope and religious leaders as a Holy War, as opposed to necessary/defensive war that was still sinful (as had been the previous attitude towards war by Christian church leaders). They inspired an unprecedented level of religious fanaticism and desire for bloodshed in the name of religion. There were even isolated incidents of cannibalism, documented by both Christian forces and Islamic historians of the time, impaling 'pagan' (i.e. Muslim) children on spits and boiling them - although such incidents were probably very rare and were no doubt a result of starvation. Butching men, women and children was quite commonplace (by both sides) during the Crusades. Yet the Crusaders were far from widely accepted as righteous warriors by Christians at the time, and the Byzantines were initially horrified by the first Crusaders that arrived on their doorstep.
It should be noted that Saladin, the Kurdish ruler and most powerful leader in the Middle East of the day, recruited muslims using similar religious rhetoric as the Crusaders in order drum up support for the recapture of the Muslim city of Jerusalem and land of Palestine for its original inhabitants; and for his own benefit, to extend his empire and make a name for himself. He was however regarded highly by King Richard at the time and was close friends with many senior European figures. He had no wish to slaughter the Crusaders and their communities, but merely to recapture the land and re-establish 'muslim' control or his control over the territories. Although recruiting on religious grounds, he was not anti-Christian, and was aware of the history of Christianity in the Middle East, in Jerusalem, and indeed that Syria had been Christian (not from the West but from Jerusalem) long before it became a Moslem nation. Saladin was the most successful Muslim leader in Islamic history in terms of conquest of land, and is regarded as a hero by many Muslims today. Many Muslim political leaders have identified with him (in their dreams!) However, he is not the anti-Christian and anti-Zionist figure that he is made out to be by modern Muslim extremists. Such people conveniently ignore the facts about him and history, and choose to reinterpret history for their own benefit.
The Crusades were very much forgotten in the Middle East once the Crusaders were driven out and the lands recaptured, pushing Muslim control even further north than ever before, and actually capturing much of the Byzantine Empire and beyond. Memories of the Crusades were awakened again however during the European Colonial period, when empires spread into Northern Africa and India, although there really is no comparison between the Crusades and Colonial rule. During the WWI, the Germans sided with Austro-Hungary and the Turkish Ottoman Empire, which controlled Jerusalem, and when the Allied Forces came to Jerusalem, leaders were very conscious about the sensitivity about the Crusades. However, the Western media was very quick to draw parallels and make insensitive comments about the latest Crusade. The subsequent British occupation and management of Palestine was handled rather badly, and the influx of Jews and expulsion of Palestinians from their land and separation of Muslims from Jews was regarded as similar to Crusader settlements and expulsion/slaughter of Muslims. Israelis or Zionists were later compared with and thought of as Crusaders by many Islamic Extremists.
Today there is still a huge amount of insecurity and ill feeling in the Muslim world towards the west, and the perception is that the Crusades never actually ended. This is a modern interpretation of what the Crusades were about. Indeed it is just socio-economic ill feeling essentially and feeling of emasculation. Muslim countries resent having anything thrust up on them or that comes from the 'West', even if it is actually what they want (e.g. democracy or economic development), as a matter of principle. By addressing these socio-economic issues and encouraging the countries in question to be seen to be developing initiatives themselves, they will be more lively to succeed, and arrive at a point of greater religious tolerance and mutual understanding between two of the great monotheistic religions that have more in common than they would like to admit.
Some view the Crusaders, pretending to represent Christian values, but really just after land and stealing wealth, are similar to the interventions of the West in the Middle East, for example, the invasions of Iraq on the pretext of anti-terrorism but 'in actuality' an attempt to secure oil resources and open the country up to corporate interests. However, this is a very expensive theft, and the value of the oil has been paid many many times over by American tax payers and the lives of inhabitants and Western soldiers alike.
Modern Islamic fundamentalism and indeed terrorism associated with Al Qaeda can be seen as the Crusader ethic living on today. The Christian instigators of the Crusades were the creators of modern Islamic fundamentalist terrorism in a sense. Al Qaeda capitalise on the ill feeling about the Crusades in the Muslim world by referring to Westerners (including any Christian denomination and indeed anyone European or American) as Crusaders, manipulating people's feelings to gain support, wanting to expel the 'Crusaders' from 'Muslim soil' (as they did 1000 years ago) regardless of whether they are there to protect democracy or not. There is still a fundamental lack of cultural appreciation about the effect of the Crusades in the minds of modern Muslims, and the actual slaughter that went on during the Crusades, on the request of the Catholic Church. The Catholic Church seems to have conveniently forgotten about this. Westerners use the term 'Crusade' in casual conversation to mean a committed effort to do a particular task, unaware of its offensive connotations amongst Muslims. If we were to describe an attempt to eradicate inefficiency in the office as a 'holocaust', we might find it similarly distasteful. Modern conflict in Palestine is clearly fuelled to some extent by perceptions of the Crusades, with an Islamic Extremist desire to 'expel all infidels from the Holy Land', i.e. modern day Jews. Of course, not all or indeed most Muslims do not share this view, but many are manipulated by extremists into joining their cause. George W. Bush displayed his lack of cultural appreciation and ignorance in his famous speech after 911, when he talked of a 'Crusade...a war on terror'. This was not heard favourably by the Muslim world, many of whom believe the Crusades are still in effect on some level today, hear such a statement from the world's biggest superpower, and 'world policeman', and Christian nation (debatable if you view the Constitution). We surely should expect more professionalism from our politicians that such ignorant and incompetent outbursts, which cause huge damage to international relations and probably indirectly increased the death toll of fighters on all sides in the Iraqi conflict. We are still experiencing the hangover of 'religious' violence today, and appreciating that will help to some extent to bring together warring peoples and increase religious tolerance and mutual cultural respect.
Martin Luther (1483-1546), the founder of Lutheranism and arguably the founder of Protestantism also, started his campaign against the Catholic Church by writing a paper on why 'indulgences' (pardons that were sold to Catholics that were signed by the Pope and which claimed to forgive all one's sins) were wrong, which struck a chord with Germans at the time. He was not really looking however to reform the Catholic Church (or join the Orthodox Church instead), but sought to fight the Catholic Church and reject it. He did not see that one needed a mediator between himself and God, one's relationship being a personal one. He went ahead and translated the Bible into German, which was previously only available in Latin and translated and read out to congregations by Priests. He also controversially called the Roman Catholic Pope the Antichrist. He was excommunicated from the Catholic Church.
Ironically his legacy was not one of increased spiritual insight and understanding, but to a large extent one of bloodshed and division. Many centuries of conflict between Protestants and Catholics unfolded which still persists to this day in places like Northern Ireland. Protestantism was persecuted in many countries before it took hold. For example, in France, in the St. Bartholomew's Day massacre of August 1572, Catholics (mainly ordinary people) annihilated between 30,000 and 100,000 Huguenots across France in an act of 'cleansing spiritual rot' from their communities that might result in adverse judgement from God and going to Hell.
During the Protestant Reformation, many newly formed Protestant countries persecuted and massacred the Catholics. This was partly fueled by religious zeal, Protestants believing Catholics to be servants of the Antichrist, and by killing Catholics one was doing God's work and even perhaps going to heaven; a little like Catholic Crusaders before them felt that by butchering Muslims and Orthodox Christians they were doing the same. The Protestant Reformation in England was only instigated by Henry VIII for sexual reasons, in that he wanted a divorce from Catherine of Aragon, and to marry Ann-Boleyn, so she could bear him a son, whom he later had beheaded anyway. Henry did not take the news from Rome well that he could not divorce, so decided to make himself the head of the Church of England. He had little interest in Lutheranism before this, and in fact strongly opposed Luther's ideas and was vehemently Catholic. However, he liked to get his own way, and went on to persecute Catholics in England, having many executed who refused to convert to Protestantism, and raiding the wealth of the Catholic Church in England (which was often used for the service of the community, e.g. maintaining libraries etc.) for his own benefit. Even today, many extremist Protestant Priests still insist that the Pope is the Antichrist and resent Catholic dogma, but seem strangely unrepentent about their own form of religious persecution that was thrust upon Catholics only a few hundred years ago. Luther was not to know what would happen as a result of what he started, but it can be said that whilst there were many positive aspects to the Protestant Reformation, there were equally many disasterous aspects that are still being felt today with anti-Catholic feeling and prejudice in many West European countries. Some estimate that one million people were slaughtered during this time.
The Protestant Reformation arguably also lead to secularism and free market capitalism, which one may regard as being a good thing or not! Today Christianity is associated with the West and with capitalism, but this is a very Western Centric way of looking at Christianity. Of course, traditionally, Christianity, whilst initially a Middle Eastern religion, with Middle Eastern protagonists, spread outwards to North East Africa, but also further north, to the Gentiles, into Europe. Here it remained the predominant religion of both Eastern and Western Europe. Christianity was thus seen by many as the 'white European's religion' for the next in its first 1800 years. During that time , the majority of it at least in Western Europe being Catholic, was spent homogenising the faith and stamping out variants and different types of Christian faiths, or indeed other faiths, including anything resembling witchcraft, Gnosticism, the Cathars and so on; and fighting Islamic forces (at various times - being more a territorial issue than a religious issue). The Knights Templar even fell victim to this themselves, although mainly for political and economical reasons (they were too wealthy and powerful). Whilst earlier there had been a Catholic vs Orthodox struggle, it later turned into a Protestant vs Catholic struggle.
During the colonial era, Western Europeans, when setting up new colonies, set about trying to convert the native populations they encountered in India, Africa and Central and South America to their own denomination of Christianity. However this was not just Christianity, it was a Western European interpretation of it. Jesus and Mary had always been seen as being 'white'. And much of the healing and driving out of spirits had disappeared from European Christianity. The colonial powers sought to exploit and control the local populations, but also sought to control their minds and souls too, by converting them to Christianity. The Colonial invaders saw their subjects often with disdain, being culturally inferior and as pagan heathens, knowing what was best for them. In Western Africa, nearly 30 million were sold as slaves (by local 'black' rulers and Muslim traders). In Latin America, entire populations were nearly wiped out by disease that the Spanish and Portugese invaders brought with them. Not too dissimilar in concept to today's Western Nations and indeed the United Nations interfering in the national problems of developing countries and indeed in the Middle East.
The colonial powers sought to displace indigenous culture, replacing it with their own, and try to make the locals more European - including forcing Christianity on local populations. This was however not very successful a strategy until the local populations were able to take Christianity and make it their own, i.e. assimilating it into their own culture and to some extent their old pagan (or existing) religious and cultural traditions (Christianisation). The figures of Jesus and Mary were no longer white faces, but were made to represent the local indigenous peoples. In Africa, many of the indigenous peoples did not take up European style Christianity as it had little relevance to them, and they felt that it was fake or theoretical in some sense, i.e. if you cannot touch it, feel it, taste it or see it, it is not real. Therefore the God of the Europeans was not real. It was only really when indigenous priests spread the message of God, having an understanding of indigenous pagan traditions, culture and religion, that they were able to communicate the faith to people in a way that they could relate to and understand. Pagan Africans believed in spirits and healing, and this is why charismatic Christian denominations like Pentecostalism has spread so widely. In fact, one in four Christians are Pentecostal and/or Charismatic. And now 1/3 of the world's population is Christian. But not as many of us know it. Those ethnocentric Christians who like quiet and orderly Church services where people are not behaving too enthusiastically may have started to become worried and feel 'threatened'. For a long time they felt they were the proprietors of Christianity, but that is no longer the case.
Whilst this overall trend may have many good points, including increased passion in religion, vitality and 'power', more experience of the Holy Sprit, i.e. a more intimate relationship with faith, it may also have some negative characteristics (or positive depending on your perspective), including intolerance towards homosexuals and other religions, liberalism, freedom of interpretation of the Bible and the personal relationship with God, belief in the Bible being the literal word of God (i.e. creationism and a somewhat 'anti-scientific' bias, or at least only endorsing science that does not contradict the Bible), etc. How opponents of this view could argue that Europeans have only become more secular and liberal in their outlook because their faith has lost much of its meaning and power and they are looking for ways of supplementing it because it is a hollow shell of its former self and if they were truly religious, then they would not be so concerned with such matters and would focus more on God.
BlackSpy is not certain of the origin of American Evangelical Christianity, as to whether it is homegrown or whether it has actually been imported from South America or Africa and 'Americanised' into the 'white causasian' communities. This has however been exported to Europe in recent years. Evangelicals are often looked on with some distaste by traditional European Christians, as being uncontrolled and hysterical, rejecting traditional hymns in favour of modern compositions, acoustic guitar based 'worship music', gospel influences, and indeed the speaking in tongues, people falling over and even animal noises.. However, traditional Protestant and Catholic Christians could be viewed as missing a large part of the message of the Bible about the Holy Spirit, and their services being excessively dull, restrainted and emotionally and spiritually constipated.
Now ironically we have a situation where Europe is no longer the main home of Christianity. Logic would dictate that the Middle East should be the stronghold of Christianity, but it never really was. Clearly some nations were Christian (from after the time of Christ) until they were overrun by Muslim invaders, but they were more the exception than the rule. But now we have a situation where Latin America, Asia and in particular Africa, are actually where the Christianity is growing the fastest, and is being re-exported back to Europe. There are more Anglicans in Africa than there are in Western Europe. Therefore it is only logical that these Anglicans should expert more and more influence on the Anglican church as a whole. African Christians view themselves as representing the original Christianity, and Europe as having lost it's way, and looking to convert Europe back to proper Christianity! This is something the colonial rulers of the past perhaps had never counted on happening!
However, as mentioned above, not all Christian nations outside of Europe had Christianity thrust upon them. This is a very European-centric perspective. Syria was a Christian nation for many years. Indeed, Lebanon still is. Egypt and Ethiopia were also Christian nations, from the middle of the first Century AD, ironically whilst Rome was still party to pagan rulers. The Orthodox Church is said to predate the Roman Catholic Church, and is considered the first Christian Church - the Catholic Church being a later evolution of it, which the Orthodox churches never fully assimilated with, resulting in the formal Great Schism in the 1054. It should be noted that Orthodoxy has not been responsible for the crimes against humanity to the same (if any) extent that Catholicism and Protestantism have been in historical terms, for misguided, divisive and insecure reasons.
The Coptic Orthodox Church of Alexandria is the official name of the largest Christian church in Egypt. Egypt is named as the place in the New Testament that the Holy family sought refuge after fleeing from Judea. The Egyptian Church is more than 19 centuries old. Egypt is frequently referenced in the Old Testament.
The first Christians in Egypt were mostly Alexandrian Jews (e.g. Theophilus). The church was founded by Saint Mark the Evangelist, believed to be the apostle, the author of the Gospel of Mark, and a companion of Saint Peter. He is believed to have been the first Bishop of Alexandria and the first Pope of Alexandria. He is regarded as the founded of African Christianity and his evangelistic symbol is the lion.
The Ethiopian Orthodox Tewahedo Church is an Oriental Orthodox church in Ethiopia, that was formerly part of the Coptic Orthodox church until 1959, which it was granted its own Patriarch. It is one of the few pre-colonial churches of Sub-Saharan Africa, and is the largest of all Oriental Orthodox churches. It is thought to have been formed in 346 AD.
Some have observed that the Ethiopian Church is a shining example of Christianity working with the traditions of Judaism. The Ethiopian Church regards the Old Testament as as sacred as the New Testament, if not more so. Ethiopian Orthodox Christians observe many Jewish customs such as dietary customs and indeed circumcision, and some believe that Jewish practices and culture in the area predate Christ, which is not unfeasible or that unlikely given the history of the Jewish people. Perhaps the Jewish people should take note that it is possible to embrace both Judaism and Christianity together in a number of forms.
'The [Ethiopian Orthodox] Tewahedo Church Canon contains 81 books. This canon contains the books accepted by other Orthodox Christians.
- The Narrower Canon also contains Enoch, Jubilees, and three books of the Meqabyan
- The Broader Canon includes all of the books found in the Narrower Canon, as well as the two Books of the Covenant, four Books of Sinodos, A Book of Clement, and Didascalia.
There have been no printings of the Broader Canon since the beginning of the twentieth century. The Haile Selassie Version of the Bible, which was published in 1962, contains the Narrower Canon.'
Many Afro-Americans and Afro-Caribbeans regard Ethiopia and Egyptian churches as an inspiration, as Africans choosing Christianity and not having it thrust upon them; and indeed Ethiopia which was the only nation to stand up to colonial invasion until the 2nd world war.
Eastern Orthodox Christianity differs in many respects to its Western European counterpart, Catholicism and Protestantism. One of the main differences is in approach. In Orthodoxy, one of the main principles is to spiritually become closer together, to become one with God, and more Christ-like, whereas Catholicism always held that God was intangible and could never be directly experienced by mere sinners or mortals. Eastern Orthodoxy is rich in symbolism and metaphor in its rituals, full of feeling and sensation, whereas Protestantism is rather dry and intellectually-based in comparison.
'The goal of Orthodox Christians from baptism, when it is believed that they are sealed with the Holy Spirit, is to continually draw near to God througout life. This process is called theosis or deification and is a spiritual pilgrimage in which each person strives to become more holy and more "Christ Like" within Jesus Christ.'
Islam is the religion started by the prophet Mohammed who taught in the 7th Century AD. The teachings of the Qur'an are deemed to have been passed onto Mohammed by God, although the book was written after his death.
Islam regards Jesus as a prophet, and Muslims look forward to the second coming of Jesus. There are however differences between the concept of Jesus in Christianity as stated in the Bible and those stated in the Qur'an. Islam regards Jesus as a wise prophet, created by immaculate conception, given God's power to heal the sick and resurrect the dead, and who was not crucified or physically resurrected but taken up by Allah (spiritually). Islam recognises the prophets of the Old Testament. If this version of Jesus' story was true and one considers the amount of distortion that would have to have taken place of the New Testament Scriptures, then is it not reasonable assume that a similar amount of distortion could have taken place in the writing of the Qur'an, also written after the death of the respective 'prophet'? Is there any text that one can thus rely 100% on? Or must all be interpreted by the individual?
Sikhism was founded in the 15th Century in India. It is founded on the teachings of Guru Nanak and nine successive Sikh Gurus in fifteenth century Punjab. It is currently the 5th largest religion in the world. All the holy teachings are thought to be condensed into two books, or rather one book or one volume. These books are known as Gurus, in contrast to Hinduism where sects are led/founded by human Gurus/teachers. It is in a way a combination of Hinduism and it's concept of reincarnation and karma, combined with Islam's concept of monotheism; and its emphasis of defence of the religion, but in a non-aggressive manner. It does away with the caste system of Hinduism and is more egalitarian. It is defined on the web sites below.
The different Sikh scriptures are listed at the link below. They include Guru Granth Sahib, Guru Arjan, Dasam Granth, Sarab Loh Granth and Varan Bhai Gurdas.
Below is a link to an on line version of the Sri Guru Granth Sahib (including an English translation), including a search function. This text is considered to be the most holy of the Sikh Scriptures.
Below is a link to an on line version of the Guru Arjan (including an English translation), including a search function. This is probably the second most important of the two main Sikh Scriptures.
The Baha'i Faith was founded in 19th Century Persia, and represents the unity of God and the unity of Religion. It regards the prophets of other religions (e.g. Abraham, Moses, Zoroaster, Buddha, Krishna, Jesus, Muhammad) as messengers from God. It incorporates social teachings also on subjects as organising communities and agriculture. It uses the Pentagram as it's symbol, which has been associated most strongly with the neo-paganism and the occult since the mid 19th Century.
Printer Friendlier Version
