How Did the Gnostics View the Crucifixion of Jesus?

You may also like...

8 Responses

  1. Tim Claason says:

    “(It is also interesting that Sophia takes the form of the Tree of Knowledge in The Secret Book of John).”

    Are you familiar with Margaret Barker’s work? She paints a very clear picture of the link between the 1st Temple Queen of Heaven and the Tree of Life from Genesis; she’s even makes the case that the tree of life was the Queen’s Wisdom, whereas the tree of knowledge was Mosaic law. In the first temple, prior to Deuteronomic reform, the true priests were anointed with the tree of life, which represented the Queen. It’s interesting Christ means anointed…

  2. This is the book which no one found possible to take, since it was reserved for him who will take it and be slain. Sound like “Sacrifice the man that bears me”? It should. It is Jesus’ answer to “What will those baptized in your name DO?” in Gospel of Judas. The Acts of John says it: “slaying of a Word” — there was no savior slain. It was the gnostic authors’ way of saying the Word slays. Judas gives up his lower self, as you point out, Miguel. “Jesus” is metaphor. Judas is a stand-in for the Master James, Master in-the-making. Read the First and Second Apocalypses of James. James is the necessary link, the MASTER, THE ELEMENT THE CHURCH NEEDED TO GET RID OF. That’s all the NT is about. James had to go. He was threat to the Paulines. Btw, Peter is Master in the making also, in Apocalypse of Peter first paragraph, denied three times by Jesus (think Eisenman’s inversion m. o.), not the reverse. Also, Peter in Acts 12 is the making of his mastership, in metaphor. Get out of a mode of thinking literally. All this is metaphor. The whole Bible.

  3. Vinicius Cerva says:

    Hey, so, as I understood, dying on the wooden cross is equal to the death of the lower self, and (still dying? Help me here) in the cross of light is equal to the (ascension?) of our high self?

  4. Rafi Simonton says:

    The consensus Gospel of Luke 9:23 says “…let them deny themselves and take up their cross daily and follow me.” Matthew has similar, but in the singular. Thus the message isn’t take up MY cross, but take up your own. Then follow Christ’s example theeby to become in full your own truest Self.

    Decades ago, I had an intense encounter with the Divine at a cosmic scale. Which I suppressed for many years since I was not raised with any religion at all. Plus, I considered political activism much more important than any vague mystical urges. But the incident would not leave me alone; I was driven to figure out what it meant.

    About 12 years ago, around Easter, (Pascha for the eastern Orthodox,) I was in a really angry mood. I had been injured on a hike, deserted by a mentor, a close spiritual friend picked a fight out of the blue, and I was far from home. I had had it with anything to do with Christianity in any form. As I reached up to rip my icons down, I “saw” an image emerge from the Benedictine cross on the wall. It was Christ himself, in the midst of crucifixion, yet gazing with compassion at me.

    Just for a moment, all a finite being could endure, I was allowed to feel what he had felt. A deep sense of abandonment: “My Father, why hast thou forsaken me?” That most human of experiences and absolutely devastating. At the same time, he was carrying all the hurt, fear, anguish, and loneliness of all of creation. I fell back on my bed, overwhelmed. Then I “saw” him look at me with a slight smile, and “heard” him say, “It’s worth it, you know.” Not the horror of suffering per se, but the struggle to emerge as a spiritual being, one in relationship with the Light.

    While reading this post today, something else became clear that I did not realize then. So thanks, Miguel, for the terrific provocation to reflect on that experience. That “you know” was not just a tossed off figure of speech. It was very much meant to elicit a connection with “know,” to gnosis. A process that takes decades. And it is indeed worth it.

  5. kevan Hubbard says:

    Just been reading about marcion of sinope. He didn’t seem to have believed that the ‘real God’had anything to do with the creation of the physical world. I wonder how marcion would have squared this with Jesus being active in the world of the demiurge? In general I think Jesus is either seen as a real spiritual force for raising the fallen world or at least a metaphor for it.marcion seems to have differed from basilides and valentinus in that he was not an enimationist.

  6. poet93 says:

    Thank you Miguel, this has very good for me to read today. Both eye opening and thought provoking.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Social media & sharing icons powered by UltimatelySocial

Enjoy this blog? Please spread the word :)