The Gnostic Christian view of the Resurrection

[melodious]

"For the Gnostic any resurrection of the dead was excluded from the outset; the flesh or the substance is destined to perish. 'There is no resurrection of the flesh, but only of the soul', say the so-called Archonites, a late Gnostic group in Palestine."

What exactly was meant by a "resurrection of the soul" is not always clear. Different Gnostic groups probably had different conceptions. However, one thing is clear and was universal in Gnostic groups - they all denied the idea of a PHYSICAL resurrection of Jesus and of people in general.

Another group of Gnostics, called Sethites because they identified themselves as sons of Seth, the third child of Adam and Eve, say the disciples, deluded by "a very great error," imagined that Christ had risen from the dead in bodily form. But the risen Christ appeared to "a few of these disciples, who he recognized were capable of understanding such great mysteries," and taught them to understand his resurrection in spiritual, not physical, terms.

Pagels explains the reason for this denial of a bodily resurrection:

"For the Gnostics stood close to the Greek philosophic tradition (and, for that matter, to Hindu and Buddhist tradition) that regards the human spirit as residing "in" a body - as if the actual person were some sort of disembodied being who uses the body as an instrument but does not identify with it."

This belief stemmed from the idea that matter was inherently sinful while spirit was inherently good. The Gospel of Thomas states, "Indeed, I am amazed at how this great wealth (the spirit) has made its home in this poverty (the body)." For Gnostics, Greeks, and others with this attitude, a bodily resurrection would be a re-entrapment of the "good" spirit within the "evil" body.

Questions for debate: 1. Did Jesus Christ rise physically from the dead? 2. If so or if not, what is the true meaning of the Resurrection in Christianity and did this idea even orginate from Christianity - what is the ultimate message of the "dying and resurrecting godman" doctrine?

[Word_Swordsman]

On what basis can it be assumed that the words written by Matthew reflect the actual happenings. or example, who recorded the conversation between Pilate and the Pharisees? This is not to say that 'Matthew', writing around 70CE or so, did not write what he believed and believed what he wrote.

Nobody knows which of the Pharisees or chief priests comprised the delegation approaching Pilate, but we have documentation of conversions out of the same groups after the resurrection. Any one of those men would have been able to testify before the Church of that conversation. I'd say the following easily trumps any speculation there was no possibility of witnesses of that event.

John 12:42-43 "Nevertheless among the chief rulers also many believed on him; but because of the Pharisees they did not confess him, lest they should be put out of the synagogue: [43] For they loved the praise of men more than the praise of God."

Acts 15:5 "But there rose up certain of the sect of the Pharisees which believed, saying, That it was needful to circumcise them, and to command them to keep the law of Moses."

The only problems with converted Pharisees was among one sect of them which objected to inclusion of Gentile believers they believed had nothing to do with the Jews' Messiah. Eventually they yielded.

[Word_Swordsman]

Hello word swordsman

Just a few questions: Did Osiris of Egypt resurrect bodily, or is that just a myth? Did Dionysus of Greece resurrect, or is that just a myth? Did Attis of Phrygia, Tammuz of Babylonia, or Mithra of Persia resurrect? If not... their legends/myths say they did? Now, there is Jesus of Nazareth/Palastine, and his story also claims he resurrected from the dead, the same as the other ones (all of which came before Jesus). Is Jesus the only one who is the "real deal," or are they all different versions of an allegorical myth about spiritual transformation?

I don't see enough evidence of any of those other resurrections, their being no witnesses alive when those events were supposedly recorded. The resurrection of Jesus was claimed and witnessed within a few decades of distribution of letters documenting those claims, in the midst of many Jews who would be desperate to uncover a hoax and discredit the living witnesses. Actually, a large part of Jerusalem would have stood as witness of an even larger resurrection and another remarkable event that if falsely claimed would have ended Christianity as soon as Matthew's letter was distributed for scrutiny of people who loved in Jerusalem at that time.

Matthew 27:50-53 "Jesus, when he had cried again with a loud voice, yielded up the ghost. [51] And, behold, the veil of the temple was rent in twain from the top to the bottom; and the earth did quake, and the rocks rent; [52] And the graves were opened; and many bodies of the saints which slept arose, [53] And came out of the graves after his resurrection, and went into the holy city, and appeared unto many."

The temple veil was more important to the Jews than any object the USA possesses, including the original US Constitution. Any claim of such a tearing of it would have become widespread news that would remain in memories several generations, so Matthew's documentation, if not true, would have spelled doom for his and probably all associated documentation from any of Jesus' followers.

But they held up to the strongest of scrutiny. There is not one Jewish document I know of from that period claiming those events were bogus reports.

[melodious]

I don't see enough evidence of any of those other resurrections, their being no witnesses alive when those events were supposedly recorded.

.
You've gotta be kidding me, right? This is not really the opening statement to your argument, is it? Evidence? The Egyptians engraved the whole frickin' Osiris/Horus myth on the inside of a damn pyramid. How much recorded evidence do you want? Eye-witnesses? Please, tell me you're joking.

The temple veil was more important to the Jews than any object the USA possesses, including the original US Constitution. Any claim of such a tearing of it would have become widespread news that would remain in memories several generations, so Matthew's documentation, if not true, would have spelled doom for his and probably all associated documentation from any of Jesus' followers.

Sincerely no offense, but it really blows my mind how people can take what is obviously mythical/symbolic/allegorical literature (and not entirely original, at that), and conceive it as a literal and historical documentation of a person's life.

The "tearing of the veil" is a metaphor expressing the Christ-bearer overcoming the archonic, or cosmic, forces of the physical world. The Judean religion is often used in the gospels to symbolize the material world of ignorance and identifying with the eidolon, or outer image. Jesus, of course, is the rebel-mystic enemy of the Judean orthodoxy who, in the story, tears the "veil" of the Jewish temple, symbolizing the physical world, by his death upon the cross, or rather, the Cross of Light or Tree of Life.

Notice I wrote Judean; not Jewish. That's because many of the people occupying the northern region of Israel by that time were, what scholars refer to as, Hellenized, meaning that they were very knowledgeable of the Greek culture and language; many abhorring the southern Judean religion altogether. The Gospels, and the whole Jesus/Joshua myth, were created by Hellenized Jewish Gnostics in a hope to lift the religious and philosophic mindset of the old Judean religion. But eventually the war came and much of the "gnosis," you might say, got scattered. Literalist churches began popping up everywhere, and so Paul addresses this dilemma in many of his authentic letters. In the beginning (1st and 2nd cent.) many Gnostic Christians just wanted to get along with, what some scholars now call, the Literalists. But eventually things boiled up and lines were drawn until that fateful day... when Rome figured out the best way in the world to control those"pesky Jews:" Something that would unite the empire while simultaneously subjugating the Jewish people once and for all (Hmmm... I have to admit it was an ingenious plan... and it worked).

I would bet that if Rome would have adopted another religious cult's saviour as the state's godman (like they almost did with Mithraism) and shoved him done everyone's throat, you would be arguing for the literal interpretation of some other guy's resurrection. Christianity is just simply not an original religion or idea. The whole entire thing is written in the Egyptian Book of the Dead: Virgin birth, sermon on the mountain, temptation by the evil one, twelve disciples, crucifixion and resurrection, atonement of sins, judgment at the end of days... and on and on it goes. I find that when fundamental Christians are faced with the critical evidence of hard scholarship, where in any normal circumstance they would agree with the logical perspective, they instead reduce their argument to special pleading - "you have to believe in Jesus because, well... the Bible says so."

Did it ever occur to you that by us calling him "Jesus" constantly, it indicates clearly how very Greek the Gospel story really is (not to mention all of the canonical orginals are in Greek).

[Word_Swordsman]

I don't see enough evidence of any of those other resurrections, their being no witnesses alive when those events were supposedly recorded.

.
You've gotta be kidding me, right? This is not really the opening statement to your argument, is it? Evidence? The Egyptians engraved the whole frickin' Osiris/Horus myth on the inside of a damn pyramid. How much recorded evidence do you want? Eye-witnesses? Please, tell me you're joking.

Unless Egyptians were living to age 400 there were no witnesses of anything about Osiris when even the oldest known pyramid was built around 2700 BC, recording an event supposedly happening around 3000 BC. I don't know which pyramid had the first mention of Osiris, but it had to be multiple hundreds of years after the fact. I compare that to the events of the resurrection of Jesus recorded only a few decades later while witnesses were still alive to attest to the truthfulness of the reports in the synoptic gospels. Whether you admit it or not there is a huge difference in the two events and availability of any live witnesses. Who witnessed Osiris to attest to the truthfulness of that myth?

I won't enter further discussion consisting of mere unfounded denials from skeptics.

[melodious]

Unless Egyptians were living to age 400 there were no witnesses of anything about Osiris when even the oldest known pyramid was built around 2700 BC, recording an event supposedly happening around 3000 BC. I don't know which pyramid had the first mention of Osiris, but it had to be multiple hundreds of years after the fact. I compare that to the events of the resurrection of Jesus recorded only a few decades later while witnesses were still alive to attest to the truthfulness of the reports in the synoptic gospels. Whether you admit it or not there is a huge difference in the two events and availability of any live witnesses. Who witnessed Osiris to attest to the truthfulness of that myth?

Here's the issue: Osiris and Horus are not the only ones. There is Dionysus, Attis, Prometheus, Mithra, Tammuz, Krishna, Buddha, etc., and the list goes on. They were all, according to legend, born of a virgin, died for the sins of humanity, and resurrected on the third day (these are just the main parallels - there are many, many more). Now, are you going to actually assert that out of all of these characters, Jesus is the only one who really was born of a virgin and resurrected from the dead - he is the exception to the mythical rule. Again, we are back to special pleading - "My godman did it, but those other godmen didn't." Do you have any definitive proof that they did not? How do you know they didn't? In all actuality, there is no way you could know without a shadow of doubt! No offense, but your arguments are extremely weak and do not take in to consideration the many variables of the issue. Once all the evidence is presented, it is quite obvious to a logical "thinking person" that what we are dealing with in the gospels is a Jewish version of the ubiquitous solar myth.

With the ancients a myth was a valuable instrumentality of knowledge. It was an intellectual, even a spiritual, tool, by the aid of which truth and wisdom could at one and the same time both be concealed from the unworthy and expressed for the worthy. The ancients rightly regarded spiritual truth and experience as being incapable of expression or impartation by means of words simply. A myth or an allegory could be made the better means of conveying subtly and with a certain added force, the truth veiled under a set form of dramatic presentation. The myth would enhance spiritual truth as a drama reinforces moral situations. It was all the more powerful in its message precisely because it was known not to be outwardly a true story. No one was caught by the literal falsity of the construction. Attention could therefore be given wholly to the hidden import, which was not obscured by the outward occurrence. The myth was known to be a fiction; therefore it deceived nobody--until the third century. But at the same time it was most ingeniously designed to instruct in the deepest of spiritual truths. It was a literary device to embalm lofty wisdom in the amber of a tradition that could be easily remembered, in the guise of a human story. It was truth incarnated in a dramatic occurrence, which was known to be untrue. Outwardly fictitious, but inwardly the substance of a mighty truth, was the myth. And as such it was the universal dress in which ancient knowledge was clothed.
- Alvin Boyd Kuhn, from Lecture "The Great Myth Of The Sun-Gods"

"The mass of people who are Bible-taught never get free from the erroneous impressions stamped on their minds in their infancy, so that their manhood or womanhood can have no intellectual fulfillment, and millions of them only attain mentally to a sort of second childhood.� - Gerald Massey

[Word_Swordsman]

Unless Egyptians were living to age 400 there were no witnesses of anything about Osiris when even the oldest known pyramid was built around 2700 BC, recording an event supposedly happening around 3000 BC. I don't know which pyramid had the first mention of Osiris, but it had to be multiple hundreds of years after the fact. I compare that to the events of the resurrection of Jesus recorded only a few decades later while witnesses were still alive to attest to the truthfulness of the reports in the synoptic gospels. Whether you admit it or not there is a huge difference in the two events and availability of any live witnesses. Who witnessed Osiris to attest to the truthfulness of that myth?

Here's the issue: Osiris and Horus are not the only ones.

I'll take that as an admission you ridiculed my post in great error. If you wish to move on with this please either show me wrong about your claim, or admit I am right.

[Goat]

Unless Egyptians were living to age 400 there were no witnesses of anything about Osiris when even the oldest known pyramid was built around 2700 BC, recording an event supposedly happening around 3000 BC. I don't know which pyramid had the first mention of Osiris, but it had to be multiple hundreds of years after the fact. I compare that to the events of the resurrection of Jesus recorded only a few decades later while witnesses were still alive to attest to the truthfulness of the reports in the synoptic gospels. Whether you admit it or not there is a huge difference in the two events and availability of any live witnesses. Who witnessed Osiris to attest to the truthfulness of that myth?

Here's the issue: Osiris and Horus are not the only ones.

I'll take that as an admission you ridiculed my post in great error. If you wish to move on with this please either show me wrong about your claim, or admit I am right.

Tell me, which of the Gospels was actually written by an eye witness? As far as I can see, none of there were even second hand accounts. Can you show me any
substancial evidence that the Gospels were actually written by eye witnesses, and it NOT being a Midrash.

[melodious]

goat

Yes, exactly! It is a form of Jewish midrash (teaching stories in the form of fiction/myth). Thank you, goat, for your erudite response.

[Word_Swordsman]

Tell me, which of the Gospels was actually written by an eye witness? As far as I can see, none of there were even second hand accounts. Can you show me any substancial evidence that the Gospels were actually written by eye witnesses, and it NOT being a Midrash.

Of course without the original letter nobody can produce "substantial evidence" of authorship. We have in general the testimony of the early churches and copious copies of the original letter with reasonably accepted authorship. I cite from a source already accepted here as suitable, so have no need to labor over that. You cannot cast doubt on the authorship, having only the tired, worn out ploy of demanding evidence. I continue to cite reason, seeing no way such a document would have survived the scrutiny of the inquirers of that century in the midst of still living witnesses.

Author: Matthew, called Levi, son of Alphaeus and brother of James, and one of the original 12 apostles who were eye witnesses. Whichever church held the original letter, actually aimed at Israel, held the evidence of authorship. It would be illogical for anyone to say there was nothing on that letter to indicate authorship other than what was accepted by the churches receiving copies.

As for Jewish midrashs, the gospels didn't fit the pattern of those. There is no resemblance of Matthew's gospel to any Jewish midrash. A midrash served to enforce the laws of the Torah. I think you have this midrash thing turned around. Please link me to one that predated Jesus. There was, however, use of mashals throughout the Tanach, that more closely resembled Jesus' parables, being more like proverbs. I don't mean they were proverbs, but in the style of proverbs.

Jesus taught parables partly to deal with a very mixed audience that included Israeli tribes, but other people heard Him. All the people Jesus mixed with were influenced heavily by a distorted Jewish system, plus the overall culture was Hellenized (Greek) and incorporated Roman influence, as well as other less significant cultural influences. Any strictly midrash message would not have related to any but the Jews and concerning mostly the Torah.

Given the culture around Jesus I'd say there was no better method of teaching than to relate cultural knowledge to spiritual precepts. In fact, modern teachers employ similar tactics.

[melodious]

Maybe you're right, word swordsman. Maybe it's not midrash.
But it sure has all the hallmarks of a solar myth, that's for sure!

But back to the original issue.

What I am saying, brothers and sisters, is this: flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of heaven, nor does the perishable inherit the imperishable.

If this is not contradicting the "resurrection of flesh" doctrine, then what is it saying?