Post by Limitless Questions on Jan 24, 2009 8:47:01 GMT -5
Have been discussing the idea of sin with a friend of mine (a fellow ex-member of the gulag who is Christian, but actually in a good way, yes there is at least one). Here are some selected quotes on "sin" from the gnostic texts I possess.
I don't really agree with Meyer's contention that log. 14 "answers" the questions in log. 6, they seem to be answered just fine within the logion itself. Interesting to note the negative formulation of the golden rule, as G.of.Thomas is said to have been written in the mid-fourth century. (Yay! Early Christian Writings is alive! Now that's a resurrection I can get behind!) Perhaps this saying, too, is backlash against the Romanization/literalism of christendom at the time? (Only speculation on my part; I could be wrong.)
I see the "answers" provided in logion 14 very much as warning his followers away from religious Systems; this is consistent as well, with the distorted Roman idea inserted into the Synoptics, that Jewish traditions are evil, dead, etcetera. Of course, these scriptures are twisted even further today, by most fundamentalist and evangelical Christians, into a terrible hate-based anti-Semitism that they themselves are completely blind to.
Another backlash at tradition? Even in the mid-third century, fasting and repetitive prayers were being legislated as the "proper" Roman traditions. (The dating of G.of.Thomas supports the idea, IMO, that these logions are backlash against the Roman church, not the Jewish authorities, as Meyer IMO so erroneously suggests, by Judaizing the text of his translation.)
The sentence at the end, seems to be an astrotheological reference (references to "the bridegroom" and "the wedding chamber" throughout the Old Testament Psalms are clearly indicating the sun -- cf. Psalm 19 for a clear example).
The idea that fasting and praying and giving to charity are "sins", are interesting, in the context of the both the dating of the gospel, and the overall view of "sin" in the gnostic worldview.
Sin, by Systemic standards, is "whatever we say is wrong". Sin is the big stick used to beat down the believers, with the promised carrot of "god's love" at the end.
Believers will object that those "without faith" cannot have morals. Freethinkers counter that humans innately discover the ethic of reciprocity on their own. See also The Wisdom Commons, a freethinker's resource on common themes throughout the allegories and parables of the world, handed down through the mists of time. Freethinkers also counter that, those who need to be told what is wrong, are inherently amoral themselves.
I would also contend that evangelical Christians have a tendency to sin at will (by their own definitions of sin), and they figure they'll just be forgiven for it, simply because they "believe".
Meyer has provided his own translation of the synoptic John, but does note that the gospel "is in a gnostic context". I do not feel, based on his translation, that it is as gnostic as perhaps he wishes it to be. I have not read his translation too closely, however, and that is perhaps a topic for a separate thread. The only reference to sin in Meyer's translation (and perhaps in the gospel) is obliquely anti-Semitic. This agrees with the dating of the gospel as late 90's BCE, possible mid-70s BCE. Read the ECW discussion, and come to your own conclusions.
I would contend that, while the Synoptic John has gnostic elements, in the same sense that there are gnostic elements in the Pauline texts, they are only elements. An early attempt by the Romans to appease those who still held fast to docetic and allegorical views of "the revealer"?
The Secret Book of John, however, has an entirely different take on the matter, preferring a twist on the Sethian mythos of "original sin" being the fall of Sophia:
This suggests that the only "sin" in the gnostic worldview, is forgetting that you are part of a system, being "bound with dimensions, time, and seasons". See also Abiding Constancy, by Jeremy Puma, for an explanation of this idea in a modern Gnostic context.
(I, too, achieve the subjective experience of non-linearity through my gnostic praxis. Is this, then, the gnostic redemption?)
The Reality of the Rulers also opens with the idea that going through life blindly is a sin, as evinced by the description of the blind god (Samael), and his sin of saying "I am god; there is no other god beside me." (A play on words of the post-Jamniac Judaic texts? This is consistent with a theorized mid-fourth century dating of the text. [I can't find a reliable online cite for this yet, but see here.]) I have always seen the Samael figure as an allegory teaching against self-centredness.
Sin is thus a part of the seemingly dualist worldview of the gnostics (I don't hold the opinion that these verses are necessarily dualist.) Theories on the dating of the text also puts this about mid-fourth century, which is when the idea of "original sin" (as well as "the original couple") was starting to be legislated as the only accepted orthodoxy.
Throughout the Gospel of Truth, ignorance and fear are posited as being the root of all sins. Freethought certainly agrees with that! ;D As Meyer notes in his commentary:
Meyer again notes that sin, in this context, refers only to ignorance, and possibly actions born of fear. This is consistent further on in the text, where incorruption brings "rest" from sin.
This seems to be in the line with the Valentinian/Catharist idea of the perfecti. Gos.of.Philip is, by all accounts, a Valentinian text, through and through. But see the following passage, which, while reinforcing early christian orthodoxy, turns the idea on its head, and puts forth the idea that ignorance is the only sin to seek to overcome:
The rest of the passage in Philip reinforces the statement "do not be concerned with Error" from the Gospel of Truth, ending with "love covers a multitude of sins". Suggesting compassion and empathy, even for others who are blinded by ignorance and fear? Makes sense to me.
This suggests that the first baptism, or initiation into gnostic thought, is the forgiveness of ignorance. Both in ourselves and others?
Makes sense to me.
The Gnostic Bible, Barnstone and Meyer, eds."The role of the gnostic savior or revealer is to awaken people who are under the spell of the demiurge—not, as in the case of the Christ of the emerging orthodox church, to die for the salvation of people, to be a sacrifice for sins, or to rise from the dead on Easter."
The Gnostic Bible, Barnstone and Meyer, eds. Jesus in [the gospel of] Thomas performs no physical miracles, reveals no fulfillment of prophecy, announces no apocalyptic kingdom about to disrupt the world order, dies for no one's sins, and does not rise from the dead on Easter Sunday.
The Gnostic Bible, Gospel of Thomas, Logion 6
(6) His students asked him and said to him,
Do you want us to fast?
How should we pray?
Should we give to charity?
What diet should we observe? [Meyer notes that these questions seem to be answered in logion 14.]
[The revealer] said,
Do not lie and do not do what you hate. [Meyer notes that this is the negative formulation of the golden rule.]
All things are disclosed before heaven.
There is nothing hidden that will not be revealed,
nothing covered that will remain undisclosed.
(6) His students asked him and said to him,
Do you want us to fast?
How should we pray?
Should we give to charity?
What diet should we observe? [Meyer notes that these questions seem to be answered in logion 14.]
[The revealer] said,
Do not lie and do not do what you hate. [Meyer notes that this is the negative formulation of the golden rule.]
All things are disclosed before heaven.
There is nothing hidden that will not be revealed,
nothing covered that will remain undisclosed.
The Gnostic Bible, Gospel of Thomas, Logion 14
[The revealer] said to them, If you fast you will bring sin upon yourselves, and if you pray you will be condemned, and if you give to charity you will harm your spirits. [Meyer notes that these statements seem to be the answers posed to the questions in Logion 6] When you go into any region and walk through the countryside, and people receive you, eat what they serve you and heal the sick among them. What goes into your mouth will not defile you, but what comes out of your mouth will defile you.
[The revealer] said to them, If you fast you will bring sin upon yourselves, and if you pray you will be condemned, and if you give to charity you will harm your spirits. [Meyer notes that these statements seem to be the answers posed to the questions in Logion 6] When you go into any region and walk through the countryside, and people receive you, eat what they serve you and heal the sick among them. What goes into your mouth will not defile you, but what comes out of your mouth will defile you.
I don't really agree with Meyer's contention that log. 14 "answers" the questions in log. 6, they seem to be answered just fine within the logion itself. Interesting to note the negative formulation of the golden rule, as G.of.Thomas is said to have been written in the mid-fourth century. (Yay! Early Christian Writings is alive! Now that's a resurrection I can get behind!) Perhaps this saying, too, is backlash against the Romanization/literalism of christendom at the time? (Only speculation on my part; I could be wrong.)
I see the "answers" provided in logion 14 very much as warning his followers away from religious Systems; this is consistent as well, with the distorted Roman idea inserted into the Synoptics, that Jewish traditions are evil, dead, etcetera. Of course, these scriptures are twisted even further today, by most fundamentalist and evangelical Christians, into a terrible hate-based anti-Semitism that they themselves are completely blind to.
The Gnostic Bible, Gospel of Thomas, Logion 104
They said to [the revealer],
Come let us pray today and fast.
[The revealer] said,
What sin have I committed
or how have I been undone?
When the bridegroom leaves the wedding chamber,
then let the people fast and pray.
They said to [the revealer],
Come let us pray today and fast.
[The revealer] said,
What sin have I committed
or how have I been undone?
When the bridegroom leaves the wedding chamber,
then let the people fast and pray.
Another backlash at tradition? Even in the mid-third century, fasting and repetitive prayers were being legislated as the "proper" Roman traditions. (The dating of G.of.Thomas supports the idea, IMO, that these logions are backlash against the Roman church, not the Jewish authorities, as Meyer IMO so erroneously suggests, by Judaizing the text of his translation.)
The sentence at the end, seems to be an astrotheological reference (references to "the bridegroom" and "the wedding chamber" throughout the Old Testament Psalms are clearly indicating the sun -- cf. Psalm 19 for a clear example).
The idea that fasting and praying and giving to charity are "sins", are interesting, in the context of the both the dating of the gospel, and the overall view of "sin" in the gnostic worldview.
Sin, by Systemic standards, is "whatever we say is wrong". Sin is the big stick used to beat down the believers, with the promised carrot of "god's love" at the end.
Believers will object that those "without faith" cannot have morals. Freethinkers counter that humans innately discover the ethic of reciprocity on their own. See also The Wisdom Commons, a freethinker's resource on common themes throughout the allegories and parables of the world, handed down through the mists of time. Freethinkers also counter that, those who need to be told what is wrong, are inherently amoral themselves.
I would also contend that evangelical Christians have a tendency to sin at will (by their own definitions of sin), and they figure they'll just be forgiven for it, simply because they "believe".
Gerard Winstanley:[Jesus] is not a single man at a distance from you, but the indwelling power of Reason. You are not to be saved by believing that a man lived and died long ago at Jerusalem. Neither are you to look for God in a place of glory beyond the sun, but within yourself and within every man. (Source) [Emphasis mine.]
Meyer has provided his own translation of the synoptic John, but does note that the gospel "is in a gnostic context". I do not feel, based on his translation, that it is as gnostic as perhaps he wishes it to be. I have not read his translation too closely, however, and that is perhaps a topic for a separate thread. The only reference to sin in Meyer's translation (and perhaps in the gospel) is obliquely anti-Semitic. This agrees with the dating of the gospel as late 90's BCE, possible mid-70s BCE. Read the ECW discussion, and come to your own conclusions.
I would contend that, while the Synoptic John has gnostic elements, in the same sense that there are gnostic elements in the Pauline texts, they are only elements. An early attempt by the Romans to appease those who still held fast to docetic and allegorical views of "the revealer"?
The Secret Book of John, however, has an entirely different take on the matter, preferring a twist on the Sethian mythos of "original sin" being the fall of Sophia:
The Gnostic Bible, The Secret Book of John
I said, Master, where did the contemptible spirit[Demiurge?] come from? He said to me, The mother-father is great in mercy, the holy spirit, who in everyway is compassionate, who sympathizes with you,[Meyer notes this may refer to the gnostics] the afterthought of enlightened forethought. This one raised up the offspring of the perfect generation and raised their thought and the eternal light of the human. When the first ruler realized that these people were exalted above him and could think better than he, he wanted to grasp their thought. He did not know that they surpassed him in thought and that he would be unable to grasp them. He devised a plan with his authorities, who are his powers. Together they fornicated with Sophia, and through them was produced bitter fate,[Meyer notes: "In the Greco-Roman world, fate (in Greek, heimarmene, as in the present text) was considered to be the overwhelming force of bondage that determines the destiny of all that is earthly and heavenly."] the final, fickle bondage. Fate is like this because the powers are fickle. To the present day fate is harder and stronger than what gods, angels, demons, and all the generations have encountered. For from fate have come all iniquity and injustice and blasphemy, the bondage of forgetfulness, and ignorance, and all burdensome orders, weighty sins, and great fears. Thus all of creation has been blinded so that none might know the god that is over them all. Because of the bondage of forgetfulness, their sins have been hidden. They have been bound with dimensions, times, and seasons, and fate is master of all.
I said, Master, where did the contemptible spirit[Demiurge?] come from? He said to me, The mother-father is great in mercy, the holy spirit, who in everyway is compassionate, who sympathizes with you,[Meyer notes this may refer to the gnostics] the afterthought of enlightened forethought. This one raised up the offspring of the perfect generation and raised their thought and the eternal light of the human. When the first ruler realized that these people were exalted above him and could think better than he, he wanted to grasp their thought. He did not know that they surpassed him in thought and that he would be unable to grasp them. He devised a plan with his authorities, who are his powers. Together they fornicated with Sophia, and through them was produced bitter fate,[Meyer notes: "In the Greco-Roman world, fate (in Greek, heimarmene, as in the present text) was considered to be the overwhelming force of bondage that determines the destiny of all that is earthly and heavenly."] the final, fickle bondage. Fate is like this because the powers are fickle. To the present day fate is harder and stronger than what gods, angels, demons, and all the generations have encountered. For from fate have come all iniquity and injustice and blasphemy, the bondage of forgetfulness, and ignorance, and all burdensome orders, weighty sins, and great fears. Thus all of creation has been blinded so that none might know the god that is over them all. Because of the bondage of forgetfulness, their sins have been hidden. They have been bound with dimensions, times, and seasons, and fate is master of all.
This suggests that the only "sin" in the gnostic worldview, is forgetting that you are part of a system, being "bound with dimensions, time, and seasons". See also Abiding Constancy, by Jeremy Puma, for an explanation of this idea in a modern Gnostic context.
(I, too, achieve the subjective experience of non-linearity through my gnostic praxis. Is this, then, the gnostic redemption?)
The Reality of the Rulers also opens with the idea that going through life blindly is a sin, as evinced by the description of the blind god (Samael), and his sin of saying "I am god; there is no other god beside me." (A play on words of the post-Jamniac Judaic texts? This is consistent with a theorized mid-fourth century dating of the text. [I can't find a reliable online cite for this yet, but see here.]) I have always seen the Samael figure as an allegory teaching against self-centredness.
The Gnostic Bible, Thunder Perfect Mind
I am control and the uncontrollable.
I am union and dissolution.
I abide and dissolve.
I am below and they come up to me.
I am judgment and acquittal.
I am sinless,
and the root of sin comes from me.
I am control and the uncontrollable.
I am union and dissolution.
I abide and dissolve.
I am below and they come up to me.
I am judgment and acquittal.
I am sinless,
and the root of sin comes from me.
The Gnostic Bible, Thunder Perfect Mind
Many pleasures exist in many sins,
uncontrolled passions and disgraceful desires
and brief pleasures
embraced by people until they sober up
and float up to their place of rest.
There they will find me and live, and they will not die again.
Many pleasures exist in many sins,
uncontrolled passions and disgraceful desires
and brief pleasures
embraced by people until they sober up
and float up to their place of rest.
There they will find me and live, and they will not die again.
Sin is thus a part of the seemingly dualist worldview of the gnostics (I don't hold the opinion that these verses are necessarily dualist.) Theories on the dating of the text also puts this about mid-fourth century, which is when the idea of "original sin" (as well as "the original couple") was starting to be legislated as the only accepted orthodoxy.
The Gnostic Bible, Meyer's commentary on the Gospel of Truth
This section ends with the appearance and death of Jesus the anointed, whose fate at the hands of "error" is described in an amazing passage that in a few words sets Jewish-Christian orthodoxy apart from gnosticism: "He was nailed to a tree. He became a fruit of the knowledge of the father. He did not, however, destroy them because they ate of it. He rather caused those who ate of it to be joyful because of this discovery." This passage reverses the fundamental biblical notion that knowledge is sin. It dissolves the original stricture against obtaining knowledge by eating of its fruit, for which disobedience came a punishment of shame, sensuality, and death.
This section ends with the appearance and death of Jesus the anointed, whose fate at the hands of "error" is described in an amazing passage that in a few words sets Jewish-Christian orthodoxy apart from gnosticism: "He was nailed to a tree. He became a fruit of the knowledge of the father. He did not, however, destroy them because they ate of it. He rather caused those who ate of it to be joyful because of this discovery." This passage reverses the fundamental biblical notion that knowledge is sin. It dissolves the original stricture against obtaining knowledge by eating of its fruit, for which disobedience came a punishment of shame, sensuality, and death.
Throughout the Gospel of Truth, ignorance and fear are posited as being the root of all sins. Freethought certainly agrees with that! ;D As Meyer notes in his commentary:
According to the Gospel of Truth, the death of Jesus reveals the truth of the father. It does not save from sin. [Emphasis mine.]
The Gnostic Bible, the Gospel of Truth
Speak concerning the truth to those who seek it and of knowledge to those who, in their error, have committed sins.
Speak concerning the truth to those who seek it and of knowledge to those who, in their error, have committed sins.
Meyer again notes that sin, in this context, refers only to ignorance, and possibly actions born of fear. This is consistent further on in the text, where incorruption brings "rest" from sin.
The Gnostic Bible, the Gospel of Truth
This is the word of the gospel about finding the fullness for those who wait for the salvation that comes from above. When their hope, for which they are waiting, is waiting—they whose likeness is the light in which there is no shadow—then at that time the fullness is about to come. The deficiency of matter, however, is not because of the infinity of the father, who came to give time to deficiency. In fact, it is not right to say that the incorruptible one will come in this manner. The depth of the father is profound, and the thought of error is not with him. It is a matter of falling down and a matter of being readily set upright at the discovery of the one who has come to what he would bring back. [Meyer notes, "The translation is difficult here, but it seems to mean that repentance is the discovery of what may be brought back to heal a person, namely, knowledge." This is consistent with the idea that ignorance is sin.] This bringing back is called repentance. For this reason, incorruption has breathed. It followed one who has sinned, in order that he may find rest. ["When they ask you what is the evidence of your father in you, say to them it is motion and rest." Gospel of Thomas]
This is the word of the gospel about finding the fullness for those who wait for the salvation that comes from above. When their hope, for which they are waiting, is waiting—they whose likeness is the light in which there is no shadow—then at that time the fullness is about to come. The deficiency of matter, however, is not because of the infinity of the father, who came to give time to deficiency. In fact, it is not right to say that the incorruptible one will come in this manner. The depth of the father is profound, and the thought of error is not with him. It is a matter of falling down and a matter of being readily set upright at the discovery of the one who has come to what he would bring back. [Meyer notes, "The translation is difficult here, but it seems to mean that repentance is the discovery of what may be brought back to heal a person, namely, knowledge." This is consistent with the idea that ignorance is sin.] This bringing back is called repentance. For this reason, incorruption has breathed. It followed one who has sinned, in order that he may find rest. ["When they ask you what is the evidence of your father in you, say to them it is motion and rest." Gospel of Thomas]
"The Gnostic Bible, Gospel of Philip"
It is good to leave the world before one has sinned. Some have neither the will nor the ability to act. Others, even if they have the will, are better off if they do not act, for the act of the will makes them sinners. But even if they have no will to act, justice may be concealed from them, whether they have the will or not. Will, not action, is always primary.
It is good to leave the world before one has sinned. Some have neither the will nor the ability to act. Others, even if they have the will, are better off if they do not act, for the act of the will makes them sinners. But even if they have no will to act, justice may be concealed from them, whether they have the will or not. Will, not action, is always primary.
This seems to be in the line with the Valentinian/Catharist idea of the perfecti. Gos.of.Philip is, by all accounts, a Valentinian text, through and through. But see the following passage, which, while reinforcing early christian orthodoxy, turns the idea on its head, and puts forth the idea that ignorance is the only sin to seek to overcome:
"The Gnostic Bible, Gospel of Philip"
Adam ate from the tree that bore animals and became an animal and brought forth animals, and so Adam's children worship animals. The tree whose fruit Adam ate is the tree of knowledge. So his sins increased. If he had eaten fruit from the tree of life, the one bearing people, the gods would worship man and woman, for in the beginning god created man and woman. Now they create god. In the world humans make gods and worship their creation. It would be better if the gods worshiped them!
[Meyer notes that he has partially restored this translation. The original text reads, "There are two trees growing in Paradise. The one bears animals, the other bears men. Adam ate from the tree which bore animals. He became an animal and he brought forth animals. For this reason the children of Adam worship animals. The tree [...] fruit is [...] increased. [...] ate the [...] fruit of the [...] bears men, [...] man. [...] God created man. [...] men create God. That is the way it is in the world - men make gods and worship their creation. It would be fitting for the gods to worship men!"]
Adam ate from the tree that bore animals and became an animal and brought forth animals, and so Adam's children worship animals. The tree whose fruit Adam ate is the tree of knowledge. So his sins increased. If he had eaten fruit from the tree of life, the one bearing people, the gods would worship man and woman, for in the beginning god created man and woman. Now they create god. In the world humans make gods and worship their creation. It would be better if the gods worshiped them!
[Meyer notes that he has partially restored this translation. The original text reads, "There are two trees growing in Paradise. The one bears animals, the other bears men. Adam ate from the tree which bore animals. He became an animal and he brought forth animals. For this reason the children of Adam worship animals. The tree [...] fruit is [...] increased. [...] ate the [...] fruit of the [...] bears men, [...] man. [...] God created man. [...] men create God. That is the way it is in the world - men make gods and worship their creation. It would be fitting for the gods to worship men!"]
"The Gnostic Bible, Gospel of Philip"
Whoever has knowledge of the truth is a free being, but the free human doesn't sin. "Whoever sins is the slave of sin." [see John 8:31-36 -- note that the context of the passage has been corrupted by anti-Semitism.] Truth is the mother, knowledge the father. Those who think that sinning does not apply to them are called free by the world. Knowledge of the truth can make one arrogant, giving meaning to the words "being free." It makes them feel superior to the world.
Whoever has knowledge of the truth is a free being, but the free human doesn't sin. "Whoever sins is the slave of sin." [see John 8:31-36 -- note that the context of the passage has been corrupted by anti-Semitism.] Truth is the mother, knowledge the father. Those who think that sinning does not apply to them are called free by the world. Knowledge of the truth can make one arrogant, giving meaning to the words "being free." It makes them feel superior to the world.
The rest of the passage in Philip reinforces the statement "do not be concerned with Error" from the Gospel of Truth, ending with "love covers a multitude of sins". Suggesting compassion and empathy, even for others who are blinded by ignorance and fear? Makes sense to me.
"The Gnostic Bible, On the Baptism (A)"
The first baptism is the forgiveness of sins . .. you . . . your sins a pattern . . . of the anointed, which is the equal... within him Jesus The first baptism is the forgiveness of sins. It delivers us from them into those of the right,[Meyer notes, In Valentinian thought those of the right are psychical people, as opposed to those of the left,
who are material people."] into the incorruptibility that is the Jordan. But that place is of the world. So we have been sent out of the world into the eternal realm.
The first baptism is the forgiveness of sins . .. you . . . your sins a pattern . . . of the anointed, which is the equal... within him Jesus The first baptism is the forgiveness of sins. It delivers us from them into those of the right,[Meyer notes, In Valentinian thought those of the right are psychical people, as opposed to those of the left,
who are material people."] into the incorruptibility that is the Jordan. But that place is of the world. So we have been sent out of the world into the eternal realm.
This suggests that the first baptism, or initiation into gnostic thought, is the forgiveness of ignorance. Both in ourselves and others?
Makes sense to me.