THE |
|
a cache of usenet and other text files pertaining
to occult, mystical, and spiritual subjects. |
[from http://www.oakgrove.org/GreenPages/bos/0694.txt ] 694 Subject: A Shared Vision by D. M. DeBacker June 23, 1988 11:36 PM Gnosticism is a religious/philosophical tradition that began sometime in the last century before the present era1. Th e word "tradition" should be stressed because one of the ten ets of Gnosticism is that of a general disdain for authority or orthodoxy. The Gnostics adhered to a belief in strict eq uality among the members of the sect; going so far as to chose th e role of priest by drawing lots among the participates at g nostic gatherings2. They also stressed direct revelation through dreams and visions and an individual interpretation of the revel ations of fellow Gnostics and sacred scriptures. The Greek word gnosis (from which we have "Gnosticism ") and the Sanskrit bodhi (from which we have "Buddhism") have e xactly 1 see J.M. Robinson, Introduction, in The Nag H ammadi Library (New York, 1977); hereafter cited as NHL, for a g eneral discussion of the origins of Gnosticism. 2 Pagels, Elaine; The Gnostic Gospels;(New York, 1979) ; p 49 1 695 the same meaning. Both gnosis and bodhi refers to a kno wledge that transcends the knowledge that is acquired through me ans of empirical reasoning or rational thought; it is int uitive knowledge derived from internal sources. To the Gnosti c this knowledge is necessary for salvation3. "I say, You are gods!" -John 10:34 The Gnostic sects were essentially eschatological; con cerned with salvation, with transcendence from the world of err or (as opposed to sin) towards a knowledge of the Living God, who is knowable only through revelationary experience. The obj ect of gnosis is God- into which the soul is transformed monist cally. This notion of assimilation into a divine essence is kn own in Gnostic Circles as "immanentizing the Eschaton"4. "Christ redeemed us from the Curse of the Law." -Ga l.3:13 3 Barnstone, Willis, ed.; The Other Bible; (San Fran cisco, 1984); p 42 4 Wilson, Robert A.; The Illuminati Papers; (Berkely, 1980); p 46 2 696 The Gnostic defiance towards authority took on many l evels. They developed an elaborate cosmogony, in defiant opposit ion to traditional Jewish and Christian beliefs. For the Je w and Christian, it was a good, though authoritarian, god that c reated Adam and Eve. It was through their own sin that they fel l into corruption. Yet for the Gnostic, the creator was not good a t all, rather he became known to the Gnostics as the Demiur ge1, a secondary god below Sophia, Mother Wisdom, and the unknow n God- who-is-above-all-else.2 To the Gnostics, the Demiurge- who is also known as Ialdabaoth, Sabaoth, and Saclas- acted in error when he created the material universe and mistakenly thou ght of himself as the only god. In Gnostic literature, Adam and Eve are seen as heroic figures in their disobedience; aided by the serpent, wh o gave them knowledge and who will later return in some sects as Jesus, to redeem humanity by teaching disobedience to the curse of the laws of Yahweh the Creator3. 1 Greek for "craftsman", much like the Masonic "Archit ect of the Universe". From Plato's Timaeus. 2 I have come up with Greek term "Theoseulogete s" to describe "God-who-is-above-all-else" which I found in Paul's Epistle to the Romans (9:5), but I hesitate to make use of it because I am not sure how it should be pronounced. 3 Hypostasis of the Archons 89:32-91:3 (NHL p. 155) 3 697 Many writers when discussing Gnosticism approach the s ubject with a scholarly morbidity. They tend to look upon the Gn ostics as a cult of dreadful ascetics who shunned the world of err or and delusion. Yet as a neo-gnostic, I can not help but see a g nostic world-view as that of looking upon the universe not a s some sinister mistake, but more as a complex and complicated cosmic joke. When one first begins reading the Gnostic lite rature contained in the pages of the Nag Hammadi Library (cf. n ote p. 1), one is tempted to filter the language and the symb ols of Gnosticism through a mindset of `hellfire' fright conju red by images brought from the Book of Revelations or Daniel. The key to reading the NHL is not to be frightened or distressed by s ome of the images, but to realize that the tractates of the NH L were collected as consciousness raising tools. To the Gnosti c, the pages of NHL are not to be meant to be taken a s the authoritative, apostolic writings of the Christian bible or the prophetic and patristic writings of the Jewish bible, but rather as visions shared with fellow Gnostics. The following dis course is meant to be just that- a Gnostic sharing his vision. 4 698 "When the Elohim began to create..." - G en 1:1 As all religious thought has as its ultimate aim the t hought of God, it is best that I begin my "vision" by impart ing my perception of God. To me, God is indescribable, inscrutable, and ultimat ely "nonexistent". Any attempt at describing God invokes, what a friend termed, the "great syntax catastrophe"2. It is wr ong, I believe, even to use the pronouns he or she when speaking o f God; and it seems better to speak of what God is "not" rather t han to speak of what God"is". To paraphrase the Chinese philo sopher, Lao Tse "The god that can be named is not the God"3. It is best not to even attempt a description of God, but to think of God as inscrutable by definition: that which can not be 1 For a discussion on this translation of the opening verses of Genesis cf. Asimov, Issac; Asimov's Guide to the Bible ; Vol. II; (NY, 1968); pp 16-17 2 A friend tells me that he picked up this term f rom an evangelical Christian in Georgia. 3 "The Tao that can be trodden is not the enduri ng and unchanging Tao. The name that can be named is not the en during and unchanging name." Lao-Tse; Tao teh Ching (I,1)- tra ns. by James Legge 5 699 easily understood, completely obscure, mysterious, unfatho mable, and enigmatic; the "Mystery of the Ages"1. Many Gnostics speak of God as being "non-existent"; not in the atheistic sense, but in the sense that God does not ex ist in the same sense as you or I or anything else in the Un iverse exists. In some Gnostic writings God is referre dto as the "unbegotten one"2. As a Gnostic Christian, one who emphasizes the salvic influence of gnosis (knowledge) over the influence of pistis (faith), it is not enough for me merely to believe th at God exists; I must know that God exists. In his epistle to the Galatians, Paul tells us that ignorance of God is a form of bondage3; and in his epistle to the Colossians, he tell us that man's purpose is to "be fille d with the knowledge of [God's] will in all spiritual wisd om and understanding,.. and increasing in (gnosis) knowledge of Go d"4. Many Christian sects teach that "faith" is an unquest ioning belief that does not require proof or evidence. To unde rstand 1 Col 1:26 2 Tripartite Tractate; 51.24-52.6; (NHL p. 55) 3 Gal. 4:8-9 4 Col. 1:9-10 6 700 "faith" properly it requires knowing that belief and opini on are not one and the same. A mere opinion is something t hat is asserted or accepted without any basis at all in evide nce or reason1. Whereas, to believe in something is to exercise one's faith or trust in something. Faith then could be said to be "trust"; and `faith in God' is, therefore, the same as `tr ust in God'. The basis of any degree of trust must be a certain deg ree of knowledge concerning a given object or situation. Th e more knowledge one has concerning, say, a person, determin es the amount of trust allowed that person. For example, if you know a person to be completely unreliable, you then have very little faith in that person. Conversely, You have a great deal of faith that person is not to be trusted. If you know that a person is highly reliable, you then have built up a degree of tr ust in that person based on your knowledge of him. Therefore, knowledge of God must parallel faith in Go d. Yet how can God be known when we are not even sure that he exis ts? If we say that God is essentially `unknowable and can on ly be spoken of in terms of what God is not, then how can we c ome to have any knowledge of God? 1 See Adler, Mortimer J.; Ten Philosophical Mistakes; chap. 4; (New York, 1985); for a detailed discussion of knowled ge and opinion. 7 701 There are basically two ways to know God. The first is by way of reason or logic and second, by way of intuitive kno wledge or gnosis. We shall see in following paragraphs how the former method may help us in understanding the problems we are faced with in our attempts to know God, and many will see, als o, how severely lacking the path of logic can be compared to that of the gnostic path. In studying the problem of `logical proofs' of God's existence I have come across several historical argume nts of which I have grouped into what I call "The Seven Argumen ts and the General Argument for the Existence of the Almighty." I have labeled these arguments the Ideological (ideo as in idea ), the Etiological ( `aetio' meaning cause), the Teleological (`t eleo' meaning final outcome), the Cosmological (`cosmo' m eaning universal), the Ontological (`onto' meaning being) , the Pantheological (`pantheo' as in `pantheism'), and the Psychological (`psyche' meaning soul) Arguments. I will pr ovide a brief discussion of each. 1] The Psychological Argument Before anything can be said concerning the real ity of God or of anything else for that matter. One must take a skeptical stance. A skeptical stance would be that of do ubting the reality of absolute or universal truths. In other wor ds one 8 702 could say that the certainty of knowledge is impossible an d that onecan achieve only `probable' knowledge, i.e., ideas who se validity is highly probable. An example of this would be to say that it is only highly probable that you are reading this page, but that neither you nor I can be absolutely certain of thi s. Yet probable knowledge implies the existence of ab solute knowledge. For instance a skeptic could deny that the obje cts of his perceptions exist, but he could not deny that his perce ptions exist. St. Augustine stated that the person who doubts all truths is caught in a logical dilemma, for he must exist in orde r that he may doubt. As Descartes, put it "I think, therefore I am .". In the act of doubting one establishes the absolute reality of one's own consciousness or "psykhei". For Augustine the "psykhei" comprises the entire personality of the living being, who becomes aware t hrough self-consciousness not only that he or she is a real inte grated existing person but also that he knows with absolute cer tainty his own activities and powers of memory, intellect, and will. Thus the being `remembers' what it is doing in the act of self-doubt; it understands or knows the immediate experienc e; and it can will to act or not to act as it does. Hence three a spects of the individual "psykhei" may be described as powers of m emory, intellect, and will, or as activities of being, knowin g, and willing. 9 703 2] The Ideological Argument Prior to the history of any object the ideal had to ex ist as the source imparting reality to the particular object. Hu manity must exist as a universal ideal before any individual human being can possibly exist. An object's essence (ideal) must be a r eality before the particular object can come into existence. Many people, when first confronted by this argument f ail to understand it. One fellow thought the argument was prepost erous, because he thought it somehow denied that things co uld be discovered by accident. He gave a convoluted example invol ving a chemist seeking to invent a glue and in the course of his research accidently discovering a cure for cancer. Wha t this fellow failed to realize is that the notion of a death d ealing disease such as cancer and the idea of a needed cure for cancer existed long before this bumbling chemist started on hi s glue project. Both the psychological and ideological argumen ts are really not arguments for the existence of God, but are in tended as an introduction to the following arguments. 3] The Etiological Argument God, by definition, must have existed as a first cause because every effect requires a cause and this must hav e been true of entire universe. The material world is contingent, unable 10 704 to create itself, hence requires something else, a nece ssary, spiritually uncreated Being to bring it into existence and impel it to continue its progress. The same fellow who debated the ideological argumen t said that the etiological argument "hurt his head" and th at it reminded him of "the old chicken and the egg argument". T he key words in this argument are "contingent" (meaning, "dependen t on chance"; "conditional"), "necessary", and "uncreated" (s ee the General Argument below). The cosmological argument is almost identical to the etiological argument, yet the wording is quite different. 4] The Cosmological Argument There must have been a time when the universe did not exist, for all things in the universe are mere possibilities dep endent on some other objects for their being and development; th e fact that the universe does exist implies that a necessa ry or noncontigent Being exists who was capable of creatin g the universe. 5] The Ontological Argument Since we possess an idea of a perfect Being (and we can think of nothing greater or more perfect), such a Bein g must necessarily exist because perfection implies existence. An y idea 11 705 that is lacking in reality (any concept which has no obj ective reality of its own) would be imperfect, whereas one of the attributes of a perfect Being is actual existence (not mere ly an idea in any person's mind, but real existence external to any mind which happens to conceive of it). The ontological argument is possibly the oldest argume nt and dates back to the 4th C. of the present era. This argume nt has caused a great debate that rages to this day in the pa ges of modern textbooks on philosophy and theology. The key t o this argument is "perfection" and the statement: "any concept which has no objective reality of its own would be imperfect " (and therefore not exist) is the thin thread upon which the va lidity of argument hangs. 6] The Teleological Argument The presence of design in the world, the fact that o bjects are designed with a purpose, to function for a given end, i mplies the existence of an intelligent, competent designer, who p lanned the purpose of each thing that exists. The teleological argument posses problems of its ow n. The same fellow who debated the previous arguments insisted t hat he needed proof of a design to the world and that everything has a purpose. The problem in replying to his argument is that I can not think of one useless thing existing in the universe. M y mind 12 706 draws a blank in this respect and I would invite anyone t o show me one thing that exists in this universe which is without design or purpose. 7] The Pantheological Argument God, the supreme unity, the original Being, and the Id eal of all ideals, has caused all things to become manifest by me ans of a logical unfolding of particulars from their ideals. To sp eak of creation is to speak of particularization, a proce ss of unfolding that makes individual objects out of ideals. Conv ersely, immortality is an opposite process whereby the particulars return to their universal essence or archetypes. Immortality mea ns the return of things to God (apocatastasis), that is their deification, so that there is complete unity of all thi ngs in God; pantheism. The Pantheological vision of God is negative in the sense that God can be characterized only in terms of comparison on the ground that the infinite is beyond human comprehension; h owever not beyond human contemplation. When speaking of the nat ure of God and using the terms of argument #1 in speaking of the nature of the psyche as that which possess memory, intellect, and will, one may say that God is Omniscient, possessing absolute memory and intellect; Omnipotent, possessing absolute will; and in the terms of the pantheological argument, Omnipresent, poss essing 13 707 pure randomness and non-localized in time and space. The General Argument for the Existence of the Almighty is as follows and derived in part from the argument as put forth in How to Think About God by Mortimer J. Adler: 1. The existence of an effect requiring the concurrent exi stence and action of an efficient cause implies the existence and action of that cause. 2. The cosmos as a whole exists. 3. If the existence of the cosmos as a whole is rad ically contingent, which is to say that, while not needing an eff icient cause of its coming to be, since it is everlasting, t hen it nevertheless does need a efficient cause of its cont inuing existence, to preserve it in being and prevent it from being replaced by nothingness. or 3a. If the cosmos which now exists is only one of many po ssible universes that might have existed in the infinite past, an d that might still exist in the infinite future, and if a cosmos which can be otherwise is one that also can not be; and convers ely, a 14 708 cosmos that is capable of not existing at all is one that can be otherwise than it now is, then the cosmos, radically cont ingent in existence, would not exist at all were its existen ce not caused. 4. If the cosmos needs an efficient cause of its existence or of its continuing existence to prevent its annihilation, the n that cause must be one the existence of which is uncaused, a nd one which has reason for being in and of itself; i.e. The ul timate cause and being of the cosmos. 5. If the ultimate cause and being of the cosmos is that about which nothing greater can be thought, that being must be t hought of as omnipotent, possessing absolute will; omnis cient, possessing absolute knowledge; and omnipresent; non-locali zed in time and space. PART TWO Intuition differs from reason in that as man is a finite being ossessing limited ensualcontact with the universe; it is impossible for man to fully understand God through his sen ses or by empirical means. This, therefore, involves the underst anding 15 709 of abstract concepts. We must understand the universe as being "conceptusensual"; that parallel to the objective universe there is a universe made up of abstracts. This abstract unive rse is viewable to us through means of symbols; objects not poss essing objectivity. These symbols cannot be known by means of emp irical reasoning, but by means of gnosis; without the conscience use of reasoning, immediate apprehension or understanding. It should be realized that while this abstract uni verse, that sits parallel to the material universe, and is som etimes referred to as the spiritual world or heaven,is beyond logi c and reasoning; it is supported by logic and reasoning. Yo u will recall that imperfection or "degrees of perfection" impli es the existence of perfection (cf. Arg #3 and Arg #5). Perfection is an abstract ideal having no analog in our material world, yet it is intuitively known to exist. Just as there are degrees of knowledge concerning m undane truths in the material world, there are degrees of gnosis concerning revealed truths in the spiritual world. Because man in his human form is by nature limited there is a certain li mit to his understanding and knowledge. Yet as all things ar e in a constant state of flux and change, man's knowledge is cons tantly growing. For everything that is known objectively there is an abstract idea that precedes the object. The Scriptures speaks about angels and devils, the cr eation 16 710 of the world in seven days, etc., and many Christian sects require of their followers acceptance of these "revealed t ruths" by way of faith or trust. Many speak of the Bible as being infallible and without error even when portions are contrad ictory or counter to logic. I, however, assert that the Bible is first and foremost an anthology of religious/philosophical tra dition compiled over the centuries from about 750 BCE to around 15 0 BCE. It should, in no way, be advertised as a "closed canon " or a compilation of the sum of man's knowledge of truth, revea led or otherwise. The Bible was written by men and is therefore s ubject to human error. This does not, however, discount the prese nce of revealed truths within the Bible or within any scr ipture (religious writings). If any of the above arguments fall short of convinc ing an individual of God's existence, the one argument that can not be denied is the argument which provides for the proof of one 's own existence (cf. Arg #1). Here we spoke of "taking a ske ptical stance"; one of doubting one's own existence. Throu gh the process of self-doubt we become faced with the reality of our existence; we cannot deny the object of our percep tions- ourselves. The question, then, is raised concerning "life and d eath". One may wonder: "If I exist now, was there ever a time when I did not exist and will there be a time when I will not exist?" We can 17 711 limit this by asking: "Did I exist before this lifetime an d will I exist after this life?" Perhaps before these questions can be broached more should said concerning the subject of gnosis. As stated above, the Apostle Paul spoke of ignorance of God as being a form of slavery; and told us that it was our p urpose to know (gnosis) and obey God1. This is reiterated in his first epistle to the Corinthians, when Paul gave "thanks to God.. . that in every way [they] were enriched in [Christ] with all spee ch and all knowledge"2. In John's first epistle, we are told that we may c ome to know (gnosis) God, if we keep God's Law and "walk in the sa me way in which [Christ] walked3. This echoed in John's Gospel c hapter 14, verses 20-21; and at verse 26 he adds that the Holy Spirit will be sent to "teach [us] all things, and bring t o [us] remembrance all that [Christ had] said to [us]." I have emphasized the word "remembrance" as an important part o f the process of gnosis. This will be discussed in detail below. In another epistle Paul spoke of the "riches of a ssured understanding and knowledge (epi-gnosis) of God's myste ry, of 1 See above p. 4 2 1 Cor. 1:4-5 3 1 Jn 2:3-4 18 712 Christ, in whom are hid all the treasures of wisdo m and knowledge"1. In the seventeenth chapter of John's Gospel, Christ tells us that gnosis, knowing God, is equivalent to e ternal life2; and in his epistle to the Philippians, Paul tells u s that gnosis supersedes all3. In Matthew's Gospel we are told that spiritual kno wledge comes to us through Christ: "I thank thee, Father, Lord of heaven and ea rth, that thou hast hidden these things from the wise and p rudent and revealed them unto the little ones; yes, Fathe r, for such was thy great pleasure. All things have been del ivered to me by my Father; and no one knows the Son exce pt the Father, and no one knows the Father except the Son a nd any one whom the Son chooses to reveal him.4" When we read the thirteenth chapter of Paul's first e pistle 1 Col 2:2-3 2 Jn 17:3 3 Phil 3:8-10 4 Matt 11:25-27 & Lk 10:21-22 19 713 to the Corinthians, we learn that "love" is the k ey to maintaining spiritual knowledge (gnosis) and faith (pistis) 1; and in John's first letter we are told that "he who does not love, does not know God; for God is love"2. Besides the necessity of loving God, we are tol d that knowledge of truth equals knowledge of God. In Paul's let ter to Titus, Paul greets his "child in common faith" by desc ribing that, as an apostle of Christ, his main purpose is to "f urther the faith of God's elect and their knowledge of the truth which accords with godliness"3. In John's Gospel we are told th at the Holy Spirit is the "Spirit of truth, whom the (material) world cannot receive, because it neither sees him nor knows hi m; you know him, for he dwells with you, and will be in you"4. Jesus tells us: "If you continue in my word, you are tr uly my disciples, and you will know the truth, and the truth wil l make you free"5. 1 1 Cor 13 2 1 Jn 4:7-8 3 Titus 1:1 4 Jn 14:17 5 Jn 8:31-32 20 714 At some points this saving knowledge is referred t o as a secret knowledge. In his closing remarks to his dis ciple, Timothy, Paul tells him to guard closely the knowledge th at has been entrusted to him and to avoid those who "chatter" about false knowledge1; and in first Corinthians, he speaks of those who imagine that they know, yet do not know as they ou ght to know2. In second Corinthians, Paul tells us that the myst ery of the Gospel is "veiled" to those who have been blinded by t he god of this world3. This concept of the "hardening the heart s" and "shutting the eyes"of the people can be found in Isaiah 4, Mark5, Luke6, and Acts7. Paul speaks of the process of gno sis as spiritual maturity when he tells the Corinthians that the y were "fed with milk, not solid food; for [they] were not rea dy for 1 1 Tim 6:20-21 2 1 Cor 8:2 3 2 Cor 4:3-6 4 Isaiah 6:9-10 5 Mark 8:17-18 6 Lk 10:23 7 Acts 28:26-27 21 715 it." We are told that Jesus spoke in parables because " seeing they do not see, and hearing they do not hear"1; and tha t "not all men can receive this [knowledge] but only those to whom it is given (revealed)"2. He said that in order that those who could not understand, be allowed to understand that they would h ave to "turn again" and be forgiven3. This "turning again" or being "reborn" will be discussed in greater detail below. In Colossians, Paul speaks of this mystery as havin g been hidden from angels and men (aeons and generations)4. Th ere is evidence in many of the books of the Bible that books whi ch are known to authors have either been lost or intentional kept out of the Bible for a variety reasons. In his epistles, Paul spe aks of epistles that do not appear in Bible. There is evidenc e of a third epistle to the Corinthians; perhaps one that went b etween the first and second epistles5; and in his closing remarks to the 1 Matt 10:13-17 2 Matt 19:11 3 Mk 4:11-12 4 Col 1:26 5 1 Cor 5:9 & 2 Cor 2:3-9; 7:10 22 716 Colossians, Paul speaks of an Epistle to the Laodiceans1. First Chronicles speaks of the Book of Nathan and the Book of Gad2; while Second Chronicles, also, speaks of a Book of Nathan and a Book of Shemaiah the Prophet3. In Jude's Epistle there is a quote from the Book of Enoch!4 Could these books have con tained "secret knowledge" that could not be understand by all? Turning to the "apocrypha", those books which a re not considered by some Christian sects to be a part of the " closed canon" of the Bible, we are able to discover a possible ans wer to our question. The Apocrypha, or "hidden" books, were never really hidden, but were kept apart from the Bible. Each Christia n sect has a different "list" of books that belong in their indi vidual "canon" and because those "lists" overlap each other many Christians today are quite familiar with a majority of the books contained in the Apocrypha. One book contained in the Apocrypha, 2 Esdras, a boo k that is found in many Roman Catholic Bibles, has the fol lowing information to impart to us concerning "hidden books": 1 Col 4:16 2 1 Chr 29:29 3 2 Chr 9:29; 12:15 4 Jude 9 quotes Enoch 1:9 23 717 "Therefore write all these things that you have see n in book, and put it in a hidden place; and you shall teac h them to the wise among your people, whose hearts you kn ow are able to comprehend and keep these secrets.1" (It is curious to note that this portion of 2 Esdr as was added to original sometime in the third century AD; w hen at the same time Gnostic Christians were compiling t he Nag Hammadi in Egypt!)2 Yet it seems that nothing can remain hidden forev er. In Luke's Gospel Jesus prophesies that "nothing is hid that shall not be made manifest, nor anything secret that shall not be known and come to light"3. Perhaps this prophecy came true when, following the dreadful destruction of WW II, two aston ishing discoveries of hidden works were made; the first at Nag Ha mmadi, Egypt in December of 1945, and the second at Q'umran, Pal estine 1 2 Esdras 12:37-38, cf. 2 Esdras 14:37-48 2 see introduction to "The Second Book of Esdras" in t he New Oxford Annotated Bible with the Apocrypha; Apoc p 23 3 Lk 8:17 24 718 in 1947. PART THREE Even in the Bible itself there is found "secret know ledge" that is never spoken of amongst the christian sects that co nsider themselves to be "orthodox". The best example of this is in the creation account of the Book of Genesis. The opening line of the first book of the Bible has been translated throughout hist ory to read: "In the beginning God created the heavens and the ea rth1." Yet if we translate the first verse literally we find it to read: "When the Elohim began to create the heavens and the earth2 ." The term "Elohim" should not be translated directly t o read "God" or "god", because it is the feminine plural of god ( Eloah) and should probably be translated "goddesses" or "offspr ing of the Goddess" . Now, to many "orthodox" christians the notio n that there exists "gods", in the polytheistic sense, most likel y is a bizarre notion. Yet the early Hebrews were not "monothei stic", that is, a person who believes in the existence of one God, as is usually thought; but, rather, they were "henotheistic", and while believing in a multitude of gods, they focused all their w orship 1 Gen 1:1 2 Cf. p 3 note 1 25 719 on their "national god". Examples of Hebrew henotheism can be found in throughout the Old Testament. In 1 Kings, chap ter 18 there is an account of the prophet Elijah, a prophet of the Israelite god Yahweh, engaged in a contest with the proph ets of the god Ba'al and the goddess Asherah (Ishtar)1. In 2 Kings, chapter 3 we are told that when Mesha, king of the Moa bites, sacrificed his son to the Moabite god Chemosh "there came a great wrath upon " the army of the Israelites2. Further on in 2 Kings there is the story of Naaman, a Syrian general who is aff licted with leprosy. Following a raid in Israel, Naaman is told by one of his captives that there is a prophet living in Samaria w ho has the power to cure leprosy. Naaman then visits Elisha, where he is told to go and bathe in the Jordan river. After bathing seven times in the Jordan, Naaman is cured of leprosy, and as a result he converts and becomes a worshiper of Yahweh, god of the Israelites. He is now faced with a dilemma; as he must ret urn to Syria, he must take "two mule's burden" of Israelite soi l back with him. This is done so that he may have a plot of Ya hweh's land upon which to offer sacrifice to the Israelite god. Elisha does not argue this matter with Naaman, but only tells him to "go in peace"3. 1 1 Kngs 18:19 2 2 Kngs 3:27 3 2 Kngs 5:1-19 26 720 Perhaps the strongest suggestion of Hebrew henothe ism is contained in line from Ezekiel that tells of the women w eeping for the Sumerian harvest god, Tammuz1. The Jewish ca lendar contains the month of Tammuz (usually in the summer) and one of the titles for Tammuz, "Adonai", was adopted by the Hebrew s as a title for their god. The phrase "Adonai Elohim" is transla ted in the english Bible to read "Lord of Hosts". The Greeks, also, adopted "Adonai" and called him "Adonis"; a term used to day in the english language to describe a good looking young man. In the New Testament, we are told by Saint Paul that there are "many gods and many lords"2. In Colossians, he refers t o them as the "elemental spirits of the universe" or Archons3. Co uld it be that the Archons and the Elohim were one and the same: "elemental spirits of the universe"? In Ephesians, he ref ers to them as the "world rulers of the present darkness"4. In John's Gospel, Jesus puts us on equal footing with the Arch ons by quoting Psalms5; and in Acts we are called "God's offspring "6. 1 Ezekiel 8:14 2 1 Cor 8:5 3 Col 2:8 4 Eph 6:12 5 Jn 10:34 & Ps 82:6 6 Acts 17:27-29 27 721 The scriptures in places speak of the concept o f pre- existence. God tells Jeremiah, "before I formed you in the womb I knew you"1. In Ephesians, we are told that God "chose us in him before the foundation of the world"2. Could it be that the "secret message" that the Scri ptures have to impart to us is that we and the Elohim are one a nd the same? That we were present at the creation? That we creat ed our own universe under God's guidance, but because we were not in harmony with each other, because a few us tried to "lord " over the others, because we were not in agreement on how to go about making the universe, and instead of making the universe acc ording to God's design, we made it according to our design, i n "our image"; could this be why the universe is such an imp erfect place? Between chapters 16 and 19 of the Book of Genesis th ere is a curious exchange that deserves to be followed. In chapter 16 we are told the story of Hagar, the mother of Ishmael. Hagar, one of Abraham's concubines, is sent out into desert by Sarai, the first wife of Abraham. At verse seven Hagar is met by an "angel of the 1 Jeremiah 1:4-5 2 Eph 1:4 28 722 Lord". Later, after conversing with this "angel of the Lord ", she refers to the angel as a "god of vision". She is shocked to think that she has actually seen "God" and has lived1. In th e next chapter, Abraham is visited by a being who describes hims elf as "El Shaddai"2. Most english language Bibles translate t his to read "God Almighty", but a literal translation would ren der it "El, one of the gods". In chapter 18 Abraham, we are to ld, is visited again by the "Lord", and upon looking up he sees "three men". The persons that appear to Abraham in this chap ter of Genesis are usually described as being God and two of his a ngels, yet strangely enough the one who is thought to be Go d, the Almighty (omniscient and omnipresent) does not know what's going in a city on the planet Earth and remarks: "I will go down to see whether they have done altogether according to the outcry which has come to me; and if not, I will know"3. After wrangling with Abraham over whether or not he would destroy the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah, we are told that "the Lord rained... fire fr om the Lord out of heaven"4. 1 Gen 16:7-14 2 Gen 17:1 3 Gen 18:21 4 Gen 19:24 29 723 The "main of event" occurs in the first chapters of Ge nesis. Here is where the Elohim see light for the first time1, and go about the process of the first creation2, that of "calli ng and creating" the material world3. The Elohim cause a separat ion to be made between the spiritual world, "the waters which were above the firmament, and the material world, "the waters whic h were under the firmament"4. Genesis 1:9-31 details this "orderi ng" of the material world. In Genesis 1:27, we are told that the Elohim creat ed, or developed the idea of mankind in an image that the Elohim perceived. According to Rabbinic tradition this image w as the image of the Higher God that the Elohim saw reflected in the firmament which they took to be that of their own. In the second creation, that of "making and forming" the material world in the "day that the Lord made the earth and the heavens"5, we ar e told that the Elohim actually "formed" man out of dust, but it was 1 Gen 1:4 2 Gen 1:1 - 2:3 3 Isaiah 43:7 4 Gen 1:7 5 Gen 2:4 30 724 only after the Elohim breathed into man's nostrils the "bre ath of life", did man become a living being1. Yet it seems that the Elohim had made a mistake. In G enesis 1:28, we are told that the Elohim had created man as an androgynous being, "male and female [they] created them. " Most Gnostic Christians take this to mean that we were orig inally intended to posses both soul and spirit combined. It appea rs the Elohim had made a mistake and formed a "sleeping" soul whic h they attempted to manipulate2, and when they realized that the y were mistaken they found it necessary to pull the "spirit" (Ev e) out of the soul (Adam) in order to bring it to life; hence Adam calls Eve "the Mother of the living"3. The events that follow in the third chapter of G enesis deserve to be looked at in detail. In chapter 2, verse 9 w e have been told that there are two trees in the center of the Gar den of Eden; the tree of life and the tree of knowledge. In verse 17 of that same chapter we were told that the Creator had ordere d Adam not to eat of the tree of knowledge, for if Adam were to ea t from that tree he would die. In chapter three a serpent appears to Eve 1 Gen 2:7 2 Gen 2:16-17 3 Gen 2:21 31 725 and the following exchange takes place: Serpent: "Did [the Creator] say, `You shall not eat of any tree in the garden'?" Eve: "We may eat of the fruit of the trees of the gar den; but [the Creator] said, `You shall not eat of th e fruit of the tree which is in the midst of the garden, neither shall you touch it, lest you die .' " Serpent: "You will not die. For [the Creator] know s that when you eat of it your eyes will be opene d, and you be like [the gods] knowing good and evil ." Later, after eating from the tree, and, by the wa y, not dying, Adam and Eve "heard the sound of the Lord God walk ing in the garden"1. It is curious to note that from the exchang e that follows that the Creator does not seem to know what has taken place in their "absence", just as they did not seem to kno w what was happening in Sodom and Gomorrah or what occurred to Cain's brother, Able2. Upon learning what has transpired the C reator 1 Gen 3:8 2 Gen 4:9 32 726 then put a curse upon the serpent, Eve, and Adam. We then learn that the Creator had lied to Adam and Eve when they tol d them that they would die and in remarking reveal: "Behold, t he man has become like one of us, knowing good and evil; and now , lest he put forth his hand and take also of the tree of life, an d eat, and live forever..."1. This speaking in the plural is ech oed in the Tower of Babel incident: "Come, let us go down and there confuse their language"2. Throughout time the serpent has stood as symb ol of immortality. Many ancient cultures upon seeing the shed s kin of a snake believed that the snake never died; only sheddi ng one body for a new one. In Greek mythology the god Prometh eus is often depicted as a winged serpent bringing the gift of f ire to man. Later Prometheus was replaced by the image of the wing- footed Hermes holding aloft the caduceus or "serpent en twined staff" as he brought the secret knowledge of the gods to ma nkind. These images of winged and fiery serpents can be fo und in the Old Testament. In Numbers "the Lord sent fiery serpents among the people, and they bit the people, so that many peo ple of Israel died"3. To counteract this attack, Moses is told to "make 1 Gen 3:22 2 Gen 11:7 3 Num 21:6 33 727 a fiery serpent and set it on a pole" so that when the peop le see the "brazen serpent" they would not die1. This symbolic g esture of the serpent lifted up in the wilderness is reminisce nt not only of the serpent in the garden, but that of Jesus on the cross2. In Isaiah's vision of God, he describes the thr one of God as being surrounded by "seraphim". Seraphim may be defi ned as "fiery winged serpents". In 2 Kings we are told that the " brazen serpent" survived down into reign of Ahaz, king of Isra el. It seems Ahaz did some house cleaning and broke the "brazen se rpent" into pieces and threw it out. Is this some how a pro phetic gesture of Israel's rejection of the Messiah3? CONCLUSION It should be remembered that when approaching the subj ect of "hidden works" or "secret knowledge" that "there is nothin g hid, 1 Num 21:8-9 2 Jn 3:14-15 3 2 Kngs 18:4 34 728 except to be made manifest; nor is anything secret, exc ept to come to light"1. In other words, there is nothing hidde n that cannot, or will not, be found. Christ extols us to see k and find, and that when we knock at the door of mystery it w ill be opened to us2. It can be found that God has a "divine pl an" in which God "desires all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth"3. In Acts we are told that the end of time will not come until all things have been restored t o God. This "restoration of all things" became known to the early christians as the Doctrine of Apocatastasis4. Ephesians spe aks of the "plan for the fullness of time, to unite all things in him, things in heaven and things on earth"5. Yet what happens to us when we die in a pre-gnostic state before the Apocatastasis? In Mark's Gospel, we are told t o take heed of what we hear in the message, for "the measure yo u give will be the measure you get"6. This is the Doctri ne of 1 Mark 4:22 2 Matt 7:7-8 3 1 Tim 2:4 4 Acts 3:21 5 Eph 1:10 6 Mk 4:24 35 729 Metrethesis; the "measure for measure" spoken of in Matth ew 7:2 and the "sowing" and "reaping" in Galatians 6:71. This is the plan by which God allows all souls in the universe to even tually redeem themselves in the prison of Metempsychosis. Metrethesis and Metempsychosis are doctrines that a re not unique to Christian Gnosticism. In Buddhism and the Vedic religions these doctrines are known as [The text is lost at this point.]
The Arcane Archive is copyright by the authors cited.
Send comments to the Arcane Archivist: tyaginator@arcane-archive.org. |
Did you like what you read here? Find it useful?
Then please click on the Paypal Secure Server logo and make a small donation to the site maintainer for the creation and upkeep of this site. |
The ARCANE ARCHIVE is a large domain,
organized into a number of sub-directories, each dealing with a different branch of religion, mysticism, occultism, or esoteric knowledge. Here are the major ARCANE ARCHIVE directories you can visit: |
|
interdisciplinary:
geometry, natural proportion, ratio, archaeoastronomy
mysticism: enlightenment, self-realization, trance, meditation, consciousness occultism: divination, hermeticism, amulets, sigils, magick, witchcraft, spells religion: buddhism, christianity, hinduism, islam, judaism, taoism, wicca, voodoo societies and fraternal orders: freemasonry, golden dawn, rosicrucians, etc. |
SEARCH THE ARCANE ARCHIVE
There are thousands of web pages at the ARCANE ARCHIVE. You can use ATOMZ.COM
to search for a single word (like witchcraft, hoodoo, pagan, or magic) or an
exact phrase (like Kwan Yin, golden ratio, or book of shadows):
OTHER ESOTERIC AND OCCULT SITES OF INTEREST
Southern
Spirits: 19th and 20th century accounts of hoodoo,
including slave narratives & interviews
|