Swedishoo
Admin
Posts: 690
(4/19/2004 6:43:58 AM)
| Gnostic conversation from Gregg's Board
Do you have any Idea how hard it is to find a polyglot who isn't trying to be the next sitchen....lol?
I have one more question please ask him what is his view regarding Sophia,and the Gnostic Gospel's and their reputed link to Zoroastrianism?
Thanks kindly
Shawn
Shawn, Randy's site is back up and here is his reply. He welcomes you to his board if you would like to go over there and chat with him. Randy is freaky smart. Funny guy too. His mind is as sharp as a razor.
http://www.mahatmarandy.com/forum/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=110
Sorry 'bout the site being down. The Server is in Ohio, and I'm in Florida, so when things go Blooey, it sometimes takes a while to reach someone who can fix it.
Anyway, the question: That's a sprawling one. <G>
"Gnosticism" wasn't a particular religion or denomination like, say, Islam or Lutheranism: Rather it was a school of theology that spread through numerous religions adapting to each one, but always keeping some distinct ideas. There were Gnostic Pagans, Gnostic Jews, Gnostic Christians, (Probably) Gnostic Zoroastrians, you name it. Gnosticism has been said to have arisen out of christianity and been a heretical form of it, but I don't really think it's as simple as that. Indeed, there's more than circumstantial evidence (As I point out in my article on the Secret Gospel of Mark http://www.mahatmarandy.com/sacrilege/SecretMark.htm) that Christianity started out as a Gnostic religion, and the 'heresy' was when time passed and some of the churches forgot their Gnostic roots.
But even that is a bit of an oversimplification.
As to Zoroastrianism, there are a lot of relationships between that religion and Judaism and Christianity. For instance, Angels are a Zoroastrian 'invention.' Archaeologists have established that the early (Pre-exillic) Jews didn't believe in Angels or anything like that until they were hauled off into Babylon. When they came back from Babylon, the Jews had adopted the Babylonian Angelology, and worked it into their scriptures, in many cases, retroactively. The Talmud admits to this. The veiw of a an eschatological messiah who'll judge and then rule the world is essentially a re-telling of the Zoroastrian concept of the "Sayoshant." (It should be mentioned that there were several concepts of 'messiah' circulating in pre-Christian Judaism, and the eschatological one was not the only popular one.) In fact, the whole concept of an end of the world is basically Zoroastrian. So, yeah, there are huge and uncomfortable links between it and Judaism.
Links to Christianity are considerably more tenuous. Obviously the Magi are Zoroastrian Priest-astrologers (Who were called Magi by their own people), and apocryphal books like the Infancy actually call them as such. The Christ-Messiah and End of the World are, as I said above, similar to Zoroastrian concepts. Beyond that, though, things get fuzzy.
The Sayoshant was not the physical Son of God, for instance. The Christian Godhead is a Trinity, whereas the Zoroastrian Godhead is a Heptad (Seven-'person' as opposed to three.) There is a Zoroastrian Holy Spirit (An Archangel) who is similar to the Christian Holy Spirit in some ways, and different in others, the similarity in some cases being limited only to their 'title.'
Conversely, you've got "Sophia" the feminine personification of Wisdom which is a strictly Jewish idea. She is said to be God's first creation, the actual word of God. When He said "Let there be [whatever]" she was the words He spoke, and She did the actual creation of the universe. The Gospel of John uses words to describe the Logos that make it clear the author felt that Sophia and Logos were the same thing. Some early Jewish-Christian groups have Jesus speaking of His "Mother, The Holy Spirit." It seems obvious that the Sophia/Logos idea got merged - conflated - with the similar, but older and more limited Zoroastrian Holy Spirit Archangel concept. Thus the Christian Concept is dependent on several older ideas in the same way that a Ford Escape is related to a Model T, but it's obviously become a vastly different animal.
The problem here is that church dogma to the contrary, we know almost nothing of the early church, or what Early Christianity believed. We don't even know what they called themselves. ("Christian", Acts tells us, is what Paul's followers were called. So what were the believers called in the fifteen years or so prior to that?) What we do know is confusing, contradictory, and sometimes openly fraudulent. "History," as Napoleon later said, "Is a set of lies agreed upon."
I would say that the Zoroastrian influences on Christianity were probably holdovers from post-exilic Judaism, and not direct, first-hand influences. The more traditional elements of Jesus' life and teachings were probably mostly an invention of the Apostle Paul, who I don't like very much. After Paul, the religion somehow absorbed Mithraic elements from the roman cult of Sol Invictus. Such Gnosticism as survived all this eventually fell out of fashion, and was criminalized (So to speak) after Nicea, and eventually all-but forgotten. Modern Christianity is essentially a syncretism or goulash of all these elements.
But, to get back to your friend's question: Though there *may* have been Gnostic Zoroastrians (It would be surprising if there weren't even though there's no indication of 'em.) Zoroastrianism itself was not a Gnostic religion. Likewise, though there were Jewish Gnostics, Judaism as a whole was not Gnostic. These were fringe movements within the larger, more conservative body, if you follow me. All mormons are Christians, but all Christians are not Mormons, if you see what I'm getting at here. There's nothing inherently Gnostic in Zoroastrianism.
That's all I've really got time for right now. Hope it was helpful. You know, you can have your friend "Shawn" visit the site and talk to me directly, if you want. I'm pretty liberal about who I'll talk to. <G>
My reply to Randy:
Randy you are so awesome. Twenty bucks says that was just off the tip of your head. Man, I'm telling you, that mind of yours can cash in on some money babe.
"So what were the believers called in the fifteen years or so prior to that?"
Weren't they called the Nazareans?
"History," as Napoleon later said, "Is a set of lies agreed upon."
I like Napoleon...lol
I'll give Shawn your reply and your invitation to the board. He's a real nice guy and smart too. I'm sure you'd enjoy him.
Christy
|
| 4/19/04, 12:02 am |
|
Lord seeker
Administration
<SCRIPT>stars(7)
Global user
Registered: 01-2004
Location: where sensitive men are rare !
Posts: 1100
Karma: 3 (+3/-0)
|
| |
 Re: THUNDERBOLTS OF THE GODS
I hope he does drop by...this subject is interesting...and the search spiders seem to like it too...
I was hoping al could provide this type of stimulating conversation but alas all he could do was argue with jay...
---
"we must dare to dream...although there is no substitute for perseverance and hard work....none of us get there ...alone"
-dana scully
|
| 4/19/04, 12:30 am |
|
Swedishoo
Moderator
<SCRIPT>stars(5)
Global user
Registered: 01-2004
Location: North Pinellas County, FL
Posts: 233
Karma: 0 (+2/-2)
|
| |
Re: THUNDERBOLTS OF THE GODS
Naaa, Al's smart enough to recognize bait.
Christy
---
Hey, I might even let you debunk me for some karma points!
|
|
