Philo's guide to decoding the Hebrew Bible

[seeker]

Okay, crosses. Here's something to consider about crosses. The cross wasn't used as a Christian symbol until the fourth century CE, after Rome officially stopped the practice of crucifixion. Prior to that the Christian symbol was the fish.

[Ishtar]

Yes that's a good allegory. But both are just allegories for the same thing. An ascent to heaven is also a rebirth from a spiritual point of view, dying to the false self (the ego or known to Gnostics as the the "eidolon") and becoming the True Self.

It's just different ways of saying the same thing.

But for the purpose of this discussion, Plato's quote about saying the Son of Man is suspended crosswise in the universe is at the root of the Gnostic idea of the cross through which the Christ figure pulls through the aspirant in what I suppose, is known as Grace.

That Gnosticism wasn't a threat to Literalist Christians is a laughable idea when you see the extent they went to, to hide the roots of their story of a historical Jesus.

Not only did they burn down the Library of Alexandria and destroy the Mystery Groves of Eleusis, but Justinian 1 of Byzantium also closed down Plato's Academy in Athens in 529 CE because he saw it as threat to Christianity.

Most Western scholars after that did not know about Plato until the Renaissance.

[Ishtar]

Okay, crosses. Here's something to consider about crosses. The cross wasn't used as a Christian symbol until the fourth century CE, after Rome officially stopped the practice of crucifixion. Prior to that the Christian symbol was the fish.

That's interesting. But I think the story of the crucifixion is older than that - as old as the four canonised gospels which, imo, are all second century creations, as we discussed yesterday.

[seeker]

Funny thing about the crucifixion. The cross is definitely a symbol that had been being used for a very long time but during Roman times it came to be a symbol of execution. I tend to think the Gnostic notion of Christ crucified was really just a sort of slang for Christ 'executed' that got taken literally because of the Roman practice.

The later adoption of the cross fits in with the various Christian adoptions of pagan symbols.

[Minimalist]

Crucifixion far pre-dates christianity having probably been used first in Persia and later spreading throughout their empire. The Carthaginians who would have gotten it from their mother country in Phoenicia, used it as a form of punishment even for defeated generals.

The Romans, who probably learned the technique from the Carthaginians, would never employ it on Roman citizens and in general reserved it for non-Roman rebels or rebellious slaves. It was too time consuming and inefficient to use on common criminals who were disposed of in the arena for the amusement of the crowds. Unlike the gospel account, the Romans left the body to on the cross to rot as a warning to others.

[Ishtar]

I tend to think the Gnostic notion of Christ crucified was really just a sort of slang for Christ 'executed' that got taken literally because of the Roman practice.

But Plato's quote about the Son of God 'suspended crosswise across the universe' fits in exactly with how the Gnostics saw him and dates from 350 BC. It's not a crucifixion but a cross drawn in the heavens like a constellation of stars.

In the Gnostic myth, Christ (Son of God) reaches through this cross suspended across the universe to pull through Achamoth, the fallen goddess who is now ascending from the cave that she fell into (a metaphor for incarnating in a human body).

This same imagery is reflected in the Gospel's Jesus redeeming his fallen woman, Mary Magdelene.

Achamoth is a fallen version of the pure Sophia. Mary Magdelene is a fallen version of the pure virgin Mary.

Sophia waits beside the cross in the heavens for Christ to pull through her aspect, Achamoth. That's why in the Christian version of the same story, at the crucifixion, both Marys wait by the cross and Jesus hands over Mary M to the virgin Mary.

[Ishtar]

This is the from the Acts of John, (thought to be John of Patmos) from the New Testament Apocrypha. From this it is clear why his writings were banished to the Apocrypha. He was definitely a Gnostic:

In this scene, Jesus is talking to him just before the crucifixion, and he explains to John that the wooden cross he is about to be nailed to is not the real cross, but that the real cross is the cross of light, and that only those initiated into the mysteries would be able to understand this.

My bolding:

http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/t ... sjohn.html

98 And having thus spoken, he [Jesus] showed me a cross of light fixed (set up), and about the cross a great multitude, not having one form: and in it (the cross) was one form and one likenesst [so the MS.; I would read: and therein was one form and one likeness: and in the cross another multitude, not having one form]. And the Lord himself I beheld above the cross, not having any shape, but only a voice: and a voice not such as was familiar to us, but one sweet and kind and truly of God, saying unto me: John, it is needful that one should hear these things from me, for I have need of one that will hear. This cross of light is sometimes called the (or a) word [Logos - Ish] by me for your sakes, sometimes mind, sometimes Jesus, sometimes Christ, sometimes door, sometimes a way, sometimes bread, sometimes seed, sometimes resurrection, sometimes Son, sometimes Father, sometimes Spirit, sometimes life, sometimes truth, sometimes faith, sometimes grace.

And by these names it is called as toward men: but that which it is in truth, as conceived of in itself and as spoken of unto you (MS. us), it is the marking-off of all things, and the firm uplifting of things fixed out of things unstable, and the harmony of wisdom, and indeed wisdom in harmony [this last clause in the MS. is joined to the next: 'and being wisdom in harmony']. There are of the right hand and the left, powers also, authorities, lordships and demons, workings, threatenings, wraths, devils, Satan, and the lower root whence the nature of the things that come into being proceeded.

99 This cross, then, is that which fixed all things apart (al. joined all things unto itself) by the (or a) word, and separate off the things that are from those that are below (lit. the things from birth and below it), and then also, being one, streamed forth into all things (or, made all flow forth. I suggested: compacted all into ). But this is not the cross of wood which thou wilt see when thou goest down hence: neither am I he that is on the cross, whom now thou seest not, but only hearest his (or a) voice. I was reckoned to be that which I am not, not being what I was unto many others: but they will call me (say of me) something else which is vile and not worthy of me. As, then, the place of rest is neither seen nor spoken of, much more shall I, the Lord thereof, be neither seen .

100 Now the multitude of one aspect (al. of one aspect) that is about the cross is the lower nature: and they whom thou seest in the cross, if they have not one form, it is because not yet hath every member of him that came down been comprehended. But when the human nature (or the upper nature) is taken up, and the race which draweth near unto me and obeyeth my voice, he that now heareth me shall be united therewith, and shall no more be that which now he is, but above them, as I also now am. For so long as thou callest not thyself mine, I am not that which I am (or was): but if thou hear me, thou, hearing, shalt be as I am, and I shall be that which I was, when I thee as I am with myself. For from me thou art that (which I am). Care not therefore for the many, and them that are outside the mystery despise; for know thou that I am wholly with the Father, and the Father with me.

[seeker]

Like I said, the cross was being used by pagans long before Christians picked it up. I think the symbolism was there, it just wasn't necessarily as specific. The Acts of John was, at the earliest, second century by which time the literal version of the story was being circulated.

Min - I agree with all of that but Jews weren't Roman citizens and were commonly crucified for rebellions. They certainly would not have let the Jews take the body down.

[Ishtar]

Like I said, the cross was being used by pagans long before Christians picked it up. I think the symbolism was there, it just wasn't necessarily as specific. The Acts of John was, at the earliest, second century by which time the literal version of the story was being circulated.

Yes, I agree. I wasn't trying to show that it was earlier. I was showing how the Gnostic belief was the Cross of Light and how it got relegated to the Apocrypha.

And it's obviously based on the crucifixion story, because Jesus is talking about it.

But having said all that ... now you that you mention it ...second century, hmmmm... they're all second century, Gnostic or Literalist. Dating-wise, there's no difference between them, imo.

[seeker]

The second century is an explosion of Christian literature. I tend to think that the Jewish revolt of 70CE was still recent and was probably the subject of a lot of romanticism (sorry, couldn't resist). I wouldn't be surprised if there were plays about Jewish martyrs. For all we know Mark was a script

[Minimalist]

Min - I agree with all of that but Jews weren't Roman citizens and were commonly crucified for rebellions.

Um...the Romans crucified rebels everywhere. It's just that the Jews were dumb enough to keep rebelling.

Most of the pagans got the hint early on.

[Ishtar]

For all we know Mark was a script

That's a good point, Seeker. I've read before that they could have actually been Passion plays, like the ones put on at the Greek Mysteries.

Then somebody else pointed out that the Jews preferred novels to plays, which were more of a Greek thing.

But seeing this whole thing was probably written by Greeks, anyway, and certainly not any Jews, we're back to the plays again.

We're having a terrific thunderstorm here! It's very exciting!

[seeker]

It's just that the Jews were dumb enough to keep rebelling.

[Ishtar]

Seeker, have you noticed how we keep posting at the same time?

[seeker]

Hmmm, synchronicity across the Atlantic.