I am reading a book called, "The Laughing Jesus," in which the authors claim a distinction between "literalism" and their version of Gnostic Christianity. They claim that Gnostics used Jesus as a mythological device to explain their beliefs; but that a physical human never existed named Jesus. I find this confusing because other Gnostic literature does not seem to agree with this claim that Gnostics didn't believe in an actual human Jesus
2006-09-09 18:15:08 · 5 answers · asked by doogsdc 2 in Society & Culture ➔ Religion & Spirituality
Whether or not you believe "Jesus was a real guy who lived" is completely irrelevant to this question. My question is one of historical scholarship concerning a sect of Christians called Gnostics. I am questioning if THEY, not YOU believed if Jesus was a real human being. If you don't know what a Gnostic is, don't waste your time responding.
2006-09-09 18:23:00 · update #1
The original gnostics were killed off by Roman Christians. Those who came later (which is where most of what we know about gnostics comes from) were heavily influenced by the Roman Christians.
There are only scraps and clues about the original gnostics, but it appears from those clues, that the original gnostics viewed the Christ as a mystical spiritual being. The books of Enoch have survived and I think probably best represent early Christian thinking. Even Paul seems to have viewed Jesus as either a spiritual being, or a person who had lived so long ago that nothing of his life was known.
If you read the writings of Paul exclusive of the rest of the New Testament (and removing your biases - TOUGH to do), while realizing his are the earliest surviving Christian writings, you will see the following;
Paul seems to know nothing whatsoever about the geneology of Jesus, the miracles of Jesus, the teachings of Jesus (Paul references the OT on similar points instead of referencing Jesus), or really anything else about the life of Jesus. Paul even says the he (Paul) was chosen bu god to reveal the mystery of Jesus. What mystery!? Wasn't this a guy who had lived just 20 years before you started writing Paul? Weren't there already well established churches filled with people who had known Jesus. What possible mystery are you referring to that you were chosen to reveal?
...obviously, Paul did not view the Christ as a historical figure who had lived during his own childhood.
2006-09-09 18:27:12 · answer #1 · answered by lenny 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Well the first century gnostics beleived that Jesus and Christ were either seperate beings or that Jesus was a non-physical manifestation of a spiritual being.
To say that the gnostics were willing to die for a story they made up to explain their belief is silly. Besides, if their belief created their story, what created their belief? There had to be a real, physical experience at some point to convince people strongly enough to become martyrs, and a fictional Jesus wouldn't have done it.
2006-09-10 01:52:41 · answer #2 · answered by dijpak 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I read the same book, and those two are a couple goofs. If you read the Nag Hammadi you will see that they are talking out their @sses...
2006-09-10 01:18:32 · answer #3 · answered by Jedi Baptist 4 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Sorry kiddo. Jesus was a ral guy who lived. There are Non belivers who confirm his life.
I like star trek, but it isn't real!
2006-09-10 01:19:31 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 2⤋
jesus ws very real in my opion ?
2006-09-10 01:28:36 · answer #5 · answered by the_silverfoxx 7 · 0⤊ 1⤋