- So many Christians throughout the world knew and revered these books that it took more than 200 years for hardworking church leaders who denounced the texts to successfully suppress them. [...]
Irenaeus said there could be only four gospels because, according to the science of the time, there were four principal winds and four pillars that hold up the sky. Why these four gospels? He explained that only they were actually written by eyewitnesses of the events they describe -- Jesus' disciples Matthew and John, or by Luke and Mark, who were disciples of the disciples.
Few scholars today would agree with Irenaeus. We cannot verify who actually wrote any of these accounts, and many scholars agree that the disciples themselves are not likely to be their authors. [...]
What, then, do these texts say, and why did certain leaders find them so threatening?
First, they suggest that the way to God can be found by anyone who seeks. According to the Gospel of Thomas, Jesus suggests that when we come to know ourselves at the deepest level, we come to know God: "If you bring forth what is within you, what you bring forth will save you.'' This message -- to seek for oneself -- was not one that bishops like Irenaeus appreciated: Instead, he insisted, one must come to God through the church, "outside of which,'' he said,
"there is no salvation.''
Second, in texts that the bishops called "heresy,'' Jesus appears as human, yet one through whom the light of God now shines. So, according to the Gospel of Thomas, Jesus said, "I am the light that is before all things; I am all things; all things come forth from me; all things return to me. Split a piece of wood, and I am there; lift up a rock, and you will find me there.'' To Irenaeus, the thought of the divine energy manifested through all creation, even rocks and logs, sounded dangerously like pantheism. People might end up thinking that they could be like Jesus themselves and, in fact, the Gospel of Philip says, "Do not seek to become a Christian, but
a Christ.'' [...]
Worst of all, perhaps, was that many of these secret texts speak of God not only in masculine images, but also in feminine images. The Secret Book of John tells how the disciple John, grieving after Jesus was crucified, suddenly saw a vision of a brilliant light, from which he heard Jesus' voice speaking to him: "John, John, why do you weep? Don't you recognize who I am? I am the Father; I am the Mother; and I am the Son.'' After a moment of shock, John realizes that the divine Trinity includes not only Father and Son but also the divine Mother, which John sees as the Holy Spirit, the feminine manifestation of the divine.
- – Elaine Pagels, Perspective
2 comments:
"Worst of all, perhaps, was that many of these secret texts speak of God not only in masculine images, but also in feminine images."
Of all people, Elaine should be realize that there are numerous references to female aspects of God in both the Old Testament and New Testament. This is just lazy. The Septuagint includes an entire book where Wisdom is referred to as a female PERSON of God. The New Testament itself even has several references to Sophia as-a-person (see Luke 11:49). But even if there weren't a single biblical mention of the feminine, the feminine still resurfaces. The preponderance of the Mary the Mother of God cult within Catholicism and the Magdalene craze of France (going strong since 300AD) should demonstrate that the divine feminine has not been conspiratorially squirreled away, but transformed into different expressions over time. JP2's devotion to the divine feminine was so strong that many Protestants called him a pagan. I don't think it's fair to make this accusation that Brown made, and now Elaine Pagels, because it ignores VERY relevant context, and is starting to reek more and more of pop-culture conspiracy-mongering than anything else.
In another part of the article Elaine hits on the REAL conspiracy (what, did you think I was just going to bitch the whole time?). If God has anything to do with the physical Universe in front of us, the Church doesn't have a monopoly on God, and doesn't have anything to hold over our heads. It is worthless to think of the motivations of the modern church this way, but the ancient and medieval churches were very interested in keeping political control, and would have suppressed these ideas to do so.
But "The Church neutered the divine feminine?" That ignores too much context.
I agree with "sparkwidget". Furthermore, the teaching of "theosis" has been around in the Eastern Churches since the beginning, so it's not as if this is a revolutionary concept here. Granted the Western Churches have lost much of this, but they are taking cues from the East (and perhaps from the Mormons too) that people want more than a weekly liturgy and all the Aquinas you can eat!
Post a Comment