Christ Above All

[Being]

Hi.

Are there any New Age thinkers here who believe in Christ as the highest or ultimate entity or experience? That is, you do not regard any generic "God" or other deity or divine entity above and beyond Christ? (Not even the "Heavenly Father" as a separate person, but instead as something like a divine principle.) Naturally, such a high Christology, or Ultimate Christology, or Absolute Christology, would differ from the orthodox, traditional, and conventional forms of Christianity.

If you do hold to, or believe in, such an Absolute Christology -- Christ Above All -- do you connect your view of Christ to the traditional character (literary person) of Jesus Christ (Jesus of Nazareth) in the canonical gospels, or also (or instead) to the character of Jesus Christ in the non-canonical gospels (gnostic, etc.)? You might also distinguish further between Jesus and Christ.

Who are some authors, theologians, philosophers, mystics, or other persons -- contemporary or historical -- who have inspired your views? Even if you have gone beyond or in different directions than they did in their views.

If you reply, please quote me, so I will receive an alert.

Thanks.
Peace,
Being

 

[pearl]

Rudolf Bultmann is one author who does distinguish between the historical Jesus and the Christ.


According to Rudolph Bultmann in order to maintain the proclamation of the gospel which transcends all ages and remain efficacious for all, the only method is demythologization, to extract timeless existential and metaphysical truths hidden in mythical scripture. After considering Gnosticism, Hellenistic Judaism, and mystery religions, Bultmann realized that the representations of the NT Christ found their genesis in Hellenistic thought. Bultmann reasoned that all of the NT documents--even the earliest--were mythical reconstructions of Jesus, synthesizing sayings which Jesus actually spoke and Greek ideas of a heavenly redeemer, a theological concept which Bultmann believed to pre-date Christianity since it could be found in Gnosticism. In explaining the transition 'from Jesus to Christ', Bultmann agred that the historical man named 'Jesus' was an eschatological Jewish prophet whose original disciples (A.D. 30's) knew him only as such, and whom the post-apostolic (non-apostolic Hellenistic church (late 1st cent) deified as the Son of God. Jesus proclaimed the Kingdom of God, the kerygma of the Hellenistic church proclaimed Jesus as the crucified and risen Christ. In other words Bultamn recognized the two predominating cultural influences which shaped each NT document; a, the historical Jesus dressed in, b, the mythical garb of the Gnostic "heavenly redeemer". When the early Christian church claimed to have objective concepts of God, they were in fact naively mistaken insofar as their worldview presupposed God as an object; "For God is not our mental construct, but the One who is "Wholly Other' than we. So, the question of how can one speak of the divine reality that is the "Wholly Other"?, for the ancients the answer was myth.

You might also distinguish further between Jesus and Christ.

I think that was done within the gospel itself if the high Christology of John is considered, gone are the kingdom parables etc.

The Christ of John's gospel does not belong to this world at all. The risen Christ is addressed as 'My Lord and My God"

 

[Being]

pcarl,
Thanks for reminding me of Bultmann's views. It's been many years since first encountered Bultmann's writings. That was back in bible college thirty years ago.

Peace,
Being

Rudolf Bultmann is one author who does distinguish between the historical Jesus and the Christ.


According to Rudolph Bultmann in order to maintain the proclamation of the gospel which transcends all ages and remain efficacious for all, the only method is demythologization, to extract timeless existential and metaphysical truths hidden in mythical scripture. After considering Gnosticism, Hellenistic Judaism, and mystery religions, Bultmann realized that the representations of the NT Christ found their genesis in Hellenistic thought. Bultmann reasoned that all of the NT documents--even the earliest--were mythical reconstructions of Jesus, synthesizing sayings which Jesus actually spoke and Greek ideas of a heavenly redeemer, a theological concept which Bultmann believed to pre-date Christianity since it could be found in Gnosticism. In explaining the transition 'from Jesus to Christ', Bultmann agred that the historical man named 'Jesus' was an eschatological Jewish prophet whose original disciples (A.D. 30's) knew him only as such, and whom the post-apostolic (non-apostolic Hellenistic church (late 1st cent) deified as the Son of God. Jesus proclaimed the Kingdom of God, the kerygma of the Hellenistic church proclaimed Jesus as the crucified and risen Christ. In other words Bultamn recognized the two predominating cultural influences which shaped each NT document; a, the historical Jesus dressed in, b, the mythical garb of the Gnostic "heavenly redeemer". When the early Christian church claimed to have objective concepts of God, they were in fact naively mistaken insofar as their worldview presupposed God as an object; "For God is not our mental construct, but the One who is "Wholly Other' than we. So, the question of how can one speak of the divine reality that is the "Wholly Other"?, for the ancients the answer was myth.





I think that was done within the gospel itself if the high Christology of John is considered, gone are the kingdom parables etc.

The Christ of John's gospel does not belong to this world at all. The risen Christ is addressed as 'My Lord and My God"

 

[Desert Snake]

Hi, that fairly accurately describes my beliefs. I don't take it to some extreme of philosophical separation between the 'father' aspect and Jesus, though, if that makes any sense. I don't think the idea of a more separated Godhead is ''wrong'', basically; just not how I view the aspects (of the Godhead.

 

[Desert Snake]

Hi.

Are there any New Age thinkers here who believe in Christ as the highest or ultimate entity or experience? That is, you do not regard any generic "God" or other deity or divine entity above and beyond Christ? (Not even the "Heavenly Father" as a separate person, but instead as something like a divine principle.) Naturally, such a high Christology, or Ultimate Christology, or Absolute Christology, would differ from the orthodox, traditional, and conventional forms of Christianity.

Ok, not sure I totally agree there. Although it is different from the 'formal' church ideas to an extent, I do believe it has always been a legitimate viewpoint that is still within the parameters of "Chrisitianity", if one wishes to identify as such. This belief is, in my opinion, actually backed by straight Scripture, and tradition, even. //Tradition separated to an extent from church writings//.

If you do hold to, or believe in, such an Absolute Christology -- Christ Above All -- do you connect your view of Christ to the traditional character (literary person) of Jesus Christ (Jesus of Nazareth) in the canonical gospels, or also (or instead) to the character of Jesus Christ in the non-canonical gospels (gnostic, etc.)? You might also distinguish further between Jesus and Christ.

Yes, I do 'connect' the character in the canon to Jesus the Deity, though, to be expected, how and in what role/capacity, differs of course from most Christian ideas in some regards.

Who are some authors, theologians, philosophers, mystics, or other persons -- contemporary or historical -- who have inspired your views? Even if you have gone beyond or in different directions than they did in their views.

My interest in things that might relate to religion tend to be anything that can be part of theological ideas, (literally anything), and the Bible.

If you reply, please quote me, so I will receive an alert.

Thanks.
Peace,
Being

Another way to alert someone is to do the ''at'' symbol, and their username. Like this: @Being

 

[Being]

Ok, not sure I totally agree there. Although it is different from the 'formal' church ideas to an extent, I do believe it has always been a legitimate viewpoint that is still within the parameters of "Chrisitianity", if one wishes to identify as such. This belief is, in my opinion, actually backed by straight Scripture, and tradition, even. //Tradition separated to an extent from church writings//.

Hi. Thanks for replying. If you read my original post again, you will see that I used the word "differ" also, as you do. I never implied that the Christology I described was illegitimate. If you read my OP again, you might notice that I was actually suggesting that the Christology I described is "legitimate," as you state. I didn't state it overtly, but I implied it.

Another way to alert someone is to do the ''at'' symbol, and their username. Like this: @Being

Thanks for that info.
I have to deal with some offline matters and don't know when I'll be able to check this thread again. But thanks again for your reply.

 

[Desert Snake]

Hi. Thanks for replying. If you read my original post again, you will see that I used the word "differ" also, as you do. I never implied that the Christology I described was illegitimate. If you read my OP again, you might notice that I was actually suggesting that the Christology I described is "legitimate," as you state. I didn't state it overtly, but I implied it.

Right. I couldn't tell, but figured as much. The ''disagree' part was more theoretical in nature; if that was actually your view, then ''disagree'.

Thanks for that info.
I have to deal with some offline matters and don't know when I'll be able to check this thread again. But thanks again for your reply.

Okie dokie.

 

[Being]

From the Johannine point of view, how would you understand the relationship between Logos and Spirit? It seems like you are viewing John's theology almost entirely through the lens of Logos, but it was also John's gospel in which Jesus said that it was good for us that he (the Logos) is going away, so that the Spirit would come. I'm curious what your thoughts are.

@well named

Following is a condensing of my post on the other thread (Aum and Logos), with some added comments here.

Hello. That's a fascinating question. I have done some thinking on the what the Logos of God is, from a biblical POV and a mystical POV. Jesus sending the Spirit (whom Paul calls "the Spirit of Christ") may be the manifestation of this nous or the Logos in the believer.

I will tell you in advance that my Christology had evolved to transcend Theology. That is, I was no longer Trinitarian in my views. I came to understand "Christ Above All" (including Christ Above God) and "Christ In All."

(As I mentioned previously) I'm not interested in debating anything. I'm just curious about other people's views that are non-typical.

Now, you mention that I was viewing John's theology primarily through the lens of Logos. I think my comments on the other thread gave that impression because Logos was that thread's OP topic. Actually, I probably view John's Christology in terms of Spirit moreso than Logos.

So, why did Jesus say it was good for us that he is going away, so that the Spirit would come? First, I do not believe that Jesus in his incarnation is the totality of the Logos. His incarnation is an expression of the Logos. And the Spirit is an expression of the Logos. The physical incarnation of Jesus was constrained by laws of Nature. However, Spirit is preternatural (different from supernatural, which conveys a mythological sense). Spirit precedes the material, transcends the material. So, Christ in the Spirit would be able to be more effective than Jesus the physical incarnation could be.

Jesus also said that the Spirit is himself. Did he mean himself the Logos? Or was this the Christ Spirit in Jesus speaking of himself (Christ) coming as the Spirit of Truth? If so, then is the Spirit of Truth (whom Paul calls "the Spirit of Christ") the nous of the Logos, or the Logos? In other words, is the Spirit an attribute or aspect (self-awareness) of the Logos? Or is the Logos by its nature innately self-aware, such that the Logos and its self-awareness are essentially the same and any such distinction between them is grammatical only; that is, the nous of the Logos is the being-of-the-being. That is, the Logos is basically dead, or at least impotent or sterile, without nous. Thus, it is the Spirit that is Life. The Word is nothing without Spirit. They are innately inseparable. Logos defines the Spirit as Truth; the Spirit of Truth is the essence of Logos. Jesus says that his words are spirit and life. (The Christ speaking.)

Also, I view the Logos/Word as being the Mind of God. As such, the Logos -- and the nous of the Logos -- is the self-awareness of God. So, the Logos makes God, God. There is no God without Logos. The Logos is therefore the self-identity of God as "God." And the nous, manifest as the Spirit, is actually the true "I Am." So, in Jesus, it is the Christ Spirit who is the true "I Am."

Also, I do not believe the OT god, YHWH (Yahweh Elohim) is the true deity. I acknowledge the Gnostic view that YHWH is the evil Demiurge, a false deity, and a usurper who burdened and antagonized Humanity, and kept them enslaved with (Mosaic) religion. The Heavenly Father (HF), whom Christ revealed, is the true Deity of light, life, and love. But I do not view the HF as a supernatural being. The HF is the true God (but not understood in a religious sense; rather in a spiritual sense of divine essence). And the Mind (Logos) of the HF is Christ, the Spirit of Truth.

So, the self-identity of the HF, the true Deity, is Christ. That is, essentially, Christ is God, the only God. All other entities, including YHWH, are false, evil, deceptive, and enemies of Humanity. I do not view Christ as claiming to be the god of the OT. Rather, I view Christ's appropriation of divine names, titles, and attributes as his reclaiming -- or, actually his revealing -- that he is the true Deity. Christ, speaking through Jesus, actually condemns the Mosaic religion instituted by YHWH. Christ calls the adherents of YHWH's religion "children of your father the devil." So, Christ calls YHWH the devil. And anyone reading the OT honestly will see that YHWH (Yahweh Elohim) is in fact a devil of devils.

I stopped openly believing in the trinity nearly twenty years ago (in my mid-30s). Also, I have since (in more recent years) deconverted from Christianity as a religion and belief system. So, with all that said, I am now a Humanist (and was always becoming a Humanist), and very Jungian in my thinking. I regard the Deity/Divine, and all the gods, demigods, angels, devils, etc. as archetypal manifestations from the Collective Unsconscious into the subconscious of the Human psyche. And I view the Christ, or Spirit of Truth, as the Human mind evolving to Truth beyond religion.

In that sense, Christ represents the perfecting (integrating) of the Self. Christ is the Perfect Self. Jung called the highest Archetype the "Aion" and viewed Christ as the model or expression of this Aion, or Highest Self, the fully individuated person. And I believe we must step beyond even the persona of Christ, so that we may step beyond dualism to unity, or Oneness. Viewing Christ -- or by whatever name or terminolgy one views the awakening into truth -- as Other, is dualism and a dysfunctional view of reality and of self. The only view that leads to psychological wholeness and integration is Unity or Oneness.

Again, I'm aware that everyone has his or her own view of all this. I don't expect or try to persuade anyone to understand or agree with my view. This is what has worked for me thus far.

(Maybe this topic fits better in the Gnostic DIR. However, it isn't quite the regular Gnostic view. New Age seems more open to various views.)

Peace,
Being