Christian Gnosis
Active Member
Maybe not surprising, the last part, since I am a Gnostic 
I recently read the book Mere Christianity by CS Lewis, and I feel that to get the most out of it, I should explain in detail how it opened my mind to new perspectives. Firstly, the book re-opened my mind to something I have not considered in a long time- objective morality. Mr. Lewis was quite right in saying that objective morality must exist for all the obvious reasons, not just because we appeal to it in a pinch, but because we all believe our standard of morality is better then someone else's. We probably all believe, for example, that our morals are superior to that of the Nazis. To say that we appeal to objective morality, because we are in fact saying there is a higher morality that determines our morality to be more correct then that of the Nazis. Lewis also said some other things that intruiged me. He pointed out that Jesus does not really leave a person the space to believe he was just a man. To quote Lewis, if Jesus was just a man, and we believe him when he says he is meek and mild, then some of the things he said were far from meek or mild. He claimed he could forgive sins against God. That leaves us no space to say he was just a man. He was either God or extremely arrogant. I for my part accept Jesus was God, after all, I have no trouble accepting Krishna is God in human form, and if I can accept one, then I should have no trouble accepting the other. It would be very hypocritical to say Krishna's God claim is true, while saying Christ's was false. The last conclusion Mr. Lewis' book led me to is one I am not quite sure he would agree with, but he did inspire the idea in me, so here goes. He said that Christianity does not require that one accept a specific dogma about how Jesus' death reconciled people with God, only that one accepts it did. I am a person highly influenced by Gnostic thought, and the conclusion I have come to about the death of Jesus is so shocking an Orthodox Christian may not wish to read it. Jesus did not die as a sacrifice to his Father, after all, he said he desired mercy and not sacrifice, and secondly he said he only came for the lost house of Israel, so his sacrifice could not have been for all humanity at any rate. That is the first premise of my conclusion, that Jesus was not a sacrifice to his Father, and that the sacrifice he did make was only on Israel's behalf, by his own words. Now we move to my second premise. Jesus clearly taught that the law was wrong in certain regards, in his teachings about love your enemies and the like, but he also said it is easier for heaven and earth to pass away then for one letter to pass from the law. He was emphasizing just how powerful the law is over the people who had sworn themselves to it with curses. I am suggesting the most shocking thing one can imagine. Jesus sacrificed himself to redeem the Jews from the curse of the law, the very curse they had pronounced on their own heads in Deuteronomy when they bound themselves to Jehovah as their god. Since Jesus was the true God in human flesh, his sacrifice had the power to do this. The Gentiles had no need of this because they had never placed themselves under the law of Moses by the pronouncing of the curses. The manifestations of God to the Gentiles, among them Krishna, did not need to be a sacrifice to deliver the Hindus from the curse of the law, because the Hindus had never bound themselves to it. I am saying that the Gnostics were correct, that there was an evil entity that the Jews bound themselves to, and that God needed to die to redeem them from the curses of the law. I now understand where great minds like Marcion, Valentius, and Mani were coming from.
I recently read the book Mere Christianity by CS Lewis, and I feel that to get the most out of it, I should explain in detail how it opened my mind to new perspectives. Firstly, the book re-opened my mind to something I have not considered in a long time- objective morality. Mr. Lewis was quite right in saying that objective morality must exist for all the obvious reasons, not just because we appeal to it in a pinch, but because we all believe our standard of morality is better then someone else's. We probably all believe, for example, that our morals are superior to that of the Nazis. To say that we appeal to objective morality, because we are in fact saying there is a higher morality that determines our morality to be more correct then that of the Nazis. Lewis also said some other things that intruiged me. He pointed out that Jesus does not really leave a person the space to believe he was just a man. To quote Lewis, if Jesus was just a man, and we believe him when he says he is meek and mild, then some of the things he said were far from meek or mild. He claimed he could forgive sins against God. That leaves us no space to say he was just a man. He was either God or extremely arrogant. I for my part accept Jesus was God, after all, I have no trouble accepting Krishna is God in human form, and if I can accept one, then I should have no trouble accepting the other. It would be very hypocritical to say Krishna's God claim is true, while saying Christ's was false. The last conclusion Mr. Lewis' book led me to is one I am not quite sure he would agree with, but he did inspire the idea in me, so here goes. He said that Christianity does not require that one accept a specific dogma about how Jesus' death reconciled people with God, only that one accepts it did. I am a person highly influenced by Gnostic thought, and the conclusion I have come to about the death of Jesus is so shocking an Orthodox Christian may not wish to read it. Jesus did not die as a sacrifice to his Father, after all, he said he desired mercy and not sacrifice, and secondly he said he only came for the lost house of Israel, so his sacrifice could not have been for all humanity at any rate. That is the first premise of my conclusion, that Jesus was not a sacrifice to his Father, and that the sacrifice he did make was only on Israel's behalf, by his own words. Now we move to my second premise. Jesus clearly taught that the law was wrong in certain regards, in his teachings about love your enemies and the like, but he also said it is easier for heaven and earth to pass away then for one letter to pass from the law. He was emphasizing just how powerful the law is over the people who had sworn themselves to it with curses. I am suggesting the most shocking thing one can imagine. Jesus sacrificed himself to redeem the Jews from the curse of the law, the very curse they had pronounced on their own heads in Deuteronomy when they bound themselves to Jehovah as their god. Since Jesus was the true God in human flesh, his sacrifice had the power to do this. The Gentiles had no need of this because they had never placed themselves under the law of Moses by the pronouncing of the curses. The manifestations of God to the Gentiles, among them Krishna, did not need to be a sacrifice to deliver the Hindus from the curse of the law, because the Hindus had never bound themselves to it. I am saying that the Gnostics were correct, that there was an evil entity that the Jews bound themselves to, and that God needed to die to redeem them from the curses of the law. I now understand where great minds like Marcion, Valentius, and Mani were coming from.