The Nag Hammadi Library

[Ilias Ahmad]

Or is it saying that the physical Jesus was crucified, but the spiritual one was not?

"He whom you saw on the tree, glad and laughing, this is the living Jesus. But this one into whose hands and feet they drive the nails is his fleshly part, which is the substitute being put to shame, the one who came into being in his likeness. But look at him and me."

Jesus calls the person being crucified on the cross as a substitute being put to shame, and he says that this substitute came into being in his likeness. This clearly and undoubtedly shows that the substitute was not the physical body of Jesus, but an entirely different person. If the substitute was the "physical" Jesus why Jesus says it came to being in his likeness and why does he say it is being put to shame?

 

[UnityNow101]

This clearly and undoubtedly shows that the substitute was not the physical body of Jesus, but an entirely different person.

Only if you take the Nag Hammadi scriptures to be as authoritative as the Christian Canon. I don't believe that any one of them has more authority, but I know that there are some Orthodox Christians that would challenge your claim that this passage is the proof that someone else was substituted for Jesus on the cross...

 

[Ilias Ahmad]

Only if you take the Nag Hammadi scriptures to be as authoritative as the Christian Canon. I don't believe that any one of them has more authority, but I know that there are some Orthodox Christians that would challenge your claim that this passage is the proof that someone else was substituted for Jesus on the cross...

I don't see any reason why the so called "synoptic gospels" should be considered more authoritative than the apocalypse of peter for example. This is the essential problem with Christianity, they cannot change the historical fact that the so called early church compiled a canon very subjectively, whichever books seemed to agree with their established theology were included, and whichever didn't were excluded. The compilation of a canon was a direct result of Constantine's order to Eusebius. They needed a fixed book to "standardize" the religion and make the mass-conversion of pagan gentiles in the Roman empire to christianity easier.

 

[UnityNow101]

I agree. I am just saying that that passage in no way proves that there was a substitute for Jesus upon the cross..

 

[Ilias Ahmad]

I agree. I am just saying that that passage in no way proves that there was a substitute for Jesus upon the cross..

That is fine. But when I read it I initially thought this is very interesting. The reason is that for 1400 years, Islam has made the claim that Jesus was not crucified, but it only appeared to his enemies that he was crucified, because God put the resemblance of Jesus on another person, who was crucified in Jesus' place. And for 1400 years, the Christians have mocked Islam because of this. They say, "What is the basis for such a belief?". They consider it something totally out of the blue. Than the Nag Hammadi documents are discovered in modern times, documents that Prophet Muhammad (sallallahu alaihi wa salam) had no access to. One of them claims that Jesus wasn't crucified, but lo and behold, there was a substitute put on the cross instead having his resemblance. I just find it very hard to believe that it is a mere coincidence.

 

[sandandfoam]

That is fine. But when I read it I initially thought this is very interesting. The reason is that for 1400 years, Islam has made the claim that Jesus was not crucified, but it only appeared to his enemies that he was crucified, because God put the resemblance of Jesus on another person, who was crucified in Jesus' place. And for 1400 years, the Christians have mocked Islam because of this. They say, "What is the basis for such a belief?". They consider it something totally out of the blue. Than the Nag Hammadi documents are discovered in modern times, documents that Prophet Muhammad (sallallahu alaihi wa salam) had no access to. One of them claims that Jesus wasn't crucified, but lo and behold, there was a substitute put on the cross instead having his resemblance. I just find it very hard to believe that it is a mere coincidence.

Does it necessarily follow that because Muhammad have had no access to the works buried at Nag Hammadi that he wasn't aware of Christian gnostic thought and the 'bodiless spirit' of gnostic tradition?
Could you tell me where in the Koran to look about the crucifiction so I can read it in an on-line version?

 

[Ilias Ahmad]

Does it necessarily follow that because Muhammad have had no access to the works buried at Nag Hammadi that he wasn't aware of Christian gnostic thought and the 'bodiless spirit' of gnostic tradition?
Could you tell me where in the Koran to look about the crucifiction so I can read it in an on-line version?

As far as I know, the Christians that our Prophet (sallallahu alaihi wa salam) was in contact with or whom he primarily knew about were the trinitarian orthodox type. Of course at that time the Eastern-Western schism hadn't occurred yet, and gnosticism was all but dead.

The Qur'an speaks about the story of Jesus, particularly the crucifixion episode in detail in chapter 3 and chapter 4. You can read Qur'an online with three different English translations at this website

I will quote the relevant part:

That they said (in boast), "We killed Christ Jesus the son of Mary, the Messenger of Allah; but they killed him not, nor crucified him, but so it was made to appear to them, and those who differ therein are full of doubts, with no (certain) knowledge, but only conjecture to follow, for of a surety they killed him not.
Nay, Allah raised him up unto Himself; and Allah is Exalted in Power, Wise
(Holy Qur'an, 4:157-158)

 

[sandandfoam]

As far as I know, the Christians that our Prophet (sallallahu alaihi wa salam) was in contact with or whom he primarily knew about were the trinitarian orthodox type. Of course at that time the Eastern-Western schism hadn't occurred yet, and gnosticism was all but dead.

The Qur'an speaks about the story of Jesus, particularly the crucifixion episode in detail in chapter 3 and chapter 4. You can read Qur'an online with three different English translations at this website

I will quote the relevant part:

That they said (in boast), "We killed Christ Jesus the son of Mary, the Messenger of Allah; but they killed him not, nor crucified him, but so it was made to appear to them, and those who differ therein are full of doubts, with no (certain) knowledge, but only conjecture to follow, for of a surety they killed him not.
Nay, Allah raised him up unto Himself; and Allah is Exalted in Power, Wise
(Holy Qur'an, 4:157-158)

Thanks, that is interesting.
The Christian gnostics whose thought that I was particularly wondering about Muhammad having knowledge of were the Mandaeans. I don't know what they say on the subject. But I'd like to find out.

 

[sandandfoam]

That is fine. But when I read it I initially thought this is very interesting. The reason is that for 1400 years, Islam has made the claim that Jesus was not crucified, but it only appeared to his enemies that he was crucified, because God put the resemblance of Jesus on another person, who was crucified in Jesus' place. And for 1400 years, the Christians have mocked Islam because of this. They say, "What is the basis for such a belief?". They consider it something totally out of the blue. Than the Nag Hammadi documents are discovered in modern times, documents that Prophet Muhammad (sallallahu alaihi wa salam) had no access to. One of them claims that Jesus wasn't crucified, but lo and behold, there was a substitute put on the cross instead having his resemblance. I just find it very hard to believe that it is a mere coincidence.

I was thinking more about this. I think the evidence (outside religious texts - Tacitus and Josephus) is that the historical Jesus was crucified
I think the treatise "that the name of the Father is the Son, which is to be understood in the esoteric manner that the Son is the name, rather than as meaning that Son was a name for the Father." (wiki) is evidence against a literal interpretation of the resurrection in the text.
Taken in a non-literal context the passage you quote from the Quoran is very interesting.
I don't think it was a "stand in" that was crucified and resurrected, it was a name or a spirit that the Gospel of Truth is talking about being resurrected. Physical resurrection makes no sense to me. I understand some gnostics called the literal view of the resurrection the 'faith of fools' (The Gnostic Gospels (Pagels), p.41). The idea that the resurrection symbolizes how Christ's presence can be experienced in the present makes a lot more sense to me.

 

[Orontes]

As far as I know, the Christians that our Prophet (sallallahu alaihi wa salam) was in contact with or whom he primarily knew about were the trinitarian orthodox type. Of course at that time the Eastern-Western schism hadn't occurred yet, and gnosticism was all but dead.

The Qur'an speaks about the story of Jesus, particularly the crucifixion episode in detail in chapter 3 and chapter 4. You can read Qur'an online with three different English translations at this website

I will quote the relevant part:

That they said (in boast), "We killed Christ Jesus the son of Mary, the Messenger of Allah; but they killed him not, nor crucified him, but so it was made to appear to them, and those who differ therein are full of doubts, with no (certain) knowledge, but only conjecture to follow, for of a surety they killed him not.
Nay, Allah raised him up unto Himself; and Allah is Exalted in Power, Wise
(Holy Qur'an, 4:157-158)

Hello,

Actually Christians Muhammad most likely would have had any contact with would have been Nestorian Christians and Miaphysite Christians. Both groups had loyalty outside the Easter Roman Empire and Miaphysitism was quite strong across the Southern Levant and Egypt (as it is today).

The Quranic verse you quote is often taken to suggest Muhammad also encountered or knew of Docetist Christians.

 

[sandandfoam]

The Quranic verse you quote is often taken to suggest Muhammad also encountered or know of Docetist Christians.

I took it from wiki that the Docetist Christians were gnostic. Is that correct?

 

[angellous_evangellous]

I was reading in the introduction to Elaine Pagels 'The Gnostic Gospels' today that the British scholar of Buddhism, Edward Conze suggests that the Hindu or Buddhist tradition had an influence on gnosticism. It quotes him(p.19) as saying 'Buddhists were in touch with the Thomas Christians in South India".
She says that the title of the Gospel of Thomas, may indicate the influence of Indian tradition(p.20), and she also mentions that Buddhist missionaries had been proselytizing in Alexandria at around the time gnosticism flourished.
I don't know nearly enough to attempt to debate the point. But I'd be interested to know your opinion of what Elaine Pagels wrote.

Well, first I would say that you're consulting a fabulous resource in Pagels. I also suggest Karen King.

I don't agree with both of these scholars on everything, but their opinions are well-received and respected... but not without scrutiny and corrections by many others.

Proving that Buddhism has some contact with Thomas Christianity would be exceptionally difficult considering:

1) We don't know the history of Thomas Christianity

2) We can hardly define what Gnosticism is and therefore situate this history within Gnosticism

3) What we do know about Gnosticism is that it is highly eclectic, drawing from many sources. Once these sources intersect within Gnosticism, it becomes something different, which greatly hinders the positive location of earlier influence.

4) The precise history of Buddhism would need to be examined - it's not enough to know that Buddhists were in Alexandria, we would need to know what they taught and when... because the Buddhists could have been influenced by a common earlier source and independently came up with parallel teachings.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

You seem overly sure of that.

Well, I'm reasonably confident that this is the best answer to the question given what I've read...

 

[wvpeach]

I'm going through The Nag Hammadi Library for my first time. So far I've readThe Apocryphon of James, The Gospel of Truth, and The Treatise on The Resurrection. It's fascinating.
There's a lot in there.
I'd like to talk to some of you who are familiar with it as I'm going through it in order that I might:-( a) pick up what I'd otherwise miss on my own, and( b) improve my understanding of what I do pick up.
Anyone like to discuss it?

Count me in.

What are you reading now?

 

[sandandfoam]

Count me in.

What are you reading now?

Excellent !
I'm reading the Treatise on the Resurrection at the minute.

 

[sandandfoam]

I've been going through 'The Treatise on the Resurrection' this evening. The world is an illusion. Nothing redeems us from it, and we are already in a resurrected state.
I like it.

 

[Orontes]

I took it from wiki that the Docetist Christians were gnostic. Is that correct?

Hello,

There were many different Gnostic Movements. Docetism was part of some Gnostic groups, but it wasn't necessarily only restricted to Gnostic belief.

 

[sandandfoam]

Started on the 'Tripartite Tractate' today.
Like most of what I've read so far, this is really clicking with me. The idea of an unbegotten God that is 'unknowable', 'inconceivable', 'ineffable', and 'untouchable' clicks.
The book says that none of the names conceived or spoken of the Father, or the single one, applies to him, rather these names give him glory in accordance with the capacity of each of those who give him glory - that really struck me as brilliant.

 

[Halcyon]

I was thinking more about this. I think the evidence (outside religious texts - Tacitus and Josephus) is that the historical Jesus was crucified
I think the treatise "that the name of the Father is the Son, which is to be understood in the esoteric manner that the Son is the name, rather than as meaning that Son was a name for the Father." (wiki) is evidence against a literal interpretation of the resurrection in the text.
Taken in a non-literal context the passage you quote from the Quoran is very interesting.
I don't think it was a "stand in" that was crucified and resurrected, it was a name or a spirit that the Gospel of Truth is talking about being resurrected. Physical resurrection makes no sense to me. I understand some gnostics called the literal view of the resurrection the 'faith of fools' (The Gnostic Gospels (Pagels), p.41). The idea that the resurrection symbolizes how Christ's presence can be experienced in the present makes a lot more sense to me.

The laughing Jesus is the Christ/Logos, he cannot be destroyed but the fleshy material Jesus can be. He's laughing because the people think they have killed him, but they cannot kill the living Christ, only the physical shell. So, Jesus the man was crucified according to most Gnostic traditions, but the Christ was not. It's not really the same thing as the Islamic teaching.

Started on the 'Tripartite Tractate' today.
Like most of what I've read so far, this is really clicking with me. The idea of an unbegotten God that is 'unknowable', 'inconceivable', 'ineffable', and 'untouchable' clicks.
The book says that none of the names conceived or spoken of the Father, or the single one, applies to him, rather these names give him glory in accordance with the capacity of each of those who give him glory - that really struck me as brilliant.

If you like that I suggest you check out Allogenes, it's along a similar vein.

 

[sandandfoam]

This 'Tripartite Tractate' is a great read.
"... the truth, since it is a unity and multiplicity, receives honour in the small and the great names according to the power of each to grasp it - by way of analogy -like a spring which is what it is''