Return to the Home Page | Translate this Page
Religious Ideas worth killing your Church Believers
The Study of Dissent in the Early Christian Church
presented by Robert D. Mock MD
to the Forum on Creation and Ancient History
May 4, 2000
“The Trinity as an Orthodox Doctrinal Creed”
A unique feature in the progression of the early Christian thought was the addition of feminine symbolism in the description of God. Alone of all religions, Judaism, Christianity and Islam are remarkable in the absence of any form of a female deity. These three also officially affirm that God not share His power with a female divinity or associated with a female consort. Obviously some scholars and archeologists will argue with that statement. What is found in the official canon compiled by Ezra the scribe, is not always what is found in the archeological strata or in mystical Judaism. Small images to Ashterat, the consort of Jehovah have raised consternation in the minds of fundamental Christians. Mystical Judaism also abound with the concepts of a unity of masculinity and femininity in the Unity of the Godhead.
Yet within these three cultures, there is one common element, the masculine symbols abound. It is the nature of the Hebrew language that every noun, with few exceptions, is referred in either masculine or feminine gender. Yahweh (usually referred to as ‘Adonai’ or Lord) and Elohim (called ‘God’) are in the masculine gender. The pronoun for God is always in the masculine gender and the verbs with all have masculine or feminine genders are all used as the masculine gender. (Baring, Anne and Jules Cashfor, The Myst of the Goddess, Arkana, Penquin Books, 375 Hudson Street, New York, NY10014, 1991 p. 439) The exception we will see in a few minutes is in reference to the Holy Spirit.
Take Hebrew descriptions of God. Though He may be the Unseen, the Almighty, and the Hidden God, yet descriptions such as Lord, Master, King, Father, Judge, Lord of Hosts, Master of the Universe, Our Father in Heaven, all depict masculine characteristics. They were all used to depict the characteristics of God as a Person. This concept is so engraved into the psychic of western theology that it is fundamental to our thought and language even though it would be a ‘graven image’ to depict God as such a being.
Before we get to hasty though, Patai, did a very informative study on The Hebrew Goddess, through out the Old Testament period. The most hidden symbols of feminine divinity, according to Patai, were the cherubim. Though graven images were forbidden in the post-exilic Hebrew culture, the major exception was the cherubim who set in the Ark of the Covenant in the desert tabernacle. They were reminiscent of the Genesis cherubim placed by Yahweh at the east of the Garden, ‘to keep the way of the tree of life’ (Gen. 3:24). They seem to carry the same meaning as the cherubim in Assyria, Syria, and even Isis and Nephthys shielding the sarcophagus of the Tutankhamum. They were the guardians of the Mysteries of God.
In the Solomonic Temple, two large cherubim stood over the ark. They were fifteen feet high and they had a combined wing-span of thirty feet. The walls were covered with graven cherubim, palm trees and open flowers in gold. (I Kings 6:29) According to Patai, ‘”The cherubim in the Holy of Holies of the Second Temple symbolized the male and female aspects of Yahweh the one and only god.” (Baring, Anne and Jules Cashfor, Ibid. 453)
One of the most beautiful portrayals of cherubim was discovered in the restored ivory plaque that was found in the Palace of Ahab in Samaria (c. 870 BC), the capital of Israel.
It was the early Christians who added the Trinitarian idea to the concept of God. This included a Father figure, a male Son figure, and a sexless gender in the Holy Spirit, which stems from the Greek work, pneuma, which is a neuter noun.
It was the Gnostics writers, especially those who lived in Alexandria, who used, on the other hand, terms and descriptions using sexual symbolism to describe God. Patrists, scholars of the writings of the Church Fathers, will agree that instead of pagan imagery of the Mother Goddess, these writings did express more of the mystical Jewish tradition.
Three predominate themes seems to be expressed in the Gnostic gospels:
1) God is a dyad, described in both masculo-feminine terms,
2) The Holy Spirit is described as the divine Mother or the feminine aspect of God,
and
3) The divine Mother is described as Wisdom.
They began expressing the character of God as a ‘dyad’. This was a dual image of God, two images, using both masculine and feminine symbols in describing God, using such images as Father and Mother.
It was the Egyptian poet, Valentinus, teaching in Rome, who taught that God is not describable, but human imagery of God would be most appropriately expressed as a dyad, “consisting, in one part, of the Ineffable, the Depth, the Primal Father, and , in the other, of Grace, Silence, the Womb and “Mother of the All” (Pagels, Elaine, The Gnostic Gospels, Vintage Books, New York, 1979, 1987 pg 50) One would have to think of the implications if Valentinus had been elected as Bishop of Rome instead of Pius I in 140 AD. Within ten years, Valentinus was expelled from Rome, and authoritarian and autocratic control of the Roman bishopric was sealed.
One of the writings condemned by Hippolytus in his Refutations of All Heresies, was the Great Announcement, which stated that from the Universal power Silence, appeared “a great power, the Mind of the Universe, which manages all things, and is a male…the other…a great Intelligence… is a female which produces all things.” (Hippolytus, Refutation, 6.18)
The Gnostic borrowed heavily from the ancient Jewish sources on the creation of Adam. This original Adam of Genesis 1, was described as an androgynous being, both male and female. To the Gnostic, the “Image of God’ in which Adam was made was because God was androgynous, God the Mother and God the Father.
It was the Gnostic, Theodotus, who explained the saying that in the image of God, he made them male and female means, that “the male and female elements together constitute the finest production of the Mother, Wisdom.” (Clemens Alexandrinus, EXERPTA,21.1)
How did the Gnostic believe in the unity of a Mother and a Father God where the Orthodox believed the deity to be uniquely male? According to Baring and Cashford, who wrote a substantial 782 page book on the “Myth of the Goddess”, from the Palaeolithic-Neolithic Mother Goddess to Mary, Queen of Heaven, the break comes in the translation from Hebrew and Greek languages to the Latin and other Romance languages. “The aspect of the godhead as Holy Spirit – as Hokhmah and Sophia – was feminine in Hebrew and Greek until it became assimilated to the masculine concept of Logos, and then to the Latin, Spiritus Sanctus, which also had a masculine gender.” (Baring, Anne and Jules Cashfor, The Myst of the Goddess, Arkana, Penquin Books, 375 Hudson Street, New York, NY10014, 1991 p. 628)
It was the Gnostics in the Jerusalem Church, the Jewish Gnostics, who sought to restore balance to the Judaic-Christian masculine God. They described the Primal Source, the Unknowing God, as a unity of male and female, which emanated into a hierarchy of divine beings or lower dimensional energies. These were all androgynous, reflecting the Monotheistic God, and became mediators between the unmanifested spiritual world and the manifested material world. (Baring, Anne and Jules Cashfor, Ibidm 628))
In Hippolytus’ Refutations, this original Adam reflected the ‘image’ of the Creator. Therefore this divine Source as a “Bisexual Power,” and that “what came into being from that Power – that is, humanity, being one – is discovered to be two: a male-female being that bears the female within it.” (Hippolytus, Refutation, 6.18) Let us face the fact, Hippolytus was not accepting this concept. This was heresy.
For that fact, anything religious idea that was Jewish was now viewed as heresy, at this time. A Christian in this era did not want to be recognized as having anything to do with the Jewish faith. This was the fertile grounds in which the ideas that the Law (Torah) had been done away with, swept away by the redeeming power of the risen Christ, who died in the flesh, and rose in the flesh. By 230 AD, the concept of One God, one church, one faith, one bishop was being firmly instilled in the consciousness of “true Christians”.
The Sefirot and the Creation of Man.
Mystical Jews on the other hand were willing to describe the characteristics of God. They did not describe God as having separate parts or separate beings, but rather these were attributes or characteristics of God. This is seen in the fundamental description of Sefforah.
These were the ten aspects or characteristics of God. These were the divine emanations from God. The top three, Crown or Kingship (Keter), Wisdom (Hokhmah) and Understanding (Binah), God reserves for himself. He may bestow or take away these characteristics to any human as he pleases. Rulership or Kingship was the dominion of God. A king or an emperor, according to the mystical Jew, only gained right to his power and authority by the Will of God. As such, Nebuchadnezzar, Cyrus, Alexander the Great and even Bill Clinton were agents for the Divine. The bottom seven characteristics or emanations from God were for man to learn and use. These characteristics were for both male and female to embody in their lives.
God, the Holy Spirit, as the female counterpart of God.
When certain Gnostics described God and the Father, Mother and Son, we must assume it was an earlier description of what eventually became the orthodox version of the Trinity of God. In this place, the God the Mother and the Holy Spirit are the same. The gnostic gospel, Secret Book, actually specifies that instead of the Greek, Holy Spirit in which the neuter term, pneuma is used for spirit, the Gnostics must refer back to a more ancient source for spirit, found in the Torah account of Genesis 1.
Here in the Genesis account, we find the Creator God, defined in the masculine sense, ‘formed man out the dust of the ground’, once again using masculine verbs. Yet when God breathed in his (Adam’s) nostril, the Breath (Spirit) of God, Hebrew word, ruah, or Spirit, is in fact stated in the feminine tense. In this sense, the agent for the creation of man is the Spirit, ruah. Though, the act of creation was initiated by a masculine God, it could not be acted upon without the feminine creative principle of the Holy Spirit. What we see is the unity in the act and purpose of the Divinity. It would be easy to accept on the human level that before a child could be born, the human male is pretty helpless without the unifying creative agent of a woman.
The Gospel to the Hebrews, links Jesus to stating these words, “my Mother, the Spirit.”(Gospel to the Hebrews, cited in Origin, COMM. JO, 2:12.
It is the Gospel of Philip, which states that when one becomes a Christian, they also now have “both father and mother” (Gospel of Philip, 52.24, in NHL 132) ) emphasizing that the Spirit (ruah) is “Mother of many.” (Gospel of Philip, 59.35-60.1, in NHL 132)
The third aspect is the fascinating concept of Wisdom, known as Sophia, as one with God from the beginning of time. Wisdom writers referred back to the fascinating texts in Proverbs 8 which, according to Christians theologians, define the preexistence of Christ prior to the Creation of the World. Let’s look at this text.
“Wisdom is calling!
Understanding is raising her voice!…
“Listen! I will say worthwhile things:
When I speak, my words are right….
“I, wisdom, live together with caution;
I attain knowledge and discretion….
“Adonai made me as the beginning of his way.
The first of his ancient works.
I was appointed before the world.
Before the start, before the earth’s beginnings.
When I was brought forth, there were no ocean depths,
No springs brimming with water….
“When he established the heavens, I was there,
When he drew the horizon’s circle on the deep,
“I was with him as someone he could trust.
For me, every day was pure delight
As I played in his presence all the time,.
Playing everywhere on his earth,
And delighting to be with humankind.
(Proverbs (Mishlei) 8:1,6,12,22-24,27,30-31. Tanakh)
Trying to analyze the concept of the Wisdom Creator depicts several different variations to the modern understanding of Jesus and God. Most Christians today would see the above text as depicting the pre-existence of Jesus, as the Only Begotten of the Father and the First Born Son of God. Modern Christians today can discuss for hours on how to retain the full divinity of Jesus and still conceptually utilize such metaphors as ‘begotten’, ‘first born’, ‘created’, ‘made me’ and ‘appointed me’. It was as though if Jesus’ had a beginning, or was created, we must conceptually deny him divinity. Do we not believe that Divinity cannot have a beginning? “I am the Beginning and the End, the Alpha and the Omega.”
The orthodox and the Gnostics fought seriously over this subject. The reason being, they both had abandoned their Hebraic roots and the concept of the Hebrew God and Creation of the Universe in the Torah. Creation by the Hebrew God was by a process called emanation. God, the Source of all energy, was the Designer and Creator of all created beings. What were these created beings. They were lesser forms of energy that were made in spirit form, spirit-material form, and material form. They can be visualized as a gradation of energy from the Source of Energy of Infinite Vibrational Frequency (God) to slower and slower energy beings.
According to the mystic sages, the Hebrew God holds our existence moment by moment by the vast Energy of His own Being. It is for His express purpose that we exist. If He should choose, we, along with the rest of the universe would cease to exist, by withdrawing the energy that feeds the universe. He holds us in the palm of His hand and there He alone protects us.
The slowest and densest form of existence is found in this universe. Take for example, a rock. It looks dead, yet within it’s molecules are electrons and they are moving. Maybe they are not moving very fast. You can, if you please, say this rock is alive, but it’s movement we cannot perceive. According to modern Physics and Einstein, all matter is made by energy and can, if circumstances change, it can be transformed back into energy. In other words, you and I can disappear, and our human forms can be absorbed in the universal flow of electrons. Sounds strange and sounds deep, but the Hebrew concept of God is compatible with modern quantum physics.
The problem was that both orthodox and the Gnostics rejected the Hebrew concept of Creation. For the creation of the universe, they came up with the idea that God created the universe out of nothing, or ‘ex nihilo’. We were not a progressive creation by emanations from God. The universe, and we were made out of nothing. God is there, we are here, we are separate. God has no beginning, we have a beginning, and therefore we are separate. There is this gulf between God and us. All of a sudden, we find ourselves riding down a whole different philosophical path, a path opposed to the Hebrew concept of God and Creation.
Gnostic writers had a field day with the idea of the unity of a monotheistic God. Since God was to be experienced to them, there grew out multiple different experiential forms of God. To some Gnostics, their God fractured and soon each of these parts was set in a hierarchy or power structure. This is not that unusual. The Greek gods, the Roman gods, the Sumerian gods, the bronze-age gods, were concepts of a god fractured into different dominions and power structures. If appears they started with a Hebrew concept, they added Latin and Greek elements. Let’s be clear, power and control issues were alive and well also in the Gnostic camp.
To some, the Proverbs 8 account gives us indication of Wisdom being a Female Deity. It was Valentinus describing a myth about Wisdom, stated that she wanted to create without the Father, the masculine opposite. In doing so, she violated the ‘union of opposites’ and the creatures she made were defective and deformed. She had to improve her skills so she brought forth the Demiurge, the Creative God of Israel to be her agent. The God of Israel, the Demiurge, had to fix up her mess. The beauty of a little distortion, you can create a big distortion.
Many Gnostics later picked up on the Demiurge, as the defective Creation God of the Hebrews. This God, Jehovah, did not realize that he was a lesser God than the more powerful Unseen, All Knowing God. In fact, he was a competitor to many other gods, a part of a consortium of Gods, called the Elohim. (plural for Gods) The fact that he was a ‘jealous God’ also suggests that he recognized that there also were rival gods. As such, Jehovah, could not be an All-Knowing God, for All-Knowing God had no competitors
The orthodox went ballistic. I think most of you would go ballistic also. Unfortunately the orthodox kept the concept of the Great Gulf between God and man intact. Between these two poles was a great gulf. God was good and we, and the rest of the universe, was if not evil very degenerate. This idea played out very dramatically throughout the medieval ages, the vast gulf between God and you and I. It was not Jesus who bridged or mediated the gap. Jesus was on the God-side or the good side. You and I were on the worldly evil side. The church, the pope and the bishop were the only ones who could became the mediators.
When the Reformation under Martin Luther once again said that man had direct access with God, we kept the theology of the great gulf between God and us. Yet, there still had to be a mediator. So, in the minds of most modern Christians, Jesus now came to the worldly evil side of the gulf, the fallen creation. Guess what, we are now back to agreeing with Arius and his great debate with Athenasius and the Nicean Creed. Who was he? In a few minutes, we will talk about him.
Other Gnostics, defined Wisdom as the “first universal creator”. In a much as we define Jesus in that role as the Agent of creation and consider him to be the subject of Proverbs 8, maybe Jesus and Wisdom were the same. At this point the Jesus/maleness and Wisdom/femaleness issues seems to be more of an obstacle or barrier. Some will question whether we are making too much of the gender identity in the Hebrew itself. Let us re-look at some ancient Jewish concepts of God and Adam.
1) Adam was androgynous, a being which was both male and female. This being was created in the image of God.
2) Jesus was Wisdom, the first act of Creation (Prov. 8). This first begotten or first act of creation was the creative act of placing Divinity in a material state outside the dimensions of God. Jesus became the Divine One in another dimension.
3) To ancient rabbinic sources, this being, the Original Adam, was called Adam Kadman
4) Adam Kadman, as male and female, became the divine blueprint for the creation of Adam.
5) This would make Jesus, Adam Kadman, and Wisdom, all the same being.
6) Jesus was therefore the God in which Adam was created in his image.
7) Jesus, Adam Kadman, or Wisdom became the Creative agent in the Creation of the Universe.
8) Femaleness is recognized as the Creative Principle. It is the woman who brings forth life. Using such an allegory, Jesus, used the Female Principle in his united being to serve as the Creative Principle in the creation of the world.
9) Jesus, Adam Kadman or Wisdom, as the Divine One, which had emanated into the dimension of an unfallen world, would now create Adam, the earthling, by using the active feminine creative power of the Holy Spirit.
Let us face it. Before any of you cry out, this is just theological speculation, let us remind
ourselves, any concept of God must come through the human mental filter. That is unless we are willing to accept that the Torah was literally written by the hand of God and remains unchanged and unadulterated to this day. In other words, God is literally describing himself.
What are the basic principles?
· God is One.
· Jesus is Divine. (Col 2:9)
· Jesus was pre-existent to the creation of the world and in Proverbs 8 called Wisdom. (Prov 8)
· Jesus is the only Begotton. (Prov. 8)
· Jesus is the First Born of the Creation. (Prov.8)
· Adam was made in the Image of God. (Col 1:15, I Cor. 15:48)
· Jesus is the Image of God. (Gen. 2: , Prov. 8)
· God is unity, not male or female but a union of all characteristics.
Jesus is God emanated in a different dimension outside the that vast Other, Unfathomable Dimension of God (Prov 8)
Let’s move ourselves to 320 AD, the Council of Nicea in Turkey, was convened under the supervision of the new emperor of Rome, Constantine the Great. It was this council that formulated the initial statement that eventually became famous Nicean Creed defining the nature of Jesus and God. This creed is accepted virtually by all Catholic and Protestants alike. Adventist doctrine of Jesus, in the Adventist’ 27 Doctrinal Beliefs, confirms the Nicean Creed. The original statement went as such.
“We believe in one God, the Father Almighty,
maker of all things, visible and invisible,
And in one Lord, Jesus Christ, the Son of God,
The only-begotten of the Father,
That is, of the substance (ousia) of the Father,
God from God,
Light from light,
True God from true God,
Begotten not made,
Of one substance (homoousion) with the Father,
Through whom all things were made,….
And we believe in the Holy Spirit.”
This statement which came out of the Nicean Council differs from the manifesto known as the Nicean Creed. This latter, the Nicean Creed, was actually composed in the Council of Constantinople in 381 AD.
Underlying this council was the raging theological conflict between two of the foremost theologians of the 4th century, Arius and Athanasius. Arius was a presbyter at Alexandria, described handsome, charismatic with a soft impressive voice and a melancholy face. Arius accepted Jesus as divine for he called him a ‘strong God’ and a ‘full God’. Yet this divinity was given to Jesus, by God as the ‘First Begotten’ or the ‘First Created’ of God’s creation.
Athenasius, was the brilliant assistant of the Bishop of Alexandria, Alexander became the fierce opponent of Arius, a theological battle that rages throughout the whole empire.
Let’s face the fact, this was not a theological argument held in ivory towers or cloistered monasteries. Rather it was discussed openly on the streets. Karen Armstrong, in “A History of God’ states that:
“Sailors and travelers were singing version of popular ditties that proclaimed that the Father alone was true God, inaccessible and unique, but that the Son was neither coeternal nor uncreated, since he received life and being from the Father. We hear of a bath attendant who harangued the bathers, insisting that the Son came from nothingness; of a money changer who, when asked for the exchange rate, prefaced his reply with a long disquisition of the distinction between the created order and the uncreated God, and of a bake who informed his customer that the Father was greater than the Son. People were discussing these abstruse questions with the same enthusiasm as they discuss football today. (Gregory of Nyssa as quoted in Armstrong, Karen, A History of God, the 4000-Yewar Quest of Judaism, Christianity and Islam, Alfred A Knopf, NY, 1994, p.107)
Was this an unusual debate? Not really. At no time in the history of Christianity has its theology been monolithic, that is made of one pillar of truth. Yet the amount of variety of thought in the first three hundred years though has never been replicated throughout the history of Christianity. The Pentecostal unity was but a stepping stone to a smorgasbord of theological ideas.
Let us look at a few of these ideas.
“..there were, of coarse, Christians who believed in only one God; others, however, claimed that there were two Gods; yet others subscribed to 30, or 365, or more. Some Christians accepted the Hebrew Scriptures was a revelation of the one true God, the sacred possession of all believers; others claimed that the Scriptures had been inspired by an evil deity. Some Christians believed that God neither had created the world nor had ever had any dealings with it. Some Christians believed that Christ was somehow both a man and God; others said that he was a man, but not God; others claimed that he was God, but not a man; others insisted that he was a man who had been temporarily inhabited by God. Some Christians believed that Christ’s death had brought about the salvation of the world; others claimed that his death had no bearing on salvation; yet others alleged that he never even died.” (Ehrman, Bart D., The Orthodox Corruption of Scripture, Oxford University Press, Oxford, New York, 1993, pg 3)
Arius, as we can see, was from a long line of divergent view. Arius is now known by the byword ‘Heretic’. At that day, there was not an orthodox position on the nature of God and Christ. Yet from the beginning there was an orthodox attitude. The classical view of orthodoxy is that it means ‘right opinion’ or ‘right thinking’. This represented the orthodox version of the teachings of Jesus and his disciples within the first generation after the resurrection. Therefore, according to the orthodox, the “heretics” were those who provided a ‘choice’. This choice was a though was a deviation from what the orthodox claimed was the truth, the right opinion. Heresy was a corruption, a contamination, a perversion of their reality. Where did these heretical ideas come from? You guessed it, pagan philosophers was one of the sources. What is more surprising, the other source was Hebraic-Judaic theology. That is correct, the orthodox church was now cut off from it religious and philosophical roots.
The Hebrew-Judaic philosophers were very careful to describe God as the One and only One God, who stood beyond the comprehension of man’s thoughts. He was a transcendent deity, who directed and guided man and the universe from above and without. It was after the fall of Jerusalem, the Rabbinic teachings developed a very close and personal relationship with HaShem (God) who was passionately involved with every aspect of their lives. Yet the Jewish Rabbis never did formulate an official doctrine about God. To them, He was a presence tangibly felt within their lives, and experienced in mysterious yet very physical phenomenon. Many Christians think that the Pentecostal experience, the tongues of fire and the swirling of wind, was unique to the followers of Jesus. On the contrary, this phenomenon was repeated on several occasions in mystical Jewish literature.
The theological battle between Arius and Athanasius raged for decades. Five times Athanasius was excommunicated and thrown out of his church office yet in the end it was Athanasius, representing the orthodox position that prevailed. What is interesting, all the heat and debate and all the lives lost over this debate, they both were arguing on the premise of a theological idea that was not Biblical or rooted in the Hebraic concept of Creation. They both believed the world and the universe was created ‘ex nihilo’ or from nothing. Therefore there was this big gap or chasm between God and man. The difference in their arguments was, which side of the gap was Jesus on? Athanasius said, Jesus stood on the God side. Arius said Jesus stood on the man side, the world of creation.
We no longer argue about the existence of Christ as our mediator instead of the Pope. We can still argue with Arius about the nature of Christ. How could Christ be created (ex nihilo) and still be Divine? Maybe the theological debate should be centered around whether there is a big gulf between God and man. If we abandon the concept of Creation out of nothing (ex nihilo), then maybe we should abandom the theological children of such a creation. What we must understand today, if we retain the Hebrew concept of creation of emanation, this argument would never have existed in the first place.
From all appearances, the Gnostic writers went back to more ancient Jewish traditions than the orthodox church, who sought to retain a masculine God. When they referred back to the dual nature of Adam as created in the ‘image of God’, the Gnostic writers also referred to the more ancient feminine Hebrew word, ruah, for spirit, than the neuter Greek word, pneuma to describe the Holy Spirit. Even so, the facts remain, of all the various gospels who speak of the female aspect of divinity, these were all omitted from the sacred canon and declared heretical by the orthodox Christians by the year 200 AD.
The question that needs to be answered is why? Was the exegesis so much more powerful for the orthodox position? It does not appear to be. In reality, it is my opinion, that any gender attributes of God, are solely for the lack of human comprehension and the lack of human language to describe the immense power of the Divine. Creation in the hands of God did not need a gender to fulfill this role. Gender specific is a human and animal limitation, not a God limitation.
On the other hand, adding the female elements to the description of God, who was portrayed as masculine, to the Gnostics gave more balance and unity to the description of God. What was more important and more practical, it became a power tool on the social and political front, for women were attracted to these teachings. Irenaeus, the bishop of Lyons, was irate especially for the following of a Marcus, a Gnostic in Lyon, France, who was attracting a large following especially among women. He accused Marcus of seducing the women into his group by initiating them with the command for them to prophecy, which was forbidden in the orthodox churches. He also allowed women to serve as priests in the Eucharist (communion) ceremony as well as offering the words of consecration. (Irenaeus, Against Heresy, 3.15.2)
Tertullian was equally outraged with the Gnostic Christians:
“These heretical women – how audacious they are! They have no modesty; they are bold enough
to teach, to engage in argument, to enact exorcisms, to undertake cures, and, it may be, even to
baptize.” (Tertullian, Adversus Valentinianos 4)
Tertullian called a women teacher, leading a congregation in North Africa, a ‘viper’. Nice man! He, as all orthodox, adhered closely with the “precepts of ecclesiastical discipline concerning women,” which stated,
“ It is not permitted for a women to speak in the church, nor is it permitted for her to teach, or to baptize, or to offer (the Eucharist), nor to claim for herself a share in any masculine function – not to mention any priestly office.” (Irenaeus, Against Heresy, 3.15.2)
We must therefore seriously consider that religious and philosophical concepts and social practices went hand in hand. It must be recognized that the gnostic communities, especially the Valentinians, were the ones who consider the women as equal to men. Within these communities, we find prophets, healers, teachers, pastors, priests, bishops and evangelists. The exceptions were those groups who also retained equality of sexes in church leadership roles but retained a masculine image of God, were the Marcionites, the Montanists, and the Carpocratians. From all appearances, from 200 AD onward, women were excluded from all leadership roles in the orthodox Christian churches.
In spite of the remarkable openness of Jesus accepting women within his group of companions, within one hundred years after the death of the last apostle, the orthodox closed its doors to women. From all indication, the women were the main financial support of the ministry of Jesus. The early leadership of the Christian church held many women, acting as prophetess, teachers and evangelists. The Apostle Paul recognized a woman, Junia (Julia) who he accepted as an apostle senior apostle to him. (Romans 16:7)
There were obviously a lot of counter cultural trends moving through society. The upper class Roman and Hellenistic society allowed more equality with women. Gladys, the wife of the Roman senator Rufus Pudens, the half brother of Paul, was well known and respected in Roman society as a poet, writer and a woman of grace and charm. She was the mother protector of the first gentile Christian church in Rome and was immortalized in the works of Martial, the satirical poet of Rome.
The females who were poor were treated also more equally and repressively, because even the women had to work at slave labor there was no class distinction. It was the middle class Christian women, especially with their upward mobility financially, who lost their equality in social and religious circles. When Christian woman moved up socially from the dregs of poverty and slavery, they lost their equality with men. The best modern example is the middle class Islamic women who must remain veiled in Moslem culture, while the upper class and the poor most of the times remain unveiled.
Gender inequality was truly an explosive element in the early Christian Church. The camps were polarized on both sides of the issues, and they both appealed to the original apostles views on this topic. If we accept the historical accuracy of the Gnostic gospels, even though we may question their theology, then the rival of the sexes was alive and well right after the crucifixion.
The Gospel of Philip is especially noted for the rivalry between the disciples and Mary Magdalene, who was described as Jesus most intimate companion,
“…the companion of the (Savior is) Mary Magdalene. (But Christ loved) her more than (all) the disciples and used to kiss her (often) on her (mouth). The rest of (the disciples were offended by it…). They said to him “Why do you love her more than all of us?” The Savior answered and said to them, “Why do I not love you as (I love ) her?” (Gospel of Philip 63:32-64.5, in NHL 138.)
The Gospel of Mary also tells of an incident that night after the resurrection, the disciples who were disheartened and terrified at the prospects of being captured right after the crucifixion, were being encouraged by Mary Magdalene. They asked her to tell them the things that the Lord had secretly told her. As she was relating her memories of Jesus, Peter became furious, and said,
“Did he really speak privately with a woman, (and) not openly to us? Are we to turn about and all listen to her? Did he prefer her to us?” Mary begin to cry, and says,” My brother Peter, what do you think? Do you think that I thought this up myself in my heart, or that I am lying about the Savior!” Levi Matthew then breaks in to mediate between the two. “Peter, you have always been hot-tempered. Now I see you contending against the woman like the adversaries. But if the Savior made her worthy, who are you, indeed, to reject her? Surely the Lord knew her very well. That is why he loved her more than us.” (Gospel of Mary, 17.18-18.15, in NHL 473)
The Peter and Mary Magdalene conflict, carried over into another Gnostic work, the Pistis Sophia (Faith Wisdom). Here we find Peter complaining to Jesus that Mary was dominating the private conversations with Jesus and that more priority time should be spent with he and the other disciples. He wanted Jesus to tell her to be quiet. What is interesting, in this gospel, it is Peter who was rebuked.
Later, Mary confided to Jesus that she is uncomfortable to speak to Jesus in the presence of Peter, because, “Peter makes me hesitate; I am afraid of him, because he hates the female race.” Strong words these are, and what makes Jesus reply in this book more fascinating. “Whoever the Spirit inspires is divinely ordained to speak, whether man or woman.” (Pagels, Elaine, The Gnostic Gospels, Vintage Books, New York, 1979, 1987 pg 65)
This Peter and Mary conflict has a familiar ring when we compare it with the Martha and Mary conflict in Luke, when Jesus rebukes Martha and applauds Mary fervent seeking out the truth.
Orthodox upholds the Masculine Image of God.
The Orthodox Christians countered on male and female issues. I find it fascinating that some Patrists, scholars on the Church Fathers, feels that this counter movement by the orthodox went to the point of creating ‘pseudo-Pauline’ letters which deal strongly with church authority and government issues and of course insist on the subordination of women to the men in the church. These ‘pseudo-letters’ they identify as I and II Timothy, Colossians, and Ephesians. It is fair to say, most Adventist scholars have taken a more middle road, considering that Paul was dealing with local church and cultural issues that prevented these local churches from accepting a more equalitarian and magnanimous picture of basic male and female issues.
Remember these polar extremes were not set in concrete. Some Gnostic sources appears to be very anti-women but in reality they were anti-sexuality such as the Book of Thomas the Contender, who warned men, “Woe to you who love intimacy with womankind, and polluted intercourse with it.” ( Book of Thomas the Contender 144.8-10, in NHL 193.)
In the Dialogue of the Savior, Jesus advises his disciples to ‘pray in the place where there is no woman,” and to “destroy the works of femaleness…” (Dialogue of the Savior 144.16-20, in NHL 237.)
Yet it was one orthodox and respected church father, Clement of Alexandria, blended feminine (Gnostic) and masculine (orthodox) symbology together within the orthodox teachings of his church.
“The Word is everything to the child, both father and mother, teacher and nurse…The nutriment is the milk of the Father…and the Word alone supplies us children with the milk of love, and only those who such at this breast are truly happy. For this reason, seeking is called sucking; to those infants who seek the Word, the Father’s loving breasts supply milk.” (Clemens Alexandrinus, Paidagogos 1.6 cited in Pagels, Elaine, The Gnostic Gospels, Vintage Books, New York, 1979, 1987 pg 67-68)
In describing human nature, Clement of Alexandria also stated that”
“men and women share equally in perfection, and are to receive the same instruction and the same discipline. For the name ‘humanity’ is common to both men and women, and for us ‘in Christ there is neither male nor female.” (Clemens Alexandrinus, Paidagogos 1.4 cited in Pagels, Elaine, The Gnostic Gospels, Vintage Books, New York, 1979, 1987 pg 67-68)
The Orthodox took this issue one more step, for by describing God as the Almighty Father, a symbol of authority was established. And that authority figure had a specific gender, male. Let us now carefully retrace the steps of establishing authority within the orthodox church.
1) Peter, though not documented textually in the synoptic gospels, was attributed as the first to witness the resurrection of Jesus.
2) Peter was stated to be the first bishop of Rome. Searching the contemporary historical documents have proven this claim to be false.
3) Authority within the early church was given to those described as Apostles. To be an apostle, one must have been a living eyewitness to the life, death and resurrection of Jesus.
4) “Truth” was established by whether a religious idea had a historical link to an apostle of Jesus.
5) Apostleship, though known to be given to both females and males, by 200 AD, only documented works by male apostles were accepted as works of authority.
6) If only males, could be apostles, then it stands to reason that only males could be bishops, priests, and deacons. This would become the route of apostolic authority. As late as 1977, Pope Paul VI stated “that a woman could not be a priest, ‘because our Lord was a man.’” (Pagel, Elaine, Gnostic Gospels, 69)
7) Divine Authority was early established and argued by Clement, the 3rd Bishop of Rome (1st was Linus, the Britain, the 2nd was Callystus, and the 3rd was Clement), in an apostolic letter to the church in Corinth (90-100 AD). In this letter, he sets out the following principles. The God of Israel stands alone as ruler, master and judge over all things. He punishes the rebels and rewards the obedient. These rewards and punishments are administered by those by whom he delegates “his authority of reign” who are the ‘rulers and leaders on earth.” (Clements Romanus, 1 Clements , 60.4-61.2,63.1-2.) Who are these rules, the bishops, priests, and deacons. Furthermore, if you refuse to “bow the neck” (Clements Romanus, Ibid, 60.4-61.2,63.1-2.) to the authority of the bishop, you are in subordination to the Divine Authority. Whoever refuses to obey these divinely ordained authorities must ‘receive the death penalty.” (Clements Romanus, Ibid, 60.4-61.2,63.1-2.)
Within 60 years after the resurrection of Jesus, the authority of the Church and the route of Inspiration (God speaking with his people), was being firmly engraved in the ecclesiastical foundation of a male only clergy and priesthood.
Summary on Church Authority
The modern Adventist leadership finds a similar polarity in leadership and authority issues in
Adventists today. The North American Division, the acceptance of women leaders and pastors is alive and growing. The African, MidEast, and Far East Division, the discussion of women roles is a non-issue, orthodoxy prevails.
We must recognize, the New Testament Church was going through a cultural crisis. They were in cultural shock. Their Judaic roots were being cast aside. The Mother Church in Jerusalem no longer existed. The influence of Rome, Greece, Alexandria, Egypt and even the European (British and Celtic experience) were all part of the brew of cultural mixing. If they would have let the Spirit of God lead them, each one individually, the polarity and spiritual extremes would have eventually melded together. This was a powerful and vibrant church, but the need to dictate channels of power and control, eventually led the people to look towards powerful church leaders, rather than the leading of the Holy Spirit.
Only with the resurrection of women’s rights movement in the 1850’s has the modern Christian church had to deal with the modern role of women in the church. The early Advent Movement was very divided in the role of women. It was undeniable, that the role of Ellen G. White, was critical to the formation and stability of the fledgling Advent movement. Historically, the 20 year absence of Mrs. White, in what some call her exile to Australia, is reflective of the general church leadership denying her role in the ‘authority structure’ of the church. Here again, we see the ‘orthodox’ influence and the New Testament experience being relived again.
This church, the Houston Northwest, is very symbolic of the effect of this issue on Advent church polity. That is, whether men and women are truly co-equal in the site of God and in the Lord’s ministry. The acceptance of a female pastor, even if it is a co-pastor depicts the maturation of our own Christian experience that ‘all men (and women) are created equal.’. Even so, gender selected leadership issues are alive and well. The Sabbath School director here is a female, but all the Sabbath School teachers are male. It is a fact that some women within this church have expressed dismay when the female pastor of the church is needed to lead out in women’s Sabbath school class. They felt that women were still not able to minister to themselves in women issues much less in issues of the church as a whole.
It is a concept worth seeking, the Lord is truly looking for a gender blind church. This does not mean we are blind to needs of the opposite sex, nor does it create a sexless or neuter church. Rather, men and women can look at each other spiritual needs with equal love, care and respect. Once again, ‘the life we live, is a reflection of the God we serve.”
It is safe to say that the fact that Jesus Christ arose from the grave was the most defining and the most radical statement of Christianity. All religions carry the concept of the cycles of birth, life and death. Yet the early apostolic witness was to the literal reversal of the cycle of death, a resurrection. This was not in terms of reincarnating back into another birth, but a reversal of the death process and restoration of the prior life. Or, was it a reversal of the death process, and a transformation into a glorified body that Paul speaks so eloquently. Or, was this reversal of the death process a transformation into a spirit body? Paul’s concepts about a glorified body do not seem to be the dialogue of the first century church. To the 2nd century Christian, the dialogue was centered on a physical body versus and spiritual body. Most modern Christians (not Adventists) accept a personal spirit resurrection but this does not match their theology on the resurrection of Jesus.
To be honest these are really heavy issues. If these were issues that spoke to the nature of the Divine, then we might have to plead ignorance. How can we know the Divine? Many of you would like to go into a mental freeze at his time.
The problem is, while we may not under the Divine nature of Jesus, the resurrection of Jesus is tied into the resurrection of man. So we do have a real issue at stake. We look for clues in Jesus’ resurrection as to how our own resurrection and future glorified existence will be accomplished.
Let us look again at the original premises. I’m going to throw out only 4 concepts. I hope we can develop a respect for the mental acuity of these people and the vibrant issues they were discussing. I want you to be able to get a concept that these were not evil times, but they were very fertile times in exploring deep issues on the nature of God and Jesus Christ. This era, represented in the Revelation of John by the first church of Ephesus, were only chastised because they gave up their ‘first love’, the love of learning and searching. Let us look at four concepts on the Resurrection of Jesus, and how it relates to the resurrection of man.
Jesus: You have a human being with a Divine nature given at his birth. He dies (human and Divine Nature) and is resurrected back to the same human being with a Divine nature that was given at His birth. The resurrection comes from an external Power that is God.
Note: Human and Divinity dies. Resurrection comes from an external Divine Power.
Man: You have a human being with a divine spirit (ruah) which resides within him. Both his human state and his spirit (ruah) die and are resurrected back to the same human being with a divine spirit (ruah) which resides within him
Note: This resurrection is back to his pre-death state. We can argue about whether we are resurrected looking like our teens, young adult, mature adult, or our wasted pre-death state. The fact is, when we are resurrected we are no better off than when we died.
Jesus: You have a Divine Being (Spirit) who merges in a human body at the birth of Jesus. He dies (human body). His Divine nature lives. He is resurrected by His own power (God within), or maybe by God (God-without) to a Spirit form. To be seen by man, he has to materialize in a three-dimensional time image (hologram?) for the benefit of his disciples.
Jesus: You have a Divine Being who manifest himself as a human being, either at birth or at
baptism. (ghost-image) He appears to die (phantom), yet it is but a materialization of his
Divine Being. He appears to resurrect Himself, and presents Himself to the disciples as a spirit being in a body form.
Man: Orthodoxy falls apart here, including me. Jesus was not truly human, just a ghost or a phantasmal (like a fantasy) image. He did not suffer, and was not tempted like you or I with sin. He did not die, just appeared to die. The post resurrection images of Jesus were ghost images. The flesh and bones stories were just myths. This has no relationship to man unles you and I are just an illusion now.
Note: When most modern Christians think of Gnosticism, they think of this concept yet my research suggests that it was a minority position. Today we see it popularized by many authors, in books on Christ such as the Passover Plot and the Messianic Legacy.
Jesus: You have a Divine Being, who becomes the first of God’s Creation in a Glorified
Extra-dimensional state, (Adam Kadman), and becomes a model of a new Creation and becomes the Agent of that Creation. He (Adam Kadman) takes on human nature at his
birth. He dies (human nature or body) and is resurrected back by that Divine Being withinhim, and returns to his Glorified extra-dimensional state (Adam Kadman).
Note: Jesus is restored back to his pre-human states not his human state. This state, may
have been a spirit being (Gardener) when he talked with Mary Magdalene, but then became the
Divine manifesting itself in an extradimensional being after he returned by from God. Both
states are sinless states.
Note: How God can put His Divinity in another dimensional state is a mystery. How Jesus
the First Begotton, the First of the Creation can take on human form and not be trapped in
our three dimensional human state is a mystery.
Man: You have a glorified extra-dimensional created being (flesh and bones) modeled after Adam Kadman. This human being (Adam and Eve), because of sin, takes on a degenerate human nature (flesh, bones and blood.) He dies and is resurrected by an External Power, and is restored back to that glorified extra-dimensional created Edenic being.
Note: This is not a return back to his pre-death being, but a restoration back to a prior Edenic
state.
It is important to recognize that there are four major elements of the nature of Jesus to consider.
1) The nature of Jesus before creation. This pre-Edenic state, he probably existed in right up to the time of his incarnation into the ‘sinful’ three dimensional state of man.
2) The nature of Jesus at birth, a Divine infused or fused with flesh, bone and blood state.
3) The nature of Jesus while dead in the tomb. The flesh, bone and blood human was dead. What happened to the Divine?
4) The nature of Jesus at his resurrection. He is now flesh and bones, but the corrupting elements of blood seem to be missing.
These are profound concepts to consider. How you
visualize the birth, death and resurrection of Jesus determined how you believe
in you own Edenic state, your human nature today, and your future resurrected
state. I am going to make a statement, if taken out of context will land
me in the back waters of Adventist and most any Christian fellowship. I have
developed a great respect for many of the Gnostic writers. They were becoming
good theologians. Some were way off in left and right field. They were
hunting, speculating, and formulating a vast brew of concepts about the
Divine. It’s is true, some in frustration, rejected the Divine. Some took a
human body and encapsulated the Divine over it at the baptism with John the
Baptist. Some said he materialized a body, but actually remained a spirit.
The resurrection was but a ghost. Others took great care to recognize that the
pre-crucifixion state of Jesus was different, as recorded in the testimony of
the synoptic writers. What they were doing was thinking. They were reaching
and stretching for non-human concepts. They were also trying to incorporate
‘all’ the eyewitness testimonies that they knew to exist not just the gospels
selected 150 years later.
For some reason, I feel that Paul understood best the resurrection of Jesus. The reason being, Paul’s theology is in harmony with Hebrew Judaic theology on the nature of man as preserved in mystical Judaism today. He was very knowledgeable on mystical religion. Look how many times Paul was guided by visions in his travels. Study his out of body experience as he traveled to the third heaven. I value his concepts of the glorified body in our to be resurrected state and how it is reflected in the nature of the resurrection of Jesus.
As I study the resurrection concepts of both the orthodox and the Gnostics, I believe neither one of them totally got it right. The primary question is: If the resurrection accounts testify to a variety of interpretation, what was the reason the second century Church insisted on such a literal human fleshly interpretation. Elaine Pagel, who has written about the most definitive work on the influence of the Gnostic church in the early Christian church states,
“we cannot answer this question adequately as long as we consider the doctrine only in term of its religious content. But when we examine its practical effect on the Christian movement, we can see, paradoxically, that the doctrine of bodily resurrection also serves an essential political function; it legitimized the authority of certain men who claim to exercise exclusive leadership over the churches as the successor of the apostle Peter.” (Pagels, Elaine, The Gnostic Gospels, Vintage Books, New York, 1979, 1987 pg 8)
The Apostolic Succession of the bishops of Rome became totally dependent upon the verity of a literal resurrection in the minds of the orthodox early church fathers.
1) Since this was a one time experience, the authority conferred upon the early apostles stood in a position of incontestable authority.
2) It conferred upon them the right to ordain any future leaders.
3) Any future potential leader would have to claim to derive authority from the original apostles. As such, The primacy of the papacy traces this apostolic succession directly to Peter, as the first bishop of Rome, the “first of the apostle, and the “first witness of the resurrection”
Others disagreed. Some Gnostic Christians rejected the literal view of resurrection as the ‘faith of fools.” (Origen, Commentarium in I Corinthians, in Journal of Theological Studies 10 (1909), 46-47 cited in Pagels, Elaine, The Gnostic Gospels, Vintage Books, New York, 1979, 1987 pg 11) What were important were not the literal witness, but the inner experience. Jesus’ death was not a one-time event, because they claimed they could witness it in their own lives in dreams, visions, and ecstatic trances.
There were some like the Valentinians, who were the most moderate, who said, the literal resurrection is valid. But, they claim there was also a resurrection in the spirit form, which was not visualized on the physical level of that Sunday day of Resurrection. This spiritual resurrection could be visualized in visions, trances and ecstatic experiences and was not subject to any time limitations. As such, they believed that Jesus had a dual nature, part human, and part divine. The human was the visible form, but the invisible could become visible by those who had the psychic senses to detect vibration signals outside the limits of normal human senses.
Mary Magdalene – a woman apostle not accepted by the Orthodox
Many of the Gnostic authors went outside the original twelve to find authoritative role figures. These included especially Paul, Mary Magdalene and James. Mary Magdalene was a special favorite of the populace, not only of the women, but also the poor.
The Gospel of Mary, who confirms that Mary Magdalene was truly the first to see the risen Christ, also saw him in a vision and asked, “How does he who sees the vision see it? The soul, or through the spirit?” Jesus answered that the vision was perceived in the mind. (Gospel of Mary 10.17-21, in NHL 472.) This moves the perception away from the esoteric and back to the physical. They used normal mental perception when they were having visions.
The Apostle Peter
In a Letter of Peter to Philip, it accounts that after Jesus’ death, the disciples were praying on the Mount of Olives when
“a great light appeared, so that the mountain shone from the sight of him who had appeared. And
a voice called out to them saying “Listen…I am Jesus Christ, who is with you forever.” (Letter of
Peter to Philip 134.10-18, in Nhl 395. cited in Pagels, Elaine, The Gnostic Gospels, Vintage Books, New
York, 1979, 1987 pg 159)
What is of interest is that Peter is reported to have seen Christ in visions and in trances in Gnostic literature. (Apolcalypse of Peter 83.8-10, om NHL 344, also noted by P. Perkins, “Peter in Gnostic Revelations,” in Proceedings of SBL:1974 Semihar Papers II (Washington, 1974, 1-13, cited in Pagels, Elaine, The Gnostic Gospels, Vintage Books, New York, 1979, 1987 pg 158)
We do know he had visions and trances in the history of Acts, especially in reference to Sheet with unclean meats and the visit of the three men from the house of Cornelius.
The point is this, it was not whether the original apostles viewed their belief systems as orthodox or Gnostic during their lives, but rather how it was interpreted one to two hundred years later. Did Peter see Jesus only physically, did he see Jesus in visions and in trances, or both? The Roman Catholic Church represent the former orthodox position, the Gnostic gospels depict the latter. The question is, are both correct?
The Apostle John
Some experiences seemed very other worldly or other dimensional. For many, they would be rather weird. The Apocryphon (secret teaching) of John, tells how John the apostle left the crucifixion site in ‘great grief’ :
“Immediately…the (heavens were opened, and the whole creation (which is ) under heaven shone, and (the world) was shaken. (I was afraid, and I) saw in the light (a child)… while I looked he became like an old man. And he (changed his) form again, becoming like a servant…I saw..a(n image) with multiple forms in the light…” (Apocryphon of John 1.30-2.7, in NHL 99)
And then a presence spoke to him.
“John, Jo(h)n, why do you doubt, and why are you afraid? You are not unfamiliar with
this form are you?…Do not be afraid! I am the one who (is with you) always … (I have
come to teach) you what is (and what was) and what will come to (be)…” (Apocryphon of John 2.9-18, in NHL 99)
What is fascinating about this is the similarity of this visual imagery with modern understanding of holograms imaging and its relationship with quantum physics. . We also find similarity with the later visions of John in Revelation and the prior visions of Ezekiel.
Valentinus, the Egyptian gnostic poet.
Valentinus, was an eloquent Egyptian gnostic poet and teacher (c.140AD). Though a Gnostic, he accepted the apostolic tradition and traces his apostolic authority to Theudas, a disciple of Paul, who claimed his apostolic authority directly from Jesus. It can safely be said that he was one of the most brilliant and articulate followers of Jesus. He claimed to disclose the secret teachings of Paul through Theudas, his disciple. The writings of his disciples account for countless stories about the risen Christ who fascinated them more than the literal historical Jesus. Instead of an apologetic account of the life of Jesus from birth to death, their writing would concentrate on stories of the risen Christ and his interaction with his followers. Did they disbelieve in the historical Jesus. Not at all. Recounting the history of a person was not as meaningful to them as capturing the experiential meaning of the living Christ
Summary: Battle between a Literal versus Spiritual Resurrection
So the question on the literal versus spiritual view of the resurrection became a political hot potato. Can you image if every person who received a dream or vision within this church, and felt this experience confirmed a sense of authority, what a collection of dissent we could create. What both parties failed to realize that within their primary Judaic heritage, all religious experiences could be seen in a literal, symbolic, allegorical and mystical way. A literal event was to be enhanced by its symbolic and spiritual meaning, and could also be reexperienced over and over, in dreams, in meditation, in allegorical tales, parables and even moments of mystical ecstacy. As a symbiotic wholeness, they all relate to each other, enhancing and not competing with each other. The caveat is: you cannot have a symbol, a parable, an allegory or a mystical experience without realizing that there must be a literal truth.
As I look over this church community, this spiritual hot potato still exists. In the end of times, it is foretold, that our ‘young men shall see visions and our old men will see dreams.” What is the point of this statement, if there is no spiritual validity in dreams and visions. Several of you have confided in me in esoteric, ecstatic and visionary experiences you have had. You are afraid to tell your own church believers because you feel you will be ridiculed, disbelieved and may even lose your right to fellowship within our company of believers. Some of you have been hinted to that it would be better if you left.
One of you has heard God speak directly to you in an audible voice, and your life was saved. One of you was carried in an ‘out of body experience’ to witness the secret and cloaked meeting of a secret government agency committee. One of you witnessed in a visionary experience, the life of a church leader and the societal effects of his perverted behavior. Some of you have experienced the extra-sensory manifestations of what you believe the Lord is leading and directing in your lives. All of you are afraid to tell your story.
What is interesting is that the church today, maybe, has not come any closer to finding a spiritually mature way to affirm and validate the only ways the Divine can move into our human sensory nature. What is interesting, in the end of times, when our sons and daughters will have visions, and our old men will see dreams, there is no clue as to whether the Church at the end of times will affirm or accept those extra-sensory experiences. What if the collective visible church of God does not exist in the end of times. Maybe the physical church of God will become a shell, and the spiritual church of God will become invisible, that is to the enemies of God.
The Adventist Church has spent over one hundred thirty years defending the visionary and ecstatic experiences of Ellen G. White and the early believers in the church. Many have become worn out of the process and claim it is all irrelevant. Many today, affirm a majority of the beliefs of the Adventist Church, yet disbelieve in the ministry of Ellen White. Many of you today believe that the revelation of God, moving from God’s Divine Throne into our three dimensional world stopped in the early Christian Church. That is with only one exception, the life of Ellen G. White. To you, all others are false prophets.
When the Roman Orthodox church finally consolidated its power and either marginalized or exterminated all its opponents, the official line of Inspiration could only come through the line of Apostolic Succession, from Peter to the Bishops of Rome (Papacy), to the Bishop and Priests. Not only was that line of communication corrupt, it has been historically documented as non-existent.
If that is to be believed, then the only source of Inspiration we have today is the official Scriptural Canon. The validity of the New Testament scripture as being Divinely Inspired is not in question. That fact, we believe. But as Paul Harvey questions, what is the rest of the story?
That is what makes this topic so difficult and so uncomfortable to present. You have two apparent opposing theological concepts. God is Loving and Good. God demands justice and the extermination of those who oppose Him. Those are two opposing concepts of Scriptures. What the New Testament Church struggled with was equally controversial. Jesus, was a human. He died, was raised back to life, not to die again, but to live for eternity at the right hand of God. On the other side, Jesus was Divine. In a strict literal orthodox interpretation, Jesus, his human and his Divinity died and was raised back to life. Can any part or the whole part of Divinity die? For those of you who are very literal minded, sometimes like me, if God’s toe can die, or God’s finger can die, then can the whole Being of God live without its parts? In the Conflict of the Ages between God and Lucifer, as envisioned by Ellen White, could God be exterminated? If He cannot, then why the conflict? This is the most profound question of this whole dialogue?
Solomon speaks of the wisdom of the ants. “Go to the ant thou sluggard, consider her ways and be wise”. Can you imagine one ant in an anthill arguing with another ant on how man designs the atomic bomb. The second argument, if the atomic bomb exploded, would it affect their anthill? If ant number one said yes and ant number two said no, can you image ant number one killing ant number two for believing in a false doctrine? We might say it’s cute to assume that ants would choose to dialogue such weighty problems. I would assume you, like I, would like it is absurd that ants should kill each other, exterminated each other, excommunicate each other, disfellowship each other from the religious order of ants depending on how they believe. How shallow we are as humans to think we are so great and mighty.
The problem we face is that we, as humans, are bound by the constraints of three dimensional time and space and are still trying to understand the working of the Divine. This is the Divine One, who uses Divine laws, which are extra-terrestrial, extra-dimensional and extra-sensory to our human time and sensory space.
Also what both orthodox and Gnostic followers failed to comprehend, neither their orthodoxy or their subjective religious experience gave them the right to control the religious growth and experience of their brothers and sisters in Christ. Neither one of these ideologies gave them the right to proclaim themselves as an authority in the church. The Church has one foundation, it has one authority, and that is Jesus Christ.
Spiritual leadership is like the parable of the Good Shepherd. Pastor Dave and Pastor Lynn are our shepherds. Jesus gave the Parable of the Lost Sheep, which defines how the Shepherd guides and leads the flock of sheep. We must conclude, The shepherd does not drive the sheep. That is probably why we have never heard a Parable of the Lost Cow, with Jesus as a cowboy who drives the herd of cattle. This is antithetical to the ways of God. He guides us. He woos us. He beckons us to follow. Yet, our free will remains intact.
Are there concluding ideas, we can make on a study of the Early Church. Was this the Golden Years of Christianity? Was the first apostolic church a type of church we wish to emulate or use as a model for our lives today?
If you are like me, you might begin to question, am I a heretic? Maybe I should close my brain, quit asking questions and hang on for dear life on to the Truth that has been told to me? Have we not grown up and taught that the Church Fathers, that is the Orthodox Fathers were the true sources of authority and doctrine? Were we not told that to be a true Christian, we must be orthodox or ‘right thinking”. If God is One, then truth must be One.
What if the early Church Fathers, or for that fact, our modern Church Fathers, disagree with each other? One problem I really have, when reading the writings of the “good” Church Fathers, the ones with the white hat, I don’t like their attitude towards women. Ladies, they didn’t like you. Eve was the source of evil, and you ladies are the source of all the vice and immorality in our lives today. Yet do we not argue in our Bible classes that we must find the truth?
Religion is like a big giant jigsaw puzzle. There we are desperate to find the last one piece to finish the puzzle. Then we can have the truth. For if you know the truth (see the whole picture), the truth shall set you free. We cling to our picture of truth and reality, frantically looking for the last piece of the puzzle (pearl of great price) for if we can find it, our salvation will be secure.
Wait a minute! That’s not right. That is intellectually knowing truth. I’ve got all the various dimensions of Jesus down. I can now plot out the pre-carnate, post-carnate and inter-carnate Christ. I know the Truth. That part I understand. That is O.K. but it doesn’t get me anywhere. Once I have discovered the true picture in my mind, I’m still stuck in my three dimensional world, a slave to my house mortgage, desperate to find money to feed, clothe, and educate my family. My intellectual knowing does not get me out of my world.
Oh, now I know, I must “know” Christ. I must experience Jesus. He must be my friend. Wait a minute! That is a Gnostic idea. They are heretics. They are evil. They brought ruin to the first church of Jesus. They had visions and personal experiences with Jesus. If you did not have a vision like they did, you were not as good a follower of Jesus as they were. Besides that, I’m a scientist, I cannot validate your experience against the experience of others, because they are what they are experiencing is on a different dimension than we live. We cannot subject their experience to rigorous hermeneutics or exegesis. For those of us who live in the Woodlands, that is cross-examination with other experiences. Even the Pastor may frown or ‘shake his head’. No, I cannot have an experiential relationship with Jesus. What if He really spoke to me: No body would believe it. What if I started speaking in German, Greek, Spanish or Latin right now? What if I had an ecstatic experience during church and everybody would look at me? I must remain in control. What if I feel more comfortable listening to a woman teacher or a woman pastor. Maybe I would trust a woman Elder better to run the business of the church. (or is that an Elderess) This is not right thinking! This is not orthodox. But then I have have the gift of tongues and can even speak angelic languages, but if I have not Love, I am nothing.
Nothing? I need to give Love? I can do that. I’m going to love my wife, love my mom, love my dad, love my kids, love by boss, love my employees, love my church members. I’m going to spend all my time loving everybody. But something is happening to me. I feel I’m being sucked dry. What is wrong? I’ve been so busy loving and getting into everybody’s business, I feel like I’m beginning to look like a shriveled up prune.
….Ah! God loves! So! He is out there. I am down here. Remember there is this big gulf between He and I. Isn’t that what the ‘religiously correct” say? I’m a Bible toting, Sabbath-keeping, Torah teaching, Eschatology plotting Christian but I cannot get out of my three dimensional existence.
Then I hear a voice. Oh no! Here is coming a Gnostic experience. Jesus is talking to me. Bob!
Bob! Look up! Reach up! Look up high! Stretch your mind! Come on reach out to me! Bob. Throw away your puzzle. Take your mind and put it in a vertical existence. I want you to Pray, meditate, read my Word, listen carefully to the testimony of my believers. No! No! those in your church today. I want you to listen to My still small voice. Let My Love change you! You don’t have any love to give. You have only My Love to share. You are all shriveled up! I’ll fill you up! I’ll even put a new “prune skin” around you. You are going to be a Plump Prune.
And then I looked up. I squinted. I stretched neck. I see Jesus turning and sitting down at my puzzle. Wait a minute. That’s my puzzle! No, he says. This is mine! You are the missing piece. I can put it in now. Do I have your permission?