Asking gnostics regarding Islam.

[Al-Ghazali]

Where does the Qur'an say "Jesus was not crucified?"

I thought you knew about the Qur'an and its interpretations?

Now you don't? Because it certainly says "They crucified him not" give me a minute I will show you

 

[Al-Ghazali]

Where does the Qur'an say "Jesus was not crucified?"

4:157 And because of their falsley claiming "We did kill the Messiah, Jesus, son of Mary, the (false to them, not us) Messenger of God, "WHERE AS THEY KILLED HIM NOT, NOR DID THEY CAUSE HIS DEATH BY CRUCIFIXION, BUT HE WAS MADE TO THEM TO RESEMBLE (one crucified).

 

[Ahanu]

I thought you knew about the Qur'an and its interpretations?

Concerning this issue, I do. I'm asking in order to understand what you know. In any discussion I think it's a good idea to understand what the other person knows.

Because it certainly says "They crucified him not" give me a minute I will show you

"They crucified him not" is very different from "Jesus was not crucified." After all, the Qur'an even says "Who would have any power over God if He desired to destroy the Messiah, son of Mary . . .?" So . . . what if God crucified him and "they" did not?

So I repeat, "Islam believes as the Sethian Christians did" without ignoring a thing. The interpretation is not diverse, it's straight forward. Jesus wasn't crucified.

I guess it's only fair to request you supply a source that disagrees with the Qur'an and is Muslim. What is this supposed alternative interpretation I can only imagine you misheard from someone otherwise.

I've already discussed this issue in post number 11 here (click on here).

 

[Al-Ghazali]

Concerning this issue, I do. I'm asking in order to understand what you know. In any discussion I think it's a good idea to understand what the other person knows.



"They crucified him not" is very different from "Jesus was not crucified." After all, the Qur'an even says "Who would have any power over God if He desired to destroy the Messiah, son of Mary . . .?" So . . . what if God crucified him and "they" did not?





I've already discussed this issue in post number 11 here (click on here).

Another fundamental belief in Islam is that Jesus PBUH never died at all and Ascended, Enoch style, to Paradise.

 

[Ahanu]

unless you have a real source it says he was made to look as if he was crucified.

4:157 And because of their falsley claiming "We did kill the Messiah, Jesus, son of Mary, the (false to them, not us) Messenger of God, "WHERE AS THEY KILLED HIM NOT, NOR DID THEY CAUSE HIS DEATH BY CRUCIFIXION, BUT HE WAS MADE TO THEM TO RESEMBLE (one crucified).

Bad translation of the text. My translation reads: "and for their saying, 'We slew the Messiah, Jesus son of Mary, the messenger of God'— though they did not slay him; nor did they crucify him, but it appeared so unto them. Those who differ concerning him are in doubt thereof. They have no knowledge of it, but follow only conjecture; they slew him not for certain." Why do translations differ here?

Again, see post number 11 in the thread I shared for examples of Muslims that assert Jesus was crucified.

 

[Al-Ghazali]

Bad translation of the text. My translation reads: "and for their saying, 'We slew the Messiah, Jesus son of Mary, the messenger of God'— though they did not slay him; nor did they crucify him, but it appeared so unto them. Those who differ concerning him are in doubt thereof. They have no knowledge of it, but follow only conjecture; they slew him not for certain." Why do translations differ here?

Again, see post number 11 in the thread I shared for examples of Muslims that assert Jesus was crucified.

Bad translation? I have five translations, all say the exact same thing. I would definitely say that YOU have the bad translation. Because I know my religion quite well and it is not ever debated whether or not Jesus PBUH was crucified.

It's so well known I am astonished you are even unaware.

 

[Ahanu]

Bad translation? I have five translations, all say the exact same thing. I would definitely say that YOU have the bad translation. Because I know my religion quite well and it is not ever debated whether or not Jesus PBUH was crucified.

It's so well known I am astonished you are even unaware.

Okay. Show us your five translations.

 

[Ahanu]

Why do I need to do that, your translation says the same thing?

He was not crucified. Made to appear as though he was.

My translation reads "they did not slay him; nor did they crucify him, but it appeared so unto them." Question: what does "it" refer to in "it appeared so unto them?" What precisely appeared so unto them? My translation possesses ambiguity. Your translation does not . . . since it says "BUT HE WAS MADE TO THEM TO RESEMBLE (one crucified)." Back to this point in a moment.

Everyone actually, says Judas.

Al-Zamakhshari (1144), for example, can argue otherwise. I mention him because he highlights the grammatical argument for why our translations are not the same. See why and how a Muslim can argue Judas was not crucified in Jesus' place in the quote below (bold emphasis is mine):

Widely recognized as one of the great exegetes of his time and indeed of the entire Islamic exegetical tradition, al-Zamakhsharl occupies a unique position in the science of tafsir. … Muslims have generally held his work in high esteem, even those who do not share his doctrines. One of al-Zamakhshari's outstanding achievements is his employment of grammatical and linguistic analysis in dealing with the holy text. This is considered by some to be his most valuable contribution to scholarship…Al-Zamakhsharl then relates the familiar story of how Jesus asked his disciples for a volunteer to be killed in his stead. God cast the likeness of Jesus upon a disciple who was subsequently crucified and killed. The exegete mentions that some believe this to have been Judas, who was substituted for Jesus and crucified as a punishment for his betrayal. … That this account is unsatisfactory for al-Zamakhshan is evident when he details the confusion of the witnesses of these events: 'Some said that Jesus was killed and crucified, and some said, 'If that is Jesus, where is our companion, or if that is our companion, where is Jesus?' Some said he was raised to heaven and some said that the face is the face of Jesus, but the body is the body of our companion.' It is now that al-Zamakhshari begins the grammatical discussion that distinguishes his tafsir. A question, very simply posed, asks: to what subject does the verb shubbiha, as predicate, refer? We are already aware of the centrality of this word in the exegesis of the verse, having seen the results of previous attempts at its explication in the substitution theories. Al-Zamakhshari states that if shubbiha has Jesus as its subject, then someone or something is likened to him - not the other way around. Since this someone or something is never specified in the Qur'an, such a reading is impossible -presumably because one of the purposes of the Book is to instruct the faithful and an allusion to the unknown cannot be considered instructive. The only alternative then is to read shubbiha as referring to the most readily available object at hand, namely the prepositional phrase lahum. Thus the understood subject of the verb is the impersonal pronoun, i.e. 'It [the affair of the crucifixion] was made obscure to them.' The gloss - perhaps an illustration from common parlance - huyyila ilayhi is presented for shubbiha lahum. Thus, the following translation emerges: they killed him not nor did they crucify him, but THE AFFAIR WAS IMAGED SO TO THEM. … It is certainly curious that no exegete before al-Zamakhshari expressed an interest in this question. We have seen an interest in grammar before with al-Zajj aj. But it is still true that no one before al-Zamakhshari went into such detail on grammatical problems in their tafsir. If it is 'the affair' that is rendered obscure and not Jesus who is 'made similar' to someone else or someone else who is 'made similar' to Jesus, then this makes room for a break with the substitution legend and its use in solving the linguistic problem in the Qur'an. This amounts, in the event, to the 'grammatical acceptance' of the possibility of the Isma'ili tafsir presented earlier, quite apart from what this author may have thought of the Shi'a. In the case of that exegesis, what appeared to them was only the humanity (nasut) and not the divine eternality (lahui) of Jesus.

Source: https://www.amazon.com/Crucifixion-Quran-History-Muslim-Thought-ebook/dp/B00N01TOWQ/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1489161351&sr=8-1&keywords=todd+lawson+the+crucifixion+and+the+qur'an

​

I am waiting still for you to just tell me your source of information regarding this alleged diversity of interpretation and I can't get that.

Well, hmm . . . where to start? I've already posted a link to Ismaili Muslims above. Here's another link about them:

Source: https://ismailignosis.com/2013/03/29/the-crucifixion-in-shia-ismaili-islam/

​

The Ikhwan al-Safa (the Brethren of Purity) are another early Muslim example.

Source: http://iis.ac.uk/research/encyclopa...tians-and-christianity-thought-ikhwan-al-safa

​

 

[Ahanu]

That is all very interesting.

But I still am saying because the Qur'an, whatever translation, says that he PBUH was NOT CRUCIFIED.

That's your interpretation, not mine. The words "not crucified" don't rule out my interpretation. As Abu Hatim al-Razi observed many centuries ago:

"An example of this is in the Evangel (al-Injil) is [to be found] in the Gospel of John (Bushra Yuhana): ‘The Messiah died in body (bi-al-jasad), whereas he is alive in the spirit (bi-al-ruh).’ So they thought that he who died in the body was delivered from sin. And in the Gospel of Luke (Bushra Luqa) [it is said]: ‘I say to you, oh my dear friends (awliya‘i), do nto fear those who kill the body, but cannot do more than that’… And in the Gospel of Matthew (Bushra Matta) [it is said]: ‘Do not fear those who kill the body but are not able to kill the soul, and do fear the one who can [both] destroy the soul and cast the body into the fire [of hell]’… these passages from the Gospels are consistent with the Qur’an in terms of their actual meaning, since both the scriptures attest that Jesus could not be killed in the full sense, that is, in both body and soul."​

 

[Ahanu]

I don't know what you think you know about Ismailis but they also follow the Qur'an and it also says Jesus wasn't crucified. Also nobody really likes them, they are very fringe.

While it's the minority view, this interpretation isn't limited to Ismailis. Al-Kashani, a Twelver Shi'a, for example, didn't deny Jesus was crucified. Why does nobody really like them? Why are they very fringe?

And you had to ask me where it says in the Qur'an that Jesus wasn't crucified. That could only mean you didn't know, especially added to the fact that you didn't get my valid comparison because you didn't know what Islam believes.

How could I not know if I've already discussed this issue on this forum before? I asked you so I could see the translation of the Qur'an you're using or, in other words, see what you know about the issue.

So you haven't had much time to interpret a passage you just learned the existence and location of.

Uh . . . okay . . .

It's yours but there is a difference between valid interpretation and misinterpreting something because you don't agree with it.

It still says , sophistry aside (and even still) that Jesus was not crucified in reality, it was an illusion, to paraphrase.

Note there is similar language in the following ayah: "You did not slay them, but God slew them, and thou threwest not when thou threwest, but God threw . . ." (8.17) Does this mean that during the battle Muhammad's followers did absolutely nothing because it says "you did not slay them" and "thou threwest not when thou threwest", so God did all the work without them lifting a finger in battle?

On a related note to your interpretation, some Muslims said the third Imam "did not die, but was taken up to heaven, and that his likeness was assumed by someone else . . ." The sixth Imam did not approve of this belief.

Source: Mahmoud Ayoub's Redemptive Suffering

 

[Al-Ghazali]

While its the minority view, this interpretation isn't limited to Ismailis. Al-Kashani, a Twelver Shi'a, for example, didn't deny Jesus was crucified. Why does nobody really like them? Why are they very fringe?



How could I not know if I've already discussed this issue on this forum before? I asked you so I could see the translation of the Qur'an you're using or, in other words, see what you know about the issue.



Uh . . . okay . . .



Note there is similar language in the following ayah: "You did not slay them, but God slew them, and thou threwest not when thou threwest, but God threw . . ." (8.17) Does this mean that during the battle Muhammad's followers did absolutely nothing because it says "you did not slay them" and "thou threwest not when thou threwest", so God did all the work without them lifting a finger in battle?

On a related note to your interpretation, some Muslims said the third Imam "did not die, but was taken up to heaven, and that his likeness was assumed by someone else . . ." The sixth Imam did not approve of this belief.

Source: Mahmoud Ayoub's Redemptive Suffering

Twelvers are somewhat fringe, at least as far as I know and also a Persian thing. But it doesn't matter if I am mistaken on that it is a fringe belief if a Muslim denies what the Qur'an says about the non crucifixion of Jesus PBUH.

 

[Al-Ghazali]

While its the minority view, this interpretation isn't limited to Ismailis. Al-Kashani, a Twelver Shi'a, for example, didn't deny Jesus was crucified. Why does nobody really like them? Why are they very fringe?



How could I not know if I've already discussed this issue on this forum before? I asked you so I could see the translation of the Qur'an you're using or, in other words, see what you know about the issue.



Uh . . . okay . . .



Note there is similar language in the following ayah: "You did not slay them, but God slew them, and thou threwest not when thou threwest, but God threw . . ." (8.17) Does this mean that during the battle Muhammad's followers did absolutely nothing because it says "you did not slay them" and "thou threwest not when thou threwest", so God did all the work without them lifting a finger in battle?

On a related note to your interpretation, some Muslims said the third Imam "did not die, but was taken up to heaven, and that his likeness was assumed by someone else . . ." The sixth Imam did not approve of this belief.

Source: Mahmoud Ayoub's Redemptive Suffering

Since this thread is about Gnostics view of Islam and I am a Gnostic and a Muslim I will tell you, who better?

El Elyon is God Most High not Yahweh, the demiurge according even to the oldest texts of Dt. 32 where Yahweh is a "Son(s) of El" and one of 70 who received Israel as an inheritance. This corresponds with the Ugaritic texts.

So El Elyon is also Allah who deals with the Israelites whenever they are prospering, otherwise they are under the dominion of Yaltabaoth/Yahweh.

Moses dealt with the Most High despite if YHWH is in the Bible it's not what He told Moses to call Him. El Shaddai is El, El Elyon. Abraham's God. And Jesus and Mohammed.

Yahweh is something...Not fit for decent people. It's one thing to rescue an enslaved people with miracles and another from Ezra forward. I believe he single handedly manipulated the Torah beyond recognition so it's a matter of reading and deciding if God would actually act like that, and choosing yourself.

Which is why Muslims prefer the Qur'an, God is actually nice in it.

 

[Ruh Ishq]

Allah means "the God", and is not actually an entity at all - although many Muslims will disagree...

Any God that has attributes cannot be the true God, which is known as Aylin in Judaism and Nirguna Brahman in Vedanta. The Demiurge of the Gnostics is Saguna Brahman, the mental conceptions of God that divide us superficially.

On the matter of Jesus being crucified, I don't think it is necessary to take the Quran as saying he was never on the cross. Jesus is Ruh Allah, the Spirit of God, and that nature which is called Love cannot be crucified. This has become an important issue dividing the Christians and Muslims, but actually it has no affect on our own spiritual ascension.

I hope it doesn't cause anyone to miss their call.

 

[Ruh Ishq]

This gnostic doctrine is a product of Hellenic dualism. The Abrahamic traditions are holistic.

Hellenism was not dualistic, it spoke widely about the One and has developed the notion of Logos some 600 years prior to Jesus' birth, in collaboration with the Vedantists concept of Shabda Brahman.

Further, the Gnostics were no more dualistic than Advaita Vedanta, for they uphold that this world is illusion, Maya, and that only God, Nirguna Brahman, is real. This became more inclusive in Tantra, now the world is also accepted because it is the same essence as God just temporary. It is a mistake to make sweeping statements about the Gnostics, they were not saying something very different from the Church Fathers.

What is really an absolute shame is that theosis is so unknown to the Christians to the extent that many view it as against their faith.

The early Church called it "the purpose of Christian life".

What is certain is that this very Universe will eventually return to its source, spiritual life is about finding that source in the midst of living. No matter how much we want to affirm this experiential world, it cannot fulfill us. Nothing less than the divine is enough to satiate the soul.

 

[Ruh Ishq]

Thomas, please understand, most of your beliefs are dualistic.

For instance, I recall once having a conversation with you about the Logos... you said that we are related to the Logos but separate, I forget the exact terminology you used but this was my understanding of your assertion - Christ is uniquely authoritative.

This very hierarchy simply has no validity if all is One, so please do not dismiss others on the basis of being dualistic when you yourself are insistent on divisions.

Don't misunderstand, I fully accept that what is contained in the Christian tradition today is enough to enlighten, John alone provides everything necessary for those who can understand him. Just remember Ephesians 4:3, dismiss nothing because there is nothing but God.

 

[Ruh Ishq]

Of course, to further the relationship of Gnosticism and Tantra, we can point at Sophia.

This has replaced the Mahavidyas in Gnostic circles, and in Buddhism she is called Tara - the embodiment or prajnaparamita or perfected wisdom.

Tara is considered the mother of the Buddhas, just as Love is considered the mother of the Sufi.

From belief in Saguna Brahman, she has taken us to Nirguna Brahman, Aylin from Yahweh.

In Islam, the words for Compassion and Mercy come from the root "womb", again we are pointed at Her.

There is only one religion.

 

[Thomas]

Hellenism was not dualistic...

We could discuss the nature of the Hellenic schools, their philosophies and the understandings thereof in common usage, and indeed draw deeper distinctions between the paradigms proposed ... but generally speaking, Hellenic philosophies observed a marked distinctions between this world and that, between soul and body, spirit and matter etc., which is why they are largely discussed in dualistic terms.

By the same token, one could say Hebraic philosophy is not holistic, but again the same argument applies.

But when one compares Hellenism with Hebraism, then the distinctions of dualist and holist can be applied.

it spoke widely about the One and has developed the notion of Logos some 600 years prior to Jesus' birth...

Quite so ... but that doesn't change anything.

... in collaboration with the Vedantists concept of Shabda Brahman.

I'd be interested to see your evidence for that.

Further, the Gnostics were no more dualistic than Advaita Vedanta, for they uphold that this world is illusion, Maya, and that only God, Nirguna Brahman, is real...

I don't know a tradition that doesn't, but the distinction resolves to how the degrees of illusion are perceived ...

Christianity, for example, argues that only God is real, but nevertheless the world is real in a provisional sense, in the same way that Christ famously said 'God alone is good' (Matthew 19:17, Mark 10:18, Luke 18:19), but that does not mean that nothing else is or can be good.

It is a mistake to make sweeping statements about the Gnostics...

Again 'The Gnostics' generally refers to certain heresiarch and heterodox views held by some schools who disputed the reality of Christ, so I was making a generalised statement, as no two gnostic schools held quite the same philosophy, each master tending to tailor it to his own views.

... they were not saying something very different from the Church Fathers.

LOL. Now who's making generalisations? But suffice to say, in this instance, the 'gnostic schools' did not hold to, and indeed disputed, the central tenets of Christianity.

Having said that, 'gnosis' as such is a universal and common to all traditions, although the Way of it differs in description.

What is really an absolute shame is that theosis is so unknown to the Christians to the extent that many view it as against their faith.

Do they?

What is certain is that this very Universe will eventually return to its source, spiritual life is about finding that source in the midst of living. No matter how much we want to affirm this experiential world, it cannot fulfill us. Nothing less than the divine is enough to satiate the soul.

Quite, I wouldn't dispute that for a moment.

I just don't discard the experiential world as entirely illusory: It speaks and transmits the Real, the Beautiful and the True in its own way.

 

[Ruh Ishq]

We could discuss the nature of the Hellenic schools, their philosophies and the understandings thereof in common usage, and indeed draw deeper distinctions between the paradigms proposed ... but generally speaking, Hellenic philosophies observed a marked distinctions between this world and that, between soul and body, spirit and matter etc., which is why they are largely discussed in dualistic terms.

Yet, the common thread of Hellenism is Gnosis, which is NEVER dualistic, cannot be.

They seem to utilize the opposites in much the same way as for instance Lao Tzu or Ashtavakra, but perhaps we're seeing our own biases.

By the same token, one could say Hebraic philosophy is not holistic, but again the same argument applies.

Yes, especially the common understanding of this line is utterly dualistic, for God is wholly other always.

The mystics have always gone beyond this, and Hellenism had some of the giants of Western mysticism.

Indeed, Hermes Trismegistus can be said to define it.

I'd be interested to see your evidence for that.

Look into it, the Greeks and Indians were in constant dialog.

I don't know a tradition that doesn't, but the distinction resolves to how the degrees of illusion are perceived ...

Christianity, for example, argues that only God is real, but nevertheless the world is real in a provisional sense, in the same way that Christ famously said 'God alone is good' (Matthew 19:17, Mark 10:18, Luke 18:19), but that does not mean that nothing else is or can be good.

It is to suggest that when you do "good", you are allowing God to move through you, while if you are "bad" you have cut yourself off from God... I think it is Peter who goes further to suggest that whenever he sins he dies, when he repents he lives again.

I think it is more interesting to contemplate what this means about good and bad, for it suggests that anything from a position of unity is good, and anything that creates division is bad. This would be a very useful assertion in todays world, and far greater than setting out distinct Laws to obey. It permits us to be more intelligent about our actions, focusing solely on Love rather than what activity is permissible on a Sunday.

Again 'The Gnostics' generally refers to certain heresiarch and heterodox views held by some schools who disputed the reality of Christ, so I was making a generalised statement, as no two gnostic schools held quite the same philosophy, each master tending to tailor it to his own views.

The Gnostics wanted to bring your attention away from Jesus and towards yourself.

I think if we look at the modern Christian, and it is even true of Jews and Muslims, the basic spiritual message of the lines have been utterly lost... no one is even aware of the purpose of these belief systems - no less than discovering our own divinity.

LOL. Now who's making generalisations? But suffice to say, in this instance, the 'gnostic schools' did not hold to, and indeed disputed, the central tenets of Christianity.

Certainly, they do not uphold the same beliefs, that is not what I mean... what the Gnostics taught was theosis, and disputing about matters less than this is to waste our time... only that realization of divinity is meaningful in our life, nothing we believe will save us.

Having said that, 'gnosis' as such is a universal and common to all traditions, although the Way of it differs in description.

Yes, as irfan, jnana, etc

The ways do not differ much, though, actually.

Always, it is about transcending dualities, primarily the duality of "me" and "not-me" - whether the latter be God or world, etc.

Do they?

Go up to any Christian and ask whether they can become God, many might even throw the assertion that Satan fell exactly because he wanted to be equal with God. It is quite absurd to me, for if this is not the purpose then what exactly do they think it is?

Of course, you have gone into depth with the Fathers writings, so you are familiar with the true purpose, it is rare in my experience.

Quite, I wouldn't dispute that for a moment.

I just don't discard the experiential world as entirely illusory: It speaks and transmits the Real, the Beautiful and the True in its own way.

Quite, it is the tool through which the divine discovers itself in us.

I do not dismiss this world, stubbing your little toe reminds just how real it is.

Yet, everything here goes on pointing at the one who knows it, who is conscious and aware of all that arises and falls.

Only that one can be called Reality.

 

[Thomas]

Yet, the common thread of Hellenism is Gnosis, which is NEVER dualistic, cannot be.

Gnosis as such, no. 'The Gnostics' however are something else altogether, and fundamentally dualistic.

... but perhaps we're seeing our own biases.

I rather think you might be.

Look into it, the Greeks and Indians were in constant dialog.

I have. The assumption that because there are correspondences between two schools of thought the later must have received it from the earlier is quite common, but often erroneous. Again, I think your own bias assumes too much.

The Gnostics wanted to bring your attention away from Jesus and towards yourself.

Not really.

It's a given in the Gnosticism that we're discussing that only the pneumatic — the Gnostic Master — is 'awake' or a realised soul. They are from birth, so much so that they are not held accountable by moral norms — they simply cannot sin, they are infallible. The disciple, the psychic, is dependent upon the pneumatic for his or her awakening. The vast part of humanity, the hylic, are incapable of awakening, they lack the 'spark' and cannot receive it. So whilst there is modern talk of self-realisation, if one reads the gnostic texts, it's evident that the pneumatic is the only one who knows, and his disciples are dependent upon him for their spiritual development.

I think if we look at the modern Christian ...

The same can be said of any tradition.

... no less than discovering our own divinity.

How can a divine being not know? That's the contradiction.

The Divine is by nature transcendent, and not curtailed by any mode of relativism — so if a creature were divine — and therefore not a creature, not created — it could not not know itself, or else we have to say the Absolute is relative, the Infinite is finite, the Perfect is corrupted.

The idea that the self — by which I mean that which the person comprehends as his or her own self, a being, etc. — is inherently divine, divine according to its own nature, is a recurring error that obscures the essential truth of all spiritual traditions with some order of theosis at its heart.

The Divine transcends the individual, the concept of self is the last veil of ignorance, and in the west it is thicker and more opaque than it has ever been.

So the very idea of 'my own divinity' introduces dualism, dichotomy and error. There is neither your divinity nor mine, there is just the Divine, which you and I participate in, to a greater or lesser degree, but that does not mean you or I are inherently divine.

Quite, it is the tool through which the divine discovers itself in us.

I fail to see why you think the Divine is deficient or dependent; quite what it is ignorant of, and quite how we can illuminate that ignorance.

Such a divine is therefore necessarily contingent, relative, finite, changeable — everything the Divine as I understand it is not.

 

[Ruh Ishq]

Gnosis as such, no. 'The Gnostics' however are something else altogether, and fundamentally dualistic.

You know how I know you've never read any of the Gnostic texts?

You seem to only echo what the Church has said about them, but today we have their texts to see for ourselves.

I have. The assumption that because there are correspondences between two schools of thought the later must have received it from the earlier is quite common, but often erroneous.

It is simply historical fact that Greek philosophers got most of their knowledge from India, and then later with Alexander the Great and the resulting empires Egyptian and Persian philosophies were integrated. It has not been a case of one school just taking it from another, back then there was always open dialog. Even before the Greeks, the Persians were already very liberal, hence Cyrus being called Messiah in the Torah. The Greeks actually had a term for finding equivalencies and expanding on them, although my brain won't feed me the term at the moment.

It's a given in the Gnosticism that we're discussing that only the pneumatic — the Gnostic Master — is 'awake' or a realised soul. They are from birth, so much so that they are not held accountable by moral norms — they simply cannot sin, they are infallible. The disciple, the psychic, is dependent upon the pneumatic for his or her awakening. The vast part of humanity, the hylic, are incapable of awakening, they lack the 'spark' and cannot receive it. So whilst there is modern talk of self-realisation, if one reads the gnostic texts, it's evident that the pneumatic is the only one who knows, and his disciples are dependent upon him for their spiritual development.

This is again erroneous, the very point of a Master is to convey to the disciples his state and cause them to experience the same. Of course, living as the One, you cannot have past or future, and you will act as though the entire world is your body so what harm will you do to it? The goal for a true Master is that every disciple become a Master one day, and in this way the tradition lives.

You need to look and compare it more with the Guru, the Pir and Lama... yes they are special, because they know... you are to submit utterly because this is God in form as Jesus was. Yet, for him, you cannot be less, you are not even other, you are of the same divine essence... else what is the point of even speaking to you if you cannot come to know what he has found? Certainly, not everyone can be a mystic, it is not worthwhile to speak to the general population about these deeper truths because they just can't understand. I myself know this first hand, and is why I am often mocked on these forums, truth is always mocked by those who are happily ignorant.

How can a divine being not know? That's the contradiction.

When there is nothing to know, how can it?

Perhaps you insist on God as Creator, and thus fail to consider the state of God prior to Creation?

Again, in Judaism it is explained as Aylin, please look into this as it will probably jive better with your present beliefs.

The Divine is by nature transcendent, and not curtailed by any mode of relativism — so if a creature were divine — and therefore not a creature, not created — it could not not know itself, or else we have to say the Absolute is relative, the Infinite is finite, the Perfect is corrupted.

This is a dangerous assertion because it makes absurd assumptions about God.

First, how has transcendence been known? Man has experienced it, this is Gnosis.

What is most dangerous here though is the assertion that no created entity can be divine, you probably have some notion for how exactly Jesus isn't created, asserting that begotten doesn't mean created. I do not want to get into such a dialog, because it is much easier to state the flaw:

If all is one holistic unity, all is divine. This is directly experienced in Gnosis or Enlightenment.

The idea that the self — by which I mean that which the person comprehends as his or her own self, a being, etc. — is inherently divine, divine according to its own nature, is a recurring error that obscures the essential truth of all spiritual traditions with some order of theosis at its heart.

That's just it, it IS NOT their own self that is divine, this is known as Jiva.

What is divine is the sentience which knows thought and upholds the notions of ego and belief, this is known as Atman.

The Universal Self, the experience of the entire universe being your form, is called Paramatma or Supreme Self.

This Self cannot be other than Nirguna Brahman, Aylin, and the Jews agree.

So the very idea of 'my own divinity' introduces dualism, dichotomy and error. There is neither your divinity nor mine, there is just the Divine, which you and I participate in, to a greater or lesser degree, but that does not mean you or I are inherently divine.

This is splitting hairs, certainly what you take me for is not God, and you are certainly correct that these dualities must be seen through.

Yet, I am God because there is nothing but God, this isn't an acceptable assertion in the West, but that doesn't make it any less true... the fact that so many have died rather than cede the point shows the importance of this discovery for them - their life is fulfilled.

I fail to see why you think the Divine is deficient or dependent; quite what it is ignorant of, and quite how we can illuminate that ignorance.

Such a divine is therefore necessarily contingent, relative, finite, changeable — everything the Divine as I understand it is not.

I have said nothing of the sort, I have said God has created this entire universe, you and me exactly to know himself.

The common analogy is that the eye cannot see itself, it needs to be reflected.

This is the purpose of Creation.

Again, look into and try to understand the notion of Aylin.