What Scriptures are in the Nag Hammadi Codex-Part 2
Assumptions About Early Christians
One extremely important heresy that the Catholic Church did to all writings about Christ is to eliminate the complex, sophisticated and philosophical brilliance of all of those who wrote about Christ in the first 100 years after his death. If there is any inspired (word inspired by God) writing this was it. First the church fathers dismantled brilliant writing to dumb down the complex existence of a miracle or enlighten being or highest human potential walking this Earth. If you only read the bible Jesus doesn't seem like a very smart guy. He tells stories and does some miracles and since he is the "son of God" this is enough, but in this day in age it is not. Their are human authors today that tell more complex stories. The problem is that way back in the day when the church was creating this religion no one could read but the priests- and they wanted it that way- so thus the masses were not smart- so it worked. The bible doesn't work now because it is just too elementary. We are talking on cell phones, we are creating nano-science. The Christian Religion is not evolving with the times. It is a known fact that the generations that are 30 and younger don't know one word of the Bible- the majority of them that is. Now if you add the original writings of the Nag Hammadi Scriptures- these offer a more complex, intelligent and mysterious philosophy and these people BELIEVED in Christ to be the Son of God and everything that is important to Christians. I am not a Christian but I think these writings are incredible account of what happened and I am not stupid. I believe Christ was here for a particular purpose- I want to know what it really was. I want to know everything I can know because it is about our human evolution both biological and spiritual.
Christians assume that Eve ate the apple and got us into this mess, but God put the tree of knowledge there on purpose- he's god-don't forget.
We fell from grace- thus we live in the sinful material world- we need a savior.
God sent his only son to save us. He was crucified and so god who sent his son- who must of known we needed saving, probably knew he would be crucified and also knew he could handle anything(Son of God stuff) and thus resurrected because he wanted us to understand that the body is only a vehicle to attain spiritual knowledge. God did not send his son to die for us- and that solved all of humanity's problems. God is not an idiot people- give him/her some credit. Christ came to give us a message - we all have the salvation we need in ourselves once we gain the righteous knowledge- i.e. christ teachings and other teachings.
The Treatise on Resurrection
44, 39-45, 23
The Resurrection of Christ
"Christ came to provide the explanation, to leave nothing hidden, but to reveal everything clearly about coming into being, the destruction of evil, and the revelation of the chosen...... The Savior swallowed death. You must know this. When he laid aside the perishable world, he exchanged it for the incorruptible eternal realm. He arose and swallowed the visible throught the invisible, and thus he granted us the way to our immortality....... As the apostle (Paul) said of him, we suffered with him, we arose with him, we ascended with him."
The question is was the world unsavable before he walked this Earth. Many Christians would say yes- he had to come and die for us for all of humanity to be saved- redeemed. I disagree with this even though the above seems to follow this argument. I think Christ was suppose to come and reveal everything to us- maybe even shift our whole consciousness and he had to swallow death to show us that our immortatility is granted because when we believe in the way of Christ then we are resurrected. The path is not set for any of us since he came- we must follow the way strictly- and his way is not the only way.
The Round Dance (Apocryphal Acts of John) is a perfect example of the philosophical question.
Christ says " A lamp I am to thee that beholdest me
A mirror am I to thee that perceivest me
A door am I to thee that knockest at me. "
The mirror is too much to take, I am mean a mirror assumes an idential reflection. You hold up a mirror and Christ acts like one- this is no Son that is better than humans. And one must knock at the door to enter, and one must be ready to enter - not because you said I recognize my sin can you just open the door and walk in. If Christ is a lamp or a torch that lights the way for us- we still must behold the lamp- hold it up and walk on a narrow and very strict path.
Essential Commentary by Einar Thomassen
"The Savior was divine and human at one and the same time. this duality in the Savior's nature was function of his redemptive task: in order to save the humanity from its fallen condition, the Savior himself had to assume human nature, but because of his divinity he was also able to overcome the human fate of death.
How the Treatise differs from the orthodox church doctrine is by this " The "death" that the Savior brought to naught is not primarily a state of sin, but the condition of physcial existence in a corruptible material world. The Savior's death and his incarnation are basically on and the same redemptive act. the fact that he entered this world and assumed a human body means that he accepted death." (Thomassen, pg 49, 50)
This is where you need to think. God and the Son of God decide that Son his going to incarnate as a human to redeem humanity- the very instant he says yes to the human condition he knows death will happen someway-somehow. Dad wrote the book-Yes? So when he came here he would learn and or know how to resurrect to show us that the human condition is only an illusion, and thus realize that your true nature is divine, immortal and worthly of gods love. That is it folks. If you go with one idea and take it all the way to its end - assuming you can analyze the whole and its parts- it will eventually work. No exceptions.