Theos-Talk Archives (February 2005 Message tt00013)

Hi Steve,
I remember in Elaine Pagel's book on the Gnostics gospels she pointed
out how the Gnostics did not put much importance on the historical
Jesus but rather on a personal revelation of the gnosis.

This of course infuriated the Bishops and clergy as it put them out of
a job if you don't need sacraments and apostolic succession you loose
your power over the people.

Heres a quote from the book `The Gnostic Gospels' by Elaine Pagels:

"Whatever we think of the historicity of the orthodox account, we can
admire its ingenuity. For this theory - that all authority derives
from certain apostle's experience of the resurrected Christ, an
experience now closed forever - bears enormous implications for the
political structure of the community. First, . . . it restricts the
circle of leadership to a small band of persons whose members stand in
a position of incontestable authority. Second, it suggest that only
the apostles had the right to ordain future leaders as their
successors. . . . Any potential leader of the community would have to
derive, or claim to derive, authority from the same apostles. Yet,
according to the orthodox view, none can ever claim to equal their
authority - much less challenge it. What the apostles experienced and
attested their successors cannot verify for themselves; instead, they
must only believe, protect, and hand down to future generations the
apostles' testimony.

This theory gained extraordinary success: for nearly 2,000
years, orthodox Christians have accepted the view that the apostles
alone held definitive religious authority, and that their only
legitimate heirs are priests and bishops, who trace their ordination
back to that same apostolic succession. . . .

But the gnostic Christians rejected Luke's theory. Some gnostics
called the literal view of resurrection the "faith of fools." " pages
10 - 11



And from Isis Unveiled :

"An outcry has just been made in England over the discovery that
Anglican priests are largely introducing auricular confession and
granting absolution after enforcing penances. ... The bishop,
questioned, points to Matthew xvi, 19, for the source of his authority
to bind and loose on earth those who are to be blessed or damned in
heaven; and to the apostolic succession for proof of its transmission
from Simon Bar-jona to himself. The present volumes have been written
to small purpose if they have not shown,

"1, that Jesus, the Christ-God, is a myth concocted two centuries
after the real Hebrew Jesus died;

"2, that, therefore, he never had any authority to give Peter, or
anyone else, plenary power;

"3, that even if he had given such authority' the word Petra (rock)
referred to the revealed truths of the Petroma, not to him who thrice
denied him; and that besides, the apostolic succession is a gross and
palpable fraud;

"4, that Gospel according to Matthew is a fabrication based upon a
wholly different manuscript." (Isis Unveiled II, p. 544)

I think HPB leant towards the Gnostic side.


Perry





--- In theos-talk@yahoogroups.com, "stevestubbs" <stevestubbs@y...> wrote:
> 
> --- In theos-talk@yahoogroups.com, "Perry Coles" <perrycoles@y...> 
> wrote:
> > I think it was Pope "Innocent" that said something like 'this
> > myth of Christ has served us well'
> 
> It was pope Leo X and thr quote is:
> 
> "What profit has not that fable of Christ brought us!"
> 
> The source is Barbara Walker, The Woman's Encyclopedia of Myths and 
> Secrets. San Francisco: Harper & Row, 1983, p. 471. Taylor renders 
> this: "It was well known how profitable this fable of Christ has been 
> to us." (Robert Taylor, The Diegesis, 1860, p. 35n.) Leo X's real 
> name was Giovanni de Medici, He became pope when his predecessor 
> Julius II was murdered in 1513 and exploited the Catholic Church for 
> his personal gain until his own murder in 1521. In between murders 
> Giovanni was the teacher of morals to the Christian world. Methinks 
> he did not know enough to teach.