Jesus Rebels Against YHWH the Demiurge, and Fulfills the Father's Will

[Being]

I had started a couple threads, in order to explore this POV. I also posted on someone else's thread, where this seems to be the perspective. I will give here the URLs of all three threads, in case anyone wants to read them before replying to me here.

My other 2 threads:

Christ and the Demiurge (OT God) - relationship? | ReligiousForums.com

Jesus Feels Forsaken - Gnostic View? | ReligiousForums.com

The other thread, authored by someone else:

Jesus: Messiah of the Craftsman, Christ of the Father | ReligiousForums.com

I won't repeat what I posted on my own threads. But I am including here below what I posted on the other person's thread, because it is where my thoughts have progressed to at present. I have further thoughts, but I will wait for some responses before I post more.

I haven't fully comprehended everything posted on ELoWolfe's thread. But one thing I've gathered from it is that Jesus was chosen by Yahweh/Jehovah (YHWH), the Demiurge, to be the Jewish messiah, to fulfill, or at least to further, the agenda of the Demiurge.

However, this agenda was not the will of the Heavenly Father, Abbas. Therefore, the Heavenly Father (HF) commissioned Christ (an Aeon?) to possess or indwell (via the Holy Spirit?) Jesus, so that Jesus could accomplish the will of the HF.

In the process of Jesus doing this (with the help of the Christ), Jesus also necessarily rebelled against YHWH the Demiurge, and Jesus exposed YHWH the Demiurge as being a false deity, a usurper. Jesus did this through his teachings -- often contrasting the nature, will, and kingdom of the HF to that of YHWH and the religious system of YHWH given through Moses (which Paul also taught against).

I have more to say about this. But I would rather receive replies first. From what I know of Gnostic thought, what I've stated above seems consistent with Gnosticism in general. However, I appreciate whatever further clarity anyone has to offer.

In your reply, please either quote me or direct your comment @ me, so I will receive a notification (alert) that there is a reply. Thanks.

 

[ELoWolfe]

Hi @Being , I am replying to this thread since the idea/question asked is the same in both. I did not read your other threads. I have also gained new thoughts since I wrote that, but the premises is still the same.

I came to the conclusion you mentioned by attempting to look exactly what the Messiah was all about. It was there that I was struck at 2 Samuel 7:14 ("I will be his father, and he will be my son. When he does wrong, I will punish him with a rod wielded by men, with floggings inflicted by human hands"). As we know, Jesus was flogged. It was then that I wondered if perhaps Jesus was actually the Messiah, but went against the god he was supposed to be anointed for.

I will say that I do not believe there will be a metaphysical "end-times." Literally every generation thinks they will be the last, this one included, and every generation passes without anything happening. The skeptic may say that is because there is no deity to initiate it (a literal, scientific "end-times" being obvious because of finite resources, etc.). However, I think that Jesus was supposed to be this Messiah, who was designed to initiate the rule of YHWH. The reason there won't be any such rule was because Jesus rejected that through salvation of the Heavenly Father. Because Jesus was "the one," and because Jesus said no, there is no more. The plans have been thwarted. Ironically, it is similar to the prophecy of Siddhārtha Gautama; he will either be a great king or a holy man. He would be a worldly Messiah, or a Heavenly one. He (rightly) chose the latter.

There are a lot of questions with this type of thinking. Is YHWH the Demiurge? If not, who promised the Messiah? If YHWH is not the Demiurge, but promised Israel a Messiah, does that mean there are other Messiahs (in the case of Siddhārtha)? What Holy Spirit came to Mary? Is it the same Holy Spirit who came to Jesus at his baptism? Etc., etc., etc. I have some answers to these, I think, but I will post them at a later date.

To sum up the thoughts, though, I would use these bullets to make the simplest process of the thought:

- YHWH promised Israel a Messiah.
- Israel expected such a Messiah during the occupation of Rome.
- YHWH "heard them crying out" and created the Messiah to be born; Jesus.
- Jesus is anointed by the Heavenly Father before his trials.
- YHWH tests Jesus in order to anoint him but Jesus refuses.
- YHWH leaves, promising to wait until the "right" time.
- YHWH punishes Jesus through Rome and Judas, leading up to his crucifixion.
- Even being crucified, Jesus does not take the anointing.
- Jesus returns, overcoming death.
- Since Jesus didn't die, as expected, there can not be a new Messiah.

Obviously there is much more between, before, and after each line. But that is the quickest, easiest way of saying it.

 

[Being]

@ELoWolfe
Thanks for replying. First, let me understand your final summary point:
"- Since Jesus didn't die, as expected, there can not be a new Messiah."
Do you mean that because Jesus refused YHWH's anointing as the provincial Messiah, Jesus did not die in the prescribed messianic manner; and also because only one messiah would be chosen -- and Jesus was that choice -- despite Jesus' wrecking YHWH's plan/agenda, no replacement could/would be chosen.

Okay, so was this Jesus' intention, and was he fully aware that's what he was doing? Thwarting YHWH's endeavors? And Jesus chose this path because of the Christ spirit within him, enlightening Jesus to this better way of the Heavenly Father?

Also, do you equate Sophia with The Holy Spirit and with The Spirit of Christ? (Paul equates The Holy Spirit with The Spirit of Christ; in other words, Christ is a Spirit, and this Spirit is also Sophia -- however, Paul does not say this is "Sophia" by name. Jesus, in the canonical gospel of John, says he will be/come as the Holy Spirit, who is the Spirit of Truth.)

I understand your POV about YHWH being the lesser (or lower) entity. I view YHWH as the Demiurge, and I also view the Demiurge as being evil, opposed to the Heavenly Father. Accordingly, does this view make YHWH equivalent to the one called "Satan" in the canonical New Testament, the one who tempted Jesus in the wilderness? If so, that would make YHWH the "adversary" (ha satan, in Hebrew; satanos in Greek) -- YHWH the adversary against the Heavenly Father.

In my other threads, I was asking for perspectives on what happened to Jesus on the cross. The darkness descended upon him for three hours. Afterward, he cried out "My god, my god, why have you forsaken me?" YHWH claims (and it is stated about him) numerous times that he dwells in darkness and creates evil. Wouldn't this be YHWH whom Jesus accuses of betrayal? And wouldn't this be part of Jesus' tactic to defeat YHWH the Demiurge, to call him out and expose him? Certainly, it would not be the Heavenly Father whom Jesus thinks has forsaken and betrayed him. (James writes that "The Father of Lights" has no darkness and no shadow of turning.") The Psalm 22:1 that Jesus quotes refers to YHWH. And Jesus quotes only that portion, indicting YHWH, and not any scripture that would have exonerated YHWH. Do you think Jesus is aware at this point, when he cries this out on the cross, of the difference between YHWH and the Heavenly Father?

Whether or not Jesus is fully discerning what he is doing, he nonetheless is accusing and exposing YHWH, defeating and casting out YHWH. So, is YHWH, the adversary who had tempted Jesus and now seeks to destroy Jesus, the same as the "prince of this world" whom Jesus claimed would be "cast out" by Jesus on the cross?

This is the direction of my understanding.

Hi @Being , I am replying to this thread since the idea/question asked is the same in both. I did not read your other threads. I have also gained new thoughts since I wrote that, but the premises is still the same.

I came to the conclusion you mentioned by attempting to look exactly what the Messiah was all about. It was there that I was struck at 2 Samuel 7:14 ("I will be his father, and he will be my son. When he does wrong, I will punish him with a rod wielded by men, with floggings inflicted by human hands"). As we know, Jesus was flogged. It was then that I wondered if perhaps Jesus was actually the Messiah, but went against the god he was supposed to be anointed for.

I will say that I do not believe there will be a metaphysical "end-times." Literally every generation thinks they will be the last, this one included, and every generation passes without anything happening. The skeptic may say that is because there is no deity to initiate it (a literal, scientific "end-times" being obvious because of finite resources, etc.). However, I think that Jesus was supposed to be this Messiah, who was designed to initiate the rule of YHWH. The reason there won't be any such rule was because Jesus rejected that through salvation of the Heavenly Father. Because Jesus was "the one," and because Jesus said no, there is no more. The plans have been thwarted. Ironically, it is similar to the prophecy of Siddhārtha Gautama; he will either be a great king or a holy man. He would be a worldly Messiah, or a Heavenly one. He (rightly) chose the latter.

There are a lot of questions with this type of thinking. Is YHWH the Demiurge? If not, who promised the Messiah? If YHWH is not the Demiurge, but promised Israel a Messiah, does that mean there are other Messiahs (in the case of Siddhārtha)? What Holy Spirit came to Mary? Is it the same Holy Spirit who came to Jesus at his baptism? Etc., etc., etc. I have some answers to these, I think, but I will post them at a later date.

To sum up the thoughts, though, I would use these bullets to make the simplest process of the thought:

- YHWH promised Israel a Messiah.
- Israel expected such a Messiah during the occupation of Rome.
- YHWH "heard them crying out" and created the Messiah to be born; Jesus.
- Jesus is anointed by the Heavenly Father before his trials.
- YHWH tests Jesus in order to anoint him but Jesus refuses.
- YHWH leaves, promising to wait until the "right" time.
- YHWH punishes Jesus through Rome and Judas, leading up to his crucifixion.
- Even being crucified, Jesus does not take the anointing.
- Jesus returns, overcoming death.
- Since Jesus didn't die, as expected, there can not be a new Messiah.

Obviously there is much more between, before, and after each line. But that is the quickest, easiest way of saying it.

 

[ELoWolfe]

Yes, you got the message.

Regarding what Jesus said on the cross, I think the darkness is Death claiming Jesus. I think Death is a separate Archon to that of YHWH. YHWH may have been personally observing it though, as if to gloat.

Regarding what Jesus said, if we accept Matthew as that saying, there are a couple thoughts on it. One was that it was Jesus the human (vs. Christ the Aeon) suffered. At the moment of crucifixion, the Christ left Jesus and the man was left to die alone. His anguish was that of any man who has to endure that type of torture. A second thought was that it was not Jesus at all who suffered, but Simon of Cyrene. The call would have been from Simon who wondered why God would allow him to suffer a fate not reserved for him. A third thought is that Jesus the man is crying out to the Demiurge, who in this case is not YHWH but one above him. It could be a lack of understanding from this Jesus that he doesn't know why he is left to die against the enemy.

This is definitely a moment of confusion from Jesus' part. He doesn't understand the purpose of the death. I also doubt it is a part of atonement. It is uncharacteristic for a divine to be confused like this, so I doubt it was Christ who died (and this supports my thought that Christ and Jesus are two different individuals). If it was Simon, it makes the most sense of why he would be confused. If it was Jesus, it may be because he misunderstood the role he played in the mythic drama. He does come back, surviving death and killing it, but it would seem he doesn't realize that this is possible.

It is funny when compared to the Jesus earlier in the Garden who wants the cup passed, but accepted that it may not. There could have been a moment where the human Jesus, a material throne for the Christ, expected the cup to be passed. He knew something greater was happening, but he didn't know what that would be. He was scared.

 

[Being]

Thanks for replying. I wonder, maybe Jesus was not confused, and he did understand that part of his task was to expose YHWH the Demiurge (the Evil One), and this accusatory question from Jesus was part of defeating YHWH. And, as you say, after that, the work of atonement could take place before Jesus breathed his last.

Could you explain for me why Gnosticism insists that the Christ had to depart from Jesus before Jesus died, whether the departure occurred before or during the crucifixion. If the Christ, a spiritual being, could not be harmed by the physical death of Jesus, why would it matter that Christ would remain with Jesus even into physical death? And if so, then couldn't Jesus be acknowledging the Christ spirit returning to the Father in the saying, "Father, into your hands I commit my spirit"?

Thanks.

Yes, you got the message.

Regarding what Jesus said on the cross, I think the darkness is Death claiming Jesus. I think Death is a separate Archon to that of YHWH. YHWH may have been personally observing it though, as if to gloat.

Regarding what Jesus said, if we accept Matthew as that saying, there are a couple thoughts on it. One was that it was Jesus the human (vs. Christ the Aeon) suffered. At the moment of crucifixion, the Christ left Jesus and the man was left to die alone. His anguish was that of any man who has to endure that type of torture. A second thought was that it was not Jesus at all who suffered, but Simon of Cyrene. The call would have been from Simon who wondered why God would allow him to suffer a fate not reserved for him. A third thought is that Jesus the man is crying out to the Demiurge, who in this case is not YHWH but one above him. It could be a lack of understanding from this Jesus that he doesn't know why he is left to die against the enemy.

This is definitely a moment of confusion from Jesus' part. He doesn't understand the purpose of the death. I also doubt it is a part of atonement. It is uncharacteristic for a divine to be confused like this, so I doubt it was Christ who died (and this supports my thought that Christ and Jesus are two different individuals). If it was Simon, it makes the most sense of why he would be confused. If it was Jesus, it may be because he misunderstood the role he played in the mythic drama. He does come back, surviving death and killing it, but it would seem he doesn't realize that this is possible.

It is funny when compared to the Jesus earlier in the Garden who wants the cup passed, but accepted that it may not. There could have been a moment where the human Jesus, a material throne for the Christ, expected the cup to be passed. He knew something greater was happening, but he didn't know what that would be. He was scared.

 

[ELoWolfe]

For two reasons: One, because of the fear, anger and confusion Jesus had at this moment in time; two, so that Jesus could die. A writing in the "Excerpts of Theodotus" says it: "And he died at the departure of the Spirit which had descended upon him in the Jordan, not that it became separate but was withdrawn in order that death might also operate on him, since how did the body die when life was present in him?"

I believe the Christ left during the crucifixion and that Jesus died soon (immediately?) after the spirit left. Pilate was even surprised Jesus died so quickly. And you are correct in your insight regarding the delivery of the Spirit. The same text ("Excerpts of Theodotus") says the same right in the beginning. Good job!

 

[Being]

For two reasons: One, because of the fear, anger and confusion Jesus had at this moment in time; two, so that Jesus could die. A writing in the "Excerpts of Theodotus" says it: "And he died at the departure of the Spirit which had descended upon him in the Jordan, not that it became separate but was withdrawn in order that death might also operate on him, since how did the body die when life was present in him?"

I believe the Christ left during the crucifixion and that Jesus died soon (immediately?) after the spirit left. Pilate was even surprised Jesus died so quickly. And you are correct in your insight regarding the delivery of the Spirit. The same text ("Excerpts of Theodotus") says the same right in the beginning. Good job!

@ELoWolfe ,

Thanks for your reply. So I understand this point about the Christ Spirit withdrawing from Jesus' mortal body, this happened so Jesus could die a mortal death. Was this withdraw a mutual decision by both Jesus and the Christ? Obviously, Jesus willingly yielded the Spirit to the Father. But could/would the Christ Spirit have withdrawn without Jesus' consent, or were all three (Jesus, the Christ Spirit, and the Father) in harmony and consensus that this was the plan? It seems that the culmination of Jesus' enlightenment and the progression of his teachings on Oneness indicates there was such a harmony and consensus by this moment in time, of Jesus' death on the cross. That is, especially since Jesus had declared, recorded in John's gospel, "All is accomplished (or completed)." At that point with all things accomplished according to the Father's will, Jesus needed to die, and his yielding up the Christ Spirit to the Father allowed Jesus to die and complete all things.


I might like to ask you about your view of the alleged seven sayings of Jesus on the cross. That is, when the four canonical gospels are taken as a unified single narrative, there appear to be seven sayings. Many scholars and commentators have analyzed these sayings. I have studied them. I'm working on a writing project that looks at the themes of the respective sayings. I do find that there is a progression throughout them. And two aspects that seem to be clear are Jesus' defeat of YHWH the Demiurge, followed by Jesus' fulfillment of the Father's plan. I won't elaborate on the sayings yet, but maybe in a subsequent post. I am, however, particularly interested in examining these two key points: Jesus' defeat of YHWH and Jesus' fulfillment of the Father's will. I find the distinction to be vital for the sake of clarifying that YHWH the Demiurge is not the Heavenly Father, but that YHWH is actually a usurper and an adversary against the Father. That is, YHWH is the same entity as (or is at least in cahoots with) the one called "the Evil One."


And I find that Jesus' condemnation of the Mosaic religious system and its leaders to be a condemnation of YHWH. But it also seems that for awhile, Jesus might have been confused about who the Evil One was. Jesus may not have understood that YHWH was the Evil One until Jesus was on the cross. Prior to the cross, Jesus may have believed YHWH to be the Father! (sometimes). Or Jesus incorrectly attributed some of the Father's nature, character, and interaction with Humanity, to YHWH. However, Satan was regarded as being the Evil One. So, Jesus may have thought that the Jewish religious leaders were under the spell (delusion) of Satan as the Evil One, when it seems fairly obvious that the entity Jesus describes and condemns is YHWH, the author of the Mosaic religious system.


Does it seem reasonable that Jesus the Human, may have mistaken Satan for the Evil One, when YHWH was the Evil One, or at least that YHWH was the mastermind behind the Evil One, and Satan was a puppet being manipulated by YHWH or was a mask/persona of YHWH. And Jesus should have been distinguishing between YHWH and Satan more clearly. Consequently, Jesus may also have confused and conflated YHWH with the Heavenly Father, perhaps not completely but enough such that Jesus mistakenly attributed some good to YHWH when YHWH was actually evil all along and opposed to the Heavenly Father. But the Christ Spirit indwelling Jesus progressively led Jesus completely into the truth, so that by the time Jesus was on the cross, he finally got everyone and therefore everything sorted out. (That is, he finally and fully understood who was -- and what should correctly be attributed to each -- YHWH, Satan, the Christ, and the Heavenly Father, and to Jesus himself, for on the cross, Jesus finally and fully understand who he himself is.)


I probably don't need to delve into an analysis of the seven sayings right now. What I would like to discuss is the evidence in the gospels and other writings of the New Testament -- and the particular Gnostic writings which help to illuminate and clarify the canonical writings -- evidence that shows the distinction between the Heavenly Father and YHWH, and the progression of Jesus' understanding the distinction between the Father and YHWH, such as Jesus' condemnation of the Mosaic religious system and its god; e.g., when Jesus calls the Jews "children of your father the devil" (John 8:44; cf John ch. 10).


It might do for me to understand better the Gnostic view of who Satan is, whether Satan and "the Devil" are one an the same, or at least different personae of the same entity. And in Revelation 12:9 where all these are made synonymous: the dragon, the serpent, the devil, and Satan. Is this a correct understanding, or an unenlightened conflation of the various characters? One reason I have trouble with this conflation is that I view the Serpent in Eden as being an ally or at least a nemesis for Eve against YHWH.


Or maybe the Serpent was in fact a persona of YHWH duplicitously leading Eve into disobeying YHWH so that YHWH could condemn Humanity. So, perhaps the Serpent (and later Satan) was a puppet (even if unwillingly so) of YHWH. How does Gnosticism (and you, if your view differs from the majority Gnostic view) regard Eve's actions? Did this result in total bondage for Humanity, or did Eve in some way actually thwart YHWH's plans (to some degree), which YHWH tried to complete through Jesus before Jesus also rebelled and refused to comply with YHWH? If YHWH used the Serpent to lure Eve into eating the fruit, was YHWH not smart enough to anticipate the result? Or am I off base to regard the Serpent as an ally or nemesis of Eve, against YHWH?


I know those are a lot of areas. I think I've got a clear enough picture of what happened with Jesus on the cross. And I can explore the seven sayings more later. For now, I would like to examine more closely the progressive enlightenment of Jesus by the Christ, leading Jesus to differentiate between YHWH and The Father; and Jesus' coming to understand YHWH the Demiurge as the Evil One and usurper against the Father. Also, the conflation of the dragon, serpent, devil, and Satan. And the real role of the Serpent in Eden.


Thanks again for the conversation.

Peace,

Being

 

[wizanda]

Since you missed my post explaining it is all a plan, will remind you it is there; as you're missing this is all intended.

 

[Being]

Since you missed my post explaining it is all a plan, will remind you it is there; as you're missing this is all intended.

Hi. Thanks for your post here. I did read your post on my other thread. Sometimes, I don't understand the sense of your words, probably because of your syntax (as in your post above, quoted here). And in the other thread, you are referring to ideas that I am not familiar with because I have not studied Gnosticism closely. I do, however, have some particular lines of thought that I am exploring. I did spend decades studying the bible and also reading non-canonical writings. My views now are very Jungian, and that is what is guiding the direction of my exploration. I am not trying to become a Gnostic. I am simply a Human Being who is exploring some ideas.

 

[ELoWolfe]

Hi @Being. I think the wording that can be confusing from Jesus comes from the authors and the communal memory had of Jesus. The disciples are told constantly that they don't understand what he is saying, so I believe that when these sayings and deeds are confusing, I have to wonder if it is Jesus who is confused or if it is the author who is confused.

My ideas regarding the serpent, YHWH, the garden and the like are too much to put in here. I still need to work them out. But I do think that Satan, YHWH, is the evil serpent but is not the serpent of the Garden. I think YHWH is also Yaw, and so he is the primordial chaos dragon.

Traditionally, Gnostic groups have regarded the serpent as beneficial to man. The serpent was an agent of Sophia and so freed mankind from the bondage of YHWH. Mankind was thus forced to work and suffer so they couldn't achieve an understanding of the Father, and Christ came to relieve mankind of their yoke. The Law, whether or Moses or Noahide or whichever, sealed mankind as slaves to YHWH or the Demiurge (if they're not one and the same).

 

[Being]

Hi @Being. I think the wording that can be confusing from Jesus comes from the authors and the communal memory had of Jesus. The disciples are told constantly that they don't understand what he is saying, so I believe that when these sayings and deeds are confusing, I have to wonder if it is Jesus who is confused or if it is the author who is confused.

My ideas regarding the serpent, YHWH, the garden and the like are too much to put in here. I still need to work them out. But I do think that Satan, YHWH, is the evil serpent but is not the serpent of the Garden. I think YHWH is also Yaw, and so he is the primordial chaos dragon.

Traditionally, Gnostic groups have regarded the serpent as beneficial to man. The serpent was an agent of Sophia and so freed mankind from the bondage of YHWH. Mankind was thus forced to work and suffer so they couldn't achieve an understanding of the Father, and Christ came to relieve mankind of their yoke. The Law, whether or Moses or Noahide or whichever, sealed mankind as slaves to YHWH or the Demiurge (if they're not one and the same).

@ELoWolfe

Thanks for your reply. I would like to learn more about Yaw, the primordial chaos dragon. I came across a book written by someone who demonstrates that Yahweh is the dragon and Satan. But the author also makes Yahweh the Serpent. And I need to understand what distinction there is between Eve's Serpent and the serpent in the Book of Revelation identified as Satan, the devil, and the dragon.

Concerning the confusion between YHWH and the Father in the canonical gospels, I will ponder your observation that it may be the writers, and not Jesus, who are confused. But when Jesus makes his statements of enlightenment and his criticisms of his listeners' lack of understanding, is that the Human Jesus or the Christ speaking? Or is that distinction irrelevant when the Christ is indwelling Jesus?

Peace,
Being

 

[ELoWolfe]

I would personally think that the distinction is irrelevant. I suppose you could attempt to break the two apart, but I believe when the Christ entered into Jesus at his Baptism, the two became one. Now, there is a distinction, just not when the Christ dwelled within Jesus.

An excellent book I found that looks at the chaos dragon a lot is Slaying the Dragon: Mythmaking in the Biblical Tradition by Bernard Batto. I picked it up on a whim at my local library, so you should have no problem using a library exchange if your library doesn't have it. The author writes about the chaos dragon, as well as Rahab (mentioned in another thread) briefly and the Leviathan, from the perspective that YHWH is the one to defeat them and they are beneath him. Reading it from my own perspective, however, I see YHWH as the lord, or father, of these terrible serpents. The ultimate-Serpent, so to say.

Thus, when Jesus says "If Satan is divided against himself, how can his kingdom stand? I say this because you claim that I drive out demons by Beelzebul" (Luke 11:18), there is a great sense of irony because Satan is divided against himself. Satan is not order, as the Demiurge is, but is chaos. In this regard, Yaw, YHWH, will kill his very own.

Yaw is more commonly spelled Yam, so you may be able to find more information by looking in that regard. It seems Mark Smith noticed Yam was also spelled Yw.