A gnostic interpretation of the Virgin birth of Jesus

Two of the Gospels, Matthew and Luke, mention the virgin birth of Jesus. Mark and John do not. Nor is the virgin birth mentioned in any writings of Paul. So the easiest conclusion we can make is that the writings of Matthew and Luke succeeded that of Mark, John and Paul. But why would Matthew and Luke write of a virgin birth, if it was not true. One argument I favour, is that the writers of Matthew and Luke were not true disciples of Jesus. They were confused by other sources (Gospel of Thomas) that mention virgin birth. So have given the literal interpretation instead of realizing its gnostic significance.

In hinduism the term called "Dvija" means twice-born, first the normal birth from earthly father and mother, followed by a spiritual birth of enlightenment. In Christianity the mother of the second birth might be considered the invisible, virginal Spirit defined in The Apocryphon of John . Armed with this knowledge, we can see that Gosepl of John uses different terminology to explain the same virgin birth enlightenment - "And the word became flesh, and dwelt among us (John 1:14)". So the Gospels no longer contradict one another.

In Gospel of Thomas, Jesus explained how we can experience a second birth awakening....

When you make the two into one, and when you make the inner like the outer and the outer like the inner, and the upper like the lower, and when you make male and female into a single one, so that the male will not be male nor the female be female, when you make eyes in place of an eye, a hand in place of a hand, a foot in place of a foot, an image in place of an image, then you will enter [the kingdom].

Good luck with that!

The male and female are the Ida (female) and Pengala (male) channels that revolve around the central (sushumna) channel at the back of our spine. When the Kundalini energy rises along the two curved paths of the channel, duality ceases, allowing us to be reborn into a new enlightened state in which we no loger distinguish between the all (the Father) and our self (Son). Resulting is a state that no longer taste death (no more birth/deathreincarnation into lower material realms), instead entering the kingdom.

Jesus was a truly enlightened master. And as a truly enlightened master wanted to help all his brothers and sisters escape suffering from neverending desires that rule our minds.

Thank You.

a reply to: glend

www.blueletterbible.org...

Each Addressed A Particular Audience

Each Gospel writer addresses his work to a particular audience and, in doing so, records a different aspect of the life of Christ. Mark is emphasizing that Jesus is the servant of the Lord and that He can do the job God ordained Him to do. Mark says nothing about the first thirty years of the life of Christ. The reason that nothing is said in regard to Jesus' birth or early years because it is not relevant to Mark's purpose.

The same is true with the Gospel of John. John emphasizes that Jesus was God from all eternity. The Gospel begins in eternity past with Jesus already on the scene. John then stresses the fact that Jesus, as God, became a human.

And the word became flesh, and dwelt among us (John 1:14).

Consequently John is emphasizing the sublime truth that God came into the world, not the manner in which He came. He says nothing about Jesus first thirty years.

Though Mark and John do not expressly state that Jesus was born of a virgin, nowhere do they teach the contrary. They simply give no details concerning His birth.

Consequently Mark makes the point that Jesus is Mary's son but says nothing about Joseph being the father of Jesus. Therefore he says nothing that would contradict the idea of a virgin birth.

I speak what I have seen with my Father, and you do what you have seen with your father (John 8:38).

The Jews responded to this saying that Abraham was their father. Then they made the following accusation at Jesus.

"We were not born of fornication" (John 8:41).

The Testimony Of Paul

The fact that Paul does not record the virgin birth is not surprising. He does not deal with the story of the life of Christ. However he does say the following about Jesus.

But when the time had fully come, God sent his Son, born of a woman, born under law (Galatians 4:4)

Summary

The virgin birth of Christ is clearly recorded in two of the four gospels - Matthew and Luke. The other two gospels, Mark and John say nothing about it but John presupposes it in the story of Jesus and the religious rulers. In addition, John says that the Word was manifest in the flesh. Mark, however, says nothing about Jesus early years. However he is careful not to call Jesus "Josephs' son" but rather "Mary's son." Paul says nothing of it because he does not deal with the life of Christ. Consequently the fact that some writers do not mention the virgin conception of Christ does not in any way prove they rejected the doctrine or knew nothing of it.

a reply to: infolurker

Well written.

a reply to: visitedbythem

Just grabbing readily available information. Same here:

www.patheos.com...


Both Matthew and Luke’s narrative mention that Mary was betrothed to Joseph when she conceived. Pentiuc argues for a new etymology of almah that might well underscore this point — and thereby underscore the prophecy’s prediction of Mary’s virginity and even her identity. The lexical root of almah indicates something concealed or hidden, he says, explaining the significance:

During the period of betrothal, fiancés used to live in their parents’ homes, separated, secluded, forbidden from seeing one another. The feminine form, ‘almah, may also be rendered “the concealed one” or even “the veiled one.” This last rendition would reflect the custom of engaged women wearing veils over their faces as a sign of seclusion, or concealment, during the time of betrothal.

In other words, Isaiah was not just prophesying that "a" virgin would conceive. What’s more, he was not just prophesying "the" virgin would conceive. He was prophesying that the "betrothed virgin would conceive".

Hello, Mary.

Pentiuc draws out another fascinating difference between the Septuagint and the Masoretic text here. While the Septuagint’s Isaiah says the father will name the special child, the Hebrew/Masoretic text says the virgin will name the child, indicating that she is unmarried or that the father is absent.

The Septuagint scholars didn’t make a mistake. They were rendering as best they could what was obvious in the text: that a young, betrothed-but-unwed virgin would conceive and bear a son named Immanuel, which Matthew is kind enough to translate. The son of the virgin will be “God with us.”

Jesus seemed to be a really good guy. He was filled to the rim with the Holy Spirit. I don't care if it was a virgin birth, his messages seem to be pretty good messages and if everyone followed his ways, this would be a nice planet. But of course, Religions twisted his words over the years, and Governments throughout history were pushing the religions to do their bidding or they would kill the members. Religions were forced to make pacts with rulers of Nations throughout history.

Lets concentrate on trying to make Jesus's real intentions create a great society. Oh yeah, that would almost be true communism or pure socialism, that won't ever happen. Time to come down off my fantasy cloud and get another cup of mud.

a reply to: infolurker

Consequently the fact that some writers do not mention the virgin conception of Christ does not in any way prove they rejected the doctrine or knew nothing of it.

I do not accept that at all. Logically there's a possibility that a UFO has landed all our backyards because none of us have mentioned or denied it (scientifically thats more feasible than a virgin birth). But human nature being as it is, we would scream the house down, if a UFO did land our backyards. So of cause Paul would have used the virgin birth to empower his mission. But both Matthew and Luke are estimated to have been written after ~90AD by anonymous writers so the story of the virgin birth was not created until after Pauls death.

Seek not the law in your scriptures, for the law is life (no idea why I added this but it does sound cool).

a reply to: rickymouse

No it doesn't need communism or socialism, it needs love
Wealthy people can provide services for the poor, education, medical, advancement
We are not all equal

originally posted by: Raggedyman
a reply to: rickymouse

No it doesn't need communism or socialism, it needs love
Wealthy people can provide services for the poor, education, medical, advancement
We are not all equal

But wealthy people usually gain wealth from how?

originally posted by: rickymouse
Jesus seemed to be a really good guy. He was filled to the rim with the Holy Spirit. I don't care if it was a virgin birth, his messages seem to be pretty good messages and if everyone followed his ways, this would be a nice planet. But of course, Religions twisted his words over the years, and Governments throughout history were pushing the religions to do their bidding or they would kill the members. Religions were forced to make pacts with rulers of Nations throughout history.

Lets concentrate on trying to make Jesus's real intentions create a great society. Oh yeah, that would almost be true communism or pure socialism, that won't ever happen. Time to come down off my fantasy cloud and get another cup of mud.

Actually no, Jesus intentions was to sacrifice himself for the payment for sin. For you and I so that we could enter the kingdom of heaven. Jesus's kingdom is not of this earth, not until he returns to this earth for the millennial reign and that will be a just kingdom under his rule.

originally posted by: glend
a reply to: infolurker

Consequently the fact that some writers do not mention the virgin conception of Christ does not in any way prove they rejected the doctrine or knew nothing of it.

I do not accept that at all. Logically there's a possibility that a UFO has landed all our backyards because none of us have mentioned or denied it (scientifically thats more feasible than a virgin birth). But human nature being as it is, we would scream the house down, if a UFO did land our backyards. So of cause Paul would have used the virgin birth to empower his mission. But both Matthew and Luke are estimated to have been written after ~90AD by anonymous writers so the story of the virgin birth was not created until after Pauls death.

Seek not the law in your scriptures, for the law is life (no idea why I added this but it does sound cool).

Accept what.... the other two gospels do not mention Yashua's early life at all.

Let me ask you a question, are you a real Gnostic?

Do you believe that the serpent in the Garden of Eden was trying to help Adam and Eve escape the clutches of their oppressive Creator? To share with humanity the secret knowledge that they are, in fact, divine?

Does Gnosticism recognize sin or the need for salvation?

So you believe Gnosticism can bring the fire of knowledge to people and make them gods themselves? )the original lie of the garden of Eden)

originally posted by: infolurker

originally posted by: rickymouse
Jesus seemed to be a really good guy. He was filled to the rim with the Holy Spirit. I don't care if it was a virgin birth, his messages seem to be pretty good messages and if everyone followed his ways, this would be a nice planet. But of course, Religions twisted his words over the years, and Governments throughout history were pushing the religions to do their bidding or they would kill the members. Religions were forced to make pacts with rulers of Nations throughout history.

Lets concentrate on trying to make Jesus's real intentions create a great society. Oh yeah, that would almost be true communism or pure socialism, that won't ever happen. Time to come down off my fantasy cloud and get another cup of mud.

Actually no, Jesus intentions was to sacrifice himself for the payment for sin. For you and I so that we could enter the kingdom of heaven. Jesus's kingdom is not of this earth, not until he returns to this earth for the millennial reign and that will be a just kingdom under his rule.

But skip the going to heaven dream, why can't we just make this place more like heaven. A place where we can all live symbiotically and kill off all those who try to rob us

originally posted by: rickymouse

originally posted by: infolurker

originally posted by: rickymouse
Jesus seemed to be a really good guy. He was filled to the rim with the Holy Spirit. I don't care if it was a virgin birth, his messages seem to be pretty good messages and if everyone followed his ways, this would be a nice planet. But of course, Religions twisted his words over the years, and Governments throughout history were pushing the religions to do their bidding or they would kill the members. Religions were forced to make pacts with rulers of Nations throughout history.

Lets concentrate on trying to make Jesus's real intentions create a great society. Oh yeah, that would almost be true communism or pure socialism, that won't ever happen. Time to come down off my fantasy cloud and get another cup of mud.

Actually no, Jesus intentions was to sacrifice himself for the payment for sin. For you and I so that we could enter the kingdom of heaven. Jesus's kingdom is not of this earth, not until he returns to this earth for the millennial reign and that will be a just kingdom under his rule.

But skip the going to heaven dream, why can't we just make this place more like heaven. A place where we can all live symbiotically and kill off all those who try to rob us

Because all flesh is corrupt.

I believe that the real truth of Christ resides within each and every one of us. Not a popular idea with the Romans. No structure. Constantine gave Christianity structure... Christianity became "law", but law dictated and enforced by man.

This is why the Gnostics were almost erased from history. Belief in a Christ that required no "middle-man" (clergy) was dangerous. They were driven underground.

I was once a Roman Catholic. I am now a Gnostic.

I do believe, however, that there is confusion between the Virgin Mary, and the deity "Sophia".

Sophia is the mother of creation... the Yin to the Yang. She has been re-labled as "The Holy Spirit" by a church that wanted to suppress the idea of a feminine deity.

Women, after all, have no place in religion...

a reply to: glend


You should concentrate on the fact that ressurection, born again and virgin birth, when not applied to Jesus(pbuh), are euphemisms for the same thing of which you speak, a second birth or a spiritual death and spiritual birth but while in the body, and it exists in either Sethian or Orthodox literature.

It's difficult to be decieved by the Gospel of Thomas because it states at the beginning something Luke's author would know is saying something esoteric, Luke could have been doing the same thing. Hypothetically, if he had read it and was named Luke (anonymous actually).

In fact I know that it was not believed by most Jewish Nazarene/Christian sects regarding the Virgin birth as late as the 5th century, although the reports are unreliable in certain respects and claim the Nazarenes did and the Ebionites didn't believe in the virgin birth, Paul. None believed he was God in the flesh.

Sethians believed his Father was not the God of Israel and they would be not true disciples because the Gospels say otherwise. Clearly. You have to abuse the texts out of context to attempt an argument to the contrary.

Although unlike Marcion they believed in the virgin birth, esoterically or otherwise and were loyal to the 12 Apostles and disdained Pauline vicarious atonement and faith without works theology. Regarding the "Prayer of Paul" it is Orthodox in character and likely didn't go with what you call the Gnostic texts found with it, some Hermetica and a fragment of Plato's Republic. Not all came from the Sethian "Gnostics" and Prayer and Apocalypse of Paul are two. Apocalypse of Paul was written by someone who must have noticed that Revelation did not include Paul in its Vision of New Jerusalem and added him on his own, clearly a pious and Orthodox fiction.

originally posted by: madmac5150
I believe that the real truth of Christ resides within each and every one of us. Not a popular idea with the Romans. No structure. Constantine gave Christianity structure... Christianity became "law", but law dictated and enforced by man.

This is why the Gnostics were almost erased from history. Belief in a Christ that required no "middle-man" (clergy) was dangerous. They were driven underground.

I was once a Roman Catholic. I am now a Gnostic.

I do believe, however, that there is confusion between the Virgin Mary, and the deity "Sophia".

Sophia is the mother of creation... the Yin to the Yang. She has been re-labled as "The Holy Spirit" by a church that wanted to suppress the idea of a feminine deity.

Women, after all, have no place in religion...

So,

Lucifer or Sophia is the being you worship. Like Prometheus, the one who can bring the fire of knowledge to people and make them gods themselves, the original lie of the garden of Eden and Jesus, is only another aeon or an ascended master, who is also against the restrictions imposed by God?

According to this doctrine, there is an unknowable being called the "True Father." He created a being called Sophia, but because Sophia was forbidden to know the True Father, she became angry and created a monstrous god named Yaldaboath or Yahweh (the most sacred Hebrew name for God).
Yaldaboath was cast out of the cosmos and forced to live in the created universe. The Bible tells us, however, that it was Satan who was cast out of heaven—not God.

Gnostic doctrine says that Sophia used the serpent in the Garden of Eden to share with humanity the secret knowledge that they are, in fact, divine.

a reply to: madmac5150

Interesting fact, in Gospel of the Hebrews according to several Church fathers, ante-Nicene and right after including Jerome, it says quoting Jesus (pbuh):

"My Mother, the Holy Spirit...."

This is in Hebrew.

Jerome deflects by saying it is only because Spirit is fem. in Hebrew, which is true. But that would explain the use of "She" and not "Mother" and if you use the same logic with "Father" it should equally apply.

Clearly a flawed argument. Personally I don't think either are literal and that Jesus (pbuh) is being metaphorical. After all, it's "Our Father" too. And our "Mother" obviously too.

a reply to: rickymouse

Screwing down the little people
Communism and socialism doesn't change the human condition

a reply to: infolurker


Lucifer is not a Biblical character but a misinterpreted and mistranslated Isaiah 14:12.

The Serpent is also not Satan in the OT, who is seen in Heaven with God later in Job 1 and clearly wasn't the receipt of the punishment of the Serpent. A "beast" of flesh, was the Biblical Serpent, not an angel.

Sophia is only equated with the Serpent as a symbol of Wisdom, "Wise as serpents" is a quote, command to be as, by Jesus (pbuh).

No evil was intended on their part in this alternative interpretation. Sophia is female and the mythological Lucifer aka the Biblical Satan are both male.

originally posted by: Raggedyman
a reply to: rickymouse

Screwing down the little people
Communism and socialism doesn't change the human condition

Doesn't seem to be related to this interpretation or thread, your comment.

Democracy screws as many people anyway. Except rich folks and even then it happens a lot.

How many lies have we been told throughout history? I believe that the true story of Christianity was buried with the Gnostics. Evidence points to the fact that Christ was an Essene. An esoteric Jew. "Yahweh", the God of the Jewish faith, claimed to create us, and used Moses to enact his laws. Yahweh required blood sacrifices. They made a pact...

Christ changed everything. Yahweh was a God of blood and destruction. Christ introduced the idea that we we all brothers.

"Love each other, as I have loved you...."

Pretty much says it all.