Emanationist Christian Theology

[Bro. Hex]

This thread originated elsewhere (in "Lies, Truths And Knowledge" in Philosophical

Talk) when Jon asked the following question:

Jonathan H. B. Lobl, on 28 April 2012 - 06:45 PM, said:

"Emanationist?" What an interesting word. Is it standard?

This is my first encounter with it.

I know that's not your point. I got distracted.

No problem, Jon. I am glad you asked.

Not all Christians "believe" in the story of creation as it is told in Genesis. Among the earliest Christian variants that challenged the Genesis account were the Sethians. Many religious scholars today consider the Sethians to have been "the original Gnostics" (The Valentinians, who were also Emanationists, came a bit later). The predominant Gnostic view of "the spiritual universe"... the pantheon of divine beings ...(you can encounter this world-view in an ancient text called "the Pistis Sophia", if you are interested in a bit of research), features a Godhead (the Supreme Divine Being) sometimes referred to as "the Father", from whom other divine beings "emanate" ("pour forth" in a manner somewhat analogous to "radiation"). The First among these Divine Emanations is Barbelo (sometimes called THE Barbelo,) who, being the First Emanation of the Father, is second only to the Father in Her power and majesty. The second emanation is called "the Christ" (in case you haven't notices, you have just read the origin-story for what would eventually become "trinitarian" theology). Thereafter follows numerous other divine beings, the last of which, and therefore the youngest, was "the divine Sophia" (the "Wisdom of God"). The entire pantheon of these Divine Beings is often referred to as "The All" and/or "the Fullness".

Skipping over many important but complicated details, we come to the "material universe" that you and I occupy. According to Emanationist (Gnostic) Christianity, the material world WAS created, but it was created "in error", and it was created by a deformed and lesser being who had "stolen" certain powers from the youngest of the Gods (Sophia). This "lesser being", usually identified as Yaldabaoth, was the offspring of Sophia, a being that she generated without the complicity of her Divine Consort (the Christ). In human biological terms we would say that Yaldabaoth had "only one parent"... a biological impossibility for humans (at least, so far).. Yaldabaoth, who was generated without the permission of the more senior Gods, and without the complicity of Sophia's Consort, (and who is frequently referred to as "an abortion") used the stolen Power, which he did not understand (something like the Sorcerer's Apprentice) to create the material world (including ..."us"). But the Divine Beings (the Father, The Barbelo and The Christ) want nothing to do with material reality, the defective creation of a deformed and mentally deficient "creator".

And that defective, deficient creator is "to blame" for all that is wrong with this broken and imperfect world...

NOT "Original Sin".

Edited April 29, 2012 by Hexalpa

[Dorian Gray]

Great post!

[Ex Nihilo]

Hi Hexalpa,

I agree with a lot of this theory, although I didn't know this is what it was called. In fact, when I read the biblical accounts of Creation in Genesis, I am forced to think that 2 creations happend, one that was orderly and perfect, as in Genesis 1, and one which was backward and filled with imperfection in Genesis 2. I often think of the first one as the spritual creations, something like the creation of the world of forms,commanded into perfect existence by the One. The second a copy that worked backwards...the man was molded out of mud (material substance?) by gods who then trap a soul inside this material cage. This world had dos and don'ts, this world had creatures that were capable of defying the will of the gods, which negates the first aspect of god: ominpotence. Things happen outside of the gods' knowledge: negating the second aspect of god: omniscience. And the gods walk in the cool of the garden, searching for Adam, negating the third aspect of god: omnipresence. Once the creatures disobey them, they dole out curses to the creatures who do only what they have been allowed to do, and only do so in their ignorance, which negates things we normally associate with god, like justice and forgiveness. And lastly, he told them that I they ate of the tree they would die that day, yet it did not happen. Can god lie? This makes me think that the god in one story is very different from the gods in the other. How can the two be reconciled?

Emanation theology answers a lot of questions. I'll definitely have to study it more. Any book recommends???

Edited April 29, 2012 by Rev'd Rattlesnake

[Bro. Hex]

Hi Hexalpa,

I agree with a lot of this theory, although I didn't know this is what it was called. In fact, when I read the biblical accounts of Creation in Genesis, I am forced to think that 2 creations happend, one that was orderly and perfect, as in Genesis 1, and one which was backward and filled with imperfection in Genesis 2. I often think of the first one as the spritual creations, something like the creation of the world of forms,commanded into perfect existence by the One. The second a copy that worked backwards...the man was molded out of mud (material substance?) by gods who then trap a soul inside this material cage. This world had dos and don'ts, this world had creatures that were capable of defying the will of the gods, which negates the first aspect of god: ominpotence. Things happen outside of the gods' knowledge: negating the second aspect of god: omniscience. And the gods walk in the cool of the garden, searching for Adam, negating the third aspect of god: omnipresence. Once the creatures disobey them, they dole out curses to the creatures who do only what they have been allowed to do, and only do so in their ignorance, which negates things we normally associate with god, like justice and forgiveness. And lastly, he told them that I they ate of the tree they would die that day, yet it did not happen. Can god lie? This makes me think that the god in one story is very different from the gods in the other. How can the two be reconciled?

Emanation theology answers a lot of questions. I'll definitely have to study it more. Any book recommends???

I am taking things in reverse order, Rattler, old boy, The book that I would recommend is not so much a book on the theory or history of emanation christology, but a modern-day devotional for use by the "solitary practitioner" (someone who is working on-his-own). There are lots of modern-day quacks out there who will try to sell you hogwash, and tack the word "gnostic" (or even worse, "gnosticism") onto their selection of snake oils. Jeremy Puma is NOT one of those jerks. He is a careful student of ancient scriptures , in particular the scriptures known as the Nag Hammadi Library, and has done a thoughtful job of reinterpreting ancient Gnostic Christian scriptures, in a way to enhance their relevance in the 21st century . There is NO WAY to recapture the understanding of these scriptures that obtained in the 3rd and 4th centuries C.E. ,but that does not mean that they have nothing left to reveal to the modern eye. Now, the book:

http://www.amazon.co.../dp/1470025167/

I agree with you, Rattler, that there are two separate and conflicting accounts of creation in Genesis. each of which is traceable to even older,

but separate and distinct cultural traditions. And your question, "Can God lie?" is very apt, as it is just the sort of question that led the original Sethians (they called themselves "the children of Seth", a linage of descent from Adam that did not run through Cain) to doubt the account contained within Genesis, and to retell that story from an alternative POV. I am looking for a reference to that account, because I think that many here will find it "interesting" (if nothing else). I hope to post it here soon.

It is an ancient version of the Genesis creation story "according to the snake"

Edited April 29, 2012 by Hexalpa

[Bro. Hex]

Found it!

Here it is:

"Then the female spiritual principle came in the snake, the instructor; and it taught them, saying, "What did he say to you? Was it, 'From every tree in the garden shall you eat; yet - from the tree of recognizing good and evil do not eat'?" The carnal woman said, "Not only did he say 'Do not eat', but even 'Do not touch it; for the day you eat from it, with death you are going to die.'" And the snake, the instructor, said, "With death you shall not die; for it was out of jealousy that he said this to you. Rather your eyes shall open and you shall come to be like gods, recognizing evil and good." And the female instructing principle was taken away from the snake, and she left it behind, merely a thing of the earth."

Source: Hypostasis of the Archons (P/O the Nag Hammadi Library)

http://www.gnosis.org/naghamm/hypostas.html

[Ex Nihilo]

Thanks Hex!

[Bluecat]

Interesting indeed. Thanks for explaining so clearly.

It sounds like some of the prose writings of Blake - though much clearer the way you put it.

He was raised a Swedenborgian, and I wonder if Swedenborg had something to do with it.

I have read that, in some versions of Hinduism, the deities have emanations which are themselves divine. The emanation of a deity conceived of as masculine is female, and vice versa. Sometimes the emanation is viewed as the sexual energy of the deity - which I have been told is the reason for gods being shown with curvy women wrapped around them in athletic and surprising ways. Maybe someone who knows more about Hinduism can confirm this?

In a recent Indian TV soap opera about Ganesh, the deity produced an emanation which was described as his daughter. After the episode was aired, shrines to her began to be built and worshippers appeared: a case of modern theogeny by scriptwriter.

[Bro. Hex]

In a recent Indian TV soap opera about Ganesh, the deity produced an emanation which was described as his daughter. After the episode was aired, shrines to her began to be built and worshipers appeared: a case of modern theogeny by scriptwriter.

That is hilarious! Somewhat akin to people actually celebrating Festivus as a holiday. as a side-effect of a Jerry Seinfeld Show episode about "an alternative to Christmas". BTW, I am glad that you mentioned"other emanations of the deities that were themselves divine" (as well as Blake and Swedenborg!). There were many powerful entities, that seem to me to be quasi-divine, that are referred to only as "The Aeons", and still others, which are clearly NOT divine (but still powerful) who are referred to as "the Archons", and whose role is similar to that of "lesser devils". These entities "proceed from" the Demiurge (the deformed and ignorant creator of "matter", and the physical universe).

Now, as for Blake and Swedenborg, they are both spiritually inclined writers that appear to me (also) to have been influenced by the suppressed early Christian scriptures as well as Hermetic and Platonic works. They are clearly "in the same spiritual ballpark" with the unknown authors of many of these works.

Edited April 30, 2012 by Hexalpa

[Bro. Hex]

Emanation theology answers a lot of questions. I'll definitely have to study it more. Any book recommends???

Another book recommendation:

The Secret Revelation of John [Hardcover]

Karen L. King (Author)

http://www.amazon.co...g/dp/0674019032

Publication Date: February 28, 2006

Lost in antiquity, rediscovered in 1896, and only recently accessible for study,

The Secret Revelation of John

offers a firsthand look into

the diversity of Christianity before the establishment of canon and creed.

Karen L. King offers an illuminating reading of this ancient text--a narrative of the creation of the universe and humanity and a guide to justice and salvation, said to be Christ's revelation to his disciple John.

Freeing the Revelation from the category of "Gnosticism"

to which such accounts were relegated, King shows how the Biblical text could be read by early Christians in radical and revisionary ways. By placing the Revelation in its social and intellectual milieu, she revises our understanding of early Christianity and, more generally, religious thought in the ancient Mediterranean world. Her work helps the modern reader through many intriguing--but confusing--ideas in the text: for example, that the creator god of Genesis, a self-described jealous and exclusive god, is not the true Deity but a kind of fallen angel; or, in an overt critique of patriarchy unique in ancient literature, the declaration that the subordination of woman to man was an ignorant act in direct violation of the "holy height."

In King's analysis, the Revelation becomes not strange but a comprehensible religious vision--and a window on the religious culture of the Roman Empire.

A translation of the complete Secret Revelation

More book recommendations later.

Edited April 30, 2012 by Hexalpa

[Jonathan H. B. Lobl]

Judaism also has teachings about "emanations." It is the foundation for Kabballah. In particular, the Tree of Life.

I will not go into a lot of detail. Largly because I get in over my head very quickly.

God had to "make room" for Creation. God did this by withdrawing. This withdrawn state was called "Ein Soph." Ein Soph is both unknown and unknowable.

The first thing that Ein Soph created, was the sphere which was "nothing."

Nothing created the next sphere, which created the next sphere, etc.

Each sucseeding sphere was more dense than the sphere which created it.

The tenth sphere is the "Presence of God."

There is a great deal more. I have to stop here because I barely know what I'm talking about as it is.

Edited May 4, 2012 by Jonathan H. B. Lobl