Jesus & antinomian symbolism

[obnoxion]

I’ve been doing some research on a curious symbolism: It seems the Jesus of the Four Gospels is surprisingly often connected to thieves and thievery.

Firstly and most importantly, Jesus compares himself to a sort of sneak thief (Mathew 24:43; Luke 12:39), “if the good man of the house had known what hour the thief would come, he would have watched, and not have suffered his house to be broken through”. In like manner Jesus is called “Thief in the Night” (1. Thessalonians 5:2, 5:4; 2. Peter 3:10; Revelation 3:3, 16:15), which seems a particularly sinister allegory.

In the light of these quotations other similar examples become more meaningful. In several places Jeesus says that people have come for him as against a thief (Matthew 26:55; Mark 14:44-52; Luke 22:52). Yet in another place Jesus compares himself not only to a thief, but compares his methods to a robbery: “No man can enter into a strong man’s house, and spoil his goods, except he will first bind the strong man; and then he will spoil his house” (Mark 3:27).

Then there is the case of taking an ass without permission, which could very well be called a theft: “Go into the village over against you, and straightway ye shall find an ass tied, and a colt with her: loose them, and bring them unto me. And if any man say ought unto you, ye shall say, The Lord hath need of them” (Matthew 21:2-3).

We also know that Jesus was crucified between two thieves (Matthew 27:38), where he actually takes the place of Barabbas, who “was a robber” (John 18:40).

The last curious thing I want to mention is from Margaret Starbirds book ”Magdalene’s Lost Legacy”, where she mentions that in the New Testament many references to evil are derived from the gematric root 23, “for example 23 x 12 is 276, the number on which references to Satan, Beelzebub, evil, the dragon, and Hell are built” (page 77). Now this “number of evil” 276 is especially connected to the Law of Moses:

“stone tables” (2. Cor. 3:3) 276 x 2
“the Sabbath Day” (Luke 13:14) 276 x 8
“the letter killeth” (2. Cor. 3:6) 276 x 4
“religion” (Acts 26:5) 276 x 4
“unclean” (Luke 4:33) 276 x 2
“the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees” (Matt. 5:20) 276 x 18
“but where there is no law, neither is there transgression” (Rom. 4:15) 276 x 11

Now it does seem that there is not only an antinomian aspect to Jesus, but there might also be an antinomian teaching hidden in the greek New Testament. I see here an example of a gnostic, and perhaps even a Left Hand Path teaching inside the Christian tradition. I would be very interested to hear your interpretations of these queer findings.

To add one more curious detail, a notable exception to this theme is The Gospel According to John, which not only refrains from comparing Jesus to a thief, it actually sets the thief as an opposite example of Jesus (John 10:1, 10:10, 12:6).

[Nefastos]

This is extremely interesting, and I think one point of this symbolism is of the fact how Jesus' ultimate doctrine of Love over everything else literally "robs blind" an intelligent man. The same theme with different allegories can be found in bhakta (adoration) teachings from mystics of all religions, although I think that the Nazarene teacher had a unique perfection in this particular thing.

Although, Mark 3:27 seems to be pointing at the first hand to demonosophy & not to his own doctrine. The context was:

"And he called them unto him, and said unto them in parables, How can Satan cast out Satan?
And if a kingdom be divided against itself, that kingdom cannot stand.
And if a house be divided against itself, that house cannot stand.
And if Satan rise up against himself, and be divided, he cannot stand, but hath an end.
No man can enter into a strong man's house, and spoil his goods, except he will first bind the strong man; and then he will spoil his house.
Verily I say unto you, All sins shall be forgiven unto the sons of men, and blasphemies wherewith soever they shall blaspheme:
But he that shall blaspheme against the Holy Ghost hath never forgiveness, but is in danger of eternal damnation.
Because they said, He hath an unclean spirit." (Mark 3:23-30)

But I still think you are definitely on the right track, and even this can be taken as a part of that same symbolism of thieving. Although it shows the ambivalent nature of those symbols, since we can see easily enough that if one is "bound and his goods spoiled", he really can't be sure whether the robber in question is "holy" or "unclean" spirit.

In theosophical terms, this is the question of astral nature (i.e. kâma) & buddhi, the lower and the higher intuition. We as men are thinkers, the beings of intellect; our basic nature here on earth is the rational one. From this rational focus the spirits take us downwards to subconscious via the astral nature, or upwards to the heights of metaphysical heavens via buddhic inspiration. Both can also be seen as "love", although the former love is bound to form and can be extremely petty & harmful if used unwisely.

I think that these mysteries are for the few, even among occultists, because many men are interested in thrills given by demonosophy, but very few can truly understand what true Love is, instead seeing there only their subconsciously egoistical emotions.

[obnoxion]

The same theme with different allegories can be found in bhakta (adoration) teachings from mystics of all religions, although I think that the Nazarene teacher had a unique perfection in this particular thing.

I couldn't agree more. This is exactly the reason why I didn't bring up such examples as Krishna, the notorious butter thief. I do think that it is a mistake to say that Christ is a form of Krishna. Although they do have many obvious similarities, there is also a quite clear shaivite aspect to Christ. I think "unique perfection" was a very accurate description.

[Lux]

I do think that it is a mistake to say that Christ is a form of Krishna.

I understand what you mean by this, yet I disagree: If we see Khrisna being "The Self" and Christ(os) being "The Son (Sun) of God", they clearly refer to different aspects in the trinitarian conception of divinity. I'd say that Khrisna is the 'all-encompassing' (atma-buddhi-manas), the Godhead itself, Christ(os) being buddhi, hence the love-wisdom emphasis and "unique perfection" in Christ himself.

It is of course also true that "Father and I are one", but I see this referring to the threefold perfection of any a complete initate, in which they have other aspects of the atma-buddhi-manas also active, yet they emphasize some other ray over other because of dharmic duties etc.

[obnoxion]

What I ment was, that although it is absolutely accurate to say that "Christ is a form of Vishnu", it does not mean that we can dispose of Christ in favor of Vishnu. There is a unique quality to Christ, perfetct in itself. In practice this means that the ways to God of an ethiopian christian hermit and a vaishnava ascetic in India are very different, yet both believers do their humble Work under the same Archetype.

I'm sure you know what I mean, frater, but just to be clear...

[Lux]

What I ment was, that although it is absolutely accurate to say that "Christ is a form of Vishnu", it does not mean that we can dispose of Christ in favor of Vishnu. There is a unique quality to Christ, perfetct in itself. In practice this means that the ways to God of an ethiopian christian hermit and a vaishnava ascetic in India are very different, yet both believers do their humble Work under the same Archetype.

I'm sure you know what I mean, frater, but just be clear...

Understood & agreed. I'm still content that the above-mentioned was said also.

[obnoxion]

If we contemplate on the symbolisms of the christian Gospels, we can find at least four of the five Tantric M's from the teachings of Jesus. These are meat, wine, grain and fish. Is there a possibility of tantric interpretation? And if there is, then what about the fifth M, which is intercourse with a woman?

[obnoxion]

If we contemplate on the symbolisms of the christian Gospels, we can find at least four of the five Tantric M's from the teachings of Jesus. These are meat, wine, grain and fish. Is there a possibility of tantric interpretation? And if there is, then what about the fifth M, which is intercourse with a woman?

I shall begin interpreting these things from the forbidden grain. In 1. Samuel 21, we can read an inscription of an esoteric drama. David has come in secret business to a priest, who holds under his hand hallowed bread, which is forbidden for eating. But as David has kept himself three days from women, the priest gives him forbidden bread to eat, the showbread. After part taking this forbidden bread, he receives the Sword of Goliath from under the hand of the priest.

Now Jesus refers to this incident in Mathew 12., when we went on the Sabbath day through the corn, and his disciples began to pluck the ears of corn because they were hungry. The Pharisees see this and rebuke the Jesus’ disciples, because it is unlawful to pluck corn on a Sabbath day. Jesus declares himself to be the Lord of the Sabbath, and goes on to heal the man whose hand is withered, which is also forbidden on the Sabbath day.

By healing the the withered hand, we can perhaps see a reference to the hand of the priest Ahimelech, who administered the forbidden bread to David in secret, and gave David the sword of Goliath.

From the point of the biblical left hand path, we can see the esoteric history of the forbidden grain, and the bread of the black Sabbath being revealed by David and being sanctified by “The Son of David”.

The tantric M’s of grain, bread and meat are closely connected in gospels, as are wine with blood. When Christ says of the bread that this is my flesh, we are reminded of the tantric flesh-eating Dakinis, and when Christ says that the wine is his blood, Heruka, “the blood drinker”, comes to mind. And once again the body of Christ is offered for eating, as when he was placed in the feeding bowl of the animals when he was first born.

From the beginning to the end, he seemed to cultivate the attitude of Chöd.

[Nefastos]

If we contemplate on the symbolisms of the christian Gospels, we can find at least four of the five Tantric M's from the teachings of Jesus. These are meat, wine, grain and fish. Is there a possibility of tantric interpretation? And if there is, then what about the fifth M, which is intercourse with a woman?

Well, there's an option that's even more antinomian than that, namely Jesus' symbolic (?) love affair with John the Evangelist. (John 13:23 &c.)

Just recently I got this beautiful item, an old book-shaped container for a rosary, having on it a picture of Jesus as a founder of eucharist, and St. John pressing himself on his side. It's one of those many pictures of John looking extremely feminine. John is almost always pictured beardless and long-haired, to the extent that it's very easy to take him for a woman if one isn't familiar with the iconography. (John's name means something like youth or young one in Latin-based languages, giving one part of his youthful appearance's symbolism.)

That is one very tantric/antinomian approach to the subject.

Then, there's another story, the one about the prostitute that Jesus saved. It has come to many minds that Mary Magdalene not only was that prostitute (this part is semiofficial part of the Christian canon itself), but that she even became Jesus' spouse. I'd start doing qabalistic analysis with the Greek words that are given on the stories of those prostitutes - like that "alabaster box of ointment" in Luke 7:37 which made Pharisees rebuke Jesus for letting an unclean woman touch him.

Even if Jesus was a celibate himself - mostly or always or after a certain point, who can say - the symbolism of coitus with woman (or even man) can be found in the gospels easily enough.

[Kaosoth]

This is a very interesting topic.

Then there is the case of taking an ass without permission, which could very well be called a theft: “Go into the village over against you, and straightway ye shall find an ass tied, and a colt with her: loose them, and bring them unto me. And if any man say ought unto you, ye shall say, The Lord hath need of them” (Matthew 21:2-3).

In cabalistic view, the ass can be seen as Assiah, the material world, the 'fourth world', which correspondes to the element earth, in which we actually live.
It means as well the Omega, of the 'Alpha and Omega', whereby the Alpha can be seen symbolicaly as the Ox. This still remains in the ass and Ox in the pictures of Christ-manger.

Before i wrote this, didn't know, that the english biblical word for the donkey is 'ass'. thats in fact peculiar, ...the ass of existence.

"....ye shall say, The Lord hath need of them..."

The 'need' of the spiritual idea, in the impulse of Fire, which is received by water, becoming Air and getting manifestated. Into a real world.-> Assiah. The donkey seems to stand for the 'Work of Assiah'...

We also know that Jesus was crucified between two thieves (Matthew 27:38), where he actually takes the place of Barabbas, who “was a robber” (John 18:40).

The Scene of the Crucifixion is as i can say, a picture of the cabalistic Sephirothtree.

The two thieves left and right, are the two pillars. One thieve regrets, he is the right pillar, the other one doesn't. He is the left pillar. Christos is the middlepillar. The middlepillar is the path, which leads to the inner light and to the Death of this light, by crossing the darkness of Daath, the Death, to see the real 'light', the face of god. The cross of Christos is like the sword, stucking in the earth, passive. The cross of Petrus (= Kephas - Xeper!) is upside down, active. As a sword , ready to fight, phalluslike. This Sword might be see as well as the sword of Alexander to cut the knot.


There is another thing about Barabbas.

In the gnosis, as i feel it, Christos is not considered as real man. More as a inner spirit, what is in everybody, when recognized.
Bar Abbas means 'the Son of Abba(s)'. The Spirit is named Ab-Ba in the NT. so what was released, was the Son of the Spirit. Only the matter of the body and ego dies.

To add one more curious detail, a notable exception to this theme is The Gospel According to John, which not only refrains from comparing Jesus to a thief, it actually sets the thief as an opposite example of Jesus (John 10:1, 10:10, 12:6).

I see in the meaning of this gospel, that the sheep are the inner thoughts and wishes of the lower Nephesh-soul, and all the different emotions and thoughts what' s becoming out of the lower ego.
Those are the sheep, who follow the One, who bears the inner light and power to control "his sheep".

Hidden in Christos, is the Serpent , crawling up the tree of knowledge. the value for the word Nechesh (the serpent) is the same as for the word 'Messiah' 358. The story, where Mose praises the serpent on the rod, implies this.

But why the number 276 should refer to Satan, Beelzebuth or other evil representations, i can't see.