|
|
Post by xpistissopheiax on Aug 3, 2013 10:36:02 GMT -5
substituted for Christ before the crucifixion? I'm having trouble finding it.
|
|
|
|
Post by xpistissopheiax on Aug 3, 2013 11:01:34 GMT -5
Never mind, I found it and I can't delete my OP. It is the Second Treatise of the Great Seth
|
|
|
|
Post by Soulgazer on Aug 3, 2013 11:09:17 GMT -5
It is why scholars are postulating that the Q'uran was written by dissafected Sethians.
Another text, the Apocalypse of Peter with just a cursory reading also seems to substitute another on the cross, but a more careful reading reveals that it speaks of seperation of flesh and spirit. There seems to have been a schism among Sethians over this point.
|
|
|
|
Post by xpistissopheiax on Aug 4, 2013 1:19:14 GMT -5
It seems pretty safe to assume the writers of the Quran at least had knowledge of that text.
Sethians seem very hardline in some ways. I don't know if I want to use the word "extremist" but they're incredibly pointed in their criticisms.
I wonder if there was a schism in thought or one thing just built on another? In one text (if I remember correctly) Christ feels no pain in the crucifixion, and then the crucifixion is a "bait-and-switch."
It seems like Gnostics were such prolific writers that some of their theology becomes more "wild" as time goes on (I'm not sure that is a good word), with Mandeaans and Manicheans not even being interested in using Christ as a focal point.
|
|
|
|
Post by xpistissopheiax on Aug 4, 2013 1:26:39 GMT -5
I wonder what the Muslim response to the similarities between the portrayal of the crucifixion in the Quran in and in the Second Treatise of the Great Seth is?
|
|
|
|
Post by Soulgazer on Aug 4, 2013 9:05:04 GMT -5
They consider it affirmation of the Q'uran.
|
|
|
|
Post by xpistissopheiax on Aug 4, 2013 21:06:45 GMT -5
Wow...
|
|
