Is the Creator of the World Jesus's Heavenly Father?

[Nikia]

I would have thought this was a strange question too but I recently read a book about the Gnostic Christians and many of them believe that The Creator from the book of Genesis was not Jesus's Heavenly Father. In many ways, I can see why this idea would be considered so blaphemous. As a Christian, it has been my long term belief that God, Jesus's Father, and the Creator are a single being. It really would change the way that Christians would look at things. I am almost afraid to seriously consider it so for the moment, I leave this question to DUers.

[Egalitariat]

1. Yes, He's mine too****

nm

[politicaholic]

2. Have you considered that it might be Hydrogen, Carbon, & Gravity?

Lets get real here...yeesh.

[eShirl]

3. who did they believe created the world?

did they beleive in a Heavenly Mother (perhaps that elusive 3rd member of the 3-in-1 Godhead, Holy Spirit?) ?

[Nikia]

6. Well that's debated

One set of Gnostics had a rather blasphemous idea about who the Creator of the World was. I suppose that solves thae problem as to why the "flesh" and things of this world were considered inferior or even evil. On the otherhand, we tend to think of the Creator as good.

[CindyDale]

4. I think this is a complicated question even for scholars

Here is a link to some discussion if you haven't seen it yet:

http://bibletools.org/index.cfm/fuseaction/Topical.show/RTD/cgg/ID/430

[murray hill farm]

5. Well...your guess is as good as mine, but

it is just a guess. What do we mean by "father" anyway? As i understand it, father is a human term..or biological term..how does that translate to the spiritual anyway? It is like..How many angles can fit on the head of a pin? Makes no sense! To "fit" would e imply physical...and angles are not physical..or so it is said!

[Tux]

7. My view

Jesus said that god was his father. By that, I think, he meant that Jesus was inspired to teach what he did and he believed that god gave him that knowledge as a father would teach a son. That simple.

[GOPBasher]

8. Yeah, from what I understand,

the Gnostics believe that it's the Devil, or an "evil god" who created the universe, which is why, as you said, "things of the flesh" are bad. And they say Jesus' heavenly father -- our heavenly father -- is not the one who created this world of material things. I could be wrong. I don't know much about them, but that's what I understand they believe.

[Igel]

9. Some Gnostics believed that the OT God was the

demiurge; he was usually depicted as evil, sometimes as the being that trapped lots of "divine sparks" (to use later terminology) in a physical, frozen reality. Most didn't identify him as Satan, some did, it depended how familiar they were with the OT narrative, orthodox Xian thought, and exactly how dualistic they were. Not all had a Satan, or a well-thought out one. There was a wide range of Gnostic thought, and almost any generalization is going to miss a lot of it. Gnosticism was highly syncretist and didn't mind picking up strains of thought of Mystery religions or Iranian beliefs.

Some Gnostics IDed the OT creator as the Logos (not the demiurge, but I forget the differences in various Gnostic groups). John picked up this terminology and made great use of it; some wannabe modern Gnostics assume that similarity of language implies similarity of thought. It's certainly not a logical necessity. I think they're wrong, but don't feel like arguing the point; it depends on how cohesive you think the NT actually is.

Most Xians, I think, assume that the God that revealed himself to Moses was the father of Jesus (take "father" as as much of a metaphor as you want). There are a few doctrinal statements and arguments to this effect, where the belief is thought out and reasoned. I actually think most people just assume "God" has a single referent and really don't think of what Jesus was before birth. I think this view has a few problems.

A minority of Xians at various times have believed because of how the gospel of John and some epistles of John are worded that the Creator = Logos was Jesus, or that Jesus was, at least, the hands-on guy and the "interface" between the Godhead and men (with no difference in policy between Jesus and the "Father"). Then Jesus' saying that he was "also Lord of the Sabbath" takes on a rather strikingly new literal meaning, and is consonant with Jesus' saying that no man has seen God, and Jesus came to reveal the Father--with the logical conclusion that either Moses lied or wasn't a man. It creates severe problems for those of an antinomian bent. I also think this view has a few problems.

[aneerkoinos]

10. Gnosticism

Yes, all Gnostic mythology would seem to agree that the Creator/Demiurge/Saklas/Yaldabaoth (cf. Architect of Matrix ;)) is separate from Father/Undefinable God. Also Sophia (cf. Oracle) and Logos/Christ (cf. Neo) play central roles in the Gnostic mythology. Gnostic myths are not meant to be taken literally, as objects of belief, but mythological and poetic and meditative linguistic expression of deeper truths that cannot be as well expressed by other linguistic means, with the ultimate purpose of helping people reach gnosis, intuitive non-linguistic divine "knowledge".

The Sethian texts hold quite negative view on the Ignorant, Foolish and Proud Creator God (who in some mythversions raped Eve), whereas Valentinian Gnosticism had more neutral view on the Demiurge.

For me at least, it is quite obvious that the Demiurge myth represents the original act of separation from unity with God, dualistic divisions, "original sin"... in a word: ignorance.

As for the word Father, in Gospel of Thomas and other Nag Hammadi texts it is just the traditional way of naming the unnamable, and certainly was not to be understood that the Supreme Being is an old male ("Father" is in fact called androgynous in several Gnostic texts).

For more info see http://www.gnosis.org and there especially:
The Gnostic World View: A Brief Summary of Gnosticism
http://www.gnosis.org/gnintro.htm