"Noah" is based not on the Bible, but on Gnosticism and Kabbalah

[ChetSinger]

That's the charge by Dr. Brian Mattson, here at Sympathy For The Devil — Dr. Brian Mattson.

Here's the beginning of it:

In Darren Aronofsky’s new star-gilt silver screen epic, Noah, Adam and Eve are luminescent and fleshless, right up until the moment they eat the forbidden fruit.

Such a notion isn’t found in the Bible, of course. This, among the multitude of Aronofsky’s other imaginative details like giant Lava Monsters, has caused many a reviewer’s head to be scratched. Conservative-minded evangelicals write off the film because of the “liberties” taken with the text of Genesis, while a more liberal-minded group stands in favor of cutting the director some slack. After all, we shouldn’t expect a professed atheist to have the same ideas of “respecting” sacred texts the way a Bible-believer would.

Both groups have missed the mark entirely. Aronofsky hasn’t “taken liberties” with anything.

The Bible is not his text.

In his defense, I suppose, the film wasn’t advertised as such. Nowhere is it said that this movie is an adaptation of Genesis. It was never advertised as “The Bible’s Noah,” or “The Biblical Story of Noah.” In our day and age we are so living in the leftover atmosphere of Christendom that when somebody says they want to do “Noah,” everybody assumes they mean a rendition of the Bible story. That isn’t what Aronofsky had in mind at all. I’m sure he was only too happy to let his studio go right on assuming that, since if they knew what he was really up to they never would have allowed him to make the movie.

Let’s go back to our luminescent first parents. I recognized the motif instantly as one common to the ancient religion of Gnosticism. Here’s a 2nd century A.D. description about what a sect called the Ophites believed:

“Adam and Eve formerly had light, luminous, and so to speak spiritual bodies, as they had been fashioned. But when they came here, the bodies became dark, fat, and idle.” –Irenaeus of Lyon, Against Heresies, I, 30.9

...

His review goes on and on, and is, I think fascinating. The director, Aronofsky, knew exactly what he was doing: creating a movie with a Gnostic and Kabbalistic world view. Even God is a Gnostic version of God.

I suggest anyone interested in this movie read the entire review. It was an eye-opener to me.

 

[Der Alte]

That's the charge by Dr. Brian Mattson, here at Sympathy For The Devil — Dr. Brian Mattson.

Here's the beginning of it:

His review goes on and on, and is, I think fascinating. The director, Aronofsky, knew exactly what he was doing: creating a movie with a Gnostic and Kabbalistic world view. Even God is a Gnostic version of God.

I suggest anyone interested in this movie read the entire review. It was an eye-opener to me.

Thanks. You just saved me about $30.

 

[Phantasman]

That's the charge by Dr. Brian Mattson, here at Sympathy For The Devil — Dr. Brian Mattson.

Here's the beginning of it:



His review goes on and on, and is, I think fascinating. The director, Aronofsky, knew exactly what he was doing: creating a movie with a Gnostic and Kabbalistic world view. Even God is a Gnostic version of God.

I suggest anyone interested in this movie read the entire review. It was an eye-opener to me.

Actually, there is gnosis, and there is Ireneaus's idea of Gnostics. His description of dark and fat Adam and Eve just goes to show his ignorance and frustration with an idea that, at the time, was competing heavily with the catholics. In Secret John, Jesus tells us that there wasn't an ark, but that Noah and those that listened to him were protected by a luminous cloud. Since we know that the world does not exist in a flat 500 square mile area (as Moses probably did), we can see that the world was probably not flooded. More than likely animals existed elsewhere.

It really doesn't matter to me. But I chose Jesus story of Noah and Adam and Eve over the OT, because I see a more loving Father, one more like the name Jesus glorified than the Jews seemed to see.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

The movie may infect this generation with an imagery that is even more fantastic than the biblical account. The best example of this is the 'long-haired' Jesus, presented as such by everyone who has illustrated him in any medium. Even Bill O'Reilly has a long-haired Jesus on the cover of his new book on the subject. (Shame on you Bill, you should know better. )

 

[drstevej]

Secret John ???

"And Barbelo requested to grant her eternal life. And the invisible Spirit consented. And when he had consented, eternal life came forth, and they attended and glorified the invisible Spirit and Barbelo, the one for whose sake they had come into being.

"And she requested again to grant her truth. And the invisible Spirit consented. And when he had consented, truth came forth, and they attended and glorified the invisible, excellent Spirit and his Barbelo, the one for whose sake they had come into being.

"This is the pentad of the aeons of the Father, which is the first man, the image of the invisible Spirit; it is the forethought, which Barbelo, and the thought, and the foreknowledge, and the indestructibility, and the eternal life, and the truth. This is the androgynous pentad of the aeons, which is the decad of the aeons, which is the Father.

"And he looked at Barbelo with the pure light which surrounds the invisible Spirit, and (with) his spark, and she conceived from him. He begot a spark of light with a light resembling blessedness. But it does not equal his greatness. This was an only-begotten child of the Mother-Father which had come forth; it is the only offspring, the only-begotten one of the Father, the pure Light.

Can't wait for the movie... No need to gnostic this up. Maybe Jane Fonda could do a reprise as Barbelo.

Secret John is blasphemous drivel as is the Noah flick.

 

[Phantasman]

Secret John ???



Can't wait for the movie... No need to gnostic this up. Maybe Jane Fonda could do a reprise as Barbelo.

Secret John is blasphemous drivel as is the Noah flick.

Yeah, yeah. First Mormons. JWs. Now Gnostics.

Is this really Archie Bunker?

 

[drstevej]

Yeah, yeah. First Mormons. JWs. Now Gnostics.

Yep, ALL unorthodox.

 

[Phantasman]

Yep, ALL unorthodox.

I'm surprised you take such an interest in it then.

 

[drstevej]

I'm surprised you take such an interest in it then.

Acts 20:28-30

Take heed therefore unto yourselves, and to all the flock, over the which the Holy Ghost hath made you overseers, to feed the church of God, which he hath purchased with his own blood.

For I know this, that after my departing shall grievous wolves enter in among you, not sparing the flock. Also of your own selves shall men arise, speaking perverse things, to draw away disciples after them.

 

[Phantasman]

Acts 20:28-30

Take heed therefore unto yourselves, and to all the flock, over the which the Holy Ghost hath made you overseers, to feed the church of God, which he hath purchased with his own blood.

For I know this, that after my departing shall grievous wolves enter in among you, not sparing the flock. Also of your own selves shall men arise, speaking perverse things, to draw away disciples after them.

Blasphemy is in the eyes of the beholder.

Further on Luke says in the same verse:

30 Also of your own selves shall men arise, speaking perverse things, to draw away disciples after them.
31 Therefore watch, and remember, that by the space of three years I ceased not to warn every one night and day with tears.
32 And now, brethren, I commend you to God, and to the word of his grace, which is able to build you up, and to give you an inheritance among all them which are sanctified.
33I have coveted no man's silver, or gold, or apparel.


3 Years? Didn't take long for the "church' to establish.


There are those who expect payment for the teachings. Clearly Paul didn't.



You see only what you want to see.

 

[drstevej]

Clearly Paul didn't.

He write 1 Timothy 5:18. Enjoy Gnosticism.

 

[Phantasman]

He write 1 Timothy 5:18. Enjoy Gnosticism.

Blasphemy. Catholic rhetoric in Pauls name.

(2) Ecclesiology. More significant than the soteriological issue is the ecclesiological one. The reason that the pastorals have been questioned on such grounds is that they seem to reflect a period in church history which is later than Paul’s lifetime. In particular, they seem to reflect the early second century (cf. Ignatius’ writings) in which a single bishop had elders and deacons. Furthermore, the strong emphasis in the pastorals on the leaders’ qualifications, regulations concerning church life, etc., seem decidedly un-Pauline. Not only this, but the function of the church leadership is especially to pass on a fixed tradition of the truth, an emphasis lacking in the earlier Pauline epistles.- Bible.org

You see what you want to see.

 

[drstevej]

I'll keep 1 Timothy you can have Secret John.
Enjoy Gnosticism.

 

[Phantasman]

I'll keep 1 Timothy you can have Secret John.
Enjoy Gnosticism.

Christ said feed his sheep (gnosis) not fleece his sheep. Enjoy Orthodoxy.

 

[apache1]

That's the charge by Dr. Brian Mattson, here at Sympathy For The Devil — Dr. Brian Mattson.

Here's the beginning of it:



His review goes on and on, and is, I think fascinating. The director, Aronofsky, knew exactly what he was doing: creating a movie with a Gnostic and Kabbalistic world view. Even God is a Gnostic version of God.

I suggest anyone interested in this movie read the entire review. It was an eye-opener to me.

I always thought "Sympathy For the Devil" was a Stones song. Woo-woo, woo-woo.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

As a 'floodnut' I had to see the movie (senior admission, $5). It was dark, loud, strange, stark, tense, and overburdened with close ups and special effects, and except for the performance of Russell Crow barely entertaining (I coulda had a Big Mac, fries, and a shake).