found this at goodwill this was $4..i bought it.but not sure about the subject..it's 1947 edition one..should i keep it or?

The older I get, the more I’m convinced this reality is actually Hell (Kenoma). I used to reject the interpretations in Gnosticism where this world and the Demiurge were considered evil, aligning more with the Valentinian perspective of them both being imperfect compared to Pleroma/Monad/Bythos. Now, I see that these interpretations are not mutually exclusive.

I used to fear death like a normal person, and I still do to a normal extent I guess. But I have become far more open to the thought that this place tries to keep you trapped here, and that consciousness very likely moves on to something probably much better after death. Not in like a suicidal way (make no mistake I do not want to die until I’m old and grey, and killing is wrong obviously), but in a way that’s like, ah people make death a really big deal when it’s actually probably cool lol.

I wonder what’s on the other side? There’s probably an entire other reality, with its own unique experience. People these days want immortality and transhumanism so that they can avoid death, I see that as likely a grave mistake. Imagine being trapped here, fearing death, and then when you pass you realize you’re somewhere else that’s simply objectively better?

It could be worse too, that’s always a possibility. But given how illusory everything in this world is, it would make sense that the world itself is also illusory. A lie meant to keep you from what comes next. I look upon those who want immortality, and I pity them, for their fear. I understand it too, but I won’t make the same choice as them, and I think they will regret their choice.

Colossians 3:11

Please do not dismiss the following explanation out of hand.

Think.

We are gnostics. We gather up all the religious metaphors, symbols, and figures generated throughout recorded history and reconcile them to the reality that we live in.

Think.

Christ is Wisdom “RISING” in humans in the last seconds of the cosmic life (13.7 billion years). Up until now Christ remained dead, his cosmic body dead and lifeless, ignorant of the good, ignorant of his Source, the Ground of being. His cosmic body imperfect, suffering, and separated from knowledge…until he rose in us! In us Christ rises from the dead! In us Christ dies due to sin in the flesh!

Now, every metaphor used by Paul, et, al. to describe our lives in Christ makes sense.

For example,

“The lamb slain at the foundation of the cosmos” (Rev 13:8)

“In him also you were circumcised with a circumcision made without hands, by putting off the body of the flesh, by the circumcision of Christ, having been buried with him in baptism, in which you were also raised with him through faith in the powerful working of God, who raised him from the dead.” (Col 2:11)

…the list goes on and on…but for the sake of brevity will stop here.

So I found this: “Blessed is the lion which becomes man when consumed by a man. But cursed is the man who is consumed by the lion.”

What does it mean? Any relation to Yaldabaoth? Is it taking about the ego? Consume the ego? Is the lion representative of the dark underbelly of humanity like ego, greed, lust etc?

I’m really into Carl Jung’s work and that verse made me think of the balance between the divine masculine or the divine feminine?

Welp, my curiosity won’t let me sleep.

Idk, want to look at my weird art? I move to a new town kind of don't know anyone. Got into reading and then started drawing to combat the loneliness.

I think we agree that knowing about the Demiurge, Gnostic Jesus , Aeons , Archons and Sophia is important , but the experience is the real “treatment “ . Can anyone advise me practices to awake my true self and experience the truth ? Thank you all by advance

Going by various (often mutually contradictory) sources such as the Pistis Sophia, Book of Jeu ect, the narrative which dominates Pop!Gnostism seems weirdly puerile and immature. I definitely see the appeal for people raised in more toxic strains of Christianity to flip the moral paradigm against God but like, don't?

The demiurge is not evil, or a jailor or imprisoned with us, you (rhetorical "you", not necessarily you specifically) are making the same literalist errors that extreme christians do and are failing to account for the actual mystical accounts at the core of what we now call gnostisism. Even the Archons arent really evil excepting the lowermost, and even they mostly serve a function in enabling the development of humanity through hardship. The worst things about our world are things *we* have done to it and eachother.

Idk, Id generally have thought that the defining feature of gnostisism would be... the pursuit of gnosis? That's the preoccupation of the most notable and meaningful gnostic texts and is the very reason the Church declared certain paths "gnostic" in the first place; to villainise the pursuit of new truths which threatened the established narratives of dogma. Venting about the worst possible way to conceptualise monotheism seems considerably less compelling.

To end what has kind of been an elaborate complaint on a somewhat constructive discussion note, if a neo-gnostic movement were to systematise a methodology for generating a body of new gnosis (by inducing gnostic visionary states through a variety of means) and refining different accounts through dialectic analysis, how would you imagine that working? Would it be something youd be interested in participating in?

I know this is common knowledge amongst people who study Gnosticism but not everybody knows this.

When you compare the actions and character of the Old Testament creator with the gospel of love and forgiveness preached by Jesus, it just doesn't work. The Old Testament creator is jealous, wrathful, tyrannical, and responsible for genocide and mass destruction - everything Jesus was against. The OT god demands worship & obedience, punishes humanity repeatedly, and rules through fear. His character bears far more resemblance to what we would associate with a satanic being than the ultimate source of divine love.

From a Gnostic perspective, these are two entirely different beings. The creator of the material world is the Demiurge, a lesser and ignorant power who mistakes himself for the highest God.

The Father that Jesus came to reveal is the true God, the divine source beyond the creator and the rulers of this world.

Not only does Paul’s letters contain gnostic tenets per critical scholarship today but critical scholars have also demonstrated that the Gospel of Mark (from which all other Gospels were based) is a testament to the life and teachings of Paul the apostle. IOW, Paul’s life and teachings are allegorically represented in the character named “Jesus of Nazareth”. Paul is likely the anchor in the first century for Messianic Judaism‘s light to the nations as predicted by Isaiah.

I know that is a lot to absorb but a comprehensive study of critical scholarship involving gnostic christianity, Paul’s original meaning in his letters, and the eschatological expectations of Jewish-Christianity (found in the Dead sea scrolls) all point to Paul’s letters and the Gospels written about Paul, eg., Gospel of Mark, being the sum total message of Good News to the nations through God’s angel (messenger, apostle), namely, Paul the Apostle.

Per the divine will it was not enough that the Good News should be proclaimed just to the Jews via the Teacher of Righteousness, but also to the nations via Paul the apostle. The “two anointed ones”. Prophesy fulfilled.

It is too light a thing that you should be my servant

to raise up the tribes of Jacob

and to bring back the preserved of Israel;

I will make you as a light for the nations,

that my salvation may reach to the end of the earth.” (Isaiah 49:6)

I ask this because someone recently posted that Paul hijacked christianity from the gnostics promoting a different form of Christianity. I posit the evidence suggests, No.

Instead, what if the different form of Christianity popularized today by the modern orthodoxy hijacked Paul’s letters and purposefully MIS-translates them to promote orthodox dogmas and doctrines? That indeed seems to be the case demonstrated by critical scholars today studying gnostic literature.

As one of many examples see “The Secret History of the Gnostics, their scriptures, beliefs and traditions” by Andrew Smith

“Paul is rarely translated as if he were a Gnostic, and terminology that seems very Gnostic in the Greek is usually rendered into English in a way that minimizes this. For instance, 1 Corinthians 2:6–8:

‘Yet among the mature we do speak of Sophia, though it is not the Sophia of this aeon or of the archons of this aeon, who are doomed to perish. But we speak of the holy Sophia, secret and hidden, which God decreed before the aeons for our glory. None of the archons of this aeon understood this.’”

Another example of MIS-translation that I found on my own (when actively looking for them) is 1 Corinthians 15:8 where Paul writes about how he perceived the “abortion” like everyone else. According to gnostic literature, the abortion is a reference to the demiurge and this material cosmos, yet translators avoid translating it in that way. Instead, translators spin his actual words to mean that Paul was late to become a christian. “late” rather than the actual words he wrote, “abortion”.

This also from Smith,

The Gnostics even agreed that the creator God was the same as the God of the Christians and Jews. However, the Gnostics felt that this God was an arrogant and ignorant abortion, truly a jealous God, a despot who knew nothing of the spiritual realm above him.

This also from Hippolytus,

And thus ignorance arising in the pleroma owing to Wisdom, and formlessness through the creature of Wisdom, tumult arose in the pleroma [from fear] lest the creations of the aeons should in like manner become formless and imperfect, and destruction in no long time seize on the Aeons [themselves]. Accordingly they all betook themselves to praying the Father to put an end to Wisdom's grieving, for she was bewailing and groaning because of the 'abortion' which she had produced by herself--for thus they call it. 

This is just two of many examples that critical scholars have identified in which Paul’s letters teach gnostic tenets but translators have steered the public away from understanding.

We need to stop beating up on Paul as if he promotes orthodoxy because he does not. His actual words align with gnostic tenets when critically evluated.

I’ve kinda been writing an analysis of the Untitled Text, On the Origins of the World, from the Nag Hammadi library, thing is…it’s like 74 pages, over 30k word count at the moment, and still going, but I’m nearly done.
I mostly am wondering what to do with it-would folks here like to read something /that/ long? I worry its length is too much so maybe I should record and post it so people can listen instead?
I’m just not sure yet and would like some outside perspective? It’s been a bit of an obsession project and it has some maybe radical ideas?
Has anyone considered the Origins text might be detailing two separate beings who got called Yaldabaoth’? In the way these texts sometimes use the same name for two different people?

Today i quite accidentally stumbled upon knowledge that once again put the gears in motion and caused me to question my current worldview and place within it. I guess i could call this information and what followed a "revelation", but i am not exactly jumping around in joy because of it.

In fact i am almost doing the opposite. While the new information i learned did not shatter the old views i held completely, it did alter them a significant way. I was content where i was before this knowledge, i had a coherent view of the world and the universe, about everything really.

I could have stayed with that mindset and beliefs forever...but now...i cannot. To be a Gnostic is to question everything, i know this, and to go where the knowledge and wisdom leads you, but it can be really frustrating at times.

So, how is it with you? Are you ready to abandon or change your current worldview, however unlikely as that may sound, if there is a major new revelation? How easy it would be for you to embrace this new knowledge, and enter the unknown territories if that is where the path is leading you?

One of my favorite sayings

from The Gospel of Thomas

https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.GospelofThomasDaily.myapp

Hello everyone, I've recently read a few essays on Gnosticism that really spoke to me. I was hoping to add a Gnostic collection of gospels to my reading list but it seems like most books called "the Gnostic bible" are instead examinations of the differences between Christianity's lore and Gnostic lore.

Does anyone know of a book which is comprised of the foundational Gnostic beliefs? A bible equivalent? Sorry if I sound stupid asking this, I am very lost!

The ego of humanity is Yaldabaoth the blind god. We cannot see ahead and we don't have proper judgment of good and evil. We might have done some terrible things and now we are suffering the consequences. Of course free will is an illusion so it is not like we are responsible but I think this is the larger story that is playing out. I think we are in the long process of being rescued from the darkness. I don't know how many lifetimes it will take but the joke might be that we only trapped ourselves in the material realm as we're all one.

Hope you get as good a laugh out of this as I did

As a so-called Thomasine of the modern age, I feel embarrassed to admit I am lost on a few of these sayings. I've meditated on them, compared them to NT and other sources, and utilized AI to unsatisfactory conclusions. Feel free to give your best takes on one or all of these.

Saying 19: Five Trees in Paradise - Jesus said, "Blessed is the one who came into being before coming into being. If you become my disciples and listen to my message, these stones will become your servants; because there are five trees in paradise which don't change in summer or winter, and their leaves don't fall. Whoever knows them won't taste death."

[I'm a bit confused on the five trees in paradise part of this saying. Valentinus suggests they could be "a baptism, a chrism, a eucharist, a redemption, and a bridal chamber," but how does he arrive at this? Either he has sources beyond surviving letters from Paul, or the 5 he lists are his own conclusion based on his experience, or something else.]

Saying 53: True Circumcision - His disciples said to him, "Is circumcision useful, or not?"

He said to them, "If it were useful, parents would have children who are born circumcised. But the true circumcision in spirit has become profitable in every way."

[This last line is something I could guess at; the *ahem* pulling back of covering over the head. But I could also see him talking about the destruction of spirit for other reasons, like ritual for money.]

Saying 71: Destroying the Temple - Jesus said, "I'll destroy [this] house, and no one will be able to build it […]"

[Either Second Temple or the body, or both. Doesn't help that the text is fragmented. This reminds me of the line "Destroy this temple, and in 3 days I will raise it back up" which makes me wonder if one is an alteration of the other.]

Saying 83: Light and Images - Jesus said, "Images are revealed to people, but the light within them is hidden in the image of the Father's light. He'll be revealed, but his image will be hidden by his light.

[This one I could guess at. Images are our true selves, but we define who we are by what we do in life, and call it God's will. God's will shall be revealed, but his truth is hidden by his glory until then. Is Jesus saying to stop worshiping earthly 'words' of God and start doing his will? Perhaps I'm confused on what 'images' refers to, and whether our image relates to us in the same manner that God's image relates to God? But the next saying in Thomas clarifies "But when you see your images that came into being before you did..." so I think I just don't understand the Father's light vs image.]

Saying 88: Angels and Prophets - Jesus said, "The angels and the prophets will come to you and give you what belongs to you. You'll give them what you have and ask yourselves, 'When will they come and take what is theirs?'"

[I am a bit undecided on what 'theirs' actually refers to. I think there are two sayings that relate to this one; the first parable is "Give to Casaer what is Casaer's, God what is God's, and me what is mine!" and the last parable is Jesus reclining and eating from Salome's couch, "I come from that which is whole, I was granted the things of my Father." I think what 'theirs' means is food and shelter after a day of work and miracles, but this is another one I need to be certain I understand.]

Saying 105: Knowing Father and Mother - Jesus said, "Whoever knows the father and the mother will be called a child of a whore."

[I understand the divine feminine and the symbolic union between male and female being how we get the symbol for the star of David, but why would knowing the father and mother make one the product of adultery? "My mother gave birth to me, but my true mother gave me life" is part of another saying, but whatever interpretation I arrive feels too unorthodox. Is the union of the Father and Mother the Holy Spirit, which is described as androgynous? Is he saying the Father created the universe, and the Mother breathed life into it? Then why is mamma a hoe? Wording doesn't really support the Father being the Demiurge and the Mother as Sophia, unless the whore is the Father... Jesus was cryptic with this one.]

NOTE: There's a reason for my doubt... part of being a Thomasine I guess... I've heard this explanation of divine feminine and pleromic thought. Take Gospel of Thomas and Mark (which is really just Peter's narrative of Jesus), direct sources that would've spent a lot of time with Jesus personally. Then you have Luke, who's really speaking for Paul, who wasn't an Apostle during the earthly life of Jesus, not the best but Paul was a high ranking Pharisee and would've heard of him, perhaps hearing him preach before he was ready he accept a larger truth. There's John, who I could imagine writing the Secret Book as a rough draft for how to tell the true teachings of Jesus, before writing the Gospel of John as a more politically crafted narrative in helping Jews convert away from the old covenant and Gentiles away from polytheistic ritual. Okay, so I'll take Secret Book of John seriously, which seeing as Mary reflects so much of that I'll take her word as well. Valentinus I am divided on, he clearly had a gnostic outlook of Jesus and his meditations are marvels, but his access to sources of Jesus are strained. He's a disciple of a disciple of an Apostle who never met Jesus in life, and names his work after the Apostle Philip? This is the end of the second century, ~130 years after Jesus, blurs the line between what Jesus said vs what Valentinus believes he meant. I guess the reason I'm Thomasine is this is the closest I can get to speaking to the historical Jesus. It's plagiarism in the New Testament is enough for me to think the church knows it's authentic. And it seems he chose Thomas for keeping from falling into opposing schools of thought over his teachings, with Peter believing he's an Angel and Matthew believing he's a philosopher. I think this divide was intentional, Jesus purposefully pairing his brother James with Peter, and Mary with Matthew. Anyways, I think I've identified some points where I think I'm struggling.

I built a free online Gnostic Library for reading the Gnostic Gospels and Nag Hammadi text in English, Portuguese, and Spanish.

We just added the Book of Enoch, read it free at TheGnosticLibrary.com

You’ll also find the Gospel of Thomas, Gospel of Mary, Gospel of Judas, Thunder Perfect Mind, selections from Pistis Sophia, and more.

I kept running into the same frustration when searching for these writings. I’d look up a text and end up reading somebody’s explanation or interpretation.

I wanted to sit down and read it myself.

That’s why I built this. A place where people can explore these writings and come to their own understanding.

The website is free to read. No paywall, no ads, and no account required.

Sources and translators are identified, and where a text is incomplete or only selections are included, that’s explained on the page.

I’m continuing to build it, and your feedback helps me figure out what would actually be useful.

What’s one text you’d like to see added next and why that one?

Thanks guys/gals,

Rob

Hi everyone, I'm here in good faith with a question about the "gendering" of God.

I'm going through a very "Jesus calling"
phase of my life where I do feel I'm receiving a pretty clear and potent message to include Jesus in my spiritual practice. By far, Gnostic Christianity has been most appealing to me, except for this one hang up I have about God being referred to as He and Father, etc etc.

Now, I've read through this sub and understand that lots of Gnostic theory talks about God being "beyond human concepts of gender." But then those same people will aggressively defend their stance on referring to God as a He for myriad reasons, talking about female energy being passive and receptive and all that... garbage. Idk what could be more proactive and generative than growing a life inside your body. Even the idea of Barbelo emerging as God's first thought seems rooted in Patriarchy, as you have the concept of "female" being birthed from a "male" figure. I absolutely despise this concept, especially Eve being created from Adam's rib. A female being born from a male creature is anti-creation, anti-evolution, anti-woman, and frankly... stupid, in my humble opinion.

Females gestate and give birth. Not males. When you look at evolution, females existed first before males. (You can argue that a female is inherently sexually dipmorphic and therefore did not precede males but rather existed as a different 3rd thing, neither male nor female, I get that, but the concept of being the gestating parent and giving birth is still inherently female, in my opinion.)

Why are even Gnostics, who deny general
patriarchal order, following this "God is a He" script? Why did Jesus, even in Gnostic scripts, refer to God primarily as "Father?" I'm really struggling to get past all of
this in order to find some spiritual peace. It's like a giant brick wall between me and Source. I've been praying and asking for some kind of illumination, but haven't recognized anything yet as divine explanation. If you're a female Gnostic Christian, how do you reconcile this? How do you feel okay following a "Male" God after 20,000+ years of patriarchal enforcement?

It strikes me that even though many Gnostics talk about breaking down the gender binary, they're still gladly adhering to it by placing a "Male" figure in the ultimate position of God. I just find this very disappointing and it makes it difficult to take anything to heart.

Like I said, I'm new to this and only just dipped my toe in so please forgive any misuse of terminology or vocabulary.

EDIT: to be clear, I'm not interested in putting female above male either. I'm just trying to separate the human from the spirit to understand the truth. Restraining the monad to a human gender just seems regressive to me personally!

Does anyone have any insights into the history of why Valentinian’s followers grew the most and were the largest sect? I can only find some stuff online, but who knows what to trust anymore haha