My opinion of the Gnostic Demiurge

Originally posted by dn4cer2000
reply to post by dontreally

 

The God that Jesus spoke of is not Yahweh. Jesus' "God" loves unconditionally. Yahweh is a warmonger, jealous, temperamental "god" that destroyed cities full of men, women and children AND accepted human sacrifice.

“Do not think that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I have not come to bring peace, but a sword."

“But now let the one who has a moneybag take it, and likewise a knapsack. And let the one who has no sword sell his cloak and buy one."

Looks the same God to me. I rejoice in that-- Earthly battles or spiritual, force is required against evil.

Originally posted by blazenresearcher
...with all the different cultures having a different name for the exact same made up character....

Isn't that evidence that the charcter is NOT made up?

reply to post by Frater210


You have found yours aswell.

Have you not been arguing in favor of the gnostic demiurge? You dont see anything theological about that??

This world was an 'abortion'?? How do you know that? Faith.

Youre as much a 'doctor' as you imagine me to be.

Originally posted by NewAgeMan
reply to post by NorEaster

 

I think that may be close, but likely no cigar.

Why? Because it's becoming ever more clear that Jesus the man, was both a student of gnosis according to the ancient wisdom teachings, passed down in this case by a mystical Judaism (is there any other kind?), as well as the master, with a double dose of spirit, John the Baptist being his initiator, if not the reincarnation, of Elijah.

More on Elija (I think this is worth investigating)

www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org...

edit on 27-8-2011 by NewAgeMan because: forgot the H in Elijah, info link added.

Become more clear?

I am reminded of the 19th Century German Sunday School Teachers-- scholars all-- who set out to describe the REAL historical Jesus.

After years of the most painstaking scholarly debate, it turns out that the REAL Jesus was virtually indistinguishable from a 19th Century German Sunday School teacher!

In a prior post, I underscored Christ as warrior-- bringer of justice at the point of a sword. What does that tell you of me and my spiritual desires? More than it tells you about Christ, I fear!

reply to post by dontreally


DR=dontreally, that's all.

I just went to check out the Sabbateans.

Here is the deal; we live in the post-post modern era, we have a huge amount of experience, not to mention science, to bring to bear when trying to appreciate personalities from the past and what they wrote and said.

Sabbateans (Sabbatians) is a complex general term that refers to a variety of followers of, disciples and believers in Sabbatai Zevi (1626–1676), a Jewish rabbi who was proclaimed to be the Jewish Messiah in 1665 by Nathan of Gaza.

(Ed: Nathan of Gaza? Is this a Monty Python script?)

Vast numbers of Jews in the Jewish diaspora accepted his claims, even after he became a Jewish apostate with his conversion to Islam in 1666. Sabbatai Zevi's followers, both during his "Messiahship" and after his conversion to Islam, are known as Sabbateans. They can be grouped into three: "Maaminim" (believers), "Haberim" (associates), and "Ba'ale Milhamah" (warriors).

en.wikipedia.org...

Why would we not see this as a goofball cult?

From our perspective in 2011 why would we see Sabbatai Levi as anything other than a charismatic cult leader that was really trying to resolve his own personal internal struggles concerning faith and religion?

What makes him any different than any of us other than a huge group of confused followers.

Same goes for Crowley; A. Crowley=guy struggling to understand himself, that's all.

So it tickles me sometimes that people take this all so seriously like there is some edict that we must understand this stuff in some specific and mysterious way. There isn't.

So that is why I have been saying that this stuff would make good science fiction. And that's about all it is good for.

reply to post by dontreally


You don't think reality is broken, do you?

Now I think I know why you will not use a Tree that shows Daath and Malkut properly descended.

The Vessel is broken due to a mistake and we live in a world of Shells.

And as for the 'flea bites iron bull' parable.

The main reason i believe as i do is not because of Kabbalah, or the benevolent and optimistic theological implications of Hebraic metaphysics.

I believe as i do, and act as i "know", because of Hebrew.

Hebrew is the mind of God in human language. Objectively, after studying Hebrew, no one can deny that Hebrew is the divine "tongue".

I interpet this the way the Rabbis do, because it is their heritage.

Whereas a gnostic would probably bend over backwards trying to explain this language as the "programming of the demiurge". And as for the profound philosophical implications?? The gnostics interpret that as the secret working of the divine mother through the ignorant demiurge...or something along those lines i imagine. I know Bill Heidrick, a gnostic, has his own gematria index at his site billheidrick.com, and he probably interprets it the way Crowley does.

Anyways. Its Hebrew. Hebrew, Gematria, is not childsplay. It is not the amateurish numerology of lesser languages, as in Greek, or Latin, or Arabic, "confused tongues" - ie; perversions of the divine mind, as the Rabbis would call it.

This is why Qabbalists, with a Q, use Hebrew. It is the program of creation. The divine name, YHVH, the formula reflecting created reality (which is why the movie avatar rearranged its constituent letters to render the name feminine, ie; passive, as opposed to 'active', in which case , mankind is passive! Which is total hellfire to a gnostic/satanist)

reply to post by dontreally

I know Bill Heidrick, a gnostic, has his own gematria index at his site billheidrick.com, and he probably interprets it the way Crowley does.

Stay away from there, you might catch something.



I am more interested ( in fact only interested) in Fulcanelli's, Cabala or Green Language. He taught that ancient and perrenial wisdom was encoded in 'slang', the living, common language used by popular culture and 'cant', secret languages used within sub-cultures. He actually goes to some length to make sure folks know the difference and in fact I have yet to encounter any Kabbalah at all in Alchemy. I do, on the other hand, see lots of modern authors try to make the two fit; just like trying to make Gnosticism and Kabbalah fit.

reply to post by dontreally

I was referring to gnosis as wisdom knowledge, and there any many schools of gnosticism which hold varying beliefs. By "mysticism" I was referring to experiential wisdom. In this regard gnosis is the byproduct of mysticism.

reply to post by Frater210


Sophian Gnosticism is deeply rooted in the Kabbala.

reply to post by dontreally


1/ You have from OP and onwards created a strong and clearly outlined position, something I personally find commendable.

What I find less comendable is, that you try to strengthen this position by:

a/ Early in OP asking rhetorical question, which already are answered in Jonas' book.

b/ In the course of the thread self-proclaiming various kinds of 'authority'.

c/ In OP introducing condescending and irrelevant pop-psychology evaluations on the motives of gnosticism.

d/ Regarding a historical backtracking of gnosticism as more relevant than it is.



2/ Against this I will accentuate the following, which is the relevant essence of gnosticism:

a/ 'Gnosis' taken as the individual way of direct experience.

b/ The autonomous cosmogony and cosmology of gnosticism.



From your position (1), mainly disregarding what gnosticism is (2), it's not difficult to 'build a case'. The question is, who will believe this orchestration? I for one don't.

reply to post by dontreally

Whereas a gnostic would probably bend over backwards trying to explain this language as the "programming of the demiurge".

Just as food for thought...

The Gnostics seemed to believe that creation is 'corrupt'. They also seemed to believe that the agents of the Demiurge, The Archons, are incapable of doing anything but repeating this corrupt pattern as they go about the business of maintaining the pattern of this broken creation.

Much has been said about the innate ability of our minds to find patterns everywhere but did you know that we are pattern makers right down to the cellular level?

That is what DNA Transcription and Translation is all about; repeating patterns.

So whoever 'He' is everything is definitely following 'His' pattern; for better or worse.

reply to post by bogomil

In OP introducing condescending and irrelevant pop-psychology evaluations on the motives of gnosticism.

Regarding a historical backtracking of gnosticism as more relevant than it is.

It's like two steps forward one step back.

You are a conundrum, OP.

reply to post by NewAgeMan

In that case, yes, Judaism is ultimately about knowledge of God.

The problem is, do you equate the self with God? Or is the self a peg below God, as the Torah teaches???

This is why in Egypt - Mitzrayim, the world of limitations, the Egyptians worshipped the Ayil - the ram.

This was why Moses told Pharoah he had to LEAVE egypt, in order to sacrifice the Ram.

Self knowledge of course is very crucial, and it is something every human being has to acquire. But nonetheless, the self, being apart of the creator, is subject to the creators will in this world.

Just as we are born with a human body made in this divine form, and a spiritual 'body' made in the divine form, so to must we honor God by respecting and performing his divine mitzvoth.

According to the Gnostics, this world is a mistake, an abortion; our divine form is an ugly limitation, a trick of the demiurge to suck our lifeforce from us.

Its a completely satanic interpretation of the creators relationship with created reality. Yes - the God the gnostics worship, the Ein Soph, CREATED this world, He CONTRACTED himself through the mystery of the tzimtzum, which is the name Elohim. It was NOT a mistake, as pagan traditions teach, but a willfull plan of the infinite one, to make an abode for himself in THIS WORLD.

I like Zen because it refrains from theology.

I hate gnosticism because it engages in a pessimistic and satanic theology.

I have faith in the Torah, and the metaphysical meaning of it according to the Rabbis, because it Good and Moral, and who else but the Rabbis - these caretakers of this innefable wisdom - know the real significance of it?????

If im going to choose between these two theologies, gnostic or Jewish? I'll pick the Jewish. Dark minded egotists prefer the gnostic, because it serves their egoic desire to be in complete control; to be their own gods....

reply to post by NewAgeMan


I am not a follower of Tau Malachi and I wish they would take his books off the shelves where they are placed in the Gnosticism section and put them with kabbalah where they belong.

I really do think that trying to add kabbalah to Gnosticism is misguided at best. I would hate to think it is an intentional blind which would be easy to perpetrate as it would take a young beginner a long time to figure out that kabbalah has nothing to do with what the 'Gnostics' believed.

I'm inoculated, sorry.

The Sophian tradition represents a lineage of spiritual adepts and masters who have taught a secret gospel and Christian Kabbalah to their students, mouth to ear, from one generation to another. Today the initiates of the tradition have begun to openly share the teachings, believing an extension of truth and light essential in our times.

Huh?

reply to post by dontreally

Good and Moral, and who else but the Rabbis - these caretakers of this innefable wisdom - know the real significance of it?????

Gee, I don't know? How about Giovanni Pico della Mirandola?

en.wikipedia.org...

He seemed to be really concerned with the significance of 'it'.

reply to post by dontreally


You wrote:

["Self knowledge of course is very crucial, and it is something every human being has to acquire. But nonetheless, the self, being apart of the creator, is subject to the creators will in this world.

Just as we are born with a human body made in this divine form, and a spiritual 'body' made in the divine form, so to must we honor God by respecting and performing his divine mitzvoth."]

Nothing prevents you from presenting assumptions based on self-proclaimed 'authoritative' doctrines, but such premises will eventually always be questioned. Hence we have the never-ending theist final words: "But it IS so."

Quote: ["According to the Gnostics, this world is a mistake, an abortion; our divine form is an ugly limitation, a trick of the demiurge to suck our lifeforce from us.

Its a completely satanic interpretation of the creators relationship with created reality. Yes - the God the gnostics worship, the Ein Soph, CREATED this world, He CONTRACTED himself through the mystery of the tzimtzum, which is the name Elohim. It was NOT a mistake, as pagan traditions teach, but a willfull plan of the infinite one, to make an abode for himself in THIS WORLD."]

Satan is just the other end of the same self-proclaimed authoritative system, and references to him doesn't add anything to the inital arguments. It's saying the same upside down.

Quote: ["I like Zen because it refrains from theology."]

A strange statement considering the theological heat in this thread.

Quote: [" I hate gnosticism because it engages in a pessimistic and satanic theology."]

Only as seen from the perspective you present.

Quote: ["I have faith in the Torah, and the metaphysical meaning of it according to the Rabbis, because it Good and Moral, and who else but the Rabbis - these caretakers of this innefable wisdom - know the real significance of it????? "]

Circle-argumented 'authority'.

Quote: ["If im going to choose between these two theologies, gnostic or Jewish? I'll pick the Jewish."]

Which is your choice, which you appear to 'give testimony' about, rather than making a sound academic presentation.

Quote: ["Dark minded egotists prefer the gnostic, because it serves their egoic desire to be in complete control; to be their own gods...."]

Postulated on the premises of self-proclaimed, centralised 'authority'. Would you like a dose of calling judeo-christians names? (Not that I'm going to do it).

reply to post by Frater210


Its sucks being enslaved to patterns, doesnt it??

Originally posted by dontreally
reply to post by Frira

 

The idea that it represents some hidden and obscene secret motive of the Church does not come easily-- or reasonably.

First, i never said 8 was obscene. There is nothing obscene about the number 8.

Second, i find it HIGHLY, incredibly highly, unlikely, that anything in the Vatican complex - any major monument, or architectural design, is without any metaphysical basis.

ALL religions have always been based on this.

The Jewish temple, of course was based on this conception.

To think the Catholic church is exempt from this principle is to play fairy tale games with someone too educated to believe differently.

Im telling you, there is a metaphysical reasoning for why the vatican is built as it is, why a certain number of saints surround its roof, why the cobblestone in st peters square is designed the way it is, with 8 partitions, 4 larger, 4 smaller, and 8 spokes between each partition.

The science of metaphysics, simply put, is NEVER separated with the building of a sacred structure, and above all, not the Vatican.

Now, probing the significance of the sacred design, of why they chose 8, an obelisk, etc, we can only speculate.

But consider this. All ancient religious traditions subscribe to the same general idea of the number 8. It represents eternity; even the design of the number alludes to that. It also refers to the world beyond the 7 - which represents the spheres of the world. This is why most ancient cultures, and religions, divided time into periods of 7. 7 periods of 4 being a full lunar month (or just short of it, at 29 days). And the 7 planets, visible to the naked eye, referred to the physical manifestation of this metaphysical concept. The 7 worlds are 7 spheres, and these spheres are active principles governing reality (this is also a basic gnostic assumption). They are thus active, moving, as the planets (lit . wandering star) move across the sidereal.

8, refers to the intellect, which "transcends", the physicality (or formation) of the 7.

Wouldnt Jesus' 8 beatitudes, philosophical precepts with no explicit calling towards actions, be a perfect manifestation of this principle, that 8 symbolizes the philosophical, and abstract???

Anyways, this is an assumption i will not part from, because it is so incredibly logical and reasonable. I do not for a second believe that they just haphazardly pick a spot without any deeper philosophical - metaphysical - consideration, when since ancient times this has been the raison d'etre, when building ANY structure. Why else is the church, almost always located in the center of a city? Or facing the east?? Isnt that METAPHYSICS? Of course it is. The east, where the sun rises, is associated with the 'source' of the universe. Thus, east is associated with the concept of spiritual proximity, and this 'likeness' is imitated on earth when we build physical structures. We actually draw the spiritual energies (which only exist in the abstract. So, an abstract principle imbedded in a physical structure will attract the spiritual energies associated with it).

And yes, since this is a esoteric subject, deliberately kept hidden (since the knowledge itself is hidden beneath the veil of physical reality.

For that matter, steeples could be considered phallic. All those "quaint" little hillside chapel-- nothing but pagan fertility symbols?

Now youre just reaching.

This is something i encounter often with Catholics.

Im a former catholic, my sister is a catholic, and same with my mom and dad.

A phallic symbol is a phallic symbol. You cant change a symbol when the idea already associated with it is so primordial; archetypal by its very nature.

Besides, this is ACTUALLY an obelisk, taken from a culture which had a fixed understanding of what the Obelisk symbolized.

It was so universal, that the Obelisk is also found in Mesopotamia, Iran, India, and China. The ancient world knew, and understand the basic metaphysical doctrine behind the obelisk.

Since this is a gnosticism thread. Tell me this. How do you think the gnostics were so sure that this world was a 'machine' or system. How did they know that these abstract concepts they speak of were real things?

Practice. They knew this because they had an already highly evolved system for CONTROLLING, and MANIPULATING, these higher realities.

I know this, because im a curious person, and i myself have seen with my own eyes the reality of this world being nothing more then the projection of a spiritual reality. If you utter certain Hebrew names (or in other lesser systems, Enochian for instance - which seems to be fitted towards the demonic), properly, with the proper instructions, knowing theoretically how it all works, you can uncover some pretty insane things. About other people, about yourself, etc.

My point with all this, metaphysics is REAL, and thus, putting a great deal of thought into how you want to design a church, or a st. peters basillica, is an imperative.

edit on 26-8-2011 by dontreally because: (no reason given)

Well, since you know all this, then surely you know that everything we see on earth aside from nature is a masculine projection of fallen man? Those common obelisks were built to pierce the heavens, because the Egyptians believed it would calm the storms. You stated they are feminine, but yet call them a phallic symbol built by men? Pagan fertility symbol? Is an antenna a fertility symbol?

I think the 8 represents the perfection of the one and infinity.

reply to post by dontreally


I think you will find many variations of Gnostic faiths. Each has its own agenda to put forth. As a student of ancient manuscripts, I have collected copies of doctrinal materials, historical records, and writings of philosophies, (many of which were written under ficticious names). I wouldn't trust most of them without puting them to the test. I have found very few doctrinal writings where I could verify them as valuable. There are some out there.