Why believe in a religion created by Politicians?

a reply to: coomba98

Im Gnostic. The best thing is you don't have to choose religions, study em all!! Why wouldn't you? And I believe Yahweh is definitely evil. You can worship The Most High, and not Yahweh, which was the norm in ancient Israel and Canaan. But there is also a feminine divinity, Sophia(wisdom) sometimes associated with the Holy Spirit. But no one will ever tell you what to believe, you just do everything on your own. New Gnosticism, is the religion of the future.

a reply to: infolurker

Nag Hammadi texts are older than any new testament in existence, probably ever.

Gnosisisfaith,
yeah that's how I pretty much see how Gnostics should be.

With regards to Sophia being the holy spirit. I have not read that one, which one is it and ill put it on the list. Nearing the end of the Nag Hammadi texts and then ill be reading the Pistis Sophia.

The one I know is from The Apocryphon of John, called Barbelo which is the female spirit of Monad the Supreme Being.

gnosis.org...

'...
"And his thought performed a deed and she came forth, namely she who had appeared before him in the shine of his light. This is the first power which was before all of them (and) which came forth from his mind, She is the forethought of the All - her light shines like his light - the perfect power which is the image of the invisible, virginal Spirit who is perfect. The first power, the glory of Barbelo, the perfect glory in the aeons, the glory of the revelation, she glorified the virginal Spirit and it was she who praised him, because thanks to him she had come forth. This is the first thought, his image; she became the womb of everything, for it is she who is prior to them all, the Mother-Father, the first man, the holy Spirit, the thrice-male, the thrice-powerful, the thrice-named androgynous one, and the eternal aeon among the invisible ones, and the first to come forth.

" requested from the invisible, virginal Spirit - that is Barbelo - to give her foreknowledge. And the Spirit consented. And when he had consented, the foreknowledge came forth, and it stood by the forethought; it originates from the thought of the invisible, virginal Spirit. It glorified him and his perfect power, Barbelo, for it was for her sake that it had come into being.

"And she requested again to grant her indestructibility, and he consented. When he had consented, indestructibility came forth, and it stood by the thought and the foreknowledge. It glorified the invisible One and Barbelo, the one for whose sake they had come into being.

"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.

"And the invisible, virginal Spirit rejoiced over the light which came forth, that which was brought forth first by the first power of his forethought, which is Barbelo. And he anointed it with his goodness until it became perfect, not lacking in any goodness, because he had anointed it with the goodness of the invisible Spirit. And it attended him as he poured upon it. And immediately when it had received from the Spirit, it glorified the holy Spirit and the perfect forethought, for whose sake it had come forth.

"And it requested to give it a fellow worker, which is the mind, and he consented gladly. And when the invisible Spirit had consented, the mind came forth, and it attended Christ, glorifying him and Barbelo. And all these came into being in silence.
...'

I know there are many versions of creation in Christianity, but this one I like best.
Monad the Supreme Being was first, who created Barbelo, and both of them created Christ and the Aeons.

Even here (although have not read this text yet, on the list):
gnosis.org...
'Holy are you, Holy are you, Holy are you, Mother of the aeons, Barbelo, for ever and ever, Amen.'

Also only a small handful of the Nag Hammadi texts can be confirmed as being before Yeshua was born. With many of the other being created at the same time as the NT books. However it is believed by some religious scholars that the Nag Hammadi texts were copies of earlier texts.


Correct me if im wrong, but from my understanding not even the Aeons can communicate with Monad or Barbelo. Hence one or the main reason for them to create Yeshua, who is able to communicate with the Aeons and be the bridge between the Aeons and Monad & Barbelo.

Remember Yeshua was created before the Aeons, correct me if im wrong.

I also recall that in some Gnostic texts Yeshua and Sophia where the last of the 30 Aeons. With Yeshua being number 29 and Sophia 30.
If im wrong let me know.

Coomba98

a reply to: coomba98
Ive had a 1966 standard edition Jerusalem bible for ten years. Just bought a mint condition 1966 one online for 75$ BEST TRANSLATION EVER

SUNa reply to: coomba98
I just read a. o. John today! Sophia as the Holy Spirit is in NHL IM pretty sureif you can't find it Google will but I remember a conversation about how the Holy Spirit couldn't have impregnated mary because they were both women, it was sophia. I have lost books of the bible and forgotten books of Eden, Zoroastrian Zend Avesta, Quran, bibles, but most stuff I get off my phone. Check out one heavan.com for some RARE Babylonian stories or sacred texts for anything else. I did half pistis, it got slow but I will finish it. Testament of Solomon is a great story, idk its good to hear from someone on my wavelength though.

a reply to: coomba98you got me beat on the monads I think you know the texts better than me. I mostly read the biblical based and scan the rest

Gnosisisfaith,
Im actually looking for a new Bible. The one I have is my old Baptist one. Will look into the Jerusalem bible more before I purchase one.

Sophia being the Holy Spirit. Pretty sure from memory there are two holy spirits. One in the higher heavens and the other is the lower version of the 30th Aeon Sophia. Who couldn't get back to the Pleroma after hiding her son the Demiurge in the material realm. When her brother and sister Aeons brought her home she split into the Higher Sophia Aeon and the Lower Sophia. In this version Sophia reincarnates as Eve the first woman and is repeatedly raped by her son the Demiurge and his 6 Archons who are his son, grandson, great grandson etc. etc. aka the sons of god in the Bible. The spirit of Eve then became the Holy Spirit in the material realm but Barbelo was still the Holy Spirit in Pleroma.
When I find the manuscript ill let you know.

Also The Apocryphon of John is part of the Nag Hammadi library. But there are a few different creation myths.
What did you think of it? Interesting read hay.

Ill check out one heaven.com. Can you confirm its .com not .org.

The Monad part is just one of many names for the Supreme Being. I mainly use that term for ease of reference.

en.wikipedia.org...(Gnosticism)

'The term monad comes from the Greek feminine noun monas (nominative singular, μονάς), "one unit," where the ending -s in the nominative form resolves to the ending -d in declension.[1]

In some gnostic systems the Supreme Being is known as the Monad, the One, The Absolute Aiōn teleos (The Perfect Aeon, αἰών τέλεος), Bythos (Depth or Profundity, Βυθός), Proarchē (Before the Beginning, προαρχή), and Hē Archē (The Beginning, ἡ ἀρχή) and The ineffable parent. The One is the high source of the pleroma, the region of light. The various emanations of The One are called Aeons.

According to Theodoret's book on heresies (Haereticarum Fabularum Compendium i.18) the Arab Christian Monoimus (150-210) used the term Monad to mean the highest god which created lesser gods, or elements (similar to Aeons). In some versions of Christian gnosticism, especially those deriving from Valentinius, a lesser deity known as the Demiurge had a role in the creation of the material world in addition to the role of the Monad. In these forms of gnosticism, the God of the Old Testament is often considered to have been the Demiurge, not the Monad, or sometimes different passages are interpreted as referring to each.'

And Pleroma is also a name for the Supreme Being but I refer it to the Higher Heavens for ease of understanding or reference. Knowing that the Supreme Beings form/essence IS Pleroma. Otherwise it gets confusing.

en.wikipedia.org...

'In Gnosticism the use becomes yet more stereotyped and technical, though its applications are still very variable. The Gnostic writers appeal to the use in the NT (e.g. Iren I. iii. 4), and the word retains from it the sense of totality in contrast to the constituent parts; but the chief associations of pleroma in their systems are with Greek philosophy, and the main thought is that of a state of completeness in contrast to deficiency (hysterema, Iren. I. xvi. 3; Hippol. vi. 31), or of the fulness of real existence in contrast to the empty void and unreality of mere phenomena (kenoma, Iren. I. iv. 1). Thus in Cerinthus it expressed the fulness of the Divine Life out of which the Divine Christ descended upon the man Jesus at his baptism, and into which He returned (Iren. I. xxvi. 1, III. xi. 1, xvi. 1). In the Valentinian system it stands in antithesis to the essential incomprehensible Godhead, as 'the circle of the Divine attributes,' the various means by which God reveals Himself: it is the totality of the thirty aeons or emanations which proceed from God, but are separated alike from Him and from the material universe. It is at times almost localized, so that a thing is spoken of as 'within,' 'without,' 'above,' 'below' the Pleroma: more often it is the spirit-world, the archetypal ideal existing in the invisible heavens in contrast to the imperfect phenomenal manifestations of that ideal in the universe. Thus 'the whole Pleroma of the aeons' contributes each its own excellence to the historic Jesus, and He appears on earth 'as the perfect beauty and star of the Pleroma' (teleiotaton kallos kai astron tou pleromatos, Iren. I. xi. 6). Similarly it was used by writers as equivalent to the full completeness of perfect knowledge (Pistis Sophia, p. 15).


[Some] confess that the Father of all contains all things, and that there is nothing whatever outside of the Pleroma (for it is an absolute necessity that, [if there be anything outside of it,] it should be bounded and circumscribed by something greater than itself), and that they speak of what is without and what within in reference to knowledge and ignorance, and not with respect to local distance; but that, in the Pleroma, or in those things which are contained by the Father, the whole creation which we know to have been formed, having been made by the Demiurge, or by the angels, is contained by the unspeakable greatness, as the centre is in a circle, or as a spot is in a garment . . . .

— Iren. II. iv. 2

Again, each separate aeon is called a pleroma in contrast to its earthly imperfect counterpart, so that in this sense the plural can be used, pleromata (Iren. I. xiv. 2); and even each individual has his or her Pleroma or spiritual counterpart (to pleroma autes of the Samaritan woman,—Heracleon, ap. Origen, xiii. p. 205).

It thus expressed the various thoughts which we should express by the Godhead, the ideal, heaven; and it is probably owing to this ambiguity, as well as to its heretical associations, that the word dropped out of Christian theology. It is still used in its ordinary untechnical meaning, e.g. Theophylact speaks of the Trinity as pleroma tou theou; but no use so technical as that in Ignatius reappears.'

There is a diagram of Pleroma on that link.

Interesting stuff.

Coomba98

I guess so called "Gnostics" are as much in the dark as anyone else; if ANY belief system EVER led anyone anywhere, how is so that the world continues to be so messed up??? Come on!

Ka reply to: yosako

It's not a belief system, just a desire for knowledge.

a reply to: coomba98

Yeah that sounds right. I read NHL on bibliotechapleyades, a.o. john was cool. I remember reading what you typed, Im remembering that is from pistis Sophia, but the eve/rape part where did you read that? Any books you know of let me know, ill read them

a reply to: yosako
So it's my fault the world is screwed up and your condemning me for choosing the term Gnostic even though I don't know of any modern wars or sociological problems that could be blamed on Gnosticism.

a reply to: yosako
So it's my fault the world is screwed up and your condemning me for choosing the term Gnostic even though I don't know of any modern wars or sociological problems that could be blamed on Gnosticism.

originally posted by: coomba98
and not take the words of the priest nor the words of the Bible which again was created by politicians and corrupt priests.

And again, you have provided no evidence for "created by politicians".
You saying so, because you have read it on the internet and want to believe it, is no substitute.
We are talking about bringing the books into existence in the first place, so instances of "reprinting" (or the equivalent) or translations do not count.
You're bluffing. You can't do it. Evidence. Dates.

a reply to: DISRAELI

Actually, Constantine ordered the assembly of the canon. He was a politician, and I have no reason to believe that the people on the council were not politically motivated.

a reply to: Gnosisisfaith
No, he just ordered copies to be made of books that already existed.
In modern terms, he asked for a "re-print".

a reply to: coomba98

So monad would be the self willed?

No disraeli he asked them to assemble a canon based off existing books. And it was politically motivated

a reply to: Gnosisisfaith
But he wasn't "creating" the books.
The statement that "politicians created the Bible" is meaningless unless it involves a claim that they affected the content.
The OP also made the false claim, providing no evidence, that instructions were given to destory other manuscripts.

The canon (i.e. the list of acceptable books) was already been emerging by consensus of the church over the previous couple of centuries.
On a topic like this, it is better to look through real books instead getting ill-informed gossip from the internet.

a reply to: DISRAELI

The statement that "politians created the Bible" is meaningless unless it involves a claim that they affected the content.

But----------------

of course they affected the content! They are men. Politicians. With points of view, and biases, just like all of us on here.

No, he just ordered copies to be made of books that already existed.
In modern terms, he asked for a "re-print".

WHOA!!! Whoa.
When I try to type back what another member has just said, and then check it against what they actually said....it is nearly always NOT VERBATIM.

These men were men. Their hands were not functioning as Ouija Boards. They were paraphrasing, 'copying', taking poetic license whenever it struck them (possibly without even being aware of it!)........

They were not free of the same faults of communication that normal humans possess........it is a nebulous thing. The most astute agent (be it interpreter or translator) must always beware he is not 'twisting' the meaning by sleight of hand "misinterpretation" to lean toward one direction rather than the other.

I have lots of experience interpreting and translating (do you know what the difference is?). Studied it and earned a Bachelor's degree.........
then worked for a decade with native speakers of the language in which I was bilingual.


A "perfect" translation, grammatically correct though it may be, is RARELY a literarily accurate work. One has to be intimately familiar with both the culture and language from which the original came, but also supremely aware of what the culture and language to which the result will be delivered, to do a "perfect" translation.

a reply to: randyvs

OMG!!!!

Oh noe you dinent!!!!

Oh boy - heading over to my Earworm thread now....
Thanks!


MWAH!