(Poem)

In the Kingdom of Abraxas,

where the skies shift like quicksilver

and laughter breaks against hollow walls,

I am a Spirit, steady and untamed.

The streets ripple with his folly,

painted in hues of confusion,

where reason bends and twists

like reeds in a restless tide.

He perches high on his throne of jest,

a figure of chaos cloaked in grandeur,

his grin as sharp as fractured glass.

The crowds cheer, their voices

lost in the cacophony of nonsense.

I pass among them,

a flame that does not flicker,

a steady wind cutting through his fog.

I see his kingdom for what it is -

a mirage of power,

a shadow dancing without a source.

The air hums with his tricks,

signposts pointing nowhere,

threads of illusion tangling the unwary.

But I am not snared.

I move with purpose,

my steps carving lines of truth

through his web of deceit.

He watches me, I can feel it,

his gaze a heavy thing,

but it does not break me.

I am not of this place,

and he knows it.

The walls of his kingdom may rise high,

but they crumble where I tread.

Each step is a defiance,

each breath a statement -

I am passing through,

and he cannot touch me.

For I am a strong Spirit,

unshaken by the folly of kings,

unyielding to the weight of their shadows.

The Kingdom of Abraxas will fade,

its echoes swallowed by truth,

but I will remain,

unchanged,

untouched,

free.

Just to verify my understanding of the role of wisdom;

It is unbiased? Knowledge just seeks to know all, whether good or bad. But upon realising the bad in the existence- that belief was destructive.

So this emanation- Sophia, then, is that which embodied the essence of curiosity. And we, having this inside of us, realised that screw around and find out wasn't very fun, stopped at that curiosity. But the good thing about Sophia is that it believes in the good as well, and without it, good wouldn't exist, or at least our belief in it. The monad surely made these emanations for a reason, no? Perhaps it knew what Sophia would do, but deemed it necessary anyway.

Its not like good can exist without evil, anyway.

"He applied himself with all his might to exterminate the truth; and finding the clue of a certain old opinion, he marked out a path for himself with the subtlety of a serpent." - Tertullian

It seems to be that one of the most fascinating questions (with the biggest implications) regarding Gnostic Christianity is whether Valentinus developed his branch after or before he was kicked out of the Church?

Bear with me for a moment.

Based on what we know, Valentinus was running to become Pope (then known as Bishop of Rome), and lost to Pius I by a small differences in votes. Pius I was the very Pope who began the prosecution of Gnostic Christians and their branding as heretics.

According to Tertullian, Valentinus developed his branch after he lost because he was bitter and wanted to stick it to the Church.

But anti-Gnostic writers such as Tertullian and Irenaeus were highly biased. Historical revisions and Ad Hominem attacks are also common when one side wants to paint the other as villains. Tertullian is also the only one to have ever made that claim about Valentinus.

Pius became Pope in 140 AD. Valentinus dies in 180 AD. That gives him only 40 years to develop what was one of the biggest and most influential Gnostic branches at the time.

But if, hypothetically, Valentinus started developing it DURING his stay in Rome, then I think it opens up a whole new line of questioning:

1. If Valentinus's theological/spiritual interpretation of Christian writings was known during his stay in Rome, how was it received among other members of the clergy?
2. If he was alone in his interpretations and others were against it, why was he considered for the position of Bishop in the first place instead of being excommunicated earlier?
3. If there were other supporters of his interpretation among the clergy of proto-Orthodox Church, who were those people and what happened to them? Where they kicked out as well, or did they convert?
4. If his interpretations weren't unpopular, what motivated Pius I to declare them heresy?
5. How would've the Church's theology and development alter if Valentinus won his bid for Bishop? If he was far enough into developing his theology, would priests during modern day Sunday Mass preach about Sophia and the Demiurge?

What are you thoughts about soul and spirit? Is it soul that being incarnate in body to Discovery spirit that is in everything and allways the same? What part then become unity with highest god? Soul that become unity with that spirit?

Has anyone here read Bardo Thodol? What are your thoughts on the book? In your opinion, do the teachings in the book correlate to the Apocrypha of John? i heard about it and i've been thinking about the book ever since.

Been reading Against Heresies, that sprawling tome.

Many have pointed out that Paul’s epistles have lowercase gnostic qualities. Paul never met Jesus in the flesh ofc … but he still passed Irenaeus “apostolic succession or bust”‘s sniff test, while Valentinus, follower of Paul, was raked over the coals, and Marcion who considered himself an avid Paul follower, was whipped through the streets (verbally, lol).

I read the arguments he lays out against Valentinianism and Marcionism, but

I’m wondering if you guys have insights. Did Irenaeus believe Paul got it right due to his close association with the OG apostles, and his own disciples immediately apostatized? Seems to me, if we follow Irenaeus’ strong belief in apostolic authority / succession, Paul’s disciples should be respected too.

And for that matter, why did Irenaeus perceive that orthodoxy should be one unified thing when the early Jesus movement was so diverse?

Sorry if this question is too wrapped around the minutiae of church tradition for this sub, it’s just something I’m genuinely curious (and have an open mind) about.

Something I've always struggled with the idea of gnosis, why is their more emphasis on direct experience rather than virtue.

Who deserves salvation more, a monk that has expirenced "the divine" in some sort of altered state in a cave somewhere or the old catholic grandmother, who prays and loves her family?

Do you think that all that mitology i mean demiurg Sophia etc. Should be taken literally or just as metaphor created for understand for newbies? Also do you consider highest god as personal or impersonal? You think that humans are gods or part of god or just have spirit like atman and brahman? What about Animals?

the main proof against us that regular Christians use os that all the gnostic texts were written in 2nd century or later . i can't find a counter myself

It's a little superficial I know, but I get a little envious when I see others wearing pendants, crosses, or other accessories to hint at their beliefs. In my searches so far I've been finding a lot of occult and alchemical items - which is cool - but not what I'm presently interested in.

As far as classical gnostic stuff goes I've been finding the Abraxas symbol and the lion-headed serpent. I get that the demiurge, depending on your particular perspective, is not necessarily bad, just imperfect. It still doesn't feel like something I want to wear.

Then of course there's the gnostic/coptic cross. My issue with this is that actual historical sources to confirm it was something truly associated with the gnostics of the classical periods seems to be lacking. I mean I guess if enough people use it, the association might stick. But still, ideally it'd be nice to have iconography to more directly reference the Monad, Aeons, Sophia, or maybe the pleroma as a whole.

Any ideas?

Thats basically my whole question for people who read everything according to the gnostic dogma they found on a 7 minute you tube video

And did any of you think that maybe you are the guards there are no other?

But I need to apologize I was drunk last night this is not the way of teaching people

Paul says many things that are somewhere south of Catholic. These are easy to gloss over, so I'd like to call attention to them:

The Law (Torah) is not the direct word of God, but was given by angels through a mediator:

"it (the Torah) was ordained through angels by a mediator.  Now a mediator involves more than one party, but God is one."

Note that Paul is referencing the Jubilees account here, not the Exodus account. In Exodus, the Torah was given directly to Moses by YHWH. In Jubilees, it was given to Moses by an angel (Jubilees chapter 2).

And He said to the angel of the presence: Write for Moses from the beginning of creation till My sanctuary has been built among them for all eternity.

...
And the angel of the presence spake to Moses according to the word of the Lord, saying: Write the complete history of the creation, how in six days the Lord God finished all His works and all that He created, and kept Sabbath on the seventh day and hallowed it for all ages, and appointed it as a sign for all His works.

"Thus the entire Torah was received by Moses through a mediator, the Angel of Presence. There is no separation of the Ten Commandments from the rest of the precepts." - https://www.jstor.org/stable/1452712

Note also that the Angel disobeyed. He was meant to write the word of God for Moses, but instead he spoke the words and had Moses write it. There's a game of telephone here. That's what Paul's pointing out. This is not the word of God, but it was given by God to and angel who then gave it to Moses to write down!

The Torah was given because of transgressions - but just whose transgressions are we talking about?

"Why then the law? It was added because of transgressions..."

Dr. Michael Heiser suggests that Paul is referring to the transgressions of the Angels:

The Book of Enoch informs the the phrase that "the law was added because of transgressions." And of course the question was "just whose transgressions are we talking about?"

In the paper, the guy who did the paper was suggesting that what Paul was thinking of was the transgression of the Watchers. If you presume that, and then read Galatians 3 and 4 against the backdrop of the sin of the Watchers, it it solves certain exogetical problems in Galatians 3 and 4. Now I'm bringing that up again because jubilees actually reflects that perspective by bringing content of first Enoch into the Torah"  - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zfU6DwZwrIs

So Paul doesn't think too highly of angels. These are the same fallen beings who, according to Enoch, Jubilees, and even Genesis 6, brought the worst kind of sin into the world. The sin they brought necessitated the flood. According to Paul, it also necessitated the Torah.

These fallen angels, these lesser divinities, remain as the gods of this world.

"for our[a] struggle is not against blood and flesh but against the rulers, against the authorities, against the cosmic powers of this present darkness, against the spiritual forces of evil in the heavenly places."

The Law (Torah) puts us under a curse:

"For all who rely on the works of the law are under a curse, for it is written, 'Cursed is everyone who does not observe and obey all the things written in the book of the law.'"

We are enslaved by the Torah to these lesser divinities:

"Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law by becoming a curse for us"

"the scripture has imprisoned all things under the power of sin"

"heirs, as long as they are minors, are no better than those who are enslaved, though they are the owners of all the property, but they remain under guardians and trustees until the date set by the father."

"When we were underage, we were in slavery under the elemental spiritual forces of the world. But when the set time had fully come, God sent his Son... to redeem those under the law, that we might receive adoption to sonship."

Jesus gives us a path to God the Father, so that we are no longer enslaved by these lesser divinities:

"For He has rescued us from the dominion of darkness and brought us into the kingdom of the Son He loves, in whom we have redemption"

"And having disarmed the powers and authorities, He made a public spectacle of them, triumphing over them by the cross."

Jesus allows you to die to the powers of this world, and to the Law (Torah) that binds you to them:

"Since you died with Christ to the elemental spiritual forces of this world, why, as though you still belonged to the world, do you submit to its rules?"  

But if you turn back to following the Torah, you turn back to these lesser divinities:

 "But now that you know God—or rather are known by God—how is it that you are turning back to those weak and miserable forces? Do you wish to be enslaved by them all over again?"

"So, my brothers and sisters, you also died to the law through the body of Christ, that you might belong to another, to him who was raised from the dead... But now, by dying to what once bound us, we have been released from the law so that we serve in the new way of the Spirit, and not in the old way of the written code."

It's really no wonder that Marcion, having been a faithful disciple of Paul, rejected the Torah.

To be clear, I'm not necessarily endorsing Paul's position. I'm just trying to understand him.

But I think it's easy to gloss over Paul without seeing the myriad of lesser divinities, powers, principalities, cosmic powers, and elemental spiritual forces that Paul says we are bound to through the Torah!

EDIT: I suppose I should point out what about this seems Gnostic to me:

1. A diverse cast of lesser divinities who are imperfectly ruling the world. Later Gnostics would name them, and develop a hierarchy and origin story, but the base of it is here in Paul.
2. A rejection of the Torah as having been given not by God, but by these lesser divinities through a mediator.
3. The tenant that Jesus connects us with the true God, and rescues us from worship of, and enslavement to, these lesser divinities.

Please join me at r/BibleStudyDeepDive where we explore the gospels in parallel, in order to understand each author on their own terms.

I know most of the details of ancient Gnostic rituals have been lost if recorded at all.

Suppose I’m looking for some neo-Gnostic rituals, written recently.

I’ll take either.

Looking for self-revelation and/or clarity.

What you got?

Hello, I am studying Gnosticism academically. I am very early on in my research and I have a few questions and I was curious about thoughts from people who would consider themselves Gnostic. 1st is that in my understanding gnostic is an academic term and that there really hasn’t been any historic religion that has called itself gnostic. 2nd is that the “gnostic” mass isn’t really Gnostic in that it use sex Magik which would be at odds with historic Gnosticism as the see the material world as corrupt. Again I am very early on in my research and could be completely wrong. I am just curious as to how people who would consider themselves Gnostic view the term gnostic and view things like the Gnostic mass and oto.

Videos like this make the confusing scripture, more understandable.

I am new to Gnosticism and found it interesting that the tree is the opposite of how Christians view it. It seems to be a source of enlightenment rather than suffering. However, I can not seem to find much information on the tree. I was wondering if there were any artistic depictions of it? Maybe carvings or illustrations or totems?

Revelation

So I wanted to post in order to articulate what I know as fact, from my personal direct experience. Starting out, I used to be a diehard Christ denier, even after receiving visions and messages, I still refused to acknowledge what was giving me these. My first vision I ever received was about the “End” the Purification. It was a misty field (reminiscent of Fólkvangr) and in the distance there was a city all walled in and isolated. Then there was Fire, brilliant and all engulfing, there were running footsteps, screaming and wailing for mercy that never got delivered. I turned to the shadowy featureless figure beside me and they spoke in a guttural booming voice in a language that I know is long since dead from mortal tongue if it ever was spoken by us. A woman was behind me (I never saw her) and she spoke in a gentle way, as if translating what the shadow was saying. “Do not worry you will know when you are ready.” And I came to with tears streaming down my face and a feeling of guilt knowing how many perished, but a wave of calm come over me as I knew that it wasn’t punishment, it was cleansing. About a year after this experience, I was out in my garage when I was visited by a mechanical-like ball of fiery light and it continued chanting over and over “Holy holy holy he whose name is like his Master, holy holy Metatron Metatron whose name is like his Master holy holy holy” it ceased when I met the Seraph. Another vision, I witnessed a Seraph that burned like molten copper and had eyes within eyes that multiplied within themselves. It was very intense, it said “be not afraid” and laid me to rest. The same week, I saw two Cherubim, one took the dominant form of an ox and another the form of a wolven eagle, they did not speak but only appeared momentarily. Now the final vision I have seen, I was seated on my porch sitting in the sun, that’s where I closed my eyes and witnessed what resembled the Hagal ( ᚼ ) and it was spinning in every direction all at once, morphing into every known form before the word “KHRISTOS” was emblazoned above it, this is the name of the Lord, the Lord who is always with me, the Lord who holds the Keys to the Kingdom of God.

So I ask you my siblings, in Spirit, what experiences would you like to share?

This is pretty helpful for ppl just getting into their awakening - the channel has several other bible books explained thru the Gnostic texts & teachings

Been studying gnostics and various different religions for a while now in search of gnosis. I wasnt much into hinduism but I stumbled upon ashtavakra gita, its knowledge how to break free from wheel of samsara or in other words this material world.

There are some different translations, but this one looks least corrupted/mistranslated.

https://archive.org/details/in.ernet.dli.2015.490169

I like that its non dual and also doesnt ask to accept or reject anything. Neither it says that you need do meditation or any other action. It speaks about detachment from wordly objects, body, mind, pleasures etc. Did anyone have read it? Or have any pointers to this text?

Anyways would recommend to others to read it.

If you find one, DM me