Pageau's good humor and delight with life always come through. He's not processing trauma all the time like JBP, he's not distantly intellectual like Vervaeke, he never relies on vaguely mystical or awe-inspiring rhetoric like Paul VanderKlay.
you say that about vervaeke because you haven't spend months learning his language, just as you, that was my first reaction when I started watching him, after some months it changed to something completely different.
🤺☦🇷🇺Jonathan is a pagaп not an Orthodox. He is a keyboard warrior on his own channel, yet couldn't dismantle Hijab's arguments in his face, and on top of everything else, he allied yourself with pagan Peterson to be a mouthpiece to the vile western world! Stop speaking in our name, you know nothing about Irenaeus and the fathers!!
The points you made from 3:48 to the end were very fascinating. The concept of a mountain essentially being contained within its peak struck me particularly deeply.
@Spencer Yelinek There is nothing wrong with gnosticism so long as you're not calling it Christianity. According to Pageau (and he's right) the Gnostics either deny the diety of Christ or blaspheme the holy spirit and all Christs works or both.
@@PC-vp2cg He mentioned one thing about it and then turned the entire conversation to what Christianity is. What are you talking about? I don’t think he really understands Gnosticism.
As I understand it, in Christianity the mystery lies in the gap between divine and material, between full coherence and full completeness , the dark element which is encompassed in the person of Jesus. This mystery can be partly understood over time with contemplation and religious observance, but only paradoxically by accepting the presupposition that the mystery itself is a necessary component of being. While in Gnosis, the claim is that the mystery is a veil of ignorance, which you can dispel by becoming illumined, and that the mystery was foisted on you by a cruel demiurge or power hungry priests for their own benefit. This is why secret societies are mostly all Gnostic at the core, they dangle an 'elite' status and 'hidden' knowledge in front of people. And in doing so they create a subtle poison, one which takes a necessary component of creation and life, and makes it an enemy of 'the good'. This is why gnostic religions always become world deniers and misanthropes eventually, regardless of what good intentions their founders may have had. They are at war with the thing that makes life itself possible. This world is, despite our sorrows and tragedies, as Leibniz said, the best of all possible worlds!
This comment should be pinned to the top. It really helped me understand the difference between the highest level encompassing all the hierarchy vs. overcoming it. Basically, implicit in the idea of overcoming it, is that the lower levels drag you down which is a gateway towards misanthropy and the idea that you can be truly self sufficient (to be your own god) and do away with Jesus. I think this type of thinking also inevitably produces a deterministic society, which in my opinion is the true reason why people hate the rich (funny how marxism was born as an opposition to his, but ends up reinforcing it by reducing itself to pure materialism)
I got a lot of clarity from you comment. Thanks. I hope to come across your other contributions elsewhere. As I listened to Jonathon Pageau and then read your comment the phrase “ the fullness of Christ” came to my mind. I shall dwell on this.
gnosticism makes more sense to me. the biblical story is long winded and Christ plays a plan b, c or d after god sent the Israelites wondering etc... after he flooded the earth etc. A lot of anger at his creation that he found fulfilment in killing his only son. There are a lot of conditions here. there is a stream of gnosticism that doesnt acknowledgethe the Christ story or the biblical narrative and instead is direct union with god much like Adam or Enoch. it also takes the gender out of god which i have found to be liberating. everybody i talk to talks to god like a he as if he has manlike physiology. always found that odd.
Major part on the comments doesn't know the 4 types of gnosis. 1) Special knowledge revealed. 2) Pessimistic disposition towards reality, where existence in reality is a prison and the human being was thrown into it against his will. 3) Heretical Christian Sects of the 1st and 2nd Century. 4) Ancient exoteric religion.
Gnostism is a spectrum of beliefs. The lack of nuance is unbecoming of an intellectual :) It’s like saying Christianity is silly bc I don’t trust Joseph smith
Would you do an episode on the relationship between the churches who claim apostolic succession (E.O, Oriental, Rome, Anglican, Armenian, etc). I recently came out of evangelicalism after a major paradigm loss ( I was taught creationism and reject it). Now I am at loss of what to do. I understand churches that give Eucharist and have the three fold ministry to be a more pure form. Could you do a video on evangelicalism not understanding the symbols of the Bible. To be perfectly honest, though I love and have an utmost respect for Eastern Orthodoxy, I find it hard to accept that they are the one church and not the coptics or the Armenians or any other group that keeps the sacraments. It’s a confusing time for Christians. I also found that when I left the Baptist movement, I became much more liberal, scientifically minded, and more compassionate towards my fellow mankind. For those who leave evangelical churches, is it any wonder I have developed an interest/obsession with eastern religions and philosophy? Or could that be because I am a highly creative thinking artist who just can’t help think outside the box? Btw ..... I love and admire what you and your brother are doing. It has to go alongside with what JP is teaching regarding being and consciousness. Thank you Ave Maria Glory to God
I’m formerly a Baptist as well. I’ve gone into the rabbit hole with orgone energy and ended up in Gnosticism. There’s 40,000 Christian based denominations out there. This being the case, why should I leave it to one person to define what Gnosticism means to me? What Gnosticism mainly is, is the same son and different father.
"I also found that when I left the Baptist movement, I became much more liberal, scientifically minded, and more compassionate towards my fellow mankind." Amen.
Up to you but don’t fall down the rabbit hole. It makes me feel uncomfortable in my gut, same with kabbahlism which is very similar, probably the root from Babylonia
Check out First Gnostic Church of Christ on TH-cam. It's not what you picture when you hear it. Excellent breakdowns of the nag Hammadi library texts from a self knowledge perspective.
Ask yourself how many gnostic ‘saints’ there are, ask how many miracles have been performed. Ask how many died under persecution for their faith. “You shall know them by their works”
Ask yourself how many innocent lives were killed in the name of Your false abrahamic god, be it jewish Christian or islamic. If i had to judge yall by your works then youd all be fucked
Saint Clement of Alexandria, Saint Valentinus are two „Gnostic saints“ but there is a much longer list of figures who were accused or said to be Gnostic. Tertullian calls saint Paul "the apostle of the heretics", who he accuses of Gnosticism. The main issue with Paul is: „42 So will it be with the resurrection of the dead. The body that is sown is perishable, it is raised imperishable; 43 it is sown in dishonor, it is raised in glory; it is sown in weakness, it is raised in power; 44 it is sown a natural body, it is raised a spiritual body.“ Paul‘s restoration of the body is a spiritual body, not a flesh body. This was later considered heretical as it later became the dogma of resurrection of the flesh. One of the ironies that was created is that later theologians stressed the resurrection of the flesh thinking that they were advocating Paul’s view, against Gnostics. In fact, they were not advocating Paul’s view at all, since Paul did not think the flesh would be raised. Origen although never becoming a Saint was the most popular Christian writer of his era and is still part of the canon and highly influential to Thomas Aquinas and Erasmus and to this day. Was accused of Gnosticism. Origen too, believed in the spirit body and that Jesus real body was an illusion. Clement was also criticized for this belief. The heresy was called Docetism which was Christ did not have a real or natural body during his life on earth but only an apparent or phantom one. The canon position evolved to „the word became flesh“. The problem with this topic is there was never a school of Gnosticism. There were sects with a variety of beliefs which were later accused of „Gnosticism“. Many of those ideas were not canonized. But certain ideas by those accused of Gnosticism are part of the canon. And the writings of Paul actually show a contradiction in canonical belief.
There were many gnostics who were burned alive. And then the people who accused them died. And the pope that let them do it, he was laying in state, an autoimmune disease, and his place of rest was struck with lightning. So you tell me. Now im orthodox Christian, but we cannot pretend to know more than we do about the gnostics.
St. Irenaeus of Lyons is considered the primary saint who fought against Gnosticism. His work, Adversus Haereses, is a systematic refutation of Gnostic sects and an account of apostolic tradition. Irenaeus's beliefs included: Christ was God in the flesh, Gnosticism was dangerous nonsense, and Gnostic interpretations of Scripture were heresy.
Jmusique_ JMK mind and Soul isn‘t the Same. The Soul is the Power that activates/runs the mind. When we act on a higher vibrational level, we will automatically get higher ideas and thoughts
What you’re describing actually sounds similar to Vedanta, wherein the first step is to recognize that the world is an illusion, but the final step is to realize the paradox that there is no contradiction between God and the world, but perfect reconciliation. The only difference (albeit a big one) is that in Christianity, Christ is the sole bridge that reconciles man and the world, whereas in Vedanta all of the avatara would fulfill that role.
No the Christian Vendata, would be the saints, but they are instruments of God, not independent power. The main difference between the two faiths is that Christianity belives in only one life, and that the God-man loves us and out of His Divine Mercy gives us ways to atone for our sins (similar to karma) much more abundantly than the karmic cycle.
I'm removing myself from secularism by studying all the declared heresies by the Church. Thought systems are realities. The darkness was shouded in the blue glow of the coming dawn. If it wasn't for the color blue I wouldn't be alive. On earth as it is in heaven.
@@orgith54 Last is alchemist/hermetist saying, Third one is propably related to the fact that no ancient language had word for blue as we know it today
Simply put, the gnostic gospels were written 200 years after the canonical gospels. It is simply another religion that uses christianity as a template, exactly like Islam which also uses christianity as a template.
Thank you for saying gnosis is a part of Christianity! That’s unfortunately not talked about anymore. I like to say that the problem with Gnosticism is the “ism”. When the ladder, when the light, becomes the focus, it means that the spiritual gold and silver, the interaction between sun and moon, becomes spiritual idolatry. But the union itself is holy. And besides ascension aiding us to see spiritual principles, the union also transforms our hearts and character: so that we may be perfect, even as our father in heaven is perfect.
@@thedisintegrador I've read all his writings. He was a walking encyclopedia of ancient Sumerian culture and beliefs. As a side note, Clement of Alexandria is not a canonized saint in the Orthodox Church.
The Angry Slav I know bra I can speak from experience of being a Christian all my life since I was young when I first heard about what is gnostism is and everything made sense but this guy has no concert stuff and a gnostic once said if it doesn’t make sense chances are it’s not the truth
I haven't found this to be the case. This is kind of half correct. The God of the Old Testament is the counterfeit. I believe he is the same as Lucifer but I'm not sure. Satan can be pronounced differently and can translate as adversary.
Visitormassacre The only thing I can really question in your post is your quote relative to what the Secret Book of John says about the highest God whom we shouldn’t think of as a god but as beyond a god. Nothing is needed to complete The One
@@pentaxpro i don't understand how gnoatism teaches Yahweh to be Satan, but then uses Jesus as the center of their faith, who came from the NT which was based on the OT. Makes no sense..
@@MinisterRedPill I don't find it hard to understand. All you have to do is picture a spiritual universe with multiple deities. Yaldabaoth attempted to establish a kingdom with humanity integrated into it. It would have been successful system until The One sent The Son to pull some out of what is mainly a reincarnation cycle. Today there are spirits messing with people not just because they hate them. They are feeding off negative forms of the energy our physical bodies can emanate. They want us to be miserable and fearful. The Secret Book of John hints at this. They use us as a source of energy. Of course The One who is the creator of the universe and the other realms has no need for this.
@@pentaxpro How is it not hard to understand? It sounds hypocritical. The NT seems to be based on the OT but gnostics use Jesus from the NT and ignores everything else to create their own religion. So, how do you know the gnostic texts are legitimate?
Interesting analysis. But I have a question: I’m Not sure about the comparison between the ouroboros and Christ. Isn’t one a symbol of world/time and the other for humanity? They are completely the opposite of each other. One being Greek and the other abrahamic. Isn’t this syncretism forced? If not isn’t the parallel a new mythology? The man is the world? I never heard of something like this. Sounds like a phenomenology for the mind
Gnostic was an accusation, not a unified philosophy. There are many early Christians and Christian sects accused of Gnosticism, including the apostle Paul, who was called by Ireneus „the apostle if heretics.“ There was no proto-orthodoxy either. These are 20th century academic categories which are not helpful to understand the various early movements. Some Christians who were accused of Gnosticism are part of the Christian canon and were highly influential. Including Clement and Origen are the most obvious.
@Red Pilled Lol, did you forget in Elementary School when they have you write out multiplication as an addition problem? 2x2 = 2+2, 2x3 = 2+2+2 etc. You said the same thing twice.
Bonjour Jonathan, je ne sais pas si tu connais Alexandr Dugin, il est un philosophe russe vivant très intéressant, il est aussi active dans le "social media", qu'est ce que tu pense de sa démarche?
What is this great “Geist?” From where did it come, and where is it going? It can only find telos whilst looking behind itself in reflection, but reflection only ever finds evidence of a mirage. What could be moving forward when there is no backward?
what is the end result of gnosticism ?homunculi, transgenderism, ceraphims, reinterpretations of the bible, gnosis, etc. it’s literally the religion of those in power RIGHT NOW! just look at the symbols of gnostics and you will find them everywhere in our modern times. GOOD LUCK!
This is completely in line with what Ken Wilber says about Spirit - spirit is the highest level of the chain of being (or hierarchy of being I.e. matter to life to mind to soul to spirit, where each emerges from the previous level, transcending and including it) but Spirit actually underpins the whole chain. This is essentially the mystic view - that there is only one thing (to the extent that subject and object can in the final level be unified) and that this thing when it is realised is found to be not just the height but at the root of everything too - I.e. it's fully transcendent and fully manifest simultaneously. God-consciousness, nonduality etc. are words that point to what this is and it seems that Christ for the Orthodox Church means precisely the same. It's so useful to hear this from the Christian tradition, even if it's Eastern Orthodox, and therefore no doubt has a much closer history to the eastern tradition. Still the perennial philosophy is fully digested and expressed in Christian terms, and the result is novel and enlightening, and fills in other parts of the puzzle if you have heard the same from the advaita and zen side of things. Each tradition it seems to me has enormous strengths and then places where the doctrine is not so clearly articulated, and although full realisation can be reached inside any single tradition together they make a fuller picture that might point people faster to enlightenment/realisation/unity.
It is good to hear complex ideas being articulated but sometimes I wonder if all this might be descending into the worship of mental gymnastics, and might turn out in the light of a brighter day to be nothing short of pure twaddle.
Brendan Tannam well of course everything will turn out to be twaddle in light of ultimate truth - all talk, science and religious is approximations and models of the nature of reality (in very different spheres.) they point to what may be real, and allow one to live and make predictions with a reasonably high level of success. But they also point to the ultimate truth which many people have realised and is very clearly pointed to by the deepest tiers of all the major religions. Ken Wilber is not an original thinker compared to the mystics, but what he has done is catalogued all these mystic traditions and tried to fit them together and integrate them. He gives an excellent overview of the subject in his second book No Boundary, and 'a ken wilber reader' is also good to get an overview.
For now we see only a reflection as in a mirror; then we shall see face to face. Now I know in part; then I shall know fully, even as I am fully known.-1 Corinthians 13:12 I hope this scripture captures the sense of your comment about evolving truth. When I suggested that these mental gymnastics might amount to twaddle, I didn’t mean it in the sense of Paul’s verse. I meant that all these complex speculations might turn to be incorrect, utterly empty of any truths. I understand there is a long tradition of religious belief and many doctrines are taken as common truths among them but they are nothing more than speculation. I am baffled by the idea that religious beliefs might help people ‘to live and make predictions with a reasonably high level of success. I suspect predictions from any source have a very low track record of success. I don’t know Ken Wilber so I wasn’t commenting on his ideas.
Brendan Tannam well by prediction I meant in terms of: if I take this course of action, then I will be met with more success in life than if I did the opposite. The injunction not to lie say - the idea that one shouldn't lie, and by not lying the best possible future will unfold is a statement of faith, and so is in the realm of a religious claim. It can't be proven as such, and is a recommendation for a mode of being. That bible quote hints that there will be greater understanding in the future, but not the nature of what that understanding might entail. I do think that in general Christianity and the bible struggles to articulate the more mental aspects of self transcendence in the sense that Zen and Advaita excel at. However it seems to me that Christianity is more developed in terms of turning the mystical/metaphysical truth into a course for action - I.e. It is very strongly embodied and links the 'gross' with the 'causal' realm better than does Buddhism say in which it seems to me there are real contradictions - all the moral teachings there are essentially about training the ego to be more kind, and then simultaneously one is told the ego is an illusion. Christianity links the domains better, at the cost of being less clear about what enlightenment/realisation/ultimate truth actually is - it is very wedded to its central metaphors (Christ, the cross, biblical stories, rather than meditation and self examination) and ultimate truth is projected into an external character God. Later Christian mystics like Meister Eckhart fill in the picture considerably, but it's never so explicit as in the Hindu and Buddhist texts.
I suppose they all make a brave attempt to tell us what the nature of a transcendent being is. They may even have drawn their ideas from a single school of thought but every idea that was ever conceived and developed and made so sophisticated might be utter nonsense. It is very possible that there is nothing after death. I think there is a danger of getting so involved in the details of religious beliefs that one loses sight of that possibility.
Great clip. When I finally made my way back to God, which is a far longer story than there's room for here, He gave me the symbol which, to me, now represents the _bothness_ which you talk about; It's that paradoxical mathematical form called the Mobius Strip. I think of it as my wedding ring.
@@M-i-k-a-e-l The reason I call it a long story is because it really, really, is Not weeks or months. Years. In some ways it's quite a common story too. I was a hopeless drunk who had no further to fall except into suicidal despair. So, like many others, I cried to God for help. So far, so normal. But after I did that there was no sudden 'conversion' ... no Vision, no blinding flash of light, no sudden change of any sort. But I didn't feel abandoned by God or anything like that either. See ... although I'd given up on Church as a child, and had spent several years of my youth calling myself an agnostic or an atheist like my friends, I never could quite believe that God did not exist. This is because I had so much personal evidence that He did. When I was very young my mother had told me many times that if ever I felt frightened or got into any sort of difficulty, or even if I just felt bored, or lonely, I should ask God for help and He would fix whatever the problem was. And He always did. Every time I got into one of the many scrapes that young boys always get into, I called on God to help me out, and He never failed. Not once. As an adult, of course, I tried not to believe such childish nonsense, but there was always this little Doubting Thomas voice saying "But what if it's true?" So when I cried to God out of the depths of my despair as a hopeless drunk, I realized that, actually, I couldn't be quite Entirely without hope, could I? There's a failure of logic there. That was the first step. So I just sat down and started talking. At first, I knew I was just sitting there, alone, talking to myself, but gradually, over time, I started to feel that some of what I was saying, wasn't me. I didn't automatically assume it was God tho' ... what if I was talking to the "other fella"? After all, we've all heard stories of wicked murderers who claim that God told them to do it. How could I be sure I wasn't being led into that trap? So then I started asking questions, asking for 'signs', and, above all, asking What, exactly, He wanted from me, what did He want me to DO. See ... I've always believed that unless you're producing some tangible Thing, you're not Doing anything ... that's just common sense isn't it? Anyway ... long story short now ... After about ten years ten years of doing nothing that made any sense, producing acres of rambling, manic 'notes' with no book or blog or anything else in sight, God finally answered my most important question ... "What do you want me to DO?" "Stop worrying about it" sez the Lord ... "It's done. You've been doing it for years."
St Augustine was a Gnostic Manichaean before he converted. Does that make him an opponent of Gnosticism for criticizing what he saw as a major flaw in the system?
I've read nearly every text of the Nag Hamaddi library only wickedness, demonic possession or severe mental illness could cause someone to remotely respect there garbled syncretism of neoplatonism, pythagoreanism, hinduism, buddhism, zoroastrianism, greek myth and egyptian creation myths polemics against old testament religion and radical reinterpretations of it under a quasi "Christian" mask.
What's wrong with Gnosticism is that for every line that makes some kind of sense there are a hundred or so that don't make sense. Plus, it has all these weird and repulsive Kabbalah like stories in it.
Maybe I need to see the whole clip in context, but I feel like this doesn't really address what is "wrong" with Gnosticism or the reasoning behind why Orthodoxy rejected it. We still have a very incomplete view of what the "so-called Gnostics" believed as we only have Irenaes' writings, the surviving texts of Manicheans and other later religions/philosophies believed to be inspired by the Valentinian Gnostics, and the singular and incomplete Nag Hammadi manuscripts to go off of. Irenaes also (in my view, falsely) taught that the Apostolic Succession of the gospels of the Gnostics were passed down from Simon Magus, which to me seems more like a way of discrediting it outright rather than really engaging with it.
ALSO, the whole concept of the "Pleroma" in Gnosticism as literally "Wholeness," - which to me screams Kantian ding an sich - is that materiality is what separates us in the hierarchy of being which Christ reveals to us, but the apparent goal is a return to this wholeness. The metaphor of Plato's Cave would seem to apply more directly to orthodoxy, that through acknowledgement of Christ the Son, we are leaving the cave on the journey to salvation.
It is unlikely that Gnosticism originated during the time of the apostles and writing of the N.T. (see Yamauchi, Pre-Christian Gnosticism: A Survey of the Proposed Evidences). Most scholars believe Gnosticism began in earnest in second century. Smith argues that Egypt is the most likely location for the birth of Gnosticism. (Carl. B. Smith II, No Longer Jews: The Source For Gnostic Origins). Gnostic Gospels written circa AD 120-180. None of the writers were companions or eye-witnesses. The general view of scholars is that there are no copies that date into the second century. General composition from middle of second century on. (see Evans, Fabricating Jesus). Gospel of Thomas dates from about AD 140 (Gartner, The Theology of the Gospel According to Thomas, p. 271) to 180. (Evans, Fabricating Jesus, p. 55). Gospel According to Phillip written circa second half of 3rd century (Isenberg, Gospel According to Philip; Robinson, Gospel of Thomas," The Coptic Gnostic Library: A Complete Edition of the Nag Hammadi Codices, vol. 2, tractate 3, p. 131). John condemned those who deny that Jesus came in the flesh (1 John 4:1-4; 2 John 7). NEW TESTAMENT GOSPELS FAR SUPERIOR The early fathers knew that Matthew was written by Matthew. (Irenaeus, Against Heresies 3.1). Mark, the companion and interpreter of Peter, took his preaching and made it the Gospel of Mark. William Lane Craig said most scholars believe the Gospel of Mark is based on eye-witness testimony (On Guard, p. 222). Luke, Paul's personal traveling companion, as seen in the "we" sections of Acts 16:10-18 composed Luke-Acts (Luke 1:1-4). (Irenaeus, Against Heresies 3.1). John the Apostle wrote the Gospel that bears his name (Irenaeus, Against Heresies 2.22.5; 3.11). John used "we" many times (1:14; 1 John 1:1-3). Matthew, Mark, Luke likely written AD 40-70. John likely late 80's to early 90's. (H. Wayne House).
4:30 The ruling principle must transcend the hierarchy (while also containing it) because it alone defines the relationship between norm and the exception. Borrowing from Carl Schmitt: "Sovereign is he who decides on the exception."
If that's what it is to be sovereign, is sovereignty the knowledge that only I can decide on my own exceptions, and only you can decide on your own exceptions?
Jonathan, are you familiar with Giorgio Agamben's Homo Sacer? Maybe you can make a video of how you think it connects with some of your ideas, especially what you've said about Jesus filling the hierarchy.
@@FractalCodex7 I'm not trapped anywhere. Your Gnostic religious beliefs are not the rules of reality. It no more authoritative than any other outdated ancient cult like Christianity or Hinduism. If what you're saying is true then why not just self-terminate? Problem solved, right?
True gnosticism has nothing to do with books it's Mystic Instinct love and intuition wisdom. Only those who know Christ true love will be saved. Its omnitheism see the good and love in everything peace in stillness in the merkaba akasha. It set me free, and gave my power back and helps me heal. The love is off the charts. Still the brain and flesh heart and find the stillness in the heart center merkaba and the zero point perfect creation factual blue print. Peace in stillness zin nirvana
I really go for your interpretation of Christ filling the hierarchy. I don't understand what transcending the hierarchy means. Perhaps my understanding of hierarchies is still too abstract. I tend to gravitate to the "first and the last" understanding of place and position within the Kingdom. Years ago I became involved with a school of the 4th Way. This is the one founded by George Gurdjieff. This is a very powerful piece of esoterica, that teaches practical understanding of some teaching from supposedly ancient sources. Anyway, after careful prayer I decided that this was not the path for me. It made me leery or suspicious of rearranging my fundamental understanding of scripture with a complete new symbology. It was a substitution. One day I will be more open to the discovery of the symbols manifested in scripture. And I know there are, but now the concept of Gnosis is not appealing to me. The whole system of teaching involves hierarchies of place and consciousness in a very complete way and total way.
If Christ is truly also the criminal crucified outside of the city then how do we not end up concluding that it's fine to be a criminal? My understanding was that he brings an opportunity of transformation even to such people as criminals crucified outside the city although that opportunity has to be taken. Just as the theif on the right took it and the thief on the left didn't.
It's a higher ethic, a higher way of life, a higher awareness. Remember, everything the Romans did within their realm - including crucifying Jesus - was legal, as they wrote the laws. Everything Hitler did within Germany was legal. So, according to Jewish and Roman law, Christ was a criminal. Does that make Him bad? No. Does that make the Roman and Jewish law bad? Yes.
I just want to throw out on the point of Jesus, what about the argument that his birth and deific aspects was a active choice on the part of abraxas to liberate humanity from the lies of yaldabaoth so that they may rejoin the pleroma upon death. I do understand that if I remember correctly this is a relatively newer interpretation however it fits within the ideals and teachings of gnosticism and frankly would explain the differences between old and new testament God.
I agree with your points that the hierarchy of spirit is not transcended but enveloped in a state of absolute gnosis, i.e. the alpha and omega are revealed to be as one. However, I am struggling to think how there is something "wrong" with Gnosticism or that it is incompatible with this concept (I don't necessarily disagree, I would just like to know more about this subject). I find the gnostic view of Jesus as not appearing fully incarnate little more than a purported perception and not necessarily any implication for the role of Jesus in the spiritual hierarchy. That is to say, is he not fully man and fully God simply because of this perception? Who is to say how this role is to be perceived by others? I know the gnostics believed Christ to be a figure beyond the material realm, and not fully flesh, but can't his arrival signify a joining of the hierarchies on his part? I would like to hear from someone more educated on gnostic texts than I, as I know Gnosticism is mostly an umbrella term that encompasses a lot of different beliefs.
gnostics definitely have a spectrum of views but when I read the gnostic gospels I don’t see Jesus as not incarnate. Just like Paul who warns of the flesh, similarly gnostics texts may be trying to teach the same. As we fall further into fleshly/material/impermanent desires the further we fall into lower realms. That’s not to say bodies are bad like many “orthodox” believers say the gnostics believe
Moses descends from a mountain with 10 commandments, Jesus rises from his tomb the third day and Mohammad ascends to heaven on Barak's back from the Temple Mount, right? If you believe in Santa Clause doesn't mean we should all go back to the kindergarten with you... The sad part is that believing these things you deny yourselves a genuine connection with the Divine.
This reminds of meditations on the tarot. I thought it was controversial when valentin started talking about gnosis and magic . However, he understood gnosis as the internalization of the divine reality. It's basically how the prophets and apostles were able to write down the infallible word of God. He further joins this to tradition, a sort of obedience to heirarchy and order, and how we can reach the gnosis of the prophets and apostles but not write new books of scripture. Which is not a steady dissolution of gnosis but actually a deepening of gnosis. Each generation subsequent to the last grows deeper and deeper in their understanding while the prophets, saints , and apostles are currently far beyond what we could be as of the moment
Hey man. New subscriber here. I love the intro. Best voiceover to music ever. Seriously, you nailed that. Is Gnosticism nondualistic in the Advaita Vedanta sense?
Not Mandaeism. Not Sethian gnosticism . Thoss forms of gnosticism are very dualistic. Christianity is not vedanta but if you must force into such categories Orthodox Christianity would be a qualified nondualism. Orthodox Christianity is very poorly understood if at all by most westerners. The central teaching is that God became man so that man might become God. And the logoi he talks about are the inner essences of created things. The are Divine. The many logoi are the One Logos the second Person in the Trinity.
To be honest, I am gradually drifting closer and closer to gnosticism in my faith, despite all these "classical" arguments from mr. Pageau or the clergy. Or more specifically, the Hermetic, Valentinian and more christian version of gnosticism. But now I start to sympathise more and more even with the sethian and ophite version. I was baptized some time ago into the Orthodox church and if I were honest with myself, not only is it much more gnostic than it claims to be, it's also very bad at doing that. You, mr. Pageau, find it very problematic that the material world is evil in gnosticism, along with most mainstream christians but at the same time you shamelessly affirm the horrible dogma of original sin which in effect disvalues the material world just as much as the gnostic myth does. Just read the Apofthegmata of the desert fathers. They are even more extreme in their enkratism and hatred, even fear of their bodily reality than most of the gnostic scriptures. Where are the rude heresiologists by the likes of Hippolytus or Iraeneus calling out their heresy? And not only that the 'orthodox' position is just as anti-body as gnosticism is, it's even bad at teaching that, because it introduces several very stark contradictions and uses exemplary Orwellian doublethink to deal with them. 1) the affirmation of perfect almighty creator while asserting the corruption of the world. How in a world can the creator be good if the creation is in any way fallen? Orthodox types (like st. Thomas Aquinas) answer is that free will of the one who is responsible (namely humans) is more precious than the state of the entire cosmos. I don't know about you, but that's just way too far stretched and anthropocentric explanation to me. Surely the almighty God is more clever than we are. The gnostic myth is much more coherent, since it asserts that the demiurge is not the highest spirit. It doesn't need to be outright evil, it may be somewhere in between (like the platonic demiurge), which is what Valentinians say, which is a perfect middle path for me. The gnostic myth is also much more optimistic than mainstream christianity. Yes, optimistic, because it affirms the reality of evil having no substance altogether. The fall of Sophia was, you could say, a "happy little accident". Her repentance then basically corrects all dissonance in the Pleroma. Christianity on the other hand acts as if evil had a substance, calling basically everything evil (modern age, all the other religions, so called heretics, other christians) even while claiming it does not (st. Augustine). 2) the demonic dogma of man being responsible for the corruption of the world. It makes no sense to say that I am responsible for anything when I am born pure into a world of corruption. I do not corrupt the world, it corrupts me. The effect is extrinsic to me, therefore I cannot be held responsible. It is much more coherent to say that some aspect of the material reality (the Pauline 'Sarx'), is responsible, because it makes people selfish, lustful, hateful etc., which is really in line with the teachings of st. Paul. I can surely be held responsible for my individual acts, but the ultimate guilt is not placed upon the individual, which sets him free from the said guilt. My time in the mainstream church has been filled with guilt for all I do. I wasn't called for aspiring towards the Highest, I was only called to 'repent', which basically meant a flagellant-like self hatred (which is precisely what the desert fathers put forth - "we need to hate ourselves". How is that for an evil teaching?). The discovery of gnostic and hermetic thinking set me free from all this. 3) The guilt of sin vs. the unfortunate reality of ignorance. Sin in mainstream christianity is something that man is infused by. It is our very nature (how is that for "gnostic teaching"?). So we are called to cry all the time basically. We can also be judged because of sin, so we are basically judged for our very own existence, thus the only remedy is to constantly ask for forgiveness (Jesus prayer). It seems to be similar to our modern environmentalist thinking when the most environmentaly friendly thing we could do is basically a collective suicide. Whereas with ignorance (as opposed to gnosis) is only something you can pity. "Father forgive them, for they do not know what they do". 4) The exoteric nature of christian salvation vs. the esoteric nature of gnostic one. In christianity, the story basically is all you need. You are saved by participating in some myth, some fleeting story. Whereas in gnosticism or hermeticism, we are saved by actual experience, by living out God himself, by actually uniting with Him. 5) Lame theosis vs. actual theosis. I was surprised that what the orthodox call "theosis" was actually a watered down version of what I thought it would be. I was surprised to learn that this "divinization" is basically just moral and ascetic perfection, according to the measuring stick of Christ. No metaphysics involved, no fundamental change in our inner state, we stay creatures all the same. Yes, the world of the saints blazes with Godly fire, which is good, but the actual individual is still a low creature. He participates in the uncreated energies of God, but stays on the same ontological level as he was at the beginning basically, only purified of sin. But the gnostic, hermetic or upanishadic theosis is the actual deal. The union of Atman and Brahma. Such a total union of "here" and "there" that there is no separation between me and God. I am aware of all the arguments against the second theosis, but I can't help myself, it's just much better, much cooler and much more promising one. 6) the resistance of the mainstream church to the tripartite differentiation of people into castes of "pneumatikoi, psychikoi & hylikoi", which is just brushed off by saying that we all are equal, but which is just not true. Reality of things is that some people are just inherently more spiritual than others (prime example is Christ himself, who is the ultimate gnostic). Calvinism bastarded this intuition into its horrible teaching about predestination, but it hints at some deep truth about people. But that would be OK, if the church didn't actually teach some mild version of this. It says that there are no 'pneumatikoi', no one is higher than the other, but with the same breath together with st. Paul they say that monasticism is somehow better than married life, that monastics ascend higher on the ladder of divine ascent, or worse, that lay people don't even come to climb. Or in line with st. Dionysios the Areopagite you even say that the clergy somehow is closer to God than the laity, which is exemplified in the pre Vatican II catholic church, where the hierarchy of believers is clearly seen, even though the church claims that we are all equal. Exemplary Orwellian doublethink. Why? Where does this mild version of gnostic caste system come from? If we are all equal before God, how come only the monastics usually get to be the mystic saints of the Orthodox church? So are you gnostic or not? Make up your mind, Church! I could go on and on, but this is enough it seems to me
I'm glad somebody knows what the fuck they're talking about here. This video felt like a spit in the face coming from somebody that claims to be knowledgeable and puts themselves in the position of teacher, yet can't even communicate the basic principles of Gnosticism correctly. What's wrong with Gnostics? What's wrong with Christians?
Interesting breakdown care to discuss it with him in a video? This format doesn't suit your nor the comment that agreed with you, it seems empty. Please discuss this with him , if possible, so that we can understand your thoughts better and deeper.
gnosticism makes more sense to me. the biblical story is long winded and Christ plays a plan b, c or d after god sent the Israelites wondering etc... after he flooded the earth etc. A lot of anger at his creation that he found fulfilment in killing his only son. There are a lot of conditions here. there is a stream of gnosticism that doesnt acknowledgethe the Christ story or the biblical narrative and instead is direct union with god much like Adam or Enoch. it also takes the gender out of god which i have found to be liberating. everybody i talk to talks to god like a he as if he has manlike physiology. always found that odd.
@@joeygeorge2220 the way I understand it is that God manifests (himself) in what we would consider masculine principles though there are aspects of the feminine when referencing Jesus But to not look at God from a human perspective actually devalues God because then God becomes as arbitrary as a black dot matter (nu-coveneant a black american religious system born out of the Conscious movement views the creator as a singularity that created all things) that has no personal connection to us to even union with. The story of Jesus as I'm understanding, seems to rectify this point to a fact of reality and even to God (the Father) Co creates with the logos (son aka Jesus) and if we are to aim to that union like Jesus, then we participate in that reality(God's energy)as well. We then become like Christ, the figure to model after. What you described seem more akin to panentheism. But I'm curious more about your stance.
@@trashee973 I’m glad I wasn’t alone in feeling this way. It’s always apparent to me quite early on when a person is explaining Gnosticism as to whether or not they’ve had an experience. Gnosticism is not primarily about abstract ideas, it’s is first and foremost about experiential knowledge of ones Self. Of course this is then represented in myth and texts but it is fundamentally about a lived experience.
+Jonathan Pageau thank you, I just discovered your channel and binge watched several videos. I love your perspective on symbolism. I would love to hear your opinion on tarot symbolism. The traditional Rider Waite Smith deck is full of religious iconography from both Christianity and Judaism, or more accurately, Gnosticism and Kabbalah. I don't know if iconography is the right word. I would love to hear your opinion.
@@Lucsleon just take the time to listen to some of the gnostic gospel. As someone who can admit I didn't grow up in the church. I had a lot of questions, On things like why in the garden of Eden would God want us to be ignorant. It's just words, listen to it, make your own conclusions.
He compares Christ being the Alpha and Omega to the Ouroboros, which is a Gnostic symbol. Perhaps the more you go into the esoteric meaning of Orthodox mysteries, the more it starts to overlap with Gnosticism? Is it that simply conventional Christianity is exoteric and Gnosticism is esoteric?
@@brotheraugustine Good to see you on here brother, some things have changed since I made that comment. I bought the Orthodox Study Bible and a Prayer Book a while ago and I'm trying to learn more about the Orthodox Christianity I was baptised as an infant into. I also have plans to attend a church service with someone in my area, even though it's Greek Catholic rather than Orthodox.
Possibly you're forming your opinion from an opinion of gnosticism.... Reading a book on someone's veiw of gnosticism portrays their perception. The fundamentals need to be taken and related to the fundamentals of other religions, perceptions, etc. Then the science needs to be explored and applied. Keep searching friends
I'm just trying to figure out if gnostics believe that the one who gave the knowledge of good and evil is god or if ya know the real god is god: the true father of Christ
Its kind of messy, but I'll explain it to the best of my ability. Demiurge created the material world to rule. Sophia, Christ's female counterpart, was the 'serpent' who told Eve to eat the fruit and give some to Adam so that they could know the difference between good and evil. Once this was done, humans would be able to slowly start to discern that the Demiurge wasn't the real god. Christ comes and some of his sayings certainly can be taken to support this stance. Christ and Sophia being pairs (Sophia provided the Knowledge of Good and Evil from the tree and in some stories becomes one with the tree, and Christ literally was the Tree of Life referenced in Genesis) Put simply, OT god = demiurge who didn't want humans to know good and evil, but a few Aeons (emanations of the higher and true god) intervened.
@@MinisterRedPill and the gnostics would argue that the demiurge is twisting the story of genesis and is projecting his flaws onto Sophia, because the demiurge is the real Satan. They'd argue that knowledge of good and evil made it possible to even realize that the world we live in is full of sin, and without that knowledge none would ever seek to know the Heavenly Father as Jesus Christ told them to.
@@MinisterRedPill They're quite old ideas... Numerous groups followed these ideas and considered themselves Christian for centuries before Christian Theology consolidated. We have no more reason to believe the orthodox story than the gnostic one other than the former was the only one approved by the Vatican for centuries. And we have no idea as to what side details went on at the time that simply weren't written down. I can turn on the news today and see them try to tell me my eyes are lying to me and I should only believe them, and it's all bs. On what grounds should one blindly accept ancient church theologians weren't doing the same? There have always been corrupt clergy in positions of power. Christ's entire ministry was standing up to them. Am I to trust Irenaeus over Marcion simply because the Catholics said so centuries ago? The orthodox is my guiding force and what I'm currently teaching my child. But this rampant belief amongst Christians today that theres no possible way they could be misunderstanding the words of Christ is hilarious. Our hubris must match that of the Pharisees for us to think as such. I fully expect Christ's return to entail a lot of corrections to how Christians conduct themselves beyond what we already know we need to work on.
St. Irenaeus of Lyons is considered the primary saint who fought against Gnosticism. His work, Adversus Haereses, is a systematic refutation of Gnostic sects and an account of apostolic tradition. Irenaeus's beliefs included: Christ was God in the flesh, Gnosticism was dangerous nonsense, and Gnostic interpretations of Scripture were heresy.
Orthodoxy is basically Gnosticism you guys believe the body will be raised as spiritual body, that it will not eat, drink, have physical intimacy, etc. you are recommended to fast 180 to 200 days out of the year, and there's virtually no talk an orthodox priest will give that a few minutes in won't mention fasting, and fighting against the flesh, most writings from the Orthodox make everything symbolic, or spiritual no matter how physical the description of the thing is, the body is just denigrated to a fancy container for the soul, and the trinity sounds fairly similar to the concept of emanations from Gnosticism.
SOME Gnostics believe he didn’t touch the ground, and could vanish into thin air and leave no foot prints, but what sounds just as unrealistic is a Jesus who fasted for 40 days, physically rose from the dead and appeared to the apostles. The difference is as a gnostic we believe that Jesus didn’t come here to turn us from sin, but to reveal gnosis/knowledge of our spiritual being and to make us aware of the monad, the true god , the creator of the spiritual realm pleroma that will give us an experience of fullness once we escape from this imperfect material world that was meant to enslave us, and to escape the demiurge (false god and creator of the physical) and his 12 archons which are resembles as the zodiac signs. We believe there is a divine spark that is a connection to pleroma, the spiritual realm, heaven as Christian’s understand it. We must come to understand the demiurge role and reject this world as an illusion but also use it to learn for more spiritual understanding, then must awaken our spiritual identity and our awareness of the monad (the god of Jesus), we must detach from all material desires, and must constantly seek inner wisdom and find union with the divine. Only through these steps do we believe to transcend, otherwise you’ll be reincarnated in this prison
The truth is that there is nothing to “understand”, Gnosticism is a broad umbrella. It’s a strain of beliefs that arose in the transition period between esoteric polytheism and abrahamic monotheism, attempted to reconcile the faults of abrahamic theology as it arose beyond judea with the esoteric wisdom that came before it. So called modern “Gnosticism” is a revival of the only sects we remotely have a decent amount of knowledge on, the Sethians and Valentinians. This poison of an ideology has reared its ugly head once again in the form of an emotionless, vapid “pop spirituality “ new age movement. It appeals to the edginess and desire for a sense of importance of some of society’s losers but exposes their cowardliness, because as Plotinus more or less put it, they would have escaped already (read between the lines) upon knowing of this “evil” reality and that they can escape it, if they actually had any conviction in their beliefs. The profound aspects of Gnosticism that people yearn for are not uniquely gnostic at all and instead belong to Late Platonism.
Gnosticism spread doctrines, which are now fundamental in many subversive Hebrew movements of modern times. For example, the sect of the Carpocrations attacked all then existing religions and only recognized the Gnosis - knowledge of which was provided by the great men of every nation, such as Plato, Pythagoras, Moses, and Christ - which frees one from all that the vulgar call Religion and makes man equal to God. The Gnostics possessed mysteries and initiations, " Tertulian, a father of the Church, assures us that the sects of the Valentinians perverted the mysteries of Eleusis and made a 'sanctuary of prostitution out of them". In his confirmation that Cabbalist founded Gnosticism, the famous historian of Freemasonry, Ragon, reports that :" The Cabbalah is the key to the secret sciences. The Gnostics emanated from the Cabbalah. E. de Faye assures us that another secret Gnostic sect, Cainites on account of the cult in which they worshipped Cain , represented the latter, Dathan and Abiram, the homosexual inhabitants of Sodom & Gomorrha and Judas Iscariot himself as noble victims of Demiurge, i.e. of the malicious creator of our Universe according to their perverse teachings. Apparently, these Gnostic sects were the forerunners of the Bogomiles, of the Luciferians, of black magic and of certain small satanic masonic circles, which all part, a part from rendering homage to Lucifer regarded as good everything that Christianity holds to be evil and vice versa. Voltaire himself regards the Djues during the middle ages as the spreaders of Black Magic and Satanism. Book Reference: History of Gnosticism by J. Matter.
I believe their were three kinds of Gnostics, the Satanic type like Simon Magus, the monkish, monastery type like at Qumran (even if they weren't really Gnostics) and the family man type like the Mandaeans. However, the Mandaeans keep their religion secret, mostly, so we don't know what they do behind closed doors.
But at least both Democrats and Republicans believe in the existence of material reality (not an illusion), a clear case against the world being strictly a dichotomy/dualism.
Yeah. Tbh some gnostic texts are very valuable spiritual things... I am not fond of the sethian type, but valentinians are sympathetic to me. I also love what Clement of Alexandria did with gnosticism. He is the true gnostic. He also "leaves the platonic cave" but also stays christian while doing it
That's what we're stuck with, isn't it? Until the 20th century, all we knew about gnosticism came from its enemies. And we still only know about Marcion from the writings of his detractors. The kingdom of God suffered violence, and the violent took it by force...including the books!
@@vanessamontes8951 I think you can see a thread going back within some of the secret schools of initiation. If you do your digging I believe you can find what resembles tradition or the original. Like within the hermetic schools of thought, or freemasonry for example.
Once I was in the bus with my family and I told them this, how Christ is on each and every level of the hierarchy of creation. When I paused talking, I realized everyone in close proximity was listening. Man, it was so cool!
1. Gnosis in the bible? Gnosis means “knowledge” if you look this up you will get a translation meaning Knowledge. You see him try pushing Gnosis AWAY from christians. There is no Gnosis in the bible, you are taught to stray away from the tree of Knowledge of good and evil. You are taught to disregard knowledge all cuz “god knows better” 2. Concept of transcendence? By “repenting” and praying to god for forgiveness of your sin? By bowing down and by “Enacting the will of our father” and doing what he tells you to do? That is not transcendence that is slavery. That is obedience. That is through blind obedience and rejecting the divine within you. 3. Then he goes on and on about what the bible says in CERTAIN PASSAGES! I’ll stress that again, CERTAIN PASSAGES! Haven’t you wondered why there is a lot of jumping around when you go to church? Haven’t you ever wondered why one day you’ll be on page 58 the next day somehow you’re on page 245? What are they hiding between that? Why aren’t they reading about all the times god contradicts himself and makes mistakes? The entire story of Noah’s Arc is all about how god messed up and wanted a restart? 11% of christians have read the bible ONCE, 9% have read it multiple times. Start reading your bible. Read about what god ACTUALLY says and does. Research the countless times he’s contradicted himself, THEN tell me i’m wrong.
You see it in that snake eating its tail. That is the Ouroboros, the mother of the monomyth, the heroic journey, the enclosure and skin. Kek is the LIGHT, the first mystery and the last Mut is the Mistress of Isheru El Nut loved Keb more than Ra Salome's Sons are Yaakov and Yokhanan, Jacob and Khanan and Johanan the Priest Salome's sons are Sons of Zavdai and Sons of Thunder too Seleme's son is Dionysus, Son of Zeus Dionysus was son of Kush, in Meroe, in the Church of Mary Salome Zeus is Chus and Kush too The land of Keki is the Land of Khanan, Kanem and Khnum too Kekistan is from Khemenu to the Isle of Abu Solomon's Temple was built at Abu by Amenhotep III Home of the E1b1b V12 Jebu and V13 Nebu kekistani The E1b1b V32 are Sons of Salome called Somali Nimrod was son of King Pepi called Menere Nemtyemsaf II for 200 years the Ark was at the Isle of Abu The land was split, North and South, The Precinct of Mut to the North and Sudan in the South. The battle between HaKeb and HoKhanan called Khnum In the Gospel of Egyptians and Pistis Sophia, what does he say to Salome?
+Kekistani Patriot I liked your tale of mythology, though I may not have caught it all. Hey if you want you can join our little Brotherhood of Kek discord.gg/c6zcvT
How will you fend off your primal fear, when you finally learn there is no heavenly other? Your careful maze of fiction crumbles to the breeze of the real
I'm pretty convinced that if there is a God, it's evil, and wants humans as obedient slaves. That just has faith, and doesn't question their motives, or actions. The love in the new testament, definitely does not excuse the evil acts of the old testament. Why would a God have rules for slavery? Because God approves of slavery if done his way. Because you are in fact his slave.
I didn't get what's wrong with Gnosticism from your explanation... By "Traditional Christianity" you mean "Roman Christianity". After thinking a lot on this religion, my opinion is that it's a mix of many things. Mainly jewish and egyptian mysticism. It's my opinion that the Christ figure in this religion includes some truth which is better represented in Gnosticism/Early Christianity where it was taken from. But the Roman version of Christ includes also too much cult towards the Caesar similar to the cult towards the Pharaoh as God himself. IMO bowing to a human as God is abomination which is avoided (although not completely missing) in most religions/believes. This has detrimental effect on the Christian followers, creating slave-like, passive, waiting, sheep mentality (which was the purpose of course). This is why this religion failed to evolve, and failed to find a place in the modern world when it was left up to the people to decide. And this is after countless attempts for reformation. Christian countries turned into brothels, forgetting any kind of moral behavior in less then 50 years. It's sad really, since I find some truth in the original Christianity, but the problem is that a lot of effort was put to manipulate it, so we can never know what exactly it was... If a person can better relate to the "Gnostic Christianity", I don't see anything wrong with it. It's still better then being fake Christian, like 99.99% of the modern followers of that religion...
He does not mean Roman Christianity. He means Orthodox Christianity. Rome is not the only ancient church. Nor is gnosticism "early Christianity"; it's an early heresy
@@Querymonger The Orthodox, or 'straight up' Jews of the time and the 'know it alls'(called vulgarly by the straight ups) were all messiah(Yeshua) followers. It is estimated that up to 40% of the messiah followers were the 'know it alls' with one of their bishops, Valentenius of Alexandria. The caesers came and went, but one realized that combining all of the other 'gods', making a universal church(catholic church) and having a vision through his mother's sun god(cross in the sun) making a seperate income stream for the realm(they really needed income bad at that time) came up with Constantinople and Rome as separate income opportunities. The know it alls simply said We don't need no temple education..'cause we can talk directly to the Supreme Being anytime we like, due to the fact that all we need to do is pray. The straight ups, on the other hand, bought into the caesers' plans to make money combining all the realm's gods on the whole deal. They forced the idea of salvation through the temple, church, etc, with a pay as you go model. The straight ups were given control of some of Rome's military and proceeded to rout the opposing viewpoints, taking over large quantities of land/property from the opposing messiahists and running the know it alls off at the tip of a spear.
Jesus is the Chief Cornerstone which is the top of the pyramid that is above the pyramid on the back of the dollar bill is floating above the pyramid watching because humanity is not fulfilled its fullness to make the pyramid Chief Cornerstone is the Pinnacle of the angle. Yes?
Pageau's good humor and delight with life always come through. He's not processing trauma all the time like JBP, he's not distantly intellectual like Vervaeke, he never relies on vaguely mystical or awe-inspiring rhetoric like Paul VanderKlay.
you say that about vervaeke because you haven't spend months learning his language, just as you, that was my first reaction when I started watching him, after some months it changed to something completely different.
🤺☦🇷🇺Jonathan is a pagaп not an Orthodox. He is a keyboard warrior on his own channel, yet couldn't dismantle Hijab's arguments in his face, and on top of everything else, he allied yourself with pagan Peterson to be a mouthpiece to the vile western world! Stop speaking in our name, you know nothing about Irenaeus and the fathers!!
That's aptly put
The points you made from 3:48 to the end were very fascinating. The concept of a mountain essentially being contained within its peak struck me particularly deeply.
But thats a concept thats also found in gnosticism. The Silent Spirit creates everything within and by itself
4:34 I can't explain why, but hearing you say this brought so much joy to me; instant joy upon hearing that. I don't know why, but it did.
This goes greatly together with G. K. Chesterton’s “Orthodoxy”.
You gave a lot of description on what gnosis is but it's unclear to me what is "wrong" with gnosticism.
@Spencer Yelinek There is nothing wrong with gnosticism so long as you're not calling it Christianity. According to Pageau (and he's right) the Gnostics either deny the diety of Christ or blaspheme the holy spirit and all Christs works or both.
Well then you just didn't listen...
@@PC-vp2cg He mentioned one thing about it and then turned the entire conversation to what Christianity is. What are you talking about? I don’t think he really understands Gnosticism.
It’s wrong because it denies the goodness of the material world
@@mrepix8287 Like the rape, murder, famine, etc, that is present?
As I understand it, in Christianity the mystery lies in the gap between divine and material, between full coherence and full completeness , the dark element which is encompassed in the person of Jesus. This mystery can be partly understood over time with contemplation and religious observance, but only paradoxically by accepting the presupposition that the mystery itself is a necessary component of being. While in Gnosis, the claim is that the mystery is a veil of ignorance, which you can dispel by becoming illumined, and that the mystery was foisted on you by a cruel demiurge or power hungry priests for their own benefit. This is why secret societies are mostly all Gnostic at the core, they dangle an 'elite' status and 'hidden' knowledge in front of people. And in doing so they create a subtle poison, one which takes a necessary component of creation and life, and makes it an enemy of 'the good'. This is why gnostic religions always become world deniers and misanthropes eventually, regardless of what good intentions their founders may have had. They are at war with the thing that makes life itself possible. This world is, despite our sorrows and tragedies, as Leibniz said, the best of all possible worlds!
This comment should be pinned to the top. It really helped me understand the difference between the highest level encompassing all the hierarchy vs. overcoming it. Basically, implicit in the idea of overcoming it, is that the lower levels drag you down which is a gateway towards misanthropy and the idea that you can be truly self sufficient (to be your own god) and do away with Jesus. I think this type of thinking also inevitably produces a deterministic society, which in my opinion is the true reason why people hate the rich (funny how marxism was born as an opposition to his, but ends up reinforcing it by reducing itself to pure materialism)
I got a lot of clarity from you comment. Thanks.
I hope to come across your other contributions elsewhere.
As I listened to Jonathon Pageau and then read your comment the phrase “ the fullness of Christ” came to my mind.
I shall dwell on this.
@@bg9938 Agreed. Your own contribution also. 🙏
@@whitestone4805 Thanks
gnosticism makes more sense to me. the biblical story is long winded and Christ plays a plan b, c or d after god sent the Israelites wondering etc... after he flooded the earth etc. A lot of anger at his creation that he found fulfilment in killing his only son. There are a lot of conditions here. there is a stream of gnosticism that doesnt acknowledgethe the Christ story or the biblical narrative and instead is direct union with god much like Adam or Enoch. it also takes the gender out of god which i have found to be liberating. everybody i talk to talks to god like a he as if he has manlike physiology. always found that odd.
Major part on the comments doesn't know the 4 types of gnosis.
1) Special knowledge revealed.
2) Pessimistic disposition towards reality, where existence in reality is a prison and the human being was thrown into it against his will.
3) Heretical Christian Sects of the 1st and 2nd Century.
4) Ancient exoteric religion.
Clear as mud
You deserve way more views.
I guess that is our job to help make happen
I'm really glad to have found you, gnostism is rampant on tik tok and no one is addressing
Gnostism is a spectrum of beliefs. The lack of nuance is unbecoming of an intellectual :)
It’s like saying Christianity is silly bc I don’t trust Joseph smith
Would you do an episode on the relationship between the churches who claim apostolic succession (E.O, Oriental, Rome, Anglican, Armenian, etc). I recently came out of evangelicalism after a major paradigm loss ( I was taught creationism and reject it). Now I am at loss of what to do. I understand churches that give Eucharist and have the three fold ministry to be a more pure form. Could you do a video on evangelicalism not understanding the symbols of the Bible.
To be perfectly honest, though I love and have an utmost respect for Eastern Orthodoxy, I find it hard to accept that they are the one church and not the coptics or the Armenians or any other group that keeps the sacraments.
It’s a confusing time for Christians. I also found that when I left the Baptist movement, I became much more liberal, scientifically minded, and more compassionate towards my fellow mankind.
For those who leave evangelical churches, is it any wonder I have developed an interest/obsession with eastern religions and philosophy? Or could that be because I am a highly creative thinking artist who just can’t help think outside the box?
Btw ..... I love and admire what you and your brother are doing. It has to go alongside with what JP is teaching regarding being and consciousness.
Thank you
Ave Maria
Glory to God
I’m formerly a Baptist as well. I’ve gone into the rabbit hole with orgone energy and ended up in Gnosticism. There’s 40,000 Christian based denominations out there. This being the case, why should I leave it to one person to define what Gnosticism means to me? What Gnosticism mainly is, is the same son and different father.
305_Orgone no surprise since Jerusalem is mystery babylon.
"I also found that when I left the Baptist movement, I became much more liberal, scientifically minded, and more compassionate towards my fellow mankind."
Amen.
Very interesting. Thank you for uploading this.
Do you think there's value in studying the Gnostic scriptures like the Nag Hammadi library?
Up to you but don’t fall down the rabbit hole. It makes me feel uncomfortable in my gut, same with kabbahlism which is very similar, probably the root from Babylonia
Nexus that discomfort might be the signal to move forward. Many things good for us start out uncomfortable
Feral Sound yes do you research
GhoulSchool - yes you’re right you never know the truth may be shocking and sets you free
Check out First Gnostic Church of Christ on TH-cam. It's not what you picture when you hear it. Excellent breakdowns of the nag Hammadi library texts from a self knowledge perspective.
I really want Pageau or Jay Dyer to do a detailed watch of Neon Genesis Evangelion
I told Jay to, he just liket the comment so idk
It be cool to see a jbp pageau, and Jay dyer cross over on evangelion
I totally second that, boy is that anime full of symbolism
@@geraltantoine3052A video game named Xenogears is full of gnosticism, the Japanese love using gnostic themes in video games and anime.
@@YourBoyJohnny94guess who brought what over there, roughly 1946.
Ask yourself how many gnostic ‘saints’ there are, ask how many miracles have been performed. Ask how many died under persecution for their faith. “You shall know them by their works”
The Spanish cathars didn't pursue miracles though
Ask yourself how many innocent lives were killed in the name of Your false abrahamic god, be it jewish Christian or islamic. If i had to judge yall by your works then youd all be fucked
Saint Clement of Alexandria, Saint Valentinus are two „Gnostic saints“ but there is a much longer list of figures who were accused or said to be Gnostic.
Tertullian calls saint Paul "the apostle of the heretics", who he accuses of Gnosticism. The main issue with Paul is:
„42 So will it be with the resurrection of the dead. The body that is sown is perishable, it is raised imperishable; 43 it is sown in dishonor, it is raised in glory; it is sown in weakness, it is raised in power; 44 it is sown a natural body, it is raised a spiritual body.“
Paul‘s restoration of the body is a spiritual body, not a flesh body. This was later considered heretical as it later became the dogma of resurrection of the flesh.
One of the ironies that was created is that later theologians stressed the resurrection of the flesh thinking that they were advocating Paul’s view, against Gnostics. In fact, they were not advocating Paul’s view at all, since Paul did not think the flesh would be raised.
Origen although never becoming a Saint was the most popular Christian writer of his era and is still part of the canon and highly influential to Thomas Aquinas and Erasmus and to this day. Was accused of Gnosticism. Origen too, believed in the spirit body and that Jesus real body was an illusion. Clement was also criticized for this belief.
The heresy was called Docetism which was Christ did not have a real or natural body during his life on earth but only an apparent or phantom one.
The canon position evolved to „the word became flesh“.
The problem with this topic is there was never a school of Gnosticism. There were sects with a variety of beliefs which were later accused of „Gnosticism“.
Many of those ideas were not canonized. But certain ideas by those accused of Gnosticism are part of the canon. And the writings of Paul actually show a contradiction in canonical belief.
There were many gnostics who were burned alive. And then the people who accused them died. And the pope that let them do it, he was laying in state, an autoimmune disease, and his place of rest was struck with lightning. So you tell me. Now im orthodox Christian, but we cannot pretend to know more than we do about the gnostics.
St. Irenaeus of Lyons is considered the primary saint who fought against Gnosticism. His work, Adversus Haereses, is a systematic refutation of Gnostic sects and an account of apostolic tradition. Irenaeus's beliefs included: Christ was God in the flesh, Gnosticism was dangerous nonsense, and Gnostic interpretations of Scripture were heresy.
Terrific explanation about the unity of Chris and Christianity. That laugh in the end is really nice.
No not Chris I know Chris.
Father, Son, Holy Ghost...
Mind, Body, Soul ??
J D M
Mind is more or less the same thing as soul
More defined statement is
Body, Soul, Spirt
@@folktheologytransition3756 And they're all wrong. God > "Mind, Body, Spirit"
ACRX SLS whats all wrong sorry?
Jmusique_ JMK mind and Soul isn‘t the Same. The Soul is the Power that activates/runs the mind. When we act on a higher vibrational level, we will automatically get higher ideas and thoughts
@@veli1048 >anime pfp.
>brainwashed by eastern animation with heavy eastern philosophy
What you’re describing actually sounds similar to Vedanta, wherein the first step is to recognize that the world is an illusion, but the final step is to realize the paradox that there is no contradiction between God and the world, but perfect reconciliation.
The only difference (albeit a big one) is that in Christianity, Christ is the sole bridge that reconciles man and the world, whereas in Vedanta all of the avatara would fulfill that role.
what is vedanta
So it basically comes down to the difference between quantity and quality?
No the Christian Vendata, would be the saints, but they are instruments of God, not independent power. The main difference between the two faiths is that Christianity belives in only one life, and that the God-man loves us and out of His Divine Mercy gives us ways to atone for our sins (similar to karma) much more abundantly than the karmic cycle.
But are not all the avatara one Avatar, ultimately?
@@thenowchurch6419 Yes, all are Christ.
I'm removing myself from secularism by studying all the declared heresies by the Church.
Thought systems are realities.
The darkness was shouded in the blue glow of the coming dawn. If it wasn't for the color blue I wouldn't be alive.
On earth as it is in heaven.
No idea what any of your comment means but I'm in.
where is the 3rd to last sentence you typed from?
@@orgith54 Last is alchemist/hermetist saying, Third one is propably related to the fact that no ancient language had word for blue as we know it today
This Might be your best piece of content you’ve produced
Simply put, the gnostic gospels were written 200 years after the canonical gospels. It is simply another religion that uses christianity as a template, exactly like Islam which also uses christianity as a template.
Thank you for saying gnosis is a part of Christianity! That’s unfortunately not talked about anymore. I like to say that the problem with Gnosticism is the “ism”. When the ladder, when the light, becomes the focus, it means that the spiritual gold and silver, the interaction between sun and moon, becomes spiritual idolatry. But the union itself is holy. And besides ascension aiding us to see spiritual principles, the union also transforms our hearts and character: so that we may be perfect, even as our father in heaven is perfect.
Well said, friend.
Gnosis was never part of Christianity.
@@TruthBeTold7 Ofcourse it was, and is.
@@TruthBeTold7 Of course it was. "you will know the truth and the truth shall set you free". Read st. Clement of Alexandria
@@thedisintegrador I've read all his writings. He was a walking encyclopedia of ancient Sumerian culture and beliefs. As a side note, Clement of Alexandria is not a canonized saint in the Orthodox Church.
I'm curious why you think that the gnostics idea of what gnosis is, is any different than your initial definition.
because he is biased toward the orthodox church
The Angry Slav I know bra I can speak from experience of being a Christian all my life since I was young when I first heard about what is gnostism is and everything made sense but this guy has no concert stuff and a gnostic once said if it doesn’t make sense chances are it’s not the truth
Don't Gonstics also believe Lucifer is the good guy and God to be the villain?
I haven't found this to be the case. This is kind of half correct. The God of the Old Testament is the counterfeit. I believe he is the same as Lucifer but I'm not sure. Satan can be pronounced differently and can translate as adversary.
Visitormassacre The only thing I can really question in your post is your quote relative to what the Secret Book of John says about the highest God whom we shouldn’t think of as a god but as beyond a god. Nothing is needed to complete The One
@@pentaxpro i don't understand how gnoatism teaches Yahweh to be Satan, but then uses Jesus as the center of their faith, who came from the NT which was based on the OT.
Makes no sense..
@@MinisterRedPill I don't find it hard to understand. All you have to do is picture a spiritual universe with multiple deities. Yaldabaoth attempted to establish a kingdom with humanity integrated into it. It would have been successful system until The One sent The Son to pull some out of what is mainly a reincarnation cycle.
Today there are spirits messing with people not just because they hate them. They are feeding off negative forms of the energy our physical bodies can emanate. They want us to be miserable and fearful. The Secret Book of John hints at this. They use us as a source of energy. Of course The One who is the creator of the universe and the other realms has no need for this.
@@pentaxpro How is it not hard to understand? It sounds hypocritical. The NT seems to be based on the OT but gnostics use Jesus from the NT and ignores everything else to create their own religion. So, how do you know the gnostic texts are legitimate?
“Gnosticism is wrong”
*ends by referring to the Christ as an ouroboros*
🤔
Interesting analysis. But I have a question:
I’m Not sure about the comparison between the ouroboros and Christ. Isn’t one a symbol of world/time and the other for humanity? They are completely the opposite of each other. One being Greek and the other abrahamic. Isn’t this syncretism forced? If not isn’t the parallel a new mythology? The man is the world? I never heard of something like this. Sounds like a phenomenology for the mind
Gnostic was an accusation, not a unified philosophy. There are many early Christians and Christian sects accused of Gnosticism, including the apostle Paul, who was called by Ireneus „the apostle if heretics.“ There was no proto-orthodoxy either. These are 20th century academic categories which are not helpful to understand the various early movements. Some Christians who were accused of Gnosticism are part of the Christian canon and were highly influential. Including Clement and Origen are the most obvious.
Exactly 👍🏼 it’s dangerous to trust someone like Pageau who makes these obvious mistakes
Protect Gnosis, Open the Logos
I see this as an explanation of how Gnosticism is different, but not wrong.
They both have very different implications so therefore one of them is wrong. There’s no such thing as two Truths.
@Red Pilled Lol, did you forget in Elementary School when they have you write out multiplication as an addition problem? 2x2 = 2+2, 2x3 = 2+2+2 etc.
You said the same thing twice.
I'm late here, but Dualism: the Illuminati Religion tackles the arguments. It's here on TH-cam.
ImNotJoshPotter beat me to it lol
@@ImNotJoshPotter what do you mean tackles the arguments?
Bonjour Jonathan, je ne sais pas si tu connais Alexandr Dugin, il est un philosophe russe vivant très intéressant, il est aussi active dans le "social media", qu'est ce que tu pense de sa démarche?
Beautiful description of Christ! Thank you.
He is both at the same time, that’s why I wonder if the mountain is a clear way to look at it, if there is no up or down
Amazing.... Thank you so much for this
What is this great “Geist?” From where did it come, and where is it going? It can only find telos whilst looking behind itself in reflection, but reflection only ever finds evidence of a mirage. What could be moving forward when there is no backward?
So what's wrong with Gnosticism? You didn't even answer the the title.
what is the end result of gnosticism ?homunculi, transgenderism, ceraphims, reinterpretations of the bible, gnosis, etc. it’s literally the religion of those in power RIGHT NOW! just look at the symbols of gnostics and you will find them everywhere in our modern times. GOOD LUCK!
This is completely in line with what Ken Wilber says about Spirit - spirit is the highest level of the chain of being (or hierarchy of being I.e. matter to life to mind to soul to spirit, where each emerges from the previous level, transcending and including it) but Spirit actually underpins the whole chain. This is essentially the mystic view - that there is only one thing (to the extent that subject and object can in the final level be unified) and that this thing when it is realised is found to be not just the height but at the root of everything too - I.e. it's fully transcendent and fully manifest simultaneously. God-consciousness, nonduality etc. are words that point to what this is and it seems that Christ for the Orthodox Church means precisely the same.
It's so useful to hear this from the Christian tradition, even if it's Eastern Orthodox, and therefore no doubt has a much closer history to the eastern tradition. Still the perennial philosophy is fully digested and expressed in Christian terms, and the result is novel and enlightening, and fills in other parts of the puzzle if you have heard the same from the advaita and zen side of things. Each tradition it seems to me has enormous strengths and then places where the doctrine is not so clearly articulated, and although full realisation can be reached inside any single tradition together they make a fuller picture that might point people faster to enlightenment/realisation/unity.
It is good to hear complex ideas being articulated but sometimes I wonder if all this might be descending into the worship of mental gymnastics, and might turn out in the light of a brighter day to be nothing short of pure twaddle.
Brendan Tannam well of course everything will turn out to be twaddle in light of ultimate truth - all talk, science and religious is approximations and models of the nature of reality (in very different spheres.) they point to what may be real, and allow one to live and make predictions with a reasonably high level of success. But they also point to the ultimate truth which many people have realised and is very clearly pointed to by the deepest tiers of all the major religions. Ken Wilber is not an original thinker compared to the mystics, but what he has done is catalogued all these mystic traditions and tried to fit them together and integrate them. He gives an excellent overview of the subject in his second book No Boundary, and 'a ken wilber reader' is also good to get an overview.
For now we see only a reflection as in a mirror; then we shall see face to face. Now I know in part; then I shall know fully, even as I am fully known.-1 Corinthians 13:12
I hope this scripture captures the sense of your comment about evolving truth. When I suggested that these mental gymnastics might amount to twaddle, I didn’t mean it in the sense of Paul’s verse. I meant that all these complex speculations might turn to be incorrect, utterly empty of any truths. I understand there is a long tradition of religious belief and many doctrines are taken as common truths among them but they are nothing more than speculation. I am baffled by the idea that religious beliefs might help people ‘to live and make predictions with a reasonably high level of success. I suspect predictions from any source have a very low track record of success.
I don’t know Ken Wilber so I wasn’t commenting on his ideas.
Brendan Tannam well by prediction I meant in terms of: if I take this course of action, then I will be met with more success in life than if I did the opposite. The injunction not to lie say - the idea that one shouldn't lie, and by not lying the best possible future will unfold is a statement of faith, and so is in the realm of a religious claim. It can't be proven as such, and is a recommendation for a mode of being.
That bible quote hints that there will be greater understanding in the future, but not the nature of what that understanding might entail. I do think that in general Christianity and the bible struggles to articulate the more mental aspects of self transcendence in the sense that Zen and Advaita excel at. However it seems to me that Christianity is more developed in terms of turning the mystical/metaphysical truth into a course for action - I.e. It is very strongly embodied and links the 'gross' with the 'causal' realm better than does Buddhism say in which it seems to me there are real contradictions - all the moral teachings there are essentially about training the ego to be more kind, and then simultaneously one is told the ego is an illusion.
Christianity links the domains better, at the cost of being less clear about what enlightenment/realisation/ultimate truth actually is - it is very wedded to its central metaphors (Christ, the cross, biblical stories, rather than meditation and self examination) and ultimate truth is projected into an external character God. Later Christian mystics like Meister Eckhart fill in the picture considerably, but it's never so explicit as in the Hindu and Buddhist texts.
I suppose they all make a brave attempt to tell us what the nature of a transcendent being is. They may even have drawn their ideas from a single school of thought but every idea that was ever conceived and developed and made so sophisticated might be utter nonsense. It is very possible that there is nothing after death. I think there is a danger of getting so involved in the details of religious beliefs that one loses sight of that possibility.
Great clip. When I finally made my way back to God, which is a far longer story than there's room for here, He gave me the symbol which, to me, now represents the _bothness_ which you talk about; It's that paradoxical mathematical form called the Mobius Strip. I think of it as my wedding ring.
Please tell!
@@M-i-k-a-e-l What is it you want me to tell?
@@TommyApplecore The "far longer story". Maybe you have a blog or something? I just felt I really wanted to read it.
@@M-i-k-a-e-l The reason I call it a long story is because it really, really, is Not weeks or months. Years. In some ways it's quite a common story too.
I was a hopeless drunk who had no further to fall except into suicidal despair. So, like many others, I cried to God for help. So far, so normal. But after I did that there was no sudden 'conversion' ... no Vision, no blinding flash of light, no sudden change of any sort. But I didn't feel abandoned by God or anything like that either. See ... although I'd given up on Church as a child, and had spent several years of my youth calling myself an agnostic or an atheist like my friends, I never could quite believe that God did not exist. This is because I had so much personal evidence that He did.
When I was very young my mother had told me many times that if ever I felt frightened or got into any sort of difficulty, or even if I just felt bored, or lonely, I should ask God for help and He would fix whatever the problem was. And He always did. Every time I got into one of the many scrapes that young boys always get into, I called on God to help me out, and He never failed. Not once.
As an adult, of course, I tried not to believe such childish nonsense, but there was always this little Doubting Thomas voice saying "But what if it's true?" So when I cried to God out of the depths of my despair as a hopeless drunk, I realized that, actually, I couldn't be quite Entirely without hope, could I? There's a failure of logic there.
That was the first step.
So I just sat down and started talking. At first, I knew I was just sitting there, alone, talking to myself, but gradually, over time, I started to feel that some of what I was saying, wasn't me. I didn't automatically assume it was God tho' ... what if I was talking to the "other fella"? After all, we've all heard stories of wicked murderers who claim that God told them to do it. How could I be sure I wasn't being led into that trap?
So then I started asking questions, asking for 'signs', and, above all, asking What, exactly, He wanted from me, what did He want me to DO. See ... I've always believed that unless you're producing some tangible Thing, you're not Doing anything ... that's just common sense isn't it?
Anyway ... long story short now ... After about ten years ten years of doing nothing that made any sense, producing acres of rambling, manic 'notes' with no book or blog or anything else in sight, God finally answered my most important question ...
"What do you want me to DO?"
"Stop worrying about it" sez the Lord ... "It's done. You've been doing it for years."
@@TommyApplecore Help me understand the mobius strip. If you would.
Christ is the Life Animating All❤️
The problem is that, all we know about the "GNOSTICS" is what their opponents tell us. And it is a very broad brush, not unlike the word heresy.
Ummm… the Nag Hammadi? The problem is the “orthodox” only use second hand sources when criticizing it
St Augustine was a Gnostic Manichaean before he converted. Does that make him an opponent of Gnosticism for criticizing what he saw as a major flaw in the system?
I've read nearly every text of the Nag Hamaddi library only wickedness, demonic possession or severe mental illness could cause someone to remotely respect there garbled syncretism of neoplatonism, pythagoreanism, hinduism, buddhism, zoroastrianism, greek myth and egyptian creation myths polemics against old testament religion and radical reinterpretations of it under a quasi "Christian" mask.
Watch the woke body hating left, there you have it.
What's wrong with Gnosticism is that for every line that makes some kind of sense there are a hundred or so that don't make sense. Plus, it has all these weird and repulsive Kabbalah like stories in it.
Can you have a discussion with Marty Leeds? Why not?
Maybe I need to see the whole clip in context, but I feel like this doesn't really address what is "wrong" with Gnosticism or the reasoning behind why Orthodoxy rejected it. We still have a very incomplete view of what the "so-called Gnostics" believed as we only have Irenaes' writings, the surviving texts of Manicheans and other later religions/philosophies believed to be inspired by the Valentinian Gnostics, and the singular and incomplete Nag Hammadi manuscripts to go off of. Irenaes also (in my view, falsely) taught that the Apostolic Succession of the gospels of the Gnostics were passed down from Simon Magus, which to me seems more like a way of discrediting it outright rather than really engaging with it.
ALSO, the whole concept of the "Pleroma" in Gnosticism as literally "Wholeness," - which to me screams Kantian ding an sich - is that materiality is what separates us in the hierarchy of being which Christ reveals to us, but the apparent goal is a return to this wholeness. The metaphor of Plato's Cave would seem to apply more directly to orthodoxy, that through acknowledgement of Christ the Son, we are leaving the cave on the journey to salvation.
Can you elaborate on the divine darkness? Is this like in the icon of the Nativity with Christ being born in the cave?
No.
I can't find anything on refuting Gnosticism. Just support.
It is unlikely that Gnosticism originated during the time of the apostles and writing of the N.T. (see Yamauchi, Pre-Christian Gnosticism: A Survey of the Proposed Evidences).
Most scholars believe Gnosticism began in earnest in second century. Smith argues that Egypt is the most likely location for the birth of Gnosticism. (Carl. B. Smith II, No Longer Jews: The Source For Gnostic Origins).
Gnostic Gospels written circa AD 120-180. None of the writers were companions or eye-witnesses.
The general view of scholars is that there are no copies that date into the second century. General composition from middle of second century on. (see Evans, Fabricating Jesus).
Gospel of Thomas dates from about AD 140 (Gartner, The Theology of the Gospel According to Thomas, p. 271) to 180. (Evans, Fabricating Jesus, p. 55).
Gospel According to Phillip written circa second half of 3rd century (Isenberg, Gospel According to Philip; Robinson, Gospel of Thomas," The Coptic Gnostic Library: A Complete Edition of the Nag Hammadi Codices, vol. 2, tractate 3, p. 131).
John condemned those who deny that Jesus came in the flesh (1 John 4:1-4; 2 John 7).
NEW TESTAMENT GOSPELS FAR SUPERIOR
The early fathers knew that Matthew was written by Matthew. (Irenaeus, Against Heresies 3.1).
Mark, the companion and interpreter of Peter, took his preaching and made it the Gospel of Mark. William Lane Craig said most scholars believe the Gospel of Mark is based on eye-witness testimony (On Guard, p. 222).
Luke, Paul's personal traveling companion, as seen in the "we" sections of Acts 16:10-18 composed Luke-Acts (Luke 1:1-4). (Irenaeus, Against Heresies 3.1).
John the Apostle wrote the Gospel that bears his name (Irenaeus, Against Heresies 2.22.5; 3.11). John used "we" many times (1:14; 1 John 1:1-3).
Matthew, Mark, Luke likely written AD 40-70. John likely late 80's to early 90's. (H. Wayne House).
4:30 The ruling principle must transcend the hierarchy (while also containing it) because it alone defines the relationship between norm and the exception. Borrowing from Carl Schmitt: "Sovereign is he who decides on the exception."
If that's what it is to be sovereign, is sovereignty the knowledge that only I can decide on my own exceptions, and only you can decide on your own exceptions?
Sovereignty is not the knowledge of sovereignty. That is a reification.
Jonathan, are you familiar with Giorgio Agamben's Homo Sacer? Maybe you can make a video of how you think it connects with some of your ideas, especially what you've said about Jesus filling the hierarchy.
The Matrix is symbolic in relation to Gnosis so is Harry Potter
Realization is within you "the external is the reflection of the internal"
That's a big assumption that Hollywood would deliver you the ultimate esoteric reality. Has it ever been that easy?
@@Peacekeepa317imho they do it constantly and have been doing it for decades. You just need the key to decode it. 👁
More to the point you've been trapped here and you'd better find the way out before they imprison you permanently.
@@FractalCodex7 I'm not trapped anywhere. Your Gnostic religious beliefs are not the rules of reality. It no more authoritative than any other outdated ancient cult like Christianity or Hinduism. If what you're saying is true then why not just self-terminate? Problem solved, right?
Man no you ain't saying what I said yesterday so it is only one teacher...THE SPIRIT
Gnostics try to take the blood out of the picture smh
Good analysis. Gnosticism is Platonic while Christianity is Aristotelean
Every time the Bible was revised more and more details and truth were omitted. The question is who is responsible for this and why?
True gnosticism has nothing to do with books it's Mystic Instinct love and intuition wisdom. Only those who know Christ true love will be saved. Its omnitheism see the good and love in everything peace in stillness in the merkaba akasha. It set me free, and gave my power back and helps me heal. The love is off the charts. Still the brain and flesh heart and find the stillness in the heart center merkaba and the zero point perfect creation factual blue print. Peace in stillness zin nirvana
I really go for your interpretation of Christ filling the hierarchy. I don't understand what transcending the hierarchy means. Perhaps my understanding of hierarchies is still too abstract. I tend to gravitate to the "first and the last" understanding of place and position within the Kingdom.
Years ago I became involved with a school of the 4th Way. This is the one founded by George Gurdjieff. This is a very powerful piece of esoterica, that teaches practical understanding of some teaching from supposedly ancient sources. Anyway, after careful prayer I decided that this was not the path for me. It made me leery or suspicious of rearranging my fundamental understanding of scripture with a complete new symbology. It was a substitution. One day I will be more open to the discovery of the symbols manifested in scripture. And I know there are, but now the concept of Gnosis is not appealing to me. The whole system of teaching involves hierarchies of place and consciousness in a very complete way and total way.
Bro is an agent of the demiurge
Hahahaha
If Christ is truly also the criminal crucified outside of the city then how do we not end up concluding that it's fine to be a criminal?
My understanding was that he brings an opportunity of transformation even to such people as criminals crucified outside the city although that opportunity has to be taken. Just as the theif on the right took it and the thief on the left didn't.
It's a higher ethic, a higher way of life, a higher awareness. Remember, everything the Romans did within their realm - including crucifying Jesus - was legal, as they wrote the laws. Everything Hitler did within Germany was legal. So, according to Jewish and Roman law, Christ was a criminal. Does that make Him bad? No. Does that make the Roman and Jewish law bad? Yes.
I just want to throw out on the point of Jesus, what about the argument that his birth and deific aspects was a active choice on the part of abraxas to liberate humanity from the lies of yaldabaoth so that they may rejoin the pleroma upon death. I do understand that if I remember correctly this is a relatively newer interpretation however it fits within the ideals and teachings of gnosticism and frankly would explain the differences between old and new testament God.
I didn't hear you say what exactly is wrong with Gnosticism other than Christians don't agree with it.
Exactly. Christians are nothing but idolizing false prophets. A layer of the inferno. Misjudgment. Casualties to the physical realm.
I agree with your points that the hierarchy of spirit is not transcended but enveloped in a state of absolute gnosis, i.e. the alpha and omega are revealed to be as one. However, I am struggling to think how there is something "wrong" with Gnosticism or that it is incompatible with this concept (I don't necessarily disagree, I would just like to know more about this subject). I find the gnostic view of Jesus as not appearing fully incarnate little more than a purported perception and not necessarily any implication for the role of Jesus in the spiritual hierarchy. That is to say, is he not fully man and fully God simply because of this perception? Who is to say how this role is to be perceived by others? I know the gnostics believed Christ to be a figure beyond the material realm, and not fully flesh, but can't his arrival signify a joining of the hierarchies on his part? I would like to hear from someone more educated on gnostic texts than I, as I know Gnosticism is mostly an umbrella term that encompasses a lot of different beliefs.
gnostics definitely have a spectrum of views but when I read the gnostic gospels I don’t see Jesus as not incarnate. Just like Paul who warns of the flesh, similarly gnostics texts may be trying to teach the same. As we fall further into fleshly/material/impermanent desires the further we fall into lower realms. That’s not to say bodies are bad like many “orthodox” believers say the gnostics believe
Moses descends from a mountain with 10 commandments, Jesus rises from his tomb the third day and Mohammad ascends to heaven on Barak's back from the Temple Mount, right? If you believe in Santa Clause doesn't mean we should all go back to the kindergarten with you... The sad part is that believing these things you deny yourselves a genuine connection with the Divine.
This reminds of meditations on the tarot. I thought it was controversial when valentin started talking about gnosis and magic . However, he understood gnosis as the internalization of the divine reality. It's basically how the prophets and apostles were able to write down the infallible word of God. He further joins this to tradition, a sort of obedience to heirarchy and order, and how we can reach the gnosis of the prophets and apostles but not write new books of scripture. Which is not a steady dissolution of gnosis but actually a deepening of gnosis. Each generation subsequent to the last grows deeper and deeper in their understanding while the prophets, saints , and apostles are currently far beyond what we could be as of the moment
Who??? 3:23? Thank you in advance.
St Maximus the Confessor
Can’t we just go back to the good ol days when god murdered a bunch of first borns.
Why are there so many females with npd?
Wow I guess I do disagree with JP about something 🤯
Hey man. New subscriber here. I love the intro. Best voiceover to music ever. Seriously, you nailed that.
Is Gnosticism nondualistic in the Advaita Vedanta sense?
cormac doherty that’s why when the student asks, “do the clouds have Buddha-nature?” The master responds, “yes, but it’s a pity to say so.”
:)
Not Mandaeism. Not Sethian gnosticism . Thoss forms of gnosticism are very dualistic. Christianity is not vedanta but if you must force into such categories Orthodox Christianity would be a qualified nondualism. Orthodox Christianity is very poorly understood if at all by most westerners. The central teaching is that God became man so that man might become God. And the logoi he talks about are the inner essences of created things. The are Divine. The many logoi are the One Logos the second Person in the Trinity.
See you don’t have the knowledge of Gnosis or you’re hiding it cause this is not gnosis.
Don't listen to others guys no matter what do your own research
To be honest, I am gradually drifting closer and closer to gnosticism in my faith, despite all these "classical" arguments from mr. Pageau or the clergy. Or more specifically, the Hermetic, Valentinian and more christian version of gnosticism. But now I start to sympathise more and more even with the sethian and ophite version.
I was baptized some time ago into the Orthodox church and if I were honest with myself, not only is it much more gnostic than it claims to be, it's also very bad at doing that. You, mr. Pageau, find it very problematic that the material world is evil in gnosticism, along with most mainstream christians but at the same time you shamelessly affirm the horrible dogma of original sin which in effect disvalues the material world just as much as the gnostic myth does. Just read the Apofthegmata of the desert fathers. They are even more extreme in their enkratism and hatred, even fear of their bodily reality than most of the gnostic scriptures. Where are the rude heresiologists by the likes of Hippolytus or Iraeneus calling out their heresy? And not only that the 'orthodox' position is just as anti-body as gnosticism is, it's even bad at teaching that, because it introduces several very stark contradictions and uses exemplary Orwellian doublethink to deal with them.
1) the affirmation of perfect almighty creator while asserting the corruption of the world. How in a world can the creator be good if the creation is in any way fallen? Orthodox types (like st. Thomas Aquinas) answer is that free will of the one who is responsible (namely humans) is more precious than the state of the entire cosmos. I don't know about you, but that's just way too far stretched and anthropocentric explanation to me. Surely the almighty God is more clever than we are. The gnostic myth is much more coherent, since it asserts that the demiurge is not the highest spirit. It doesn't need to be outright evil, it may be somewhere in between (like the platonic demiurge), which is what Valentinians say, which is a perfect middle path for me. The gnostic myth is also much more optimistic than mainstream christianity. Yes, optimistic, because it affirms the reality of evil having no substance altogether. The fall of Sophia was, you could say, a "happy little accident". Her repentance then basically corrects all dissonance in the Pleroma. Christianity on the other hand acts as if evil had a substance, calling basically everything evil (modern age, all the other religions, so called heretics, other christians) even while claiming it does not (st. Augustine).
2) the demonic dogma of man being responsible for the corruption of the world. It makes no sense to say that I am responsible for anything when I am born pure into a world of corruption. I do not corrupt the world, it corrupts me. The effect is extrinsic to me, therefore I cannot be held responsible. It is much more coherent to say that some aspect of the material reality (the Pauline 'Sarx'), is responsible, because it makes people selfish, lustful, hateful etc., which is really in line with the teachings of st. Paul.
I can surely be held responsible for my individual acts, but the ultimate guilt is not placed upon the individual, which sets him free from the said guilt.
My time in the mainstream church has been filled with guilt for all I do. I wasn't called for aspiring towards the Highest, I was only called to 'repent', which basically meant a flagellant-like self hatred (which is precisely what the desert fathers put forth - "we need to hate ourselves". How is that for an evil teaching?). The discovery of gnostic and hermetic thinking set me free from all this.
3) The guilt of sin vs. the unfortunate reality of ignorance. Sin in mainstream christianity is something that man is infused by. It is our very nature (how is that for "gnostic teaching"?). So we are called to cry all the time basically. We can also be judged because of sin, so we are basically judged for our very own existence, thus the only remedy is to constantly ask for forgiveness (Jesus prayer). It seems to be similar to our modern environmentalist thinking when the most environmentaly friendly thing we could do is basically a collective suicide. Whereas with ignorance (as opposed to gnosis) is only something you can pity. "Father forgive them, for they do not know what they do".
4) The exoteric nature of christian salvation vs. the esoteric nature of gnostic one. In christianity, the story basically is all you need. You are saved by participating in some myth, some fleeting story. Whereas in gnosticism or hermeticism, we are saved by actual experience, by living out God himself, by actually uniting with Him.
5) Lame theosis vs. actual theosis. I was surprised that what the orthodox call "theosis" was actually a watered down version of what I thought it would be. I was surprised to learn that this "divinization" is basically just moral and ascetic perfection, according to the measuring stick of Christ. No metaphysics involved, no fundamental change in our inner state, we stay creatures all the same. Yes, the world of the saints blazes with Godly fire, which is good, but the actual individual is still a low creature. He participates in the uncreated energies of God, but stays on the same ontological level as he was at the beginning basically, only purified of sin.
But the gnostic, hermetic or upanishadic theosis is the actual deal. The union of Atman and Brahma. Such a total union of "here" and "there" that there is no separation between me and God.
I am aware of all the arguments against the second theosis, but I can't help myself, it's just much better, much cooler and much more promising one.
6) the resistance of the mainstream church to the tripartite differentiation of people into castes of "pneumatikoi, psychikoi & hylikoi", which is just brushed off by saying that we all are equal, but which is just not true. Reality of things is that some people are just inherently more spiritual than others (prime example is Christ himself, who is the ultimate gnostic). Calvinism bastarded this intuition into its horrible teaching about predestination, but it hints at some deep truth about people.
But that would be OK, if the church didn't actually teach some mild version of this. It says that there are no 'pneumatikoi', no one is higher than the other, but with the same breath together with st. Paul they say that monasticism is somehow better than married life, that monastics ascend higher on the ladder of divine ascent, or worse, that lay people don't even come to climb. Or in line with st. Dionysios the Areopagite you even say that the clergy somehow is closer to God than the laity, which is exemplified in the pre Vatican II catholic church, where the hierarchy of believers is clearly seen, even though the church claims that we are all equal. Exemplary Orwellian doublethink.
Why? Where does this mild version of gnostic caste system come from? If we are all equal before God, how come only the monastics usually get to be the mystic saints of the Orthodox church? So are you gnostic or not? Make up your mind, Church!
I could go on and on, but this is enough it seems to me
I'm glad somebody knows what the fuck they're talking about here. This video felt like a spit in the face coming from somebody that claims to be knowledgeable and puts themselves in the position of teacher, yet can't even communicate the basic principles of Gnosticism correctly. What's wrong with Gnostics? What's wrong with Christians?
Interesting breakdown care to discuss it with him in a video? This format doesn't suit your nor the comment that agreed with you, it seems empty. Please discuss this with him , if possible, so that we can understand your thoughts better and deeper.
gnosticism makes more sense to me. the biblical story is long winded and Christ plays a plan b, c or d after god sent the Israelites wondering etc... after he flooded the earth etc. A lot of anger at his creation that he found fulfilment in killing his only son. There are a lot of conditions here. there is a stream of gnosticism that doesnt acknowledgethe the Christ story or the biblical narrative and instead is direct union with god much like Adam or Enoch. it also takes the gender out of god which i have found to be liberating. everybody i talk to talks to god like a he as if he has manlike physiology. always found that odd.
@@joeygeorge2220 the way I understand it is that God manifests (himself) in what we would consider masculine principles though there are aspects of the feminine when referencing Jesus
But to not look at God from a human perspective actually devalues God because then God becomes as arbitrary as a black dot matter (nu-coveneant a black american religious system born out of the Conscious movement views the creator as a singularity that created all things) that has no personal connection to us to even union with.
The story of Jesus as I'm understanding, seems to rectify this point to a fact of reality and even to God (the Father) Co creates with the logos (son aka Jesus) and if we are to aim to that union like Jesus, then we participate in that reality(God's energy)as well. We then become like Christ, the figure to model after.
What you described seem more akin to panentheism. But I'm curious more about your stance.
@@trashee973 I’m glad I wasn’t alone in feeling this way. It’s always apparent to me quite early on when a person is explaining Gnosticism as to whether or not they’ve had an experience. Gnosticism is not primarily about abstract ideas, it’s is first and foremost about experiential knowledge of ones Self. Of course this is then represented in myth and texts but it is fundamentally about a lived experience.
+Jonathan Pageau thank you, I just discovered your channel and binge watched several videos. I love your perspective on symbolism. I would love to hear your opinion on tarot symbolism. The traditional Rider Waite Smith deck is full of religious iconography from both Christianity and Judaism, or more accurately, Gnosticism and Kabbalah. I don't know if iconography is the right word. I would love to hear your opinion.
your talk about the mountain of hierarchy confirms to me the claims of the papacy.
Gnosticism answers the questions that the traditional Christian bibles don’t
Fr
Exactly
What questions?
@@Lucsleon just take the time to listen to some of the gnostic gospel. As someone who can admit I didn't grow up in the church. I had a lot of questions, On things like why in the garden of Eden would God want us to be ignorant. It's just words, listen to it, make your own conclusions.
He compares Christ being the Alpha and Omega to the Ouroboros, which is a Gnostic symbol. Perhaps the more you go into the esoteric meaning of Orthodox mysteries, the more it starts to overlap with Gnosticism?
Is it that simply conventional Christianity is exoteric and Gnosticism is esoteric?
Neither, it’s that Pageau is wrong.
@@brotheraugustine
Good to see you on here brother, some things have changed since I made that comment. I bought the Orthodox Study Bible and a Prayer Book a while ago and I'm trying to learn more about the Orthodox Christianity I was baptised as an infant into. I also have plans to attend a church service with someone in my area, even though it's Greek Catholic rather than Orthodox.
Gnosticism = knowledge+ mysticism
What is this word salad?
It’s him trying to use gnostic teachings while simultaneously claiming superiority
Possibly you're forming your opinion from an opinion of gnosticism.... Reading a book on someone's veiw of gnosticism portrays their perception. The fundamentals need to be taken and related to the fundamentals of other religions, perceptions, etc. Then the science needs to be explored and applied. Keep searching friends
I'm just trying to figure out if gnostics believe that the one who gave the knowledge of good and evil is god or if ya know the real god is god: the true father of Christ
Its kind of messy, but I'll explain it to the best of my ability. Demiurge created the material world to rule. Sophia, Christ's female counterpart, was the 'serpent' who told Eve to eat the fruit and give some to Adam so that they could know the difference between good and evil. Once this was done, humans would be able to slowly start to discern that the Demiurge wasn't the real god.
Christ comes and some of his sayings certainly can be taken to support this stance. Christ and Sophia being pairs (Sophia provided the Knowledge of Good and Evil from the tree and in some stories becomes one with the tree, and Christ literally was the Tree of Life referenced in Genesis)
Put simply, OT god = demiurge who didn't want humans to know good and evil, but a few Aeons (emanations of the higher and true god) intervened.
@@JamesBrown-pt9np so sopia sounds like Satan since they shared the same role in giving eve and Adam knowledge.
@@MinisterRedPill and the gnostics would argue that the demiurge is twisting the story of genesis and is projecting his flaws onto Sophia, because the demiurge is the real Satan. They'd argue that knowledge of good and evil made it possible to even realize that the world we live in is full of sin, and without that knowledge none would ever seek to know the Heavenly Father as Jesus Christ told them to.
@@JamesBrown-pt9np but these sound like new age teachings. What makes you think they're legit?
@@MinisterRedPill They're quite old ideas... Numerous groups followed these ideas and considered themselves Christian for centuries before Christian Theology consolidated. We have no more reason to believe the orthodox story than the gnostic one other than the former was the only one approved by the Vatican for centuries. And we have no idea as to what side details went on at the time that simply weren't written down.
I can turn on the news today and see them try to tell me my eyes are lying to me and I should only believe them, and it's all bs. On what grounds should one blindly accept ancient church theologians weren't doing the same? There have always been corrupt clergy in positions of power. Christ's entire ministry was standing up to them. Am I to trust Irenaeus over Marcion simply because the Catholics said so centuries ago?
The orthodox is my guiding force and what I'm currently teaching my child. But this rampant belief amongst Christians today that theres no possible way they could be misunderstanding the words of Christ is hilarious. Our hubris must match that of the Pharisees for us to think as such. I fully expect Christ's return to entail a lot of corrections to how Christians conduct themselves beyond what we already know we need to work on.
St. Irenaeus of Lyons is considered the primary saint who fought against Gnosticism. His work, Adversus Haereses, is a systematic refutation of Gnostic sects and an account of apostolic tradition. Irenaeus's beliefs included: Christ was God in the flesh, Gnosticism was dangerous nonsense, and Gnostic interpretations of Scripture were heresy.
Orthodoxy is basically Gnosticism you guys believe the body will be raised as spiritual body, that it will not eat, drink, have physical intimacy, etc. you are recommended to fast 180 to 200 days out of the year, and there's virtually no talk an orthodox priest will give that a few minutes in won't mention fasting, and fighting against the flesh, most writings from the Orthodox make everything symbolic, or spiritual no matter how physical the description of the thing is, the body is just denigrated to a fancy container for the soul, and the trinity sounds fairly similar to the concept of emanations from Gnosticism.
The Thunder: Perfect Mind
At the very peak, the whole mountain __ a vey fractal concept, in harmony with what we know of reality.
maybe Christ transcends the hierarchy at the same time as filling it - maybe its the result of the filling that is the key to transcending
Humans cannot transcend without Christ. Nor can we truly "transcend" at all.
That evil laugh at the end was creepy as hell :D
SOME Gnostics believe he didn’t touch the ground, and could vanish into thin air and leave no foot prints, but what sounds just as unrealistic is a Jesus who fasted for 40 days, physically rose from the dead and appeared to the apostles.
The difference is as a gnostic we believe that Jesus didn’t come here to turn us from sin, but to reveal gnosis/knowledge of our spiritual being and to make us aware of the monad, the true god , the creator of the spiritual realm pleroma that will give us an experience of fullness once we escape from this imperfect material world that was meant to enslave us, and to escape the demiurge (false god and creator of the physical) and his 12 archons which are resembles as the zodiac signs.
We believe there is a divine spark that is a connection to pleroma, the spiritual realm, heaven as Christian’s understand it. We must come to understand the demiurge role and reject this world as an illusion but also use it to learn for more spiritual understanding, then must awaken our spiritual identity and our awareness of the monad (the god of Jesus), we must detach from all material desires, and must constantly seek inner wisdom and find union with the divine. Only through these steps do we believe to transcend, otherwise you’ll be reincarnated in this prison
bs, material world and demiurge were redeemed they are good now
@@salem2554 then why do we live with constant wars, famine and poverty
Its misunderstood and lied about on TH-cam.
That's what
The truth is that there is nothing to “understand”, Gnosticism is a broad umbrella. It’s a strain of beliefs that arose in the transition period between esoteric polytheism and abrahamic monotheism, attempted to reconcile the faults of abrahamic theology as it arose beyond judea with the esoteric wisdom that came before it. So called modern “Gnosticism” is a revival of the only sects we remotely have a decent amount of knowledge on, the Sethians and Valentinians. This poison of an ideology has reared its ugly head once again in the form of an emotionless, vapid “pop spirituality “ new age movement. It appeals to the edginess and desire for a sense of importance of some of society’s losers but exposes their cowardliness, because as Plotinus more or less put it, they would have escaped already (read between the lines) upon knowing of this “evil” reality and that they can escape it, if they actually had any conviction in their beliefs. The profound aspects of Gnosticism that people yearn for are not uniquely gnostic at all and instead belong to Late Platonism.
Ha!! Finally got an answer on the double helix snake. Thanks
Gnosticism spread doctrines, which are now fundamental in many subversive Hebrew movements of modern times. For example, the sect of the Carpocrations attacked all then existing religions and only recognized the Gnosis - knowledge of which was provided by the great men of every nation, such as Plato, Pythagoras, Moses, and Christ - which frees one from all that the vulgar call Religion and makes man equal to God.
The Gnostics possessed mysteries and initiations, " Tertulian, a father of the Church, assures us that the sects of the Valentinians perverted the mysteries of Eleusis and made a 'sanctuary of prostitution out of them".
In his confirmation that Cabbalist founded Gnosticism, the famous historian of Freemasonry, Ragon, reports that :" The Cabbalah is the key to the secret sciences. The Gnostics emanated from the Cabbalah.
E. de Faye assures us that another secret Gnostic sect, Cainites on account of the cult in which they worshipped Cain , represented the latter, Dathan and Abiram, the homosexual inhabitants of Sodom & Gomorrha and Judas Iscariot himself as noble victims of Demiurge, i.e. of the malicious creator of our Universe according to their perverse teachings.
Apparently, these Gnostic sects were the forerunners of the Bogomiles, of the Luciferians, of black magic and of certain small satanic masonic circles, which all part, a part from rendering homage to Lucifer regarded as good everything that Christianity holds to be evil and vice versa.
Voltaire himself regards the Djues during the middle ages as the spreaders of Black Magic and Satanism.
Book Reference:
History of Gnosticism by J. Matter.
I believe their were three kinds of Gnostics, the Satanic type like Simon Magus, the monkish, monastery type like at Qumran (even if they weren't really Gnostics) and the family man type like the Mandaeans. However, the Mandaeans keep their religion secret, mostly, so we don't know what they do behind closed doors.
relying on Irenaus to explain Gnosticism is like asking a Democrat to describe a Republican.
But at least both Democrats and Republicans believe in the existence of material reality (not an illusion), a clear case against the world being strictly a dichotomy/dualism.
Yeah. Tbh some gnostic texts are very valuable spiritual things... I am not fond of the sethian type, but valentinians are sympathetic to me. I also love what Clement of Alexandria did with gnosticism. He is the true gnostic. He also "leaves the platonic cave" but also stays christian while doing it
Yeah why go there. Go study the Nag Hammadi, understand it, and then maybe you’re ready to provide criticism
That's what we're stuck with, isn't it? Until the 20th century, all we knew about gnosticism came from its enemies. And we still only know about Marcion from the writings of his detractors. The kingdom of God suffered violence, and the violent took it by force...including the books!
@@vanessamontes8951 I think you can see a thread going back within some of the secret schools of initiation. If you do your digging I believe you can find what resembles tradition or the original. Like within the hermetic schools of thought, or freemasonry for example.
Scapegoat
Sacrifice
Lamb
Man
Shepherd
First-born
Priest
King
God
Jesus fills the hierarchy rather than transcending it
Do you like cats?
Once I was in the bus with my family and I told them this, how Christ is on each and every level of the hierarchy of creation. When I paused talking, I realized everyone in close proximity was listening. Man, it was so cool!
Thank you for this !!!!
My old Bible says Jesus was unfairly condemned to death. Not, Jesus the criminal was crucified.
Idk what you are talking about, Christianity is very platonic and is also highly neo-platonic. Just read St Maximus and you will understand
1. Gnosis in the bible? Gnosis means “knowledge” if you look this up you will get a translation meaning Knowledge. You see him try pushing Gnosis AWAY from christians. There is no Gnosis in the bible, you are taught to stray away from the tree of Knowledge of good and evil. You are taught to disregard knowledge all cuz “god knows better”
2. Concept of transcendence? By “repenting” and praying to god for forgiveness of your sin? By bowing down and by “Enacting the will of our father” and doing what he tells you to do? That is not transcendence that is slavery. That is obedience. That is through blind obedience and rejecting the divine within you.
3. Then he goes on and on about what the bible says in CERTAIN PASSAGES! I’ll stress that again, CERTAIN PASSAGES! Haven’t you wondered why there is a lot of jumping around when you go to church? Haven’t you ever wondered why one day you’ll be on page 58 the next day somehow you’re on page 245? What are they hiding between that? Why aren’t they reading about all the times god contradicts himself and makes mistakes? The entire story of Noah’s Arc is all about how god messed up and wanted a restart?
11% of christians have read the bible ONCE, 9% have read it multiple times. Start reading your bible. Read about what god ACTUALLY says and does. Research the countless times he’s contradicted himself, THEN tell me i’m wrong.
Whats wrong with gnosticism? Nothing!
Just slander from church who hide the truth
You see it in that snake eating its tail. That is the Ouroboros, the mother of the monomyth, the heroic journey, the enclosure and skin.
Kek is the LIGHT, the first mystery and the last
Mut is the Mistress of Isheru El
Nut loved Keb more than Ra
Salome's Sons are Yaakov and Yokhanan, Jacob and Khanan and Johanan the Priest
Salome's sons are Sons of Zavdai and Sons of Thunder too
Seleme's son is Dionysus, Son of Zeus
Dionysus was son of Kush, in Meroe, in the Church of Mary Salome
Zeus is Chus and Kush too
The land of Keki is the Land of Khanan, Kanem and Khnum too
Kekistan is from Khemenu to the Isle of Abu
Solomon's Temple was built at Abu by Amenhotep III
Home of the E1b1b V12 Jebu and V13 Nebu kekistani
The E1b1b V32 are Sons of Salome called Somali
Nimrod was son of King Pepi called Menere Nemtyemsaf II
for 200 years the Ark was at the Isle of Abu
The land was split, North and South, The Precinct of Mut to the North and Sudan in the South.
The battle between HaKeb and HoKhanan called Khnum
In the Gospel of Egyptians and Pistis Sophia, what does he say to Salome?
+Kekistani Patriot I liked your tale of mythology, though I may not have caught it all. Hey if you want you can join our little Brotherhood of Kek discord.gg/c6zcvT
How will you fend off your primal fear, when you finally learn there is no heavenly other? Your careful maze of fiction crumbles to the breeze of the real
I'm pretty convinced that if there is a God, it's evil, and wants humans as obedient slaves. That just has faith, and doesn't question their motives, or actions. The love in the new testament, definitely does not excuse the evil acts of the old testament. Why would a God have rules for slavery? Because God approves of slavery if done his way. Because you are in fact his slave.
I didn't get what's wrong with Gnosticism from your explanation... By "Traditional Christianity" you mean "Roman Christianity". After thinking a lot on this religion, my opinion is that it's a mix of many things. Mainly jewish and egyptian mysticism. It's my opinion that the Christ figure in this religion includes some truth which is better represented in Gnosticism/Early Christianity where it was taken from. But the Roman version of Christ includes also too much cult towards the Caesar similar to the cult towards the Pharaoh as God himself. IMO bowing to a human as God is abomination which is avoided (although not completely missing) in most religions/believes. This has detrimental effect on the Christian followers, creating slave-like, passive, waiting, sheep mentality (which was the purpose of course). This is why this religion failed to evolve, and failed to find a place in the modern world when it was left up to the people to decide. And this is after countless attempts for reformation. Christian countries turned into brothels, forgetting any kind of moral behavior in less then 50 years. It's sad really, since I find some truth in the original Christianity, but the problem is that a lot of effort was put to manipulate it, so we can never know what exactly it was... If a person can better relate to the "Gnostic Christianity", I don't see anything wrong with it. It's still better then being fake Christian, like 99.99% of the modern followers of that religion...
He does not mean Roman Christianity. He means Orthodox Christianity. Rome is not the only ancient church. Nor is gnosticism "early Christianity"; it's an early heresy
@@Querymonger The Orthodox, or 'straight up' Jews of the time and the 'know it alls'(called vulgarly by the straight ups) were all messiah(Yeshua) followers. It is estimated that up to 40% of the messiah followers were the 'know it alls' with one of their bishops, Valentenius of Alexandria. The caesers came and went, but one realized that combining all of the other 'gods', making a universal church(catholic church) and having a vision through his mother's sun god(cross in the sun) making a seperate income stream for the realm(they really needed income bad at that time) came up with Constantinople and Rome as separate income opportunities. The know it alls simply said
We don't need no temple education..'cause we can talk directly to the Supreme Being anytime we like, due to the fact that all we need to do is pray. The straight ups, on the other hand, bought into the caesers' plans to make money combining all the realm's gods on the whole deal. They forced the idea of salvation through the temple, church, etc, with a pay as you go model. The straight ups were given control of some of Rome's military and proceeded to rout the opposing viewpoints, taking over large quantities of land/property from the opposing messiahists and running the know it alls off at the tip of a spear.
Jesus is the Chief Cornerstone which is the top of the pyramid that is above the pyramid on the back of the dollar bill is floating above the pyramid watching because humanity is not fulfilled its fullness to make the pyramid Chief Cornerstone is the Pinnacle of the angle. Yes?