Welcome back to Gnostic Insights and to the Gnostic Reformation on Substack. Last week was part one of my interview with Bishop Nathan Wilson of the Gnostic Union, and he explained to us a bit about who the Gnostic Union is and what they believe in.

At the beginning of that episode, I read from the Gnostic Union website their history and mission statement. And my brother Billy called me up and said, “Oh, but there’s a point of their theology that’s all wrong. I know they’re ecumenical and all, but we mustn’t fall into the error of wrong teaching.” And, you know, I totally agree with that concept, not teaching anything that is incorrect or that doesn’t make sense, according to the Gnosticism that I share with you here. And it created a very large discussion between my brother and me. And I don’t even have enough time in this short introduction to go into the point that Bill brought up out of their statement of beliefs. So we’ll wait and we’ll do that when these interviews are all over and that way we can go into depth and give the topic the attention it deserves.

You see, the Gnosticism that I share with you here mostly comes from the Tripartite Tractate of the Nag Hammadi. And the Tripartite Tractate is a very unusual book. It is not a book of mythology. It is not a book of ancient myths concerning angels and demigods and great battles in heaven and so forth. It’s not that kind of book. We think of it as physics. It’s literally a book that describes the cosmology and the cosmogony, that is, how consciousness came to be transmitted from the base state of consciousness that we call the Father or the Source, and all the way downstream into, ultimately, us. We’re sitting here talking and thinking about it.

This is pure consciousness we’re talking about. It’s not particularities. You understand? Gnosis itself we think of as that river of consciousness. That’s what gnosis is. So, I often say, if my dog can’t understand the gnosis, it’s not really gnosis—it’s a knowledge claim. If a blade of grass or a tree in the forest can’t bask in the gnosis, then it’s not really gnosis. It’s a human knowledge claim. This is the reason why here at Gnostic Insights and on the Gnostic Reformation, we do not dwell in the history of things. We dwell in the understanding or the gnosis itself.

The cosmogony and cosmology of Gnosticism that I share with you here is a logical step-by-step rollout of the consciousness of the Father or the Source. It doesn’t really matter what you call it. It’s the base state. It’s the matrix of consciousness itself and how it flows down to us. There are necessary steps described in the Tripartite Tractate for how that consciousness is differentiated and particularized and then rolled down. And how it is that we material beings are different than the ethereal beings. How could that have possibly happened? It’s like that. It’s a logical progression that necessarily comes out of an a priori statement of consciousness as the ground state. That’s quite a bit different than mythologies of how these angels fit in with these gods and goddesses down here on earth and so forth. Because those particularities definitely come out of the mind of humans. They can be inspired. Okay, I’ll give you that. But they are knowledge claims. They’re not necessarily gnosis and because of that they can go wrong. They can be wrong.

Whereas starting with this a priori notion of consciousness ending up in us and how does that occur? By what means does that possibly happen? And how is it that we earthlings plug into that illimitable consciousness? That’s a different thing. That’s a description of process. That’s an understanding or a gnosis of what it is that we are part of.

So I’m not knocking the history or the particularities that Bishop Wilson shares with us. But the gnosis that leads you to enlightenment is simply this:

We come from the Father [El Elyon] or from the Source or from the Mother-Father or from the Great Mother—whatever you want to call it. We come from that Source, that unlimited well of consciousness and life and power and might and love. And then we will return to that.

That’s all you have to know. We come from Above and we return to Above. And with that knowledge, that’s your base state. That’s what the blades of grass and the dogs and the trees all understand. All the rest of the particularities of who and why and how, those are just details being filled in. Some of them out of gnosis, but most of them out of tradition or history.

So we’ll be proceeding now into part two of my interview with Bishop Nathan Wilson of the Gnostic Union. And later on, we’re going to talk some more about the difference between mythology and the process of gnosis. That is what this podcast specializes in. That’s what my brother Bill and I have parsed out and discovered out of direct mining of the Tripartite Tractate. Our gnosis comes from that and it proceeds in an orderly fashion that doesn’t require any extra research. It’s all about gnosis and what must be.

But here, let’s go back to this interview with Brother Wilson.

****************************************************************

Cyd:

Well, tell me more about your Bible that you wrote. What do you call it? You call it…

Bishop Nathan Wilson:

I call it The Gnostic Christian Truth Bible. I actually asked one of the older bishops that trained me, Bishop Jason, and he started that. So, I like the name. So, I thought, okay, I want to put Gnostic Christian in there. So, I was going to call it first the Truth Bible. He requested that, but I thought, well, Gnostic Christian makes it less likely for the Catholics to come after me as well, and the Protestants.

Many do not like my translations. They are quite upset that I’ve done this, but they don’t put too much light on me. So, it’s best not to give me too much attention, basically. So, the less attention I have, the less people know about this, but which is something unique about mine. I don’t just offer my translations. I offer the original Koine Greek with it, so they can look at the actual text.

So, even if my translation, say, could be wrong, they could look straight at that text and go argue with the text that they see, which I also wanted to include for their own reason, and when I included the alternative English, it’s so I might read it one way, but someone else is going to read it another way, and that can teach me something new. I feel, oh, I didn’t understand it like that. So, that’s why I wanted to keep that in there too, and a couple of words I kept in there were Greek.

So, I kept Logos. I kept Kosmos, Zoe, Sophia, Archon. Magus. I kept all these words. So, very, very Gnostic, and you won’t find these in the English translations. They have gone out of their ways to censor them. I also kept the word daemon or daimon, daemon, so I did not put that down as demon because that’s not what it means. So, I kept the original Greek context of use, and I also add a Greek, Koine Greek, index in my translation so people can actually look at little snippets of what these words mean.

So, I have some things in here. So, this is just on one page on basically all Greek with English meaning. So, there’s Logos, which I explained means God’s word, God’s authority, God’s reasoning, song, and speech, and utterance. So, when you see Christians speak that Jesus is speaking the Word, or in the beginning there was Word, they are doing a disservice to what’s being implied. This is the word of God. Very different, and even the word God we use is very English. I did keep up, but for the English sake of things. So, English people wouldn’t freak out too much on me, and another thing is also a safer mouthful, because this Word means supreme deity, deity of deities, which is very interesting. Otherwise, we would go into a god, which is lesser gods as well. So, we have a pantheon. So, it was very different, like even monotheism would evolve into what we think it is today, but in the ancient past with ancient Jewish people, they did believe in other gods, it’s just they chose to worship one god. So, this would be not the same as monotheism now, where you completely reject them as non-existent. This wasn’t that case. So, they had a very different mind.

So I kept Sophia being wisdom. I mentioned this is how this is feminine wisdom, God’s feminine wisdom, coming from the Hebrew word Chokmah. Sometimes those are called Chokmah. So, I kept that in there as Sophia.

Zoe, I kept too, meaning basically when you see eternal Zoe, that’s eternal life. So, that’s implying the feminine wisdom again, but also the spiritual benefits one receives with a spiritual relationship with God, or what’s with mine. So, I kept that in there. So, it’s very feminine, and that’s being removed. They would not want you to know that life is Zoe, and there’s other words they could have used for life or soul, but they chose to use the word Zoe, and that’s important. So, I kept that in there.

And I’ve also got Megas. I’ve already mentioned that, but Magus comes from—here’s two words that are entwined, but the thing was the church has used a later translation, which would be terrible, but that’s kind of wrong, and this is because the language would evolve over time. It came to words Megus and Magos, which basically would be Magi, and then great and powerful, larger than life.

So, Jesus was also called Iesous Magos. So, Jesus the Great, Jesus the Wise, has been censored because of Magus, and they don’t want you to know about Simon Magus. They don’t want you to know anything about Gnosticism. So, this has been censored, and I’ve also put some passages where find this.

I kept Daemon in here, or Diamon.

Gehenna, I also translated in here. I kept Gehenna. I did not use hell because hell is German. It’s realm of light in German, so it’s a Germanic word. So, I kept the word Gehenna, which is ultimately what we would kind of call hell, but it’s not what people think it is. That’s an evolved tradition. So, Gehenna or even Abaddon, these are two different words, but the same thing. Gehenna was the place where the soul was destroyed or purified. So, the text can translate to eternal punishment, but that’s not strictly bound to it. That’s more would be a later theology bound to that translation where it means period of time. So, it doesn’t necessarily mean all these different things.

It’s like the word soma where it’s all about Jesus’ body. It can be living body, dead body, or a carcass, or even the living body of the church, which is more symbolic, but fascinating.

I also kept in here a couple words, such as I explained Hades, which is mentioned with Sheol and how that’s separate from Gehenna.

I’ve kept Helios, Selene, Astron, or Asterios, as well as Aletheia. These words are very interesting because they are all gods. They’re all Greco-Roman gods. So, the scholars or, I really should say, a Christian apologist, that state there’s no pagan gods in the New Testament—they are entirely wrong. It’s just that they have looked at it in a modern Greek eye instead of looking at an ancient past—they would have seen the gods being mentioned.

So that’s very interesting. So when Jesus says that the stars and the sun is falling, he’s not speaking about the sun and stars. He’s speaking about the Helios, the Roman sun god is falling, and the stars and goddesses falling, as well as Selene, the moon, so the moon goddess. That’s the falling of the pagan Roman gods that was subjecting the Jewish people. So very different theology. So theology matters. So we have to look at how people believed back these times. [Jesus speaks of the stars, moon, and sun in Matthew 24:29, Mark 13:25, Luke 21:25. Assigning them as gods and goddesses is Bishop Wilson’s interpretation.]

The Jewish people did not like the Romans. Not saying that all of them did not. We had some that were pro-Roman. One of the Romans that was involved in the Jewish revolt, fighting against the Jewish people, was Jewish, which is cool. And he was related to Philo of Alexandria. So very interesting. I think he might be his grandson.

Cyd:

Let me jump in for a second as we’re speaking about gods and the God Above All Gods versus lesser gods. Is it your thought that the God of the Jews of the Old Testament, Jehovah, is a lesser god as opposed to the God Above All Gods?

Bishop Nathan Wilson:

Yes.

Cyd:

Okay, so Jehovah is the tribal god of the Old Testament?

Bishop Nathan Wilson:

Yes, a bit of a mix. So there’s two gods. Well, there’s a couple, if you’ve got to go every single god being mentioned.

But what they’re describing is, say, Deuteronomy 32:8, you have El Elyon dividing up the nations according to the Elohim being children of El, and Yahweh received his inheritance from the most high God. So Yahweh was more like a guardian deity, basically. He was a brother of Baal. But some Canaanites believed that Yahweh was Baal. So Yahweh kind of came later after Baal.

But the first to worship Yahweh were the Sashu of Yahweh. So they were Canaanite raiders. Hebrew was also a Canaanite language. [The earliest trace of Yahweh isn’t Israelite—it’s desert-born. Egyptian inscriptions speak of the “Shasu of YHW,” nomadic peoples on the edges of Canaan, sometimes regarded as raiders. It suggests the name of Yahweh may have emerged out of the wilderness before it was ever claimed by Israel. Even Hebrew itself comes out of the same Canaanite linguistic world.]

So I see the views—the ones that were worshipping El would be the ones that would become the Essenes or Jewish mystics. So the Essenes worshipped El. They didn’t worship Yahweh. They viewed Yahweh as a lesser god, which is one reason they challenged the temple, because they viewed, you guys aren’t worshipping God, you’re worshipping the lesser deity, you’re worshipping an angel. And so they rejected the temple. And the priesthood was corrupt.

So then you also had the Magharians or Magarites. They were first century BC era Jews. They were proto-Gnostic, so that’s a scholar term. So they were Jewish mystics. They believed that Yahweh was a demiurge and that he was a lieutenant. So not an evil demiurge, but he was ignorant of the most high Father El Elyon, but that’s not a name to them. That was just a title meaning most high God. So they didn’t believe in God with a name, the unknowable Father, they believed was beyond sex as well. So Mother-Father, basically. So beyond all things. Too perfect to interfere with matter. And they believed that the Torah had been corrupted. So that’s fascinating. So that’s a group that we want to talk about. So we had about 25 different versions of Judaism during that time with all different beliefs.

So what type of Jew was Jesus? This makes a big, big difference. So not all Jews worshipped Yahweh. Some viewed him as a lesser God and some viewed him as the devil, which is whack. So the only Gnostics or proto-Gnostics would use that word devil at that time. So we have the wisdom of Solomon, which is the first text adored by Christians that they would say, look, this is our Messiah mentioning he’s a dying and rising Messiah calling himself the Son of God and he’s been crucified. So this means that just like our text, he would die a shameful death.

But this text mentions that through death, the devil enters the world. So the Pharisees didn’t believe in the devil. The Sadducees didn’t either. But what’s interesting about the Pharisees and Sadducees and the Herodians, which kind of made up both these groups, they were a part of both, just the Herodians mostly supported King Herod. They believed that either King Herod was the Messiah or his family would be, or they belonged to the Sadducees and didn’t believe in a Messiah. So the Sadducees didn’t believe in angels. They didn’t believe in an afterlife. They believed once you were dead, the soul turned to dust. God was too perfect to interfere with humans. So that’s an interesting belief. But we had different subsects of Sadducees that had a different opinion to that. They believed that God did interfere with humans, but we had total free will. So they could interfere with some things, but there was no Messiah. There was no angels. So they believed that a human could be a messenger of God. That was about it. So like Moses.

Then you had the Pharisees. They believed that Satan served Yahweh. His job was to test humanity or seduce humanity away from God. So that way mankind had free will. But some Pharisees didn’t believe that. They believed that Satan, Hasatan, was just symbolic for mankind’s inclination towards evil. So they didn’t believe in an evil being. So their belief was that God ordained good and evil, basically, would use evil for his own will. So that’s trippy, very trippy. So the Pharisees had a very different belief. They didn’t believe in the adversary against God. They didn’t believe in fallen angels. Later on, they would take on this belief, borrowing it from mystics and zealots. So funny enough, they would be influenced by Jesus’ teachings, such as saving a life on the Sabbath. The Pharisees would not do that. But to be fair, some Essenes wouldn’t do that either. Some Essenes were very warlike, wanting to join God’s angelic army fighting at the Armageddon of the last days of the world.

But these mystics, they are the only groups that believed in fallen angels and believed in a place of punishment. The only groups. And that’s fascinating. So they believed in a physical adversary against God. And these beliefs are carried on in the Christianity with the Armageddon day, or even the belief that God basically allows Satan to do what he wants, but he’s going to conquer over him. That was an Essene belief. They believed that Belial was the adversary against God, a fallen angel, leader of the fallen angels, and God would allow him the sin because he would destroy him in the end. So that was an Essene belief, but not all that belief. Some believed that basically fallen angels chose to rebel against God, so they had free will and that God would overcome them in the end. So that’s different. So we have to look at those beliefs because that makes a big difference in theology as well.

And one reason I chose to keep daemon or daimon in the text is because this doesn’t mean Jesus is casting out evil demons, but rather, well, the ghost of the mystic belief of pagan gods were fallen angels. So he’s casting out pagan gods, or he’s just casting out unclean spirits, depending on what the definition of word is, because that daimon or unclean spirit, for instance, isn’t always referenced to a pagan god. It’s just someone who’s died vengeful or angry at God, and is now just a ghost causing haunting. So it depends on how it’s being used. So I kept those words in there. So if the word said unclean spirit, I kept that as unclean spirit.

But if it was going into a daimon for a pagan god, basically I’ll keep it as that daimon, so they could choose how they’re going to read it. Because sometimes you’re dealing with two things at once. Sometimes you’re dealing with an unclean spirit, then a pagan god’s being mentioned too.

So this archon ruler’s having little other minions subject under him. So we even have an archon ruler being mentioned. So an archon of the daemons, ruler of pagan gods. So other gods had dominions, basically. So they viewed these other gods having their own realms of power, which we also see in the Gnostic text. So I kept all that. I also kept the archon of the synagogue, which is a ruler of the synagogue. So it’s not always a bad thing. Sometimes it’s just political rulers that are mentioned. So an archon of the Gentiles, for instance, is just a ruler of Gentiles, just a politician. I have kept archons in the sense of Yahweh somewhat, I believe, as being the devil. Because in John 8:44, we have Jesus going up to the Pharisees and Sadducees and Herodians who made up the high priesthood. He says, You are of your father, the devil. But if only these Gnostic Jews believed in the devil and their God is Yahweh, who’s he calling devil?

And then when the daemons are calling him Son of the most high God, they’re calling him huios, which means son. Huios tou theou tou hypsistou, which is Greek for Son of the most high God. But if you put this in the Hebrew, it’s Son of El Elyon. So this is what the pagan gods are calling him. So the lesser gods. And then he’s also saying that we’re all the children of El Elyon, which is also fascinating. And also the word for son they’re using just means child. It can be male or female. But again, they’re wanting a male audience. So they restricted it, which is a shame.

Cyd:

How about the word aeon? A E O N. What do you do with that word? You know, in my work with the Tripartite Tractate, it seems to me that most references of aeon in the New Testament translate it as time, a period of time, or the end of the ages, the ages. Whereas I tend to see it always as eternal beings from the ethereal plane. What do you think about that?

Bishop Nathan Wilson:

I love that. I think that too. I think it’s a mixture of all these things, which is also, I keep, it depends on the context of use. But a lot of times you do see the text that is referring to a higher being, which is beautiful to mention, especially when you’re looking at Gnostic works. But you do see this in the New Testament as well. So you see one text mentioning, for instance, who is this Sophia and this higher power? And that’s how the text can translate too, which is fascinating. So that means who’s this unknown higher power. And then it mentions about the Aeon. And so you see all this sort of stuff being mentioned. Yes, it means an eternal being or an angelic being, but it can also mean eternity or a period of time. So depending on the context of use.

So words have power as well. So that’s interesting. So again, how it’s used can make a world of a difference. And it’s interesting when they’re using certain words because there are some times that they could have chosen to use a different word. So when they’ve used a certain word like that, that can change the entire context of meaning.

Cyd:

Right. Like saying there’s some reference to judgment at the end of the age. And I’m always thinking that it’s judgment from the Aeons when I see that. But I’m not translating from scratch, I’m taking biblical translation, so what do I know?

Bishop Nathan Wilson:

You’re spot on though. So you’re correct. So it can translate that as well. And we have to realize that we have different versions of Christianity. So that’s certainly appropriate for a first century understanding. Most people are looking at from fourth century. So you’re looking at it from a first century point of view. And so you’re ahead of others in that sort of case, which is beautiful to see. So that’s rare. And I chose to keep that for that reason. So people can have their own conclusions, not having it forced onto them.

Cyd:

You are very much into the history of things. You’re an historian. I am not at all interested in history per se. I’m always talking about what other people believed in other times. That is not pertinent to our gnosis here and now. So what do you view the purpose of this deep historical knowledge that you have concerning the Jews and the Essenes and whatnot? And is it necessary to go into all of that?

Bishop Nathan Wilson:

If you want to, I guess, teach from a historical perspective as well as a spiritual one, then yes. But if you want to go for spiritual, you can just go by the heart. There were plenty of spiritual teachers that were illiterate, that could not read, that could not write, and they had a beautiful message. So there’s something more powerful that we can receive within that you won’t obtain from books. But ultimately, you can also have wisdom gained from books. It can be a form of worship or a form of connecting with the divine as well.

We have many forms of worship or many forms of experience what’s divine or having that intimate moment with what’s divine to reflect and to deepen our purpose. I wanted to know the historical man we call Jesus and ultimately put into practice what he put into practice. So I wanted to look at the history side of things and especially also, what’s another word I would like to use, decondition myself, decondition past beliefs that were harmful, that did not serve me and ultimately not serving others, and also find out that I was wrong about many things, which I wanted to know as well.

So what brought me to this was to know the man we call Jesus, Yeshua, or Yehoshua, whichever term you like, whichever name you want to use. So I want to know not just that, but I want to know his practices, what he did with his life, how his first followers lived, how the first Christians lived, and what I could use for my own spiritual path and how I could put that into practice. So that’s why I want to look at the history side of things. I think if you want to put into practice the different techniques of all the many different Gnostics, then you’re going to have to look at some of the history side of things to find those practices. That doesn’t mean that every single practice is necessary for you. So what works for me might not work for others. What works for others might not work for me. So double-edged sword.

Cyd:

What sort of practices are you referring to? Are these rituals? What’s the practices?

Bishop Nathan Wilson:

I go into some of the ancient rituals as well. Some of them I might look at the prayers that they would use, the diet they would take, or means of worship. So how they would go about their forms of private practice. So that sort of stuff. And then I might apply it into my own life and see how I can go. There’s still more I’d like to go and check out more. So I’m still studying a couple of some of the ancient practices as well. So from different or religious perspectives as well. And then I can see how I can put it to my own form of use.

So I looked at a lot of Jewish Christians, they would do the shema for instance, before their meditations. And I’ll do that as well. [“Hear, O Israel: the Lord our God, the Lord is one… You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, with all your soul, and with all your strength…”]

They also did breath works back then, which would also induce a sense of intoxication if you want to use, or light headness. And in turn that can also open a new state of reality. So entering the spiritual realm can be a vehicle, if you will, to get there. So to open the mind. And that’s also a practice that’s been used in ancient past. And we can certainly use that today. We have modern practices, say like Wim Hof, that teach breath work in meditation. That’s also useful. So sometimes looking at the past, we do see stuff in today’s world that’s not really new. It’s just being basically reentering this world again, from past knowledge gained of old. And I find that in a lot of Gnostic stuff. When you look at history, you kind of see that Gnostics kind of did a lot of things first, that what we’re doing now that we think is modern, but it’s not. It’s ancient.

Cyd:

That’s why conventional Christians who read my books, they say, oh, you’re just all new age. And I’m like, no, it’s not new age at all. It’s ancient.

Bishop Nathan Wilson:

Which is a shame that Christians have been shut off into their own world, which is kind of funny. I actually tell most Christians that they are, in fact, new age, because these beliefs are ancient. And what they are going by is, depending on what version of Christianity, if you’re Protestant, that’s 16th century, I believe. Non-denominal, 18th century. Protestant, 16th century. Catholicism, late second century. Orthodoxy, as we know it now, would be about 14th century. But older Orthodoxy, which would be the split from the Catholic church, is fourth century. So it’s when you go to Gnostic Christians, first century, and we’re really the only groups that are surviving, the Jewish Christians got killed. They ultimately were wiped out or would convert to mainstream Judaism or would become Christian or Islam, they would follow as well. So some would be converted to Muslims, which is also interesting as well.

We as Gnostics were also harmed by these other groups, by Catholics, Protestants, Muslims as well. At one point Zoroastrians, but that was only one particular era. And we’ve basically arisen from all that, from that underground, and we’ve still survived, which is fascinating. It’s beautiful that we have. And also the texts that have been rediscovered, this is not accidental. This is all happening for a reason. What’s divine is experiencing itself where it can experience itself and express itself again safely in today’s world.

In ancient past, it was dangerous to have diversion after the fourth century, which is a shame because the Catholics would kill those who came before them. They didn’t like that. And they even knew that some of the Gnostics, they had older writings, but they still denied them, which is funny. So it’s why such the hate, which is such a shame. So it goes back to that control of power, my way or the highway, basically. And it was never meant to be like that. It was meant to be very universal. It was meant to be very diverse.

The first Christians were Gnostics and Jewish Christians, a mixture between strict law observing Jews and a mixture of Gentiles. And then you had the Jewish mystics that became the Christian mystics, which is fascinating. That was the original groups. And the original groups would argue amongst each other. The strict law observing Jews wanted circumcision, where the mystics said, no, no circumcision of the hearts, let the Gentiles come. That’s fine.

So even when we look at the word, say, ethnos, for instance, in the Gospels, when you see kingdom against kingdom, nation against nation, these are the same things. So what they’re actually talking about is Gentile against Gentile and kingdom against kingdom. So the Jewish people didn’t have a kingdom at this stage. It was a mixture of Judea, Galilee and Samaria. So we’re the Samaritans. So that’s also something to take into account, too. So they didn’t like that. They were looking for a messiah to reunify the Jewish people, restore the Jewish faith and make Israel a kingdom again. And so some of them didn’t like the fact that Jesus wasn’t after this, for instance. So they didn’t like some of these teachings.

It was a bit different. But if you look at the mystics, they had a very different interpretations. They did believe in a renewal of the Jewish faith, but a renewal back to El Elyon and a rejection of Yahweh. So that’s very different. So when you look at repentance, for Israel to repent, meaning for all of Israel to return back to El Elyon. And if you look at for the Gentiles conversion, that would be referring to not converting to any religion, but converting to God. So God outside religion. So fascinating. So you see all this in the original text.

Cyd:

And why do you suppose, this might be an unanswerable question, but why do you suppose conventional modern Christians are so, you know, extremely antagonistic towards Gnostic Christians? Is it fear or what?

Bishop Nathan Wilson:

Well, they’ve been told you’re the enemy, basically. And yes, some of it is fear. Fear as well of the unknown. And also because of the need of an opponent. So they believe that they are doing a good thing. And if they don’t do this, they can be punished. So it’s the case of where a victim becomes an abuser. So most Christians have never even heard about Gnostics. It’s only the real ones who are into spiritual warfare, basically, and really full on extremist dogmatic ones that are familiar with, and apologetics. But they are now feeling like they’re losing the battle because more people were interested in Gnosticism and especially interested in other Jewish groups and the Dead Sea Scrolls, as well as the Nag Hammadi. So they’re realizing their other texts and there’s other options now. And that’s great.

And regarding even my translations, one reason I chose to do it that I did, I found out that no modern English Bible translates from one source material. They’re all a mixture of different sources. So we have the Codex Sinaiticus mixed with the Latin Vulgate, mixing with Germanic copies, and then mixing ancient Koine Greek into modern Hebrew, putting it back into Greek. And that’s not good at all. So we’re just changing—we’re swapping chapters because we feel uncomfortable with them. So I was mortified when I was looking at that. And so I realized I couldn’t trust basically my Bible anymore. So I thought, well, I’m making this myself. And then I thought, well, I’m going to release it. Let’s go and share it too and do what they will with it. And it opened a lot of doorways to me, actually.

So that’s one reason I wanted to give that out so people can have their own faith in their own interpretation and also believe in the message of Yeshua, bringing people back to the Most High God, to the Unknowable God, the Living Father, the Mother-Father. And we also see the Mother being mentioned in other texts too. It’s just mostly blocked out by mainstream Christianity, which is unfair, unfair to women and unfair to humanity with their approaches. It’s been very violent. So we need to remove that violence because that’s nothing to do with Yeshua’s teachings. He didn’t teach us to go around fighting each other.

He said, Those who are for me are with me. They don’t understand his message. They very much follow the Catholic teachings of Paul that they’ve been given. And so they can look at the Gnostic teachings of Paul as well, which are also in there. Paul’s letters, we now know they’re mostly all forgeries. We don’t have any original copies either. They’re all later fourth century and we have some second century fragments. But the oldest reference to Paul is from the Ten Letters of Marcion. And he’s the man who compiled the first Christian Bible. And some people can argue, some people don’t believe he was a Gnostic. Others think he was a Gnostic. I think he was a type of Gnostic because he believed in a demiurge. So he believed that the God of the Jews was Yahweh and not the Supreme God of Jesus. That is a very Gnostic belief. But the thing is, the word Gnostic was given to us by the Catholic church, was a way of separating us and identifying us. But we wear it as a badge of honor because we understand they’re just calling us knowledgeable Christians, which is kind of funny. So language is powerful and the Catholic church certainly forgot it. So because of them, we now use daimon as demon. So they’ve basically demonized Jesus. They’ve demonized the Holy Spirit, which is their greatest sin. And they’ve demonized God and every other God. So they don’t know what damage they’ve done. And that’s not good. So I wanted to reverse that damage and bring people back to what I believe is the message of Yeshua, of Jesus, and to have their own spiritual relationship with God, an individual relationship, which is something that I want to see more of.

That’s a very beautiful thing. You can’t define that intimate experience without living it.

Cyd:

Right, right.

Well, that’s all we have time for in this episode. We’ll pick it up again next week for part three of my interview with Bishop Nathan Wilson of The Gnostic Union Church. I like the way he talks, huh? Until next week, onward and upward and God bless us all.

Gnostic Insights

Episodes 20

Nothing on this page to show