/r/Gnostic

Photograph via snooOG

r/Gnostic is a community dedicated to understanding, discussing, and learning about ancient, medieval, and reconstructionist Gnostic movements.

Gnosticism (from gnostikos, "learned", from Greek: γνῶσις gnōsis, knowledge; Arabic: الغنوصية‎) is the thought and practice, especially of various cults of late pre-Christian and early Christian centuries, distinguished by the conviction that matter is evil and that emancipation comes through gnosis.

/r/neopagan /r/Cathar /r/Esoterica /r/spiritual /r/enochian

/r/Gnostic

24,207 Subscribers

2

Easter and Paganism?

Am I able to both worship Jesus Christ as the Aeon, Logos over Easter whilst also worshipping pagan deities such as Eostre, the fertility goddess?

Are there any small things I could do? And any gnostics here who lean in towards pagan, buddhist or hindu beliefs or demonolatry of emanations and other deity spirits tied into their gnosticism practise?

I’m still on a learning journey

Grand rising and grand setting to you all :)

0 Comments
2024/03/29
02:49 UTC

14

How do you, as a gnostic approach Good Friday and Easter weekend?

What practices do you observe, do you fast/abstain from vices?

12 Comments
2024/03/28
22:38 UTC

27

What’s the Holy Spirit? Barbelo? Sophia? Something else entirely?

I’m a little confused on the identity of the Holy Spirit in Gnosticism. In the Apocryphon of John, it seemed to be equivalent to Barbelo, while Sophia was a lower aeon, almost more akin to an angel as I understood it. Yet I’ve seen some other posts saying that Sophia is actually the equivalent of the Holy Spirit in Christianity. So which is it?

Are Barbelo and Sophia supposed to be one and the same?

Some texts represent Sophia as flawed, even though she’s on the ‘good’ side of things. would a flawed being who can make mistakes really be the holy spirit? Isn’t the Holy Spirit meant to be perfect?

Thanks for helping me understand.

32 Comments
2024/03/27
17:32 UTC

2

The Arian Heresy

When a committee of corrupt orthodox bishops met in Nicea during the fourth century of the common era, they faced a formidable foe in a mildly heretical man named Arius. His only beef with his colleagues was a personal ambition to be Christ-like. The deity they crafted bore a stronger resemblance to Caesar than to Jesus. Arius eventually recanted his "error," but was martyred nevertheless.

The term "Arian" shows up quite a bit in ancient and medieval literature. It apparently took on the significance of anyone who knew the truth behind the Trinity rather than designating a follower of Arius. This was the case with the Goths who invaded Roman territory in subsequent decades. They had been evangelized prior to the creation of the orthodox deity.

There were two groups who rejected the Nicene formula on different grounds. One pointed out that it could not be supported by orthodox literature. The other, better educated group, rejected it because it was patently absurd. The second group may have included Gnostics.

6 Comments
2024/03/27
17:12 UTC

3

My Armchair Religion (Draft)

Somewhat disjointed, quick draft I made. I know exactly what I mean, but it's hard to put into words, and I possibly allow myself some creative interpretation. Thoughts? Questions? Someone else sees what I see?

Sophia made mistake and was made wise (no wisdom without mistakes). If God (the father) appreciates order, "the divine plan", and perfection, Sophia (the mother), appreciates mistakes. The fundamental mistake being presuming 'knowing better' than God about what's good. Sophia witnessed it first hand. Sophia, in a single movement, demonstrated both the mistake and the way back into grace.

The serpent is Sophia's presumption of the following: To presume knowing what is 'right' and 'wrong' in the universe, is to fall from grace. This is the tree of knowledge, or, "knowledge" in quotation marks. Only the highest of the highest knows, all else is an imitation, self-idolatry as it were.

If there's a drought and you want rain, you will pray for it, but now that it's in your subconcious, meaning you will pay more attention to it once it happens, once the rain comes, you will attribute it to the prayer. This is a quasi religious experience, and in my mind most associated with shallow and/or proto-christianity we see today. This is the ego-god. But, God "makes the rain fall on barren land, in a desert where no one lives". To pray and to realize the folly of prayer, that is, to see one's self in his/her ash-ness and dust-ness in the act of asking for something, is a single movement -- This is a religious experience, a "shuddering" one, a more convincing one, sure, but still a quasi one. This is not the ego-god, but it is still a false god, for it lacks love and inspires fear.

The trickster is: The world is a mess, I will show you the way. And wrestling begins. Compromise, negotiation, is the worst you can do, because, you'll get what you want... For a time, but in reality it was the Satan who was biding/buying time for another trick... The Satan is, as it were, widening the hoop of folly with each (illusory) concession. Why do we discuss if torture is good or bad? This is the hoop. Or more to the point, we have all this stuff that are convenient in life, over time becoming dependant on what once was a convinience (e.g. cheaper phones), but that at the same time causes ecological disasters and questions of ethics (who assembles our phones). Now, we... Discuss what to do about it, we wrestle (with Satan). The reason convenience is problematic is that, if we were to remove the root causes of the disasters and human rights questions, we would have to destroy everything. So Satan says: "Okay, maybe we could stop using plastic straws," and that seems to placate us, but only the hoop once again widened, because the new way of making the straws is causing another sort of problem, only perhaps we will find out in a century or so. And on and on that goes. The fallen soul is the sold soul, and the devil is the stretcher of mind, like a hoop. Now, this God is the same ego-god; "Thus the Christians, the Jews, and the Pagans are involved in the same error when they worship this God ... For that one spoke with them (only) according to their own aspirations." according to their own aspirations.

So, what is to be Godly? What is "dear to God"?

A rose smells nice, looks aesthetic, and has thorns for defense. And it doesn't know it... But, what would happen if the rose found out about its three great attributes? It would become a fallen rose, attached to its own self-perpetuation. In trying to preserve itself, it would try to smell better, but end up smelling foul, look extravagant, and attack those who threaten its existence, respectively with the three attributes. From its inside/subjectively, it would think it's doing 'good' and avoiding 'evil', but from the outside, it would betray the fact that this 'good' rose and those 'bad' others are in fact all about the self-interest of the rose in an attempt to make permanent, effectively mimicking god, but suferring death, or at least its imminence. We are roses who presumed knowledge, and it is how we would see the rose that that 'something' that sees us from the outside, sees us: Arrogant, fallen. Silly. "True virtue doesn't know it's a virtue" (Tao).

So, what is dear to god, as far as humans, is what knows that nothing in this world exists for itself. Nothing.

Notice that all horrible things are done in an attempt to save the world. Everybody's got a solution, from Nazis to Capitalists to Communists. This, I claim, is the demirgue, the mistake, the fall, the selling of soul for something 'better'.

So, a godly person 'outwards' his/her own virtue, in the service of the other, and make no bones about his/her perishing, only in this way it will be graceful. It is the sacrifice to god of fire who consumes (Hindu). A moth who lets the flame consume it in love (Sufi/Rumi).

What are the chances that, among millions/billions dead already, you are not them, but are alive at this point? What is this (this existence, being sentient)? Suppose you die or suicid, what happens? this happens. There's never a time where you're not alive or sentient. And you inherit the world you left after your death. The only way out, is repentance, as demo-ed by Sophia -- to merge back into God, that is, to be of true virtue, that is, to just be a rose unaware & un-posessive of its virtue, not mimicking knowledge-ness... Sophia, let's say, became aware of her ability to give birth, and tried to posses that. To love is to be of service, and love fixes the world.... "A candle loses nothing by lighting another candle." (Sufi/Rumi), And in one of those incarnations, you might just get born into love, into Eden as it were. Is it ego-less? It's funny because this doesn't diminish the ego, it actually puts it at the forefront--but perhaps in its right use.

A Sufi twirling is a kind of a rose, beautiful and mesmerizing to look at from the outside, while the Sufi is unaware of it, but in unity with god while doing it, but it is only as beautiful because the Sufi doesn't try to make it so - if he tried some special moves apart from spinning, it would look extravagant.

There is: Hinduism (karma/reincarnation/sacrifice), Islam (Sufism, Love), Christianity (fall from/return to grace), Tao (true virtue), Buddhism (compassion) in one package. Each of those are incomplete on their own, but complete together. Examples: In terms of pure Karma, Buddhism, Enlightenment, if you 'attain' those, you attain it individually, and only for the current lifetime. Others may come to you for guidance, but that's a minority, and as a 'net gain' it's has diminishing returns. In terms of pure Christianity/monotheisms, you repress your desires, adding onto the collective shadow that finds expression later, even after your death (which you'll be born into anyway).

But combined, you can create a (personal?) religion that may actually fix the world, only without any particular individual or group to take the credit-- which is perhaps the very thing all the do-gooder fixers are ultimately after, credit, and the thing that creates the mess-- the ego, or rather, its mischanneling. If you give credit to God, sacrifice yourself to the fire, fly into the candle with love, there's no space for pride and mess.

"If I am in order, the world is in order" is false enlightenment "If the world is in order, I am in order" is true enlightenment

To repress the ego (like in proto Christianity), is to create a "shadow", just more collective unconcious that will find its ugly expression at another date. To transcend fixes everything... For the individual & in the current lifetime only. What about the next life? But to apply the ego, properly!, won't repress it and create more issues, nor will it only last a single lifetime, but will help those who you service, and that helping will help you in the next life because you would be born into a world where people are more loved (and therefore loving) by the amount of how much your love (service) affected them in your past life. From this angle--when your own ass is at stake--you know precisely what you're doing wrong in your life (e.g. injustice, whatever), there's no hiding, and there's a way to redemption, like Sophia demonstrated.

Nothing in this world exists for itself, nothing, not even my/your own ego paradoxically.

12 Comments
2024/03/27
07:44 UTC

0

Catholicism is Gnostic

My argument is that Catholicism is a Gnostic religion. Even Judaism was reformed likely through John the Baptist to worship the Aeons(the Elohim).

We are stuck in a cycle of reincarnation. Why? Two reasons: either we want to die or we are attached to the material world.

Take this into account. To escape you just need to will it so.

Think of baptism. It takes a lost soul in the cycle, cleanses it, and then offers the body of Christ.

The body of Christ is the Kabbalah tree of life. It’s the template for a soul. Jesus came here to share his soul with us so we can escape.

Each person baptized is a new person saved from the cycle. Of course you can’t teach the inner teachings to all because some are not advanced enough to receive it.

Priests study the esoteric portions of Christianity through theology. If you imagine a Roman in a gnostic school studying the One it might be like a lesson of philosophy on the omnipotence of the One… like theology.

The demiurge is death, mortality personified. He is Satan and when you are mortally minded you open yourself up to demons through nihilism. Why? Someone who wants to die will embody spirits who want to die OR kill.

Satan is death. The will to die or kill. Jesus is life. Jesus is eternity personified. The One is eternity beyond our universe, incomprehensible.

Belief in eternal life in heaven is what saves you and Jesus represents that.

There is an angel for every demon, because for every sin born of the will to die or kill there is a blessing born from the will of life.

So far, does this all not sound like Catholicism?

While it may not teach that we are in a cycle of reincarnation, it teaches that only through Jesus(the will for life) can we be born again.

Priests meditate through prayer, so are followers encouraged.

Is fundamental religion really so bad if it allows people to focus on life instead of the big questions with a path to Heaven?

Heaven is simply the world of life, or light. We are life and so we are born of spirit, but we chose death and so we became material. Matter is a dead substance while light is alive. Dust to dust.

The Old Testament deity? Simply a history lesson and the judgement aspect of the father controlled by the higher Sophia(wisdom of God). Does Gnosticism not say that his actions are manipulated by higher power? Even Judaism no longer worships Yahweh and redirected the worship through the tetragrammeton(YHVH) to Elohim(them) the Aeons that make up God.

Sophia is the Holy Spirit. The Father, Sophia and Christ are together the One. The trinity.

The Aeons are archangels. They are part of God as they have no individual will. The number in the pleroma was never agreed upon between schools.

This is all coming from someone who left the Catholic Church by the way but I’ve realized lately that it’s pretty gnostic at its core.

We’re all just laymen who never became priests or rabbis.

As the other religions like Hinduism and Islam, I wouldn’t be surprised as major patriarchal religions that they are gnostic too.

The elite are gnostic. The major religions all await the return of the messiah and it’s the job of the gnostic descended elite to prepare the world and save as many souls as possible.

They descend from the teachings of the apostles and the gnostic schools while religion spread the basics.

It’s just that among that are wealthy psychopaths who embody Satan. Anyone who kills or believes in death can.

Anyways, just offering an alternative view for all of you. The world is not as evil as people think, it’s just in a realm of evil by nature.

8 Comments
2024/03/27
04:00 UTC

14

Starting to feel drawn to the modern Catholic Church as a gnostic

I know historically, the Catholic Church did some messed up stuff. But that was a long time ago.

I still hold my gnostic beliefs pretty firmly. But I miss participating as a group the worship of the divine. The Catholic Church has the most mysticism in it, and the most grounded. They have meditative and spiritual practices to do, like the rosary and I miss a lot of that.

There's a lot I disagree with too, but no one group is gonna have everything I agree with. Even most gnostic groups, I'd find stuff I disagree with.

I don't know. Just posting here to get other people's thoughts. I've felt the pull to go back to the Catholic Church before, and figure I can be a liberal Catholic or whatever. It didn't work out back then. Since, y'know, I wouldn't be a "real" Catholic.

I wish going to a gnostic church was an option, but unfortunately it's not. I live in Tennessee.

77 Comments
2024/03/27
03:21 UTC

9

What do Gnostics beleive? Here's one now! (Talk Gnosis chat with Gnostics about their practice!)

Another episode where we talk to a self-identified Gnostic! Up next is writer, theatre artist, and podcaster Jonathan Stewart, you may know him from such podcasts as Talk Gnosis. We talk about their personal takes on Gnosticism, their history with the tradition, their spiritual practice, and their Gnostic take on the world/cosmos/existence.

Jonathan talks about his past with religion, how Gnosticism engages both reality and metaphor through it's cosmos, and the value of joining something, just so you're not out in the dark, alone.

Check out the show and show notes for links to some of what we talk about in the episode!

https://youtu.be/bTI15SB7Mmc

https://pod.link/845230843/episode/a1932bcf6c5f6ffaf6bdbbd3c708c12a

4 Comments
2024/03/26
06:44 UTC

9

What is Gnostic vowel chanting?

I remember listening to the cathar gnostic chant, le boier(?), and they were chanting, "Aeiou." Can anyone please tell me what it means, and what vowel chanting is?

6 Comments
2024/03/26
03:41 UTC

7

Is the secret book of John older than ‘on the origin of the world’ and ‘hypostasis of the rulers?’

I’ve been researching gnosticism for about a month now and am steadily working my way through the texts. However I noticed some contradictions in the ‘lore’ texts, such as small details being different. (Noah had an ark in one story, but didn’t in another; Sophia is treated as a high authority in one story while being a somewhat lower aeon in another, etc). Just out of curiosity, I’m wondering which of these texts were older and more foundational. I know the Apocryphon of John is often used as a gateway text into gnostic beliefs, and I’m curious if it was written before other ‘myth’ stories like Hypostasis of the Archons and On the Origin of the World. Which came first? Thanks.

4 Comments
2024/03/25
23:11 UTC

7

Missing codices known to have existed

On one hand we have the nag hammadi codices, which is not necessarily a complete collection of the Gnostic texts of early Christianity.

On the other hand Irenaeus' writings, who besides condemning Gnostics also documented their views.

Are there any references in Irenaeus to views not found in the nag hammadi codices?

In a sense the question is, do we know ( by comparing Irenaeus to what we found in nag hammadi) which parts of Gnosticism have been lost and we have no codices that cover them?

6 Comments
2024/03/25
18:35 UTC

25

What do you guys believe

I'm genuinley curious with what Gnostics believe so can someone explain it to me please?

I am happy as a Catholic I will not change my beliefs but I am just interested in yours.

May God bless you all abundantly.

35 Comments
2024/03/25
09:34 UTC

8

What do you guys believe

I'm genuinley curious with what Gnostics believe so can someone explain it to me please?

I am happy as a Catholic I will not change my beliefs but I am just interested in yours.

May God bless you all abundantly.

19 Comments
2024/03/25
09:34 UTC

4

God For Sakes

2 Comments
2024/03/24
01:22 UTC

3

Marcion's Antitheses

6 Comments
2024/03/24
00:28 UTC

4

Is that your thinking about the demiurge?

"Unlike schools that regard the Demiurge as a simple monster, Valentinianism thinks of him as more of a misguided lawful neutral who is obsessed with rules and stability. The problem is that his methods of keeping the flawed physical creation together generate plenty of grief and woe fallout for the mortal denizens. The archons, his police force, don't really help the situation. It helps to look at the more severe schools, where the archons torment and harass mortals for their own amusement and edification...and sometimes, their sustenance. While the Demiurge is still well-intentioned, that (somewhat alien) benevolence is nonetheless malign for certain denizens. Then again, the Demiurge seems to be more concerned with the physical universe as a whole, and himself and his archons whose eternal dwelling it is, than the self-aware subset."

I'm not going to get into the issue of literalism/metaphor, it's up to each person to interpret it however they want, be it a literal demiurge in the cosmos as some like to think or a psychological demiurge existing as ego as some like to think. I particularly consider both, along the lines of the hermetic maxim: Both above and below.

View Poll

9 Comments
2024/03/23
23:26 UTC

12

Are there any gnostic groups that DON’T believe in reincarnation?

Just curious. To my knowledge the big ones like Sethians and Valentinians did. (Please correct me if I’m wrong.) I’m wondering if any Gnostic groups didn’t believe in reincarnation.

13 Comments
2024/03/23
23:15 UTC

26

Indebted to the Poor and Needy

Those of us who are here are here because the Father has drawn us, and in the canonical gospels, and other gnostic literature, it is shown clearly the love the Monad has for us. We are all stuck in this broken world trying to achieve gnosis, and our duty is to help those in need. We all have the spark of the divine by the grace of the Father, and it is my hope that this message finds you all well. We must help those in need at every turn.

“Speak concerning the truth to those who seek it and of knowledge to those who, in their error, have committed sin. Make sure-footed those who stumble and stretch forth your hands to the sick. Nourish the hungry and set at ease those who are troubled. Foster men who love. Raise up and awaken those who sleep. For you are this understanding which encourages. If the strong follow this course, they are even stronger.” -Gospel of Truth

1 Comment
2024/03/23
23:03 UTC

10

Which Gnostic texts are the most reliable?

It appears that most of the gnostic texts were written in the 3rd/4th century, which is quite some time after the life of Jesus. Compared to the Canon gospels, which are dated much closer - specifically the Gospel of Mark at around 75 AD. A lot of the gnostic books appear to have been written long after Jesus' life in a way of legitimizing their beliefs. "The Gospel of Judas," for example, using terms like Barbelo and Sophia. This is strong evidence that this book was written after gnostic concepts were thoroughly established. My question is this: Which Gnostic books are the oldest and most reliable? Which texts are most likely forgeries to support the gnostic viewpoint and which texts are most likely to be true accounts of Jesus' life/teachings and creation?

12 Comments
2024/03/23
19:28 UTC

12

Martyrdom of Constant Chevillon, March 23rd (automated post)

Commemoration of of Constant Chevillon. Gunned down by the Milice (Vichy French colaborationist militia) in 1944 on orders from the Gestapo. Constant was a Patriarch of the French Gnostic Church and a Grand Master of Freemasonry (Memphis-Misraïm). Known for his saintly behaviour and dedication to his personal motto: 'Renounce thyself while serving others'. Sometimes refered to as the Last Martyr of Gnosis.

From A Gnostic Calendar

2 Comments
2024/03/23
09:00 UTC

0

Do demons sleep with humans

For adults. I don't follow gnostics. but I don't want to sleep with a demon in the book of gnostic. it said that women sleep with men. Now it writes they invite him to sex and it doesn't say she but they. And then next it said they want to defile him. So it says they. Now two questions do demons 1 sleep with people while you're there and 2 do they do it for fun creepily or is it because they want energy and to simply defile people. Because that changes everything.

36 Comments
2024/03/23
02:17 UTC

17

Struggling with faith, gay and raised southern rural independent Baptist, the Bible was used as a weapon against me growing up, I don’t know where to start

I [19M] grew up with a grandfather who is a (now retired) preacher, who I aspired to be like when I was younger. I currently live with him and my grandmother. My parents themselves were very abusive (physically, mentally/emotionally), and would use scripture to back up the things they would do. They would use sayings like “spare the rod, spoil the child” and they taught me not only to fear god, but to fear them in the same way i was supposed to fear God. From about the age of 4, this was all beaten into my head until they eventually kicked me out for being gay. My grandparents are true Christians in a sense, they’re the most loving, compassionate, and charitable people I’ve ever met (not just me but to strangers). I can’t get behind a lot of their doctrine though. So much of it’s “just take the Bible at literal face value”, “1 Timothy 2:12”, “1 Cor. 9-10” type of nonsense (no hate if that’s how you believe). They’ve come around somewhat to me being gay, but they still “don’t like it” and think it’s not natural. I’ve tried to explain to them that homosexual relationships are no different in substance than heterosexual ones but they don’t seem to understand that. When I say I grew up aspiring to be like my grandfather, I mean that I wanted to be a preacher myself. The church I went to (not my grandfathers but rather my parents’ favorite hellfire and brimstone screaming church) was very, for a lack of better words, evil in nature. If I was to sum up everything into a statement, it would be “queers and Muslims are working with Hilary Clinton and Obama to bring about the second coming of the Antichrist and before you know it they’ll be raiding our church and shooting innocent Christian’s, but don’t worry by getting saved and following what gods saying from me you’ll be raptured before things get too bad” (I haven’t been since like 2017, I can’t imagine what their services are like now lmao). It was a KJV-thumping church, anything else was heretical and intentionally missing any of the three weekly services basically meant you were going to hell. Lots of really backwards stuff.

What really shifted my mind on Christianity and led me to later apostatize was when we had a month were every Sunday night service was led by the youth, and I got to preach a sermon. It was all about Christian love, how we were supposed to show charity, love and compassion to all people because we’re all inherently valuable as God’s creation and how we should extend support and an open hand to people trapped in sin rather than thinking of ourselves as better than them. I even went into the original greek of the scriptures I was reading to give further context on the different definitive types of love present in the Greek language (think “agape”, “phileo”). The church hated this message though, and especially the fact that I went outside of the KJV to expand on my message. When I soiled my parents reputation with that, needless to say I got my ass handed to me.

Here I am now though, 7 years later and 6 years post apostasy. I was baptized but I recognized I was never really saved, born again, or filled with the Holy Spirit like so many people talk about, despite being baptized and “saved”. I was punished and ostracized not only for my ability to think for myself and see the love in the message of the gospels, but also for this unchangeable facet of who I am that really shouldn’t even matter. I have looked into every major belief and even some more obscure ones like Gnosticism, Taoism, and Zoroastrianism. I’m currently vaguely spiritual, I’m into astrology and tarot and I believe everyone has a soul. I bounce between being theistic and atheistic though, but I do believe that if there is a God, he/she/they have to be all loving and all powerful. I do like the gnostic idea of the creation story, that essentially there’s the One True God who is the source of everything, but that the physical realm was created by an evil lesser god. It’s been the only way I could make sense of the filth of the world.

If the Christian god IS real though, I know that there almost has to be more false teachers than true teachers in the world. So many Christians are either innocently led astray or are like my parents and knowingly use Christianity to serve themselves. Legalism seems like a joke, but I don’t know where I stand with my understanding of the concept of sin. There are some objectively immoral things, and I guess there are other things that could lead you out of alignment with divinity, but I couldn’t see someone being sent to eternal damnation by an all loving god for not “getting it right”. I’m not even sure if I believe any of the Bible is legitimate or more than just a handbook.

This isn’t my critique of the faith, but more of just a plea for guidance or advice. I never even understood faith itself until fairly recently and even then I’m not sure I fully grasp it. My prior knowledge of god was purely cerebral, but after filling my adolescence with other beliefs, mindless sex, porn and drug addictions, and intense trauma-induced mental illness, I’m basically back at square one. I don’t know what to believe or how to believe. I’m scared of blindly making a commitment to something like a faith when so many people are able to become zealots over false convictions. I don’t even care about the looming threat of hell anymore, I just want to live life as the best form of myself in alignment with something true and wholly good.

12 Comments
2024/03/23
00:56 UTC

8

The Common Denominator of Valentinianism by Einar Thomassen (Spiritual Seed)

In principle, it should be possible to reconstruct the main features of Valentinus’ teaching by defining them as the lowest common denominator of the various attested Valentinian systems and preserved texts. Naturally, such an approach can only attain approximate results, and must remain hypothetical. It is, however, an experiment justified by the actual family likeness of the Valentinian sources themselves, and which therefore both can and should be attempted. The following elements may be considered in this regard:

(1) A soteriology of substitution that takes the form of a mutual participation and exchange of “bodies” between the Saviour and the salvandi. For Valentinus, this was a dialectic of spiritual and material bodies—the idea of a “psychic” body is a secondary development. The soteriological pattern of substitution as such is most probably indebted to Paul, with Valentinus interpreting Paul’s language of “life” and “death” as referring to “spirit” and “body.”

(2) The idea of a pre-existent ekklesia of the spirituals, which is at the same time the spiritual body of the Saviour. This pre-existent church-body came down and was incarnated together with the Saviour. It represents the hypostasised true selves of the spirituals. Acquiring these, the spirituals are integrated into the body of the Saviour and are redeemed from their material bodies.

(3) The act of substitution through which the spirituals are assimilated with the Saviour is ritually effected in baptism. This assimilation is closely connected with the idea that the baptismal ritual is a re-enactment of the Saviour’s own baptism in the Jordan.

(4) The logic of mutual participation, expressed in the Valentinian ideology of salvation and ritually effected in baptism, required that the Saviour himself needed to be redeemed after his descent into matter. That which came down on the Saviour and redeemed him at his baptism is appropriated in turn by each baptismal candidate.

(5) Baptismal initiation is called “redemption” and “bridal chamber.” Receiving the “Name” is an essential component of the initiation.

(6) The “Name” came down to redeem the Saviour himself at his paradigmatic baptism in the Jordan. It is also, however, identical with the pre-existent quality and status of the Saviour himself as the Son and Name of the Father.

(7) The “bridal chamber” refers to the union of the spiritual with his “angel.” This union is thought to take place in the baptismal ritual, either actually or as a symbolic anticipation of an after-death reunion.

(8) Receiving the Saviour, receiving the “Name,” becoming integrated into the body of the Saviour, and becoming united with one’s angel all refer to one and the same redemptive event. (The angels accompanying the descending Saviour represent his multiple personifications directed at the spirituals as discrete individuals.) The various themes were probably not systematised into a coherent narrative by Valentinus himself; this would account for the difficulties and complications evident in the later systems, in particular with regard to the precise relationship between the Saviour’s accompanying angels and the pre-existent ekklesia.

(9) The notion of syzygoi. The union that takes place in the redemptive event between the spiritual and his “angel,” or “what belongs to him,” has the form of a reunion of two separated parts that relate to one another as male and female. This syzygic relationship is the articulation, on the anthropological and soteriological levels, of an ontological principle that explains both the origins of the psycho-physical sphere of existence as a separated, “female” offshoot of a unitary, spiritual realm (the Pleroma, the Entirety) in which male and female originally existed in harmonious unity, and the possibility of a restoration of that original unity.

(10) Whether Valentinus named the separated, female entity responsible for the generation of matter “Wisdom” cannot be ascertained. The passion and fall of Sophia was an established mythological theme already before Valentinus, and was perhaps only implicitly alluded to by him. The ideas found in the later Valentinian sources—about the separated, female aeon as the cosmogonic agent, as “mother” of the spirituals in the cosmos, and as the redeemed syzygos of the Saviour, paradigm for the syzygic relationships between her individual “children” and the Saviour’ angels—seem in any case to be consistent with the ontology of unity and duality expressed by the notion of syzygies, which is one of the distinctive features of Valentinianism.

(11) The derivation of duality, and then plurality, from the oneness of the Father by means of one, two, or all three of the following processes: the Father duplicates himself as self-thinking thought, he gives birth to a Son from within himself, or he gives himself a Name. All three themes are elaborated in later Valentinianism. As Mind and Name, the Son mediates the generation of a multiple Pleroma.

(12) The Father is called Bythos, a designation that depicts him as the inconceivable Depths in which the entirety of his offspring already pre-exists in a hidden, potential state.

(13) The transition from unity to multiplicity takes place both as a manifestation and by a spreading out and an extension culminating in the “cutting off ” of a proto-material entity—a Neopythagorean theory of derivation from monistic premises.

(14) The Neopythagorean theory of spreading out and extension that results in the separation of the intelligible and materiality, is homologised with the Christian narrative of the passion of the Saviour. Associated with this combination of ideas is the identification of the cross with the Limit.

(15) The generation, or manifestation, of the Father’s offspring is a continuous process, and the only process that produces real, or actual, existence. In comparison, the events leading to the creation of the psycho-physical cosmos lack reality, as does the cosmos itself. The restoration of the spirituals to the transmundane realm of the Pleroma is, from this point of view, equivalent to the dissolution of the illusion of the cosmos and the consummation of the original generative process. The soteriology is thus in the last instance a protology, and baptismal regeneration not only mirrors but completes the generation of the Entirety.

Doubtless, additional elements could be considered as well, such as the internal structure of συμφωνία and εὐδοκία characteristic of the Pleroma, the cosmogonical narrative and the role of the Demiurge, the anthropogony and the tripartite anthropology derived from Platonism, a demonology, epistemological theories associated with “naming,” and certain views about Scripture and prophecy, and on the Jews and Greek science. Enough elements have nonetheless been listed above to give the outlines of a distinctive theological vision that can be hypothetically identified as that of Valentinus himself and constituting the shared source of all the later variants of “Valentinianism.”

3 Comments
2024/03/22
22:05 UTC

8

How to face the possibility of persecution

I have seen comments here from people who go to church, for example the Episcopal Church. I have been drawn to Gnosticism and would also like to attend the Episcopal Church. However, I was contemplating Matthew 10:33, which says "But whosoever shall deny me before men, him will I also deny before my Father which is in heaven.", and how persecution is possible (even if it is unlikely in US). I would most probably deny Jesus and Christianity if threatened, as I do not consider myself one of great faith or a hardcore believer, at least not yet. I was feeling turned off towards Gnosticism and Christianity in general based on this. Somehow, I want to believe and be part of the Church, but at the same time I have not had any revelations or Gnosis to be certain of anything, definitely not to give my life. I would love to hear some Gnostic interpretations of the verse, and how to face the issue of persecution, or what you all would do if persecuted and made to renounce your faith. I hope this makes sense.

17 Comments
2024/03/22
18:43 UTC

19

Am I dumb?

Am I dumb or is gnosticism rather… complicated? I’m having difficulty finding practices to try, and a set of beliefs other than monad = good, demiurge = bad, seek union with the monad etc…

23 Comments
2024/03/22
16:20 UTC

3

Eschatology and apocalyptic prophecies in Gnostic scripture

Greetings everyone, I am interested if someone could guide me towards gnostic scriptures that deal with prophetic visions of the future and the end of the world, something akin to the revelations from the mainstream bible if this sort of thing exists at all. I'll also take any sort of scriptures related to this subject such as discussions about the afterlife. Thank you very much.

3 Comments
2024/03/22
08:25 UTC

Back To Top