What are KF's thoughts on Gnostics?

  • 🇵🇦 Nuestro primer dominio localizado está en español en kiwifarms.pa. Our first localized domain is on Spanish on kiwifarms.pa.
  • Want to keep track of this thread?
    Accounts can bookmark posts, watch threads for updates, and jump back to where you stopped reading.
    Create account

StolenWindows

kiwifarms.net
Dołączono
1 Sie 2025
Sethian Gnostics believed in a more literal interpretation of Kabbalah (it was structurally identical), while the Valentinians believed in the Messiah. The Essenes who wrote the Dead Sea Scrolls believed in two messiah's while the Pharisees rejected Jesus. The Essenes were also very similar in dualist beliefs to the Kabbalists/Gnostics. They even had their own version of the Sefer Yetzirah (Tree of Life). Its rumored John the Baptist had ties to them. Origen believed in a more metaphoric interpretation of the Bible. He actually cut his dick and balls off in front of a nun to avoid suspicion of scandal while teaching women.

Origen_Castrating_Himself_before_a_Nun.webp

Lots of the early church (including Valentinus and Basilides) were eunuchs. Also, he believed in universalism in that everyone would eventually be reconciled to heaven (even Satan). Kabbalah believes that hell (Gehenna) is temporary and only lasts up to 12 months. Juang Xueqin had a good lecture on it. It matches current science.


Gnosticism is basically panentheism. Think of a surge protector and a wall outlet. Just energy itself doesn't work, you need a power source (God). Everything is energy. Atheism says, you can plug the surge protector into itself and it'll work. Pantheism/solipsism/stoicism says the wall outlet and surge protector are the same thing. Theism says the wall outlet can manipulate the surge protector by itself and do other stuff wall outlets are never observed to do when charging a surge protector.

1 Timothy 2:3–6 – “God our Savior… desires all people to be saved and come to the knowledge of the truth… Christ Jesus gave himself as a ransom for all.”

1 Corinthians 15:22–28 – “For as in Adam all die, so also in Christ shall all be made alive… then comes the end, when he delivers the kingdom to God the Father… that God may be all in all.”

Romans 5:18 – “As one trespass led to condemnation for all men, so one act of righteousness leads to justification and life for all men.”

John 12:32 – “When I am lifted up from the earth, I will draw all people to myself.”

Philippians 2:9–11 – Every knee bows and every tongue confesses Jesus is Lord (echo of Isaiah 45:23, where God swears this is voluntary worship, not coerced).

Colossians 1:19–20 – “Through him to reconcile to himself all things, whether on earth or in heaven, making peace by the blood of his cross.”

Titus 2:11 – “The grace of God has appeared, bringing salvation to all people.”

Lamentations 3:31–33 – “The Lord will not cast off forever… he will have compassion according to the abundance of his steadfast love.”

Psalm 30:5 – “His anger is but for a moment, his favor is for a lifetime.”

Isaiah 25:6–8 – Prophecy of God swallowing up death forever and wiping away tears from all faces.

1 Corinthians 3:12–15 – Fire tests works, but “he himself will be saved, though as through fire.” This suggests purification, not endless torment.

The word “eternal” (aiōnios, Greek)

Often translated as “eternal” or “everlasting,” but its root is aiōn = “age, eon, world.”

Example: Matthew 25:46, “eternal punishment” (kolasis aiōnios).

Kolasis means corrective/pruning punishment (as opposed to timōria = retributive punishment).

Aiōnios = “of the age” or “age-long,” not necessarily unending.


Contrast: Romans 16:25 speaks of the “mystery kept secret for eternal times (chronois aiōniois) but now revealed”—clearly not “forever” since it ended in revelation.


So “everlasting punishment” could just as well mean “punishment belonging to the coming age,” not infinite hell.

The Hebrew word ‘olam (עֹלָם)

Translated as “forever/eternal,” but literally means “hidden, indefinite, beyond the horizon.”

Jonah 2:6 – Jonah was in the fish “forever” (le-olam)—but it was only 3 days.

Exodus 40:15 – Aaron’s priesthood is an “everlasting” priesthood—yet it ended with Christ.

Shows that “forever” in Hebrew often means “a long time, until the end of an age,” not metaphysical endlessness.

Greek pantes (πάντες) = “all, everyone” – used in salvation passages (Rom 5, 1 Cor 15).

Greek ta panta (τὰ πάντα) = “the all, everything” – used in Col 1:20 where all things are reconciled.

The NT authors don’t qualify these words unless they mean to (contrast with “many” where distinction is made).

The Greek word kolasis (punishment, Matt 25:46) originally meant “pruning” (like pruning a tree). It carried the sense of correction, not destruction.

Early universalists (like Clement of Alexandria) leaned on this nuance.

Origen (3rd c.) – Saw hell as a refining fire, not an eternal torture chamber.

Gregory of Nyssa (4th c.) – Taught apokatastasis (“restoration of all things”), citing Acts 3:21.

Isaac of Nineveh (7th c.) – Argued God’s punishments are remedial, not infinite vengeance.

Gnostics believe that there are two Gods - Yahweh (Yaldabaoth) and Bythos (Theos/Pater in Greek NT).

Colored_Demiurge.webp

They believe that this world is evil (1 John 2) and that it was created after Goddess Sophia (Chokhmah/Wisdom) fell in Ezekiel 28:11-19 and Isaiah 14:12-17 and got entangled in matter while trying to know the unknowable source (she is "the bride of Christ" in Isaiah 54:5-8; also mentioned in Proverbs 8, Wisdom of Solomon 7-9, and the entire book of Sirach). She is the spiritual form of Mary Immaculate/Virgin Mary, Mary Magdalene (who is sometimes even called "Mary Sophia") and even Martha. Just as Jesus is called "the second Adam" (see Adamas in Gnostic texts and Adam Kadmon in Kabbalah), Sophia is the Eve (aka Goddess Zoe).

sophia.webp

Also, Gnostics are heavy proponents of cyclical creation (shemitot in Kabbalah, Yinyang in Taoism, Ekpyrotic theory in physics). This is basically what we see now in physics today with string theory and quantum simulation.

Point is, if everything carries that "divine spark" then why would God condemn himself? And while it is true that the apostles did cite the Jewish scriptures, but there’s a deeper question of how they used them. They often reinterpreted the OT radically — sometimes even in ways that inverted its plain meaning. For example, Paul allegorizes Hagar and Sarah (Galatians 4:21–31), treating the law itself as bondage. Jesus, too, often challenged or overturned literal OT commandments (‘you have heard it said… but I say to you,’ Matthew 5).

From a Gnostic perspective, this shows the apostles weren’t affirming the OT on its own terms, but rather using it as a foil or symbolic framework to reveal something higher. That’s why Paul can simultaneously quote the OT yet still call the ‘god of this world’ (2 Cor 4:4) something opposed to the true Father of Christ.

So yes, the apostles used the OT — but not because it was the ultimate authority. They used it to point beyond itself, to disclose hidden truth. And that’s precisely the Gnostic claim: the OT contains fragments and shadows, but its surface meaning reflects the flawed cosmos, not the fullness of the Pleroma.

Also, the NT wasn't finished being written until the 4th century AD, so when Christians call Gnostic / pseudo-Gnostic texts like the Gospel of Thomas and Mary from the 2nd century "later works" it is intellectually dishonest. Simon Magus from Acts 8 was alive during the 1st century when the Apostles were, and the Sethians were around before Christianity was.

hylic-rule-v0-8pd5qjb0pi1e1.webp
 
Ostatnio edytowane:
Also, the NT wasn't finished being written until the 4th century AD, so when Christians call Gnostic / pseudo-Gnostic texts like the Gospel of Thomas and Mary from the 2nd century "later works" it is intellectually dishonest.
This is literally wrong. The 4th century is when we have the earliest manuscripts of the entire Bible.

There are fragments that are significantly older, and the NT is quoted constantly by early authors. None of Christ's original disciples go into gnosticism, none of the apostolic fathers get into it. It's only late works that awkwardly try and crowbar Jesus' teaching into gnosticism.

Also, the Gospel of Mary is like the slightly less retarded cousin of the Gospel of Judas. Both are premised that actually Jesus was lying to all of his disciples, except for one special one (Mary Magdalene and Judas Iscariot respectively), but we should totally trust this new account which is completely unhinged and unrelated to all of Jesus' other teachings and thought. It's not something to be taken seriously.
 
This is literally wrong. The 4th century is when we have the earliest manuscripts of the entire Bible.

There are fragments that are significantly older, and the NT is quoted constantly by early authors. None of Christ's original disciples go into gnosticism, none of the apostolic fathers get into it. It's only late works that awkwardly try and crowbar Jesus' teaching into gnosticism.

Also, the Gospel of Mary is like the slightly less retarded cousin of the Gospel of Judas. Both are premised that actually Jesus was lying to all of his disciples, except for one special one (Mary Magdalene and Judas Iscariot respectively), but we should totally trust this new account which is completely unhinged and unrelated to all of Jesus' other teachings and thought. It's not something to be taken seriously.
You have to understand, these are just differing interpretations of the OT. The NT itself is just paraphrases, quotations and added stuff from the OT. So there were many different interpretation, some of which incorporated Jesus, others which did not. Some Gnostics were Christian, others were not. Also, what some of the apostles taught wasn't always what Jesus taught. Paul taught justification by faith apart from the Law, focused on Gentile inclusion, and often highlighted Jesus’ death and resurrection more than his earthly teachings, James stressed works alongside faith (“faith without works is dead”), sounding more in line with Jewish moral practice while Peter in Acts and his letters, he shifts from a Jewish-centered view to one that embraces Gentiles after visions and encounters. Paul opposed Peter in Antioch (Galatians 2) over whether Gentiles needed to follow Jewish customs. Acts 15 shows the Jerusalem Council negotiating whether Gentile converts must follow the Law of Moses. Some scholars note that Jesus rarely spoke about Gentiles directly, while Paul made it his entire mission.

In reality, Orthodoxy is just another addition to this, because there's over a million ways to read the Bible. The pseudopigraphal texts were just later interpretations of the manuscripts. In fact, Sethianism is older than Christianity itself and Gnosticism was around in the days of the Apostles and Christ (again, refer to Simon Magus in Acts 8 ).
 
You have to understand, these are just differing interpretations of the OT. The NT itself is just paraphrases, quotations and added stuff from the OT.
It quite literally is not.

Paul opposed Peter in Antioch (Galatians 2)
This is not a difference in teaching. He is calling Peter a hypocrite, for not following what they both know to be true.

If you and I both say murder is bad, and you kill someone and I rebuke you, does that mean we follow two different moral systems? No.

Also, these points of difference are because these men are talking to different people. Gentiles are not under the covenant the Jews are, which is why Judaizing was a heresy that is explicitly condemned. However, Paul is still fully Jewish and even takes a Nazarite vow to prove that to people. Christ's mission is to the lost children of Israel as he literally says, and he appoints Paul to go to the Gentiles. Even if you want to be beyond skeptical and say there is no continuity between these teachings, which I must stress, is incredibly retarded, it would still in no meaningful way point to fucking Gnosticism.

In reality, Orthodoxy is just another addition to this, because there's over a million ways to read the Bible. The pseudopigraphal texts were just later interpretations of the manuscripts. In fact, Sethianism is older than Christianity itself and Gnosticism was around in the days of the Apostles and Christ (again, refer to Simon Magus in Acts 8 ).
I have no earthly idea, why the fuck I would care about what Simon Magus believed, because if I take the book of Acts seriously, he tried to buy the Holy Spirit, and almost caught a bad case of dead from St. Peter. Also, given that he was a Samaritan, he was probably, a Samaritan.

Also, the epistle of James condemns a vast swath of Gnostics, saying that those who claim Christ didn't come in the flesh are anti-Christs. There is no sense in appealing to the Bible or early Church to make a case for Gnosticism. Much like when Islam tries to, it winds up being a case of simply cutting off the branch that it sits upon.

Origen believed in a more metaphoric interpretation of the Bible. He actually cut his dick and balls off in front of a nun to avoid suspicion of scandal while teaching women.
That's probably untrue, because Origen himself in his writings literally never mentions this. It's not until Eusebius that this story is written anywhere, and Eusebius, who is a fan or Origen, considers it a fucking stupid move, that was influenced by Origen reading Matthew 19:12 way too literally.
 
@A Very Big Fish

Also, the epistle of James condemns a vast swath of Gnostics, saying that those who claim Christ didn't come in the flesh are anti-Christs. There is no sense in appealing to the Bible or early Church to make a case for Gnosticism. Much like when Islam tries to, it winds up being a case of simply cutting off the branch that it sits upon.

Mark 4:11
>“To you has been given the secret of the kingdom of God, but for those outside everything is in parables, so that “‘they may indeed see but not perceive, and may indeed hear but not understand, lest they should turn and be forgiven.’”
Matthew 13:10–11
>Then the disciples came and said to him, “Why do you speak to them in parables?” And he answered them, “To you it has been given to know the secrets of the kingdom of heaven, but to them it has not been given.
Luke 8:9–10.
>And when his disciples asked him what this parable meant, he said, “To you it has been given to know the secrets of the kingdom of God, but for others they are in parables, so that ‘seeing they may not see, and hearing they may not understand.’

Also, Docetism doesn't deny Christ, it just says that Jesus, being half-man/half-God created the Dokein (illusion) that he was one of us when he was in spirit. Really, that's perfectly consistent with the Bible. He wasn't "100% man/100% God" that makes no fucking sense. There's this thing in mathematics called "exclusivity".

Also, Enoch and Elijah both went to heaven without dying via Gnosis. Read 1 Enoch/2 Enoch.

This is not a difference in teaching. He is calling Peter a hypocrite, for not following what they both know to be true.

If you and I both say murder is bad, and you kill someone and I rebuke you, does that mean we follow two different moral systems? No.

Also, these points of difference are because these men are talking to different people. Gentiles are not under the covenant the Jews are, which is why Judaizing was a heresy that is explicitly condemned. However, Paul is still fully Jewish and even takes a Nazarite vow to prove that to people. Christ's mission is to the lost children of Israel as he literally says, and he appoints Paul to go to the Gentiles. Even if you want to be beyond skeptical and say there is no continuity between these teachings, which I must stress, is incredibly retarded, it would still in no meaningful way point to fucking Gnosticism.

True, but the apostles and Jesus were still different people (2 Timothy 3:16). James was speaking to Jewish Christians and Jesus was also speaking to Jewish believers in Hebrews. Which is why I say salvation is not through works + faith, for everyone, no matter how wicked, will ascend to pleroma eventually (gan eden in Kabbalah).
 
I just don't understand why people believe that the bible (or any other "Holy" book for that matter) is 100% true and is not doctored, I believe that these books/texts probably do contain some truths to them but you are meant to take them all in and form your own conclusion based on the intrinsic virtues instilled in us from the moment of creation!, the distinction between good and evil is as bright as day, there is no need for books to tell you that.
 
My thoughts on Gnostics: they’re interested in the path to divinity offered by Christianity, but not the one offered by Christ.
He wasn't "100% man/100% God" that makes no fucking sense. There's this thing in mathematics called "exclusivity"
Nigga. Why are you subordinating spiritual/metaphysical reality to material laws? Putting aside the question of whether you hold God above math or the reverse - who’s to say the two are mathematically exclusive before God? You can be 100% a son and 100% a father.

The Council of Chalcedon affirms the hypostatic union. And furthermore, Christ’s death as an act of infinite love and mercy - through sacrifice, redeeming every sin past, present, and future - doesn’t make sense if He wasn’t fully human. He had to be fully man in order to fully die. He didn’t, like, only kind of die, bro.

Which brings me to Hebrews 2:17:
“For this reason he had to be made like them, fully human in every way, in order that he might become a merciful and faithful high priest in service to God, and that he might make atonement for the sins of the people.”

Are you going to tell me that’s a parable?
 
Christianity is a syncretic cult that combines Anatolian/Greco-Roman/Levantine and Egyptian traditions. "Gnosticism" is Christianity when laid bare, without Roman state-sponsored intervention, a bunch of Gnostic cults duking it out for power and influence. "Christianity" as we know it is just the Roman state-sponsored version of this, trying to control these subversive cults, a trend you see with despotic emperors (Constantine/Theodosius) in order to promote harmony and keep enemies at bay.

The Demiurge's appearance is based on the Greek Typhon, a chthonic deity bastard child of Gaia (earth) created out of spite; Alexandrian Jewish academics take this as a foundation for their Gnostic Christian mythos.

The castration of the early priests probably came from the agrarian vegetation cults of Osiris, Attis, and Adonis. The cult of Attis and Cybele was a part of the Roman canon, which they imported from Anatolia as a sort of good luck charm against the Phoenician Carthaginians. It worked, and they had to deal with the castrated priests, whom they abhorred, but they really only cared for Cybele. One of the first edicts of the Council of Nicea was the banning of castration since it seemed to be a problem, which is interesting considering they hated these eunuchs, so one of the first things they did when they were declaring dogma was to outlaw it. The more oriental-influenced Byzantines kept eunuchs in the courts, though for practical purposes.

Jesus thus becomes this cosmopolitan version of an agrarian god but with more Dharmic influences with the concept of Brahman (ultimate wisdom/cosmic self) and Buddha, symbolizing this transcended state of gnosis. This meshes together pretty well with Neoplatonism. Jewish Neoplatonic academics at Alexandria had access to Dharmic texts thanks to the trade with India, not to mention Greeks knew about Buddhism thanks to the Greco-Bactrian king who converted to Buddhism, helping promote the religion. The more Silk Road-influenced Manichaeism (a certain "Gnosticism") is a good example of this Dharmic-influenced Christianity.

The Ophite Gnostics worshiped the Greek goddess Metis, who they equated with Sophia, both representing wisdom goddesses. Some believe the hermaphroditic Baphomet is a version of Metis, which means "absorption of knowledge" in Greek. They would perform ritual sacrifices, cannibalism (eucharist), and orgies for this god/goddess as a way to rebel against the Demiurge, profaning his creation, bringing them gnosis and luck in return. Baphomet itself could represent the sexless initiated priest or even the ideal angelic being who is sexless.

Mary could be seen as a version of Sophia/Venus/Isis/Cybele, the mother/sister lover of Jesus/Adonis/Attis/Osiris. In Freemasonry, Hiram Abiff is equated with Adonis, their "master builder," who could be equated with the rest of the sacrificial kings/vegetation-dying and rising gods. The weeping and entombment of Jesus is basically the same as the weeping of Adonis/Attis; baroque paintings of Venus and Adonis show this perfectly. The piercing to the side of Jesus is the same as the boar that pierced the side of Adonis/Attis. In other versions they claim the boar pierced his penis, castrating him. The castration motif is taken from the Osiris myth, where his body is cut into pieces and scattered throughout the land like the scattering of seeds throughout the dirt. All of this is what's called sympathetic magic.
 
Ostatnio edytowane:
Gnostics is just a "fuck you dad" religious movement. Rather than a benevolent, if harsh, creator, it tries to add unnecessary complexity that doesn't really improves anything.
 
Wstecz
Top Na dole