💾 Archived View for spam.works › mirrors › textfiles › occult › gnostic.occ captured on 2023-06-16 at 19:30:22.
-=-=-=-=-=-=-
December 09, 1987
A Shared Vision
by
D. M. DeBacker
June 23, 1988 11:36 PM
Gnosticism is a religious/philosophical tradition that began
sometime in the last century before the present era1. The word
"tradition" should be stressed because one of the tenets of
Gnosticism is that of a general disdain for authority or
orthodoxy. The Gnostics adhered to a belief in strict equality
among the members of the sect; going so far as to chose the role
of priest by drawing lots among the participates at gnostic
gatherings2. They also stressed direct revelation through dreams
and visions and an individual interpretation of the revelations
of fellow Gnostics and sacred scriptures.
The Greek word gnosis (from which we have "Gnosticism") and
the Sanskrit bodhi (from which we have "Buddhism") have exactly
1 see J.M. Robinson, Introduction, in The Nag Hammadi
Library (New York, 1977); hereafter cited as NHL, for a general
dicussion of the origins of Gnosticism.
2 Pagels, Elaine; The Gnostic Gospels;(New York, 1979); p 49
1
the same meaning. Both gnosis and bodhi refers to a knowledge
that transcends the knowledge that is acquired through means of
empirical reasoning or rational thought; it is intuitive
knowledge derived from internal sources. To the Gnostic this
knowledge is necessary for salvation3.
"I say, You are gods!"
-John 10:34
The Gnostic sects were essentially eschatological; concerned
with salvation, with transcendance from the world of error (as
opposed to sin) towards a knowledge of the Living God, who is
knowable only through revelationary experience. The object of
gnosis is God- into which the soul is transformed monistcally.
This notion of assimilation into a divine essence is known in
Gnostic Circles as "immanentizing the Eschaton"4.
"Christ redeemed us from the Curse of the Law."
-Gal.3:13
3 Barnstone, Willis, ed.; The Other Bible; (San Francisco,
1984); p 42
4 Wilson, Robert A.; The Illuminati Papers; (Berkely, 1980);
p 46
2
The Gnostic defiance towards authority took on many levels.
They developed an elaborate cosmogony, in defiant opposition to
traditional Jewish and Christian beliefs. For the Jew and
Christian, it was a good, though authoritarian, god that created
Adam and Eve. It was through their own sin that they fell into
corruption. Yet for the Gnostic, the creator was not good at all,
rather he became known to the Gnostics as the Demiurge1, a
secondary god below Sophia, Mother Wisdom, and the unknown God-
who-is-above-all-else.2 To the Gnostics, the Demiurge- who is
also known as Ialdabaoth, Sabaoth, and Saclas- acted in error
when he created the material universe and mistakenly thought of
himself as the only god.
In Gnostic literature, Adam and Eve are seen as heroic
figures in their disobedience; aided by the serpent, who gave
them knowledge and who will later return in some sects as Jesus,
to redeem humanity by teaching disobedience to the curse of the
laws of Yahweh the Creator3.
1 Greek for "craftsman", much like the Masonic "Archetect of
the Universe". From Plato's Timaeus.
2 I have come up with Greek term "Theoseulogetes" to
describe "God-who-is-above-all-else" which I found in Paul's
Epistle to the Romans (9:5), but I hesitate to make use of it
because I am not sure how it should be pronounced.
3 Hypostasis of the Archons 89:32-91:3 (NHL p. 155)
3
Many writers when discussing Gnosticism approach the subject
with a scholarly morbidity. They tend to look upon the Gnostics
as a cult of dreadful ascetics who shunned the world of error and
delusion. Yet as a neo-gnostic, I can not help but see a gnostic
world-view as that of looking upon the universe not as some
sinister mistake, but more as a complex and complicated cosmic
joke.
When one first begins reading the Gnostic literature
contained in the pages of the Nag Hammadi Library (cf. note p.
1), one is tempted to filter the language and the symbols of
Gnosticism through a mindset of `hellfire' fright conjured by
images brought from the Book of Revelations or Daniel. The key to
reading the NHL is not to be frightened or distressed by some of
the images, but to realize that the tractates of the NHL were
collected as consciousness raising tools. To the Gnostic, the
pages of NHL are not to be meant to be taken as the
authoritative, apostolic writings of the Christian bible or the
prophetic and patristic writings of the Jewish bible, but rather
as visions shared with fellow Gnostics. The following discourse
is meant to be just that- a Gnostic sharing his vision.
4
"When the Elohim began to create..."
- Gen 1:1
As all religious thought has as its ultimate aim the thought
of God, it is best that I begin my "vision" by imparting my
perception of God.
To me, God is indescribable, insrutable, and utimately
"nonexistent". Any attempt at describing God invokes, what a
friend termed, the "great syntax catastrophe"2. It is wrong, I
believe, even to use the pronouns he or she when speaking of God;
and it seems better to speak of what God is "not" rather than to
speak of what God "is". To parphrase the Chinese philosopher, Lao
Tse "The god that can be named is not the God"3.
It is best not to even attempt a description of God, but to
think of God as inscrutable by definition: that which cannot be
1 For a discussion on this translation of the opening verses
of Genesis cf. Asimov, Issac; Asimov's Guide to the Bible; Vol.
II; (NY, 1968); pp 16-17
2 A friend tells me that he picked up this term from an
evangelical Christian in Georgia.
3 "The Tao that can be trodden is not the enduring and
unchanging Tao. The name that can be named is not the enduring
and unchanging name." Lao-Tse; Tao teh Ching (I,1)- trans. by
James Legge
5
easily understood, completely obscure, mysterious, unfathomable,
and enigmatic; the "Mystery of the Ages"1.
Many Gnostics speak of God as being "non-existent"; not in
the atheistic sense, but in the sense that God does not exist in
the same sense as you or I or anything else in the Universe
exists. In some Gnostic writings God is refered to as the
"unbegotten one"2.
As a Gnostic Christian, one who emphasizes the salvic
influence of gnosis (knowledge) over the influence of pistis
(faith), it is not enough for me merely to believe that God
exists; I must know that God exists.
In his epistle to the Galatians, Paul tells us that
ignorance of God is a form of bondage3; and in his epistle to the
Colossians, he tell us that man's purpose is to "be filled with
the knowledge of [God's] will in all spiritual wisdom and
understanding,.. and increasing in (gnosis) knowledge of God"4.
Many Christian sects teach that "faith" is an unquestioning
belief that does not require proof or evidence. To understand
1 Col 1:26
2 Tripartite Tractate; 51.24-52.6; (NHL p. 55)
3 Gal. 4:8-9
4 Col. 1:9-10
6
"faith" properly it requires knowing that belief and opinion are
not one and the same. A mere opinion is something that is
asserted or accepted without any basis at all in evidence or
reason1. Whereas, to believe in something is to exercise one's
faith or trust in something. Faith then could be said to be
"trust"; and `faith in God' is, therefore, the same as `trust in
God'.
The basis of any degree of trust must be a certain degree of
knowledge concerning a given object or situation. The more
knowledge one has concerning, say, a person, determines the
amount of trust allowed that person. For example, if you know a
person to be completly unreliable, you then have very little
faith in that person. Conversly, You have a great deal of faith
that that person is not to be trusted. If you know that a person
is highly reliable, you then have built up a degree of trust in
that person based on your knowledge of him.
Therefore, knowledge of God must parallel faith in God. Yet
how can God be known when we are not even sure that he exists? If
we say that God is essentially `unknowable' and can only be
spoken of in terms of what God is not, then how can we come to
have any knowledge of God?
1 See Adler, Mortimer J.; Ten Philosophical Mistakes; chap.
4; (New York, 1985); for a detailed discussion of knowledge and
opinion.
7
There are basically two ways to know God. The first is by
way of reason or logic and second, by way of intuitive knowledge
or gnosis. We shall see in following paragraphs how the former
method may help us in understanding the problems we are faced
with in our attempts to know God, and many will see, also, how
severly lacking the path of logic can be compared to that of the
gnostic path.
In studying the problem of `logical proofs' of God's
existence I have come across several historical arguments of
which I have grouped into what I call "The Seven Arguments and
the General Arguement for the Existence of the Almighty." I have
labeled these arguments the Ideological (ideo as in idea), the
Aetiological ( `aetio' meaning cause), the Teleological (`teleo'
meaning final outcome), the Cosmological (`cosmo' meaning
universal), the Ontological (`onto' meaning being), the
Pantheological (`pantheo' as in `pantheism'), and the
Psychological (`psyche' meaning soul) Arguements. I will provide
a brief discussion of each.
1] The Psychological Argument
Before anything can be said concerning the reality of
God or of anything else for that matter. One must take a
skeptical stance. A skeptical stance would be that of doubting
the reality of absolute or universal truths. In other words one
8
could say that the certainty of knowledge is impossible and that
one can achieve only `probable' knowlege, i.e., ideas whose
validity is highly probable. An example of this would be to say
that it is only highly probable that you are reading this page,
but that neither you nor I can be absolutely certain of this.
Yet probable knowledge implies the existence of absolute
knowledge. For instance a skeptic could deny that the objects of
his perceptions exist, but he could not deny that his perceptions
exist. St. Augustine stated that the person who doubts all truths
is caught in a logical dilemma, for he must exist in order that
he may doubt. As Descartes, put it "I think, therefore I am.". In
the act of doubting one establishes the absolute reality of one's
own consciousness or "psykhei".
For Augustine the "psykhei" comprises the entire
personality of the living being, who becomes aware through
self-consiousness not only that he or she is a real integrated
existing person but also that he knows with absolute certainty
his own activities and powers of memory, intellect, and will.
Thus the being `remembers' what it is doing in the act of
self-doubt; it understands or knows the immediate experience; and
it can will to act or not to act as it does. Hence three aspects
of the individual "psykhei" may be described as powers of memory,
intellect, and will, or as activities of being, knowing, and
willing.
9
2] The Ideological Argument
Prior to the history of any object the ideal had to exist as
the source imparting reality to the particular object. Humanity
must exist as a universal ideal before any individual human being
can possibly exist. An object's essence (ideal) must be a reality
before the particular object can come into existence.
Many people, when first confronted by this argument fail to
understand it. One fellow thought the argument was perposterous,
because he thought it somehow denied that things could be
discovered by accident. He gave a convoluted example involving a
chemist seeking to invent a glue and in the course of his
research accidently discovering a cure for cancer. What this
fellow failed to realize is that the notion of a death dealing
disease such as cancer and the idea of a needed cure for cancer
existed long before this bumbling chemist started on his glue
project. Both the psychological and ideological arguments are
really not arguments for the existence of God, but are intended
as an introduction to the following arguments.
3] The Aetiological Argument
God, by definition, must have existed as a first cause
because every effect requires a cause and this must have been
true of entire universe. The material world is contigent, unable
10
to create itself, hence requires something else, a necessary,
spiritually uncreated Being to bring it into existence and impel
it to continue its progress.
The same fellow who debated the ideological argument said
that the aetiological argument "hurt his head" and that it
reminded him of "the old chicken and the egg argument". The key
words in this argument are "contigent" (meaning, "dependent on
chance"; "conditional"), "necessary", and "uncreated" (see the
General Argument below). The cosmological argument is almost
identical to the aetiological argument, yet the wording is quite
different.
4] The Cosmological Argument
There must have been a time when the universe did not exist,
for all things in the universe are mere possibilities dependent
on some other objects for their being and development; the fact
that the universe does exist implies that a necessary or
noncontigent Being exists who was capable of creating the
universe.
5] The Ontological Argument
Since we possess an idea of a perfect Being (and we can
think of nothing greater or more perfect), such a Being must
necessarily exist because perfection implies existence. Any idea
11
that is lacking in reality (any concept which has no objective
reality of its own) would be imperfect, whereas one of the
atributes of a perfect Being is actual existence (not merely an
idea in any person's mind, but real existence external to any
mind which happens to conceive of it).
The ontological argument is possibly the oldest argument and
dates back to the 4th C. of the present era. This argument has
caused a great debate that rages to this day in the pages of
modern textbooks on philosophy and theology. The key to this
argument is "perfection" and the statement: "any concept which
has no objective reality of its own would be imperfect" (and
therefore not exist) is the thin thread upon which the validity
of argument hangs.
6] The Teleological Argument
The presence of design in the world, the fact that objects
are designed with a purpose, to function for a given end, implies
the existence of an intelligent, competent designer, who planned
the purpose of each thing that exists.
The teleological argument posses problems of its own. The
same fellow who debated the previous arguments insisted that he
needed proof of a design to the world and that everything has a
purpose. The problem in replying to his argument is that I can
not think of one useless thing existing in the universe. My mind
12
draws a blank in this respect and I would invite anyone to show
me one thing that exists in this universe which is without design
or purpose.
7] The Pantheological Argument
God, the supreme unity, the original Being, and the Ideal of
all ideals, has caused all things to become manifest by means of
a logical unfolding of particulars from their ideals. To speak of
creation is to speak of particularization, a process of
unfolding that makes individual objects out of ideals. Conversly,
immortality is an opposite process whereby the particulars return
to their universal essence or archetypes. Immortality means the
return of things to God (apocatastasis), that is their
deification, so that there is complete unity of all things in
God; pantheism.
The Pantheological vision of God is negative in the sense
that God can be characterized only in terms of comparison on the
ground that the infinite is beyond human comprehension; however
not beyond human contemplation. When speaking of the nature of
God and using the terms of argument #1 in speaking of the nature
of the psyche as that which possess memory, intellect, and will,
one may say that God is Omniscient, possessing absolute memory
and intellect; Omnipotent, possessing absolute will; and in the
terms of the pantheological argument, Omnipresent, possessing
13
pure randomness and non-localized in time and space.
The General Argument for the Existence of the Almighty is as
follows and derived in part from the argument as put forth in How
to Think About God by Mortimer J. Adler:
1. The existence of an effect requiring the concurrent existence
and action of an efficient cause implies the existence and action
of that cause.
2. The cosmos as a whole exists.
3. If the existence of the cosmos as a whole is radically
contingent, which is to say that, while not needing an efficient
cause of its coming to be, since it is everlasting, then it
nevertheless does need a efficient cause of its continuing
existence, to preserve it in being and prevent it from being
replaced by nothingness.
or
3a. If the cosmos which now exists is only one of many possible
universes that might have existed in the infinite past, and that
might still exist in the infinite future, and if a cosmos which
can be otherwise is one that also can not be; and conversely, a
14
cosmos that is capable of not existing at all is one that can be
otherwise than it now is, then the cosmos, radically contingent
in existence, would not exist at all were its existence not
caused.
4. If the cosmos needs an efficient cause of its existence or of
its continuing existence to prevent its annihilation, then that
cause must be one the existence of which is uncaused, and one
which has reason for being in and of itself; i.e. The ultimate
cause and being of the cosmos.
5. If the ultimate cause and being of the cosmos is that about
which nothing greater can be thought, that being must be thought
of as omnipotent, possessing absolute will; omniscient,
possessing absolute knowledge; and omnipresent; non-localized in
time and space.
PART TWO
Intuition differs from reason in that as man is a finite
being possesing limited sensual contact with the universe; it is
impossible for man to fully understand God through his senses or
by empirical means. This, therefore, involves the understanding
15
of abstract concepts. We must understand the universe as being
"conceptusensual"; that parallel to the objective universe there
is a universe made up of abstracts. This abstract universe is
viewable to us through means of symbols; objects not possesing
objectivity. These symbols cannot be known by means of empirical
reasoning, but by means of gnosis; without the conscience use of
reasoning, immediate apprehension or understanding.
It should be realized that while this abstract universe,
that sits parallel to the material universe, and is sometimes
refered to as the spiritual world or heaven, is beyond logic and
reasoning; it is supported by logic and reasoning. You will
recall that imperfection or "degrees of perfection" implies the
existence of perfection (cf. Arg #3 and Arg #5). Perfection is an
abstract ideal having no analog in our material world, yet it is
intuitively known to exist.
Just as there are degrees of knowledge concerning mundane
truths in the material world, there are degrees of gnosis
concerning revealed truths in the spiritual world. Because man in
his human form is by nature limited there is a certain limit to
his understanding and knowledge. Yet as all things are in a
constant state of flux and change, man's knowledge is constantly
growing. For everything that is known objectivly there is an
abstract idea that precedes the object.
The Scriptures speaks about angels and devils, the creation
16
of the world in seven days, etc., and many Christian sects
require of their followers acceptance of these "revealed truths"
by way of faith or trust. Many speak of the Bible as being
infallible and without error even when portions are contradictory
or counter to logic. I, however, assert that the Bible is first
and foremost an anthology of religious/philosophical tradition
compiled over the centuries from about 750 BCE to around 150 BCE.
It should, in no way, be advertised as a "closed canon" or a
compilation of the sum of man's knowledge of truth, revealed or
otherwise. The Bible was written by men and is therefore subject
to human error. This does not, however, discount the presence of
revealed truths within the Bible or within any scripture
(religious writings).
If any of the above arguments fall short of convincing an
individual of God's existence, the one argument that cannot be
denied is the argument which provides for the proof of one's own
existence (cf. Arg #1). Here we spoke of "taking a skeptical
stance"; one of doubting one's own existence. Through the
process of self-doubt we become faced with the reality of our
existence; we cannot deny the object of our perceptions-
ourselves.
The question, then, is raised concerning "life and death".
One may wonder: "If I exist now, was there ever a time when I did
not exist and will there be a time when I will not exist?" We can
17
limit this by asking: "Did I exist before this lifetime and will
I exist after this life?" Perhaps before these questions can be
broached more should said concerning the subject of gnosis.
As stated above, the Apostle Paul spoke of ignorance of God
as being a form of slavery; and told us that it was our purpose
to know (gnosis) and obey God1. This is reinterated in his first
epistle to the Corinthians, when Paul gave "thanks to God... that
in every way [they] were enriched in [Christ] with all speech and
all knowledge"2.
In John's first epistle, we are told that we may come to
know (gnosis) God, if we keep God's Law and "walk in the same way
in which [Christ] walked3. This echoed in John's Gospel chapter
14, verses 20-21; and at verse 26 he adds that the Holy Spirit
will be sent to "teach [us] all things, and bring to [us]
rememberance all that [Christ had] said to [us]." I have
emphasized the word "rememberance" as an important part of the
process of gnosis. This will be discussed in detail below.
In another epistle Paul spoke of the "riches of assured
understanding and knowledge (epi-gnosis) of God's mystery, of
1 See above p. 4
2 1 Cor. 1:4-5
3 1 Jn 2:3-4
18
Christ, in whom are hid all the treasures of wisdom and
knowledge"1. In the seventeenth chapter of John's Gospel, Christ
tells us that gnosis, knowing God, is equivalent to eternal
life2; and in his epistle to the Philippians, Paul tells us that
gnosis supersedes all3.
In Matthew's Gospel we are told that spiritual knowledge
comes to us through Christ:
"I thank thee, Father, Lord of heaven and earth,
that thou hast hidden these things from the wise and prudent
and revealed them unto the little ones; yes, Father, for
such was thy great pleasure. All things have been delivered
to me by my Father; and no one knows the Son except the
Father, and no one knows the Father except the Son and any
one whom the Son choses to reveal him.4"
When we read the thirteenth chapter of Paul's first epistle
1 Col 2:2-3
2 Jn 17:3
3 Phil 3:8-10
4 Matt 11:25-27 & Lk 10:21-22
19
to the Corinthians, we learn that "love" is the key to
maintaining spiritual knowledge (gnosis) and faith (pistis)1; and
in John's first letter we are told that "he who does not love,
does not know God; for God is love"2.
Besides the necessity of loving God, we are told that
knowledge of truth equals knowledge of God. In Paul's letter to
Titus, Paul greets his "child in commen faith" by describing
that, as an apostle of Christ, his main purpose is to "further
the faith of God's elect and their knowledge of the truth which
accords with godliness"3. In John's Gospel we are told that the
Holy Spirit is the "Spirit of truth, whom the (material) world
cannot recieve, because it neither sees him nor knows him; you
know him, for he dwells with you, and will be in you"4. Jesus
tells us: "If you continue in my word, you are truly my
disciples, and you will know the truth, and the truth will make
you free"5.
1 1 Cor 13
2 1 Jn 4:7-8
3 Titus 1:1
4 Jn 14:17
5 Jn 8:31-32
20
At some points this saving knowledge is refered to as a
secret knowledge. In his closing remarks to his disciple,
Timothy, Paul tells him to guard closely the knowledge that has
been entrusted to him and to avoid those who "chatter" about
false knowledge1; and in first Corinthians, he speaks of those
who imagine that they know, yet do not know as they ought to
know2. In second Corinthians, Paul tells us that the mystery of
the Gospel is "veiled" to those who have been blinded by the god
of this world3. This concept of the "hardening the hearts" and
"shuting the eyes" of the people can be found in Isaiah4, Mark5,
Luke6, and Acts7. Paul speaks of the process of gnosis as
spiritual maturity when he tells the Corinthians that they were
"fed with milk, not solid food; for [they] were not ready for
1 1 Tim 6:20-21
2 1 Cor 8:2
3 2 Cor 4:3-6
4 Isaiah 6:9-10
5 Mark 8:17-18
6 Lk 10:23
7 Acts 28:26-27
21
it."
We are told that Jesus spoke in parables because "seeing
they do not see, and hearing they do not hear"1; and that "not
all men can recieve this [knowledge] but only those to whom it is
given (revealed)"2. He said that in order that those who could
not understand, be allowed to understand that they would have to
"turn again" and be forgiven3. This "turning again" or being
"reborn" will be discussed in greater detail below.
In Colossians, Paul speaks of this mystery as having been
hidden from angels and men (aeons and generations)4. There is
evidence in many of the books of the Bible that books which are
known to authors have either been lost or intentional kept out of
the Bible for a variety reasons. In his epistles, Paul speaks of
epistles that do not appear in Bible. There is evidence of a
third epistle to the Corinthians; perhaps one that went between
the first and second epistles5; and in his closing remarks to the
1 Matt 10:13-17
2 Matt 19:11
3 Mk 4:11-12
4 Col 1:26
5 1 Cor 5:9 & 2 Cor 2:3-9; 7:10
22
Colossians, Paul speaks of an Epistle to the Laodiceans1. First
Chronicles speaks of the Book of Nathan and the Book of Gad2;
while Second Chronicles, also, speaks of a Book of Nathan and a
Book of Shemaiah the Prophet3. In Jude's Epistle there is a quote
from the Book of Enoch!4 Could these books have contained
"secret knowledge" that could not be understand by all?
Turning to the "apocrypha", those books which are not
considered by some Christian sects to be a part of the "closed
canon" of the Bible, we are able to discover a possible answer to
our question. The Apocrypha, or "hidden" books, were never really
hidden, but were kept apart from the Bible. Each Christian sect
has a different "list" of books that belong in their individual
"canon" and because those "lists" overlap each other many
Christians today are quite familiar with a majority of the books
contained in the Apocrypha.
One book contained in the Apocrypha, 2 Esdras, a book that
is found in many Roman Catholic Bibles, has the following
information to imapart to us concerning "hidden books":
1 Col 4:16
2 1 Chr 29:29
3 2 Chr 9:29; 12:15
4 Jude 9 quotes Enoch 1:9
23
"Therefore write all these things that you have seen in
book, and put it in a hidden place; and you shall teach them
to the wise among your people, whose hearts you know are
able to comprehend and keep these secrets.1"
(It is curious to note that this portion of 2 Esdras was
added to original sometime in the third century AD; when at
the same time Gnostic Christians were compiling the Nag
Hammadi in Egypt!)2
Yet it seems that nothing can remain hidden forever. In
Luke's Gospel Jesus prophesies that "nothing is hid that shall
not be made manifest, nor anything secret that shall not be known
and come to light"3. Perhaps this prophecy came true when,
following the dreadful destruction of WW II, two astonishing
discoveries of hidden works were made; the first at Nag Hammadi,
Egypt in December of 1945, and the second at Q'umran, Palestine
1 2 Esdras 12:37-38, cf. 2 Esdras 14:37-48
2 see introduction to "The Second Book of Esdras" in the The
New Oxford Annotated Bible with the Apocrypha; Apoc p 23
3 Lk 8:17
24
in 1947.
PART THREE
Even in the Bible itself there is found "secret knowledge"
that is never spoken of amongst the christian sects that consider
themselves to be "orthodox". The best example of this is in the
creation account of the Book of Genesis. The opening line of the
first book of the Bible has been translated throughout history to
read: "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth1."
Yet if we translate the first verse literally we find it to read:
"When the Elohim began to create the heavens and the earth2."
The term "Elohim" should not be translated directly to read
"God" or "god", because it is the feminine plural of god (Eloah)
and should probabley be translated "godesses" or "offspring of
the Goddess" . Now, to many "orthodox" christians the notion that
there exists "gods", in the polytheistic sense, most likely is a
bizarre notion. Yet the early Hebrews were not "monotheistic",
that is, a person who believes in the existence of one God, as is
usually thought; but, rather, they were "henotheistic", and while
believing in a multitude of gods, they focused all their worship
1 Gen 1:1
2 Cf. p 3 note 1
25
on their "national god". Examples of Hebrew henotheism can be
found in throughout the Old Testement. In 1 Kings, chapter 18
there is an account of the prophet Elijah, a prophet of the
Israelite god Yahweh, engaged in a contest with the prophets of
the god Ba'al and the goddess Asherah (Ishtar)1. In 2 Kings,
chapter 3 we are told that when Mesha, king of the Moabites,
sacrificed his son to the Moabite god Chemosh "there came a great
wrath upon " the army of the Israelites2. Further on in 2 Kings
there is the story of Naaman, a Syrian general who is afflicted
with leprosy. Following a raid in Israel, Naaman is told by one
of his captives that there is a prophet living in Samaria who has
the power to cure leprosy. Naaman then visits Elisha, where he is
told to go and bathe in the Jordan river. After bathing seven
times in the Jordan, Naaman is cured of leprosy, and as a result
he converts and becomes a worshiper of Yahweh, god of the
Israelites. He is now faced with a dilemma; as he must return to
Syria, he must take "two mule's burden" of Israelite soil back
with him. This is done so that he may have a plot of Yahweh's
land upon which to offer sacrifice to the Israelite god. Elisha
does not argue this matter with Naaman, but only tells him to "go
in peace"3.
1 1 Kngs 18:19
2 2 Kngs 3:27
3 2 Kngs 5:1-19
26
Perhaps the strongest suggestion of Hebrew henotheism is
contained in line from Ezekial that tells of the women weeping
for the Sumerian harvest god, Tammuz1. The Jewish calendar
contains the month of Tammuz (usually in the summer) and one of
the titles for Tammuz, "Adonai", was adopted by the Hebrews as a
title for their god. The phrase "Adonai Elohim" is translated in
the english Bible to read "Lord of Hosts". The Greeks, also,
adopted "Adonai" and called him "Adonis"; a term used today in
the english language to desribe a good looking young man.
In the New Testement, we are told by Saint Paul that there
are "many gods and many lords"2. In Colossians, he refers to them
as the "elemental spirits of the universe" or Archons3. Could it
be that the Archons and the Elohim were one and the same:
"elemental spirits of the universe"? In Ephesians, he refers to
them as the "world rulers of the present darkness"4. In John's
Gospel, Jesus puts us on equal footing with the Archons by
quoting Psalms5; and in Acts we are called "God's offspring"6.
1 Ezekiel 8:14
2 1 Cor 8:5
3 Col 2:8
4 Eph 6:12
5 Jn 10:34 & Ps 82:6
27
The scriptures in places speak of the concept of pre-
existence. God tells Jeremiah, "before I formed you in the womb I
knew you"1. In Ephesians, we are told that God "chose us in him
before the foundation of the world"2.
Could it be that the "secret message" that the Scriptures
have to impart to us is that we and the Elohim are one and the
same? That we were present at the creation? That we created our
own universe under God's guidance, but because we were not in
harmony with each other, because a few us tried to "lord" over
the others, because we were not in agreement on how to go about
making the universe, and instead of making the universe according
to God's design, we made it according to our design, in "our
image"; could this be why the universe is such an imperfect
place?
Between chapters 16 and 19 of the Book of Genesis there is
a curious exchange that deserves to be followed. In chapter 16 we
are told the story of Hagar, the mother of Ishmael. Hagar, one of
Abraham's concubines, is sent out into desert by Sarai, the first
wife of Abraham. At verse seven Hagar is met by an "angel of the
6 Acts 17:27-29
1 Jeremiah 1:4-5
2 Eph 1:4
28
Lord". Later, after conversing with this "angel of the Lord", she
refers to the angel as a "god of vision". She is shocked to think
that she has actually seen "God" and has lived1. In the next
chapter, Abraham is visited by a being who describes himself as
"El Shaddai"2. Most english language Bibles translate this to
read "God Almighty", but a literal translation would render it
"El, one of the gods". In chapter 18 Abraham, we are told, is
visted again by the "Lord", and upon looking up he sees "three
men". The persons that appear to Abraham in this chapter of
Genesis are usually described as being God and two of his angels,
yet strangely enough the one who is thought to be God, the
Almighty (omniscient and omnipresent) does not know what's going
in a city on the planet Earth and remarks: "I will go down to see
whether they have done altogether according to the outcry which
has come to me; and if not, I will know"3. After wrangling with
Abraham over whether or not he would destroy the cities of Sodom
and Gomorrah, we are told that "the Lord rained... fire from the
Lord out of heaven"4.
1 Gen 16:7-14
2 Gen 17:1
3 Gen 18:21
4 Gen 19:24
29
The "main of event" occurs in the first chapters of Genesis.
Here is where the Elohim see light for the first time1, and go
about the process of the first creation2, that of "calling and
creating" the material world3. The Elohim cause a separation to
be made between the spiritual world, "the waters which were above
the firmament, and the material world, "the waters which were
under the firmament"4. Genesis 1:9-31 details this "ordering" of
the material world.
In Genesis 1:27, we are told that the Elohim created, or
developed the idea of mankind in an image that the Elohim
percieved. According to Rabbinic tradition this image was the
image of the Higher God that the Elohim saw reflected in the
firmament which they took to be that of their own. In the second
creation, that of "making and forming" the material world in the
"day that the Lord made the earth and the heavens"5, we are told
that the Elohim actually "formed" man out of dust, but it was
1 Gen 1:4
2 Gen 1:1 - 2:3
3 Isaiah 43:7
4 Gen 1:7
5 Gen 2:4
30
only after the Elohim breathed into man's nostrils the "breath of
life", did man become a living being1.
Yet it seems that the Elohim had made a mistake. In Genesis
1:28, we are told that the Elohim had created man as an
androgynous being, "male and female [they] created them." Most
Gnostic Christians take this to mean that we were originally
intended to posses both soul and spirit combined. It appears the
Elohim had made a mistake and formed a "sleeping" soul which they
attempted to manipulate2, and when they realized that they were
mistaken they found it necessary to pull the "spirit" (Eve) out
of the soul (Adam) in order to bring it to life; hence Adam calls
Eve "the Mother of the living"3.
The events that follow in the third chapter of Genesis
deserve to be looked at in detail. In chapter 2, verse 9 we have
been told that there are two trees in the center of the Garden of
Eden; the tree of life and the tree of knowledge. In verse 17 of
that same chapter we were told that the Creator had ordered Adam
not to eat of the tree of knowledge, for if Adam were to eat from
that tree he would die. In chapter three a serpent appears to Eve
1 Gen 2:7
2 Gen 2:16-17
3 Gen 2:21
31
and the following exchange takes place:
Serpent: "Did [the Creator] say, `You shall not eat of any
tree in the garden'?"
Eve: "We may eat of the fruit of the trees of the garden;
but [the Creator] said, `You shall not eat of the
fruit of the tree which is in the midst of the
garden, neither shall you touch it, lest you die.' "
Serpent: "You will not die. For [the Creator] knows that
when you eat of it your eyes will be opened, and
you be like [the gods] knowing good and evil."
Later, after eating from the tree, and, by the way, not
dying, Adam and Eve "heard the sound of the Lord God walking in
the garden"1. It is curious to note that from the exchange that
follows that the Creator does not seem to know what has taken
place in their "absence", just as they did not seem to know what
was happening in Sodom and Gomorrah or what occured to Cain's
brother, Able2. Upon learning what has transpired the Creator
1 Gen 3:8
2 Gen 4:9
32
then put a curse upon the serpent, Eve, and Adam. We then learn
that the Creator had lied to Adam and Eve when they told them
that they would die and in remarking reveal: "Behold, the man
has become like one of us, knowing good and evil; and now, lest
he put forth his hand and take also of the tree of life, and eat,
and live forever..."1. This speaking in the plural is echoed in
the Tower of Babel incident: "Come, let us go down and there
confuse their language"2.
Throughout time the serpent has stood as symbol of
immortality. Many ancient cultures upon seeing the shedded skin
of a snake believed that the snake never died; only shedding one
body for a new one. In Greek mythology the god Prometheus is
often depicted as a winged serpent bringing the gift of fire to
man. Later Prometheus was replaced by the image of the wing-
footed Hermes holding aloft the caduceus or "serpent entwined
staff" as he brought the secret knowledge of the gods to mankind.
These images of winged and fiery serpents can be found in
the Old Testement. In Numbers "the Lord sent fiery serpents among
the people, and they bit the people, so that many people of
Israel died"3. To counteract this attack, Moses is told to "make
1 Gen 3:22
2 Gen 11:7
3 Num 21:6
33
a fiery serpent and set it on a pole" so that when the people see
the "brazen serpent" they would not die1. This symbolic gesture
of the serpent lifted up in the wilderness is reminiscent not
only of the serpent in the garden, but that of Jesus on the
cross2. In Isaiah's vision of God, he describes the throne of
God as being surrounded by "seraphim". Seraphim may be defined as
"fiery winged serpents". In 2 Kings we are told that the "brazen
serpent" survived down into reign of Ahaz, king of Israel. It
seems Ahaz did some house cleaning and broke the "brazen serpent"
into pieces and threw it out. Is this some how a prophetic
gesture of Israel's rejection of the Messiah3?
CONCLUSION
It should be remembered that when approaching the subject of
"hidden works" or "secret knowledge" that "there is nothing hid,
1 Num 21:8-9
2 Jn 3:14-15
3 2 Kngs 18:4
34
except to be made manifest; nor is anything secret, except to
come to light"1. In other words, there is nothing hidden that
cannot, or will not, be found. Christ extolls us to seek and
find, and that when we knock at the door of mystery it will be
opened to us2. It can be found that God has a "divine plan" in
which God "desires all men to be saved and to come to the
knowledge of the truth"3. In Acts we are told that the end of
time will not come until all things have been restored to God.
This "restoration of all things" became known to the early
christians as the Doctrine of Apocatastasis4. Ephesians speaks of
the "plan for the fulness of time, to unite all things in him,
things in heaven and things on earth"5.
Yet what happens to us when we die in a pre-gnostic state
before the Apocatastasis? In Mark's Gospel, we are told to take
heed of what we hear in the message, for "the measure you give
will be the measure you get"6. This is the Doctrine of
1 Mark 4:22
2 Matt 7:7-8
3 1 Tim 2:4
4 Acts 3:21
5 Eph 1:10
6 Mk 4:24
35
Metrethesis; the "measure for measure" spoken of in Matthew 7:2
and the "sowing" and "reaping" in Galatians 6:71. This is the
plan by which God allows all souls in the universe to eventually
redeem themselves in the prison of Metempsychosis.
Metrethesis and Metempsychosis are doctrines that are not
unique to Christian Gnosticism. In Buddhism and the Vedic
religions these doctrines are know as
The text is lost at this point.