GNOSTICISM

By Robert Mortem

Many are confused today regarding what Gnosticism actually means. Some turn their trust to the early Catholic church fathers in order to understand what Gnostics allegedly believed (which is no doubt faulty). Others, being more consistent, understand Gnosticism based on their very own writings, the Nag Hammadi Library. Keeps in mind, much like the Vedas ("veda" means knowledge), Gnostics (gnosis) were seekers of esoteric and sacred knowledge, similar to the adherents of Thoth (master of knowledge). Thus, it is in these Nag Hammadi scriptures (amongst several other texts) that we come across a more sound understanding of ancient Gnosticism.

Moreover, although some may try to date the Gnostics to later centuries, they are not consistent. For instance, scholars will insist on the epistle of 1 John being written in the first century, yet admit that John was writing against the Gnostics at that time nonetheless (specifically against docetism). The confirmation bias is staggering, to say the least. You can't write against a group of Gnostics if they supposedly didn't exist yet! This same kind of thing is said regarding details in Colossians as well. Notice, Colossians 2:9 mentions the pleroma (πληρωμα). The Gnostic concept was already in view in other words. Also note Polycarp's epistle to the Philippians and his mentioning of docetism ("Avoid the Docetae"). This is clearly early Gnostic doctrine at its core (cf. The Second Treatise of the Great Seth).

In fact, some may recognize this problem, and dance upon the term "Proto-Gnosticism" as if Gnosticism wasn't fully developed. Yet how many centuries was it until Christianity was fully developed (based on this standard)? The Athanasian Creed was not even produced until around the late 5th century! Therefore, we can see the Gnostic doctrine already in view via the first century, and in light of its Orphic roots (see below), even earlier than that!

Furthermore, although the Epistle of Barnabas is dated to the first century, many may become frustrated, insisting that it was not a Gnostic writing, even though the epistle is coated in the salvation of gnosis (e.g. "ye might have your knowledge also perfect" Barnabas 1:5; also see 6:10 "secret things"). So here we have Gnostical evidence in the first century, yet will be told otherwise.

For instance, some may insist that the Epistle of Barnabas teaches Christ coming in the flesh (as if this is an objection), yet fail to understand the celestial nature of flesh in Gnostic teaching. For example, Barnabas 5:10 places His flesh in the context of the Sun itself, which the apostle Paul apparently considers to be a celestial body (see 1 Corinthians 15:40-41). In other words, Christ had a subtle body of flesh; Christians go beyond the New Testament into an additional idea of the hypostatic union (the two natures of Christ), something the Bible never teaches. For instance, angels (spirits) are seen eating food in physical bodies via Genesis 18-19 (also see Psalm 78:25 "angels' food"). Gnostics understood this in the same matter, as can be seen in the Testimony of Truth where the flesh is placed in the context of the Word in a spiritual rendition. Nothing contained in Barnabas is depicted as anti-Gnostic therefore. 

Moreover, many may fail to understand their ideas of duality. For instance, even though the Demiurge is understood in Gnosticism as the corrupt creator of the material world, the Apocryphon of John nevertheless understands the Monad as the ultimate Source of all that exists.

"It is Father of everything, Holy One The invisible one over everything. . . Since everything exists within it" (The Apocryphon of John)

Yet, within this understanding of the Pleroma and duality, the Demiurge was nonetheless worshipped. This can be seen in the Roman Limestone Relief of Abraxas:

As mentioned in the Apocryphon of John, here we have the "form of a lion-faced serpent" being worshipped. Many seem to get the wrong idea that the Demiurge is solely an evil being. The fact of the matter is, the deity was birthed from the divine goddess Sophia. Thus, it is no surprise Gnostics viewed the God similar to how the Babylonians viewed Pazuzu. For instance, Pazuzu was understood as the demonic chaos spirit of the wind, but nonetheless looked to Him for protection (see the Pazuzu Amulets). This form of Theurgy is well explained in Lemegeton:

"These are by nature good and evil, that is the one part is good & the other part is Evil." (The Ars Theurgia)

This is the exact evidence we see the Gnostics practicing in. Such is the dualism of existence. This diabolical entity (i.e. earthly chaos) depicted as a lion-faced serpent nonetheless proceeds from Sophia, which is the same motif as Durga (Mother) who is likewise associated with the Lion.

Furthermore, was Yahweh in the Old Testament viewed as the Demiurge? In light of certain passages, yes (but not entirely). For instance, Isaiah 63:16 seems to put the Tetragrammaton in opposition to Abraham (as if he is Abrasax) and understands Him as their true Father (Monad). 

"Doubtless You are our Father, though Abraham was ignorant of us . . ." (Isa 63:16)

The Apocryphon of John also associated the Isaiah quote "I am God, and there is no God but me!" to the Demiurge, asserting that he said this in ignorance of his own origin. Arguably, "before me no god was formed" (Isaiah 43:10) is similar, since there is no "before me" when it comes to an eternal God. Whoever wrote this in Isaiah appears to think there was a "before God"! And, this Demiurge is associated with the creation of evil in Isaiah 45:7 (also see Isaiah 63:17; Lamentations 3:38; Jeremiah 19:9). He was seen as a deceiver,

And if the prophet be deceived when he hath spoken a thing, I the LORD have deceived that prophet (Ezekiel 14:9 KJV)

Moreover, the Second Treatise of the Great Seth views this God as Yahweh, the Archon (which is Yaldabaoth aka Samael or Saklas). Interestingly, Samael is viewed as a protection sigil in the Grimoire of Armadel.

Additionally, the Second Treatise text places the "Old Covenant" context in a theme of derision; Christ speaks of the association of the Hebdomad (the seven archons) and "the sun of the powers of the archons." He also identifies Abraham as a counterfeit father. In fact, "Abraham" (Αβρααμ) is apparently a variant spelling of Abraxas (or Abrasax). It is an etymological case of the distinction in the end of the word, similar to "Beelzebub" and "Beelzebul". This appears to be why "they took up stones to throw at" Jesus in John 8:59, since right before this Christ says: "before Abraham was, I AM." He places himself before the demiurge in other words, their God according to John 8:39, 41.

I, Abrasax, shall deliver. Abrasax am I! (The Greek Magical Papyri)

As for those trapped in such ignorance and arrogance, the Tripartite Tractate understands these wicked individuals as hylics, and are a corruption in association with the spirits of the archons (rulers). Keep in mind, 1 Corinthians 2:8 says that the archons (αρχοντων) of the eon crucified Jesus. In other words, this apparently is drawing from the Gnostic understanding of a spiritual crucifixion, as the archons are described in Ephesians 6:12 in contrast to flesh and blood. It is by means of the divine spark that one is awakened and sanctified to sacred enlightenment. 

More than this, the Gnostic Christos (Christ) is a mystical concept, and not the Christian idea of Jesus. Christians teach "another Jesus" as 2 Corinthians 11:4 says not to do. Keep in mind, the New Testament contains many textual variants and is sprinkled in Gnostic elements. The Christos is properly seen as a begotten astral spirit (i.e. πρωτοτοκος, "firstborn" Col 1:15). This is the same cosmological concept taught in ancient Orphism, understood as Protogonos (i.e. Phanes). 

It is no wonder Christ calls Himself the morning star in Revelation 22:16, since Phanes was the serpent entwined deity of Light, and of the same exact motif as Lucifer. Thus, it is apparent that these traditions predate Christianity, and at the Gnostic roots, Orphic traditions of the first-born Protogonos (Ouranos) can be seen as early as the 4th century BCE, for the Derveni Papyrus gives detail regarding the serpentine cosmic egg (Ananke/Necessity) and subsequent swallowing of Ouranos via Zeus (which is a depiction of panentheism). 

Moreover, this appears to be what Paul's epistle is in fact referencing in Philippians 3:19, as it more literally reads: "whose God is the belly" (ων ο θεος η κοιλια) in mention of their destruction and judgment. In other words, this notion of the Father deity being the belly (or womb) finds itself as somewhat of an antecedent regarding this ancient theology. 

The proto-Gnostical elements of Orphism and Platonism can be seen via the divine spark theology regarding the corruptive nature passed down via the Titans ("Titanic nature" Laws, by Plato) and spiritual nature stemming from the Gods (e.g. Orphic Gold Tablets "I am the son of Earth and starry Heaven"). This is later commented on via the works of Olympiodorus; the Gnostic dualism is quite clear, as our divine nature is confined to our earthly bodies in the terrestrial plane.

Given this early perspective, it can be seen that later Hymns well illustrate the divine nature of both Daemons and Satyrs in the context of Dionysus (Bacchus) and Silenus. The Orphic etymology is indeed worth noting, as the traditions trace back towards the silver egg of Phanes via the Rhapsodic Theogony, which in its primitive form can be seen as Ouranos ("the First-born king") in the Papyrus.

With all thy Satyrs on our incense shine, Daemons wild-form'd, and bless the rites divine. (Orphic Hymns, LIV)

 

Thus, from the worship of Satyrs, to the initial understanding of esoteric philosophy, these mystical teachings are all pointing to the same kind of fundamental elements—which is foundational to Gnostic thought, and eventually, theistic Satanism.