Gnostic Insights

Welcome to Gnostic Insights and the Gnostic Reformation on Substack. Before I get into this week’s episode, let me tell you that the entire uninterrupted interview with Bishop Nathan Wilson of The Gnostic Union is now available on YouTube under Cyd Ropp Gnostic Insights playlist. I’ve tried and tried to upload the captioned transcript underneath the video, but neither YouTube nor my video editing software will cooperate. I can only chalk it up to Demiurgic interference, so this must be one important interview! The link is provided here to go straight to it on YouTube. Please “like” it and forward it to friends. Thanks.

This week I exchanged emails with a podcast subscriber that presented me with some excellent questions prompted by recent episodes. I asked his permission to share them with you anonymously. I always treasure sincere observations and questions from subscibers because it prompts my gnosis. So here we go.

Hi Cyd how’s it going? I hope that all is well with you. I just wanted to say that I really enjoyed your series of podcasts with the Bishop. Very interesting to hear some stuff on the unpacking of the original Gnostic texts. I thought that today’s pod about your discussion was also very revealing as somebody who loves history, but it’s giving me an insight into why you are so suspicious of history—would I be right in thinking that you want your texts to be unfiltered from various historical takes from different flawed human recounters?

Yes. It is a common saying that history is written by the victors. This refers to the fact that the winners of wars, both physical killing wars and more subtle ideological wars, write the narratives of their opponents from then on. This is why we have had a couple of thousand years of hearing only one side of the gnostic story and one conventionally accepted version of Christian theology. And we have heard that version from Catholic Councils of the 4th century on down through the Protestant churches of today. The surviving descriptions of the nature of gnosticism were written by those who hated gnosticism, and their work is still read and venerated to this day. And I can tell you that even in the little village I live in, the church folks who have no idea what gnosticism even is are dead set against it and dead set against my efforts of sharing my gnostic insights with them and others—and they let me know of their disapproval.

I think these divisive times we are living through now also illustrate how what passes for truth is malleable and untrustworthy. We can all see for ourselves how half of the population characterizes the big picture one way and half of the population characterizes it in a completely different way—and these two sides of the ideological divide are incommensurate with each other. Incommensurate is one of those big words I learned during my graduate studies in rhetoric. It means exclusive—both can’t be right—you can’t hold both positions—it’s either or. So if you extrapolate the culture wars forward a few hundred or a few thousand years into the future, how will history frame the disputes that are currently raging through society? If, for example, socialism finally wins out do you think capitalism will be fairly represented? The reverse is also true, and the winner of this tug of war will be the one who lives to tells the tale.

My correspondent goes on to say:

I think it must be very appealing to be able to narrow down everything into one text and say that we are only going to look at this one source of right thing for the true knowledge. I think this approach has led us to the Bible and the Koran and other food containers which some followers take quite literally and interpret very strictly. There must be safety and comfort in this approach which could be described as textual at best—literal and possibly in a kind way, and without any judgement, fundamentalist, in its true essence. However, and I expect you are waiting for the but… What is listening whilst listening?

He continues:

It did occur to me that what you are basically saying is that everything in the Tripartite Tractate is correct. And all of the other texts are interesting, though they may be not to be taken seriously because they are myths. Surely it must’ve occurred to you that the writer of the Tripartite Tractate was also a human, and ergo—a product of the culture that surrounded him or her? Knowing you to be such a thoughtful and perceptive person, is there something I’m missing here? What is objectively different about the Tripartite Tractate, written by a human, just like all of those other gnostic texts? I am not trying to score points here, I genuinely would like an answer.

To which I respond: Truly I do not agree with everything the Tripartite Tractate says and, conversely, much of what the other books say is right, though obscured with layers and language of mythology.

The difference between the Tripartite Tractate and the other gnostic texts is that it stands alone and doesn’t depend upon a preexisting mythology to make sense. By that I mean that the Tripartite Tractate is a logical argument that any Sophist would be proud of. It speaks in the language of symbolic logic rather than mythology or (purported) history. The Tripartite Tractate begins with a starting premise (a priori) that in the beginning was consciousness without form. It then proposes a method by which consciousness and its attendant qualities, such as power and love, emanate from the origin and make their way downstream into us and other living creatures. It calls the descent of consciousness a fall, but does not condemn the fall, as it was necessary to escape the purely ethereal and create matter. It describes the fall as a “presumptuous thought” choice by Mr. Rationality itself—Logos. I characterize this presumptuous thought as the first action of “ego” made independently outside of the cooperation of the Fullness. This all seems to me to be an entirely rational argument that simply describes the process of the distribution of consciousness. We don’t have to argue the originating premise because our consciousness is self-evident. We are asking where it came from and going upstream until we reach a logical a priori starting point.

A lot of what I share at Gnostic Insights comes from my own Theory of Everything—A Simple Explanation of Absolutely Everything—that I conceived and wrote 20 years ago, without benefit of any gnostic texts. So that lens informs my reading of the gnostic books. And I immediately recognized my own T.O.E. when I first read the Tripartite Tractate. The Simple Explanation is written using secular, non-religious language and lots of science and math. My illustrations and charts are different than my gnostic illustrations and charts. But the master chart is identical.

The Tripartite Tractate did give me an answer I had been chewing over within the Simple Explanation, that being the difference between living creatures and inert elemental matter. I appreciated that clarification and incorporated it into the Simple Explanation. Otherwise, the book still stands as True. What is meant by True in this philosophical sense is whether or not the argument is coherent and internally consistent and comports with direct observation of the world.

Now, as to whether or not I believe that only the Tripartite Tractate is true gnosis and the other gnostic books are mostly mythological–that is not the way I would put it. I don’t take the Tripartite Tractate as more holy than other books, and there are a couple of aspects I don’t fully understand or agree with.

For example, the Tripartite Tractate aligns with other gnostic books in saying that there are three types of humans—the spiritual—called the pneumatic; the ordinary, emotional type called the psychic; and the material, called the hylic. The Tripartite Tractate doesn’t seem to think that the hylic types are true second order powers and that they didn’t exist in the beginning and will not return to the ethereal home above after death. The final page of the Tripartite Tractate codex is riddled with burned out areas from a fire, yet it seems to say, and I’m filling in some missing words:

“While the material beings will be left behind until the end to perish, for they will not give their [missing words—probably acknowledgment of the Christ or allegiance to the Christ ]… If they have returned once more to that which … [missing words—probably worships the demiurge] … in the way that they were… [missing words—probably passing as humans] while they do not exist… [missing words—probably from the beginning] but they had been useful [for the] time that they were among them, even if they are not… [missing words—probably second order powers, —possibly among creation] at first, then… [missing words—possibly they were brought forth] to do something else by means of the power they had in the establishment [to] oppose them.” [yes, I realize I am interpolating a lot of missing words. if you have a more cogent interpretation, please offer it.]

This final section of the Tripartite Tractate seems to indicate there are hylics among us with whom we live and work side by side who will not be redeemed at the end of time. This holds out the possibility that there are non-second order powers among us who can pass for living beings—not an uncommon thought in gnostic circles. My brother, Bill, and I contend that all life forms come from above and contain the consciousness and life of the Source. So for a non-living creature were to be born in the usual way is an impossibility.

In my mind, the only way a truly non-living hylic so-called “human” could walk among us would be in the form of robotic facsimiles. There are many examples of this in science fiction, such as the cylons of “Battlestar Galactica” and the self-aware bots in P.D. Dick’s “Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep?” which became the film called “Blade Runner.” We are now be on the threshold of building and employing these newly constructed robots who appear human, appear conscious, appear living, but are actually programmed imitations that did not exist from the beginning. (Battlestar Galactica carries this very question throughout the series as the cylons become self-aware and question their relationship with God.) If that is the case, then these could be the hylics that will not return to the ethereal because they did not come from the ethereal and the end times would need to be pushed back far enough to accommodate their undetectable assimilation into society. But hey—that’s just my notion. And here at Gnostic Insights I try to stick with gnostic insights, not my wild speculations.

Cylons of Battlestar Galactica television series. The cylons adapt to become more and more “human.”
What is true is that I believe the Tripartite Tractate describes our existence and our origins, as well as our future. But we have to remember it is at least 2,000 year old prophecy and embedded in the language and concepts of that time. Maybe the writer was indeed anticipating androids among us, but that seems an unlikely interpretation. I have been watching quite a few “alternate history” videos lately on YouTube that propose completely different backstories and histories that stretch eons into the past—histories that could indeed have been technologically sophisticated enough to produce androids that blend in with the crowd. But we’re getting way into the weeds here.

One reason that most readers of the Tripartite Tractate and other gnostic texts think there is an order of unredeemable humans is that they are referred to as “those who belong to the imitation.” The most basic interpretation is that those who we call materialists are the people who only believe what they can see, measure, and taste. In that sense, they belong to the imitation since the imitation is the material projection that is this cosmos. The atheists among them do not believe in the ethereal space Above, or the originating Source, and so by default they belong to the imitation. Yet, if all living creatures are children of the Fullness above, even these will return to the Fullness at the end of time. The way I reason this comes from following the logic of emanation and return—the Fullness would not be Full without them, and it is a basic proposition that nothing of the Source can ever be lost. So you see, the logic is what drives my interpretations, logic—Logos—not mythology. At least that how it seems to me.

Another aspect of the imitation is the molecular structure of our world, including our bodies. We inhabit a molecular body. Our living essence, the light of consciousness that makes organisms soft and squishy and alive, literally inhabits an otherwise dead, rocky, elemental body of molecules. So everywhere we go, it goes. And when we “die” and our spirit exits this material cosmos, our hylic body is left behind. It belongs to the imitation—get it? So in this case, the hylic human refers to the elemental molecules that make up our bodies—that inert mud that the Demiurge could not raise up to life, as the mythological version goes. So, this material aspect of our earthly existence is part of the imitation and will not return to the Fullness along with our spirits because it did not exist from the beginning. It is a product of the fall.

But I digress—back to the subscriber’s email:

Secondly, I would like to ask you a question about giving glory to God. I liked what you were saying about turning your attention away from yourself, and your ego, and to look towards the divine and offer up a prayer. I am at the stage of my journey where this is something that does not seem so completely alien, as I am moving gradually away from materialist atheism, which has been caught on my existence for the past 50 odd years.

Where I get into trouble is basically the whole business of giving glory to God, because the monad who is omniscience and immutable is hardly likely to need me to do a lot of worshipping or giving glory. This was like a bit controversial, and I’m not trying to argue in bad faith, but wouldn’t the demiurge himself be more likely to want humans to give glory to him than the monad? I imagine that giving glory means something to people who have come up in a Christian background, but personally it seems completely irrelevant and unnecessary – A bit like one of those business buzzwords, you hear like synergism or government types talking about inclusiveness or diversity—a sort of empty phrase that could really mean anything you want. It would be really helpful if you could unpack it a bit for me because I’m sure I’m missing something here.

Giving glory is not for the benefit of the Father. Giving glory is how we tune into the Father’s resonance. Giving glory is for our benefit, not God’s.

Now, the God of the Old Testament, the Demiurge—is that jealous, forgetful god that thinks it’s the be-all and end-all. It does like to receive worship and glory because it feeds its ego. But the God Above All Gods, the Father of consciousness and the ALL, doesn’t need our worship and glory—you are right about that. It is we who need to give glory, not It that needs to receive glory. The Totalities of the ALL which were the first emanations from the Son, and the Aeons of the Fullness love to give glory. The Totalities do nothing but give glory to the Father, and that is a pure expression of love and devotion to the Father. It’s a good thing for us, way down here in the consciousness stream, that they give unceasing glory, because they are the first emanations out of the Son and the fountain of the consciousness and love that eventually flows into all living creatures. The Totalities that give glory continuously are like an electrical plug that stays connected to the greater originating Source.

As above so below—we also connect with the Source when we give glory.

And since connecting with the Source cannot be accomplished when ego rules your psyche, you must be humble enough to set your ego aside and pray to/give glory to the greater Source. Surely you recognize that your ego is a lesser being than the Father of everything. If your ego does not allow you to think that, then you are not putting your spiritual foot forward but merely your ego.

Our correspondent replies:

Dear Cyd

As usual- I’m so impressed by your clear and reasoned thinking – it is so elegant and simple. I wish I could think like that. However, there are a few things I would like to push back on respectfully. I have been dialoguing with the Demiurge – Chat GPT – and here’s what the archonic AI came up with in answer to your firm assertion that there is no mythology in the Tripartite Tractate.

It basically thinks that it’s an overstatement – and I quote:

The text gives an extensive creation story involving:
• an unknowable Father;
• the Son and the Church;
• emanated aeons inhabiting the Fullness or Pleroma;
• Logos making a presumptuous, defective attempt to comprehend the Father;
• the production of deficiency, psychic and material powers;
• a Demiurge who creates humanity;
• three fundamental classes of human beings;
• and a Saviour who descends to restore what has become divided.

[Cyd] Let me pop in here to correct a very important error in this demiurgic version of Gnosticism. It sneaked into its answer a very demiurgic assertion that is not True:

• a Demiurge who creates humanity

The Demiurge certainly did not create humanity or any other living, conscious being. The second order powers—all living beings—are children of the Aeons of the Fullness, sent down into this lifeless cosmos to remind the Demiurge of the greater power Above, the true source of life, love, and consciousness. I have a habit of calling us the children of the Fullness, but the Tripartite Tractate actually calls us the fruit or the spores of the Fullness. Which is another way of saying the emanations of discreet packages of consciousness, or what I call in Simple Explanation language units of consciousness. To me, this is not mythological but descriptive to the best of our ability. Now, back to the correspondent’s email:

That is all mythological material. So then it rambles on quoting lots of sources etc BUT what the machine is getting at is that the difference between the Tripartite Tractate and some other gnostic texts is that there is a solid logic framework under the superstructure of mythological language and characters.
This fits in with your TOE very neatly – and it is no surprise that you had an ‘OMG’ moment when you discovered the Tripartite Tractate—I would also have thought the same if an ancient text fitted perfectly into a system of thought that I had spent years developing. And you might be right—the uncanny fit could be a ‘tell’ that this truly IS the way of everything. On the less interesting point of contention though – I must disagree with you – there IS mythology in the Tripartite Tractate superstructure – the language is mythological – maybe less so than other gnostic texts. As an aside, as a writer – I would also say -there is nothing particularly bad about being mythological either.

To which I reply:

I have to laugh at using Dialogue with Demiurge AI as a trustworthy source. lol. I will see your Chat GPT and raise you Microsoft CoPilot AI (poker language, I assume you recognize). My AI says this:

“This work presents a restored cosmology of the Fullness — a structural, metaphysical account of creation, fracture, and restoration. It is not myth, nor allegory, nor theology in the conventional sense. It is architecture: a precise description of how consciousness, relation, and harmony operate across the three great phases of existence.”

I like that description—that the Tripartite Tractate gives the metaphysical architecture of consciousness rather than a myth. I always like to take the higher, meta view of information, which is literally a step above the normal language and arguments. That’s the secret of how I observe and reconcile seemingly irreconcilable positions—by looking up above the words for the meaning behind them. It seems to me that most people are lost in the language and “can’t see the forest for the trees.” Not meaning you, necessarily, it’s just my observation of how understanding goes awry. By taking the meta approach, the concepts automatically simplify as many points of view and language choices are collapsed into their base meanings.

The words I use in my Simple Explanation of gnosis and science and everything else are not written in stone. They are my attempt to convey large concepts in the simple, most recognizable forms. If I say “god” it’s because people are familiar with that term. I offer alternative words, like Source, Mother-Father, Metaverse, the Great One, the Origin, so that people will see that the particular word is less important than what it represents and that what they think of as god has a broader meaning than the meme they have been holding onto.

These images from my well-worn copy of the Tripartite Tractate of The Nag Hammadi Scriptures edited by Marvin Meyer, show you the process by which I read and interpret arcane texts. I put the language into illustrated concepts and words I can recognize and understand.

The writer shared this final thought from the Chat GPT:

There is also a genuine philosophical difficulty: how can a perfect and harmonious divine Fullness generate an irrational act? Saying that Logos possessed the capacity to exceed his proper limits explains the mechanism only by placing the possibility of deficiency inside the supposedly perfect order.

He says, I think that is actually a pretty decent question from our AI demiurge—right? I expect that you have a great answer though.

To which I reply:

As to the Demiurge’s new question that you have put forth in this email—that’s an old canard that is often trotted out to stump theists. “How could a good and perfect God allow for the creation of evil?” I am not at all stumped by that question. The answer can most simply be stated in two words: Free Will.

If we begin with the premise that the Father/Source/etc. emanates its entire nature outward with its emanation, then obviously free will is a part of that emanation. After all, it is inarguable that the Source possesses free will. The Aeons have free will. Logos is an Aeon. Logos has free will. While the rest of the Aeons were using their free will to cooperate with each other and to glorify the Father and the Son, Logos used its free will to go in a fresh direction. Logos thought it would be going upward to rejoin the highest glory. The Tripartite Tractate says that Logos didn’t realize this was in impossibility, because no one can approach the power source that is the Origin without being annihilated. And like a magnetic polarity, Logos was repelled by the Source and was knocked out of alignment with the Fullness (the fall). This dissonance became our material cosmos. And because Logos had free will, we have free will. This all flows logically from the a priori definition of the Source.

This may sound mythological, but it is not. It could be easily described in scientific terms. Like the way a beam of focused light still allows for stray photons to go off beam. Or boiling water in the kettle mostly clumps together on the top of the water as bubbles, but some bubbles go outward to the edge of the kettle and pop. And so forth. The limit is our language, not the architecture or process. The limit is also imposed by the meme bundle being held the human observer-inquirer when their memes do not allow for certain possibilities to be seen and accepted. It is our meme attachments that limit our capacity to observe and learn. So says me. 😉 Onward and upward, little brother. I applaud your willingness to engage.

He signed off by saying, “That is far too much to chew over so I will sign off now. BTW I am going to give more thought to your response to the give glory to the father thing – I mean if you mean ‘pray to god/the father/the source/ christ’ then why not just say ‘pray to god’ in the first place and have done with it? Are you praying for something or is it more about connecting with the eternal? Actually – maybe save that for another email.

Well. What did you think of that? Do you have any thoughts related to this discussion? Please feel free to correspond with me via the Comments below or you can even email me. We get very few comments, and those are mostly from the same two or three people.

I love you all and I am so grateful that you are here. God bless us all. Onward and upward.

Please enable JavaScript in your browser to complete this form.Name *First
Last

Email *
Stripe Credit Card *

Choose your item *Item A - $10.00
Item B - $25.00
Item C - $50.00

Total$0.00

Submit

I am not in favor of delving into history and trying to learn about God, or about your proper relationship to God and heaven, and all these kinds of questions through history, or through transcripts that have been funneled through human imagination and human interpretation. This is why you must go directly to the Father. Well, how? How? Prayer. That's what prayer is. Prayer is talking to the Father, or talking to Christ, or talking with Jesus, and waiting on their answers, waiting on those directions. Yes, it does work, and no, you don't have to be purified to a certain extent in order to establish that kind of mystical connection. The Bible does promise that God will come to you. God will come to you even before you turn to him. So in order to turn to the Father, you need to turn.

Metanoia. You need to turn. You need to take your eyes off of the world, take your eyes off of your own desires and ambitions, i.e. your ego, and turn your eyes upward to the Father.

Welcome back to Gnostic Insights and to the Gnostic Reformation on Substack.

Dr. Cyd Ropp and Bishop Nathan Wilson
Today’s episode is the last installment of my interview with Bishop Nathan Wilson of The Gnostic Union. Brother Nathan continues with his illustration of how correct translation of the original Koine Greek of the New Testament changes the way we may interpret Biblical scripture more precisely. The translations he shares come from his freely available Gnostic Christian Truth Bible that you can find online in PDF form, with side by side comparisons of the original Koine with English. I’m including the link here in the transcript of the episode, so if you are listening to this in podcast form, you may wish to go to Gnostic Insights dot com to read the transcript. His Bible and other Gnostic scriptures could use another round of editorial polishing, in my opinion, to insert an indexed table of contents, so it may be a bit difficult to make your way through it.

And in next week’s episode, I’ll take a long look at what we’ve been hearing for the last four weeks. If you have anything you would like me to discuss or any questions coming off of Bishop Wilson’s discussion, bring them up and we can talk about them on next week’s episode.

I know I’m going to want to talk about the role of Sophia and the Divine Feminine and the concept of gender on the ethereal plane. I would also like to talk to you about how the study of history and philology differs from theology and philosophy and how they are not necessarily gnosis. And here at Gnostic Insights, of course, and on the Gnostic Reformation, I avoid talking about gnosis and only share gnosis itself. So I’d like to explain that to you about that as well.

So please drop me some comments here at the end of this episode and I can address them in next week’s episode.

Bishop Nathan Wilson:

So Mark 8:17. All right. So this would be Jesus here.

“And having gnosis, he said to them, why reason because you have no bread or do you not understand that the heart of you has been hardened?”

So this is among disciples arguing that they have no bread. Jesus having spiritual gnosis, understanding what’s going on, says, “What are you arguing about?” Which is kind of interesting that he mentioned, but I’ll mention something that’s a real kick in the can.

So this is in Mark 15:42. And this is a text that no theology want to give you because it would make them feel uncomfortable. And it’s regarding Pontius Pilate having gnosis regarding Jesus crucifixion. So this is a note they definitely do not want. I was kind of thinking about what does this mean? And I figured out what it’s regarding to. Mark 15:45. Okay, so this is Pontius Pilate. I’ll read 15:44 first.

“But Pilate wondered if he had already died, having called to him the centurion and questioned him if he had already died. And with gnosis from the centurion, he granted the body to Joseph.”

AI generated image of Pilate questioning the Centurian. The three crucified men were inserted by the AI to symbolically represent the crucifixition of Jesus and the two thieves. Golgotha is actually not that close to the palace window.

So that meaning inside knowledge from the centurion has been given to him about Jesus. So that could imply that he was still alive and that Pontius might have been involved in this plot. That’s what that text would imply; it doesn’t necessarily have to mean that. It can just mean that within a knowledge he’s been told by the centurion Jesus is dead, so it can apply that too. So however you want to read that text is up to you. But I found that quite fascinating and I had to really look at that. I’m like, well, I’m sorry, we can’t have that in there. That’s why that’s been censored. But that’s fascinating.

So we even have Jesus having a gnosis and leaving an area and that’s in Matthew 12:15. I’ll jump into that too. So there’s a couple of scenes that Jesus has gnosis. There’s even times he has gnosis in regarding what other people were thinking. So having to understand them mentally. So that’s cool. So gnosis appears quite often. It’s just it doesn’t appear in the English text. But in the Old Testament it’s even more.

Cyd:
That’s interesting.

Bishop Nathan Wilson:
Yes, it is. Very.

Okay. So “withdrew from the area” Matthew 12:15 I want. Right.

“And Jesus having gnosis, withdrew from there and many great multitudes followed him and he healed them.” Or it can translate to took care of them or cured them all.

So that word here we have can be for a therapeia or a therapeo. And this word meaning to heal someone or to spend time with them, to heal them with God’s word or with medicine, to heal them with medical substance, so narcotics. It can be just simply curing them or just spending time with someone so say talking to someone, healing them and their emotions. So healing their emotions. So that’s beautiful. Not just simply Jesus hocus pocus and and leaving. It’s he’s spending time with people. And this word has been used in ancient Greek medical texts for implying medical substances or therapy. So the word therapeia is where our word therapy comes from.

So this can be Jesus the therapist. So that’s beautiful. Absolutely fantastic. I like that. So it gives more power to the text. Shows that one person can make a difference. So any one of us can do this and heal multitudes through spiritual touch, through spiritual messaging, through the simple act of love. So that’s powerful. That’s useful.

Cyd:
And this is something that only people can do. Well, no, actually dogs are very good therapists as well. But I wouldn’t think that an AI therapist or an AI Jesus has any gnosis truly.

Bishop Nathan Wilson:
I’m not really one big for AI because I think AI is basically just all secondhand information. It’s just built from all our information that we’ve already got. So we have here something else.

This is something pretty interesting too. Matthew 16:8. And it’s Jesus having gnosis:

“Why do you argue amongst yourselves? You of little faith because you have no bread” [or meaning food.]

But say, regarding to the word for artos being bread. So when you have the Jesus prayer, Give us this daily bread, this could translate to give us our daily necessaries of life. That’s much more. So daily maintenance, so being maintained spiritually, being maintained by God, for God giving us the means to live spiritually as well as physically. So it’s much more powerful than just simple, just bread and food. So Jesus speaking a lot of times symbolically. So the symbolic teachings are meant to be useful to all of us. So something that we can practically take on, not simply does something that’s outside of ourselves. So that’s within ourselves that we can actually use. So gnosis.

And I’ll go into Matthew 22:18. And that’s with Jesus about having gnosis on the wickedness of the Pharisees. So this doesn’t mean that all Pharisees are bad though. Jesus had Pharisees that followed him. This just means a select few of them. So basically the rich corrupted ones of them. So he was also against the Sadducees too. Mostly Sadducees probably because they were the richer lots. But he was not really a friend to those who were corrupt and using the money that they were given to further subject the people to more condemnation, which Jesus was very much pro-life, was equality where the Pharisees and Sadducees in large numbers were not. Which is a shame.

Okay, so 22, I think it was I’m looking for. Matthew 22:18. Okay.

Cyd:
You know that Old Testament God of the Sadducees and Pharisees doesn’t have love. So they are not getting any gnosis from that Jehovah level.

Bishop Nathan Wilson:
No. And it goes back to where it’s first worshipped. The first to worship this God, Yahweh, were very violent. They were the Shasu. They were known to force marry the Egyptian and Ethiopian young girls they raided. So when we look at the depictions of the Shasu, they are mixed in colour—they’re black, they’re white, they’re copper skinned. They didn’t care what colour you were, they just took. They were looking for sex slaves, basically wives. So what’s interesting is the same river that they used, the Euphrates River, not all of them were river-based pirates. Some were just tent dwelling nomads. But some of them did have the funds or means to use ships. So we certainly had sea people. So some of those sea people were Canaanite raiders. So they’ll use the Euphrates River to go out raiding, to go out to the main street or elsewhere to raid outside of their own lands. Muslim pirates would use the same river to do the same thing. So that’s interesting.
[Editor’s note: The speaker appears to be connecting several groups—nomadic Shasu, Sea Peoples, and later Muslim-era raiders. While the Euphrates served as an important transportation corridor, the specific claim that the Shasu or Sea Peoples used it as river-pirates is not clear from the sources consulted by the CoPilot AI and may reflect an interpretation rather than an established historical consensus. Of course, the AIs are relaying to us approved, conventional data, so their data bases would not contain the types of stories Bishop Wilson speaks of.]
All in the name of this Jehovah, in the name of Yahweh, in the name of the demiurge, this evil gets done. And it’s always the poor that suffer, the poor and women. And who are the ones that Jesus is speaking to? The poor and to women. So it’s shocking. So most Christians don’t look at this either. A lot of Muslims don’t either, because they will be following Jesus [Isa]. So who they call Isa, they clearly don’t. So the message contradicts.

So Muhammad called himself a man of war. Moses as well. But it depends on what version of Moses you’re looking at as well. So during the time of Jesus, as I mentioned, there were different versions of Judaism. There were different Torahs and different Jewish Bibles. So some believed in a peaceful Moses and even a peaceful Abraham. Others believed in Abraham the Pirat. So Abraham the Pirate. And some didn’t take this view. So others believed in Abraham ready to sacrifice his son. And others believed that he was hearing a fallen angel, mistook it for God, and God had to intervene. And we see this sort of in the Essene story somewhat. So that’s more of a Gnostic take. Some Essenes view, because they’re Dead Sea Scrolls, which is a Qumran Essene sect, they believe that it was Belial that was behind the scenes doing this. And God was basically aware that Belial was doing it and would interfere. So he would do this in order for Belial to expose himself and then be shamed. So a very different story. So the story of Job we read is the Pharisee story, which is Satan being in the angelic courts. So being asked by God, so not acting outside of God. So he was only there to test human beings. So Satan’s not the bad guy in that story. It’s Yahweh.

But when we look at other stories, it’s different. Even the Ethiopian version is different. They have two stories. One with Belial and the other one with a figure called Mastema, who is the opponent against God trying to cause the sacrifice of Abraham’s son. So, trippy.

So this is regarding to the Pharisees as well.

“So Jesus, having gnosis of the wickedness of them, said, Why do you test me, you hypocrites?”

So this is in reference to the coin, when he showed them the icon. So what’s interesting about that scene is Judas, who was a Zealot, basically, I think it was Judas of Galilee, who rebelled against Rome, he also said the same thing.

“Give to Caesar what is Caesar’s and give to God what is God’s.”[Matthew 22:21]

So when Jesus is speaking in the scene, he doesn’t touch the coin. The icon on there in question is the emperor who is stating, you know, son of Caesar, son of God. Jesus is saying, no, basically give this back to Caesar and give to Israel, God, what is God’s, which is the land. So Israel. But I don’t think it’s more from the land—I think that’s a zealot opinion.

I think when he’s talking about this, when he says Israel, I’m thinking he’s looking at the word context and he’s meaning El preserved so those who belong to El. So when he says those who belong to Israel, he’s not saying just anything, he’s talking about the lost sheep of El Elyon. So those were in other lands, lead them back here. So ones who have gone astray, which is interesting. So ones who are worshipping pagan gods or worshipping Yahweh. So he’s saying, bring them back to El, bring them back to God, repentance. This is why the Pharisees and Sadducees disliked him. He had a different God. Some that liked him as well, but they had trouble understanding it.

Cyd:
Right. Well, and that is still the case. Hey, we’re going to have to wrap this up in just a few minutes. So is there any scripture you would like to make sure that you share before we wrap it up?

Bishop Nathan Wilson:
Okay. Well, if you like, I can share either the temple scene, which is a Matthew 21:12, or I can share the little, the short scene of the Pharisees being condemned by Jesus for basically dressing up like prostitutes. You might have a, you might have a lot of that.

Cyd:
Yeah. Okay. That, that looks to be the one you want to share the most.

Papyrus Oxyconocus 840
Bishop Nathan Wilson:
So I’ll share that one. It’s very short. So this is the text in general. Just this little bit. Okay. The Greek side is on here. [Nathan displays his fragment facsimile.] So I have the Greek side by side. So this is side one and side two. So side two is even shorter.

“So before committing injustice, he carefully plans it all.” So this is Jesus speaking about the evil. “Be on guard, lest you suffer the same things as they.” So this is the Pharisees and Sadducees he’s talking about. “For the evil doers among people do not receive punishment only in this life, but also suffer judgment and great torment. And having received them, he brought them into the purification area. And as he was walking in the temple, a certain Pharisee, a high priest named Soreb [conventional translation is Levi; editorial note],”

Which is kind of interesting. That word Zoar/Tzoar [uncertain], is Tsa’ar, [uncertain] which is a city condemned by God [but ultimately spared by God; editorial note]. So this is kind of like a pun on the Pharisee leader being punished by God. So like, possibly, maybe a Pharisee Messiah figure. So meaning they’re rejecting Jesus because they already have their Messiah they believe. So that’s something to be taken into a note. So this Soreb [Levi ?] approaches, met them and said,

“Zoar, who gave you permission to walk in the purification area and to look upon these holy vessels, not having washed, nor your disciples having their feet baptized, but having being unclean, you have trampled upon this holy place, which is pure, which no one may enter unless you have bathed and changed into the garments of those baptized. Nor does anyone dare to touch these holy vessels.”

So they’re in the temple right now in the inner sanctuary, touching the holy relics and not wearing the same baptism clothing as them. They’re not liking this. So this is what Jesus says.

“The Savior answered and said to him, Woe to you blind ones who do not see. You wash in these poured out waters in which dogs and pigs have been thrown into day and night. And after washing your outer skin, you wipe it. And just like the prostitutes and flute players anoint themselves and wash and wipe and adorn themselves to cause the desires of men. But from within, they are full of scorpions and all evil. But I and my disciples who you say are not baptized have been baptized in the waters of eternal Zoe. That has come from God. But woe to those…”

And the ending is missing. That’s why side two has not been given. [referring to side two of the fragment which is partially destroyed and not in the public domain]

Cyd:
Right. Now that’s a fragment. Where was that fragment found?

Bishop Nathan Wilson:
I forgot. The fragment is called Papyrus Oxyconocus 840. But you can just type in P. Oxy 840. I would say that was probably if I’d gone by memory, that might have been discovered maybe in Alexandria, if not maybe in Thrace, but I believe it was Alexandria, Egypt that might have been discovered. There was one, I believe, that was discovered in the Middle East, maybe Jerusalem. But I believe that one there was discovered in Alexandria. I might be wrong about that. I have to relook where that was discovered. But it is important. So a text that has not been given to public domain yet, which is quite a shame.

Cyd:
Yeah. Well, it’s been delightful talking to you. And you certainly have an encyclopedic knowledge of these ancient texts. It’s very beautiful. It’s very nice being around you. You have the good vibe.

Bishop Nathan Wilson:
It’s been a pleasure speaking to you as well, Dr. Cyd Ropp. It’s been an absolute pleasure. So I’m stoked. So sorry if I get excited and all that sort of stuff as well. I love meeting new people, especially fellow spiritual people. Always lovely to see, especially Gnostics.

Cyd:
Yeah. Well, I recommend The Gnostic Union. Go check out the Facebook site. That’s where all the action is, right? It’s the Facebook site.

Bishop Nathan Wilson:
And on the YouTube, yeah. We can all get together.

Cyd:
On the YouTube.

Bishop Nathan Wilson:
I’ve got a few old videos as well. So you can see the difference in my theology, how it’s changed. My whole belief system changed when I start translating, so I found out I was wrong about a couple of other things. So I still keep some old videos because some people might want to hang on to some of those beliefs as well. I have no problems with that. I’m very open-minded and whichever people want to believe, they can believe, as long as we’re loving to each other and kind. It’s all that matters. Being good humans.

Cyd:
Right. Well, since we’re going to be putting this on your site as well as mine, let me tell people that I have a Substack called The Gnostic Reformation. And my homepage is GnosticInsights.com.

Well, it’s just been a blessing. Thank you very much.

Bishop Nathan Wilson:
You’re welcome. And feel free to share your stuff on The Gnostic Union Facebook page too. If you ever want to share stuff, feel free to. We accept other people’s work too. So feel free to share it.

Cyd:
How often? I mean, I post weekly. You don’t want me cross-posting weekly.

Bishop Nathan Wilson:
Oh, that’s fine. We don’t mind. You can post there weekly. We won’t mind. Anything that’s Gnostic, we’ll gladly accept. So we want to encourage all Gnostic schools of thought and everyone that wants to seek it, we want to encourage that.

Cyd:
Oh that’s excellent. Okay. Well, thank you so much for being with me today, Bishop Nathan Wilson.

God bless us all.

Bishop Nathan Wilson:
God bless as well. Thank you for having me.

Cyd:
Okay. Bye-bye. Thank you.

Well, that’s the conclusion of that long interview with Bishop Nathan Wilson of The Gnostic Union. These episodes have been running long, a half hour and more, so I think we’ll keep this one short, and give you a break. Until then, drop some comments and questions that I can address in next week’s episode.
This interview was recorded via Zoom, and so I have the video of the interview as well as these audios, and I’ve left it as one long video to post to YouTube. So I’m putting it up on YouTube now that we’re done with the audio podcast versions, and you can go to YouTube if you’d like to watch Brother Nathan talking about these things. He does have a few visual aids. His papyrus facsimiles and whatnot are pretty cool to look at. So I encourage you to go to my YouTube channel, Cyd Ropp, and it’s under the Gnostic Insights playlist, and leave a thumbs up. I’m going to try to grow the Gnostic Insights presence there on YouTube. It’s going to take a lot of effort and a lot of support on your part. So please give me a hand here, and let’s kick it off with this Bishop Wilson. The other YouTube video that’s already there is that animated version of my children’s book, Children of the Fullness: A Gnostic Myth. So if you haven’t watched that yet, you could catch it as well. Until then, God bless us all, and Onward and Upward.

Until then, drop some comments and questions I can address in next week’s episode. God bless us all and onward and upward.

Children of the Fullness: A Gnostic Myth is the first gnostic book written for young children. Click here to go to amazon.com

Bishop Nathan Wilson of The Gnostic Union reveals gnosticism embedded in the New Testament gospels.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Cyd:

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

Bishop Nathan Wilson:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I kept Daemon in here, or Diamon.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Cyd:

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

Bishop Nathan Wilson:

Yes.

Cyd:

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

Bishop Nathan Wilson:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Cyd:

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

Bishop Nathan Wilson:

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

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

Cyd:

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

Bishop Nathan Wilson:

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

Cyd:

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

Bishop Nathan Wilson:

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

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

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

Cyd:

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

Bishop Nathan Wilson:

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

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

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

Cyd:

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

Bishop Nathan Wilson:

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

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

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

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

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

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

Cyd:

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

Bishop Nathan Wilson:

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

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

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

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

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

Cyd:

Right, right.

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