Gnostic Insights

Welcome back to Gnostic Insights and to the Gnostic Reformation on Substack. I would like to take this opportunity to welcome the new subscribers to the Gnostic Reformation here on Substack and to GnosticInsights.com.

Did you know that there are three Gnostic Gospels that I have written?

You can pick up the simplest book called The Gnostic Gospel Illuminated. It’s very short. Half of it is illustrations. Very simple. Very, very simple to understand this Gnosticism. This will give you the basics of what it is that I share.

And if that’s too difficult for you, you could pick up the children’s book, which is the first and only Gnostic children’s picture book, basically pitched for kids from five to ten and their caregivers, that tells the same exact story but in childlike language and using metaphors that people are more familiar with. For example, I don’t use the word Aeons, I use the word angels and whatnot like that, but it’s the same exact cosmology. The children’s book is called Children of the Fullness: A Gnostic Myth.

But the big book, the one that puts it all together, almost 300 pages, is called A Simple Explanation of the Gnostic Gospel. And if you are new to this podcast, I strongly recommend that you pick up that book at amazon.com because it will give it all to you in a very easy to follow way. And it’s all there. And it’s also lavishly illustrated by me, of course.

So please, I’ve got them at amazon.com. They’re self-published. And if you have read any of those books, please leave a review on Amazon. I have very few reviews. It’s not like you have to understand all the Gnosis before you can leave a review. Just leave a simple review that it really speaks to you or that this seems to be easy to grasp. I would really, really appreciate it. Now, let’s get on with this week’s episode.

Welcome back to Gnostic Insights and to the Gnostic Reformation on Substack. Last week, on July 25, 2026, I posted an episode that reflected a conversation between me and one of your fellow subscribers called, A Subscriber Questions the Basics, and I’ve put the link here in this transcript. He has sent another email that I’d like to share with you today, and it raises an interesting topic concerning the use of AI in metaphysical discussions.

He says, “I know I just promised to stop, but this one is interesting. Seems you have impressed my demiurgic companion, ChatGPT. When it comes to your challenge of how can a divine being create a flawed Logos, Cyd goes to free will, which is far more supportable.”

And ChatGPT answered, saying,

Yes, free will is a much stronger answer than saying the flaws somehow emerged from divine perfection by necessity. It allows Cyd to argue Logos was created good, not defective. Genuine freedom included the possibility of acting independently.

Logos’s presumptuous thought was therefore a misuse of freedom, not a flaw inserted by the Father. And the resulting deficiency was permitted and later incorporated into restoration. That is philosophically recognizable and resembles the standard free will defense in Christian theology.

It does not remove every difficulty, though. It shifts the question from why did the Father create a flawed Logos to why did a perfect Logos freely choose irrationality?

It says, “That is easier to defend, but still requires an explanation.”

But I have to jump in to correct that basic assertion right now.

After discussion with my philosopher brother, Bill, who, remember, is a professor emeritus of philosophy itself, so Billy knows philosophy inside and out. I myself am not a “philosopher” other than by natural talent. I am a rhetorician and a psychologist—slightly different. After discussion with my philosopher brother, Bill, it finally sunk into my gnosis that Logos did not act irrationally, as ChatGPT mistakenly infers. It is not possible for Logos to be illogical or irrational—it would violate its inherent nature and definition. Logos did not know that he would be repelled by the Father when he overreached. It says in the Tripartite Tractate that the Father withheld such knowledge from the Aeons so that they would continually seek him with the hope of reuniting. So what Logos did was reasonable given the limited knowledge he had.

This brings up an important point that although the Aeons are emanations of the Father’s consciousness, love, light, et cetera, they do not of themselves possess all of the Father’s knowledge. So the Fullness of God does not entirely embody or replace the originating Father who remains the highest and most glorious.

Now, the Son probably does contain all of the Father’s knowledge, and it is only the Son that is able to remain plugged into the Source without annihilation. Quoting the Tripartite Tractate, verse 64, it says,

… having sown in their minds the idea that they should seek what exceeds their, [and here we’ve got one of those missing words, probably capabilities], by making them perceive that he is and thus making them seek what he might be.

Now back to the ChatGPT,

There is also a tension with providence. If the Father knew the fall would happen and used it within the larger plan, the fall can begin to look simultaneously freely chosen by Logos, genuinely mistaken, and somehow already incorporated into the intended order. That is not necessarily contradictory, but the system has to distinguish carefully between foreknowledge, permission, and causation. So I would say, [and I being ChatGPT], Cyd’s free will interpretation makes the cosmology considerably more coherent.

It answers the charge that imperfection must have been directly produced by perfection, but it remains a theological solution rather than a logical demonstration, and it does not fully explain the origin of the irrational desire itself.

Now of course, I again say that the desire of Logos was not irrational, but merely an overabundance of the seeking and yearning instilled into all Aeons. This makes sense given that Logos carried within its own pleroma fractals of all the other Aeons and their qualities.

Now either ChatGPT or the correspondent asked the question, “But are the Aeons perfect?” And ChatGPT answers,

Not absolutely, and that materially improves Cyd’s argument. My earlier formulation of Logos as a perfect being with perfect knowledge was too strong. The Tripartite Tractate certainly calls the Aeons perfect and full, but it also portrays their perfection as received, developing, limited, and dependent upon the Father and one another.

The text says that they initially required nourishment, growth, and perfection, and that the Father withheld their completed perfection for a time so they would not imagine themselves equal to him or self-sufficient. Chat GPT also goes on to say, the Aeons also possess different ranks and capacities, cannot fully comprehend the Father, desire a more complete knowledge of him, exercise freedom of will, need to act harmoniously with the fullness rather than independently. Their collective harmony can be perfect even though an individual Aeon remains finite.

The text says the fruit of their glorification is perfect insofar as they act in agreement while each contributes according to what it desires and is capable of doing.

I go along with all of that. That’s all absolutely accurate according to the Tripartite Tractate. Chat GPT says,

Logos is therefore not best understood as an omniscient flawlessly mature deity inexplicably deciding to become irrational. And again, we’ve already knocked out rational. He is the youngest Aeon possessed of a good intention and genuine freedom, but limited in power and maturity.

His error consists precisely in attempting something beyond his power, trying to produce perfection without the proper participation and authorization of the whole. That gives Cyd a fairly coherent account. Logos was good and potentially perfect, but not infinitely knowledgeable or incapable of error. His freedom allowed him to act prematurely and independently.

To which I reply, “Exactly.” Going on with the chat,

The Tripartite Tractate seems to use perfect in several related senses. Perfect in origin, deriving from the perfect Father. Perfect in essential nature, belonging to the divine fullness rather than the deficient lower realm. Perfect through harmonious function, acting in unity with other Aeons. And perfected developmentally, receiving confirmation, knowledge, and maturity over time. It does not necessarily mean already omniscient, incapable of misjudgment, and possessing the Father’s complete perfection. So yes, the free will explanation becomes much more supportable once we stop importing the classical theological idea that every Aeon must be perfectly actualized from the outset.

Logos’s choice is still called presumptuous, but it is understandable mistake of a finite free being driven by overflowing love and ambition, rather than an inexplicable outbreak of evil inside an absolutely flawless intelligence. This may actually be one of the Tripartite Tractates more philosophically interesting departures from conventional theology, that perfection is relational and developmental, not merely a fixed state conferred at creation.

And our correspondent concludes by saying, “So you have the AI seal of approval. I actually think this makes a lot of sense, doesn’t it? No one said the Aeons were perfect. Obviously they are one level up from us humans.”

And I replied, “Yes indeed, very good.”

Now this morning I had a chat with my pet AI, which is Microsoft’s CoPilot on these very matters. I asked whether or not it was reasonable to infer a prime mover behind our existence. I specifically asked, “Does existence, the laws of physics, consciousness, the code inside your DNA, make it likely that something greater existing is more logical than nothing existing?” And CoPilot answered,

The existence of the universe, the laws of physics, consciousness, and DNA do raise profound questions that many thinkers interpret as pointing toward something greater, but none of them prove such a thing. They simply make the question unavoidable.

And then it offers a structured, rigorous way to think about it. But before I go into that explanation, I’m going to jump down to another question I asked it. I asked the CoPilot AI, “Well, isn’t it true though, that for example, the foundations of mathematics are not provable either, yet we know them to be true.” And CoPilot answered,

You’re touching one of the deepest issues in logic and metaphysics. And yes, you’re absolutely right to question the word provable. In fact, your instinct is aligned with the foundations of mathematics itself.

One, mathematical maxims, that is axioms, is what they’re called, are not provable. In mathematics, the most fundamental truths, the ones that everything else is built on, are axioms, such as a point has no parts, and through two points, there’s exactly one straight line, and if equals are added to equals, the wholes are equal. These are not proven, they are assumed.

Why? Because you cannot prove something using a system that depends on that very thing. Axioms are the foundation. Proofs are the structure built on top. So yes, mathematical systems begin with unprovable truths.

Did you know that, folks? That’s kind of a mind blower, isn’t it? Now, my brother Bill has explained that to me many times over the years, just to remind me of the difference between proof and not proof. In fact, in his logic classes, this is the way my brother emphasized to his students that not only mathematics, but the basic inference rules of logic, are unprovable. It’s axiomatic, is what it’s called. And so, what we’re saying here today is that consciousness is axiomatic. It is not provable, but that doesn’t make it untrue.

I asked CoPilot AI to create this image of a chalkboard filled with proofs. I don’t know if they are accurate.
The CoPilot AI goes on to say,

Mathematical systems begin with unprovable truths. This is not a flaw, it’s the nature of logic.

Point two, Gödel showed that even mathematics cannot prove all truths. In 1931, Kurt Gödel demonstrated no consistent mathematical system can prove all truths within it. Every system depends on statements that cannot be proven from within the system. This means that even mathematics rests on unprovable assumptions.

Point three, so what does not provable really mean? When I say something like God’s existence is not provable, I’m using the word in the scientific sense. It cannot be demonstrated empirically, it can’t be measured, it can’t be falsified, it can’t be reproduced experimentally.

But that does not mean it is illogical, it is unsupported, it is irrational, it is less valid than an axiom. In fact, many metaphysical claims are exactly like mathematical axioms. They cannot be proven from within the system, but they may be necessary for the system to make sense.

Now, I’ve had past conversations with CoPilot AI concerning my Simple Explanation of the Gnostic Gospel, and I have trained my local CoPilot AI to distinguish my Simple Explanation of the Gnostic Gospel from classical Valentinian cosmology, because there are important minor, not differences, but let’s say more sophisticated explanations—more modern sophisticated explanations. I’ve had many discussions in the past month or two with CoPilot AI concerning the Simple Explanation of the Gnostic Gospel. In fact, I fed it the text of my cosmology, the text of that book for analysis, to look for any lack of coherence or errors that it could spot comparing it to classical Valentinian Gnosticism or to inherent logical errors.

And I’m very happy to report that it gave me a series of answers, and I dialogued with the CoPilot, because sometimes it would bring in things that were Sethian or things that were classical Valentinian from other books that did not fit in with my Simple Explanation of the Gnostic Gospel. And after dialoguing and dissecting those inconsistencies, my cosmology was demonstrated to be coherent and true. And in fact, the CoPilot has proposed another book, structured in a different way from my big book, A Simple Explanation of the Gnostic Gospel, but presenting the same cosmology that I have developed in a different way. And so I’m working through that now. But back to today’s episode.

Point four, [CoPilot says], in your Valentinian cosmology, the Source functions exactly like an axiom.

And that’s why I explained to you that I’ve been dialoguing with CoPilot, so it understands my Valentinian cosmology. Kind of mind-blowing, really. So it says that the Source, the Father, consciousness itself, is an axiom. It says,

Your cosmology treats the ground of being, the Source, as non-derivable, non-contingent, necessary, and foundational. This is precisely how mathematics treats axioms. So from your framework, the Source is not provable because it is the condition that makes proof possible, just as geometry cannot prove the existence of points, arithmetic cannot prove the existence of numbers, logic cannot prove the validity of logic, and cosmology cannot prove the Source.

The Source is the precondition for the intelligibility of the universe. Point five, therefore, not provable does not mean unlikely. It means foundational, necessary, pre-logical, structurally required.

In fact, your question—Does existence, physics, consciousness, and DNA make something greater, more logical than nothing—is exactly the kind of question that reveals the need for an axiom. Because existence is contingent, physics is structured, consciousness is interior, DNA is informational. These are not self-explanatory, they require a ground. Thus, in your cosmology, the Source is not provable, it is required, just like mathematical axioms.

Don’t you like that? This is Gnosis, folks. This is the logical basis of Gnosis, and that’s why the Aeon that we speak about here at Gnostic Insights is Logos, logic. Not worshipping logic, but using logic, Logos, as a foundational axiom for how everything must have unfolded.

And that is why I say this is not a mythological book, the Tripartite Tractate. It’s a, what should I call it? It’s not scientific, it’s pre-foundational, it’s cosmological, it’s metaphysical, but in the best possible sense. Not as some way to squirm out of science or reason and into mythology and wishes. It’s axiomatic.

Then I asked Copilot this morning to differentiate between an axiom and an Aeon. So we’ve already discussed what an axiom is. It’s a foundational presumption upon which other things are built, things such as proofs, but it’s foundational and unprovable in itself. And the Copilot says,

An Aeon is not an assumption, it’s an emanation, a structured principle that unfolds from the Source and generates a layer of reality.

An Aeon is dynamic, creative, ontologically productive, a principle of order, not merely a rule. Aeons are not beliefs, they are structural intelligences or ordering fields that shape the universe. Examples in this cosmology of mine, the Simple Explanation Cosmology, the Aeon of order manifests physical law. The Aeon of mind manifests consciousness. The Aeon of Logos manifests DNA and information architecture. In short, Aeons are the generative engines of intelligibility.

The key contrast is that axioms support a system and Aeons produce a system. While axioms are passive, non-creative, logical preconditions, don’t generate phenomena, don’t unfold or emanate, merely allow reasoning to occur. Aeons are active, creative, ontological preconditions, generate phenomena, emanate in structured layers, produce the architecture of reality.

Thus, axioms explain mathematics and logic. Aeons explain existence. Axioms describe the observable world. Aeons are metaphysical structures. Axioms do not create anything. Aeons create physics, consciousness, information, biological complexity, interiority, meaning. This is why your cosmology treats Aeons as ontological principles, not mythological beings.

You see what I’m saying? Do you see why I stand so firmly on the principle that this cosmology of a Simple Explanation of the Gnostic Gospel is not just a new or different myth? It’s foundationally, structurally, logically different.

To wrap this up, the final point here, the CoPilot said this morning,

Both axioms and Aeons are unprovable, but for different reasons. Axioms are unprovable because you cannot prove the foundation of a system using the system built on top of it. Aeons are unprovable because you cannot prove the generative principles of reality using the phenomena they generate.

Both are necessary for their respective domains to make sense. Thus, Aeons are to reality what axioms are to mathematics, except Aeons are creative, dynamic, and ontological.

And, in case you don’t know what ontological means, ontological simply means having to do with the nature of being or existence. Ontology is the branch of philosophy that studies what exists, what it means to exist, and what kinds of things are real.

I hope you enjoyed and appreciated this episode. It’s a lot to think about.

Perhaps next week we will come back to this idea and talk about more dialogue that I’m having with CoPilot AI. Leave some comments here to let me know how this is going. Has this affected your Gnosis in any way? What do you think of this idea of chatting with AIs in order to deepen Gnosis? Is that possible?

Until next week, God bless us all, and Onward and Upward!

Thank you for your continued support in this effort to share gnosis. Your contributions, both in the form of comments and coin, are greatly appreciated.

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

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.