Understanding Biblical Gnosis: Bishop Wilson's Perspective

Understanding Biblical Gnosis: Bishop Wilson's Perspective

Welcome back to Gnostic Insights and to the Gnostic Reformation on Substack. 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.” 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. 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. The Gnostic Reformation is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber. Thanks for reading The Gnostic Reformation! This post is public so feel free to share it. This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit cydropp.substack.com/subscribe [https://cydropp.substack.com/subscribe?utm_medium=podcast&utm_campaign=CTA_2]

Interview with Bishop Wilson pt. 3

Welcome back to Gnostic Insights and to the Gnostic Reformation on Substack. We’re continuing this week with part three of my long interview with Bishop Nathan Wilson of the Gnostic Union. We don’t usually talk about this sort of thing here at Gnostic Insights, and so this is a special treat for those of you who like this sort of thing. This week we’re going to hear Brother Nathan speaking about why he chose the words he decided to use in his translation of the New Testament and the Gnostic Gospels. He calls his translation The Gnostic Christian Truth Bible [https://drive.google.com/file/d/1FC75iEj6lpntAEnvlwpsAkpCNaVzUcbV/view?fbclid=IwY2xjawSro0hleHRuA2FlbQIxMQBzcnRjBmFwcF9pZBAyMjIwMzkxNzg4MjAwODkyAAEe1m0V8OkX_2RjcY0nKkmxyVzVoRcjpbqu3H0U16OTxViAt1flC1nByJC6SXk_aem_RVb1r04wiXRL5zWTFMOiYQ], and that’s because it includes the original Gnostic words that were chosen and were used by the writers of the Gospels that have been changed and Latinized and Anglicized and don’t have the same Gnostic meanings as the actual original writers used. So in the old days, in the beginning, the Christian religion was much more Gnostic. There were many sects of practicing Gnostics who were Christians and accepted as Christians. Now they were all taken away, and they were all wiped out during that Nicene Council phase in the 300’s when the Catholic Church took over the preaching of the Gospel, and they got rid of the competition, i.e. the Gnostics and others. So what Brother Nathan has done is plugged back in those original Gnostic words, and we’re going to hear many of these familiar passages now with the original Gnostic translations, the original Koine Greek in them, and see if those subtle differences make a difference in what the Gospels say and mean. So here’s Brother Nathan. Cyd: You know, in the Tripartite Tractate, it is unique in that the Aeon who fell is not Sophia, but Logos. And so, because that is the book that I resonate to, I’m always talking about Logos. And it seems to me, Bishop, this is a question for you—I’ve always thought that making the Aeon who fell a female character is just another way of demonizing, in the bad sense of the word, of maligning women. To say that the Aeon who fell had this, you know, illegitimate child, and here we have the fallen world. This doesn’t seem right to me. What do you think of that? So I prefer Logos because it’s just a neutral Logos. Bishop Nathan Wilson: Well, I think some of it was to rip on to women as well, but I think a lot of it comes from a misunderstanding of Simon Magus and then also with some with the Logos in a sense, I don’t mind it, but I’ll see that as another Gnostic interpretation. I go back to the original idea and I reckon this is where the misidentification of the full and feminine comes from, and it’s from Simon Magus’ work of the Great Declaration. We don’t have the original, we only have the quotations by the Church Fathers. So that’s the only text we know for 100% that was written by someone who actually knew the disciples and was baptized by them. We don’t have any other text we can guarantee that for a fact. So the Catholics wanted to burn that before, well, they made sure to whinge about it before burning it. So it’s lucky they whinged about it, otherwise we wouldn’t have access to it at all. And it mentions about the feminine falling in a sense, but not what people think it is. It meaning that feminine aspect is the qualities of life basically. So meaning that this life we see now is a fallen state. So what that really is meaning is that the feminine aspect of God is the birthing of creation and it’s the creation of that birth that has fallen. So that’s very different and that’s the first thought, so the very first form comes from the female. So that’s the first physical form coming from the feminine mind of God basically. So it’s not that God’s fallen or any part of divine or divinity is falling, but rather how we live in this material world that’s fallen. So we’ve strayed from our divine purpose basically is what Simon is stating. So he states that there’s the mental mind of the universe. So what he’s talking about is also the Father being basically the seed, the forethought of all things and the Mother is the feminine power of the creation. So what births, what you can touch and see, experience around you, while the Father is the spirit what you can’t see. So it’s very interesting. So you have a God beyond sex. So that’s what Simon is describing and he also believed in a demiurge, but he believed it was Yahweh. He believed that Yahweh was the leader of the fallen angels, but he believed that he was the creator of this material world and that the spiritual Father created the spiritual world. But I think he [Simon Magus] misunderstood the disciples and Jesus as well. I think he carried on his own teaching. He was still accepted by the disciples, but I think he was slightly confused. When I was looking at the text, I don’t think Jesus believed that this world was created by the devil, but rather the devil ruled it—so what corrupted this world, so what led it away from God. So rather what he’s [Jesus] speaking about is heaven within and returning to God. So that meaning of repentance is to change your mind, change the inner human, change within and return to God. So that’s all what it obviously all really means. So he’s speaking about heaven within, finding God within and returning to God and that the archon of this world is falling. And I’ll read that as well from some of the text as well. So we can go into some of those. I was going to let you choose what you’d like me to choose from first. I can also go into the original gospel of John, so I can go into the feminine aspect there. Cyd: That’s very good. Yeah. Whatever you’d like to share. This is great. Bishop Nathan Wilson: Okay. And then after that, I’ll mention about the archon of the world and I can go into where some of the texts of Sophia, where gnosis is also mentioned, because sometimes we have Jesus having gnosis and understanding what everyone’s thinking around him, which has also been hidden, they want you to see anything to do with that. But if you go to the gospel of John, for instance, in the beginning, and this is what I kept because it’s been obviously censored and this is a Carpocration belief. So they believed in Theos being the Monad and Logos being the Word of God, and that was basically being Jesus, and they believed in Zoe—so that was their Sophia. So, and you see this mentioned “In the beginning.” So in chapter one, 1:1 to 1:4, “In the beginning, there was Logos and Logos was to God and Logos was God. This one was in the beginning with God. All things were made through him. And without him, not one thing was made. With him was Zoe and the Zoe was a light of mankind.” So men, so whenever you see men, it is actually mankind, not just men in general. No. Cyd: So the feminine humanity, I use the word humanity. Bishop Nathan Wilson: Yes. It’s much better. It’s much better. So I found it interesting. So as a divine feminine, that’s the light of all mankind—of humanity. And that’s fascinating. Cyd: So the indwelling of the Holy Spirit, you, you translate as Sophia? Bishop Nathan Wilson: Yes. Sophia and Zoe, I’ll put that as well. It’s usually referenced to, but I like the word Sophia. Cyd: What we generally think of as the Holy Spirit. See, I think of the Holy Spirit as the, well, the Tripartite Tractate has first order of powers being the Aeons in the Fullness that we’re the second order of powers. And the third order of powers is the “Army of Christ” that came after—that’s that Pentecost kind of indwelling. You know, when you accept, when you move your ego away and you accept the Christ, that is the third order of powers coming in. But it’s the first order of powers I think of as the original Holy Spirit, when the Christians think of Holy Spirit. And that I think is what you’re calling Sophia is the Fullness of God. Bishop Nathan Wilson: Yes. So what brings you to God basically as well, that divine presence you experienced within yourself or what gives you the divine spiritual baptism. I feel very much like that. I also liked The Wisdom of Solomon where it says that Sophia is the emanation of God, the life giving spirit. And that’s beautiful as well. So what makes humans friends of humans and prophets, friends of God, which is being mentioned in that very old text and that’s before Jesus time and Christians adored that text. It’s very, very Gnostic. So it’s the text that mentions basically a Messiah will call himself a child of God and a son of God. And he will be put to death in a shameful way. So very much adored by Christians and rejected by Jews. And then later on rejected by Protestants because it was just too Gnostic. They don’t want anything basically. So, but that’s a very, very Gnostic element being at the start. And you see that being the Carpocratian Trinity. So their Trinity was the Logos and Monad and Zoe. And we also had very much a lot of female members within the Carpocratian sects, such as Marcellina, who ran her own Carpocratian movement, who was married or a lover to the founder, Carpocrates. And her idea was a little bit different as well. And she very much embraced a divine feminine and she was invited to Rome during Pope Antigonus, Pope Anicetus, sorry, becoming Pope. So very interesting. So she was actually invited to Rome because of her popularity. So fascinating. So I also like Helen, so, the wife of Simon Magus. Very fascinating figure. So I’ll go into some things as well. And I’ll mention some things about the Archon being mentioned. So I’ll go into John 12:31 and then 14:30 and 16:11 I can go into, which is just all in John, which is same gospel, basically. And it’s just regarding about the Archon being cast out by a very, very Gnostic element, which I chose to keep because it’s not going to keep this word in any English translations because they’re going to think how these guys are going to know about Gnosticism, can’t have that. But I kept it. So this is 12:31. So this is after Jesus answering, “Now is the judgment of this world. Now is the Archon of this world cast out.” So that’s interesting. So meaning the ruler of this world. And he also says, “Who’s the ruler of this world?” He’s stating that who’s the Archon of this world. So that’s the devil he’s speaking about. That’s Gnostic that they’re using. So that again is a very ancient term that they don’t want people to see. Cyd: Is it the same as the Demiurge? Bishop Nathan Wilson: Yes. So this is the ruling Demiurge, the Archon, basically. So the head ruling Archons, an Archon of Archons, basically. So when we look at the belief of the Demiurge, it was a lieutenant of sorts. So leading up of other fallen powers or leading lesser powers, depending on the theology of what Demiurge is and what you’re looking at, because it would extend to different groups. Go to 14:30. And we have here, “I will not speak with you much longer for the Archon of this world is coming. He has no hold on me.” So that’s clearly Jesus saying he’s not worshiping this God. It has no hold on him. It has no power over him. So he’s not this God. So he’s not the God of this world. So very, very mystic. So we didn’t have this belief within the Pharisees. They would have opposed Jesus as a heretic, which they did. They see him as blasphemous. And when we look at early Christianity, it was a Jewish heresy. So a Gnostic heresy, which is beautiful. And then we have 16:11. “And in regard to judgment, because the Archon of this world now stands condemned.” So that’s fascinating. So we have very much very Gnostic elements here. But it’s not just restricted to a demonic being, though. We have in the Gospel of Mark, for instance, which we have the Archon of Gentiles, and that’s in 10:42. So Archon can just mean a political ruler, as well as a ruler or a spiritual ruler. So it depends on the context of use being used. So I kept this here to show that it’s not always necessarily a bad thing. But again, depending on how the word’s being used. So in the Gospel of Mark we have the Archon of this world being mentioned. “And having summoned them, Jesus says to them, you have seen that the Archons of the Gentiles rule over them, and their great ones exercise authority over them.” So the Archon of the Gentiles, meaning the Archon of those who are not Jewish. So non-Jewish rulers. Right. Basically, so that’s all it is. We have the Archon, an Archon’s daughter being healed. So that’s also interesting. So now we’re having a politician who’s not Jewish, and he has a daughter, and she’s being healed by Jesus. So these words are definitely being mentioned. So the Archon of Gentiles and Archon of daimons as well, that’s in 9:34 of Matthew. So I’ll bring up that stage too, and then we can move into where Sophia is mentioned, which is very beautiful. I definitely was excited when I found Sophia found in the New Testament. So I was surprised. I was like, wow. Archon of daimons is what I want. So that’s, oh, you can also find it in Mark as well. So that’s good. I can go back to Mark at the very beginning. Oh, I didn’t know that. 3:22 of Mark: “And the scribes who came down from Jerusalem said that he has Beelzebub and that he cast out daimons with the Archon of daimons.” So that’s interesting there too. So he’s saying this is from the scribes. So this would be from Pharisees. They’re saying that he’s using pagan gods to cast out other pagan gods, but they didn’t believe that these pagan gods were actually a physical adversary against God, but rather law forces that were used by God. So God was the creator of evil and goodness, light and darkness. That was a Pharisee belief. So some Essenes believe that too. Some Essenes believe that God created both light and darkness, but only to destroy darkness, which is a bit different. Cyd: We believe that the God Above All Gods is all good. He did not create darkness. The darkness comes from this material world. Bishop Nathan Wilson: Yes, that’s a very interesting case. So that’s fantastic. So that’s something that a lot of people don’t take into account as well. So the God that Jesus is speaking of is a perfect being that’s denying sacrifice, that’s also denying harm of children as well. So when you look at the first Christians, they’re also rescuing children from pagan brothels as well as Christians that would go out into the wilderness, rescuing children that were left to die by their pagan parents because they were unwanted. So back in Rome and Greece, a man had charge of his family and could choose to get rid of his children or marry them off as well as even send them to temple orphanages, not temple orphanages, sorry, becoming temple prostitutes, I was meant to say, or send them off to temples, basically—become priests. So the father had full right of their children. They were in charge. So Christians didn’t like that. And so they rescued these children. That’s fantastic. So Christianity was very different and they wanted to be like Jesus in that case. So that’s fascinating too, because he was stating that the children are innocent. But I’ll give something also I mentioned, say in the temple scene where you have the doves being auctioned off and Jesus basically saving these doves, we have the Gospel of James mentioning the Virgin Mary as a dove and a temple priestess or sorry, basically a temple virgin. So she was given to the temple at the ages of three, raised there into 14 and given to Joseph. Cyd: Where was this? Where did you get that from? Bishop Nathan Wilson: That’s from the Gospel of James and also from church father writings. So you see, because I believe other church fathers wrote down that the Virgin Mary was a temple virgin. So these temple virgins were from the line of David. They were believed to give birth to the Messiah. They were married to the Pharisees and Sadducees. The Sadducees didn’t believe in the Messiah. They just viewed these girls as sacred coming from the line of David or from the Hasmonean dynasty. The Pharisees believed that these girls would give birth to a Messiah. The Herodians did too, the ones who supported that. So very fascinating when you look at that. So that meaning if you change that text around where Jesus is calling the saying that the priests are turning this temple into a spēlaion, being a den or grotto for lēstai, being pirates, predators or rebels or revolutionary fighters and guerrilla fighters. So we have the children crying for help Hosanna. So the word krazō, crying out help Hosanna, meaning to save us. So these are shouting out to Jesus, Save us, Jesus. Then the dove’s being sold. So that’s something that people don’t take into account. So the first Christians that are saving children are trying to copy Jesus saving children. So it’s a horrible tradition that was going on. So the temple veil that split during Jesus’ crucifixion, that was woven by 80 temple virgins. So three to 14 year olds. So when people were being married back then, they were quite young. So we have the demanding of virgins being forced into marriages in the gospel. So in numbers 31:32-35. So that’s Yahweh demanding the harm of children. That’s very evil. So we see Jesus challenging this God saying that this God’s the devil. So when we look at the actions of the past, we understand a bit of things. I’ll quickly read about some things about Sophia as well. And this in the Gospel of Mark. Later on, I’ll read that temple scene for you too. But I also have in here the Gospel of James and it mentions about Mary being given to the temple and being a dove in the temple receiving nourishment from the hand or translates to from a power of the angels. Fascinating. Jumping to Matthew for 6:2. This is we have Sophia being mentioned. We have Sophia found in Mark and Matthew. I’ve got Mark, which is the original text. I better go on to Mark first. So that’s 6:2. Mark is considered the oldest canonical text, but we have older texts of Mark. So the Greek Gospel of Thomas, for instance, that’s much older. We have that actually actively being mentioned in the first century as the Logia of Yesu. So before it was called the Gospel of Thomas, it was just called the Sayings of Jesus. And so I personally believe that’s the oldest gospel that we have, which they don’t like to admit that. So I think that’s what they talk about being Q source. So Q source is just going to be Sayings of Jesus. The only gospel that’s like that is the Gospel of Thomas. So a cornerstone of the church. So this is in the Gospel of Mark 6:2: “And on the Sabbath day, he began to teach in the synagogue and many heard him were amazed, saying, when did this man learn these things? And what is this Sophia that has been given to him and the powers? Or it can translate to miracles that are done by his hand. So that’s kind of trippy. So they’re asking, who is this Sophia? Because the Pharisees didn’t believe in Sophia. They didn’t believe in a feminine Holy Spirit. They believed it was just the spirit within that guide us to God. But rather, the Gnostic approach is that’s the feminine aspect of God entering into us, basically. So that’s a very Gnostic understanding, a mystic understanding. And some of them also viewed, say, the Mother Earth being the physical emanation of God, being feminine as well. So we have very different beliefs in these ancient pasts. And we see that in, I think it’s the Gospel of the Ebionites or the Gospel of Nazarenes. But that’s being mentioned in an ancient Jewish Christian source. We don’t have the original text. We just have a quotation from the church fathers because they’re the ones who had the text before destroying it, which is very unfortunate. So then we have the Gospel of Matthew in 11:19. And this one’s beautiful. I actually very much like this translation because it’s mentioning about Sophia being justified by her works. So I wanted to keep this for sure. So we do see Sophia being mentioned and most people don’t know this. And it’s a shame it’s been denied to us because the church is very anti-female, which does no justice because the early Christians had many female leaders. The first to witness the resurrection story is Mary Magdalene. So it’s always been centered around women, which is such a shame that they have been ultimately removed from this story because it was not the case. Jesus would be quite upset with that. “The Appearance of Christ to Mary Magdalene” by Alexander Ivanov, 1834-1836. / Wikimedia Commons. So 11:19 I need. So I’m 11:9. All right. “The son of man came eating and drinking. They say, behold, a man eats a glutton and a drunkard, a friend of tax collectors and sinners. And Sophia was justified by her works.” Again, we have Jesus now mentioning Sophia. Cyd: Mm hmm. What book was that in? Was that Mark? Bishop Nathan Wilson: That one there is Matthew 11:19. And we also have 12:42, which mentions the Sophia of Solomon, so the Wisdom of Solomon, which also have a text called this to the Wisdom of Solomon. And I think that was personally read by Jesus. I believe he read this text. And I certainly see the first Christians adoring it for this reason. So I think that I think Jesus went out of his way to fulfill certain prophecies, such as the donkey going into the city like the Messiah’s mentioned. So he wasn’t silly. And I think he was reading this text. And that’s why you see the crucifixion. I don’t think he was personally going out of his way to be killed. I think it was another option and he accepted his fate and knew that it could happen. And he accepted it. So I think that he believed in these prophecies as well. I see that he was a Jewish man. He was a human being that became the Christ that was filled with Gnosis. So I’m big on him becoming Logos, which is my theology in a sense. I go by an old Christian term with that. I love the term Logos being God’s word or authority or song or speech, because we did have also some that believed that God sung the world into existence or the universe as well. So that’s a very ancient belief, too. So 12:42: “The Queen of the South will rise up at the judgment with this generation and condemn it, for she came from the end of the earth to hear the Sophia of Solomon and behold, something greater than Solomon is here.” So beautiful again—Sophia is mentioned. And the last one I wrote down is Matthew 13:54 for Sophia. And then I put a couple of times for Gnosis and I put a couple of times for Magus, because I like Magus being mentioned because of Simon Magus. I think he’s also a way of understanding Christianity as well. Cyd: Where do we find Simon Magus if somebody wants to go and read him? Bishop Nathan Wilson: Well, Simon Magus, he is mentioned in the book of Acts. So they mostly use him to condemn him as trying to buy the Holy Spirit. And then he repents and he’s forgiven basically. That’s the end of the text. It’s not really bad what they’re saying. Paul sent money to the brother of Jesus. But the thing is, the earliest text of that story ends at Simon being baptized. So what we’re reading is a later add in. So they didn’t want the story to end at that. [Early Christian writings keep Simon Magus separate from Jesus’ family, though later writers sometimes blended the many Simons.] It’s like, we can’t have these guys saying that their founder, who we call a heretic, was baptized by the disciples and leave it at that, you know, so they were quite upset. And they also called him worse than Satan. They said that he was associated with a prostitute. And the worst thing is that he saved this prostitute, which they want to call her, who was Helen, who became second in charge of the Christian movement. So she was forced into this. She wasn’t just… didn’t want to choose to this life. So she was forced to sex slavery, possibly quite young, possibly born into it. And come Simon saves her, the two fall in love. So they marry. That’s fascinating. So she fell in love with the man who rescued her. This is not some scandal. This is pure romance and love. And he’s seen her as an expression of God. So he’s seen the expression of the divine feminine in her. So she in turn helped develop his faith and bring closer into his faith and hers. So these two went throughout Rome rescuing others. So they would have been rescuing children, something that the Catholic Church never has done. So which is quite a big shame. Cyd: So where can we read about this? I’m just wondering. Bishop Nathan Wilson: If we look at Church of the Apostles, they mentioned about the first Christians rescuing children. And then we mentioned about Romans viewing them taking children as strange because they didn’t see human beings in the child. So they were told not to be too attached to the child because children died quite often, especially in infant mortality rate was quite high. And so was women that died in childbirth. So they were told not to be too attached. So if the child was misshapen or sickly, they left it out to die. So the Christians that were rescuing these children during the first century, the Catholic Church didn’t exist back then. So you’re going to have to think about who these Christians were. It’s not going to name them. It’s just going to tell you they were Christians and Jewish Christians. So who are these Christians? They’re Gnostic Christians. They’re the only ones that existed at this time because the Catholic Church wasn’t around then. They came later. So even when we have, I forget his name now, he was a Greek opponent against Christianity. I always forget his name and mix them up. And no, it’s not Arius, that was a Christian. He was the founder of the Aryan Christians. I forget his name. But there was a Greek opponent of Christianity and he mentions the Christians of his time. He doesn’t mention the Catholic Church because they didn’t exist yet. He was mentioning Gnostic Christians and Jewish Christians. He said that he basically said that they cannibalized their God, which has taken the Eucharist, and that there are different versions of them and they disagree with each other. So he didn’t like that. So he thought that was weird. So he thought that what a religion that can’t even get along with each other basically or can’t agree. So he mocked him for that. So he didn’t know any better. So we have to look at those early Christians, who they were. Then we understand what’s going on. Then we understand with the Gnostic Christians, viewing children as innocent and also viewing women as something special, being the feminine aspect of God in human flesh as we’re created in God’s image, male and female. So the soul as well, that returning to God through the expression of the divine feminine, through the expression of divine masculine. So our inner human, that inner child returning to God. So again, that inner child is also being mentioned too. So they’re viewing that as also as the children with innocence, the innocence within. So they’re connecting all this together. So they’re wanting to be like Christ, so Christ-like. So they’re just following the teachings of their master. So it’s fascinating. It’s like when you mentioned some propaganda against the Gnostics when regarding to the Catholic Church, the thing was that these Christians are trying to be like Jesus. So we have to take that into account. So meaning that these Catholic opponents are just writing propaganda against them. So it’s like the Ophites that they say that were eating bread that had semen in it. That was just pure propaganda because these Christians were actually trying to be like Jesus and they wouldn’t be doing this in other words. So they didn’t like that. They also didn’t like that some Gnostics were open to people being homosexual. They didn’t mind gay people or lesbians. Some Gnostics didn’t agree with it though, but there were some that welcomed everyone and the Catholic Church hated that. So there was even the church group or a Christian community called the Adamites. The Catholics did not like them. They were Christian nudists. They were in the second century and they were two sects. They both attempted to live like Adam and Eve. It’s just that one took one sex partner only. They didn’t believe in marriage. They believed marriage came after sin. So they lived naked in the woods attempting to live like Adam and Eve in the community with one sex partner. But others had orgies and were having sex with each other. The Catholics killed them. So they didn’t like it. They called them heretics and they existed, I believe, all the way up to the fourth or sixth century. So they existed for a little bit. So they hung on for a little bit. So I owe the power to them, which isn’t too bad as well. So I admire them for that. I personally don’t think they would have kept going because they were always driven off into the underground. I think they would have had a lot of trouble in the winter being naked. That’s just my personal thing. I don’t know how they handle it. So I think you need some sort of clothing or at least shelter to be able to survive that. They need a lot of warmth. So I’ll go on to some times that we have Gnosis being mentioned too as well. I can go on to Mark first in 8:7. Then I can go on to say that temple scene or I can read that scene from an unknown gospel with the pigs jumping into water that the Pharisees baptize into, which is trippy text. It’s pretty cool. Well, there we have part three of my interview with Bishop Nathan Wilson of the Gnostic Union. We’ll finish it off next week. I hope you’re enjoying this foray into the history of the words that were chosen for the New Testament, and how so many of those words were Gnostic words, and you don’t get that flavor in all of our Latin-derived New Testament translations. So, this is the unique gift that Brother Nathan has given us. I’ll give more of my own thoughts next week, after we’ve concluded with our interview, because I don’t necessarily agree with everything Brother Nathan is saying, but I see his points, and God bless him for doing it. So, until next week, God bless us all, and onward and upward. If you are mining your gnosis here at Gnostic Insights, please contribute to the work so we can continue to help all that we can. Thank you! The Gnostic Reformation is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber. Thanks for reading The Gnostic Reformation! This post is public so feel free to share it. This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit cydropp.substack.com/subscribe [https://cydropp.substack.com/subscribe?utm_medium=podcast&utm_campaign=CTA_2]

Interview with Bishop Wilson, pt. 2

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. 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 [https://drive.google.com/file/d/1FC75iEj6lpntAEnvlwpsAkpCNaVzUcbV/view?fbclid=IwY2xjawSro0hleHRuA2FlbQIxMQBzcnRjBmFwcF9pZBAyMjIwMzkxNzg4MjAwODkyAAEe1m0V8OkX_2RjcY0nKkmxyVzVoRcjpbqu3H0U16OTxViAt1flC1nByJC6SXk_aem_RVb1r04wiXRL5zWTFMOiYQ]. 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. Thanks for reading The Gnostic Reformation! This post is public so feel free to share it. The Gnostic Reformation is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber. This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit cydropp.substack.com/subscribe [https://cydropp.substack.com/subscribe?utm_medium=podcast&utm_campaign=CTA_2]

Interview with a Gnostic Bishop

Welcome back to Gnostic Insights and to the Gnostic Reformation on Substack. This week I interviewed Bishop Nathan Wilson of the Gnostic Union, and it was a good long interview, so I’ll be breaking it up probably into three segments for the next three weeks here. Bishop Wilson earned a diploma of ministry from The Gnostic Catholic Union, and then he later went on to create The Gnostic Union, and he’ll tell you about that in this week’s episode. Here I’ll read you the intro from their website. “The Gnostic Union is an independent sacramental assembly of Gnostic Christian communities and individuals. It exists to uphold the Gnostic Christian traditions and to encourage and promote the work of Christ and the Holy Sophia in the world.As an international, independent, autonomous, non-political organization, The Gnostic Union is in no way dependent upon any other authority outside of its own administration. We are neither Roman Catholic, Orthodox, nor Protestant. We are Gnostic Christians that encourage self-development and connecting with the spirit within to build a personal relationship with God, the Monad, the Father. Our bishops, priests, and deacons are merely guides to help you on your spiritual journey. The Gnostic Union aligns itself with the history and teachings of the first Christians of early first century Christianity and the teachings of Jesus Christ as found in the Gospel of Thomas. We encourage new members to read from the Nag Hammadi and to understand how different early Christianity is from modern mainstream Christianity. We welcome all people, regardless of past religious backgrounds or faiths. Gnosis means knowledge, not just simple intellectual knowledge, but deep spiritual knowledge within you. Knowledge from the Spirit, from the Holy Spirit, and from and of God.” You see, I felt that that really went along with what we talk about here at Gnostic Insights, and so when Bishop Wilson reached out to me via our Substack Gnostic Reformation site, I was more than happy to engage in conversation with him, and I thought that having a talk with him along with you and then broadcasting it would be helpful to all of us. Here’s the last little bit that it says on their Gnostic Union homepage, which is only one page long. It’s still in development. It says, “Gnostic Christian theology differs greatly from Roman Catholicism and Eastern Orthodoxy. Gnostic Christianity does not depend upon the authority of a Pope or the Church. Instead, it emphasizes being reborn in Spirit, building a personal spiritual relationship with God, and becoming Christ-like by enacting the teachings of Jesus Christ in our lives. Gnostic Christianity began from earlier Gnostic traditions, such as Hermeticism and Mysticism, which arose from Jewish mystics. Gnosticism itself is much older than Judaism, and traces back to the Hermetics of ancient Egypt, the Druids, and the ancient Greeks. Although many Gnostic Christian theologies differed, they shared a common theme of a trapped spiritual essence within the material body, the divine spark, the soul, or the spark of Sophia. The ultimate goal for Gnostic Christians was to become like Jesus, to be reborn in Spirit, through the baptism of the Holy Spirit, Sophia, and to know thyself, reflecting the divine essence within.” As you know, here at Gnostic Insights and the Gnostic Reformation, I stay away from the histories, because it seems to me that what is important is the here-and-now relationship we have with the Christ and with the Fullness of God. And so, I’m just not all that interested in history, but as you’ll hear from these ongoing interviews with Bishop Wilson, he’s all about history. So, for those of you who have been missing that strain of thought in our Gnostic Insights here, you’ll get an earful for the next three weeks. So without further ado, here’s part one of my interview with Bishop Nathan Wilson of The Gnostic Union. Cyd: Well, such a pleasure to see you. You have such a nice smile. Bishop Nathan Wilson:Thank you. Thank you. Thanks for having me. It’s a pleasure. It’s always lovely to meet other Gnostics, other spiritual people, all those with open hearts and open minds. It’s always lovely to see. Cyd:Yes. Yes. Yes, it’s true. I wish I had more of these people close around me. Do you have neighbors who are Gnostic? Do you have people you can actually face-to-face with? Bishop Nathan Wilson:I’ve met a priest that I can now speak face-to-face, which was really good. So, it was the first real Gnostic I got to speak to face-to-face. Mostly, I was speaking to many online in other parts of the world, and I kind of felt like I was the only one here in Adelaide, Australia. So, I kind of felt like the one odd villager out. So, it was lovely to meet some other people. I’ve trained people, and other people have done what they wanted. Other people carried on as undercover Gnostics in this world. So, yeah. Cyd:Let me get a formal introduction to you here going. This is Bishop Nathan Wilson of the Gnostic Union, and we have connected through Substack, although you don’t have a Substack presence, do you? You don’t have a site? Bishop Nathan Wilson:No, no. We have got a website in the works, but it’s still in development. I’m not too tech-savvy, but we’ve got other people that are. So, we’re mostly on Facebook and YouTube at the moment. Cyd:Well, wonderful. Now, tell me the difference between the Gnostic Catholic Union and just the Gnostic Union. Bishop Nathan Wilson:Well, we used to be the Gnostic Catholic Union as well until I basically got in charge, and then I removed the Catholic part, which they only had for the Latin reasons, meaning universal, but not everyone knows that Latin subject. They’re just going to see Catholic, and usually today’s world, when you have a Catholic Union, it’s mostly those who have been brought up with a Catholic background that have now found Gnosis, and in turn, carry on those old traditions, which I don’t find anything wrong with. I think there’s many different ways to experience Gnosis. Gnosis doesn’t belong to any religion. It’s something you find within. It’s what you experience, spiritual knowledge gifted to you by what’s divine, by God, by the Father, by the Mother-Father, whichever term you like. The Source. It could even be referenced to, given you to by divine beings, by angels, angelic forces. So, Gnosis is something that you experience. So, it’s yours. It’s personal. It’s intimate. So, it’s a beautiful thing. So, with the Gnostic Union, we are more open to different Gnostic schools of thoughts. So, you could be a Sethian, a Valentinian. You could be a Carpucratian Gnostic, whichever. It doesn’t matter. You could be a Jewish Christian. Whichever the path is—we’re not really dogmatic. So, we appreciate all those who come into this spiritual life, seeking answers, and respecting each other’s beliefs, which is also rare. We have to remember, when we looked at the ancient schools of thought regarding Gnosticism, the ancient Gnostics got along. They didn’t kill each other. They didn’t fight. They had some disagreements, but they shared each other’s writings, which is fantastic. So, that’s very rare when you see that in a religious or even a spiritual school of thought. Many people can be my way only. So, that’s where Gnosis comes in, that inner spiritual experience. So, one’s own personal relationship with what’s divine. The Gnostic Union wants to encourage that, not to be bound by traditions. That’s mostly the difference between the Gnostic Union and the Gnostic Catholics, where they will be more bound by tradition, more bound by a dogmatic experience. We’re not really about that, not dissing any of that. We don’t mind, but we’re more open. Cyd:So, the Gnostic Catholics are still going on? That church is still active, but you have stepped away from them then, in that sense? Bishop Nathan Wilson:Yes, pretty much. So, we’ve done our own independent thing. So, that way we can have more schools of thought. I prefer it like that, so we can all grow from each other, which is something that I’m more about. So, that’s why I went into more of the Gnostic Union sense of things and removing the Catholic part. Some people didn’t like Catholic. Some people liked it and others were stoked that I removed that term from the group. I much prefer it. It’s less of a mouthful as well. I like things nice and simple as well. Cyd:Yes. So, it’s union—it’s unity. That’s what the union means in the name, not like a labor union, but the union of Gnostics. That’s lovely. That’s very lovely. So, how many people are associating with the Gnostic Union at this point? Bishop Nathan Wilson:Well, we have a couple of other different groups from different parts of the world. We have a Gnostic Catholic group. I think they’re Gnostic Catholic Unitarians located in the Philippines. Then, we have other groups as well that associate with us. Within the Union itself, we have a couple of different ones. We have also side branches as well that used to be a part of the Gnostic Catholic Union, but there was some theological difference. So, some splitting went on. So, there’s other groups. We still recognize each other. Within the Gnostic Union at the moment. There is Bishop Jason, me, Bishop Nathan Wilson, Bishop Lorenzo, David and Michael, Randall over in South Africa. There’s also Priest Jeremy and Edgar and Rus. So, there’s quite a few. At the moment, it’s mostly men. We’re hoping to have some females join as well. We did have a couple of female members back in the Gnostic Catholic Union, but they ultimately retired. So, we’re hoping to expand. So, the Gnostic Union is kind of fresh on the scene. So, everything’s still building. Cyd:How fresh is it? How long have you been in existence here? Bishop Nathan Wilson:Well, in the Union itself, probably about almost two years now. It’s still maybe a year, year and a half, something like that there. So, it’s still growing in a sense. So, we’re doing okay, which is not too bad. We’re mostly on Facebook and YouTube. So, we do our online masses and group gatherings and stuff like that online as well. And mostly, just support each other’s individual works as well as promote each other’s work. And sometimes, I might edit a couple of videos of all of us together, give it to other people with their own channels, their own independent use, and then I’ll put it onto, say, the Union sites. Other people can go check it out as well. Cyd:I’ll be putting this up on my site. I’m going to post this to YouTube and make it for my audio podcast. But I’ll also give you the recording so that you can use it at your site if you’d like. Bishop Nathan Wilson:Oh, lovely. Lovely. I’d enjoy that as well. And again, thanks for reaching out to me. I very much enjoy speaking to like-minded individuals as well. And regarding even my translations that you brought me on to discuss as well, that’s relatively new as well. It took me about two years to fully actually translate. So, to get it all together, I use encyclopedias, I used Greek, Koine Greek dictionaries, as well as I used Bill Mounce, which is one of the top Koine Greek-speaking people in the world. I have a few friends that can speak Koine Greek as well as modern Greek as well. So, that also came in handy. So, it took me a while. I started doing that while I was still with the Gnostic Catholic Union and I didn’t finish it until the Gnostic Union. Cyd:So, tell us about, you’re speaking of your translation, tell us about that. It’s your New Testament, is it? Bishop Nathan Wilson:Yeah, I did the New Testament Gospels. I used Codex Sinaiticus because that was the oldest complete text, but then I wanted to do non-canonical. I didn’t know any Coptic at all, so I didn’t want to use any other people’s work. I just went to the Koine Greek, used what knowledge I did know, and I also used experts as well. So, I was able to look at every definition of the word and term and use. I did the Gospel of Thomas, which I actually first messed up on because I found out that the version I was looking at first was actually inspired by the Coptic version put into Koine Greek, and I realized it’s not the text. So, I went to the actual fragments themselves, and so I translated from there. It’s not very long. I didn’t use any AI recovery, so anything that wasn’t visible to our naked eye, I did not touch. So, I didn’t want to have any guessing involved. So, I just put what it was, and I did the Greek Gospel of Mary, as well as the Gospel of James, the Gospel of Peter, and I did three unknown Gospels, and they are little fragments, and they are Papyrus Oxyrhynchus. I have the names here. Actually, I better put that in—5072, and the other one was Papyrus Oxyrhynchus 840 and the other one is Egerton Gospel. So, they’re little fragments. The titles are missing. We don’t know who wrote them, so they’re unknown, but they could and likely do predate the Gospels that we do have. So, they predate the fragments we have. So, that’s interesting. So, all the fragments we have are second century. It’s likely they predate the fragments that we have. So, I chose to do them, but the interesting side was the Egerton gospel, which was actually a two-sided text, and Bart D. Ehrman actually did side two, and I did side one. So, he didn’t realize that there was a side on one. So, that means he was only looking at digital copy only, just like me. So, he didn’t actually look at the actual Papyrus itself, and so when I did one-sided, I didn’t realize there was a double side to that text, and so otherwise I wouldn’t have done it. So, the interesting thing is side one has not been publicly released for public domain, where side two has been released, which is very suspect, if you ask me, and I didn’t like that. So, I thought I’d introduce some texts that are very little looked at that were very Gnostic, such as Jesus insulting the Pharisees for dipping in waters that pigs jumped into and making themselves look like prostitutes to attract men. Cyd:They’re highly offensive, yes. Bishop Nathan Wilson:Yes, and that’s why they really want to release that publicly. So, you have to pay a scholar for their works, and that’s not really fair. All this knowledge should be for free, especially when you’re looking at our own religious or spirituality or the text involved in that. Otherwise, we’re limiting ourselves, and that’s definitely not fair. So, I think we should be more open, and the text should be up for public display, public domain for everyone to have access to. So, that’s what I ultimately believe in. It’s one reason I chose to share my translations and make accessible for free digital copies. I didn’t want people to just buy my work rather than download the digital text and just read it for themselves. Go to the library, print it out. It might be cheaper. So, when I do sell my texts, I donate it, like some of it’s a charity anyway, to Make-A-Wish Foundation. So, that’s something I do on my end. So, everything I do, I try not to make money just for myself. I try to do other things with it because I’m not really materialistic. I live very much a monk lifestyle, so I read a lot. Cyd:Yeah. Yeah, I do too. I live like a nun, I say. I’ve got a little cloister where I sleep. I live in a one-room place, so it’s very interesting. Would you explain to us the difference between the Koine Greek and the Coptic Greek and which was written and why are there two different versions? Bishop Nathan Wilson:Okay, well the Coptic, when you see Coptic Greek, that’s devolving into Coptic. So, very early proto-Coptic is what scholars term, is the developing into it. You see it with Greeks in the very language. Otherwise, Coptic language very much is a mixture of Greek and Egyptian. So, Egyptian hieroglyph turned into writing basically, but mixed in with Greek. So, Greek was like the English of the past back then. Hebrew also borrowed from the Greek during the second temple period of Jesus’ time. So, the word Judaism and synagogue are Greek words, for instance. So, a lot of borrowing, but the Greeks also borrowed from the Canaanites, such as the Phoenician language or the alphabet. So, that’s also fascinating. So, the ancient past, it was all about borrowing and making it your own, you know. But yeah, with Greek as well, that would be also evolving as well. So, you have, within the gospel itself, you might have one word being spelt slightly different, but ultimately meaning the same thing. And all that is, is one dialect from another speaking from one coastal region to a different coastal region. Obviously, saying the same thing, it just might be the accent. So, that’s played different in the language. So, it’s like we see hilios or hilion, but it’s the same root message. It’s just one person’s pronouncing it in the market different from this region, because he’s closer to the shore and other ones closer to the inner cities. And that’s basically all. So, Greek’s very advanced. You can have one word that can mean ultimately different meanings. And some words you come across can have hundreds of meanings, and that can make things difficult when translating. So, with the Koine Greek, we only know 70% to 90% of the language. We know the 100% of the alphabetical, but we don’t know every context of use. So, because of that difficulty, I had to add alternative English translations. So, I realized then that every translation we’re reading is just based on someone else’s interpretation of that translation. And it’s like, oh, that kind of sucks, so I put them all in there. So, when you come across the word aftos, for he, she, it, they, them, this one, I leave it as all of that, so, you can choose what that means. Because Jesus is speaking to diverse audiences. He’s speaking to males and females, not just men. And that’s what people forget. It’s like the word for spirit is also very feminine in Hebrew. In Greek, it’s masculine and feminine. So, it’s used as both, which is fascinating as well for the spirit within us, you know. So, but again, that’s going back to that root meaning of feminine, because when you add in the word hagion pneuma you now have the Holy Spirit, but that’s a feminine word of it. Otherwise, the root word of masculine is hagios, but the female name or the feminine version of that concept is hagion. Cyd:Ah, that’s fascinating. Yeah. You run into the same problem when translating Chinese, because Chinese pictograms can just mean many, many things. So, I’ve studied the Tao Te Ching quite a bit, and everybody’s book that’s famous of the Tao Te Ching, it’s their translation out of a hundred choices for every word. So, it’s, I understand quite a bit what you’re saying there. Well, tell me this, what makes you a bishop? How is it that you’re calling yourself bishop? Bishop Nathan Wilson:Well, I was ordained by, well, back when it was the Gnostic Catholic Union, I was ordained by Bishop Bill Thomas, and he was the bishop of a church in Florida. He was running a church. He was an older man, so he’s kind of, he retired for a bit, and now he’s more of a wandering bishop, because he had trouble with the funds of running a church. It’d be quite expensive. So, he was part of an organization that was the Gnostic Catholic Union. A lot of members retired as well, then he took over, and then it kind of went on for a few years, and then they started retiring, and then I joined from there, and I was ordained, and I took up a course with them, started off as a deacon, then became a priest, and then as they were retiring, I was made bishop, basically, and so then I was left with a little bit of the reins. So, it was from there, it was a lot more—more churches were involved. So, some of that has also, a lot of them have also retired or ultimately changed theologies. One of the original members of the Gnostic Catholic Union, I believe, is now either an Orthodox priest or joined the Orthodox Church, and he renounces all his old Gnostic past, which is kind of a shame. So, sometimes that does happen. So, people become wanderers because of, people basically rely solely on one priest, oftentimes, which is also sad, and when one priest moves, people lose passion, and sometimes that’s how it is. So, I prefer to have people more independently on their own, not just say rely on me, I make other people bishops so they can carry on with their own, and from there, expand it. So, someone might have, say, the coin enough to start their own church, and from there, maybe, from there, do whatever they need. So, it inspires, and still something to bring a bit of community in, and have a little bit of recognition from other people, basically. So, I kept that term. I was almost considering to remove the title, bishops and priests, but a lot of the old members wanted to keep it as well, and some of the young ones did as well. So, I thought, well, I’ll keep the term for them in their sake. Otherwise, I was going to keep it as teachers, or brothers and sisters, but I still encourage our members to, when dealing with each other, not just sit there and call each other bishops, or bishopettes, or priests, or priestess, whichever term they prefer. I prefer to call us brothers and sisters, which is more stressed. Even with the outfit some people are talking about, I would tell them, remember that Jesus wouldn’t be wandering around with fancy robes, or wearing collared shirts, or wearing gold jewelry, and say, I’m doing now, in a sense. He was out in the wilderness, gathering with community. So, as blessed as those who are poor, you know, so, which was rare. So, a lot of people wanted money back then. So, he was very much for the poor, which is beautiful to see. There were rich Christians. It doesn’t mean that was strictly only for poor people only. There were ones who were shipfarers, and in turn, would carry their message throughout the ports, or from region to region. Cyd:I was just wondering–you are obviously a Christian Gnostic, as am I. I know that you’re open to all Gnosticism, but Gnostics who reject the notion of the Christ, or the need for the Christ, doesn’t that create some kind of difficulty, let’s say? Bishop Nathan Wilson:It would conflict a little bit, yes. I haven’t really come across ones that more reject the Christ. I wouldn’t mind. I have come across ones who have debated me over it in a sense, which I don’t mind in a sense, but I would also encourage them to say, look at the message. Ultimately, it’s about finding the Christ within, being Christ-like for yourself. It goes back to that root word of the first Christians for Christanos, being little Christs, little anointed ones. So, those who were taken on their masters teaching to be Christ-like. But say we have ones that don’t believe Jesus existed. I don’t mind that, because ultimately it is the message, but I will tell them I do believe because I have reasons. I would say for them to look up, say, Judas Kriakos, which is a grandson of Jesus, which is recorded in history. We have church father writings that actually whinged about Jesus’ family being Jewish Christians and not Catholic. So, that’s interesting. So, why would you whinge about a family if the man did not exist? For instance like that. But ultimately, there were some Gnostics that didn’t believe that Jesus existed, but was rather a spirit or was the myth that you took on yourself. So, I’m okay with that, as long as we don’t conflict with each other, with our hearts, as long as we’re not hating each other. So, we can have separate beliefs, as long as we respect those beliefs. Ultimately, that’s what would stop the disheartening and also the conflictions. end part one of interview Okay, we’re going to stop for this week. This is a good place to stop because next, Bishop Wilson goes on to discuss his translation of the New Testament and also some other Gnostic texts. So, we’ll spend next week talking about his translation that he calls the Gnostic Christian Truth Bible, and we’ll get into that. Also, I did record this entire interview as a Zoom video, and as soon as I get that edited, I’ll be posting it to YouTube so you will be able to find it and watch the interview as Bishop Nathan Wilson and I discuss these things. So, I hope to see you there, and thank you for listening this week, and we’ll pick it up again next week. Until then, God bless us all, and onward and upward. The Gnostic Union Facebook [https://www.facebook.com/groups/gnosticcatholicunion] The Gnostic Union YouTube Channel [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PRIJoMYraKI&list=PLpsXsjQMDrORC7b2Rt6yWKwoXWwCWTWuI] This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit cydropp.substack.com/subscribe [https://cydropp.substack.com/subscribe?utm_medium=podcast&utm_campaign=CTA_2]

The Spirit of Truth

Welcome back to Gnostic Insights and to the Gnostic Reformation on Substack. This week, we’re going to follow up on last week’s episode, which was called Gnostic Pentecost, and that was first broadcast on the 6th of June, 2026 [https://gnosticinsights.com/gnostic-pentacost/]. I have a lot more examples out of the New Testament of the Bible about Pentecost, and as we learned last week, Pentecost is what we’ve been calling the coming of the Third Order of Powers here in this Gnosticism out of the Tripartite Tractate that I share with you at Gnostic Insights. Here’s a quote from last week’s episode where it says, Jesus stood up and said loudly, ‘if anyone is thirsty, let him come to me and let him drink. Whoever has faith in me, just as scripture has said, out of his parts, living streams of water will flow.’ Now he said this in regard to the spirit whom those who had faith in him were about to receive, for as yet there was no spirit, because Jesus had not yet been glorified. [Hart’s New Testament, John, Chapter 7, verse 37] And this is speaking of what we call the Holy Spirit, because of course we have spirit. We’re born with spirit, because we have the Fullness of God within us. That is the First Order of Powers. But Jesus here is talking of the Third Order of Powers, the army of Christ that has come after Jesus is, glorified. And glorified means risen from the dead, ascended into the sky in front of hundreds of witnesses. And glorified means that Jesus is living above, just as we will all be living above in a glorified body in the presence of the Father. So I shared that with you last week, and if you haven’t heard last week’s episode, again it’s called Gnostic Pentecost, go back and listen to it, because it’s a deep dive—what we call hermeneutics in theology or philosophy. It’s a deep deconstruction of a couple of very important passages in the Old and New Testament that have to do with the coming of what is called Pentecost. And Pentecost was when the Holy Spirit, the Advocate, came and sat upon the disciples while they were gathered in the upper room after Jesus had left and gone back above. But we’ve been talking about Pentecost all along here at Gnostic Insights as the coming of the Third Order of Powers that is the army of Christ. I’m going to quote a whole lot of New Testament for you today, and I take this out of The New Testament by David Bentley Hart, [https://www.amazon.com/New-Testament-David-Bentley-Hart/dp/0300265700/ref=sr_1_1?crid=264FOCWZD85GS&dib=eyJ2IjoiMSJ9.Irv2SH8Baea6EfFQSViAv3_Kk60i-i7colA_3YA-_g562aOS_OfhXe7gKAQp5nZ2HyYUY_VcbtqNmTUnjzDFIj9yCr7RV0l13ZUJ5KEOcqia8TKrLkuCG_YVaahktIVuPvpEdK6gT6acWWftYfkTeQpT5gglgEbx4rtsdDXX6P7d0MOJtIWUQjpxZKemurrCbHmSz9WWzbpkd6_HqyYSxkcBxllCNs6mYJBbtYM3pH4.WFFRmZcoU_pj-OPMDEFE8oML8lDdQGEhYtSGrZCmnbk&dib_tag=se&keywords=the+new+testament+david+bentley+hart&qid=1781355471&sprefix=The+New+Testament++David%2Caps%2C260&sr=8-1] https://www.amazon.com/New-Testament-David-Bentley-Hart/dp/0300265700/ref=sr_1_1?crid=264FOCWZD85GS&dib=eyJ2IjoiMSJ9.Irv2SH8Baea6EfFQSViAv3_Kk60i-i7colA_3YA-_g562aOS_OfhXe7gKAQp5nZ2HyYUY_VcbtqNmTUnjzDFIj9yCr7RV0l13ZUJ5KEOcqia8TKrLkuCG_YVaahktIVuPvpEdK6gT6acWWftYfkTeQpT5gglgEbx4rtsdDXX6P7d0MOJtIWUQjpxZKemurrCbHmSz9WWzbpkd6_HqyYSxkcBxllCNs6mYJBbtYM3pH4.WFFRmZcoU_pj-OPMDEFE8oML8lDdQGEhYtSGrZCmnbk&dib_tag=se&keywords=the+new+testament+david+bentley+hart&qid=1781355471&sprefix=The+New+Testament++David%2Caps%2C260&sr=8-1published by Yale University Press. So let’s start with John 14:16-30, and this is Jesus speaking. ‘And I shall entreat the Father, and he will give you another Advocate, that he may be with you throughout the age.’ Now, by the way, when Hart and all translators translate throughout the age, they’re talking about Aeons. The word is Aeons. And so an alternate translation that Hart mentions in the footnote to this passage, throughout the age, can also mean, or until the Aeons come, or until the return to the Aeons. So listen to this again. ‘And I shall entreat the Father, and he will give you another Advocate, that he may be with you throughout the coming of the Aeons.’ And of course here at Gnostic Insights and in Gnosticism, we believe that these Aeons are units of consciousness, that they’re parts of the Son, they’re parts of the mind of God. It’s not a measure of time, but a measure of consciousness. Carrying on with John 14:16. ‘The Spirit of Truth, which the cosmos cannot receive, because it neither sees nor knows it, you know it because it abides with you and will be within you. I shall not leave you orphans. I am coming to you. Just a little while, and the cosmos no longer sees me, but you see me. Because I live, you too will live. On that day, [and he’s referring to Pentecost, the coming of the Third Order of Powers], you will know that I am in my Father, and you are in me, and I am in you. Whoever has my commandments and keeps them, that one is the one who loves me. And whoever loves me will be loved by my Father, and I will love him and manifest myself to him.’ Then Judas, not Iscariot, says to him, ‘Lord, what has happened then that you were about to manifest yourself to us and not to the cosmos?’ Jesus answered and said to him, ‘if someone loves me, he will keep my word, and my Father will love him, and we will come to him, and we’ll make our home with him. Whoever does not love me does not keep my words, and the word that you hear is not mine, but rather that of the Father who has sent me. These things I’ve spoken to you while remaining with you, but the Advocate, the Spirit, the Holy One, which the Father will send in my name, he will teach you everything and will remind you of everything I have told you. Peace I leave you, my peace I give to you. I give to you not as the cosmos gives. Do not let your heart be troubled, neither let it be afraid. I will no longer speak much with you, but the Archon of the cosmos is coming, and he has no hold in me, but so that the cosmos may know that I love the Father, and that just as the Father has commanded me, so I do.’ Now, what Jesus was sharing with the disciples in this passage was that his physical body was about to go away. We know that he was about to be crucified and gone. They don’t exactly understand what’s about to happen because they can’t see the future, but Jesus can. He says, I’m going to go away, but don’t worry, I’m going to send a Spirit called the Advocate, and it will come in my name, and in the name of the Father, and it will advise you. Right now you walk with me physically, and I am outside of you, but when the Advocate comes, it will be inside of you. And here at Gnostic Insights, I describe the coming of the Third Order of Powers as overlaying our Second Order Power. See, it’s like your cells of your body. Imagine that there is another version of you that is perfected, that is cleansed of all illness, or cleansed of all poor cellular replication. We’re making an analogy here between cells and spiritual parts, but right now I’m just talking about cells. So let’s say you’ve got all these kind of little faults in your body that have developed over the years. Now imagine there was a perfected body that slipped right into you, like a sort of like a ghost, the Holy Ghost, overlaying upon your cells that cause your cells to pattern themselves after it. It’s like stepping into your body and overlaying what has been damaged over the years. Well, that is what happens with our spiritual bodies. We are what are called Second Order Powers, and we are made up of various combinations of, I hate to get confusing here for you, but of the First Order Powers. The First Order Powers were the Aeons. The Second Order Powers are all of us living things. The Third Order Powers are the perfected Christly powers. We are the fruit of the First Order Powers. Each of us is unique, a unique combination of various First Order Powers, and they make up our body. It’s like the recipe. Each of us has a different recipe. Down here, we manifest that recipe. That is who I am. You have a slightly different recipe, but mainly we’re the same. When the Third Order of Powers come, they overlay upon your unique combination and my unique combination. The Third Order Powers are unique to each one of us because they are made to be in our countenance so that we will recognize them. These perfected Third Order Powers, the army of Christ, steps into our soul, steps into our spirit, and overlays upon our pattern, upon our recipe. That’s what brings us the perfection of the Christ. But it only happens if you ask for it. It only happens when you allow it and you seek it out. Now, at the end of that quote I just read you out of John, he says, peace I leave you, my peace I give to you. I give to you not as the cosmos gives. And you see, the distinction is that the cosmos, that’s our material instantiation. That’s the material part of our bodies. It’s the material world. It’s matter itself. And Jesus is saying that when he gives you something, it’s not the way that the Demiurge gives it to you, with strings, lots of strings. Jesus says, do not let your heart be troubled, neither let it be afraid. So we’re not supposed to live in a spirit of fear. There’s no need to be afraid. When you trust in the Father, when you trust in the Christ and the Holy Spirit, you are imbued with the most powerful energy that has ever been. It far outweighs the energy of the cosmos, the energy of the material, the energy of the Demiurge, the energy of the archons. It outranks them, it outweighs them, it’s more powerful. And when you allow it to come inside of you, then you have that power within you to overcome the archons, the cosmos, the Demiurge. Jesus says, I will no longer speak much with you, [that is physically, because he’s about to be crucified], for the archon of the cosmos is coming. He’s speaking of the Demiurge in the form of the Roman soldiers that are about to arrest him and put him to death. And he has no hold in me. [So he’s saying that even though the archon of the cosmos is coming, it couldn’t contain him except that Jesus is allowing it.] He has no hold in me, [because Jesus is more powerful, because Jesus embodies the Christ]. He’s the first perfected human to embody the energy of the Third Order Powers. That’s what it means by being fully human and fully God. Jesus says, but so that the cosmos may know that I love the Father, and that just as the Father has commanded me to do so. And what is this commandment of Jesus? Well, that’s described in Matthew 22:37-39—the teaching most often referred to as Jesus’s commandment and what is called the great commandment. And Jesus summarizes God’s law, all of those laws of the Old Testament that the Demiurge had constructed. He summarizes them into two main commands. 1: Love God completely. 2: Two, love others as yourself. And here’s the quote, ‘You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your reason. This is the great and first commandment. The second is like it. You shall love your neighbor as yourself. All the law and the prophets depend upon these two commandments.’ Together, these two are described as the foundation of all the other laws and teachings. Of course, when the Demiurge had this transcribed, he had the hundreds and hundreds and thousands of rules added onto it, because the Demiurge is law-bound, and he can only work through law. But Jesus said, don’t worry about all those little laws that you’ve been burdened with. All you have to know is love your neighbor, and love the Father, love God, and then all the other commandments will take care of themselves, because the power of love will be working through you. The book of John, chapter 15:17-27, puts it this way: ‘These things I command you so that you love one another. If the cosmos hates you, you know that it has hated me before you. If you were of the cosmos, the cosmos would have loved its own. But since you are not of the cosmos, the cosmos therefore hates you. But all these things they will do to you on account of my name, because they do not know the one who has sent me. Whoever hates me also hates my Father. But they have both seen and hated both me and my Father. And thus might the passage written in the law, [and that’s the law of Jehovah, of the Old Testament], be fulfilled.’ And here’s what the passage said, ‘When the Advocate comes, whom I shall send to you from the Father, the Spirit of Truth who comes forth from the Father, he will testify concerning me. And you too must testify, for you are with me from the beginning.’ Now, this from the beginning—that’s a Gnostic term, and that was before the material cosmos was created from the Fall. In the Tripartite Tractate, it says that only those things which were from the beginning will continue through eternity. The rest will be disappeared. So, Jesus is saying that the number one command is to love. And he’s also saying that the cosmos will hate you if you do, because the cosmos hates love. Again, from the New Testament book of John, in chapter 16, verses 1 through 15, Jesus says, ‘I’ve spoken these things to you so that you might not be caused to falter. They will make you exiles from the synagogue, [and I add, and the churches and the mosques], and an hour is coming in which everyone who kills you thinks he is offering a service to God. And they will do these things because they have known neither the Father nor me. But I tell you the truth, it is for your own good that I should go away. For if I do not go away, the Advocate, [that is the Holy Spirit, that is the Third Order Powers, that is the army of Christ], surely is not coming to you. But if I go, I shall send him to you. And when he comes, it will prove the cosmos wrong concerning righteousness and concerning judgment, concerning sin.’ And by the way, sin means literally to miss the mark, as if you’re shooting an arrow at a target. It’s to miss the bullseye. It means to fail, to fall short, as if your arrow fell short of the bullseye. So that’s what sin is. It’s not a list of naughty things. It simply means to miss the mark. So Jesus is saying, when that one comes, the Spirit of Truth, ‘He will prove the cosmos wrong concerning righteousness and concerning judgment, concerning sin because they do not have faith in me, and concerning righteousness because I am going to the Father and you no longer see me, and concerning judgment because the archon of this cosmos, the Demiurge, has been judged. I still have many things to tell you, but right now you cannot hear them. But when that one comes, the Spirit of Truth, he will guide you on the way to all truth, for he will not speak from himself, but will speak what he hears, and he will announce to you things to come. That one will glorify me because he will receive from what is mine and will announce it to you. All that the Father has is mine. That is why I said that he receives from what is mine and will announce it to you.’ Now in this passage, when Jesus is talking about the Spirit of Truth and that it will come to the disciples after he is physically disembodied, it will come to everyone who accepts the coming of the Spirit of truth—that Spirit of truth, that’s gnosis. That is gnosis. That’s all there is to it. It’s not lists of this and lists of that that you have to memorize. It’s not the names of the angels and the names of the archons and the names of the Aeons. It’s not the order of the planets or the astrology. It’s not the secrets of alchemy. Those are not the gnosis of which Jesus is speaking. It doesn’t have to do with having magical powers over the cosmos. The cosmos is the cosmos. This is the kingdom of the Demiurge. This is the kingdom of the archon of the cosmos. This is the valley of death. The Spirit of Truth, the gnosis that comes from above, is all about the Father. It’s about eternity and the ethereal plane. It’s simply about love and the fact that we come from love and that we will return to love and that this down here is mostly delusion. It’s mostly falsehoods. That’s why the Holy Spirit is known as the Spirit of Truth. It’s what combats the Spirit of delusion, the falsity of the deficiency, the falsity of the imitation, as we know it here in Gnosticism. So you see these quotes in the New Testament, they’re all about gnosis. They are Gnostic. It’s just that we are not familiar with them if we are Christians nowadays, because the gnosis was taken out. The true references, the definitions of these phrases, were taken out. That’s why I call this the Gnostic Reformation. I’m literally sitting here attempting to return Christianity to its roots, to what Jesus is teaching here. He’s teaching of the Father above, not the God of this world. Now you’ve heard the Holy Spirit being referred to as the Advocate, which is a legal term. And when Jesus referred to the Holy Spirit, he called it the Advocate. And the Advocate’s role is to teach us, to guide us, to remind us, and to empower us as believers. The Son of Man, whom Jesus was known as, is a messianic title from Daniel 7 of the Old Testament, one of the prophets of the Old Testament. The Son of Man is a title that refers to one who receives authority, kingship, and judgment. He’s the representative human who rules God’s kingdom. So the role of the Messiah, or the Son of Man, is judge, king, mediator of God’s reign. And the Holy Spirit is our Advocate. He’s the defense attorney. So who’s the prosecution? It’s the Accuser, and that is the original word used whenever you see the word Satan referred to. It’s actually the Accuser. So the Accuser is the Demiurge, or one of his chief henchmen, one of his archons, that we call Satan. He’s our prosecutor. It’s its job to make us feel bad, to accuse us of crimes and sins and petty misdeeds, and not being loving enough or not being good enough to even talk to God. But the Holy Spirit is our defense attorney on the other side, who says, of course they’re good enough. Of course you’re fine. If you love me, if you love the Father, all is good. That’s his job. And it’s the job of the Son of Man, the king, to judge. So I’m going to put a little chart in the transcript here of the difference between the Son of Man and the Advocate. The Son of Man is the Messiah, King, Judge. The Advocate is the presence of God within. You see, it’s always within. So this notion that the Third Order Powers comes into us and overlays upon our Second Orderness, that’s not Gnostic hyperbole. That’s not my imagination. It says this in the Bible. It’s the presence of God within. The mission of the Son of Man, of Jesus, was to establish the kingdom here in the cosmos. Because after the Fall, the cosmos was entirely ruled by the Archon of the cosmos. But after the coming of the Son of Man, that is our most perfect human being from above, it is the Son of Man’s job, his mission to establish the kingdom here in the cosmos, to redeem us. And the Advocate’s job is to continue and to internalize that work, to bring it inside of each and every human being on the planet. But it can’t do that without cooperation, without being invited. So this is God outside of us and God inside of us, an internal presence, and it’s ongoing. In Gnostic terms, the ongoing Spirit, the Advocate, that brings the presence of the Son into us is the Third Order of Powers that comes with each of our countenances, or our faces, so that we can recognize the one to whom we pray. That’s a paraphrase out of the Tripartite Tractate, that the Third Order Power, the Christ, comes with the face of everyone who prays for help. It also comes with the face of every one of the Aeons above, and with the face of the Son of God. So you can see it’s the most powerful thing that exists. The Third Order of Powers replaces our Second Order Power with a renewed and repaired indwelling of Spirit. We can’t rectify our own flaws. Redemption must come from a wiser, greater source. If you could fix yourself, you’d have fixed yourself by now. It’s called pulling yourself up from your own bootstraps. You can’t lift yourself off the ground by pulling up on your shoelaces. You need a more powerful figure from the outside. If they pull up on your shoelaces, they can lift you up from the ground. You see, that’s the expression known as being lifted by your bootstraps. I don’t know if you remember that or not. Anyway, we can’t rectify our own flaws. Redemption must come from a wiser, greater source. The Christ was formed for that very purpose and duty. The Son of Man is our perfected genotype of humanity. Let me repeat John 16, 7 to 11 again. ‘For if I do not go away, the Advocate surely is not coming to you. But if I go, I shall send him to you. And when he comes, he will prove the cosmos wrong concerning righteousness and concerning judgment, concerning sin because they do not have faith in me, concerning righteousness because I am going to the Father and you will no longer see me, concerning judgment because the archon of this cosmos has been judged.’ Do you understand that phrase better now? Now from Paul’s first letter to the Corinthians, chapter 3, verse 18 through 23. ‘Let no one deceive himself. If anyone among you thinks to be a wise man in this age, let him become foolish in order to become wise. For the wisdom of this cosmos is folly before God. For it has been written, He catches the wise in their craftiness. And again, the Lord knows the ponderings of the wise that they are vapid. Hence, let no one boast in human beings, for all things are yours, and you the anointed and the anointed gods.’ And this bit about appearing foolish in the eyes of the world—I know that when we profess to follow these Gnostic teachings, that people who think themselves so wise, so smart, and so much better than we are, think we’re stupid jerks. We are much reviled for being innocent, for being true believers. But that is how we are to be. We are to believe as children, fully believing with all of our hearts and minds and reason. Don’t hold back because you’re afraid that people are going to think you’re stupid. They’ve always thought that. They mocked Jesus. Of course they’re going to mock you. But the wisdom of this cosmos is folly before God, it says. And it also says that the ponderings of the wise are vapid. Vapid means empty, like vapor. So people that think they’re so darn smart, they’re not. They’re just serving the archon of the cosmos. But it’s folly. It’s foolishness. You can’t take it with you. All that matters is your connection to the Father above, and your love for the Father, and your love for your fellow humans. Not pretending, not professing to be love that arises from hatred, but true love, true righteousness. And when you ask the Third Order Powers to come and help you, to come and redeem you, that’s between you and the Father. That’s between you and the Aeons. That’s between you and the Christ. It doesn’t have to do with some priest, or some minister, or some internet influencer. It’s a private matter. But once you do have the indwelling of the Holy Spirit, and you’ll know it when it happens, that’s that born-again experience. You’ll be filled with reassurance. You’ll be flooded with love. You’ll know that it happens. And then you will know that you are the anointed, that is, that you belong to Christ, and that you belong to the anointed God, that is, the Father. So in conclusion, from the Acts of the Apostles, chapter 2, verse 38, it says, And Peter said to them, Change your hearts, [and that’s from the hearts of stone to hearts of receptive flesh, like we talked about last week], change your hearts. Let each of you be baptized upon the name of Jesus, the Anointed, for the forgiveness of your sins, and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit, [that is, the army of the Christ, the Third Order of Powers, sent to battle the archons of this cosmos on your behalf]. God bless us all. Onward and upward. The Gnostic Reformation is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber. Thanks for reading The Gnostic Reformation! This post is public so feel free to share it. This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit cydropp.substack.com/subscribe [https://cydropp.substack.com/subscribe?utm_medium=podcast&utm_campaign=CTA_2]