Podcasts about Codex Sinaiticus

Play Episode Listen Later Jun 26, 2026 36:40

Welcome back to Gnostic Insights and to the Gnostic Reformation on Substack. Last week was part one of my interview with Bishop Nathan Wilson of the Gnostic Union, and he explained to us a bit about who the Gnostic Union is and what they believe in. At the beginning of that episode, I read from the Gnostic Union website their history and mission statement. And my brother Billy called me up and said, “Oh, but there’s a point of their theology that’s all wrong. I know they’re ecumenical and all, but we mustn’t fall into the error of wrong teaching.” And, you know, I totally agree with that concept, not teaching anything that is incorrect or that doesn’t make sense, according to the Gnosticism that I share with you here. And it created a very large discussion between my brother and me. And I don’t even have enough time in this short introduction to go into the point that Bill brought up out of their statement of beliefs. So we’ll wait and we’ll do that when these interviews are all over and that way we can go into depth and give the topic the attention it deserves. You see, the Gnosticism that I share with you here mostly comes from the Tripartite Tractate of the Nag Hammadi. And the Tripartite Tractate is a very unusual book. It is not a book of mythology. It is not a book of ancient myths concerning angels and demigods and great battles in heaven and so forth. It’s not that kind of book. We think of it as physics. It’s literally a book that describes the cosmology and the cosmogony, that is, how consciousness came to be transmitted from the base state of consciousness that we call the Father or the Source, and all the way downstream into, ultimately, us. We’re sitting here talking and thinking about it. This is pure consciousness we’re talking about. It’s not particularities. You understand? Gnosis itself we think of as that river of consciousness. That’s what gnosis is. So, I often say, if my dog can’t understand the gnosis, it’s not really gnosis—it's a knowledge claim. If a blade of grass or a tree in the forest can’t bask in the gnosis, then it’s not really gnosis. It’s a human knowledge claim. This is the reason why here at Gnostic Insights and on the Gnostic Reformation, we do not dwell in the history of things. We dwell in the understanding or the gnosis itself. The cosmogony and cosmology of Gnosticism that I share with you here is a logical step-by-step rollout of the consciousness of the Father or the Source. It doesn’t really matter what you call it. It’s the base state. It’s the matrix of consciousness itself and how it flows down to us. There are necessary steps described in the Tripartite Tractate for how that consciousness is differentiated and particularized and then rolled down. And how it is that we material beings are different than the ethereal beings. How could that have possibly happened? It’s like that. It’s a logical progression that necessarily comes out of an a priori statement of consciousness as the ground state. That’s quite a bit different than mythologies of how these angels fit in with these gods and goddesses down here on earth and so forth. Because those particularities definitely come out of the mind of humans. They can be inspired. Okay, I’ll give you that. But they are knowledge claims. They’re not necessarily gnosis and because of that they can go wrong. They can be wrong. Whereas starting with this a priori notion of consciousness ending up in us and how does that occur? By what means does that possibly happen? And how is it that we earthlings plug into that illimitable consciousness? That’s a different thing. That’s a description of process. That’s an understanding or a gnosis of what it is that we are part of. 15 steps in Gnostic Cosmology So I’m not knocking the history or the particularities that Bishop Wilson shares with us. But the gnosis that leads you to enlightenment is simply this: We come from the Father [El Elyon] or from the Source or from the Mother-Father or from the Great Mother—whatever you want to call it. We come from that Source, that unlimited well of consciousness and life and power and might and love. And then we will return to that. That’s all you have to know. We come from Above and we return to Above. And with that knowledge, that’s your base state. That’s what the blades of grass and the dogs and the trees all understand. All the rest of the particularities of who and why and how, those are just details being filled in. Some of them out of gnosis, but most of them out of tradition or history. So we’ll be proceeding now into part two of my interview with Bishop Nathan Wilson of the Gnostic Union. And later on, we’re going to talk some more about the difference between mythology and the process of gnosis. That is what this podcast specializes in. That’s what my brother Bill and I have parsed out and discovered out of direct mining of the Tripartite Tractate. Our gnosis comes from that and it proceeds in an orderly fashion that doesn’t require any extra research. It’s all about gnosis and what must be. But here, let’s go back to this interview with Brother Wilson. **************************************************************** Cyd: Well, tell me more about your Bible that you wrote. What do you call it? You call it… Bishop Nathan Wilson: I call it The Gnostic Christian Truth Bible. I actually asked one of the older bishops that trained me, Bishop Jason, and he started that. So, I like the name. So, I thought, okay, I want to put Gnostic Christian in there. So, I was going to call it first the Truth Bible. He requested that, but I thought, well, Gnostic Christian makes it less likely for the Catholics to come after me as well, and the Protestants. Many do not like my translations. They are quite upset that I’ve done this, but they don’t put too much light on me. So, it’s best not to give me too much attention, basically. So, the less attention I have, the less people know about this, but which is something unique about mine. I don’t just offer my translations. I offer the original Koine Greek with it, so they can look at the actual text. So, even if my translation, say, could be wrong, they could look straight at that text and go argue with the text that they see, which I also wanted to include for their own reason, and when I included the alternative English, it’s so I might read it one way, but someone else is going to read it another way, and that can teach me something new. I feel, oh, I didn’t understand it like that. So, that’s why I wanted to keep that in there too, and a couple of words I kept in there were Greek. So, I kept Logos. I kept Kosmos, Zoe, Sophia, Archon. Magus. I kept all these words. So, very, very Gnostic, and you won’t find these in the English translations. They have gone out of their ways to censor them. I also kept the word daemon or daimon, daemon, so I did not put that down as demon because that’s not what it means. So, I kept the original Greek context of use, and I also add a Greek, Koine Greek, index in my translation so people can actually look at little snippets of what these words mean. So, I have some things in here. So, this is just on one page on basically all Greek with English meaning. So, there’s Logos, which I explained means God’s word, God’s authority, God’s reasoning, song, and speech, and utterance. So, when you see Christians speak that Jesus is speaking the Word, or in the beginning there was Word, they are doing a disservice to what’s being implied. This is the word of God. Very different, and even the word God we use is very English. I did keep up, but for the English sake of things. So, English people wouldn’t freak out too much on me, and another thing is also a safer mouthful, because this Word means supreme deity, deity of deities, which is very interesting. Otherwise, we would go into a god, which is lesser gods as well. So, we have a pantheon. So, it was very different, like even monotheism would evolve into what we think it is today, but in the ancient past with ancient Jewish people, they did believe in other gods, it’s just they chose to worship one god. So, this would be not the same as monotheism now, where you completely reject them as non-existent. This wasn’t that case. So, they had a very different mind. So I kept Sophia being wisdom. I mentioned this is how this is feminine wisdom, God’s feminine wisdom, coming from the Hebrew word Chokmah. Sometimes those are called Chokmah. So, I kept that in there as Sophia. Zoe, I kept too, meaning basically when you see eternal Zoe, that’s eternal life. So, that’s implying the feminine wisdom again, but also the spiritual benefits one receives with a spiritual relationship with God, or what’s with mine. So, I kept that in there. So, it’s very feminine, and that’s being removed. They would not want you to know that life is Zoe, and there’s other words they could have used for life or soul, but they chose to use the word Zoe, and that’s important. So, I kept that in there. And I’ve also got Megas. I’ve already mentioned that, but Magus comes from—here’s two words that are entwined, but the thing was the church has used a later translation, which would be terrible, but that’s kind of wrong, and this is because the language would evolve over time. It came to words Megus and Magos, which basically would be Magi, and then great and powerful, larger than life. So, Jesus was also called Iesous Magos. So, Jesus the Great, Jesus the Wise, has been censored because of Magus, and they don’t want you to know about Simon Magus. They don’t want you to know anything about Gnosticism. So, this has been censored, and I’ve also put some passages where find this. I kept Daemon in here, or Diamon. Gehenna, I also translated in here. I kept Gehenna. I did not use hell because hell is German. It’s realm of light in German, so it’s a Germanic word. So, I kept the word Gehenna, which is ultimately what we would kind of call hell, but it’s not what people think it is. That’s an evolved tradition. So, Gehenna or even Abaddon, these are two different words, but the same thing. Gehenna was the place where the soul was destroyed or purified. So, the text can translate to eternal punishment, but that’s not strictly bound to it. That’s more would be a later theology bound to that translation where it means period of time. So, it doesn’t necessarily mean all these different things. It’s like the word soma where it’s all about Jesus’ body. It can be living body, dead body, or a carcass, or even the living body of the church, which is more symbolic, but fascinating. I also kept in here a couple words, such as I explained Hades, which is mentioned with Sheol and how that’s separate from Gehenna. I’ve kept Helios, Selene, Astron, or Asterios, as well as Aletheia. These words are very interesting because they are all gods. They’re all Greco-Roman gods. So, the scholars or, I really should say, a Christian apologist, that state there’s no pagan gods in the New Testament—they are entirely wrong. It’s just that they have looked at it in a modern Greek eye instead of looking at an ancient past—they would have seen the gods being mentioned. So that’s very interesting. So when Jesus says that the stars and the sun is falling, he’s not speaking about the sun and stars. He’s speaking about the Helios, the Roman sun god is falling, and the stars and goddesses falling, as well as Selene, the moon, so the moon goddess. That’s the falling of the pagan Roman gods that was subjecting the Jewish people. So very different theology. So theology matters. So we have to look at how people believed back these times. [Jesus speaks of the stars, moon, and sun in Matthew 24:29, Mark 13:25, Luke 21:25. Assigning them as gods and goddesses is Bishop Wilson's interpretation.] The Jewish people did not like the Romans. Not saying that all of them did not. We had some that were pro-Roman. One of the Romans that was involved in the Jewish revolt, fighting against the Jewish people, was Jewish, which is cool. And he was related to Philo of Alexandria. So very interesting. I think he might be his grandson. Cyd: Let me jump in for a second as we’re speaking about gods and the God Above All Gods versus lesser gods. Is it your thought that the God of the Jews of the Old Testament, Jehovah, is a lesser god as opposed to the God Above All Gods? Bishop Nathan Wilson: Yes. Cyd: Okay, so Jehovah is the tribal god of the Old Testament? Bishop Nathan Wilson: Yes, a bit of a mix. So there’s two gods. Well, there’s a couple, if you’ve got to go every single god being mentioned. But what they’re describing is, say, Deuteronomy 32:8, you have El Elyon dividing up the nations according to the Elohim being children of El, and Yahweh received his inheritance from the most high God. So Yahweh was more like a guardian deity, basically. He was a brother of Baal. But some Canaanites believed that Yahweh was Baal. So Yahweh kind of came later after Baal. But the first to worship Yahweh were the Sashu of Yahweh. So they were Canaanite raiders. Hebrew was also a Canaanite language. [The earliest trace of Yahweh isn't Israelite—it's desert-born. Egyptian inscriptions speak of the “Shasu of YHW,” nomadic peoples on the edges of Canaan, sometimes regarded as raiders. It suggests the name of Yahweh may have emerged out of the wilderness before it was ever claimed by Israel. Even Hebrew itself comes out of the same Canaanite linguistic world.] So I see the views—the ones that were worshipping El would be the ones that would become the Essenes or Jewish mystics. So the Essenes worshipped El. They didn’t worship Yahweh. They viewed Yahweh as a lesser god, which is one reason they challenged the temple, because they viewed, you guys aren’t worshipping God, you’re worshipping the lesser deity, you’re worshipping an angel. And so they rejected the temple. And the priesthood was corrupt. So then you also had the Magharians or Magarites. They were first century BC era Jews. They were proto-Gnostic, so that’s a scholar term. So they were Jewish mystics. They believed that Yahweh was a demiurge and that he was a lieutenant. So not an evil demiurge, but he was ignorant of the most high Father El Elyon, but that’s not a name to them. That was just a title meaning most high God. So they didn’t believe in God with a name, the unknowable Father, they believed was beyond sex as well. So Mother-Father, basically. So beyond all things. Too perfect to interfere with matter. And they believed that the Torah had been corrupted. So that’s fascinating. So that’s a group that we want to talk about. So we had about 25 different versions of Judaism during that time with all different beliefs. So what type of Jew was Jesus? This makes a big, big difference. So not all Jews worshipped Yahweh. Some viewed him as a lesser God and some viewed him as the devil, which is whack. So the only Gnostics or proto-Gnostics would use that word devil at that time. So we have the wisdom of Solomon, which is the first text adored by Christians that they would say, look, this is our Messiah mentioning he’s a dying and rising Messiah calling himself the Son of God and he’s been crucified. So this means that just like our text, he would die a shameful death. But this text mentions that through death, the devil enters the world. So the Pharisees didn’t believe in the devil. The Sadducees didn’t either. But what’s interesting about the Pharisees and Sadducees and the Herodians, which kind of made up both these groups, they were a part of both, just the Herodians mostly supported King Herod. They believed that either King Herod was the Messiah or his family would be, or they belonged to the Sadducees and didn’t believe in a Messiah. So the Sadducees didn’t believe in angels. They didn’t believe in an afterlife. They believed once you were dead, the soul turned to dust. God was too perfect to interfere with humans. So that’s an interesting belief. But we had different subsects of Sadducees that had a different opinion to that. They believed that God did interfere with humans, but we had total free will. So they could interfere with some things, but there was no Messiah. There was no angels. So they believed that a human could be a messenger of God. That was about it. So like Moses. Then you had the Pharisees. They believed that Satan served Yahweh. His job was to test humanity or seduce humanity away from God. So that way mankind had free will. But some Pharisees didn’t believe that. They believed that Satan, Hasatan, was just symbolic for mankind’s inclination towards evil. So they didn’t believe in an evil being. So their belief was that God ordained good and evil, basically, would use evil for his own will. So that’s trippy, very trippy. So the Pharisees had a very different belief. They didn’t believe in the adversary against God. They didn’t believe in fallen angels. Later on, they would take on this belief, borrowing it from mystics and zealots. So funny enough, they would be influenced by Jesus’ teachings, such as saving a life on the Sabbath. The Pharisees would not do that. But to be fair, some Essenes wouldn’t do that either. Some Essenes were very warlike, wanting to join God’s angelic army fighting at the Armageddon of the last days of the world. But these mystics, they are the only groups that believed in fallen angels and believed in a place of punishment. The only groups. And that’s fascinating. So they believed in a physical adversary against God. And these beliefs are carried on in the Christianity with the Armageddon day, or even the belief that God basically allows Satan to do what he wants, but he’s going to conquer over him. That was an Essene belief. They believed that Belial was the adversary against God, a fallen angel, leader of the fallen angels, and God would allow him the sin because he would destroy him in the end. So that was an Essene belief, but not all that belief. Some believed that basically fallen angels chose to rebel against God, so they had free will and that God would overcome them in the end. So that’s different. So we have to look at those beliefs because that makes a big difference in theology as well. And one reason I chose to keep daemon or daimon in the text is because this doesn’t mean Jesus is casting out evil demons, but rather, well, the ghost of the mystic belief of pagan gods were fallen angels. So he’s casting out pagan gods, or he’s just casting out unclean spirits, depending on what the definition of word is, because that daimon or unclean spirit, for instance, isn’t always referenced to a pagan god. It’s just someone who’s died vengeful or angry at God, and is now just a ghost causing haunting. So it depends on how it’s being used. So I kept those words in there. So if the word said unclean spirit, I kept that as unclean spirit. But if it was going into a daimon for a pagan god, basically I’ll keep it as that daimon, so they could choose how they’re going to read it. Because sometimes you’re dealing with two things at once. Sometimes you’re dealing with an unclean spirit, then a pagan god’s being mentioned too. So this archon ruler’s having little other minions subject under him. So we even have an archon ruler being mentioned. So an archon of the daemons, ruler of pagan gods. So other gods had dominions, basically. So they viewed these other gods having their own realms of power, which we also see in the Gnostic text. So I kept all that. I also kept the archon of the synagogue, which is a ruler of the synagogue. So it’s not always a bad thing. Sometimes it’s just political rulers that are mentioned. So an archon of the Gentiles, for instance, is just a ruler of Gentiles, just a politician. I have kept archons in the sense of Yahweh somewhat, I believe, as being the devil. Because in John 8:44, we have Jesus going up to the Pharisees and Sadducees and Herodians who made up the high priesthood. He says, You are of your father, the devil. But if only these Gnostic Jews believed in the devil and their God is Yahweh, who’s he calling devil? And then when the daemons are calling him Son of the most high God, they’re calling him huios, which means son. Huios tou theou tou hypsistou, which is Greek for Son of the most high God. But if you put this in the Hebrew, it’s Son of El Elyon. So this is what the pagan gods are calling him. So the lesser gods. And then he’s also saying that we’re all the children of El Elyon, which is also fascinating. And also the word for son they’re using just means child. It can be male or female. But again, they’re wanting a male audience. So they restricted it, which is a shame. Cyd: How about the word aeon? A E O N. What do you do with that word? You know, in my work with the Tripartite Tractate, it seems to me that most references of aeon in the New Testament translate it as time, a period of time, or the end of the ages, the ages. Whereas I tend to see it always as eternal beings from the ethereal plane. What do you think about that? Bishop Nathan Wilson: I love that. I think that too. I think it’s a mixture of all these things, which is also, I keep, it depends on the context of use. But a lot of times you do see the text that is referring to a higher being, which is beautiful to mention, especially when you’re looking at Gnostic works. But you do see this in the New Testament as well. So you see one text mentioning, for instance, who is this Sophia and this higher power? And that’s how the text can translate too, which is fascinating. So that means who’s this unknown higher power. And then it mentions about the Aeon. And so you see all this sort of stuff being mentioned. Yes, it means an eternal being or an angelic being, but it can also mean eternity or a period of time. So depending on the context of use. So words have power as well. So that’s interesting. So again, how it’s used can make a world of a difference. And it’s interesting when they’re using certain words because there are some times that they could have chosen to use a different word. So when they’ve used a certain word like that, that can change the entire context of meaning. Cyd: Right. Like saying there’s some reference to judgment at the end of the age. And I’m always thinking that it’s judgment from the Aeons when I see that. But I’m not translating from scratch, I’m taking biblical translation, so what do I know? Bishop Nathan Wilson: You’re spot on though. So you’re correct. So it can translate that as well. And we have to realize that we have different versions of Christianity. So that’s certainly appropriate for a first century understanding. Most people are looking at from fourth century. So you’re looking at it from a first century point of view. And so you’re ahead of others in that sort of case, which is beautiful to see. So that’s rare. And I chose to keep that for that reason. So people can have their own conclusions, not having it forced onto them. Cyd: You are very much into the history of things. You’re an historian. I am not at all interested in history per se. I’m always talking about what other people believed in other times. That is not pertinent to our gnosis here and now. So what do you view the purpose of this deep historical knowledge that you have concerning the Jews and the Essenes and whatnot? And is it necessary to go into all of that? Bishop Nathan Wilson: If you want to, I guess, teach from a historical perspective as well as a spiritual one, then yes. But if you want to go for spiritual, you can just go by the heart. There were plenty of spiritual teachers that were illiterate, that could not read, that could not write, and they had a beautiful message. So there’s something more powerful that we can receive within that you won’t obtain from books. But ultimately, you can also have wisdom gained from books. It can be a form of worship or a form of connecting with the divine as well. We have many forms of worship or many forms of experience what’s divine or having that intimate moment with what’s divine to reflect and to deepen our purpose. I wanted to know the historical man we call Jesus and ultimately put into practice what he put into practice. So I wanted to look at the history side of things and especially also, what’s another word I would like to use, decondition myself, decondition past beliefs that were harmful, that did not serve me and ultimately not serving others, and also find out that I was wrong about many things, which I wanted to know as well. So what brought me to this was to know the man we call Jesus, Yeshua, or Yehoshua, whichever term you like, whichever name you want to use. So I want to know not just that, but I want to know his practices, what he did with his life, how his first followers lived, how the first Christians lived, and what I could use for my own spiritual path and how I could put that into practice. So that’s why I want to look at the history side of things. I think if you want to put into practice the different techniques of all the many different Gnostics, then you’re going to have to look at some of the history side of things to find those practices. That doesn’t mean that every single practice is necessary for you. So what works for me might not work for others. What works for others might not work for me. So double-edged sword. Cyd: What sort of practices are you referring to? Are these rituals? What’s the practices? Bishop Nathan Wilson: I go into some of the ancient rituals as well. Some of them I might look at the prayers that they would use, the diet they would take, or means of worship. So how they would go about their forms of private practice. So that sort of stuff. And then I might apply it into my own life and see how I can go. There’s still more I’d like to go and check out more. So I’m still studying a couple of some of the ancient practices as well. So from different or religious perspectives as well. And then I can see how I can put it to my own form of use. So I looked at a lot of Jewish Christians, they would do the shema for instance, before their meditations. And I’ll do that as well. [“Hear, O Israel: the Lord our God, the Lord is one… You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, with all your soul, and with all your strength…”] They also did breath works back then, which would also induce a sense of intoxication if you want to use, or light headness. And in turn that can also open a new state of reality. So entering the spiritual realm can be a vehicle, if you will, to get there. So to open the mind. And that’s also a practice that’s been used in ancient past. And we can certainly use that today. We have modern practices, say like Wim Hof, that teach breath work in meditation. That’s also useful. So sometimes looking at the past, we do see stuff in today’s world that’s not really new. It’s just being basically reentering this world again, from past knowledge gained of old. And I find that in a lot of Gnostic stuff. When you look at history, you kind of see that Gnostics kind of did a lot of things first, that what we’re doing now that we think is modern, but it’s not. It’s ancient. Cyd: That’s why conventional Christians who read my books, they say, oh, you’re just all new age. And I’m like, no, it’s not new age at all. It’s ancient. Bishop Nathan Wilson: Which is a shame that Christians have been shut off into their own world, which is kind of funny. I actually tell most Christians that they are, in fact, new age, because these beliefs are ancient. And what they are going by is, depending on what version of Christianity, if you’re Protestant, that’s 16th century, I believe. Non-denominal, 18th century. Protestant, 16th century. Catholicism, late second century. Orthodoxy, as we know it now, would be about 14th century. But older Orthodoxy, which would be the split from the Catholic church, is fourth century. So it’s when you go to Gnostic Christians, first century, and we’re really the only groups that are surviving, the Jewish Christians got killed. They ultimately were wiped out or would convert to mainstream Judaism or would become Christian or Islam, they would follow as well. So some would be converted to Muslims, which is also interesting as well. We as Gnostics were also harmed by these other groups, by Catholics, Protestants, Muslims as well. At one point Zoroastrians, but that was only one particular era. And we’ve basically arisen from all that, from that underground, and we’ve still survived, which is fascinating. It’s beautiful that we have. And also the texts that have been rediscovered, this is not accidental. This is all happening for a reason. What’s divine is experiencing itself where it can experience itself and express itself again safely in today’s world. In ancient past, it was dangerous to have diversion after the fourth century, which is a shame because the Catholics would kill those who came before them. They didn’t like that. And they even knew that some of the Gnostics, they had older writings, but they still denied them, which is funny. So it’s why such the hate, which is such a shame. So it goes back to that control of power, my way or the highway, basically. And it was never meant to be like that. It was meant to be very universal. It was meant to be very diverse. The first Christians were Gnostics and Jewish Christians, a mixture between strict law observing Jews and a mixture of Gentiles. And then you had the Jewish mystics that became the Christian mystics, which is fascinating. That was the original groups. And the original groups would argue amongst each other. The strict law observing Jews wanted circumcision, where the mystics said, no, no circumcision of the hearts, let the Gentiles come. That’s fine. So even when we look at the word, say, ethnos, for instance, in the Gospels, when you see kingdom against kingdom, nation against nation, these are the same things. So what they’re actually talking about is Gentile against Gentile and kingdom against kingdom. So the Jewish people didn’t have a kingdom at this stage. It was a mixture of Judea, Galilee and Samaria. So we’re the Samaritans. So that’s also something to take into account, too. So they didn’t like that. They were looking for a messiah to reunify the Jewish people, restore the Jewish faith and make Israel a kingdom again. And so some of them didn’t like the fact that Jesus wasn’t after this, for instance. So they didn’t like some of these teachings. It was a bit different. But if you look at the mystics, they had a very different interpretations. They did believe in a renewal of the Jewish faith, but a renewal back to El Elyon and a rejection of Yahweh. So that’s very different. So when you look at repentance, for Israel to repent, meaning for all of Israel to return back to El Elyon. And if you look at for the Gentiles conversion, that would be referring to not converting to any religion, but converting to God. So God outside religion. So fascinating. So you see all this in the original text. Cyd: And why do you suppose, this might be an unanswerable question, but why do you suppose conventional modern Christians are so, you know, extremely antagonistic towards Gnostic Christians? Is it fear or what? Bishop Nathan Wilson: Well, they’ve been told you're the enemy, basically. And yes, some of it is fear. Fear as well of the unknown. And also because of the need of an opponent. So they believe that they are doing a good thing. And if they don’t do this, they can be punished. So it’s the case of where a victim becomes an abuser. So most Christians have never even heard about Gnostics. It’s only the real ones who are into spiritual warfare, basically, and really full on extremist dogmatic ones that are familiar with, and apologetics. But they are now feeling like they’re losing the battle because more people were interested in Gnosticism and especially interested in other Jewish groups and the Dead Sea Scrolls, as well as the Nag Hammadi. So they’re realizing their other texts and there’s other options now. And that’s great. And regarding even my translations, one reason I chose to do it that I did, I found out that no modern English Bible translates from one source material. They’re all a mixture of different sources. So we have the Codex Sinaiticus mixed with the Latin Vulgate, mixing with Germanic copies, and then mixing ancient Koine Greek into modern Hebrew, putting it back into Greek. And that’s not good at all. So we’re just changing—we’re swapping chapters because we feel uncomfortable with them. So I was mortified when I was looking at that. And so I realized I couldn’t trust basically my Bible anymore. So I thought, well, I’m making this myself. And then I thought, well, I’m going to release it. Let’s go and share it too and do what they will with it. And it opened a lot of doorways to me, actually. So that’s one reason I wanted to give that out so people can have their own faith in their own interpretation and also believe in the message of Yeshua, bringing people back to the Most High God, to the Unknowable God, the Living Father, the Mother-Father. And we also see the Mother being mentioned in other texts too. It’s just mostly blocked out by mainstream Christianity, which is unfair, unfair to women and unfair to humanity with their approaches. It’s been very violent. So we need to remove that violence because that’s nothing to do with Yeshua’s teachings. He didn’t teach us to go around fighting each other. He said, Those who are for me are with me. They don’t understand his message. They very much follow the Catholic teachings of Paul that they’ve been given. And so they can look at the Gnostic teachings of Paul as well, which are also in there. Paul’s letters, we now know they’re mostly all forgeries. We don’t have any original copies either. They’re all later fourth century and we have some second century fragments. But the oldest reference to Paul is from the Ten Letters of Marcion. And he’s the man who compiled the first Christian Bible. And some people can argue, some people don’t believe he was a Gnostic. Others think he was a Gnostic. I think he was a type of Gnostic because he believed in a demiurge. So he believed that the God of the Jews was Yahweh and not the Supreme God of Jesus. That is a very Gnostic belief. But the thing is, the word Gnostic was given to us by the Catholic church, was a way of separating us and identifying us. But we wear it as a badge of honor because we understand they’re just calling us knowledgeable Christians, which is kind of funny. So language is powerful and the Catholic church certainly forgot it. So because of them, we now use daimon as demon. So they’ve basically demonized Jesus. They’ve demonized the Holy Spirit, which is their greatest sin. And they’ve demonized God and every other God. So they don’t know what damage they’ve done. And that’s not good. So I wanted to reverse that damage and bring people back to what I believe is the message of Yeshua, of Jesus, and to have their own spiritual relationship with God, an individual relationship, which is something that I want to see more of. That’s a very beautiful thing. You can’t define that intimate experience without living it. Cyd: Right, right. Well, that's all we have time for in this episode. We'll pick it up again next week for part three of my interview with Bishop Nathan Wilson of The Gnostic Union Church. I like the way he talks, huh? Until next week, onward and upward and God bless us all.

god jesus christ fear father english lord israel bible mother gospel christians holy spirit christianity german romans satan jewish greek jews catholic wise muslims old testament islam sabbath new testament egyptian bc deuteronomy substack pharisees hebrew gentiles israelites samaritan judaism armageddon galilee magi catholics catholicism hades logos torah yahweh jehovah protestant judea baal canaanites wim hof sadducees protestants orthodoxy yeshua kosmos king herod elohim gnosticism dead sea scrolls most high god greco roman gnostic aeon sheol helios philo daemon o israel germanic jewish christians magos assigning gnosis gehenna herodians gnostics english bible magus christian bible belial astron abaddon great mother yehoshua essenes el elyon archon nag hammadi marcion aletheia megas mother father essene aeons simon magus koine greek latin vulgate zoroastrians codex sinaiticus asterios diamon gnostic christian chokmah hasatan

Interview with Bishop Wilson pt. 2: The Gnostic Christian Truth Bible

Play Episode Listen Later Jun 26, 2026 36:40

Welcome back to Gnostic Insights and to the Gnostic Reformation on Substack. Last week was part one of my interview with Bishop Nathan Wilson of the Gnostic Union, and he explained to us a bit about who the Gnostic Union is and what they believe in. At the beginning of that episode, I read from the Gnostic Union website their history and mission statement. And my brother Billy called me up and said, “Oh, but there’s a point of their theology that’s all wrong. I know they’re ecumenical and all, but we mustn’t fall into the error of wrong teaching.” And, you know, I totally agree with that concept, not teaching anything that is incorrect or that doesn’t make sense, according to the Gnosticism that I share with you here. And it created a very large discussion between my brother and me. And I don’t even have enough time in this short introduction to go into the point that Bill brought up out of their statement of beliefs. So we’ll wait and we’ll do that when these interviews are all over and that way we can go into depth and give the topic the attention it deserves. You see, the Gnosticism that I share with you here mostly comes from the Tripartite Tractate of the Nag Hammadi. And the Tripartite Tractate is a very unusual book. It is not a book of mythology. It is not a book of ancient myths concerning angels and demigods and great battles in heaven and so forth. It’s not that kind of book. We think of it as physics. It’s literally a book that describes the cosmology and the cosmogony, that is, how consciousness came to be transmitted from the base state of consciousness that we call the Father or the Source, and all the way downstream into, ultimately, us. We’re sitting here talking and thinking about it. This is pure consciousness we’re talking about. It’s not particularities. You understand? Gnosis itself we think of as that river of consciousness. That’s what gnosis is. So, I often say, if my dog can’t understand the gnosis, it’s not really gnosis—it's a knowledge claim. If a blade of grass or a tree in the forest can’t bask in the gnosis, then it’s not really gnosis. It’s a human knowledge claim. This is the reason why here at Gnostic Insights and on the Gnostic Reformation, we do not dwell in the history of things. We dwell in the understanding or the gnosis itself. The cosmogony and cosmology of Gnosticism that I share with you here is a logical step-by-step rollout of the consciousness of the Father or the Source. It doesn’t really matter what you call it. It’s the base state. It’s the matrix of consciousness itself and how it flows down to us. There are necessary steps described in the Tripartite Tractate for how that consciousness is differentiated and particularized and then rolled down. And how it is that we material beings are different than the ethereal beings. How could that have possibly happened? It’s like that. It’s a logical progression that necessarily comes out of an a priori statement of consciousness as the ground state. That’s quite a bit different than mythologies of how these angels fit in with these gods and goddesses down here on earth and so forth. Because those particularities definitely come out of the mind of humans. They can be inspired. Okay, I’ll give you that. But they are knowledge claims. They’re not necessarily gnosis and because of that they can go wrong. They can be wrong. Whereas starting with this a priori notion of consciousness ending up in us and how does that occur? By what means does that possibly happen? And how is it that we earthlings plug into that illimitable consciousness? That’s a different thing. That’s a description of process. That’s an understanding or a gnosis of what it is that we are part of. 15 steps in Gnostic Cosmology So I’m not knocking the history or the particularities that Bishop Wilson shares with us. But the gnosis that leads you to enlightenment is simply this: We come from the Father [El Elyon] or from the Source or from the Mother-Father or from the Great Mother—whatever you want to call it. We come from that Source, that unlimited well of consciousness and life and power and might and love. And then we will return to that. That’s all you have to know. We come from Above and we return to Above. And with that knowledge, that’s your base state. That’s what the blades of grass and the dogs and the trees all understand. All the rest of the particularities of who and why and how, those are just details being filled in. Some of them out of gnosis, but most of them out of tradition or history. So we’ll be proceeding now into part two of my interview with Bishop Nathan Wilson of the Gnostic Union. And later on, we’re going to talk some more about the difference between mythology and the process of gnosis. That is what this podcast specializes in. That’s what my brother Bill and I have parsed out and discovered out of direct mining of the Tripartite Tractate. Our gnosis comes from that and it proceeds in an orderly fashion that doesn’t require any extra research. It’s all about gnosis and what must be. But here, let’s go back to this interview with Brother Wilson. **************************************************************** Cyd: Well, tell me more about your Bible that you wrote. What do you call it? You call it… Bishop Nathan Wilson: I call it The Gnostic Christian Truth Bible. I actually asked one of the older bishops that trained me, Bishop Jason, and he started that. So, I like the name. So, I thought, okay, I want to put Gnostic Christian in there. So, I was going to call it first the Truth Bible. He requested that, but I thought, well, Gnostic Christian makes it less likely for the Catholics to come after me as well, and the Protestants. Many do not like my translations. They are quite upset that I’ve done this, but they don’t put too much light on me. So, it’s best not to give me too much attention, basically. So, the less attention I have, the less people know about this, but which is something unique about mine. I don’t just offer my translations. I offer the original Koine Greek with it, so they can look at the actual text. So, even if my translation, say, could be wrong, they could look straight at that text and go argue with the text that they see, which I also wanted to include for their own reason, and when I included the alternative English, it’s so I might read it one way, but someone else is going to read it another way, and that can teach me something new. I feel, oh, I didn’t understand it like that. So, that’s why I wanted to keep that in there too, and a couple of words I kept in there were Greek. So, I kept Logos. I kept Kosmos, Zoe, Sophia, Archon. Magus. I kept all these words. So, very, very Gnostic, and you won’t find these in the English translations. They have gone out of their ways to censor them. I also kept the word daemon or daimon, daemon, so I did not put that down as demon because that’s not what it means. So, I kept the original Greek context of use, and I also add a Greek, Koine Greek, index in my translation so people can actually look at little snippets of what these words mean. So, I have some things in here. So, this is just on one page on basically all Greek with English meaning. So, there’s Logos, which I explained means God’s word, God’s authority, God’s reasoning, song, and speech, and utterance. So, when you see Christians speak that Jesus is speaking the Word, or in the beginning there was Word, they are doing a disservice to what’s being implied. This is the word of God. Very different, and even the word God we use is very English. I did keep up, but for the English sake of things. So, English people wouldn’t freak out too much on me, and another thing is also a safer mouthful, because this Word means supreme deity, deity of deities, which is very interesting. Otherwise, we would go into a god, which is lesser gods as well. So, we have a pantheon. So, it was very different, like even monotheism would evolve into what we think it is today, but in the ancient past with ancient Jewish people, they did believe in other gods, it’s just they chose to worship one god. So, this would be not the same as monotheism now, where you completely reject them as non-existent. This wasn’t that case. So, they had a very different mind. So I kept Sophia being wisdom. I mentioned this is how this is feminine wisdom, God’s feminine wisdom, coming from the Hebrew word Chokmah. Sometimes those are called Chokmah. So, I kept that in there as Sophia. Zoe, I kept too, meaning basically when you see eternal Zoe, that’s eternal life. So, that’s implying the feminine wisdom again, but also the spiritual benefits one receives with a spiritual relationship with God, or what’s with mine. So, I kept that in there. So, it’s very feminine, and that’s being removed. They would not want you to know that life is Zoe, and there’s other words they could have used for life or soul, but they chose to use the word Zoe, and that’s important. So, I kept that in there. And I’ve also got Megas. I’ve already mentioned that, but Magus comes from—here’s two words that are entwined, but the thing was the church has used a later translation, which would be terrible, but that’s kind of wrong, and this is because the language would evolve over time. It came to words Megus and Magos, which basically would be Magi, and then great and powerful, larger than life. So, Jesus was also called Iesous Magos. So, Jesus the Great, Jesus the Wise, has been censored because of Magus, and they don’t want you to know about Simon Magus. They don’t want you to know anything about Gnosticism. So, this has been censored, and I’ve also put some passages where find this. I kept Daemon in here, or Diamon. Gehenna, I also translated in here. I kept Gehenna. I did not use hell because hell is German. It’s realm of light in German, so it’s a Germanic word. So, I kept the word Gehenna, which is ultimately what we would kind of call hell, but it’s not what people think it is. That’s an evolved tradition. So, Gehenna or even Abaddon, these are two different words, but the same thing. Gehenna was the place where the soul was destroyed or purified. So, the text can translate to eternal punishment, but that’s not strictly bound to it. That’s more would be a later theology bound to that translation where it means period of time. So, it doesn’t necessarily mean all these different things. It’s like the word soma where it’s all about Jesus’ body. It can be living body, dead body, or a carcass, or even the living body of the church, which is more symbolic, but fascinating. I also kept in here a couple words, such as I explained Hades, which is mentioned with Sheol and how that’s separate from Gehenna. I’ve kept Helios, Selene, Astron, or Asterios, as well as Aletheia. These words are very interesting because they are all gods. They’re all Greco-Roman gods. So, the scholars or, I really should say, a Christian apologist, that state there’s no pagan gods in the New Testament—they are entirely wrong. It’s just that they have looked at it in a modern Greek eye instead of looking at an ancient past—they would have seen the gods being mentioned. So that’s very interesting. So when Jesus says that the stars and the sun is falling, he’s not speaking about the sun and stars. He’s speaking about the Helios, the Roman sun god is falling, and the stars and goddesses falling, as well as Selene, the moon, so the moon goddess. That’s the falling of the pagan Roman gods that was subjecting the Jewish people. So very different theology. So theology matters. So we have to look at how people believed back these times. [Jesus speaks of the stars, moon, and sun in Matthew 24:29, Mark 13:25, Luke 21:25. Assigning them as gods and goddesses is Bishop Wilson's interpretation.] The Jewish people did not like the Romans. Not saying that all of them did not. We had some that were pro-Roman. One of the Romans that was involved in the Jewish revolt, fighting against the Jewish people, was Jewish, which is cool. And he was related to Philo of Alexandria. So very interesting. I think he might be his grandson. Cyd: Let me jump in for a second as we’re speaking about gods and the God Above All Gods versus lesser gods. Is it your thought that the God of the Jews of the Old Testament, Jehovah, is a lesser god as opposed to the God Above All Gods? Bishop Nathan Wilson: Yes. Cyd: Okay, so Jehovah is the tribal god of the Old Testament? Bishop Nathan Wilson: Yes, a bit of a mix. So there’s two gods. Well, there’s a couple, if you’ve got to go every single god being mentioned. But what they’re describing is, say, Deuteronomy 32:8, you have El Elyon dividing up the nations according to the Elohim being children of El, and Yahweh received his inheritance from the most high God. So Yahweh was more like a guardian deity, basically. He was a brother of Baal. But some Canaanites believed that Yahweh was Baal. So Yahweh kind of came later after Baal. But the first to worship Yahweh were the Sashu of Yahweh. So they were Canaanite raiders. Hebrew was also a Canaanite language. [The earliest trace of Yahweh isn't Israelite—it's desert-born. Egyptian inscriptions speak of the “Shasu of YHW,” nomadic peoples on the edges of Canaan, sometimes regarded as raiders. It suggests the name of Yahweh may have emerged out of the wilderness before it was ever claimed by Israel. Even Hebrew itself comes out of the same Canaanite linguistic world.] So I see the views—the ones that were worshipping El would be the ones that would become the Essenes or Jewish mystics. So the Essenes worshipped El. They didn’t worship Yahweh. They viewed Yahweh as a lesser god, which is one reason they challenged the temple, because they viewed, you guys aren’t worshipping God, you’re worshipping the lesser deity, you’re worshipping an angel. And so they rejected the temple. And the priesthood was corrupt. So then you also had the Magharians or Magarites. They were first century BC era Jews. They were proto-Gnostic, so that’s a scholar term. So they were Jewish mystics. They believed that Yahweh was a demiurge and that he was a lieutenant. So not an evil demiurge, but he was ignorant of the most high Father El Elyon, but that’s not a name to them. That was just a title meaning most high God. So they didn’t believe in God with a name, the unknowable Father, they believed was beyond sex as well. So Mother-Father, basically. So beyond all things. Too perfect to interfere with matter. And they believed that the Torah had been corrupted. So that’s fascinating. So that’s a group that we want to talk about. So we had about 25 different versions of Judaism during that time with all different beliefs. So what type of Jew was Jesus? This makes a big, big difference. So not all Jews worshipped Yahweh. Some viewed him as a lesser God and some viewed him as the devil, which is whack. So the only Gnostics or proto-Gnostics would use that word devil at that time. So we have the wisdom of Solomon, which is the first text adored by Christians that they would say, look, this is our Messiah mentioning he’s a dying and rising Messiah calling himself the Son of God and he’s been crucified. So this means that just like our text, he would die a shameful death. But this text mentions that through death, the devil enters the world. So the Pharisees didn’t believe in the devil. The Sadducees didn’t either. But what’s interesting about the Pharisees and Sadducees and the Herodians, which kind of made up both these groups, they were a part of both, just the Herodians mostly supported King Herod. They believed that either King Herod was the Messiah or his family would be, or they belonged to the Sadducees and didn’t believe in a Messiah. So the Sadducees didn’t believe in angels. They didn’t believe in an afterlife. They believed once you were dead, the soul turned to dust. God was too perfect to interfere with humans. So that’s an interesting belief. But we had different subsects of Sadducees that had a different opinion to that. They believed that God did interfere with humans, but we had total free will. So they could interfere with some things, but there was no Messiah. There was no angels. So they believed that a human could be a messenger of God. That was about it. So like Moses. Then you had the Pharisees. They believed that Satan served Yahweh. His job was to test humanity or seduce humanity away from God. So that way mankind had free will. But some Pharisees didn’t believe that. They believed that Satan, Hasatan, was just symbolic for mankind’s inclination towards evil. So they didn’t believe in an evil being. So their belief was that God ordained good and evil, basically, would use evil for his own will. So that’s trippy, very trippy. So the Pharisees had a very different belief. They didn’t believe in the adversary against God. They didn’t believe in fallen angels. Later on, they would take on this belief, borrowing it from mystics and zealots. So funny enough, they would be influenced by Jesus’ teachings, such as saving a life on the Sabbath. The Pharisees would not do that. But to be fair, some Essenes wouldn’t do that either. Some Essenes were very warlike, wanting to join God’s angelic army fighting at the Armageddon of the last days of the world. But these mystics, they are the only groups that believed in fallen angels and believed in a place of punishment. The only groups. And that’s fascinating. So they believed in a physical adversary against God. And these beliefs are carried on in the Christianity with the Armageddon day, or even the belief that God basically allows Satan to do what he wants, but he’s going to conquer over him. That was an Essene belief. They believed that Belial was the adversary against God, a fallen angel, leader of the fallen angels, and God would allow him the sin because he would destroy him in the end. So that was an Essene belief, but not all that belief. Some believed that basically fallen angels chose to rebel against God, so they had free will and that God would overcome them in the end. So that’s different. So we have to look at those beliefs because that makes a big difference in theology as well. And one reason I chose to keep daemon or daimon in the text is because this doesn’t mean Jesus is casting out evil demons, but rather, well, the ghost of the mystic belief of pagan gods were fallen angels. So he’s casting out pagan gods, or he’s just casting out unclean spirits, depending on what the definition of word is, because that daimon or unclean spirit, for instance, isn’t always referenced to a pagan god. It’s just someone who’s died vengeful or angry at God, and is now just a ghost causing haunting. So it depends on how it’s being used. So I kept those words in there. So if the word said unclean spirit, I kept that as unclean spirit. But if it was going into a daimon for a pagan god, basically I’ll keep it as that daimon, so they could choose how they’re going to read it. Because sometimes you’re dealing with two things at once. Sometimes you’re dealing with an unclean spirit, then a pagan god’s being mentioned too. So this archon ruler’s having little other minions subject under him. So we even have an archon ruler being mentioned. So an archon of the daemons, ruler of pagan gods. So other gods had dominions, basically. So they viewed these other gods having their own realms of power, which we also see in the Gnostic text. So I kept all that. I also kept the archon of the synagogue, which is a ruler of the synagogue. So it’s not always a bad thing. Sometimes it’s just political rulers that are mentioned. So an archon of the Gentiles, for instance, is just a ruler of Gentiles, just a politician. I have kept archons in the sense of Yahweh somewhat, I believe, as being the devil. Because in John 8:44, we have Jesus going up to the Pharisees and Sadducees and Herodians who made up the high priesthood. He says, You are of your father, the devil. But if only these Gnostic Jews believed in the devil and their God is Yahweh, who’s he calling devil? And then when the daemons are calling him Son of the most high God, they’re calling him huios, which means son. Huios tou theou tou hypsistou, which is Greek for Son of the most high God. But if you put this in the Hebrew, it’s Son of El Elyon. So this is what the pagan gods are calling him. So the lesser gods. And then he’s also saying that we’re all the children of El Elyon, which is also fascinating. And also the word for son they’re using just means child. It can be male or female. But again, they’re wanting a male audience. So they restricted it, which is a shame. Cyd: How about the word aeon? A E O N. What do you do with that word? You know, in my work with the Tripartite Tractate, it seems to me that most references of aeon in the New Testament translate it as time, a period of time, or the end of the ages, the ages. Whereas I tend to see it always as eternal beings from the ethereal plane. What do you think about that? Bishop Nathan Wilson: I love that. I think that too. I think it’s a mixture of all these things, which is also, I keep, it depends on the context of use. But a lot of times you do see the text that is referring to a higher being, which is beautiful to mention, especially when you’re looking at Gnostic works. But you do see this in the New Testament as well. So you see one text mentioning, for instance, who is this Sophia and this higher power? And that’s how the text can translate too, which is fascinating. So that means who’s this unknown higher power. And then it mentions about the Aeon. And so you see all this sort of stuff being mentioned. Yes, it means an eternal being or an angelic being, but it can also mean eternity or a period of time. So depending on the context of use. So words have power as well. So that’s interesting. So again, how it’s used can make a world of a difference. And it’s interesting when they’re using certain words because there are some times that they could have chosen to use a different word. So when they’ve used a certain word like that, that can change the entire context of meaning. Cyd: Right. Like saying there’s some reference to judgment at the end of the age. And I’m always thinking that it’s judgment from the Aeons when I see that. But I’m not translating from scratch, I’m taking biblical translation, so what do I know? Bishop Nathan Wilson: You’re spot on though. So you’re correct. So it can translate that as well. And we have to realize that we have different versions of Christianity. So that’s certainly appropriate for a first century understanding. Most people are looking at from fourth century. So you’re looking at it from a first century point of view. And so you’re ahead of others in that sort of case, which is beautiful to see. So that’s rare. And I chose to keep that for that reason. So people can have their own conclusions, not having it forced onto them. Cyd: You are very much into the history of things. You’re an historian. I am not at all interested in history per se. I’m always talking about what other people believed in other times. That is not pertinent to our gnosis here and now. So what do you view the purpose of this deep historical knowledge that you have concerning the Jews and the Essenes and whatnot? And is it necessary to go into all of that? Bishop Nathan Wilson: If you want to, I guess, teach from a historical perspective as well as a spiritual one, then yes. But if you want to go for spiritual, you can just go by the heart. There were plenty of spiritual teachers that were illiterate, that could not read, that could not write, and they had a beautiful message. So there’s something more powerful that we can receive within that you won’t obtain from books. But ultimately, you can also have wisdom gained from books. It can be a form of worship or a form of connecting with the divine as well. We have many forms of worship or many forms of experience what’s divine or having that intimate moment with what’s divine to reflect and to deepen our purpose. I wanted to know the historical man we call Jesus and ultimately put into practice what he put into practice. So I wanted to look at the history side of things and especially also, what’s another word I would like to use, decondition myself, decondition past beliefs that were harmful, that did not serve me and ultimately not serving others, and also find out that I was wrong about many things, which I wanted to know as well. So what brought me to this was to know the man we call Jesus, Yeshua, or Yehoshua, whichever term you like, whichever name you want to use. So I want to know not just that, but I want to know his practices, what he did with his life, how his first followers lived, how the first Christians lived, and what I could use for my own spiritual path and how I could put that into practice. So that’s why I want to look at the history side of things. I think if you want to put into practice the different techniques of all the many different Gnostics, then you’re going to have to look at some of the history side of things to find those practices. That doesn’t mean that every single practice is necessary for you. So what works for me might not work for others. What works for others might not work for me. So double-edged sword. Cyd: What sort of practices are you referring to? Are these rituals? What’s the practices? Bishop Nathan Wilson: I go into some of the ancient rituals as well. Some of them I might look at the prayers that they would use, the diet they would take, or means of worship. So how they would go about their forms of private practice. So that sort of stuff. And then I might apply it into my own life and see how I can go. There’s still more I’d like to go and check out more. So I’m still studying a couple of some of the ancient practices as well. So from different or religious perspectives as well. And then I can see how I can put it to my own form of use. So I looked at a lot of Jewish Christians, they would do the shema for instance, before their meditations. And I’ll do that as well. [“Hear, O Israel: the Lord our God, the Lord is one… You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, with all your soul, and with all your strength…”] They also did breath works back then, which would also induce a sense of intoxication if you want to use, or light headness. And in turn that can also open a new state of reality. So entering the spiritual realm can be a vehicle, if you will, to get there. So to open the mind. And that’s also a practice that’s been used in ancient past. And we can certainly use that today. We have modern practices, say like Wim Hof, that teach breath work in meditation. That’s also useful. So sometimes looking at the past, we do see stuff in today’s world that’s not really new. It’s just being basically reentering this world again, from past knowledge gained of old. And I find that in a lot of Gnostic stuff. When you look at history, you kind of see that Gnostics kind of did a lot of things first, that what we’re doing now that we think is modern, but it’s not. It’s ancient. Cyd: That’s why conventional Christians who read my books, they say, oh, you’re just all new age. And I’m like, no, it’s not new age at all. It’s ancient. Bishop Nathan Wilson: Which is a shame that Christians have been shut off into their own world, which is kind of funny. I actually tell most Christians that they are, in fact, new age, because these beliefs are ancient. And what they are going by is, depending on what version of Christianity, if you’re Protestant, that’s 16th century, I believe. Non-denominal, 18th century. Protestant, 16th century. Catholicism, late second century. Orthodoxy, as we know it now, would be about 14th century. But older Orthodoxy, which would be the split from the Catholic church, is fourth century. So it’s when you go to Gnostic Christians, first century, and we’re really the only groups that are surviving, the Jewish Christians got killed. They ultimately were wiped out or would convert to mainstream Judaism or would become Christian or Islam, they would follow as well. So some would be converted to Muslims, which is also interesting as well. We as Gnostics were also harmed by these other groups, by Catholics, Protestants, Muslims as well. At one point Zoroastrians, but that was only one particular era. And we’ve basically arisen from all that, from that underground, and we’ve still survived, which is fascinating. It’s beautiful that we have. And also the texts that have been rediscovered, this is not accidental. This is all happening for a reason. What’s divine is experiencing itself where it can experience itself and express itself again safely in today’s world. In ancient past, it was dangerous to have diversion after the fourth century, which is a shame because the Catholics would kill those who came before them. They didn’t like that. And they even knew that some of the Gnostics, they had older writings, but they still denied them, which is funny. So it’s why such the hate, which is such a shame. So it goes back to that control of power, my way or the highway, basically. And it was never meant to be like that. It was meant to be very universal. It was meant to be very diverse. The first Christians were Gnostics and Jewish Christians, a mixture between strict law observing Jews and a mixture of Gentiles. And then you had the Jewish mystics that became the Christian mystics, which is fascinating. That was the original groups. And the original groups would argue amongst each other. The strict law observing Jews wanted circumcision, where the mystics said, no, no circumcision of the hearts, let the Gentiles come. That’s fine. So even when we look at the word, say, ethnos, for instance, in the Gospels, when you see kingdom against kingdom, nation against nation, these are the same things. So what they’re actually talking about is Gentile against Gentile and kingdom against kingdom. So the Jewish people didn’t have a kingdom at this stage. It was a mixture of Judea, Galilee and Samaria. So we’re the Samaritans. So that’s also something to take into account, too. So they didn’t like that. They were looking for a messiah to reunify the Jewish people, restore the Jewish faith and make Israel a kingdom again. And so some of them didn’t like the fact that Jesus wasn’t after this, for instance. So they didn’t like some of these teachings. It was a bit different. But if you look at the mystics, they had a very different interpretations. They did believe in a renewal of the Jewish faith, but a renewal back to El Elyon and a rejection of Yahweh. So that’s very different. So when you look at repentance, for Israel to repent, meaning for all of Israel to return back to El Elyon. And if you look at for the Gentiles conversion, that would be referring to not converting to any religion, but converting to God. So God outside religion. So fascinating. So you see all this in the original text. Cyd: And why do you suppose, this might be an unanswerable question, but why do you suppose conventional modern Christians are so, you know, extremely antagonistic towards Gnostic Christians? Is it fear or what? Bishop Nathan Wilson: Well, they’ve been told you're the enemy, basically. And yes, some of it is fear. Fear as well of the unknown. And also because of the need of an opponent. So they believe that they are doing a good thing. And if they don’t do this, they can be punished. So it’s the case of where a victim becomes an abuser. So most Christians have never even heard about Gnostics. It’s only the real ones who are into spiritual warfare, basically, and really full on extremist dogmatic ones that are familiar with, and apologetics. But they are now feeling like they’re losing the battle because more people were interested in Gnosticism and especially interested in other Jewish groups and the Dead Sea Scrolls, as well as the Nag Hammadi. So they’re realizing their other texts and there’s other options now. And that’s great. And regarding even my translations, one reason I chose to do it that I did, I found out that no modern English Bible translates from one source material. They’re all a mixture of different sources. So we have the Codex Sinaiticus mixed with the Latin Vulgate, mixing with Germanic copies, and then mixing ancient Koine Greek into modern Hebrew, putting it back into Greek. And that’s not good at all. So we’re just changing—we’re swapping chapters because we feel uncomfortable with them. So I was mortified when I was looking at that. And so I realized I couldn’t trust basically my Bible anymore. So I thought, well, I’m making this myself. And then I thought, well, I’m going to release it. Let’s go and share it too and do what they will with it. And it opened a lot of doorways to me, actually. So that’s one reason I wanted to give that out so people can have their own faith in their own interpretation and also believe in the message of Yeshua, bringing people back to the Most High God, to the Unknowable God, the Living Father, the Mother-Father. And we also see the Mother being mentioned in other texts too. It’s just mostly blocked out by mainstream Christianity, which is unfair, unfair to women and unfair to humanity with their approaches. It’s been very violent. So we need to remove that violence because that’s nothing to do with Yeshua’s teachings. He didn’t teach us to go around fighting each other. He said, Those who are for me are with me. They don’t understand his message. They very much follow the Catholic teachings of Paul that they’ve been given. And so they can look at the Gnostic teachings of Paul as well, which are also in there. Paul’s letters, we now know they’re mostly all forgeries. We don’t have any original copies either. They’re all later fourth century and we have some second century fragments. But the oldest reference to Paul is from the Ten Letters of Marcion. And he’s the man who compiled the first Christian Bible. And some people can argue, some people don’t believe he was a Gnostic. Others think he was a Gnostic. I think he was a type of Gnostic because he believed in a demiurge. So he believed that the God of the Jews was Yahweh and not the Supreme God of Jesus. That is a very Gnostic belief. But the thing is, the word Gnostic was given to us by the Catholic church, was a way of separating us and identifying us. But we wear it as a badge of honor because we understand they’re just calling us knowledgeable Christians, which is kind of funny. So language is powerful and the Catholic church certainly forgot it. So because of them, we now use daimon as demon. So they’ve basically demonized Jesus. They’ve demonized the Holy Spirit, which is their greatest sin. And they’ve demonized God and every other God. So they don’t know what damage they’ve done. And that’s not good. So I wanted to reverse that damage and bring people back to what I believe is the message of Yeshua, of Jesus, and to have their own spiritual relationship with God, an individual relationship, which is something that I want to see more of. That’s a very beautiful thing. You can’t define that intimate experience without living it. Cyd: Right, right. Well, that's all we have time for in this episode. We'll pick it up again next week for part three of my interview with Bishop Nathan Wilson of The Gnostic Union Church. I like the way he talks, huh? Until next week, onward and upward and God bless us all.

god jesus christ fear father english lord israel bible mother gospel christians holy spirit christianity german romans satan jewish greek jews catholic wise muslims old testament islam sabbath new testament egyptian bc deuteronomy substack pharisees hebrew gentiles israelites samaritan judaism armageddon galilee magi catholics catholicism hades logos torah yahweh jehovah protestant judea baal canaanites wim hof sadducees protestants orthodoxy yeshua kosmos king herod elohim gnosticism dead sea scrolls most high god greco roman gnostic aeon sheol helios philo daemon o israel germanic jewish christians magos assigning gnosis gehenna herodians gnostics english bible magus christian bible belial astron abaddon great mother yehoshua essenes el elyon archon nag hammadi marcion aletheia megas mother father essene aeons simon magus koine greek latin vulgate zoroastrians codex sinaiticus asterios diamon gnostic christian chokmah hasatan

Interview with a Gnostic Bishop

Play Episode Listen Later Jun 20, 2026 26:30

Bishop Nathan Wilson pt.1 Welcome back to Gnostic Insights and to the Gnostic Reformation on Substack. Hey, 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 The Gnostic Union YouTube Channel

god jesus christ ai father australia english church spirit gospel zoom christians chinese holy spirit christianity jewish greek south africa union catholic new testament philippines latin pope egyptian substack pharisees hebrew judaism lovely fullness protestant orthodox canaanites roman catholic mysticism gnosticism christs rus druids gnostic roman catholicism jewish christians phoenician tao te ching orthodox church make a wish foundation gnosis gnostics papyrus in greek hermeticism eastern orthodoxy coptic egerton nag hammadi monad mother father new testament gospels koine greek hermetics bart d ehrman codex sinaiticus gnostic christianity valentinian gnostic christian bill mounce sethian

Interview with a Gnostic Bishop

The Best of the Bible Answer Man Broadcast

Play Episode Listen Later Jun 20, 2026 26:30

Bishop Nathan Wilson pt.1 Welcome back to Gnostic Insights and to the Gnostic Reformation on Substack. Hey, 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 The Gnostic Union YouTube Channel

god jesus christ ai father australia english church spirit gospel zoom christians chinese holy spirit christianity jewish greek south africa union catholic new testament philippines latin pope egyptian substack pharisees hebrew judaism lovely fullness protestant orthodox canaanites roman catholic mysticism gnosticism christs rus druids gnostic roman catholicism jewish christians phoenician tao te ching orthodox church make a wish foundation gnosis gnostics papyrus in greek hermeticism eastern orthodoxy coptic egerton nag hammadi monad mother father new testament gospels koine greek hermetics bart d ehrman codex sinaiticus gnostic christianity valentinian gnostic christian bill mounce sethian

Q&A: Seeing God's Face, the Souls of Animals, and Codex Sinaiticus

Play Episode Listen Later Jun 2, 2026 28:01 Transcription Available

On today's Bible Answer Man broadcast (06/02/26), Hank answers the following questions:How could Moses speak to God face-to-face in Exodus 33:11 when no one can see God? Jeff - MO (1:26)Why is the angel stirring up the water in John 5:3-4 omitted in some Bible versions? James - Cleveland, OH (6:12)Do animals have souls? Did we evolve from apes with the only difference being a soul? Brandon - St. Louis, MO (15:12)Is the Codex Sinaiticus the oldest Bible, and is it totally different than the Bible we have today? Sam - Los Angeles, CA (23:03)

god bible exodus animals souls seeing god james cleveland bible answer man codex sinaiticus

The Man Who Rebuilt the Greek New Testament From Scratch w/ Dr. Dirk Jongkind

Reformation Radio with Apostle Johnny Ova

Play Episode Listen Later Apr 13, 2026 44:22

He started growing tropical flowers in the Netherlands. Then he walked away from it all to chase a lifelong obsession with the Bible. Dr. Dirk Jongkind is the Academic Vice Principal at Tyndale House in Cambridge, England, and the lead editor behind the Tyndale House Greek New Testament, the first completely new critical edition of the Greek New Testament in over 40 years. He holds a PhD from Cambridge, helped digitize Codex Sinaiticus at the British Library, and spent over a decade rebuilding the Greek text behind your English Bible from the ground up.From the origins of Tyndale House during World War II to the ancient scribes who copied Codex Sinaiticus in the 4th century, this episode covers ground most Christians have never explored. Dr. Jongkind walks us through what it was like to work with one of the oldest complete New Testaments in existence, how scribes made errors and stretched their letters to fill miscalculated page space, and why the book of James follows Acts in the earliest manuscripts instead of Romans. He tackles the ending of Mark head on and unpacks one of the most provocative statements you will hear on this podcast: that God inspiring Scripture does not mean God was obligated to preserve every last detail of it.In this episode you will learn:- How Dr. Jongkind went from growing tropical flowers to becoming one of the leading New Testament textual scholars in the world- What Tyndale House is and how it was born out of a crisis of faith during World War II- What a critical edition of the Greek New Testament actually is and why it matters for every English Bible translation- Why his team felt the standard Greek text used by scholars for decades needed to be rebuilt from the ground up- How three ancient scribes with very different skill levels copied Codex Sinaiticus and what their habits reveal about biblical transmission- Why the long-held dictation theory for how Sinaiticus was produced is likely wrong- How the scribes miscalculated page space and made desperate attempts to fill columns- Why the book of James follows Acts in the earliest manuscripts instead of Romans- How Dr. Jongkind's team handled the ending of Mark and why he sits 55/45 on whether those verses are original- What the story of King Josiah rediscovering the Book of the Law teaches us about inspiration vs. preservation- How the tiniest details of the Greek text beautifully reinforce the biggest truths of ScriptureCheck out Dr. Jongkind's work:An Introduction to the Greek New Testament (Crossway): https://www.amazon.com/Introduction-Testament-Produced-Tyndale-Cambridge/dp/1433564092Scribal Habits of Codex Sinaiticus (Gorgias Press): https://www.amazon.com/Scribal-Habits-Codex-Sinaiticus-Studies/dp/1593334222Tyndale House: https://tyndalehouse.comStay Connected:Website: https://johnnyova.comSubscribe on Youtube: https://www.youtube.com/@thejohnnyovaThe Revelation Reset: https://www.amazon.com/dp/B0DKVY3FB2

god bible england law phd christians romans acts scripture greek world war ii netherlands new testament cambridge scratch rebuilt king josiah british library english bible greek new testament tyndale house codex sinaiticus sinaiticus jongkind dirk jongkind

The Patrick Madrid Show: December 30, 2025 - Hour 2

The Patrick Madrid Show

Play Episode Listen Later Dec 30, 2025 51:23

Patrick opens the hour by responding to a listener’s struggle with isolation while growing closer to Jesus, drawing parallels to St. Paul’s hardships and the promise of deeper spiritual bonds. He fields questions about Christian relics, considers the spiritual growth possible in suffering through flawed government, addresses the frustrations of Social Security, and gently advises callers on topics like wearing the rosary while on duty as a police officer or breaking the habit of speaking harshly to a parent. Lauren (email) – Do people choose not to follow Jesus because it can lead to a life of isolation? (00:39) Sean - Remind Patrick that Codex Sinaiticus was found at the St. Catherine’s Monastery at Mount Sinai (06:05) Alex - In response to affordable housing, isn’t it sometimes good to undergo suffering? (11:54) Jean – What about someone who pays into Social Security but dies before they collect anything (22:06) Patty – I’m a patrol sergeant and I wear the rosary around the neck. Is that disrespectful? (25:33) Bill - How do we discern between real videos of the pope and something that might be AI? (28:43) Beth - Response to an earlier email from Lauren about faith and isolation: the more we get involved in our parish, the more we feel connected. (35:20) Elena - Are there sins that God won’t forgive? (38:00) Jose - I live with my mom and help her. Is it right for me to leave? (44:58) Originally aired on 06/03/25

god jesus christ ai social security mount sinai monastery codex sinaiticus patrick madrid bill how

Devoted | The Lords Supper

Compassion Christian Church

Play Episode Listen Later Nov 16, 2025 34:47

Have you ever wondered what makes something simple sacred? In Luke 22, Jesus transforms the ancient Passover into something revolutionary—the Lord's Supper. Pastor Ken unveils how this sacred meal connects us to both God's saving grace and each other across time and cultures. Similar to how worshipping through song connects people together like Pastor Marcus looked at last week, Communion also connects believers together with Christ. Pastor Ken uses powerful stories, including a near-disaster with the priceless Codex Sinaiticus, which shows how treating sacred things as ordinary can lead to profound loss. Whether you're new to communion or have participated countless times, this message reveals fresh insights about this timeless practice that unites believers worldwide.

god jesus christ lord communion passover lords similar supper devoted lord's supper in luke pastor ken pastor marcus codex sinaiticus

The Patrick Madrid Show: September 08, 2025 - Hour 2

The Patrick Madrid Show

Play Episode Listen Later Sep 9, 2025 51:06

Originally aired on 06/03/2025 Patrick opens the hour by responding to a listener’s struggle with isolation while growing closer to Jesus, drawing parallels to St. Paul’s hardships and the promise of deeper spiritual bonds. He fields questions about Christian relics, considers the spiritual growth possible in suffering through flawed government, addresses the frustrations of Social Security, and gently advises callers on topics like wearing the rosary while on duty as a police officer or breaking the habit of speaking harshly to a parent. Lauren (email) – Do people choose not to follow Jesus because it can lead to a life of isolation? (00:39) Sean - Remind Patrick that Codex Sinaiticus was found at the St. Catherine’s Monastery at Mount Sinai (06:05) Alex - In response to affordable housing, isn’t it sometimes good to undergo suffering? (11:54) Jean – What about someone who pays into Social Security but dies before they collect anything (22:06) Patty – I’m a patrol sergeant and I wear the rosary around the neck. Is that disrespectful? (25:33) Bill - How do we discern between real videos of the pope and something that might be AI? (28:43) Beth - Response to an earlier email from Lauren about faith and isolation: the more we get involved in our parish, the more we feel connected. (35:20) Elena - Are there sins that God won’t forgive? (38:00) Jose - I live with my mom and help her. Is it right for me to leave? (44:58)

god jesus christ ai social security mount sinai monastery codex sinaiticus patrick madrid bill how

The Patrick Madrid Show: June 03, 2025 - Hour 2

The Patrick Madrid Show

Play Episode Listen Later Jun 3, 2025 51:06

Patrick opens the hour by responding to a listener’s struggle with isolation while growing closer to Jesus, drawing parallels to St. Paul’s hardships and the promise of deeper spiritual bonds. He fields questions about Christian relics, considers the spiritual growth possible in suffering through flawed government, addresses the frustrations of Social Security, and gently advises callers on topics like wearing the rosary while on duty as a police officer or breaking the habit of speaking harshly to a parent. Lauren (email) – Do people choose not to follow Jesus because it can lead to a life of isolation?(00:39) Sean - Remind Patrick that Codex Sinaiticus was found at the St. Catherine’s Monastery at Mount Sinai (06:05) Alex - In response to affordable housing, isn’t it sometimes good to undergo suffering? (11:54) Jean – What about someone who pays into Social Security but dies before they collect anything (22:06) Patty – I’m a patrol sergeant and I wear the rosary around the neck. Is that disrespectful? (25:33) Bill - How do we discern between real videos of the pope and something that might be AI? (28:43) Beth - Response to an earlier email from Lauren about faith and isolation: the more we get involved in our parish, the more we feel connected. (35:20) Elena - Are there sins that God won’t forgive? (38:00) Jose - I live with my mom and help her. Is it right for me to leave? (44:58)

god jesus christ ai social security mount sinai monastery codex sinaiticus patrick madrid bill how

449: Talmudic Matthew — The Seven

BEMA Session 1: Torah

Play Episode Listen Later May 8, 2025 66:56

Brent Billings, Elle Grover Fricks, and Josh Bossé close out this series by taking a gander at the Lord's Prayer.BEMA 97: Done in SecretBEMA 332: Andrew DeCort — Flourishing on the Edge of FaithTextus Receptus — WikipediaCodex Sinaiticus — WikipediaCodex Vaticanus — WikipediaAlexandrian Text-Type — WikipediaByzantine Text-Type — Wikipedia“Ancient Amulets with Incipits” — Biblical Archaeology Society“The Lord's Prayer” (Live from Jerusalem in 2001) — Charlotte Church, YouTubeBEMA 325: Sanctuary — Waking Up in the Mishkan

lord prayer secret jerusalem byzantine talmudic mishkan bema alexandrian charlotte church textus receptus codex sinaiticus codex vaticanus

#291 - Oxford Philosopher on BANNED Gnostic Bible, Jesus Christ & Wes Huff | Alex O'Connor

TRENDIFIER with Julian Dorey

Play Episode Listen Later Apr 8, 2025 234:08

SPONSORS: ZBiotics: https://zbiotics.com/JULIAN (***TIMESTAMPS in description below) ~ Alex O'Connor is a philosopher, international thought leader & host of the Cosmic Skeptic YouTube Channel. He is a graduate of St John's College, Oxford University. Over the past several years, Alex has delivered addresses across multiple continents as well as debated ethics, religion, and politics with the likes of Jordan Peterson, Douglas Murray, Destiny, Ben Shapiro & more. FOLLOW JULIAN DOREY INSTAGRAM (Podcast): https://www.instagram.com/juliandoreypodcast/ INSTAGRAM (Personal): https://www.instagram.com/julianddorey/ X: https://twitter.com/julianddorey GUEST LINKS - YOUTUBE: https://www.youtube.com/@CosmicSkeptic - IG: https://www.instagram.com/cosmicskeptic/?hl=en - X: https://x.com/CosmicSkeptic JULIAN YT CHANNELS - SUBSCRIBE to Julian Dorey Clips YT: https://www.youtube.com/@juliandoreyclips - SUBSCRIBE to Julian Dorey Daily YT: https://www.youtube.com/@JulianDoreyDaily - SUBSCRIBE to Best of JDP: https://www.youtube.com/@bestofJDP ****TIMESTAMPS**** 0:00 - Intro 1:18 - Discovering Alex O'Connor, David Deutsch Simulation Theory 11:10 - God & Multiverse Coexistence Debate, Difficulty of Interested in Meaning of Life 18:40 - 2 Gods Theory, Gnosticism, “Good” Meaning 26:33 - Forbidden Gnostic Gospels, Marcion of Sinope Gnostic Biblical Cannon 33:33 - Council of Nicea vs Biblical Cannon, Gnostic Gospel of Thomas, Egypt Papyrus 41:39 - Gospel of Mark, Telephone Game Analogy, Sabbath Verse in Mark 2 Breakdown 58:28 - Role of Jesus Christ, John the Baptist Bizarre Anomalies 1:07:35 - Mark's Gospel, John's Gospel & Dating Speculation, Holy Spirit, Repenting Sins 1:28:02 - The 1 Unforgivable Sin, Heart of Christianity (100% Man & God Theory) 1:38:07 - Alex Debunks Wes Huff's Debunk, Codex Sinaiticus & Vaticianus Long-Ending Debate 1:59:06 - Alex O'Connor's View on Wes Huff, Billy Carson, Christian Commenters Hating 2:19:49 - Jesus Debates w/ Pharisees, New Tomb Discussion, Was Jesus Son of God 2:32:00 - Debating was Jesus God, Mistranslation in Bible Point (Jehovah Witness Screwup) 2:41:49 - John 17 Breakdown & Alex's Angle 2:48:57 - Mandaeans & Essenes (John the Baptist Religious Group) 2:54:59 - Gospel of Judas, Gospel of Thomas Bizarre New Age Translation 3:14:33 - Q for Quell (Sayings Gospel), Discussing Punishments for Sins 3:18:21 - Gospel of Jesus Wife (Dead Sea Scrolls) Forgery Breakdowns, Mary Magdalene 3:29:33 - Alex's Interests w/ Bible & Studying Bart Ehrman, Atheism, Ehrman Agnostic 3:40:43 - Fine-Tuning Argument 3:43:07 - Julian on how Alex thinks CREDITS: - Host & Producer: Julian Dorey - Producer & Editor: Alessi Allaman - https://www.youtube.com/@UCyLKzv5fKxGmVQg3cMJJzyQ Julian Dorey Podcast Episode 291 - Alex O'Connor Music by Artlist.io Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

From flowers to manuscripts: Dirk Jongkind on his journey into biblical scholarship

Trusting the Bible

Play Episode Listen Later Mar 20, 2025 31:10

Dirk Jongkind, Academic Vice Principal at Tyndale House, shares with Tony Watkins how he went from growing flowers in the Netherlands to editing the Tyndale House Greek New Testament in Cambridge. They discuss Dirk's journey into biblical scholarship with a particular focus on his time working on Codex Sinaiticus at the British Library. Find out more about the host and guest here: Tony Watkins: https://tyndalehouse.com/about/staff/tony-watkins/Dirk Jongkind: https://tyndalehouse.com/about/staff/dirk-jongkind/Support the showEdited by Tyndale House Music – Acoustic Happy Background used with a standard license from Adobe Stock.Follow us on: X | Instagram | Facebook | YouTube

biblical netherlands cambridge flowers scholarships dirk manuscripts british library adobe stock tyndale house codex sinaiticus dirk jongkind

»Indiana Jones der Bibelwissenschaft«

Leben ist mehr

Play Episode Listen Later Feb 4, 2025 3:13

So nannte der WDR den Bibelforscher Lobegott Friedrich Constantin von Tischendorf. Dieser wollte eigentlich Dichter werden, doch man riet ihm ab, und so studierte er Theologie und Philologie. Früh wurde sein Talent für alte Sprachen erkannt. Durch die Entzifferung eines als unlesbar geltenden Bibelkodex aus dem fünften Jahrhundert, der später überschrieben worden war, machte er von sich reden.1844 unternahm er eine Orientreise, die ihn auch in das entlegene Katharinenkloster auf der Sinaihalbinsel führte. In dem Kloster entdeckte er – in einem Mülleimer – 129 Blätter eines uralten Kodex in griechischer Sprache. Es handelte sich um Texte der Bibel aus dem vierten Jahrhundert – ein unglaublicher Fund! 43 Blätter durfte er mitnehmen. Eine zweite Reise im Jahr 1853 dorthin mit dem Ziel, weitere Blätter zu erwerben, blieb ohne Erfolg. Aber seine dritte Reise brachte den Durchbruch: Am Abend des 4. Februar 1859 übergab ihm ein Mönch des Klosters die restlichen Blätter dieses Kodex, u. a. mit dem Neuen Testament. Auf diese wundersame Weise wurde der sogenannte Codex Sinaiticus gesichert, der große Teile des Alten und ein vollständiges Neues Testament in altgriechischer Sprache enthält.Für die Bibelforschung ist dieser Fund von unschätzbarem Wert. Er verbindet viele Fragmente und macht im Abgleich mit anderen Kodizes klar: Gottes in der Bibel überliefertes Wort ist verlässlich und zeitlos. Es ist belastbar und sicher. Es ist gültig für immer und ewig. Und Gott hat Mittel und Wege, um uns dieses Wort über die Zeit hindurch zu überliefern und zu bestätigen, damit die darin enthaltene rettende Botschaft von Jesus Christus auch heute noch jedem verkündet werden kann.Markus MajonicaDiese und viele weitere Andachten online lesenWeitere Informationen zu »Leben ist mehr« erhalten Sie unter www.lebenistmehr.deAudioaufnahmen: Radio Segenswelle

er talent leben fund reise indiana jones durch erfolg ziel weise wege wort sprache wert dieser teile mittel texte botschaft jahrhundert alten sprachen bibel gottes dichter kloster wdr jesus christus theologie und gott neuen testaments fragmente kodex klosters abgleich neues testament andachten philologie codex sinaiticus tischendorf entzifferung

04.02.1859: Lobegott von Tischendorf klaut älteste Handschrift des Neuen Testament

Das Kalenderblatt

Play Episode Listen Later Feb 3, 2025 3:59

Er war Handschriftenforscher und trug entscheidend zu einem wissenschaftlich gesicherten Bibeltext bei: Lobegott Friedrich Constantin von Tischendorf. Seine größte Entdeckung: der Codex Sinaiticus aus dem Katharinenkloster, eine der bedeutendsten spätantiken Bibelhandschriften. Hatte er sie etwa gestohlen?

er seine entdeckung hatte handschrift neuen testaments bibeltext codex sinaiticus tischendorf

Episode 94: Getting to Gnow the Gnostics

Data Over Dogma

Play Episode Listen Later Jan 20, 2025 63:17

Sometimes on this show, big ten-dollar words show up like apotropaic or etiology or deuterocanonical, where, unless you're pretty well-versed in this stuff, you may not know what we're talking about (ok fine- you may not know what Dan M is talking about). This week we're tackling two ten-dollar concepts in one show, so buckle in and bust out twenty bucks! First, we're diving into Gnosticism. We've glanced off this topic several times, but never stopped to talk about what it is. Who were the Gnostics? Where did they come from? What did they believe? Did they know that that's what we would end up calling them? What's with the spelling? Next we're taking a look at a very important manuscript. Codex Sinaiticus--a Latin name for a Greek book about Hebrew people--is a very important manuscript. But why? Where did it come from? What is it? What makes it so vital? ---- For early access to an ad-free version of every episode of Data Over Dogma, exclusive content, and the opportunity to support our work, please consider becoming a monthly patron at: https://www.patreon.com/DataOverDogma Follow us on the various social media places: https://www.facebook.com/DataOverDogmaPod https://www.twitter.com/data_over_dogma Hey! Don't forget to pre-order Dan McClellan's upcoming book The Bible Says So https://static.macmillan.com/static/smp/bible-says-so-9781250347466/?fbclid=IwY2xjawGLTkpleHRuA2FlbQIxMAABHQY4Ahs0Hi289IcnsQMh_0OAVf3oGefyUsWkLjhfB8OF8nio1fmroJbXxA_aem_v_4sISp8Zt43zsKfDjx1aA This episode was sponsored by BetterHelp Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

greek latin hebrew gnosticism gnostics danm dan mcclellan codex sinaiticus

#257 - Ancient Language Expert on BANNED Bible, Book of Enoch & Jesus Origins | Wes Huff

TRENDIFIER with Julian Dorey

Play Episode Listen Later Dec 6, 2024 210:07

(***TIMESTAMPS in description below) ~ Wesley Huff is the Central Canada Director for Apologetics Canada and has participated in numerous public dialogues, debates, and interfaith events on issues of faith, belief, and religion across North America. PATREON https://www.patreon.com/JulianDorey FOLLOW JULIAN DOREY INSTAGRAM (Podcast): https://www.instagram.com/juliandoreypodcast/ INSTAGRAM (Personal): https://www.instagram.com/julianddorey/ X: https://twitter.com/julianddorey WES'S LINKS Website: https://www.wesleyhuff.com/ IG: https://www.instagram.com/wesley_huff/# X: https://x.com/WesleyLHuff YT: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCJX2EazMKUqBQV048px2aoA LISTEN to Julian Dorey Podcast Spotify ▶ https://open.spotify.com/show/5skaSpDzq94Kh16so3c0uz Apple ▶ https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/trendifier-with-julian-dorey/id1531416289 JULIAN YT CHANNELS - SUBSCRIBE to Julian Dorey Clips YT: https://www.youtube.com/@juliandoreyclips - SUBSCRIBE to Julian Dorey Daily YT: https://www.youtube.com/@JulianDoreyDaily OTHER JDP EPISODES MENTIONED IN THIS EPISODE - Episode 145 - Michio Kaku: https://youtu.be/IQN6_xY9TAM - Episode 180 - Lawrence Krauss: https://youtu.be/AZdbBXFqQYw - Episode 124 - Paul Rosolie: https://youtu.be/eytcGavv5ck - Episode 175 - Luke Caverns: https://youtu.be/IQN6_xY9TAM - Episode 176 - Luke Caverns: https://youtu.be/AZdbBXFqQYw ****TIMESTAMPS**** 00:00 - Wesley's Texas Mentor Library, Apologetics Christian Background, Faith Healers 11:26 - Wrestling with God, Confirmation Bias (Solis Scriptura) Argument 18:32 - Telephone Game Study (Wes' History Background), Jesus Crucifixion Quran's Argument 26:37 - Socrates “Don't Read Too Much” = Memorization, Rome Planning Christian Genocide 34:06 - 4 Main Gospels of the Bible (Earliest Gospel), Apostle Stephen 42:46 - Nero Burning Christians, Earliest Confessions of Christian Faith, Edict of Milan 55:33 - Purpose of Council of Nicea, Creating New Covenant, Descendants of the Disciples 01:04:02 - Hidden Books of the Bible, Evidence of Process of Tying Bibles Together, Story of David 01:17:07 - Issues in Non-Gospels, Jesus a Pagan Mystic (Gospel of Phillip Issue) 01:22:32 - Council of Nicea & Pax Romana, DaVinci Code Debunked 01:33:46 - Codex Sinaiticus, Book of John in Greek Translation, Women Compiled Christian Faith 01:43:31 - Christians Did Not Invent Codex, What Were the Scriptures Then (Codex Sinaiticus) 01:47:13 - Billy Carson Sinai Bible, Saint Nicholas Story (Santa), Da Vinci Code is Wrong 01:55:56 - Mary Magdalene a Prostitute?, Sex Before Marriage (Importance of Sex) 02:08:56 - Judaism compared to Christianity (Sermon on the Mount), Trans-Continental Religion, 02:19:18 - Israel (City on a Hill), Expertise on Dead Languages, Early Religions 02:30:12 - Texas Sharpshooter Philosophy (Correlation vs Causation), Jesus Mysticism 02:33:21 - Bible Translations & Wes' Website Translations, Differences of Bibles 02:45:31 - Danny Jones Podcast (Ammon Hillman Response) 03:04:46 - Book of Enoch 03:12:11 - How Angels, Cherubim, or ACTUALLY Portrayed, Nephilim Explained, Ethiopian Bible CREDITS: - Host & Producer: Julian D. Dorey - In-Studio Producer & Editor: Alessi Allaman - https://www.youtube.com/@alessiallaman Julian Dorey Podcast Episode 257 - Wesley Huff Music by Artlist.io

god jesus christ bible story sex north america wrestling origins council differences banned expertise judaism mary magdalene prostitutes descendants christian faith huff da vinci code bible translations causation cherubim nicea michio kaku book of enoch edict pax romana artlist lawrence krauss bible book wesley huff dead languages ancient language codex sinaiticus apologetics canada paul rosolie

Textual Criticism & Canon pt 3

BOLD&Uncut

Play Episode Listen Later Sep 21, 2024 53:56

Codex Bezae, Codex Alexandrinus, Codex Vaticanus, Codex Sinaiticus

canon textual criticism codex sinaiticus codex vaticanus

Can your Bible Translation be trusted? Critical vs Received Text - Part 2

Ladies 4 Jesus

Play Episode Listen Later Jun 1, 2024 69:57

2 of 2 part series on "Codex Sinaiticus" The Oldest Bible? Or a Modern Hoax? By www.adullamfilms.com. Thank You to Chris Pinto. Most Modern translations base their New Testament on Codex Sinaiticus & Vaticanus. These source texts are not earlier manuscripts and can't be trusted! This is just one of many reasons. The best source text for the New Testament is Textus Receptus, which English versions like Tyndale, LITV, KJV, NKJV, etc. use.

english new testament trusted kjv nkjv bible translations tyndale litv textus receptus codex sinaiticus chris pinto vaticanus received text

Can your Bible Translation be trusted? Critical vs Received Text - Part 1

Ladies 4 Jesus

Play Episode Listen Later Jun 1, 2024 65:20

1 of 2 part series on "Codex Sinaiticus" The Oldest Bible? Or a Modern Hoax? By www.adullamfilms.com. Thank You, Chris Pinto. Most Modern translations base their New Testament on Codex Sinaiticus & Vaticanus. These source texts are not earlier manuscripts and can't be trusted! This is just one of many reasons. The best source text for the New Testament is Textus Receptus, which English versions like Tyndale, LITV, KJV Codex sinaiticus simonides vs tischendorf Codex Sinaiticus vs Received Text

english new testament trusted bible translations tyndale litv textus receptus codex sinaiticus vaticanus chris pinto received text

Konstantin von Tischendorf entdeckt den Codex Sinaiticus (07.02.1859)

ZeitZeichen

Play Episode Listen Later Feb 7, 2024

Eigentlich ist er Privatdozent für biblische Paläographie, doch der Leipziger Theologe Konstantin von Tischendorf unternimmt lieber ausgedehnte Forschungsreisen. Mit Erfolg, wie die Entdeckung des "Codex Sinaiticus" beweist.

pal entdeckung konstantin entdeckt mit erfolg privatdozent codex sinaiticus forschungsreisen tischendorf

"Indiana Jones der Bibelwissenschaft": Konstantin v. Tischendorf

WDR ZeitZeichen

Play Episode Listen Later Feb 6, 2024 15:52

Am 7.2.1859 entdeckt der Bibelforscher Konstantin von Tischendorf die wohl älteste Bibelhandschrift, den "Codex Sinaiticus", nach einer abenteuerlichen Reise... Von Wolfgang Meyer.

reise indiana jones harrison ford abenteuer konstantin handschriften codex sinaiticus tischendorf

#74 A figura histórica de Jesus Cristo

Falando de História

Play Episode Listen Later Dec 25, 2023 51:09

Neste episódio falamos sobre a figura de Jesus Cristo, de um ponto de vista histórico. Tentamos perceber quais as fontes históricas que existem sobre a sua actividade, de que forma podem ser lidas e interpretadas, e procuramos traçar e compreender os principais momentos da sua vida. Sugestões de Leitura: 1. E.P. Sanders - A verdadeira história de Jesus. Lisboa: Club do Autor, 2018. 2. Bart D. Ehrman - Did Jesus exist? The historical argument for Jesus of Nazareth. New York: Harper Collins, 2012. 3. Codex Sinaiticus, códice do séc. IV - a mais antiga cópia completa do Novo Testamento: https://codexsinaiticus.org ----- Obrigado aos patronos do podcast: Andrea Barbosa, Bruno Ricardo Neves Figueira, Isabel Yglesias de Oliveira, Joana Figueira, NBisme, Oliver Doerfler; Daniel Murta, Francisco, Hugo Picciochi, João Cancela, João Pedro Tuna Moura Guedes, Jorge Filipe, Patrícia Gomes, Pedro Almada, Pedro Alves, Pedro Ferreira, Rui Roque, Vera Costa; André Chambel, Andre Mano, André Marques, André Silva, António Farelo, António Silva, Carlos Castro, Carlos Martinho, Fernando Esperança, Gn, João Barbosa, João Canto, João Carlos Braga Simões, João Diamantino, João Félix, João Ferreira, Joel José Ginga, Luis, Miguel Gama, Miguel Oliveira, Nuno Esteves, Rui Magalhães, Rui Rodrigues, Simão Ribeiro, Thomas Ferreira, Tiago Matias, Tiago Sequeira, tope steffi. ----- Ouve e gosta do podcast? Se quiser apoiar o Falando de História, contribuindo para a sua manutenção, pode fazê-lo via Patreon: https://patreon.com/falandodehistoria ----- Música: “Five Armies” e “Magic Escape Room” de Kevin MacLeod (incompetech.com); Licensed under Creative Commons: By Attribution 4.0 License, ⁠http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0⁠ A edição de áudio é de Marco António.

Session 5 | How Important Is Sinaticus, and What Difference Does It Make? | Behind the Parchment

Play Episode Listen Later Sep 26, 2023

Codex Sinaiticus, a controversial early manuscript, has deeply influenced modern Bibles by its omission of key passages like Mark 16:9-20.

bibles parchment codex sinaiticus

Session 4 | Forensic Examination of Sinaiticus | Beyond The Parchment

Play Episode Listen Later Sep 26, 2023

Modern forensic techniques like microscopy and spectroscopy could provide empirical data to validate or expose the contested origins of the Codex Sinaiticus.

modern examination forensic parchment codex sinaiticus sinaiticus

Session 3 | The Public Debate: Simonides vs. Sinaiticus | Behind The Parchment

Play Episode Listen Later Sep 26, 2023

Session 3 chronicles the 19th century clash between scholars over the Codex Sinaiticus, pitting its defender Tischendorf versus Simonides, who claimed it as his forgery.

parchment public debate codex sinaiticus tischendorf sinaiticus

Session 2 | Introduction To The Controversy | Behind The Parchment

Play Episode Listen Later Sep 26, 2023

The Taos Prophecy Conference delves into the enigmatic figure of Constantine Simonides, his claim of authoring Codex Sinaiticus, and the ensuing academic controversy.

controversy parchment codex sinaiticus

Episode 1117: SANTOS PADRES: Pastor Hermas. II. El mensaje de penitencia FIN (Discernimiemto de espíritus)

Play Episode Listen Later May 27, 2023 9:27

El Pastor de Hermas es una obra cristiana del siglo II que no forma parte del canon neotestamentario y que gozó de una gran autoridad durante los siglos II y III. Tertuliano e Ireneo de Lyon lo citan como «Escritura», el Codex Sinaiticus lo vincula al Nuevo Testamento y en el Codex Claromontanus figura entre los Hechos de los Apóstoles y las cartas de Pablo. La primera versión de la obra fue escrita en griego, y de ella no se ha conservado el texto completo, pero inmediatamente fue traducida al latín quizás por su propio autor, Hermas de Roma.

roma santos san diego padres lyon hechos escritura el mensaje nuevo testamento ritus el pastor ii el hermas penitencia tertuliano codex sinaiticus

Episode 1106: SANTOS PADRES: Pastor Hermas. El mensaje de penitencia (Habiendo yo)

Play Episode Listen Later May 17, 2023 9:39

El Pastor de Hermas es una obra cristiana del siglo II que no forma parte del canon neotestamentario y que gozó de una gran autoridad durante los siglos II y III. Tertuliano e Ireneo de Lyon lo citan como «Escritura», el Codex Sinaiticus lo vincula al Nuevo Testamento y en el Codex Claromontanus figura entre los Hechos de los Apóstoles y las cartas de Pablo. La primera versión de la obra fue escrita en griego, y de ella no se ha conservado el texto completo, pero inmediatamente fue traducida al latín quizás por su propio autor, Hermas de Roma.

roma santos san diego padres lyon hechos escritura el mensaje nuevo testamento el pastor habiendo hermas penitencia tertuliano codex sinaiticus

Episode 1096: SANTOS PADRES: Pastor Hermas. Piedras para constuir la Iglesia (Los dos Angeles)

Play Episode Listen Later May 9, 2023 7:15

El Pastor de Hermas es una obra cristiana del siglo II que no forma parte del canon neotestamentario y que gozó de una gran autoridad durante los siglos II y III. Tertuliano e Ireneo de Lyon lo citan como «Escritura», el Codex Sinaiticus lo vincula al Nuevo Testamento y en el Codex Claromontanus figura entre los Hechos de los Apóstoles y las cartas de Pablo. La primera versión de la obra fue escrita en griego, y de ella no se ha conservado el texto completo, pero inmediatamente fue traducida al latín quizás por su propio autor, Hermas de Roma.

roma santos san diego padres lyon la iglesia hechos escritura piedras nuevo testamento el pastor hermas tertuliano codex sinaiticus

Episode 1086: SANTOS PADRES: San Pacomio (Regla: Prefacío16FIN y Pastor Hermas. Piedras para constuir la Iglesia (Lo 7Catequesis ())