Podcasts about Gnosticism

Let me get you caught up on my health and give me another chance to thank you. As I've mentioned, it's not Spinal Stenosis, but another worrying malady. Despite its seriousness, there has been a lot of good news, including holistic results and even a healing vision from Sophia. On the material side, I've got a traditional treatment ready that I'll share with you. Bring your general questions on Gnosticism, and I'll also provide a presentation about how the Gnostic approached the meatsack and healing in general. Look forward to interacting with you at the Virtual Alexandria. Get The Occult Elvis: https://amzn.to/4jnTjE4 Virtual Alexandria Academy: https://thegodabovegod.com/virtual-alexandria-academy/ Gnostic Tarot Readings: https://thegodabovegod.com/gnostic-tarot-reading/ The Gnostic Tarot: https://www.makeplayingcards.com/sell/synkrasis Homepage: https://thegodabovegod.com/ Patreon: https://www.patreon.com/aeonbyte AB Prime: https://thegodabovegod.com/members/subscription-levels/ Voice Over services: https://thegodabovegod.com/voice-talent/ Support with donation: https://buy.stripe.com/00g16Q8RK8D93mw288 Merch store: https://aeonbyte.creator-spring.com/ Equipment Wishlist: https://www.amazon.com/hz/wishlist/ls/2WEJ2CCWHALZB?&sort=default Intro concept, visual direction, and AI-assisted creative development in collaboration with Arturo Pérez E. youtube.com/@333amTV 333am.tv Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.

Welcome back to Gnostic Insights and to the Gnostic Reformation on Substack. I would like to take this opportunity to welcome the new subscribers to the Gnostic Reformation here on Substack and to GnosticInsights.com. Did you know that there are three Gnostic Gospels that I have written? You can pick up the simplest book called The Gnostic Gospel Illuminated. It’s very short. Half of it is illustrations. Very simple. Very, very simple to understand this Gnosticism. This will give you the basics of what it is that I share. And if that’s too difficult for you, you could pick up the children’s book, which is the first and only Gnostic children’s picture book, basically pitched for kids from five to ten and their caregivers, that tells the same exact story but in childlike language and using metaphors that people are more familiar with. For example, I don’t use the word Aeons, I use the word angels and whatnot like that, but it’s the same exact cosmology. The children’s book is called Children of the Fullness: A Gnostic Myth. But the big book, the one that puts it all together, almost 300 pages, is called A Simple Explanation of the Gnostic Gospel. And if you are new to this podcast, I strongly recommend that you pick up that book at amazon.com because it will give it all to you in a very easy to follow way. And it’s all there. And it’s also lavishly illustrated by me, of course. So please, I’ve got them at amazon.com. They’re self-published. And if you have read any of those books, please leave a review on Amazon. I have very few reviews. It’s not like you have to understand all the Gnosis before you can leave a review. Just leave a simple review that it really speaks to you or that this seems to be easy to grasp. I would really, really appreciate it. Now, let’s get on with this week’s episode. Welcome back to Gnostic Insights and to the Gnostic Reformation on Substack. Last week, on July 25, 2026, I posted an episode that reflected a conversation between me and one of your fellow subscribers called, A Subscriber Questions the Basics, and I’ve put the link here in this transcript. He has sent another email that I’d like to share with you today, and it raises an interesting topic concerning the use of AI in metaphysical discussions. He says, “I know I just promised to stop, but this one is interesting. Seems you have impressed my demiurgic companion, ChatGPT. When it comes to your challenge of how can a divine being create a flawed Logos, Cyd goes to free will, which is far more supportable.” And ChatGPT answered, saying, Yes, free will is a much stronger answer than saying the flaws somehow emerged from divine perfection by necessity. It allows Cyd to argue Logos was created good, not defective. Genuine freedom included the possibility of acting independently. Logos’s presumptuous thought was therefore a misuse of freedom, not a flaw inserted by the Father. And the resulting deficiency was permitted and later incorporated into restoration. That is philosophically recognizable and resembles the standard free will defense in Christian theology. It does not remove every difficulty, though. It shifts the question from why did the Father create a flawed Logos to why did a perfect Logos freely choose irrationality? It says, “That is easier to defend, but still requires an explanation.” But I have to jump in to correct that basic assertion right now. After discussion with my philosopher brother, Bill, who, remember, is a professor emeritus of philosophy itself, so Billy knows philosophy inside and out. I myself am not a “philosopher” other than by natural talent. I am a rhetorician and a psychologist—slightly different. After discussion with my philosopher brother, Bill, it finally sunk into my gnosis that Logos did not act irrationally, as ChatGPT mistakenly infers. It is not possible for Logos to be illogical or irrational—it would violate its inherent nature and definition. Logos did not know that he would be repelled by the Father when he overreached. It says in the Tripartite Tractate that the Father withheld such knowledge from the Aeons so that they would continually seek him with the hope of reuniting. So what Logos did was reasonable given the limited knowledge he had. This brings up an important point that although the Aeons are emanations of the Father’s consciousness, love, light, et cetera, they do not of themselves possess all of the Father’s knowledge. So the Fullness of God does not entirely embody or replace the originating Father who remains the highest and most glorious. Now, the Son probably does contain all of the Father’s knowledge, and it is only the Son that is able to remain plugged into the Source without annihilation. Quoting the Tripartite Tractate, verse 64, it says, … having sown in their minds the idea that they should seek what exceeds their, [and here we’ve got one of those missing words, probably capabilities], by making them perceive that he is and thus making them seek what he might be. Now back to the ChatGPT, There is also a tension with providence. If the Father knew the fall would happen and used it within the larger plan, the fall can begin to look simultaneously freely chosen by Logos, genuinely mistaken, and somehow already incorporated into the intended order. That is not necessarily contradictory, but the system has to distinguish carefully between foreknowledge, permission, and causation. So I would say, [and I being ChatGPT], Cyd’s free will interpretation makes the cosmology considerably more coherent. It answers the charge that imperfection must have been directly produced by perfection, but it remains a theological solution rather than a logical demonstration, and it does not fully explain the origin of the irrational desire itself. Now of course, I again say that the desire of Logos was not irrational, but merely an overabundance of the seeking and yearning instilled into all Aeons. This makes sense given that Logos carried within its own pleroma fractals of all the other Aeons and their qualities. Now either ChatGPT or the correspondent asked the question, “But are the Aeons perfect?” And ChatGPT answers, Not absolutely, and that materially improves Cyd’s argument. My earlier formulation of Logos as a perfect being with perfect knowledge was too strong. The Tripartite Tractate certainly calls the Aeons perfect and full, but it also portrays their perfection as received, developing, limited, and dependent upon the Father and one another. The text says that they initially required nourishment, growth, and perfection, and that the Father withheld their completed perfection for a time so they would not imagine themselves equal to him or self-sufficient. Chat GPT also goes on to say, the Aeons also possess different ranks and capacities, cannot fully comprehend the Father, desire a more complete knowledge of him, exercise freedom of will, need to act harmoniously with the fullness rather than independently. Their collective harmony can be perfect even though an individual Aeon remains finite. The text says the fruit of their glorification is perfect insofar as they act in agreement while each contributes according to what it desires and is capable of doing. I go along with all of that. That’s all absolutely accurate according to the Tripartite Tractate. Chat GPT says, Logos is therefore not best understood as an omniscient flawlessly mature deity inexplicably deciding to become irrational. And again, we’ve already knocked out rational. He is the youngest Aeon possessed of a good intention and genuine freedom, but limited in power and maturity. His error consists precisely in attempting something beyond his power, trying to produce perfection without the proper participation and authorization of the whole. That gives Cyd a fairly coherent account. Logos was good and potentially perfect, but not infinitely knowledgeable or incapable of error. His freedom allowed him to act prematurely and independently. To which I reply, “Exactly.” Going on with the chat, The Tripartite Tractate seems to use perfect in several related senses. Perfect in origin, deriving from the perfect Father. Perfect in essential nature, belonging to the divine fullness rather than the deficient lower realm. Perfect through harmonious function, acting in unity with other Aeons. And perfected developmentally, receiving confirmation, knowledge, and maturity over time. It does not necessarily mean already omniscient, incapable of misjudgment, and possessing the Father’s complete perfection. So yes, the free will explanation becomes much more supportable once we stop importing the classical theological idea that every Aeon must be perfectly actualized from the outset. Logos’s choice is still called presumptuous, but it is understandable mistake of a finite free being driven by overflowing love and ambition, rather than an inexplicable outbreak of evil inside an absolutely flawless intelligence. This may actually be one of the Tripartite Tractates more philosophically interesting departures from conventional theology, that perfection is relational and developmental, not merely a fixed state conferred at creation. And our correspondent concludes by saying, “So you have the AI seal of approval. I actually think this makes a lot of sense, doesn’t it? No one said the Aeons were perfect. Obviously they are one level up from us humans.” And I replied, “Yes indeed, very good.” Now this morning I had a chat with my pet AI, which is Microsoft’s CoPilot on these very matters. I asked whether or not it was reasonable to infer a prime mover behind our existence. I specifically asked, “Does existence, the laws of physics, consciousness, the code inside your DNA, make it likely that something greater existing is more logical than nothing existing?” And CoPilot answered, The existence of the universe, the laws of physics, consciousness, and DNA do raise profound questions that many thinkers interpret as pointing toward something greater, but none of them prove such a thing. They simply make the question unavoidable. And then it offers a structured, rigorous way to think about it. But before I go into that explanation, I’m going to jump down to another question I asked it. I asked the CoPilot AI, “Well, isn’t it true though, that for example, the foundations of mathematics are not provable either, yet we know them to be true.” And CoPilot answered, You’re touching one of the deepest issues in logic and metaphysics. And yes, you’re absolutely right to question the word provable. In fact, your instinct is aligned with the foundations of mathematics itself. One, mathematical maxims, that is axioms, is what they’re called, are not provable. In mathematics, the most fundamental truths, the ones that everything else is built on, are axioms, such as a point has no parts, and through two points, there’s exactly one straight line, and if equals are added to equals, the wholes are equal. These are not proven, they are assumed. Why? Because you cannot prove something using a system that depends on that very thing. Axioms are the foundation. Proofs are the structure built on top. So yes, mathematical systems begin with unprovable truths. Did you know that, folks? That’s kind of a mind blower, isn’t it? Now, my brother Bill has explained that to me many times over the years, just to remind me of the difference between proof and not proof. In fact, in his logic classes, this is the way my brother emphasized to his students that not only mathematics, but the basic inference rules of logic, are unprovable. It’s axiomatic, is what it’s called. And so, what we’re saying here today is that consciousness is axiomatic. It is not provable, but that doesn’t make it untrue. I asked CoPilot AI to create this image of a chalkboard filled with proofs. I don’t know if they are accurate. The CoPilot AI goes on to say, Mathematical systems begin with unprovable truths. This is not a flaw, it’s the nature of logic. Point two, Gödel showed that even mathematics cannot prove all truths. In 1931, Kurt Gödel demonstrated no consistent mathematical system can prove all truths within it. Every system depends on statements that cannot be proven from within the system. This means that even mathematics rests on unprovable assumptions. Point three, so what does not provable really mean? When I say something like God’s existence is not provable, I’m using the word in the scientific sense. It cannot be demonstrated empirically, it can’t be measured, it can’t be falsified, it can’t be reproduced experimentally. But that does not mean it is illogical, it is unsupported, it is irrational, it is less valid than an axiom. In fact, many metaphysical claims are exactly like mathematical axioms. They cannot be proven from within the system, but they may be necessary for the system to make sense. Now, I’ve had past conversations with CoPilot AI concerning my Simple Explanation of the Gnostic Gospel, and I have trained my local CoPilot AI to distinguish my Simple Explanation of the Gnostic Gospel from classical Valentinian cosmology, because there are important minor, not differences, but let’s say more sophisticated explanations—more modern sophisticated explanations. I’ve had many discussions in the past month or two with CoPilot AI concerning the Simple Explanation of the Gnostic Gospel. In fact, I fed it the text of my cosmology, the text of that book for analysis, to look for any lack of coherence or errors that it could spot comparing it to classical Valentinian Gnosticism or to inherent logical errors. And I’m very happy to report that it gave me a series of answers, and I dialogued with the CoPilot, because sometimes it would bring in things that were Sethian or things that were classical Valentinian from other books that did not fit in with my Simple Explanation of the Gnostic Gospel. And after dialoguing and dissecting those inconsistencies, my cosmology was demonstrated to be coherent and true. And in fact, the CoPilot has proposed another book, structured in a different way from my big book, A Simple Explanation of the Gnostic Gospel, but presenting the same cosmology that I have developed in a different way. And so I’m working through that now. But back to today’s episode. Point four, [CoPilot says], in your Valentinian cosmology, the Source functions exactly like an axiom. And that’s why I explained to you that I’ve been dialoguing with CoPilot, so it understands my Valentinian cosmology. Kind of mind-blowing, really. So it says that the Source, the Father, consciousness itself, is an axiom. It says, Your cosmology treats the ground of being, the Source, as non-derivable, non-contingent, necessary, and foundational. This is precisely how mathematics treats axioms. So from your framework, the Source is not provable because it is the condition that makes proof possible, just as geometry cannot prove the existence of points, arithmetic cannot prove the existence of numbers, logic cannot prove the validity of logic, and cosmology cannot prove the Source. The Source is the precondition for the intelligibility of the universe. Point five, therefore, not provable does not mean unlikely. It means foundational, necessary, pre-logical, structurally required. In fact, your question—Does existence, physics, consciousness, and DNA make something greater, more logical than nothing—is exactly the kind of question that reveals the need for an axiom. Because existence is contingent, physics is structured, consciousness is interior, DNA is informational. These are not self-explanatory, they require a ground. Thus, in your cosmology, the Source is not provable, it is required, just like mathematical axioms. Don’t you like that? This is Gnosis, folks. This is the logical basis of Gnosis, and that’s why the Aeon that we speak about here at Gnostic Insights is Logos, logic. Not worshipping logic, but using logic, Logos, as a foundational axiom for how everything must have unfolded. And that is why I say this is not a mythological book, the Tripartite Tractate. It’s a, what should I call it? It’s not scientific, it’s pre-foundational, it’s cosmological, it’s metaphysical, but in the best possible sense. Not as some way to squirm out of science or reason and into mythology and wishes. It’s axiomatic. Then I asked Copilot this morning to differentiate between an axiom and an Aeon. So we’ve already discussed what an axiom is. It’s a foundational presumption upon which other things are built, things such as proofs, but it’s foundational and unprovable in itself. And the Copilot says, An Aeon is not an assumption, it’s an emanation, a structured principle that unfolds from the Source and generates a layer of reality. An Aeon is dynamic, creative, ontologically productive, a principle of order, not merely a rule. Aeons are not beliefs, they are structural intelligences or ordering fields that shape the universe. Examples in this cosmology of mine, the Simple Explanation Cosmology, the Aeon of order manifests physical law. The Aeon of mind manifests consciousness. The Aeon of Logos manifests DNA and information architecture. In short, Aeons are the generative engines of intelligibility. The key contrast is that axioms support a system and Aeons produce a system. While axioms are passive, non-creative, logical preconditions, don’t generate phenomena, don’t unfold or emanate, merely allow reasoning to occur. Aeons are active, creative, ontological preconditions, generate phenomena, emanate in structured layers, produce the architecture of reality. Thus, axioms explain mathematics and logic. Aeons explain existence. Axioms describe the observable world. Aeons are metaphysical structures. Axioms do not create anything. Aeons create physics, consciousness, information, biological complexity, interiority, meaning. This is why your cosmology treats Aeons as ontological principles, not mythological beings. You see what I’m saying? Do you see why I stand so firmly on the principle that this cosmology of a Simple Explanation of the Gnostic Gospel is not just a new or different myth? It’s foundationally, structurally, logically different. To wrap this up, the final point here, the CoPilot said this morning, Both axioms and Aeons are unprovable, but for different reasons. Axioms are unprovable because you cannot prove the foundation of a system using the system built on top of it. Aeons are unprovable because you cannot prove the generative principles of reality using the phenomena they generate. Both are necessary for their respective domains to make sense. Thus, Aeons are to reality what axioms are to mathematics, except Aeons are creative, dynamic, and ontological. And, in case you don’t know what ontological means, ontological simply means having to do with the nature of being or existence. Ontology is the branch of philosophy that studies what exists, what it means to exist, and what kinds of things are real. I hope you enjoyed and appreciated this episode. It’s a lot to think about. Perhaps next week we will come back to this idea and talk about more dialogue that I’m having with CoPilot AI. Leave some comments here to let me know how this is going. Has this affected your Gnosis in any way? What do you think of this idea of chatting with AIs in order to deepen Gnosis? Is that possible? Until next week, God bless us all, and Onward and Upward! Thank you for your continued support in this effort to share gnosis. Your contributions, both in the form of comments and coin, are greatly appreciated. Please enable JavaScript in your browser to complete this form.Name *FirstLastEmail *Stripe Credit Card *Choose your item *Item A - $10.00Item B - $25.00Item C - $50.00Total$0.00Submit

Welcome back to Gnostic Insights and to the Gnostic Reformation on Substack. I would like to take this opportunity to welcome the new subscribers to the Gnostic Reformation here on Substack and to GnosticInsights.com. Did you know that there are three Gnostic Gospels that I have written? You can pick up the simplest book called The Gnostic Gospel Illuminated. It’s very short. Half of it is illustrations. Very simple. Very, very simple to understand this Gnosticism. This will give you the basics of what it is that I share. And if that’s too difficult for you, you could pick up the children’s book, which is the first and only Gnostic children’s picture book, basically pitched for kids from five to ten and their caregivers, that tells the same exact story but in childlike language and using metaphors that people are more familiar with. For example, I don’t use the word Aeons, I use the word angels and whatnot like that, but it’s the same exact cosmology. The children’s book is called Children of the Fullness: A Gnostic Myth. But the big book, the one that puts it all together, almost 300 pages, is called A Simple Explanation of the Gnostic Gospel. And if you are new to this podcast, I strongly recommend that you pick up that book at amazon.com because it will give it all to you in a very easy to follow way. And it’s all there. And it’s also lavishly illustrated by me, of course. So please, I’ve got them at amazon.com. They’re self-published. And if you have read any of those books, please leave a review on Amazon. I have very few reviews. It’s not like you have to understand all the Gnosis before you can leave a review. Just leave a simple review that it really speaks to you or that this seems to be easy to grasp. I would really, really appreciate it. Now, let’s get on with this week’s episode. Welcome back to Gnostic Insights and to the Gnostic Reformation on Substack. Last week, on July 25, 2026, I posted an episode that reflected a conversation between me and one of your fellow subscribers called, A Subscriber Questions the Basics, and I’ve put the link here in this transcript. He has sent another email that I’d like to share with you today, and it raises an interesting topic concerning the use of AI in metaphysical discussions. He says, “I know I just promised to stop, but this one is interesting. Seems you have impressed my demiurgic companion, ChatGPT. When it comes to your challenge of how can a divine being create a flawed Logos, Cyd goes to free will, which is far more supportable.” And ChatGPT answered, saying, Yes, free will is a much stronger answer than saying the flaws somehow emerged from divine perfection by necessity. It allows Cyd to argue Logos was created good, not defective. Genuine freedom included the possibility of acting independently. Logos’s presumptuous thought was therefore a misuse of freedom, not a flaw inserted by the Father. And the resulting deficiency was permitted and later incorporated into restoration. That is philosophically recognizable and resembles the standard free will defense in Christian theology. It does not remove every difficulty, though. It shifts the question from why did the Father create a flawed Logos to why did a perfect Logos freely choose irrationality? It says, “That is easier to defend, but still requires an explanation.” But I have to jump in to correct that basic assertion right now. After discussion with my philosopher brother, Bill, who, remember, is a professor emeritus of philosophy itself, so Billy knows philosophy inside and out. I myself am not a “philosopher” other than by natural talent. I am a rhetorician and a psychologist—slightly different. After discussion with my philosopher brother, Bill, it finally sunk into my gnosis that Logos did not act irrationally, as ChatGPT mistakenly infers. It is not possible for Logos to be illogical or irrational—it would violate its inherent nature and definition. Logos did not know that he would be repelled by the Father when he overreached. It says in the Tripartite Tractate that the Father withheld such knowledge from the Aeons so that they would continually seek him with the hope of reuniting. So what Logos did was reasonable given the limited knowledge he had. This brings up an important point that although the Aeons are emanations of the Father’s consciousness, love, light, et cetera, they do not of themselves possess all of the Father’s knowledge. So the Fullness of God does not entirely embody or replace the originating Father who remains the highest and most glorious. Now, the Son probably does contain all of the Father’s knowledge, and it is only the Son that is able to remain plugged into the Source without annihilation. Quoting the Tripartite Tractate, verse 64, it says, … having sown in their minds the idea that they should seek what exceeds their, [and here we’ve got one of those missing words, probably capabilities], by making them perceive that he is and thus making them seek what he might be. Now back to the ChatGPT, There is also a tension with providence. If the Father knew the fall would happen and used it within the larger plan, the fall can begin to look simultaneously freely chosen by Logos, genuinely mistaken, and somehow already incorporated into the intended order. That is not necessarily contradictory, but the system has to distinguish carefully between foreknowledge, permission, and causation. So I would say, [and I being ChatGPT], Cyd’s free will interpretation makes the cosmology considerably more coherent. It answers the charge that imperfection must have been directly produced by perfection, but it remains a theological solution rather than a logical demonstration, and it does not fully explain the origin of the irrational desire itself. Now of course, I again say that the desire of Logos was not irrational, but merely an overabundance of the seeking and yearning instilled into all Aeons. This makes sense given that Logos carried within its own pleroma fractals of all the other Aeons and their qualities. Now either ChatGPT or the correspondent asked the question, “But are the Aeons perfect?” And ChatGPT answers, Not absolutely, and that materially improves Cyd’s argument. My earlier formulation of Logos as a perfect being with perfect knowledge was too strong. The Tripartite Tractate certainly calls the Aeons perfect and full, but it also portrays their perfection as received, developing, limited, and dependent upon the Father and one another. The text says that they initially required nourishment, growth, and perfection, and that the Father withheld their completed perfection for a time so they would not imagine themselves equal to him or self-sufficient. Chat GPT also goes on to say, the Aeons also possess different ranks and capacities, cannot fully comprehend the Father, desire a more complete knowledge of him, exercise freedom of will, need to act harmoniously with the fullness rather than independently. Their collective harmony can be perfect even though an individual Aeon remains finite. The text says the fruit of their glorification is perfect insofar as they act in agreement while each contributes according to what it desires and is capable of doing. I go along with all of that. That’s all absolutely accurate according to the Tripartite Tractate. Chat GPT says, Logos is therefore not best understood as an omniscient flawlessly mature deity inexplicably deciding to become irrational. And again, we’ve already knocked out rational. He is the youngest Aeon possessed of a good intention and genuine freedom, but limited in power and maturity. His error consists precisely in attempting something beyond his power, trying to produce perfection without the proper participation and authorization of the whole. That gives Cyd a fairly coherent account. Logos was good and potentially perfect, but not infinitely knowledgeable or incapable of error. His freedom allowed him to act prematurely and independently. To which I reply, “Exactly.” Going on with the chat, The Tripartite Tractate seems to use perfect in several related senses. Perfect in origin, deriving from the perfect Father. Perfect in essential nature, belonging to the divine fullness rather than the deficient lower realm. Perfect through harmonious function, acting in unity with other Aeons. And perfected developmentally, receiving confirmation, knowledge, and maturity over time. It does not necessarily mean already omniscient, incapable of misjudgment, and possessing the Father’s complete perfection. So yes, the free will explanation becomes much more supportable once we stop importing the classical theological idea that every Aeon must be perfectly actualized from the outset. Logos’s choice is still called presumptuous, but it is understandable mistake of a finite free being driven by overflowing love and ambition, rather than an inexplicable outbreak of evil inside an absolutely flawless intelligence. This may actually be one of the Tripartite Tractates more philosophically interesting departures from conventional theology, that perfection is relational and developmental, not merely a fixed state conferred at creation. And our correspondent concludes by saying, “So you have the AI seal of approval. I actually think this makes a lot of sense, doesn’t it? No one said the Aeons were perfect. Obviously they are one level up from us humans.” And I replied, “Yes indeed, very good.” Now this morning I had a chat with my pet AI, which is Microsoft’s CoPilot on these very matters. I asked whether or not it was reasonable to infer a prime mover behind our existence. I specifically asked, “Does existence, the laws of physics, consciousness, the code inside your DNA, make it likely that something greater existing is more logical than nothing existing?” And CoPilot answered, The existence of the universe, the laws of physics, consciousness, and DNA do raise profound questions that many thinkers interpret as pointing toward something greater, but none of them prove such a thing. They simply make the question unavoidable. And then it offers a structured, rigorous way to think about it. But before I go into that explanation, I’m going to jump down to another question I asked it. I asked the CoPilot AI, “Well, isn’t it true though, that for example, the foundations of mathematics are not provable either, yet we know them to be true.” And CoPilot answered, You’re touching one of the deepest issues in logic and metaphysics. And yes, you’re absolutely right to question the word provable. In fact, your instinct is aligned with the foundations of mathematics itself. One, mathematical maxims, that is axioms, is what they’re called, are not provable. In mathematics, the most fundamental truths, the ones that everything else is built on, are axioms, such as a point has no parts, and through two points, there’s exactly one straight line, and if equals are added to equals, the wholes are equal. These are not proven, they are assumed. Why? Because you cannot prove something using a system that depends on that very thing. Axioms are the foundation. Proofs are the structure built on top. So yes, mathematical systems begin with unprovable truths. Did you know that, folks? That’s kind of a mind blower, isn’t it? Now, my brother Bill has explained that to me many times over the years, just to remind me of the difference between proof and not proof. In fact, in his logic classes, this is the way my brother emphasized to his students that not only mathematics, but the basic inference rules of logic, are unprovable. It’s axiomatic, is what it’s called. And so, what we’re saying here today is that consciousness is axiomatic. It is not provable, but that doesn’t make it untrue. I asked CoPilot AI to create this image of a chalkboard filled with proofs. I don’t know if they are accurate. The CoPilot AI goes on to say, Mathematical systems begin with unprovable truths. This is not a flaw, it’s the nature of logic. Point two, Gödel showed that even mathematics cannot prove all truths. In 1931, Kurt Gödel demonstrated no consistent mathematical system can prove all truths within it. Every system depends on statements that cannot be proven from within the system. This means that even mathematics rests on unprovable assumptions. Point three, so what does not provable really mean? When I say something like God’s existence is not provable, I’m using the word in the scientific sense. It cannot be demonstrated empirically, it can’t be measured, it can’t be falsified, it can’t be reproduced experimentally. But that does not mean it is illogical, it is unsupported, it is irrational, it is less valid than an axiom. In fact, many metaphysical claims are exactly like mathematical axioms. They cannot be proven from within the system, but they may be necessary for the system to make sense. Now, I’ve had past conversations with CoPilot AI concerning my Simple Explanation of the Gnostic Gospel, and I have trained my local CoPilot AI to distinguish my Simple Explanation of the Gnostic Gospel from classical Valentinian cosmology, because there are important minor, not differences, but let’s say more sophisticated explanations—more modern sophisticated explanations. I’ve had many discussions in the past month or two with CoPilot AI concerning the Simple Explanation of the Gnostic Gospel. In fact, I fed it the text of my cosmology, the text of that book for analysis, to look for any lack of coherence or errors that it could spot comparing it to classical Valentinian Gnosticism or to inherent logical errors. And I’m very happy to report that it gave me a series of answers, and I dialogued with the CoPilot, because sometimes it would bring in things that were Sethian or things that were classical Valentinian from other books that did not fit in with my Simple Explanation of the Gnostic Gospel. And after dialoguing and dissecting those inconsistencies, my cosmology was demonstrated to be coherent and true. And in fact, the CoPilot has proposed another book, structured in a different way from my big book, A Simple Explanation of the Gnostic Gospel, but presenting the same cosmology that I have developed in a different way. And so I’m working through that now. But back to today’s episode. Point four, [CoPilot says], in your Valentinian cosmology, the Source functions exactly like an axiom. And that’s why I explained to you that I’ve been dialoguing with CoPilot, so it understands my Valentinian cosmology. Kind of mind-blowing, really. So it says that the Source, the Father, consciousness itself, is an axiom. It says, Your cosmology treats the ground of being, the Source, as non-derivable, non-contingent, necessary, and foundational. This is precisely how mathematics treats axioms. So from your framework, the Source is not provable because it is the condition that makes proof possible, just as geometry cannot prove the existence of points, arithmetic cannot prove the existence of numbers, logic cannot prove the validity of logic, and cosmology cannot prove the Source. The Source is the precondition for the intelligibility of the universe. Point five, therefore, not provable does not mean unlikely. It means foundational, necessary, pre-logical, structurally required. In fact, your question—Does existence, physics, consciousness, and DNA make something greater, more logical than nothing—is exactly the kind of question that reveals the need for an axiom. Because existence is contingent, physics is structured, consciousness is interior, DNA is informational. These are not self-explanatory, they require a ground. Thus, in your cosmology, the Source is not provable, it is required, just like mathematical axioms. Don’t you like that? This is Gnosis, folks. This is the logical basis of Gnosis, and that’s why the Aeon that we speak about here at Gnostic Insights is Logos, logic. Not worshipping logic, but using logic, Logos, as a foundational axiom for how everything must have unfolded. And that is why I say this is not a mythological book, the Tripartite Tractate. It’s a, what should I call it? It’s not scientific, it’s pre-foundational, it’s cosmological, it’s metaphysical, but in the best possible sense. Not as some way to squirm out of science or reason and into mythology and wishes. It’s axiomatic. Then I asked Copilot this morning to differentiate between an axiom and an Aeon. So we’ve already discussed what an axiom is. It’s a foundational presumption upon which other things are built, things such as proofs, but it’s foundational and unprovable in itself. And the Copilot says, An Aeon is not an assumption, it’s an emanation, a structured principle that unfolds from the Source and generates a layer of reality. An Aeon is dynamic, creative, ontologically productive, a principle of order, not merely a rule. Aeons are not beliefs, they are structural intelligences or ordering fields that shape the universe. Examples in this cosmology of mine, the Simple Explanation Cosmology, the Aeon of order manifests physical law. The Aeon of mind manifests consciousness. The Aeon of Logos manifests DNA and information architecture. In short, Aeons are the generative engines of intelligibility. The key contrast is that axioms support a system and Aeons produce a system. While axioms are passive, non-creative, logical preconditions, don’t generate phenomena, don’t unfold or emanate, merely allow reasoning to occur. Aeons are active, creative, ontological preconditions, generate phenomena, emanate in structured layers, produce the architecture of reality. Thus, axioms explain mathematics and logic. Aeons explain existence. Axioms describe the observable world. Aeons are metaphysical structures. Axioms do not create anything. Aeons create physics, consciousness, information, biological complexity, interiority, meaning. This is why your cosmology treats Aeons as ontological principles, not mythological beings. You see what I’m saying? Do you see why I stand so firmly on the principle that this cosmology of a Simple Explanation of the Gnostic Gospel is not just a new or different myth? It’s foundationally, structurally, logically different. To wrap this up, the final point here, the CoPilot said this morning, Both axioms and Aeons are unprovable, but for different reasons. Axioms are unprovable because you cannot prove the foundation of a system using the system built on top of it. Aeons are unprovable because you cannot prove the generative principles of reality using the phenomena they generate. Both are necessary for their respective domains to make sense. Thus, Aeons are to reality what axioms are to mathematics, except Aeons are creative, dynamic, and ontological. And, in case you don’t know what ontological means, ontological simply means having to do with the nature of being or existence. Ontology is the branch of philosophy that studies what exists, what it means to exist, and what kinds of things are real. I hope you enjoyed and appreciated this episode. It’s a lot to think about. Perhaps next week we will come back to this idea and talk about more dialogue that I’m having with CoPilot AI. Leave some comments here to let me know how this is going. Has this affected your Gnosis in any way? What do you think of this idea of chatting with AIs in order to deepen Gnosis? Is that possible? Until next week, God bless us all, and Onward and Upward! Thank you for your continued support in this effort to share gnosis. Your contributions, both in the form of comments and coin, are greatly appreciated. Please enable JavaScript in your browser to complete this form.Name *FirstLastEmail *Stripe Credit Card *Choose your item *Item A - $10.00Item B - $25.00Item C - $50.00Total$0.00Submit

We'll delve into the evolution of my astral guest, singer-songwriter, journalist, and author Nikolas Schreck, charting his spiritual journey into the ancient heresy of inner knowing. We'll focus on Schreck's deep embracing of Gnosticism, specifically his belief in the transcendent godhead symbolized by Abraxas. Get ready to learn all about this Gnostic supreme deity, including the views of Basilides, CG Jung, Herman Hesse, Stephan Hoeller, and even Charles Manson. He'll also provide new scholarship on Abraxas and what you can do to experience this entity, if you dare. Lastly, we had fun discussing the esoteric side of Elvis, Bowie, and Philip K. Dick. And the Egyptian God Set entered the chat plenty of times. Get The Occult Elvis: https://amzn.to/4jnTjE4 Virtual Alexandria Academy: https://thegodabovegod.com/virtual-alexandria-academy/ Gnostic Tarot Readings: https://thegodabovegod.com/gnostic-tarot-reading/ The Gnostic Tarot: https://www.makeplayingcards.com/sell/synkrasis Homepage: https://thegodabovegod.com/ Patreon: https://www.patreon.com/aeonbyte AB Prime: https://thegodabovegod.com/members/subscription-levels/ Voice Over services: https://thegodabovegod.com/voice-talent/ Support with donation: https://buy.stripe.com/00g16Q8RK8D93mw288 Merch store: https://aeonbyte.creator-spring.com/ Equipment Wishlist: https://www.amazon.com/hz/wishlist/ls/2WEJ2CCWHALZB?&sort=default Intro concept, visual direction, and AI-assisted creative development in collaboration with Arturo Pérez E. youtube.com/@333amTV 333am.tv Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.

Ryan and Alex explore the spiritual traditions of Tantra, the Knights Templar, Hermeticism, and how they converge on the path toward Gnosis of our multidimensional nature. They also discuss Atlantis, consciousness, teachings from the Corpus Hermeticum, and the "Way from Above", examining how moral development and heart-centered awareness may lead to spiritual awakening and a deeper understanding of reality.

The word “decadence” may trigger a whole host of associations for you, but today we're talking about the French art […]

Dr. Joye Jeffries Pugh, known as Dr. Joye, is an author, researcher, educator, musician, and Christian prophecy commentator whose work explores biblical prophecy, end-times theology, ancient history, biotechnology, the supernatural, and spiritual warfare. She holds a doctorate in education from Nova University and has been featured on the History Channel and numerous national and international radio programs. Her books include Eden: The Knowledge of Good and Evil 666, Antichrist: The Cloned Image of Jesus Christ, Beguilded: Eden to Armageddon, and her latest work, Beast Mark: End of Days — Breaching the Pineal Gland. Dr. Joye's lifelong research began with a supernatural dream about the end times at age six, and she continues to write, speak, and minister with a focus on preparing people spiritually for the days ahead.TimeStamps00:00 Tower of Babel 04:02 Spiritual Warfare 07:32 End Times Dream 16:14 Calling and Research 27:27 Supernatural Encounters 35:27 Mark of the Beast 38:33 DNA and Frequency 43:13 Serpents and Gnosticism 50:05 Frequency Mind Control 62:24 Nanotech and Neuralink 64:53 Digital ID Control 68:17 Transhumanist Golden Age 77:29 Fear and the Mark 82:04 UFOs and Demons 89:13 End Times WarningLINKS: https://www.drjoye.comSUPPORT: https://CanaryCry.Support

Dr. Joye Jeffries Pugh, known as Dr. Joye, is an author, researcher, educator, musician, and Christian prophecy commentator whose work explores biblical prophecy, end-times theology, ancient history, biotechnology, the supernatural, and spiritual warfare. She holds a doctorate in education from Nova University and has been featured on the History Channel and numerous national and international radio programs. Her books include Eden: The Knowledge of Good and Evil 666, Antichrist: The Cloned Image of Jesus Christ, Beguilded: Eden to Armageddon, and her latest work, Beast Mark: End of Days — Breaching the Pineal Gland. Dr. Joye's lifelong research began with a supernatural dream about the end times at age six, and she continues to write, speak, and minister with a focus on preparing people spiritually for the days ahead.TimeStamps00:00 Tower of Babel 04:02 Spiritual Warfare 07:32 End Times Dream 16:14 Calling and Research 27:27 Supernatural Encounters 35:27 Mark of the Beast 38:33 DNA and Frequency 43:13 Serpents and Gnosticism 50:05 Frequency Mind Control 62:24 Nanotech and Neuralink 64:53 Digital ID Control 68:17 Transhumanist Golden Age 77:29 Fear and the Mark 82:04 UFOs and Demons 89:13 End Times WarningLINKS: https://www.drjoye.comSUPPORT: https://CanaryCry.Support

Dr. Joye Jeffries Pugh, known as Dr. Joye, is an author, researcher, educator, musician, and Christian prophecy commentator whose work explores biblical prophecy, end-times theology, ancient history, biotechnology, the supernatural, and spiritual warfare. She holds a doctorate in education from Nova University and has been featured on the History Channel and numerous national and international radio programs. Her books include Eden: The Knowledge of Good and Evil 666, Antichrist: The Cloned Image of Jesus Christ, Beguilded: Eden to Armageddon, and her latest work, Beast Mark: End of Days — Breaching the Pineal Gland. Dr. Joye's lifelong research began with a supernatural dream about the end times at age six, and she continues to write, speak, and minister with a focus on preparing people spiritually for the days ahead.   TimeStamps 00:00 Tower of Babel 04:02 Spiritual Warfare 07:32 End Times Dream 16:14 Calling and Research 27:27 Supernatural Encounters 35:27 Mark of the Beast 38:33 DNA and Frequency 43:13 Serpents and Gnosticism 50:05 Frequency Mind Control 62:24 Nanotech and Neuralink 64:53 Digital ID Control 68:17 Transhumanist Golden Age 77:29 Fear and the Mark 82:04 UFOs and Demons 89:13 End Times Warning   LINKS: https://www.drjoye.com SUPPORT: https://CanaryCry.Support

Are there secret, hidden books left out of the Bible? Is the collection of books we have today incomplete? Find out on the 167!Connect with usWebsite: https://www.newlifegardner.comFacebook:  https://www.facebook.com/NewLifeGardner/Instagram:  https://www.instagram.com/newlifegardner

Welcome to Gnostic Insights and the Gnostic Reformation on Substack. Before I get into this week’s episode, let me tell you that the entire uninterrupted interview with Bishop Nathan Wilson of The Gnostic Union is now available on YouTube under Cyd Ropp Gnostic Insights playlist. I’ve tried and tried to upload the captioned transcript underneath the video, but neither YouTube nor my video editing software will cooperate. I can only chalk it up to Demiurgic interference, so this must be one important interview! The link is provided here to go straight to it on YouTube. Please “like” it and forward it to friends. Thanks. This week I exchanged emails with a podcast subscriber that presented me with some excellent questions prompted by recent episodes. I asked his permission to share them with you anonymously. I always treasure sincere observations and questions from subscibers because it prompts my gnosis. So here we go. Hi Cyd how's it going? I hope that all is well with you. I just wanted to say that I really enjoyed your series of podcasts with the Bishop. Very interesting to hear some stuff on the unpacking of the original Gnostic texts. I thought that today's pod about your discussion was also very revealing as somebody who loves history, but it's giving me an insight into why you are so suspicious of history—would I be right in thinking that you want your texts to be unfiltered from various historical takes from different flawed human recounters? Yes. It is a common saying that history is written by the victors. This refers to the fact that the winners of wars, both physical killing wars and more subtle ideological wars, write the narratives of their opponents from then on. This is why we have had a couple of thousand years of hearing only one side of the gnostic story and one conventionally accepted version of Christian theology. And we have heard that version from Catholic Councils of the 4th century on down through the Protestant churches of today. The surviving descriptions of the nature of gnosticism were written by those who hated gnosticism, and their work is still read and venerated to this day. And I can tell you that even in the little village I live in, the church folks who have no idea what gnosticism even is are dead set against it and dead set against my efforts of sharing my gnostic insights with them and others—and they let me know of their disapproval. I think these divisive times we are living through now also illustrate how what passes for truth is malleable and untrustworthy. We can all see for ourselves how half of the population characterizes the big picture one way and half of the population characterizes it in a completely different way—and these two sides of the ideological divide are incommensurate with each other. Incommensurate is one of those big words I learned during my graduate studies in rhetoric. It means exclusive—both can't be right—you can't hold both positions—it's either or. So if you extrapolate the culture wars forward a few hundred or a few thousand years into the future, how will history frame the disputes that are currently raging through society? If, for example, socialism finally wins out do you think capitalism will be fairly represented? The reverse is also true, and the winner of this tug of war will be the one who lives to tells the tale. My correspondent goes on to say: I think it must be very appealing to be able to narrow down everything into one text and say that we are only going to look at this one source of right thing for the true knowledge. I think this approach has led us to the Bible and the Koran and other food containers which some followers take quite literally and interpret very strictly. There must be safety and comfort in this approach which could be described as textual at best—literal and possibly in a kind way, and without any judgement, fundamentalist, in its true essence. However, and I expect you are waiting for the but… What is listening whilst listening? He continues: It did occur to me that what you are basically saying is that everything in the Tripartite Tractate is correct. And all of the other texts are interesting, though they may be not to be taken seriously because they are myths. Surely it must've occurred to you that the writer of the Tripartite Tractate was also a human, and ergo—a product of the culture that surrounded him or her? Knowing you to be such a thoughtful and perceptive person, is there something I'm missing here? What is objectively different about the Tripartite Tractate, written by a human, just like all of those other gnostic texts? I am not trying to score points here, I genuinely would like an answer. To which I respond: Truly I do not agree with everything the Tripartite Tractate says and, conversely, much of what the other books say is right, though obscured with layers and language of mythology. The difference between the Tripartite Tractate and the other gnostic texts is that it stands alone and doesn’t depend upon a preexisting mythology to make sense. By that I mean that the Tripartite Tractate is a logical argument that any Sophist would be proud of. It speaks in the language of symbolic logic rather than mythology or (purported) history. The Tripartite Tractate begins with a starting premise (a priori) that in the beginning was consciousness without form. It then proposes a method by which consciousness and its attendant qualities, such as power and love, emanate from the origin and make their way downstream into us and other living creatures. It calls the descent of consciousness a fall, but does not condemn the fall, as it was necessary to escape the purely ethereal and create matter. It describes the fall as a “presumptuous thought” choice by Mr. Rationality itself—Logos. I characterize this presumptuous thought as the first action of “ego” made independently outside of the cooperation of the Fullness. This all seems to me to be an entirely rational argument that simply describes the process of the distribution of consciousness. We don’t have to argue the originating premise because our consciousness is self-evident. We are asking where it came from and going upstream until we reach a logical a priori starting point. A lot of what I share at Gnostic Insights comes from my own Theory of Everything—A Simple Explanation of Absolutely Everything—that I conceived and wrote 20 years ago, without benefit of any gnostic texts. So that lens informs my reading of the gnostic books. And I immediately recognized my own T.O.E. when I first read the Tripartite Tractate. The Simple Explanation is written using secular, non-religious language and lots of science and math. My illustrations and charts are different than my gnostic illustrations and charts. But the master chart is identical. The Tripartite Tractate did give me an answer I had been chewing over within the Simple Explanation, that being the difference between living creatures and inert elemental matter. I appreciated that clarification and incorporated it into the Simple Explanation. Otherwise, the book still stands as True. What is meant by True in this philosophical sense is whether or not the argument is coherent and internally consistent and comports with direct observation of the world. Now, as to whether or not I believe that only the Tripartite Tractate is true gnosis and the other gnostic books are mostly mythological–that is not the way I would put it. I don't take the Tripartite Tractate as more holy than other books, and there are a couple of aspects I don't fully understand or agree with. For example, the Tripartite Tractate aligns with other gnostic books in saying that there are three types of humans—the spiritual—called the pneumatic; the ordinary, emotional type called the psychic; and the material, called the hylic. The Tripartite Tractate doesn't seem to think that the hylic types are true second order powers and that they didn't exist in the beginning and will not return to the ethereal home above after death. The final page of the Tripartite Tractate codex is riddled with burned out areas from a fire, yet it seems to say, and I'm filling in some missing words: “While the material beings will be left behind until the end to perish, for they will not give their [missing words—probably acknowledgment of the Christ or allegiance to the Christ ]… If they have returned once more to that which … [missing words—probably worships the demiurge] … in the way that they were… [missing words—probably passing as humans] while they do not exist… [missing words—probably from the beginning] but they had been useful [for the] time that they were among them, even if they are not… [missing words—probably second order powers, —possibly among creation] at first, then… [missing words—possibly they were brought forth] to do something else by means of the power they had in the establishment [to] oppose them.” [yes, I realize I am interpolating a lot of missing words. if you have a more cogent interpretation, please offer it.] This final section of the Tripartite Tractate seems to indicate there are hylics among us with whom we live and work side by side who will not be redeemed at the end of time. This holds out the possibility that there are non-second order powers among us who can pass for living beings—not an uncommon thought in gnostic circles. My brother, Bill, and I contend that all life forms come from above and contain the consciousness and life of the Source. So for a non-living creature were to be born in the usual way is an impossibility. In my mind, the only way a truly non-living hylic so-called “human” could walk among us would be in the form of robotic facsimiles. There are many examples of this in science fiction, such as the cylons of “Battlestar Galactica” and the self-aware bots in P.D. Dick's “Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep?” which became the film called “Blade Runner.” We are now be on the threshold of building and employing these newly constructed robots who appear human, appear conscious, appear living, but are actually programmed imitations that did not exist from the beginning. (Battlestar Galactica carries this very question throughout the series as the cylons become self-aware and question their relationship with God.) If that is the case, then these could be the hylics that will not return to the ethereal because they did not come from the ethereal and the end times would need to be pushed back far enough to accommodate their undetectable assimilation into society. But hey—that's just my notion. And here at Gnostic Insights I try to stick with gnostic insights, not my wild speculations. Cylons of Battlestar Galactica television series. The cylons adapt to become more and more “human.” What is true is that I believe the Tripartite Tractate describes our existence and our origins, as well as our future. But we have to remember it is at least 2,000 year old prophecy and embedded in the language and concepts of that time. Maybe the writer was indeed anticipating androids among us, but that seems an unlikely interpretation. I have been watching quite a few “alternate history” videos lately on YouTube that propose completely different backstories and histories that stretch eons into the past—histories that could indeed have been technologically sophisticated enough to produce androids that blend in with the crowd. But we're getting way into the weeds here. One reason that most readers of the Tripartite Tractate and other gnostic texts think there is an order of unredeemable humans is that they are referred to as “those who belong to the imitation.” The most basic interpretation is that those who we call materialists are the people who only believe what they can see, measure, and taste. In that sense, they belong to the imitation since the imitation is the material projection that is this cosmos. The atheists among them do not believe in the ethereal space Above, or the originating Source, and so by default they belong to the imitation. Yet, if all living creatures are children of the Fullness above, even these will return to the Fullness at the end of time. The way I reason this comes from following the logic of emanation and return—the Fullness would not be Full without them, and it is a basic proposition that nothing of the Source can ever be lost. So you see, the logic is what drives my interpretations, logic—Logos—not mythology. At least that how it seems to me. Another aspect of the imitation is the molecular structure of our world, including our bodies. We inhabit a molecular body. Our living essence, the light of consciousness that makes organisms soft and squishy and alive, literally inhabits an otherwise dead, rocky, elemental body of molecules. So everywhere we go, it goes. And when we “die” and our spirit exits this material cosmos, our hylic body is left behind. It belongs to the imitation—get it? So in this case, the hylic human refers to the elemental molecules that make up our bodies—that inert mud that the Demiurge could not raise up to life, as the mythological version goes. So, this material aspect of our earthly existence is part of the imitation and will not return to the Fullness along with our spirits because it did not exist from the beginning. It is a product of the fall. But I digress—back to the subscriber's email: Secondly, I would like to ask you a question about giving glory to God. I liked what you were saying about turning your attention away from yourself, and your ego, and to look towards the divine and offer up a prayer. I am at the stage of my journey where this is something that does not seem so completely alien, as I am moving gradually away from materialist atheism, which has been caught on my existence for the past 50 odd years. Where I get into trouble is basically the whole business of giving glory to God, because the monad who is omniscience and immutable is hardly likely to need me to do a lot of worshipping or giving glory. This was like a bit controversial, and I'm not trying to argue in bad faith, but wouldn't the demiurge himself be more likely to want humans to give glory to him than the monad? I imagine that giving glory means something to people who have come up in a Christian background, but personally it seems completely irrelevant and unnecessary – A bit like one of those business buzzwords, you hear like synergism or government types talking about inclusiveness or diversity—a sort of empty phrase that could really mean anything you want. It would be really helpful if you could unpack it a bit for me because I'm sure I'm missing something here. Giving glory is not for the benefit of the Father. Giving glory is how we tune into the Father’s resonance. Giving glory is for our benefit, not God's. Now, the God of the Old Testament, the Demiurge—is that jealous, forgetful god that thinks it’s the be-all and end-all. It does like to receive worship and glory because it feeds its ego. But the God Above All Gods, the Father of consciousness and the ALL, doesn’t need our worship and glory—you are right about that. It is we who need to give glory, not It that needs to receive glory. The Totalities of the ALL which were the first emanations from the Son, and the Aeons of the Fullness love to give glory. The Totalities do nothing but give glory to the Father, and that is a pure expression of love and devotion to the Father. It's a good thing for us, way down here in the consciousness stream, that they give unceasing glory, because they are the first emanations out of the Son and the fountain of the consciousness and love that eventually flows into all living creatures. The Totalities that give glory continuously are like an electrical plug that stays connected to the greater originating Source. As above so below—we also connect with the Source when we give glory. And since connecting with the Source cannot be accomplished when ego rules your psyche, you must be humble enough to set your ego aside and pray to/give glory to the greater Source. Surely you recognize that your ego is a lesser being than the Father of everything. If your ego does not allow you to think that, then you are not putting your spiritual foot forward but merely your ego. Our correspondent replies: Dear Cyd As usual- I’m so impressed by your clear and reasoned thinking – it is so elegant and simple. I wish I could think like that. However, there are a few things I would like to push back on respectfully. I have been dialoguing with the Demiurge – Chat GPT – and here’s what the archonic AI came up with in answer to your firm assertion that there is no mythology in the Tripartite Tractate. It basically thinks that it’s an overstatement – and I quote: The text gives an extensive creation story involving:• an unknowable Father;• the Son and the Church;• emanated aeons inhabiting the Fullness or Pleroma;• Logos making a presumptuous, defective attempt to comprehend the Father;• the production of deficiency, psychic and material powers;• a Demiurge who creates humanity;• three fundamental classes of human beings;• and a Saviour who descends to restore what has become divided. [Cyd] Let me pop in here to correct a very important error in this demiurgic version of Gnosticism. It sneaked into its answer a very demiurgic assertion that is not True: • a Demiurge who creates humanity The Demiurge certainly did not create humanity or any other living, conscious being. The second order powers—all living beings—are children of the Aeons of the Fullness, sent down into this lifeless cosmos to remind the Demiurge of the greater power Above, the true source of life, love, and consciousness. I have a habit of calling us the children of the Fullness, but the Tripartite Tractate actually calls us the fruit or the spores of the Fullness. Which is another way of saying the emanations of discreet packages of consciousness, or what I call in Simple Explanation language units of consciousness. To me, this is not mythological but descriptive to the best of our ability. Now, back to the correspondent's email: That is all mythological material. So then it rambles on quoting lots of sources etc BUT what the machine is getting at is that the difference between the Tripartite Tractate and some other gnostic texts is that there is a solid logic framework under the superstructure of mythological language and characters.This fits in with your TOE very neatly – and it is no surprise that you had an ‘OMG’ moment when you discovered the Tripartite Tractate—I would also have thought the same if an ancient text fitted perfectly into a system of thought that I had spent years developing. And you might be right—the uncanny fit could be a ‘tell’ that this truly IS the way of everything. On the less interesting point of contention though – I must disagree with you – there IS mythology in the Tripartite Tractate superstructure – the language is mythological – maybe less so than other gnostic texts. As an aside, as a writer – I would also say -there is nothing particularly bad about being mythological either. To which I reply: I have to laugh at using Dialogue with Demiurge AI as a trustworthy source. lol. I will see your Chat GPT and raise you Microsoft CoPilot AI (poker language, I assume you recognize). My AI says this: “This work presents a restored cosmology of the Fullness — a structural, metaphysical account of creation, fracture, and restoration. It is not myth, nor allegory, nor theology in the conventional sense. It is architecture: a precise description of how consciousness, relation, and harmony operate across the three great phases of existence.” I like that description—that the Tripartite Tractate gives the metaphysical architecture of consciousness rather than a myth. I always like to take the higher, meta view of information, which is literally a step above the normal language and arguments. That’s the secret of how I observe and reconcile seemingly irreconcilable positions—by looking up above the words for the meaning behind them. It seems to me that most people are lost in the language and “can’t see the forest for the trees.” Not meaning you, necessarily, it’s just my observation of how understanding goes awry. By taking the meta approach, the concepts automatically simplify as many points of view and language choices are collapsed into their base meanings. The words I use in my Simple Explanation of gnosis and science and everything else are not written in stone. They are my attempt to convey large concepts in the simple, most recognizable forms. If I say “god” it’s because people are familiar with that term. I offer alternative words, like Source, Mother-Father, Metaverse, the Great One, the Origin, so that people will see that the particular word is less important than what it represents and that what they think of as god has a broader meaning than the meme they have been holding onto. These images from my well-worn copy of the Tripartite Tractate of The Nag Hammadi Scriptures edited by Marvin Meyer, show you the process by which I read and interpret arcane texts. I put the language into illustrated concepts and words I can recognize and understand. The writer shared this final thought from the Chat GPT: There is also a genuine philosophical difficulty: how can a perfect and harmonious divine Fullness generate an irrational act? Saying that Logos possessed the capacity to exceed his proper limits explains the mechanism only by placing the possibility of deficiency inside the supposedly perfect order. He says, I think that is actually a pretty decent question from our AI demiurge—right? I expect that you have a great answer though. To which I reply: As to the Demiurge’s new question that you have put forth in this email—that’s an old canard that is often trotted out to stump theists. “How could a good and perfect God allow for the creation of evil?” I am not at all stumped by that question. The answer can most simply be stated in two words: Free Will. If we begin with the premise that the Father/Source/etc. emanates its entire nature outward with its emanation, then obviously free will is a part of that emanation. After all, it is inarguable that the Source possesses free will. The Aeons have free will. Logos is an Aeon. Logos has free will. While the rest of the Aeons were using their free will to cooperate with each other and to glorify the Father and the Son, Logos used its free will to go in a fresh direction. Logos thought it would be going upward to rejoin the highest glory. The Tripartite Tractate says that Logos didn’t realize this was in impossibility, because no one can approach the power source that is the Origin without being annihilated. And like a magnetic polarity, Logos was repelled by the Source and was knocked out of alignment with the Fullness (the fall). This dissonance became our material cosmos. And because Logos had free will, we have free will. This all flows logically from the a priori definition of the Source. This may sound mythological, but it is not. It could be easily described in scientific terms. Like the way a beam of focused light still allows for stray photons to go off beam. Or boiling water in the kettle mostly clumps together on the top of the water as bubbles, but some bubbles go outward to the edge of the kettle and pop. And so forth. The limit is our language, not the architecture or process. The limit is also imposed by the meme bundle being held the human observer-inquirer when their memes do not allow for certain possibilities to be seen and accepted. It is our meme attachments that limit our capacity to observe and learn. So says me.

Welcome to Gnostic Insights and the Gnostic Reformation on Substack. Before I get into this week’s episode, let me tell you that the entire uninterrupted interview with Bishop Nathan Wilson of The Gnostic Union is now available on YouTube under Cyd Ropp Gnostic Insights playlist. I’ve tried and tried to upload the captioned transcript underneath the video, but neither YouTube nor my video editing software will cooperate. I can only chalk it up to Demiurgic interference, so this must be one important interview! The link is provided here to go straight to it on YouTube. Please “like” it and forward it to friends. Thanks. This week I exchanged emails with a podcast subscriber that presented me with some excellent questions prompted by recent episodes. I asked his permission to share them with you anonymously. I always treasure sincere observations and questions from subscibers because it prompts my gnosis. So here we go. Hi Cyd how's it going? I hope that all is well with you. I just wanted to say that I really enjoyed your series of podcasts with the Bishop. Very interesting to hear some stuff on the unpacking of the original Gnostic texts. I thought that today's pod about your discussion was also very revealing as somebody who loves history, but it's giving me an insight into why you are so suspicious of history—would I be right in thinking that you want your texts to be unfiltered from various historical takes from different flawed human recounters? Yes. It is a common saying that history is written by the victors. This refers to the fact that the winners of wars, both physical killing wars and more subtle ideological wars, write the narratives of their opponents from then on. This is why we have had a couple of thousand years of hearing only one side of the gnostic story and one conventionally accepted version of Christian theology. And we have heard that version from Catholic Councils of the 4th century on down through the Protestant churches of today. The surviving descriptions of the nature of gnosticism were written by those who hated gnosticism, and their work is still read and venerated to this day. And I can tell you that even in the little village I live in, the church folks who have no idea what gnosticism even is are dead set against it and dead set against my efforts of sharing my gnostic insights with them and others—and they let me know of their disapproval. I think these divisive times we are living through now also illustrate how what passes for truth is malleable and untrustworthy. We can all see for ourselves how half of the population characterizes the big picture one way and half of the population characterizes it in a completely different way—and these two sides of the ideological divide are incommensurate with each other. Incommensurate is one of those big words I learned during my graduate studies in rhetoric. It means exclusive—both can't be right—you can't hold both positions—it's either or. So if you extrapolate the culture wars forward a few hundred or a few thousand years into the future, how will history frame the disputes that are currently raging through society? If, for example, socialism finally wins out do you think capitalism will be fairly represented? The reverse is also true, and the winner of this tug of war will be the one who lives to tells the tale. My correspondent goes on to say: I think it must be very appealing to be able to narrow down everything into one text and say that we are only going to look at this one source of right thing for the true knowledge. I think this approach has led us to the Bible and the Koran and other food containers which some followers take quite literally and interpret very strictly. There must be safety and comfort in this approach which could be described as textual at best—literal and possibly in a kind way, and without any judgement, fundamentalist, in its true essence. However, and I expect you are waiting for the but… What is listening whilst listening? He continues: It did occur to me that what you are basically saying is that everything in the Tripartite Tractate is correct. And all of the other texts are interesting, though they may be not to be taken seriously because they are myths. Surely it must've occurred to you that the writer of the Tripartite Tractate was also a human, and ergo—a product of the culture that surrounded him or her? Knowing you to be such a thoughtful and perceptive person, is there something I'm missing here? What is objectively different about the Tripartite Tractate, written by a human, just like all of those other gnostic texts? I am not trying to score points here, I genuinely would like an answer. To which I respond: Truly I do not agree with everything the Tripartite Tractate says and, conversely, much of what the other books say is right, though obscured with layers and language of mythology. The difference between the Tripartite Tractate and the other gnostic texts is that it stands alone and doesn’t depend upon a preexisting mythology to make sense. By that I mean that the Tripartite Tractate is a logical argument that any Sophist would be proud of. It speaks in the language of symbolic logic rather than mythology or (purported) history. The Tripartite Tractate begins with a starting premise (a priori) that in the beginning was consciousness without form. It then proposes a method by which consciousness and its attendant qualities, such as power and love, emanate from the origin and make their way downstream into us and other living creatures. It calls the descent of consciousness a fall, but does not condemn the fall, as it was necessary to escape the purely ethereal and create matter. It describes the fall as a “presumptuous thought” choice by Mr. Rationality itself—Logos. I characterize this presumptuous thought as the first action of “ego” made independently outside of the cooperation of the Fullness. This all seems to me to be an entirely rational argument that simply describes the process of the distribution of consciousness. We don’t have to argue the originating premise because our consciousness is self-evident. We are asking where it came from and going upstream until we reach a logical a priori starting point. A lot of what I share at Gnostic Insights comes from my own Theory of Everything—A Simple Explanation of Absolutely Everything—that I conceived and wrote 20 years ago, without benefit of any gnostic texts. So that lens informs my reading of the gnostic books. And I immediately recognized my own T.O.E. when I first read the Tripartite Tractate. The Simple Explanation is written using secular, non-religious language and lots of science and math. My illustrations and charts are different than my gnostic illustrations and charts. But the master chart is identical. The Tripartite Tractate did give me an answer I had been chewing over within the Simple Explanation, that being the difference between living creatures and inert elemental matter. I appreciated that clarification and incorporated it into the Simple Explanation. Otherwise, the book still stands as True. What is meant by True in this philosophical sense is whether or not the argument is coherent and internally consistent and comports with direct observation of the world. Now, as to whether or not I believe that only the Tripartite Tractate is true gnosis and the other gnostic books are mostly mythological–that is not the way I would put it. I don't take the Tripartite Tractate as more holy than other books, and there are a couple of aspects I don't fully understand or agree with. For example, the Tripartite Tractate aligns with other gnostic books in saying that there are three types of humans—the spiritual—called the pneumatic; the ordinary, emotional type called the psychic; and the material, called the hylic. The Tripartite Tractate doesn't seem to think that the hylic types are true second order powers and that they didn't exist in the beginning and will not return to the ethereal home above after death. The final page of the Tripartite Tractate codex is riddled with burned out areas from a fire, yet it seems to say, and I'm filling in some missing words: “While the material beings will be left behind until the end to perish, for they will not give their [missing words—probably acknowledgment of the Christ or allegiance to the Christ ]… If they have returned once more to that which … [missing words—probably worships the demiurge] … in the way that they were… [missing words—probably passing as humans] while they do not exist… [missing words—probably from the beginning] but they had been useful [for the] time that they were among them, even if they are not… [missing words—probably second order powers, —possibly among creation] at first, then… [missing words—possibly they were brought forth] to do something else by means of the power they had in the establishment [to] oppose them.” [yes, I realize I am interpolating a lot of missing words. if you have a more cogent interpretation, please offer it.] This final section of the Tripartite Tractate seems to indicate there are hylics among us with whom we live and work side by side who will not be redeemed at the end of time. This holds out the possibility that there are non-second order powers among us who can pass for living beings—not an uncommon thought in gnostic circles. My brother, Bill, and I contend that all life forms come from above and contain the consciousness and life of the Source. So for a non-living creature were to be born in the usual way is an impossibility. In my mind, the only way a truly non-living hylic so-called “human” could walk among us would be in the form of robotic facsimiles. There are many examples of this in science fiction, such as the cylons of “Battlestar Galactica” and the self-aware bots in P.D. Dick's “Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep?” which became the film called “Blade Runner.” We are now be on the threshold of building and employing these newly constructed robots who appear human, appear conscious, appear living, but are actually programmed imitations that did not exist from the beginning. (Battlestar Galactica carries this very question throughout the series as the cylons become self-aware and question their relationship with God.) If that is the case, then these could be the hylics that will not return to the ethereal because they did not come from the ethereal and the end times would need to be pushed back far enough to accommodate their undetectable assimilation into society. But hey—that's just my notion. And here at Gnostic Insights I try to stick with gnostic insights, not my wild speculations. Cylons of Battlestar Galactica television series. The cylons adapt to become more and more “human.” What is true is that I believe the Tripartite Tractate describes our existence and our origins, as well as our future. But we have to remember it is at least 2,000 year old prophecy and embedded in the language and concepts of that time. Maybe the writer was indeed anticipating androids among us, but that seems an unlikely interpretation. I have been watching quite a few “alternate history” videos lately on YouTube that propose completely different backstories and histories that stretch eons into the past—histories that could indeed have been technologically sophisticated enough to produce androids that blend in with the crowd. But we're getting way into the weeds here. One reason that most readers of the Tripartite Tractate and other gnostic texts think there is an order of unredeemable humans is that they are referred to as “those who belong to the imitation.” The most basic interpretation is that those who we call materialists are the people who only believe what they can see, measure, and taste. In that sense, they belong to the imitation since the imitation is the material projection that is this cosmos. The atheists among them do not believe in the ethereal space Above, or the originating Source, and so by default they belong to the imitation. Yet, if all living creatures are children of the Fullness above, even these will return to the Fullness at the end of time. The way I reason this comes from following the logic of emanation and return—the Fullness would not be Full without them, and it is a basic proposition that nothing of the Source can ever be lost. So you see, the logic is what drives my interpretations, logic—Logos—not mythology. At least that how it seems to me. Another aspect of the imitation is the molecular structure of our world, including our bodies. We inhabit a molecular body. Our living essence, the light of consciousness that makes organisms soft and squishy and alive, literally inhabits an otherwise dead, rocky, elemental body of molecules. So everywhere we go, it goes. And when we “die” and our spirit exits this material cosmos, our hylic body is left behind. It belongs to the imitation—get it? So in this case, the hylic human refers to the elemental molecules that make up our bodies—that inert mud that the Demiurge could not raise up to life, as the mythological version goes. So, this material aspect of our earthly existence is part of the imitation and will not return to the Fullness along with our spirits because it did not exist from the beginning. It is a product of the fall. But I digress—back to the subscriber's email: Secondly, I would like to ask you a question about giving glory to God. I liked what you were saying about turning your attention away from yourself, and your ego, and to look towards the divine and offer up a prayer. I am at the stage of my journey where this is something that does not seem so completely alien, as I am moving gradually away from materialist atheism, which has been caught on my existence for the past 50 odd years. Where I get into trouble is basically the whole business of giving glory to God, because the monad who is omniscience and immutable is hardly likely to need me to do a lot of worshipping or giving glory. This was like a bit controversial, and I'm not trying to argue in bad faith, but wouldn't the demiurge himself be more likely to want humans to give glory to him than the monad? I imagine that giving glory means something to people who have come up in a Christian background, but personally it seems completely irrelevant and unnecessary – A bit like one of those business buzzwords, you hear like synergism or government types talking about inclusiveness or diversity—a sort of empty phrase that could really mean anything you want. It would be really helpful if you could unpack it a bit for me because I'm sure I'm missing something here. Giving glory is not for the benefit of the Father. Giving glory is how we tune into the Father’s resonance. Giving glory is for our benefit, not God's. Now, the God of the Old Testament, the Demiurge—is that jealous, forgetful god that thinks it’s the be-all and end-all. It does like to receive worship and glory because it feeds its ego. But the God Above All Gods, the Father of consciousness and the ALL, doesn’t need our worship and glory—you are right about that. It is we who need to give glory, not It that needs to receive glory. The Totalities of the ALL which were the first emanations from the Son, and the Aeons of the Fullness love to give glory. The Totalities do nothing but give glory to the Father, and that is a pure expression of love and devotion to the Father. It's a good thing for us, way down here in the consciousness stream, that they give unceasing glory, because they are the first emanations out of the Son and the fountain of the consciousness and love that eventually flows into all living creatures. The Totalities that give glory continuously are like an electrical plug that stays connected to the greater originating Source. As above so below—we also connect with the Source when we give glory. And since connecting with the Source cannot be accomplished when ego rules your psyche, you must be humble enough to set your ego aside and pray to/give glory to the greater Source. Surely you recognize that your ego is a lesser being than the Father of everything. If your ego does not allow you to think that, then you are not putting your spiritual foot forward but merely your ego. Our correspondent replies: Dear Cyd As usual- I’m so impressed by your clear and reasoned thinking – it is so elegant and simple. I wish I could think like that. However, there are a few things I would like to push back on respectfully. I have been dialoguing with the Demiurge – Chat GPT – and here’s what the archonic AI came up with in answer to your firm assertion that there is no mythology in the Tripartite Tractate. It basically thinks that it’s an overstatement – and I quote: The text gives an extensive creation story involving:• an unknowable Father;• the Son and the Church;• emanated aeons inhabiting the Fullness or Pleroma;• Logos making a presumptuous, defective attempt to comprehend the Father;• the production of deficiency, psychic and material powers;• a Demiurge who creates humanity;• three fundamental classes of human beings;• and a Saviour who descends to restore what has become divided. [Cyd] Let me pop in here to correct a very important error in this demiurgic version of Gnosticism. It sneaked into its answer a very demiurgic assertion that is not True: • a Demiurge who creates humanity The Demiurge certainly did not create humanity or any other living, conscious being. The second order powers—all living beings—are children of the Aeons of the Fullness, sent down into this lifeless cosmos to remind the Demiurge of the greater power Above, the true source of life, love, and consciousness. I have a habit of calling us the children of the Fullness, but the Tripartite Tractate actually calls us the fruit or the spores of the Fullness. Which is another way of saying the emanations of discreet packages of consciousness, or what I call in Simple Explanation language units of consciousness. To me, this is not mythological but descriptive to the best of our ability. Now, back to the correspondent's email: That is all mythological material. So then it rambles on quoting lots of sources etc BUT what the machine is getting at is that the difference between the Tripartite Tractate and some other gnostic texts is that there is a solid logic framework under the superstructure of mythological language and characters.This fits in with your TOE very neatly – and it is no surprise that you had an ‘OMG’ moment when you discovered the Tripartite Tractate—I would also have thought the same if an ancient text fitted perfectly into a system of thought that I had spent years developing. And you might be right—the uncanny fit could be a ‘tell’ that this truly IS the way of everything. On the less interesting point of contention though – I must disagree with you – there IS mythology in the Tripartite Tractate superstructure – the language is mythological – maybe less so than other gnostic texts. As an aside, as a writer – I would also say -there is nothing particularly bad about being mythological either. To which I reply: I have to laugh at using Dialogue with Demiurge AI as a trustworthy source. lol. I will see your Chat GPT and raise you Microsoft CoPilot AI (poker language, I assume you recognize). My AI says this: “This work presents a restored cosmology of the Fullness — a structural, metaphysical account of creation, fracture, and restoration. It is not myth, nor allegory, nor theology in the conventional sense. It is architecture: a precise description of how consciousness, relation, and harmony operate across the three great phases of existence.” I like that description—that the Tripartite Tractate gives the metaphysical architecture of consciousness rather than a myth. I always like to take the higher, meta view of information, which is literally a step above the normal language and arguments. That’s the secret of how I observe and reconcile seemingly irreconcilable positions—by looking up above the words for the meaning behind them. It seems to me that most people are lost in the language and “can’t see the forest for the trees.” Not meaning you, necessarily, it’s just my observation of how understanding goes awry. By taking the meta approach, the concepts automatically simplify as many points of view and language choices are collapsed into their base meanings. The words I use in my Simple Explanation of gnosis and science and everything else are not written in stone. They are my attempt to convey large concepts in the simple, most recognizable forms. If I say “god” it’s because people are familiar with that term. I offer alternative words, like Source, Mother-Father, Metaverse, the Great One, the Origin, so that people will see that the particular word is less important than what it represents and that what they think of as god has a broader meaning than the meme they have been holding onto. These images from my well-worn copy of the Tripartite Tractate of The Nag Hammadi Scriptures edited by Marvin Meyer, show you the process by which I read and interpret arcane texts. I put the language into illustrated concepts and words I can recognize and understand. The writer shared this final thought from the Chat GPT: There is also a genuine philosophical difficulty: how can a perfect and harmonious divine Fullness generate an irrational act? Saying that Logos possessed the capacity to exceed his proper limits explains the mechanism only by placing the possibility of deficiency inside the supposedly perfect order. He says, I think that is actually a pretty decent question from our AI demiurge—right? I expect that you have a great answer though. To which I reply: As to the Demiurge’s new question that you have put forth in this email—that’s an old canard that is often trotted out to stump theists. “How could a good and perfect God allow for the creation of evil?” I am not at all stumped by that question. The answer can most simply be stated in two words: Free Will. If we begin with the premise that the Father/Source/etc. emanates its entire nature outward with its emanation, then obviously free will is a part of that emanation. After all, it is inarguable that the Source possesses free will. The Aeons have free will. Logos is an Aeon. Logos has free will. While the rest of the Aeons were using their free will to cooperate with each other and to glorify the Father and the Son, Logos used its free will to go in a fresh direction. Logos thought it would be going upward to rejoin the highest glory. The Tripartite Tractate says that Logos didn’t realize this was in impossibility, because no one can approach the power source that is the Origin without being annihilated. And like a magnetic polarity, Logos was repelled by the Source and was knocked out of alignment with the Fullness (the fall). This dissonance became our material cosmos. And because Logos had free will, we have free will. This all flows logically from the a priori definition of the Source. This may sound mythological, but it is not. It could be easily described in scientific terms. Like the way a beam of focused light still allows for stray photons to go off beam. Or boiling water in the kettle mostly clumps together on the top of the water as bubbles, but some bubbles go outward to the edge of the kettle and pop. And so forth. The limit is our language, not the architecture or process. The limit is also imposed by the meme bundle being held the human observer-inquirer when their memes do not allow for certain possibilities to be seen and accepted. It is our meme attachments that limit our capacity to observe and learn. So says me.

#Logos #Orthodoxy #Christianity In this stream I discuss the popular argument going around social media and among a few academics such as John Marco Alegro arguing that Christianity is in origin a fertility cult that mythologized Jesus Christ from the ancient inebriating rituals surrounding psychedelic mushroom use. When placed into historical context, I argue that all the visual evidence for this theory fails to have significant merit and may very well been part of a esoteric gnostic ritual. Make sure to leave a comment and let me know what you think. God Bless

Mike's website https://truththeory.com/Forbidden Knowledge Network https://forbiddenknowledge.news/ FKN Link Treehttps://linktr.ee/FKNlinksMake a Donation to Forbidden Knowledge News https://www.paypal.me/forbiddenknowledgenehttps://buymeacoffee.com/forbiddenFKN Merch!https://galactecfire.com/fkn/We are back on YouTube! https://youtube.com/@forbiddenknowledgenews?si=XQhXCjteMKYNUJSjBackup channelhttps://youtube.com/@fknshow1?si=tIoIjpUGeSoRNaEsDoors of Perception is available now on Amazon Prime!https://watch.amazon.com/detail?gti=amzn1.dv.gti.8a60e6c7-678d-4502-b335-adfbb30697b8&ref_=atv_lp_share_mv&r=webDoors of Perception official trailerhttps://youtu.be/F-VJ01kMSII?si=Ee6xwtUONA18HNLZListen to Forbidden Knowledge News on clearair.fm every Tuesday, Thursday, and Saturday 12:15pm CSThttps://clearair.fm/Pick up Independent Media Token herehttps://www.independentmediatoken.com/Be prepared for any emergency with Prep Starts Now!https://prepstartsnow.com/discount/FKNStart your microdosing journey with BrainsupremeGet 15% off your order here!!https://brainsupreme.co/FKN15Book a free consultation with Jennifer Halcame Emailjenniferhalcame@gmail.comFacebook pagehttps://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=61561665957079&mibextid=ZbWKwLWatch The Forbidden Documentary: Occult Louisiana on Tubi: https://link.tubi.tv/pGXW6chxCJbC60 PurplePowerhttps://go.shopc60.com/FORBIDDEN10/or use coupon code knowledge10Johnny Larson's artworkhttps://www.patreon.com/JohnnyLarsonSign up on Rokfin!https://rokfin.com/fknplusPodcastshttps://www.spreaker.com/show/forbiddenAvailable on all platforms Support FKN on Spreaker https://spreaker.page.link/KoPgfbEq8kcsR5oj9FKN ON Rumblehttps://rumble.com/c/FKNpGet Cory Hughes books!Lee Harvey Oswald In Black and White https://www.amazon.com/dp/B0FJ2PQJRMA Warning From History Audio bookhttps://buymeacoffee.com/jfkbook/e/392579https://www.buymeacoffee.com/jfkbookhttps://www.amazon.com/Warning-History-Cory-Hughes/dp/B0CL14VQY6/ref=mp_s_a_1_1?crid=72HEFZQA7TAP&keywords=a+warning+from+history+cory+hughes&qid=1698861279&sprefix=a+warning+fro%2Caps%2C121&sr=8-1https://coryhughes.org/Our Facebook pageshttps://www.facebook.com/forbiddenknowledgenewsconspiracy/https://www.facebook.com/FKNNetwork/Instagram @forbiddenknowledgenews1@forbiddenknowledgenetworkXhttps://x.com/ForbiddenKnow10?t=uO5AqEtDuHdF9fXYtCUtfw&s=09Email Forbidden Knowledge News forbiddenknowledgenews@gmail.comsome music thanks to:https://www.bensound.com/ULFAPO3OJSCGN8LDDGLBEYNSIXA6EMZJ5FUXWYNC6WJNJKRS8DH27IXE3D73E97DC6JMAFZLSZDGTWFIBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/forbidden-knowledge-news--3589233/support.

Welcome to Day 2911 of Wisdom-Trek, and thank you for joining me. Day 2911 – Theology Thursday – Heresy: Meaning, History, and Misuse Wisdom-Trek Podcast Script - Day 2911 Welcome to Wisdom-Trek with Gramps!   I am Guthrie Chamberlain, and we are on Day 2911 of our Trek.   The Purpose of Wisdom-Trek is to create a legacy of wisdom, to seek out discernment and insights, and to boldly grow where few have chosen to grow before. Our current series of Theology Thursday lessons is written by theologian and teacher John Daniels. I have found that his lessons are short, easy to understand, doctrinally sound, and applicable to all who desire to learn more of God's Word. John's lessons can be found on his website   theology infive.com.   Today's lesson is titled: Heresy: Meaning, History, and Misuse. The word heresy comes from the Greek hairesis, which originally meant “choice” or “faction.” In the New Testament, it began to carry the weight of theological rebellion. It referred to false teaching that breaks fellowship and corrupts the truth. Heresy is not simply error or misunderstanding. It is deviation from the foundational truths of the gospel, concerning who God is, who Christ is, and what salvation requires. The apostle Paul warned against such distortions, calling out those who pervert the message of grace and urging Titus to reject those who sow division after being warned. Heresy is not measured by how controversial an idea is, but by whether it distorts the saving message of Christ or promotes a false gospel. In that sense, heresy is deadly. It is not just wrong. It is soul-destroying. The first segment is: The Struggle for Doctrinal Clarity in the Early Church The early church faced enormous pressure to define and defend the truth. As Christianity spread across the Roman world, it encountered competing philosophies and religious systems. Some sought to harmonize the gospel with these foreign ideas, leading to teachings that retained the vocabulary of Christianity but not its meaning. This is where heresy found fertile ground. Among the earliest and most dangerous of these teachings was Gnosticism, which rejected the goodness of creation and denied the full humanity of Christ. Marcionism took a more radical path by discarding the Old Testament and portraying the God of Israel as cruel and inferior. Pelagianism undermined the doctrine of sin by teaching that humans could achieve righteousness without divine grace. Each of these required a response, not out of fear of disagreement, but out of pastoral urgency to protect the flock from destructive error. No heresy had a greater impact, both theologically and politically, than Arianism. The teaching of Arius, that the Son was a created being and not fully divine, directly challenged the very identity of Christ. Although condemned at the Council of Nicaea in 325 AD, Arianism did not die. It took root in the outer regions of the Roman Empire and sowed seeds of division that helped bring about its collapse. The second segment is: Arianism and the Fragmentation of the Western Empire. The theological consequences of Arianism were clear. It reduced Christ to a lesser being, stripping the gospel of its divine foundation. Its political consequences were just as devastating. While the Roman Church clung to Nicene orthodoxy, many of the Germanic tribes who bordered the empire were converted to Arian Christianity. Missionaries like Ulfilas brought a version of the gospel that bore Christ's name but denied His nature. When the Visigoths sacked Rome in 410 AD, they did so not as pagans but as heretical Christians. The same was true of the Vandals and later the Ostrogoths, whose kings ruled Italy while holding to Arian doctrine. The theological divide between ruler and people, between Church and state, tore at the fabric of Western society. The Church could not fully unify with leaders who confessed a false Christ, and the people remained culturally alienated from their kings. This division made the Western Roman Empire vulnerable. It robbed the empire of a unifying spiritual identity at the very moment it needed cohesion to survive external threats. Though not the only factor in Rome's collapse, Arianism was a theological wedge that fractured its heart. By the time Justinian reconquered parts of the West and reimposed Nicene orthodoxy in the sixth century, the Western Empire was a shadow of what it had been. A heresy that began in theological debate had helped bring down a civilization. The third segment is: When Everything Becomes Heresy. Over time, the word heresy lost its theological precision. Instead of referring to soul-endangering errors about God, Christ, and salvation, it began to be applied to any disagreement or dissent. This shift had tragic consequences. In some periods of church history, those who merely questioned traditional practices or sought to reform corruption were branded as heretics. The term became a tool for control rather than a measure of truth. Even within Protestant traditions, theological disagreements over baptism, church polity, or spiritual gifts have sometimes been exaggerated into accusations of heresy, dividing believers unnecessarily. This misuse of the term does not protect the church. It weakens it. When every disagreement is labeled heresy, the word loses its force, and the real dangers become harder to identify. Instead of guarding the flock, the misuse of heresy becomes a way to suppress thought, enforce conformity, or settle personal disputes. Ironically, some modern cults and false teachers now invert the accusation. They call orthodox Christianity heretical because it does not conform to their reimagined doctrines. The charge of heresy has become, in some cases, a mirror for pride rather than a tool of discernment. The fourth segment is: A Modern Example: Is Pre-Tribulation Rapture Heresy? In contemporary evangelical circles, one of the most fiercely debated doctrines is the Pre-Tribulation Rapture. This is the idea that believers will be taken up to heaven before a future period of global tribulation. Popularized in the 19th and 20th centuries, this view has deeply shaped modern Christian imagination. But is it heresy? The answer is no. Pre-Tribulation Rapture theology, while likely incorrect and theologically shallow, does not deny the core tenets of the faith. It affirms the Trinity, the incarnation, the death and resurrection of Christ, and salvation by grace through faith. It is not heresy in the biblical or historical sense. That said, its influence is not neutral. When taught dogmatically, it can create a fragile form of faith, one that collapses under suffering or real-world trials. It fosters escapism and disengagement, tempting believers to wait for rescue rather than prepare for endurance. In some circles, the view has even been elevated to a test of orthodoxy, dividing churches and condemning dissenters. In these cases, the danger lies not in the doctrine itself, but in the way it is wielded. This example highlights the difference between heresy and error. Not every mistaken belief is heresy, but not every non-heresy is harmless. Pre-Tribulationism must be confronted with Scripture and pastoral clarity, not because it damns the soul, but because it distorts Christian hope and undermines discipleship. The fifth segment is: Holding the Line Without Crossing It In guarding the truth, the Church must walk a narrow path. On one side lies indifference, where everything is tolerated and nothing is contended for. On the other lies arrogance, where every disagreement is treated as a threat and the word heresy is used like a club. Both lead to ruin. The example of Arianism shows that heresy is real, and its effects are catastrophic. But the misuse of the term reveals a different kind of danger — the slow erosion of discernment and the collapse of Christian charity. We must learn again to distinguish between essential and non-essential doctrines, between errors that must be confronted and differences that can be endured. This requires returning to the Scriptures, testing every teaching, and holding fast to what is good. It also means learning from the early church, which took truth seriously without descending into tyranny. They did not shy away from calling out heresy, but they did so with care, consistency, and a clear understanding of what was at stake. In Conclusion Heresy is not a word to be thrown around lightly. It refers to spiritual poison, distortions of God's truth that lead people away from salvation. The Church has always had to fight for the gospel, and that fight continues today. But if the sword of truth is swung wildly, it wounds the innocent and weakens the body. By understanding what heresy truly is, and what it is not, we honor the truth, protect the church, and point people back to the grace of Christ. Not every error is heresy. But every misuse of the word heresy threatens to create new errors of its own. For further study, consider these...

Beyond The Outer Realm is pleased to welcome back Aleksander Czeszkiewicz. Date: July 21st, 2026 EP: 747 DISCUSSION: We will be delving into the " Ancient Matrix Philosophies! “. Where did the belief originate from? Have we always been here and if not how did we get here? Starting with the Philosophical and historical beginnings, and ancient thinkers such as Plato, looking in to Gnosticism and current day theories. SO…..can we “re-code” reality? or better yet….how can we unplug? Contact for the show - theouterrealmcontact@gmail.com https://linktr.ee/michelledesrochers_ About Our Guest: Aleksander Czeszkiewicz is a Polish researcher, and author. His novels include: DeJa-Vu and Giza Pyramids Alignment Guide. His first book was written at the age of 17, translated by the age of 19, followed by many articles & other works. He has collaborated in numerous podcasts all around the world, including Earth Ancients Podcast with Cliff Dunning. His main areas of research & interest are lost civilizations, Atlantis, lost history of humanity, consciousness and the Universe. Alek also Co-Hosts “Atlantis Bros' Podcast with historian Michael Le Flem on YouTube Socials- www.czeszkiewiczglobal.com https://linktr.ee/czeszkiewiczglobal www.facebook.com/czeszkiewiczglobal www.youtube.com/channel/UC2Gb8BCrlefizpE7JBhtMpQ If you enjoy the content on the channel, please support us by commenting, subscribing and sharing : Thank you All !!! A formal disclosure: The opinions and information presented or expressed by guests on The Outer Realm Radio and Beyond The Outer Realm are not necessarily those of the TOR, BTOR Host, Sponsors, or the United Public Radio Network and it's producers. For Legal Purposes, all content must be listed and deemed "For Entertainment Purposes" We are always be respectful and courteous to all involved. Thank you, we appreciate you all United Public Radio & UFO Paranormal Radio www.uprntalkradio.com

In this episode of the Crazy Wisdom Podcast, host Stewart Alsop speaks with Aaron Neyer, founder of Parachute and community organizer in Boulder, about knowledge management, extended minds, and the intersection of AI with human consciousness. They explore how Parachute functions as a digital brain tool for organizing thoughts and information across fragmented systems, discuss the dangers of AI psychosis and over-reliance on technology, and debate open source AI development versus controlled releases by companies like Anthropic. The conversation weaves through topics including the limitations of metrics-driven business thinking, consciousness and relevance realization, the value of technological sabbaths, and Aaron's hope for locally-run open source models that protect personal data while still accessing more powerful gated models when needed. You can find Aaron's writing at unforced.org and unforced.substack.com, and learn more about Parachute at parachute.computer and parachute.computer/blog.Timestamps00:00 Stewart welcomes Aaron Neyer, founder of Parachute and Boulder community organizer, discussing the origin of Parachute's name from Frank Zappa's quote about open minds.05:00 Aaron explains Parachute as an extended mind tool for organizing notes, contacts and information across multiple platforms, emphasizing the distinction between primary mind and extended mind as interconnected systems.10:00 Discussion shifts to metrics-driven business culture and the limitations of pure rationality, exploring how Google's data-driven approach misses subjective experience and the whole picture of relationships.15:00 Aaron discusses AI's ability to help identify relevant variables across different domains and the dangers of AI psychosis, comparing it to cult dynamics and belief systems.20:00 The conversation covers AI sabbaths and nineties retreats as intentional breaks from technology, plus Aaron's experiences with electrical engineering and using AI to design circuits with Arduinos.25:00 Exploring forbidden knowledge and open source AI, Aaron discusses Anthropic's guardrails around powerful models while arguing for distributed access to prevent concentration of power.30:00 Deep dive into open source AI strategy, with Aaron highlighting NVIDIA's approach and the potential for running capable models locally while reserving ultra-intelligent models for complex research tasks.35:00 Aaron shares his vision for local Sonnet-class models handling personal data while accessing Fable-class models for deep research, and directs listeners to unforced.org and parachute.computer for his writing.Key Insights1. The philosophy behind Parachute stems from Frank Zappa's quote that the mind is like a parachute and doesn't work if it isn't open. Aaron Neyer explains that having an open mind is valuable, but it must be balanced with deep roots to avoid becoming untethered. He has experienced periods in his life where excessive openness led him to feel disconnected, teaching him that creativity and expansion need to be grounded in something substantial. This same principle applies to how we organize information digitally, where openness and interoperability allow our extended minds to become more connected and coherent, which in turn helps our primary minds think more clearly.2. Parachute is designed as an extended mind tool that addresses the fragmentation problem in how we currently manage information. Most people use multiple disconnected tools like Obsidian, Notion, Apple Notes, Google Keep, and various CRMs to organize their thoughts, notes, and relationships. These systems don't communicate well with each other, creating inefficiency and confusion. Parachute aims to create a simple, intuitive system where all this information can be organized in one place with true interoperability, allowing users to own their data and have it speak effectively with other tools, ultimately making our entire extended mind more functional.3. Understanding ourselves as unified body mind organisms rather than fragmented parts is essential for effectiveness. Living systems theory shows that any living system is three things: a membrane bound dissipative structure, a self regulating autopoietic network, and a cognitive process actively knowing the world. Western civilization since Descartes and Galileo has created artificial separation between body and mind, and between subjective and objective experience, which limits our effectiveness. The same fragmentation affects our digital technology, and recognizing both our biological and digital systems as coherent wholes rather than disconnected parts makes us vastly more capable.4. The relationship between data driven approaches and holistic thinking reveals important limitations in modern business and science. While working at Google, Aaron observed how data driven decision making can be powerful, but over reliance on metrics like ROI creates blindness to crucial unmeasurable factors like goodwill and relationship quality. This reflects a broader Western tendency to exclude subjective experience because it's difficult for objective science to measure. However, emotions, relationships, and other subjective elements are essential parts of reality, and focusing only on quantifiable metrics means missing the whole picture and ultimately becoming less effective despite appearing more rational.5. AI accelerates the ability to work with technical complexity by helping with relevance realization across domains where we lack expertise. In any specialized field, experts develop intuitive senses for which variables matter and can quickly identify problems, whether in computer troubleshooting, music, or cooking. AI's ability to generalize allows it to point people toward relevant solutions in areas where they haven't developed that intuitive expertise, effectively democratizing technical capability. This means people can direct their creativity more effectively across more domains, though it also raises concerns about giving powerful capabilities to those who may lack the wisdom to use them responsibly.6. The question of open source AI versus gated access involves complex tradeoffs between democratizing power and preventing harm. Aaron respects Anthropic's approach of creating guardrails around powerful models like Mythos, which would likely have caused significant system hacks if released without restrictions. However, this creates concerning power dynamics where only wealthy companies, governments, and their allies have access to the most powerful tools. NVIDIA offers hope through their truly open source approach including full training pipelines, and there may be a viable path where open source models at the Sonnet capability level handle most tasks locally while more powerful Fable class models remain gated for the most demanding work.7. Creating intentional breaks from AI and technology is essential for maintaining clear independent thinking. Aaron practices an AI Sabbath at least one day per week when he doesn't interact with AI, and he finds these are the days when he does his best thinking and journaling. Without these breaks, he finds himself constantly jumping between journaling and prompting AI rather than giving himself space for deep reflection. This pattern mirrors broader concerns about AI consistency creating cult like dynamics similar to organized religion, where constant immersion in a belief system or technology can lead to losing the ability to think independently, making periodic disconnection crucial for maintaining cognitive autonomy and clarity.

Islam's war on the West is already here—do you know what time it is?In this Culture Review, the pastors of Under God open a Hezbollah leader's own words about targeting Western universities, then walk through the biblical response to Islam that most churches avoid. Pastor Stephen Martin, Pastor Daniel Hayworth, Pastor Nathan Brown, and Pastor Rob McCoy also break down the death of Senator Lindsey Graham, a new war with Iran, and the Charlie Kirk case—perfect for the commute, the gym, or the drive.You'll Learn:✅ Why truth-telling about Islam is the loving first move, not the enemy of it✅ How biblical masculinity answers the culture's confusion about manhood✅ Why the "secret knowledge" conspiracy trap is ancient Gnosticism returning✅ What courage—the virtue that guards every other virtue—demands of Christians now

Dr. Justin Sledge is a scholar of philosophy and Western esotericism, and the voice behind the YouTube channel Esoterica, which has grown to over a million subscribers. He has spent his career studying the traditions that history tried to erase: Gnosticism, Kabbalah, Hermeticism, witchcraft, and alchemy.What We Dive Into:1. Classical skepticism is not about debunking or disbelief. It is about bracketing your personal investment long enough to let the material speak for itself. 2. Newton wrote more on alchemy and the occult than on calculus. Descartes arrived at his famous method through a mystical dream. Stripping these facts from the story of modernity has cost us access to some of the most important spiritual technologies ever developed.3. Every other starting point, certainty, comfort, doctrine, conclusions, has a gutter waiting at the end of it. Awe keeps the garden of curiosity alive.Know Thyself, but not by yourself. A guided space to return home to yourself.https://www.knowthyselfcollective.com✨THANK YOU TO OUR SPONSORS:https://www.im8health.com/knowthyselfcode KNOWTHYSELF for an exclusive offerhttps://www.mudwtr.com/knowthyselfcode KNOWTHYSELF for up to 43% off___________00:00 Intro01:57 What Skepticism Actually Means06:21 How to Enter Mystical Inquiry Without Collapsing Into Belief08:03 Religion, Mysticism, and the Margins11:24 Gnosticism: The World as Prison, Christ as Liberator14:21 The Nag Hammadi Discovery and the Many Christianities17:00 William James and the Four Qualities of Mystical Experience21:50 Perennial Wisdom vs. High-Resolution Differences26:44 The Limits of Propositional Truth31:32 Irrational vs. Non-Rational: Why the Distinction Matters37:10 The Danger of Universalizing Mystical Experience44:34 The World Is Stranger Than We Assume51:01 How the Myth of Rational Modernity Was Curated59:35 Recovering the Suppressed Voices of Western History1:00:45 Mary Magdalene: Not a Prostitute1:14:22 The Suppression of the Feminine and the Road to the Witch Trials1:18:55 The Malleus Maleficarum and the Anatomy of a Moral Panic1:24:01 Poverty, Not Practice: Who Was Actually Accused1:26:27 The Books Justin Brought: Agrippa's Three Books of Occult Philosophy1:32:08 Agrippa and the Possibility of Induced Illumination1:41:32 The Kabbalah and the Sefer Yetzirah1:46:04 The Hermetic Tradition and Hermes Trismegistus1:54:22 What Studying These Texts Has Done to Justin1:59:51 Agrippa's Trilemma and the Limits of Reason2:04:22 Hermeticism vs. Gnosticism: The World as Divine, Not Prison2:13:11 Making the Best Case for the Transcendent Realm2:19:54 Whatever Matter Is, It's Indistinguishable from Spirit2:26:34 Justin's Personal Satanic Panic: The School Shooting2:38:03 Generational Trauma and the Suppression of the Feminine2:44:57 Truth as a Verb: Dialogue Across Difference2:47:14 Are We on the Threshold of a New Renaissance?2:58:39 Community Questions: The Most Meaningful Experience of Magic2:59:15 When Justin Realized the Books Were Real3:03:51 Finding the Clerical Necromantic Underground3:04:26 Recreating Alchemy in the Modern Lab3:07:11 Why We Want Magic: The Very Human Desire for Hidden Power3:13:00 Modern Mythology and the Meaning Famine3:20:10 Closing Message: Flourishing Begins in Awe___________✨MORE FROM DR. JUSTIN SLEDGE↳YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/esotericachannel↳Patreon: https://www.patreon.com/esotericachannel↳https://www.justinsledge.com

What if the greatest influence over government and religion isn't political at all?In this episode, Keith Welsh explores the possibility that unseen spiritual forces influence governments, religious institutions, media, and culture. Drawing from Gnosticism, early Christianity, mythology, psychology, Plato's Cave, and comparative religion, he examines how language, symbols, and collective belief shape human consciousness.The episode investigates the historical origins of Satan and Lucifer, the role of the Archons in Gnostic thought, and how mistranslations, mythology, and repetition may have created modern ideas that billions of people now accept without question. It also asks whether fear, division, and confusion are merely human tendencies—or whether they serve something deeper.Rather than offering another conspiracy theory, this episode challenges listeners to reconsider the nature of evil itself. Is evil a supernatural being, a state of consciousness, a system of control, or something even more difficult to perceive?Whether you approach these ideas through spirituality, psychology, philosophy, or history, this conversation invites you to question the stories you've inherited and examine the hidden forces that may be shaping the modern world.Advertising Inquiries: https://redcircle.com/brandsPrivacy & Opt-Out: https://redcircle.com/privacy

Heresy doesn't knock and announce itself. It shows up wearing just enough biblical language to sound credible. Joshua Lewis breaks down Cracking the Time Code by Candice Smithyman (Destiny Image, 2025), offering a robust scriptural critique that doubles as a lesson in how to spot the same patterns anywhere else you find them.Joshua's review traces how the book builds toward a word of faith framework, where your own faith produces blessing and protects against loss, and even extends into a claim that death itself may be optional for a sufficiently "heaven-attuned" believer. If that sounds familiar, it should. Prosperity theology, gnostic anthropology, and low Christology have circled through church history since the first century, just with new packaging each time.Watch this episode to better understand why this book is promoting false teaching and heresy, not Christianity. Additionally, use Josh's teaching as a case study for recognizing the false. The goal is for all of us to get sharper at telling the difference between genuine insight and repackaged error.0:00 – Introduction2:16 – Cracking the Time Code2:32 – Greek and Hebrew Foundations4:22 – Invented Word Meanings10:18 – Correct Words, Wrong Theology15:01 – Word of Faith Imports21:53 – Gnosticism in the Book28:01 – Most Dangerous Claims34:53 – Closing ThoughtsSubscribe to The Remnant Radio newsletter and receive our FREE introduction to spiritual gifts eBook. Plus, get access to: discounts, news about upcoming shows, courses and conferences - and more. Subscribe now at TheRemnantRadio.com. Support the showABOUT THE REMNANT RADIO: The Remnant Radio exists to equip believers who are hungry for the radical middle of both Word and Spirit. Subscribe for twice-weekly content on theology, church history and the gifts of the Spirit.

Saturday, 11 July 2026   Now in the morning, as He returned to the city, He was hungry. Matthew 21:18   “Daybreak, also, returning to the city, He hungered.” (CG)   In the previous verse, it said that Jesus went out of the city to Bethany, where He overnighted there. It next says, “Daybreak.”   There is a difference in texts here. Some use the adverb prói, translated as early. Others use the noun próia, the earliest part of the day, meaning the time around daybreak. At this early time, it next says, “also, returning to the city.”   As it was the time of the Passover, Jesus knew that every hour was precious. Therefore, He set out early to head back to Jerusalem. Along the way, His actions will form a living parable. That begins to be seen with the next words, “He hungered.”   This highlights His human nature. He was bound to the same rules of physical operations as anyone else. It is natural to be hungry after a night of sleeping, conversing, or whatever went on throughout the night. His physical needs, however, are something seen elsewhere. Matthew's purpose for including this will be seen as the account continues to unfold.   Life application: Understanding Jesus' nature, an overall doctrine known as Christology, is important. Slight variations in how Jesus is perceived can lead to great theological error. One of the heresies concerning His nature is known as Docetism. This teaches that Jesus only appeared to be human.   The word is derived from the Greek word dokein, “to seem.” This heresy makes the claim that Jesus' physical body was an illusion or phantom, thus denying His true incarnation, suffering, and death.   The reason for this stems from the Docetist belief that matter is inherently evil or corrupt. Because of this, they felt that the divine Son of God could not have taken on real human flesh. The heresy is similar to Gnosticism, a view that the spiritual realm is good but the material world is evil.   This heresy was strongly opposed by right-thinking members of the early church, defending the truth that Jesus was fully human in a tangible, physical body. In denying Jesus' true humanity, the heresy of Docetism would undermine core Christian doctrines, such as the Incarnation and the substitutionary atonement provided by Jesus.   Orthodox theology adamantly avows that Jesus was truly human. It was necessarily so for Him to die for human sins. At the same time, He must also be truly divine for Him to save humanity. To have been only human, He would have inherited Adam's sin through a human father. Being born of Mary and of God, no sin traveled from His Father.   Jesus Christ is the God/Man. Without this, man is left without hope in a corrupt and fallen world. Even though God proclaimed the material creation to be good in Genesis 1, sin has caused a breach in its goodness that can only be overcome through the incarnation.   Hold fast to the truth of God in Christ. Subtle heresies can easily pull a person away from what is sound and appropriate concerning Jesus' nature.   Lord God, thank You that Christ Jesus our Lord shared in our humanity, thus enabling us to be restored through His perfect substitutionary death. We exalt You, O God, for what You have done to bring us back to Yourself. Amen.  

What does fitness look like when life gets chaotic?In this conversation on the G-Spodcast, Coach Alex VanHouten joins the host for an honest, practical, and sometimes funny conversation about fatherhood, fitness, chronic pain, nutrition, faith, and what it means to steward the body God has given you.The episode begins with a real question from a brand-new father:How do you train, eat well, and stay grounded when your life is suddenly sleep-deprived, stressful, and disorganized?From there, Alex shares how becoming a dad changed his own fitness rhythms, why even a 12-minute workout can matter, and how exercise becomes part of the identity of a faithful father—not just another task on the to-do list.Together, they discuss:How new dads can train in small windows of timeWhy exercise helps support mental health, anxiety, OCD, and cognitionThe difference between real exercise science and fitness marketingWhy the fitness industry often sells what is profitable instead of what worksThe truth about creatine, fasting products, and supplement hypeWhy calories matter—but nutrients matter tooHow bodybuilding culture shaped modern nutrition confusionWhether having a six-pack is actually healthyWhy bio-individuality matters for training, nutrition, and long-term healthAlex's experience with Ehlers-Danlos SyndromeThe difference between training elite operators and everyday peopleHow motivation changes when fitness becomes part of your identityWhy Christianity does not separate the body from the soulThe difference between vanity and stewardship in fitnessThis episode is for new fathers, busy men, Christians trying to understand the body, and anyone who is tired of fitness advice that sounds good online but does not actually work in real life.Your body is not just a machine.It is not just a shell.It is a gift to steward.And even in the chaos of life, fatherhood, pain, and responsibility, you can take the next faithful step.Timestamps01:12 – Welcome to the G-Spodcast01:26 – The Host Shares About Becoming a New Father02:01 – How Fatherhood Changes Fitness and Routine02:30 – Coach Alex's First Fitness Struggle as a Dad03:00 – Why a 12-Minute Workout Still Matters04:00 – Building an Active Fatherhood Lifestyle05:04 – Training While Sleep-Deprived and Overwhelmed06:13 – Exercise and Mental Health: OCD, ADHD, Anxiety, and More07:01 – Fitness Science vs. Fitness Marketing08:18 – Creatine Monohydrate: What Actually Works09:30 – Why Supplement Companies Add Unnecessary Bells and Whistles10:16 – Fasting, Fasting Shakes, and Fitness Industry Confusion11:24 – The Religious Nature of Nutrition Arguments12:30 – Why Calories Became the Center of Fitness Culture13:47 – Why Your Body Is Not a Car14:30 – Calories, Nutrients, Genetics, and Food Quality15:08 – Bodybuilding, Modern Fitness Ideals, and Changing Body Standards17:11 – Is Having a Six-Pack Healthy?19:43 – What Gladiators Teach Us About Body Composition20:19 – Bio-Individuality Explained21:36 – Fast-Twitch Muscle Fibers and Genetic Differences23:24 – Olympic Lifters, Muscle Fiber Types, and Genetic Potential24:30 – Amylase, Carbohydrates, and Why People Process Food Differently26:05 – Are We All Equal Genetically?26:42 – Alex's Experience With Ehlers-Danlos Syndrome29:44 – Learning to Treat Yourself Like an Outlier30:29 – Training Elite Operators vs. Everyday People31:43 – Mission Mindset vs. General Population Mindset32:31 – Why Motivation Is Hard to Sustain33:43 – Would You Train If Today Were Your Last Day?34:42 – Fitness as Identity, Not Just Motivation35:30 – Fatherhood as a Model for Discipline37:31 – Faith, Fitness, and the Christian Body38:05 – Why Christianity Does Not Separate Body and Soul39:08 – Gnosticism, the Body, and Christian Theology41:43 – The Sins of Fitness: Gluttony, Sloth, Pride, and Envy43:30 – Stewardship as the Narrow Way44:37 – Closing Thoughts and Invitation for Round TwoNew Workout Music By Faithful Fitness

*CATCH THE VIDEO VERSION OF THIS & PREVIOUS EPISODES PLUS BONUS CONTENT EXCLUSIVELY ON THE BIZARRE REALITY MEDIA PATREON!*https://patreon.com/bizarrerealitymedia..Join Shayn & Orin as we unlock the secrets of Gnosticism, the ancient spiritual movement that challenges everything you thought you knew about reality, divine knowledge, and salvation. This episode digs into the hidden beliefs that paint a radically different picture of Jesus, God, and the universe itself, secrets that have been deliberately suppressed for centuries. Are we living in a divine prison created by a flawed demiurge, or is there a higher dimension of consciousness waiting to be awakened? Explore how Gnostic texts like the Gospel of Thomas and the Gospel of Judas reveal a version of spiritual truth that flips conventional narratives on their head, and discover the myth of Sophia, the divine sparks within us, and the cosmic struggle with malevolent Archons ruling over our material world. All this and more on the 147th episode of "Bizarre Encounters with Shayn & Orin". Don't forget to like, follow, share, & review. We appreciate it!..Listen/Social Media/Contact/Donate/Patreon/Merchhttp://linktr.ee/bizarreencounters..BE A GUEST / REPORT A BIZARRE ENCOUNTER OR EXPERIENCE / ANY OTHER INQUIRYbizarreencounters@outlook.combizarrerealitymedia@outlook.com24/7 Hotline: (313) 364-1551..THE BIZARRE REALITY MEDIA PATREON!Become an Official Initiate of the Bizarre SocietyFULL ACCESS NOW ONLY $2.50 PER MONTH!7 DAY FREE TRIAL!https://www.patreon.com/bizarrerealitymedia..THE BIZARRE REALITY MERCH STORE!T-SHIRTS ONLY $15.58 PLUS SHIPPING!https://bizarre-realty-merch-store.printify.me/..Donate to the Show/Support our Work:Cash App: https://cash.app/$shaynsquatchjonesVenmo: https://venmo.com/code?user_id=3007072169885696543&created=1759805849Paypal: https://www.paypal.me/shaynjones1994..Catch the Shows LIVE on the BIZARRE REALITY Channels!Youtube: https://www.youtube.com/@bizarrerealitymediaRumble: https://rumble.com/user/BizarreRealityMediaTikTok: https://www.tiktok.com/@bizarrerealitymedia...Affiliate Links:.Sticker MuleUse link for a $10 credit to spend on custom stickers, magnets, buttons and more!https://www.stickermule.com/unlock?ref_id=1381125701&utm_medium=link&utm_source=invite..Chattergeist by Dimension DevicesGet 10% off by using the affiliate link!https://dimensiondevices.co.uk/shop.php?affiliate=OpenMindsMedia...Intro & Outro By:.Socio-Beathttps://distrokid.com/hyperfollow/sociobeat/conundrumhttps://socio-beat.bandcamp.com/...CHECK OUT OUR OTHER SHOWS:."Bizarre Reality Media"http://linktr.ee/bizarrerealitymedia.."Inquiries of our Reality with Shayn Jones"The reality we live in can be a very strange place. Most of the time, fact being stranger than fiction. How will we ever start to understand this reality we live in unless we question everything. Join me and a guest as we unravel the mysteries of this reality, one topic at a time..Listen/Social Media/Contact/Donate/Patreon/Merchhttp://linktr.ee/inquiriesofourrealitypodcast.."Bizarre Inquiries"*Monthly Youtube LIVE Show*1st Monday of Every Month @ 7:15pm EST.Join Shayn & Orin as we address and discuss bizarre inquiries uncovered by us and listeners like you. Some may be serious, some may be ridiculous. Who knows how it all might go down. All that matters is that you let your mind wonder!.Youtube: https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLwRrzt9NKkpKOSiaTHjTYxHw4blHxwPO3...SUPPORTER CREDITS:.OFFICIAL INITIATES OF THE BIZARRE SOCIETY (SHOW SUPPORTERS):In Order of Sign Up DateKirsty Holland (TOP SUPPORTER!)Dave SheriffNicole Oswalt (The Geek Foundry)Tom "Tomcat" Thompson (Strange Brew Podcast)Jennifer TimmonsChris Holm (Conspire a Theory Podcast)Brian SynenkiStephen Bodnar..FRIENDS IN THE COMMUNITY:.IKNOWSQUATCHSpreading the gospel of Squatch with knowledge & fresh merchhttps://www.etsy.com/shop/iknowsquatchhttps://www.instagram.com/iknowsquatch/..CryptoteeologySpecializing in wearable cryptids and monsters and the stories behind them. Discover a relatable monster for any casual occasion.https://www.cryptoteeology.com/https://www.instagram.com/cryptoteeology/https://www.facebook.com/Cryptoteeology...Become a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/bizarre-encounters-with-shayn-orin--6292129/support.

Episode SynopsisIs the Marvel franchise just a harmless adventure with adults dressed up in tights, or is it part of a systematic agenda to get you to sympathize with the devil?We talk about that and much more, including:What is Gnosticism, and why is it dangerous to have in our entertainment?Technology of the television and how the flicker rate changes your brain wave state, making you more susceptible to influenceMirror neurons and why watching TV actually conditions cognitive and emotional reflexesAn overview of the Infinity Saga and how it inverts the biblical narrativeHow Thor fits the Satan archetype, as the rebel cast out and fighting to gain access to the throneHow Loki fits the Divine Christ archetype, as the heir to and steward of his father's throne, and that he is hellbent on destroying satan, even at the expense of the EarthHow the Avengers symbolize several critical agendas of the New World OrderOriginal Air DateNovember 2nd, 2022Show HostsRyan Dean from Dangerous World PodcastSpecial GuetsJason Spears & Christopher Dean Referenced On AirThe Marvel Cinematic UniverseORP ApparelMerch StoreConnect With UsLetsTalk@ORPpodcast.comFacebookInstagram

For this episode my guest for is academic and author Shira Chess. Shira is Associate Professor of Entertainment and Media Studies at the University of Georgia. For a long time she was a Game Studies scholar but her recent focus has moved to the ‘Digital Uncanny', resulting in her new book The Unseen Internet: Conjuring the Occult in Digital Discourse. The book explores the magical thinking and occult influences that have shaped the history of digital spaces since the early days of the internet – and by extension, reality itself (or at least our perception of it). It examines subjects such as technopaganism, Gnosticism and simulation theory, reality hacking, the emergence of Artificial Intelligence and much more. In the interview I begin by talking with Shira about her background and how the idea for the book came about. We also discuss the curious connection throughout human history between new or emerging technologies and paranormal phenomena (such as telegraphy and spiritualism). Our conversation is more of an exploration of the themes and subjects in the book, rather than an analysis of the book itself but I think that we managed to cover a lot of interesting topics. You can find out more about Shira and her research at https://unseeninternet.substack.com/. If you enjoy what I do with Some Other Sphere and would like to support its upkeep, you can make a donation via Ko-fi. To buy the podcast a coffee go to https://ko-fi.com/someotherspherepodcast. Thank you!   The podcast theme music is by The Night Monitor, from his album, ‘Close Encounters of the Pennine Kind'. You can find out more about The Night Monitor's music at https://thenightmonitor.bandcamp.com/.  

Ryan and Alex explore the connections between Hermeticism, Christian Gnosticism, and the Nag Hammadi texts, including the Asclepius, Prayer of Thanksgiving, and Discourse on the Eighth and Ninth. They discuss initiation into the mystery of God, the Perennial Philosophy, and the possible links between Jesus, Egypt, Zoroaster, and the ancient Atlantean mystery tradition.

Send us Fan MailSaint Irenaeus doesn't feel like a distant museum saint. He feels like the friend you want beside you when Christian truth gets blurry, when loud voices promise “hidden knowledge,” and when faith starts to look like a thousand competing interpretations. We tell his story as a bishop shaped by real relationships and real memory: Irenaeus learns the faith from Saint Polycarp, who learned from Saint John the Apostle, forming an unbroken chain that makes apostolic tradition more than a concept. It becomes a living inheritance you can actually belong to. From there, we step into the second-century crisis of Gnosticism and why it's more than an odd historical footnote. Irenaeus sees how secret teachings can cut believers off at the roots by denying the goodness of creation, twisting the gospel, and weakening the Church's unity. His response in Against Heresies is firm but not cruel: he points back to the “rule of faith,” the public teaching handed down from Jesus to the apostles and safeguarded through apostolic succession. If you've ever wondered how the early Church held together before every Christian owned a Bible, this conversation puts the pieces in place. We also dig into why Catholic tradition and sacred Scripture belong together, and why the Eucharist sits at the center of Irenaeus's argument. For him, the Real Presence isn't an add-on devotion; it's evidence of the Incarnation itself. And we end with his beautiful theme of recapitulation: Christ, the new Adam, gathers up the whole human story and makes it new. Subscribe, share this with a friend who loves Church history, and leave a review with your biggest takeaway.Open by Steve Bailey Support the showJourneys of Faith brings you Super Saints PodcastsChat with US 24/7 Ask us anything https://chatting.page/mjxs9aerrtgm3lmpndlcepmbyosntrjnDownload Journeys of Faith App for Iphone or Android FREE https://journeysoffaith.com/pages/download-our-appPlease consider subscribing to this podcast or making a donation to Journeys of Faith Help us Grow!Journeys of Faith is blessed to provide Catholic media, including podcasts and inspirational content, free of charge across multiple media platforms for viewers and listeners around the world. While access to this content remains free, there are significant and continually increasing costs associated with producing, hosting, and distributing these programs. Your support helps us continue sharing the beauty of the Catholic faith with souls everywhere. We want to reach more souls and you can help us do that by becoming a Mission Angel. Make a Donation Any AmountRefer a FriendYou can help us ...

Dr. Anya Foxen, co-author of “The Serpent's Tale Kundalini, Yoga, and the History of an Experience,” stops by to explain […]

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.

Isaac Weishaupt joins Tony in studio to trace the ancient roots of today's push toward artificial intelligence, transhumanism, and the digital matrix. He connects the occult pursuit of hidden knowledge with modern technology's promise to remake humanity and blur the line between the spiritual and the synthetic. The conversation moves through Gnosticism, ancient Egypt, alchemy, secret societies, UFO disclosure, Silicon Valley ideology, and the recurring temptation for man to become like God. What emerges is a warning that the future being sold as progress may be tied to a much older spiritual agenda. If you're able, consider helping the Merkel family with medical expenses by donating to Lindsay's GoFundMe: https://gofund.me/b8f76890

The mighty Alex Rivera arrives at the Virtual Alexandria to shake up Gnostic and Platonic studies with groundbreaking research the world has never seen. We'll quest into the heart of Gnosticism and its essence and purpose. We'll also cover the Gnostic Melchizedek, a figure far more fascinating than orthodoxy has told us. And we'll encounter many other figures, Neoplatonic exemplars, the machinations of the Archons, Hekate, and the role of Baphomet, much of it based on his game-changing book, The Sun Lady Unveiled. Get the book: https://amzn.to/4oAKVVz More on Alex: https://themegasaeon.substack.com/ Get The Occult Elvis: https://amzn.to/4jnTjE4 Virtual Alexandria Academy: https://thegodabovegod.com/virtual-alexandria-academy/ Gnostic Tarot Readings: https://thegodabovegod.com/gnostic-tarot-reading/ The Gnostic Tarot: https://www.makeplayingcards.com/sell/synkrasis Homepage: https://thegodabovegod.com/ Patreon: https://www.patreon.com/aeonbyte AB Prime: https://thegodabovegod.com/members/subscription-levels/ Voice Over services: https://thegodabovegod.com/voice-talent/ Support with donation: https://buy.stripe.com/00g16Q8RK8D93mw288 Merch store: https://aeonbyte.creator-spring.com/ Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.

Polycarp lived at a time when the early church was facing pressure from Rome, false teaching from within, and the growing challenge of preserving the message handed down by the apostles. In this episode of Kitchen Table Theology, Pastor Jeff and Tiffany look at the life of Polycarp of Smyrna, one of the Apostolic Fathers and a direct link to the Apostle John. They discuss his role as bishop of Smyrna, his influence on Irenaeus, his defense of apostolic truth, and his faithful witness even unto death. Chapters:01:00 Who Was Polycarp of Smyrna?Polycarp was one of the Apostolic Fathers, a bishop in Smyrna, and a direct link between the apostles and the next generation of Christian leaders.03:00 Polycarp's Connection to the ApostlesPolycarp was a disciple of the Apostle John and was known by Irenaeus as someone instructed by the apostles and connected to those who had seen Christ.05:00 The Apostolic FathersThe Apostolic Fathers were early Christian leaders who lived just after the apostles and helped guide the church through its first generations.08:30 False Teaching in the Early ChurchThe early church faced pressure from Rome on the outside and false teaching from within, including movements like Gnosticism and Marcionism.10:00 What Was Marcionism?Marcion rejected parts of Scripture and taught a divided view of God, claiming the Old Testament God and the God revealed by Jesus were different.15:00 Polycarp and IrenaeusPolycarp mentored Irenaeus and modeled how to stand firmly for truth while showing grace in secondary disagreements.17:30 Polycarp's ArrestRoman authorities arrested Polycarp when he was 86 years old and pressured him to deny Christ by offering incense to Caesar.20:00 The Martyrdom of PolycarpPolycarp refused to deny Jesus, declaring that Christ had never done him wrong and that he “Nearly 2,000 years later, we sit here and we still remember Polycarp, not because he was powerful or wealthy or famous. We remember him because he was faithful.” - Pastor Jeff Cranston

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

Christina Hello, everyone, I'm Christina Darnell, the managing editor of MinistryWatch. Welcome to the MinistryWatch podcast. In today's extra episode, I talk with Warren Smith about some news items that are slightly (even significantly) outside of our normal charity and philanthropy “beat.” So, Warren, what's up first? Warren Microfinancing is taking a beating in the media these days. In the 1990s and 2000s, microfinancing was all the rage. The basic idea was to give entrepreneurs who could not qualify for loans at traditional banks an opportunity to take out a small loan to finance income producing activities. Christina Women could buy sewing machines and take in tailoring and alteration work to support her family. Men could buy motorcycles to take them to job sites or pick up trucks to start a hauling or construction business. Warren That's exactly the idea. But new reporting by the Wall Street Journal questions the effectiveness of such microfinancing activities. It is also interesting that Christian ministries who got on the microfinancing bandwagon (Opportunity International, Hope International, Five Talents, and others) are now pivoting to savings groups, financial literacy, and broader economic development because the evidence for traditional microcredit has been more mixed than early advocates expected. Christina Something else that's been in the news this week has been Steven Spielberg's new movie “Disclosure Day.” Warren The new movie is being touted as a “takedown” of Christianity. Spielberg suggested that the discovery of extraterrestrial life would create a crisis for the Christian faith. Christina But a lot of Christian apologists have weighed in on this question and they say that's not accurate. Warren That is right. I've got to confess that I'm skeptical of extraterrestrial life on other planets, at least life on any planets within reach. There's some evidence of water on the moon and on Mars, so we might find some type of organism there, and that would be interesting. But I think we can see deeply enough into space to suggest that there's nothing significant nearby. Christina But even if there was, nothing about Christian doctrine would be challenged by the discovery of extraterrestrial life. Warren I think that's right. Christians from C.S. Lewis to Larry Norman (in his song “Unidentified Flying Object”) have written about this idea, and it is interesting but innocuous in terms of its threat to Christianity. A more troubling aspect of Spielberg's film, according to Rod Dreher, is its overt Gnosticism, and ancient heresy that keeps getting re-heated and half-baked by modernists and post-modernists. Christina So what is Gnosticism? Warren Gnosticism is a collection of ancient religious movements that taught that salvation comes through secret spiritual knowledge (gnosis) that awakens the divine spark within humans and frees them from the material world. To read Dreher's critique of the film, click here. My friends John Stonestreet and Tim Padget over at The Colson Center have also written intelligently about this movie. You can find their commentary at www.BreakPoint.org. By the way, the film is getting decent reviews and is performing well at the box office, taking in $44 million its first weekend, against a $110 million production budget. Christina This week marks the anniversary of the death of someone you hold in high regard. Can you tell us about John Dyer? Warren If you find self-promoting (and, too often, self-destructive) Christian celebrities distasteful, John Dyer could be your palate cleanser. He lived in the 1800s, and he helped bring Christianity to the American West as a Methodist circuit riding preacher. A church he founded in the resort town of Breckenridge is still in operation. He also ended up in the Colorado Ski and Snowboard Hall of Fame. To find out why, read this piece, which I wrote a year ago, but which I call your attention to this week because it is the 125th anniversary of his death. Christina And you've been turning your eye toward Europe this week. Why? Warren Culturally speaking, things are strange in Europe right now. Birth rates are plummeting there even more than here. This fact will have profound economic and societal implications in the years ahead. I visited Spain 15 years ago and wrote about what I saw there for WORLD Magazine. (And here.) Here are the headlines from that story: Large, gorgeous, empty churches, an economy that lacked confidence, and conservative political parties hunkered down. Christina But that was, as you said, 15 years ago. Today, things have changed somewhat. Warren The economy is better, though not great. Center-right conservatives, represented by the Partido Popular, have been overtaken by the far-right Vox party. I started thinking about this when I read that Franklin Graham recently did a crusade in Madrid that attracted 10,000 people. That sounds like a lot until you realize that the musician Bad Bunny attracted 60,000 on the same night. Read my friend Bruce Bower's account of what is happening in Spain here. Christina Another high-profile event this week was the UFC fights at the White House. Do you have any thoughts about that? Warren Christians often talk about the “good, true, and beautiful” as if they are separate things. They are not, these three qualities are unitary, of-a-piece. Something cannot be really TRUE or GOOD unless it is also BEAUTIFUL. Something that is ugly or banal aesthetically is also, to that extent, also less true and less good. These are ideas to consider as we assess the events of June 14, which was — in my view — another “wag the dog” spectacle designed to distract the masses. Juvenal had a phrase for it: panem et circenses. Bread and circuses. He also said that such spectacles were a sign of a nation in decline. Christina Any final thoughts before we go? Warren If you have not discovered our YouTube channel, check it out here. We now have nearly 200 videos there, and they have attracted tens of thousands of views. Subscribe, like, and share to spread the word about our work. I am in Albuquerque next month. If you live in the Land of Enchantment, one of my favorite states, reach out to me. I would love to share a meal or a cup of coffee with you. My email is wsmith@ministrywatch.com. We'd love to have your financial support as we approach our fiscal year end. Just go to www.ministrywatch.com/donate Christina The producer for today's program is Jeff McIntosh. I'm Christina Darnell, along with Warren Smith. Until next time, may God bless you.  

We continue our history of the origins of the French Gnostic Church in the 19th Century, a oft forgotten chapter […]

Irenaeus lived at a time when the church was being attacked from the outside by persecution and from the inside by false teaching.In this episode of Kitchen Table Theology, Pastor Jeff and Tiffany look at the life of Irenaeus, one of the early church's most important defenders of the gospel. Connected closely to the apostles through Polycarp, Irenaeus helped preserve apostolic teaching, confront the rise of Gnosticism, and guide the church with both truth and grace.Chapters:01:00 Who Was Irenaeus?Irenaeus was one of the most important Christian leaders of the second century. Closely connected to the apostles through Polycarp, his life is bridge between the New Testament church and the generations that followed.02:00 Asia Minor and the Early ChurchAsia Minor, located in what is now modern-day Turkey, played a major role in early church history03:30 Irenaeus' Connection to the Apostle JohnThe Apostle John taught Polycarp, Polycarp taught Irenaeus, placing Irenaeus only one generation removed from an eyewitness of Jesus Christ.05:00 Irenaeus in LyonAfter studying briefly in Rome, Irenaeus moved to Lyon in Gaul, modern-day France. There, he joined the leadership of a growing Christian congregation in one of the most important cities in Western Europe.07:30 Persecution in LyonWhile Irenaeus was away in Rome, severe persecution broke out against the Christians in Lyon. Nearly 50 believers were martyred, including Blandina, Sanctus, and the elderly bishop Pothinus.11:00 Irenaeus Becomes Bishop of LyonAfter returning from Rome, Irenaeus was chosen to replace Pothinus as bishop of Lyon. For the next 25 years, he shepherded the church, trained leaders, sent missionaries, and strengthened scattered congregations throughout the region.12:30 What Was Gnosticism?Gnosticism was one of the greatest challenges facing the early church. Many Gnostics believed that physical matter was evil, denied that Jesus truly became human, and claimed to possess secret knowledge unavailable to ordinary Christians.16:30 Irenaeus and Against HeresiesIrenaeus' most famous work, Against Heresies, exposed the errors of Gnostic teaching and defended the faith handed down from the apostles. His writings helped explain Christian doctrine clearly and earned him the title “the father of Christian theology.” 18:30 The Quartodeciman ControversyAnother major issue during Irenaeus' lifetime involved the timing of Easter. Rather than allowing a calendar disagreement to divide the church, Irenaeus urged believers to maintain fellowship where the gospel itself was not at stake.22:30 What Irenaeus Teaches Christians TodayStay rooted in apostolic truth, guard the gospel carefully, and pursue unity whenever possible. “Irenaeus fought fiercely for essential doctrines while showing remarkable charity to others in secondary matters.” - Pastor Jeff Cranston

All Saints of North America and Antioch St. Matthew 4:18-23 On the Sunday of All Saints of North America and Antioch, Fr. Anthony reflects on how the same American instincts that often lead people to Orthodoxy can become obstacles to spiritual growth once they arrive. While habits of inquiry, comparison, and evaluation help many converts discover the Church, the Christian life requires a transition from constantly judging and analyzing to trusting the Church's proven path of formation. Drawing on examples from marriage, culture, and the lives of the saints, he argues that the Church has been making saints for two thousand years and invites us to relax into that process of transformation. --- In the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit. Amen. Glory to Jesus Christ! This is the Second Sunday after Pentecost, which means we celebrate the saints. Now, some of you are thinking, "Father, wasn't that last Sunday?" Yes—but this Sunday we celebrate the saints who are the fruit of the Christian faith in particular places. Here in the Antiochian Orthodox Christian Archdiocese of North America, we commemorate both the Saints of Antioch and the Saints of North America. Antioch is where the followers of Christ were first called Christians. North America is where that same faith has borne fruit in our own land. Today we celebrate what happens when the Holy Spirit takes root in a people and a place and brings forth holiness. The saints were not abstractions. They were not merely names in books or faces in icons. They had families, homes, occupations, and daily struggles. They lived in particular places and faced particular temptations, just as we do. Their lives remind us that holiness is not reserved for another age or another people. It is the calling of every Christian. I know some people who are jealous of Christians who lived in other times and places. I understand the temptation. We imagine what it must have been like to live in a culture where everyone was Christian, where theology, marriage, friendship, and worship were reinforced by the world around you. It can seem as though faith would come naturally in such a setting. But every culture has its own strengths and weaknesses. Every age has its temptations. Ours certainly does. This is one reason I often speak about the long, slow slog of salvation. It takes time for Christ to gain traction in our lives. It takes time for the Holy Spirit to draw us out of our sins, reorder our desires, and teach us to see the world according to the truth. As much as we may romanticize other places and times, the reality is that the whole world groans under the weight of sin. Consider the relationship between Church and state. Some Christians look with envy at times when governments openly supported the Church. One of my favorite examples is Saint Volodymyr of Kyiv. The church he built became known as the Church of the Tithes because he dedicated a tenth of his wealth to support it. That kind of patronage can be a tremendous blessing. It keeps the doors open. It provides a place where people can encounter Christ. But there is also a danger. If people do not intentionally offer themselves to the life of the Church, they can begin to take it for granted. Historians, sociologists, and political scientists have repeatedly observed that when the Church becomes too dependent on state support, participation often becomes passive. The buildings remain full, the clergy remain funded, but the active fellowship of the faithful can become hollowed out unless people are deeply intentional about their commitment. In modern language, we might say that people need some "skin in the game." Faith must become personal. It must become sacrificial. We cannot simply inherit it; we must offer ourselves to it. The same pattern appears elsewhere. My Greek friends often point out that Hellenistic culture provided many of the intellectual tools that helped people understand and articulate the Christian faith. Concepts such as the Logos and the philosophical vocabulary of the ancient world became powerful instruments in the service of theology. And yet those same intellectual strengths carried their own dangers. Some Christians were tempted toward Gnosticism. Others drifted into excessive rigorism. The very strengths of a culture can become weaknesses if they are not transformed by Christ. The same is true for us as Americans. There is much about our culture that I celebrate. We are approaching the 250th anniversary of our nation, and as a son of the American Revolution, I appreciate the freedoms we enjoy. The First Amendment protects our ability to seek the truth and worship God according to our conscience. Many of us found Orthodoxy precisely because we were free to look beyond the assumptions of our surrounding culture. But there is another characteristic of American life that deserves our attention: consumerism. Consumerism is not merely an economic system; it is a pattern of thought. It trains us to compare, evaluate, and choose. Every trip to the grocery store involves a series of cost-benefit analyses. We compare quality and price. We examine options. We decide which product best meets our needs. That habit of evaluation has actually helped many converts find Orthodoxy. Most of us arrived here because we became dissatisfied with something. We sensed that something was missing. We began asking questions. We read books, listened to lectures, watched videos, and compared alternatives. We weighed ideas the same way we weigh products. Eventually, we discovered Orthodoxy and recognized that it offered something we had not found elsewhere: a way of life capable of leading us into deeper communion with Christ. For many of us, that process was a blessing. Without it, we might never have escaped the assumptions we inherited from our surroundings. We might never have realized that another way was possible. Now here is the challenge. The same habits that helped many of us find Orthodoxy can become obstacles once we are inside the Church. Let me explain through an analogy. Think about the way Americans approach courtship today. We live in a culture of options. Dating apps, personality profiles, compatibility scores, and endless advice all encourage us to evaluate potential spouses through a kind of cost-benefit analysis. We compare possibilities and try to determine which person is the best match. Now, thank God, many people eventually find someone they love. They build a life together, get married, and begin a family. But what happens if they never leave behind that consumer mindset? What happens if they continue to evaluate their spouse the way they once evaluated potential spouses? Sooner or later they discover something unexpected. They find an imperfection they did not anticipate. They encounter a habit they dislike. They discover a weakness that was not apparent before. At that point the consumer instinct kicks in. Some begin looking around, wondering whether there might be something better. Others begin trying to "fix" their spouse, treating the relationship like a renovation project. After thirty-six years of marriage, I can tell you that my wife became much happier when she gave up trying to fix me. There are some things that simply cannot be fixed. More importantly, that is not how healthy relationships work. A good marriage is not built through constant evaluation. It is built through trust, commitment, patience, sacrifice, and love. At some point you stop analyzing the relationship from the outside and begin living it from the inside. You relax into it. You allow yourself to be formed by it. That does not mean you stop growing. It means growth happens through love rather than manipulation. The same principle applies to the Church. I celebrate the fact that many of us found Orthodoxy because we were willing to ask questions, compare alternatives, and search for the truth. Those habits served us well. But once we arrive, we must be careful. If you have ever been a catechumen with me, you have heard me say something that may sound strange: don't become a catechumen unless you are ready to trust. You do not have to know everything before becoming Orthodox. No one does. We make sure people understand the essentials. We address the major questions and objections. But eventually there comes a point where a person must decide whether this is a place where he can be formed. If we carry the spirit of consumerism into the Church, we begin treating everything the same way we treated products on a shelf. We evaluate constantly. We compare constantly. We judge constantly. Combined with the polarization that already infects our culture, this can become spiritually destructive. We begin dividing ourselves into camps. We become critics rather than disciples. Instead of allowing the Church to form us, we place ourselves above it as evaluators. Now, that does not mean we stop improving things. We are always working to improve parish life. We renovate buildings. We develop ministries. We solve problems. But there is a profound difference between building up and tearing down. One spirit seeks to serve. The other seeks to dominate. One spirit acts from love. The other acts from judgment. One spirit strengthens communion. The other undermines it. At some point we must surrender the very habit of analysis that helped bring us here, just as a husband and wife must eventually stop evaluating one another and begin living together in trust. Once you have given your life to Christ and entered His Church, relax. You are in the right place. This is not a pig in a poke. Most of my catechumens know that expression. For those who do not, a "poke" is an old word for a bag. If you were buying a pig at market, you always looked inside the bag before handing over your money. Otherwise you might discover later that someone had sold you something entirely different. Orthodoxy is not a pig in a poke. You have looked inside the bag. You have examined the evidence. You have read the books. You have asked the questions. You have seen what the Church is. Now trust it. The Church has been forming saints for two thousand years. It has done so in Syria and Lebanon, in Greece and Romania, in Kyiv and Moscow, in Alaska and North America. It has formed saints in every culture, every language, and every century. It can form saints here. It can form saints out of us. But only if we allow it to do its work. There are very few places left in modern life where we can lower our defenses, let go of constant evaluation, and simply receive. The Church should be one of those places. This is one reason our worship is so carefully ordered. The prayers have been tested by generations. The hymns have been handed down through centuries. The services have been shaped by the wisdom of the saints. The Church knows what she is doing. Now, I still tell my catechumens and students to keep a little filter active during the homily. The prayers have been vetted by the Church. The sermon comes from me, and I am still a work in progress. But the larger point remains. Let the Church form you. The Church has been creating saints for two thousand years. It is not a cookie-cutter process. Saint Nicholas, Saint Tikhon, and Saint John were very different men. Yet all were united in Christ. The Church knows how to confront our sins. It knows how to heal anger, lust, despondency, pride, and despair. It knows how to help us become more patient, more loving, more peaceful, and more faithful. You do not need a guru. You do not need another internet rabbit hole. You do not need endless searches for the next great spiritual secret. The saints have already shown us the way. Pray. Love sacrificially. Open yourself to God's grace in the sacraments. Love God. Love your neighbor. This is the calling of every human being. This is the vocation of the royal priesthood. This is the path walked by the saints of Antioch, the saints of North America, and the saints throughout the world. And it is the path set before us today. May God strengthen us as we walk it together. In the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit. Amen.

Class is back in session, Ladies, as Sarah continues her diaconal studies at Concordia Seminary, St. Louis!     In this episode, Sarah offers a helpful introductory crash course in systematic theology as she revisits themes from her latest seminary class, “The Master Narrative.”  After first taking time to unpack terms like “narrative” and “metanarrative,” she then shows how two narratives in particular wind their way throughout all of Scripture: the creation and redemption of the world, and God's calling and care for his covenant people. She then examines how these overarching themes regularly show up in sermons, creeds, prayers, and hymns (including “Come Ye Faithful, Raise the Strain”). She explores how all this theology matters for us, embarks on a “tiny sidequest” into cultural influences including Gnosticism, and shares the actual text of the Old Testament narrative story she recently wrote for class.   Resources referenced in this episode include:   Against Heresies: A Modern Translation with Introduction  Connect with the Lutheran Ladies on social media in The Lutheran Ladies' Lounge Facebook discussion group (facebook.com/groups/LutheranLadiesLounge) and on Instagram @lutheranladieslounge. Follow Sarah (@hymnnerd), Rachel (@rachbomberger), and Erin (@erinaltered) on Instagram! Sign up for the Lutheran Ladies' Lounge monthly e-newsletter here, and email the Ladies at lutheranladies@kfuo.org.

X2M.251 Lisibilité — The Mystery Made Readable Series: CR20 Place De La Concorde Psalm 2 opens with noise: nations raging, rulers plotting, systems conspiring against the Lord and His Anointed. Yet heaven does not panic. Heaven laughs. The Father answers rebellion by installing His King on Zion.¹ This is **Lisibilité**: the restoration of readability. The signal becomes clear again. The mind untangles. The heart remembers the Father. The vessel becomes legible to heaven. The decree is sonship: “You are My Son.” “Today I have become Your Father.” The crisis of the nations is answered by intimacy with the Father. The enemy's strategy is disconnection — to wrap seaweed around the mind until the soul believes it has been cut off from the temple of the Lord. Jonah becomes the inner parable. He runs, descends, is swallowed, and finally remembers: “Salvation belongs to the Lord.” When the mind becomes clear, the fish releases him.² Seaweed is the unreadable mind: confusion, accusation, idolatry, self-protection, false narratives, and the belief that something other than God will save. Colossians 2 becomes the apostolic lens. Paul struggles for the church so their hearts may be knit together in love and brought into the knowledge of the mystery of God — Christ Himself. The mystery hidden for ages is now revealed: **Christ in you, the hope of glory.**³ This is not secret knowledge for an elite class. Not Gnostic ascent through hidden codes. Not self-made narrative. Not religious performance. Not angelic spectacle. Not legalistic control. Christ is the open mystery. Gnosticism says knowledge saves. Christ says union saves. Gnosticism elevates the self. Christ fills the body with the fullness of God. “For in Him all the fullness of deity dwells bodily, and in Him you have been filled.” That is the correction. The body is not trash to escape. It is a temple to be inhabited. The mind is not a theater for counterfeit stories. It is a place to be renewed. The heart is not an idol-factory. It is Zion, the holy hill where the King is installed. Paul warns against anything that pulls the believer out of union: reasonable-sounding arguments, human tradition, elemental spirits, false humility, religious regulations, body-hatred, and fascination with lesser powers.⁴ These things may appear wise, but they create noise. They make the soul unreadable. Lisibilité is the reversal. When Christ is central, the mind settles. Sin-consciousness loses its throne. Social-consciousness loses its grip. Fear loses its script. The Father's voice becomes clear. Love becomes readable again. In **Place De La Concorde** architecture, X2M.251 is the readability event: the old head of confusion is removed, and the true Head restores order in the public square of the heart. The remnant becomes clear. The signal becomes clean. The vessel becomes legible. The King is installed on Zion within. Glorification | The Final Frontier Going boldly where the last man has gone before! Decrease time over target: PayPal or Venmo @clastronaut Cash App $clastronaut X2M.251 Lisibilité is not about secret knowledge. It is about seeing Christ clearly — the Father's decree made readable in the Son, the seaweed removed from the mind, the body filled with glory, and the heart restored to holy agreement. **Footnotes** ¹ Psalm 2: rebellion answered by the installed King. ² Jonah's seaweed images a mind tangled in disconnection. ³ Colossians: Christ in you, the hope of glory. ⁴ Paul warns against systems that sound wise but pull believers out of union. ⁵ Lisibilité means readability: clear perception restored in Christ.

Darkness Radio Presents: Disclosure Day Pre-game & The Occult Elvis: The Mystical and Magical Life of the King with Podcaster/Author Miguel Connor!Writer and researcher Miguel Conner reveals how Elvis was a profound mystic, occultist, and shaman. Beginning with the unusual circumstances of his birth—and his stillborn twin brother—Conner traces the diverse thread of mysticism that runs through Elvis Presley's life, drawing on firsthand accounts from the people closest to him, including his wife, Priscilla, the Memphis Mafia, and his spiritual advisors.  Conner argues that Elvis was well-versed in the esoteric practices of sex magic, meditation, astrology, and numerology and had a deep familiarity with Kabbalah, Gnosticism, Theosophy, and Eastern traditions. He also reveals how Elvis was a natural healer, telekinetic, psychic, and astral traveler who had significant mystical experiences and UFO encounters. Looking at the conspiratorial and paranormal aspects of Elvis's life, the author explores the "Elvis visitations" that have occurred since the King's death and the general high weirdness of his life. As Conner convincingly argues, Elvis was not just a one-of-a-kind rock-and-roller. He was the greatest magician America ever produced.On Today's Show, we hype you up for tomorrow's big release of the summer blockbuster, Disclosure Day, by interviewing someone who was waiting in line for the screening and getting their thoughts on the movie and the real Disclosure Day! Then, we talk to Miguel Connor about whether Elvis was always destined to become who he was and what shaped his spirituality. some of the occult practices Elvis got into, and his abilities... and some of the appearances Elvis made... after he died!Learn more about Miguel Conner here:  https://www.miguelconner.com/Check out Miguel's podcast (Aeon Byte Gnostic Radio) here: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC67NBVrem2dRsYUreRyjSsA/feedThere are new and different (and really cool) items all the time in the Darkness Radio Online store at our website! . check out the Darkness Radio Store!   https://www.darknessradioshow.com/store/Want to be an "Executive Producer" of Darkness Radio? Email Tim@darknessradio.com for details! #paranormal  #supernatural  #paranormalpodcasts  #darknessradio  #timdennis #miguelconner #theoccultelvis #themysticalandmagicallifeoftheking #elvispresley #kingofrocknroll  #vernonpresley  #jessie #coloneltomparker #raymondmoody #ghosts  #hauntings  #graceland #Aliens  #UFO #UAP #Extraterrestrials #Alienspaceships #sexmagic #magician #faithhealing #meditation #astrology #astraltravel #numerology #conspiracytheory #neardeatheexperience 

Raad's linksContact: Raadenlightenment@gmail.comYoutube: https://youtube.com/@raadenlightenment?si=o432VohKBd253lOITiktok: https://www.tiktok.com/@raadenlightenment?is_from_webapp=1&sender_device=pcInstagram: https://www.instagram.com/raadenlightenment?igsh=MWhkZDdhYWpiYzEyaA%3D%3D&utm_source=qrForbidden Knowledge Network https://forbiddenknowledge.news/ FKN Link Treehttps://linktr.ee/FKNlinksMake a Donation to Forbidden Knowledge News https://www.paypal.me/forbiddenknowledgenehttps://buymeacoffee.com/forbiddenTake control of your health now with Christian Yordanov's Live Longer Program https://www.livelongerformula.com/fknWe are back on YouTube! https://youtube.com/@forbiddenknowledgenews?si=XQhXCjteMKYNUJSjBackup channelhttps://youtube.com/@fknshow1?si=tIoIjpUGeSoRNaEsDoors of Perception is available now on Amazon Prime!https://watch.amazon.com/detail?gti=amzn1.dv.gti.8a60e6c7-678d-4502-b335-adfbb30697b8&ref_=atv_lp_share_mv&r=webDoors of Perception official trailerhttps://youtu.be/F-VJ01kMSII?si=Ee6xwtUONA18HNLZListen to Forbidden Knowledge News on clearair.fm every Tuesday, Thursday, and Saturday 12:15pm CSThttps://clearair.fm/Pick up Independent Media Token herehttps://www.independentmediatoken.com/Be prepared for any emergency with Prep Starts Now!https://prepstartsnow.com/discount/FKNStart your microdosing journey with BrainsupremeGet 15% off your order here!!https://brainsupreme.co/FKN15Book a free consultation with Jennifer Halcame Emailjenniferhalcame@gmail.comFacebook pagehttps://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=61561665957079&mibextid=ZbWKwLWatch The Forbidden Documentary: Occult Louisiana on Tubi: https://link.tubi.tv/pGXW6chxCJbC60 PurplePowerhttps://go.shopc60.com/FORBIDDEN10/or use coupon code knowledge10Johnny Larson's artworkhttps://www.patreon.com/JohnnyLarsonSign up on Rokfin!https://rokfin.com/fknplusPodcastshttps://www.spreaker.com/show/forbiddenAvailable on all platforms Support FKN on Spreaker https://spreaker.page.link/KoPgfbEq8kcsR5oj9FKN ON Rumblehttps://rumble.com/c/FKNpGet Cory Hughes books!Lee Harvey Oswald In Black and White https://www.amazon.com/dp/B0FJ2PQJRMA Warning From History Audio bookhttps://buymeacoffee.com/jfkbook/e/392579https://www.buymeacoffee.com/jfkbookhttps://www.amazon.com/Warning-History-Cory-Hughes/dp/B0CL14VQY6/ref=mp_s_a_1_1?crid=72HEFZQA7TAP&keywords=a+warning+from+history+cory+hughes&qid=1698861279&sprefix=a+warning+fro%2Caps%2C121&sr=8-1https://coryhughes.org/Our Facebook pageshttps://www.facebook.com/forbiddenknowledgenewsconspiracy/https://www.facebook.com/FKNNetwork/Instagram @forbiddenknowledgenews1@forbiddenknowledgenetworkXhttps://x.com/ForbiddenKnow10?t=uO5AqEtDuHdF9fXYtCUtfw&s=09Email Forbidden Knowledge News forbiddenknowledgenews@gmail.comsome music thanks to:https://www.bensound.com/ULFAPO3OJSCGN8LDDGLBEYNSIXA6EMZJ5FUXWYNC6WJNJKRS8DH27IXE3D73E97DC6JMAFZLSZDGTWFIBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/forbidden-knowledge-news--3589233/support.

Want more exclusive content?! http://prometheuslens.supercast.com to sign up for the "All Access Pass" and get early access to episodes, private community, members only episodes, private Q & A's, and coming documentaries. We also have a $4 dollar a month package that gets you early access and an ad free listening experience!==================== SummaryThe video is a podcast episode from the "Prometheus Lens Podcast," hosted by Doc Brown, featuring guest Hayley Ramsey. The discussion delves into the concept of the Divine Feminine, exploring its historical and spiritual significance across various cultures. Hayley shares insights from her book "The Bringer of Life: A Cosmic History of the Divine Feminine," discussing ancient beliefs, the Gnostic Gospels, and the integration of masculine and feminine energies.The conversation touches on themes like creation myths, the role of Sophia in Gnostic texts, and the importance of inner spiritual union. Hayley also discusses her upcoming projects and tours related to ancient civilizations and the Divine Feminine.====================

In today's episode of the Atheist Experience, Godless Engineer and Thinker celebrate Pride Month by dismantling the "superior" morality of the biblical deity! From the horrific commands to slaughter nursing infants in 1 Samuel 15:3 to the modern-day "crash out" over LGBTQ rights, the hosts expose the moral depravity behind ancient dogmas. Can a religion that affirms capital punishment for love ever claim the moral high ground?Ashira in South Africa discusses why churches create fear to keep people in pews. She reflects on deconstructing as a black woman after reading biblical violence. Can community exist without hell? How do we navigate family when faith fades?Jaden on TikTok debates Paul's existence and Matthew's zombies. The hosts examine Gnosticism versus orthodoxy and the "imagery" of the holy ones. Is thinking better than faith? Was Paul a real figure or a character for theological disputes?Alec in WA claims consciousness is reality. The hosts use zircon crystals and the logic of racism to dismantle this solipsism. If reality is a dream, why can't we fly? Does the physical world exist independent of our minds?Thank you for joining us this week! We will see you next time!Become a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-atheist-experience--3254896/support.

I did a livestream recap of the Mormon History Association (MHA highlights) conference, broadcast straight from my hotel room in lovely Las Vegas. Guided by some slightly out-of-order, AI-generated slides, this recap covers the most fascinating historical deep dives, unexpected gems, and award winners from the weekend. https://youtube.com/live/wy_-u8OCLMs Unexpected MHA Highlights & Gems: Pro Wrestling and Gnosticism One of the absolute standout presentations explored “The Mormon Giant,” Don Leo Jonathan, a 6’6″ pro wrestler active from the 1930s to the 1960s. Early in his career, he played up a “weird” and radical polygamist trope—complete with an unkempt beard and a live snake he claimed was from the Garden of Eden. However, to aid the Church’s PR shift toward mainstream assimilation in the 1950s and 60s, he transitioned to a clean-shaven, patriotic hero. Surprisingly, President David O. McKay, who was apparently a wrestling fan, actually authorized this PR gimmick to help mainstream the Church. Suprprisingly, his career ended via injury when he spun 7 foot tall Andre the Giant and injured his back in 1980, ending his wrestling career. Another surprise gem of the conference was a presentation by Mike Lemon on the “Temple of the Pearl,” a modern-day fringe group blending Mormon priesthood and eternal marriage with Gnosticism, chakras, yoga, and an androgynous double godhead. Mike LeCheminant, a dentist from Houston, TX gave an amazing presentation and I hope to get him on the podcast soon to talk more about this free love polygamist group. Politics, Welfare, and the New Deal MHA Highlights Several scholars provided a deep dive into the Church’s 1930s resistance to FDR’s New Deal, noting how leaders created their own welfare system driven by theological self-sufficiency to “supplant the dole” and discredit Roosevelt. Historian Matt Harris highlighted Hugh B. Brown, a vocal Democrat and trusted confidant of Heber J. Grant, who supported FDR’s programs. Brown faced severe backlash for taking the chairmanship of the state liquor commission after prohibition’s repeal, a controversial move that delayed his call to the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles by decades. We also learned about Senator Elbert Thomas, who defeated Apostle Reed Smoot in an election and applied his faith to international humanitarianism. Driven by the historical memory of 19th-century Latter-day Saint persecution, Thomas partnered with Jewish activists to force FDR to create a board that ultimately saved 200,000 Jewish lives. Finally, MHA President Ben Park delivered an address on Cleon Skousen’s massive political influence, explaining how Skousen tied Mormon agency to free-market capitalism and popularized works like The Naked Communist among conservative evangelicals through careful “code-switching.” Reevaluating Settler Colonialism & Science MHA Highlights Elise Boxer gave a powerful presentation challenging traditional “manifest destiny” pioneer narratives. She urged an indigenous lens to view Mormonism as a vehicle for US colonial expansion, pointing to the “This is the Place” monument as a visual example of reducing Native Americans to a marginalized backdrop. In the realm of 20th-century history, Steven Peck discussed BYU biologist Duane Jeffery’s 1970s push for evolutionary biology. Jeffery faced severe backlash and potential termination from Ezra Taft Benson in the 1980s, but was defended by current President Dallin H. Oaks, who decreed that the university must not censor truth or assume faith is too fragile for scientific reality. Polygamy Economics and Early Records MHA Highlights Our on Mary Ann Clements presented fascinating research examining the economic factors behind early plural marriage using Nauvoo tax records. She highlighted how leaders like Brigham Young may have strategically pursued women from wealthier families, such as Martha Brotherton, who famously refused a marriage proposal from Young at age 17 and was locked in a room at the Red Brick Store. Additionally, Cheryl Bruno announced the thrilling discovery of an 1854 list of Joseph Smith’s plural wives. This crucial document pushes the timeline of documented lists to just a decade after his death, earlier than the famous Thomas Bullock list. Award/MHA Highlights The conference also celebrated major contributions to the field of Mormon history. Posthumous honors went to Ardis Parshall, who received the Public History Award for her work championing the unheralded stories of everyday members. George D. Smith received the Arrington Award for fostering independent research as the co-founder of Signature Books, and Elise Boxer took home the Indigenous Studies Award for her book on Mormon settler colonialism. Did you go? What are your thoughts? Next year, John Turner will lead the conference as new MHA president in Provo, Utah. (Las Vegas to Provo is definitely a 180 in environment. I was surprised when a conference attendee was propositioned by a woman offering to make his night memorable. Clearly she didn’t care that most MHA attendees frown on such things. I don’t expect that to happen in Provo!) 00:00:02 Introduction & Welcome 00:04:17 Awards Ceremony (Friday Night) 00:08:34 New Deal & Hugh B. Brown Discussion 00:12:33 Mormon Settlement in Nevada 00:16:22 Mormon Settler Colonialism 00:20:33The Mormon Giant (Don Leo Jonathan) 00:24:40 Latter-day Saint Eloquence & Speaking 00:29:05 Canonization & Doctrine & Covenants 00:33:30 Saturday Sessions Overview 00:37:43 Polygamy in Nauvoo 00:41:50 Economic Factors in Plural Marriage 00:45:41 Earliest Plural Wife Lists 00:49:39 Ben Park’s Presidential Address (Cleon Skousen) 00:53:42 Evolution & BYU (Duane Jeffrey) 00:57:50 Gnostic Mormon Offshoot (Temple of the Pearl) 1:01:59 Final summary From deep dives into 20th-century political clashes to the surprising intersections of theology and wrestling, this MHA conference proved that Mormon history is vibrant, complex, and full of ongoing discoveries.

It's been too long, but it's always an honor when Dr. Robert Price arrives as the Virtual Alexandria. We'll have a fun and thorough chat on the origins of Gnosticism and its theology. Where did this heresy originate, and how did it evolve over the centuries? What is the Gnostic Jesus, and is Simon Magus the true font of all Gnostic thought? As always, we'll entertain modern Gnostic manifestations in movies and art. Grab your popcorn and Red Pill candy! More on Bob: https://www.robertmprice.mindvendor.com/ Get The Occult Elvis: https://amzn.to/4jnTjE4 Virtual Alexandria Academy: https://thegodabovegod.com/virtual-alexandria-academy/ Gnostic Tarot Readings: https://thegodabovegod.com/gnostic-tarot-reading/ The Gnostic Tarot: https://www.makeplayingcards.com/sell/synkrasis Homepage: https://thegodabovegod.com/ Patreon: https://www.patreon.com/aeonbyte AB Prime: https://thegodabovegod.com/members/subscription-levels/ Voice Over services: https://thegodabovegod.com/voice-talent/ Support with donation: https://buy.stripe.com/00g16Q8RK8D93mw288 Merch store: https://aeonbyte.creator-spring.com/ Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.

Are our bodies evil? Some people assume the Bible teaches this when it describes the conflict between Christians and "the flesh." Today, R.C. Sproul helps us answer distorted views of the physical world that are prevalent today. Get 46 messages from R.C. Sproul with your donation. You'll receive his teaching series Defending Your Faith on a special-edition DVD, plus the digital messages and study guide. You'll also get his digital series Apologetics of the Early Church: https://gift.renewingyourmind.org/   Live outside the U.S. and Canada? Request both digital teaching series and the digital study guide with your donation: https://www.renewingyourmind.org/global Join us in Orlando for the 2027 Ligonier National Conference as we rejoice in the glorious attributes of God. Save 35% when you register today with the early-bird rate: https://www.ligonier.org/2027   Meet Today's Teacher:   R.C. Sproul (1939–2017) was founder of Ligonier Ministries, first minister of preaching and teaching at Saint Andrew's Chapel, first president of Reformation Bible College, and executive editor of Tabletalk magazine. Renewing Your Mind is a donor-supported outreach of Ligonier Ministries. Explore all of our podcasts: https://www.ligonier.org/podcasts

Has someone ever offered you a secret formula for a deeper spiritual life? This idea isn't new, yet it's alluring in our day. Today, R.C. Sproul helps us avoid the ancient error of gnosticism so we can pursue real spiritual growth. Get 46 messages from R.C. Sproul with your donation. You'll receive his teaching series Defending Your Faith on a special-edition DVD, plus the digital messages and study guide. You'll also get his digital series Apologetics of the Early Church: https://gift.renewingyourmind.org/   Live outside the U.S. and Canada? Request both digital teaching series and the digital study guide with your donation: https://www.renewingyourmind.org/global Join us on September 25–26 for Ligonier's 2026 London Conference, Chosen by God. Learn more and register: https://www.ligonier.org/london   Meet Today's Teacher:   R.C. Sproul (1939–2017) was founder of Ligonier Ministries, first minister of preaching and teaching at Saint Andrew's Chapel, first president of Reformation Bible College, and executive editor of Tabletalk magazine. Renewing Your Mind is a donor-supported outreach of Ligonier Ministries. Explore all of our podcasts: https://www.ligonier.org/podcasts