his God and their God was not one and the same. That's where they're wrong, they're worshiping to wrong God.
If that is true, it would logically follow that Jesus's Jews and other rabbis' Jews did teach different things. But I don't see the proof that it's true they had different gods. Sofia and her son (Samael) don't come from Jewish tradition but from Grecized Egyptian tradition. Yah doesn't come from Greek or Egyptian tradition but from Hebrew tradition. Therefore when Apocryphon says that Samael is called Yaldabaoth it doesn't mean he automatically gets the rights of the meaning of Yah Sabaoth. Apocryphon might be truly reporting the lies of Samael's followers. For someone who doesn't understand the Near East cult of Yah to look at Yah's attributes very casually and say, oh sure, Yah must be exactly Samael, would be to fail all principles of comparative religion by comparing apples to scorpions.
And that's what I mean by (1), asking where these two Jewish movements differ. Yes, they differed in practices, but not clearly in theology. If you don't like the later church's theology, that's fine, we don't have to bring that up because we're focusing on the theology taught by Jesus. In particular you're right to note that the framing "if you don't believe in Jesus, you will burn in hell forever" is suspect because so much is missing; but that's a side point. On the main line, it seems that we'd need to come to agreement on methods of how to read and interpret sources to determine whether Jesus's Jews and other rabbis' Jews had different gods in their original theology. Transformation and belief in truth (knowledge, trust) are both essential and always accompany each other: transformation means there's belief, and belief means there's transformation.
Jesus isn't saying "follow me" or "worship me."
IMHO "Follow me" is one of the most certain things the historical Jesus said. He didn't say "worship me" (who does?), but I've documented that the words for "worship" meant quite a few different things than we expect (even latria), and so when people bowed to Jesus respectfully that fell under several words for "worship" and was considered worship (even if we don't count it to have that meaning today). But, more important (if I can use Paul), the way we follow Jesus is exactly the way we follow other leaders, and in bowing cultures we bow to Jesus in the way we bow to other leaders. When you get to latria, it is only offered to the Father, but it can be offered through the physical image of God in humans and that's the direction latria should be taken (worship God who is in us).
So for (2) it's not essential to argue about the specifics of claiming to be a god, but (again) claiming many different powers and titles of divinity is very tied up with Jesus's narrative. And whenever you think about divinity in any human you find that Jesus was so one with the Monad that, whatever attribute you think of, he had first. He didn't intend us to be separate from him but that we would all be one in a many-membered "body of Christ". So, just as his nature and message align perfectly, so should ours. You make a decent description of the message and so our message, and our spark of divinity, must be united just as his was.
Sofia his mother, and a partial aspect of the divine Pleroma, desired to create something apart from the divine and did this without consent from the Father. Demiurge (Yahweh) having stolen a portion of power from his mother, sets about a work of creation in unconscious imitation of the superior realm.
I've heard this, but I don't understand how we can classify these Dodecad offshoots as "good" or "not evil" if we're also calling them nonconsensual and thieving and mistaken and false. It's also not a cosmology that particularly appeals to historical truth claims better than say Zeus and Hera do. One issue is that this life involves doing physical good, and so a message of focusing solely on some other life that is not something we generally experience is an extraordinary claim that I'd ask for greater proofs of. So I appreciate your speaking so forthrightly and yet I ask the same questions of the meaning of these things that I ask others who raise similar points.
So in question (3) you give an excellent definition of the Monad. What I don't understand is why we should give any credit or value to Samael. For instance I use the word "Yah" (self-existence) to mean precisely "It is he who establishes himself", so I don't believe in awarding its forms freely to Samael (who isn't even an original of the Dodecad but an offspring).
TLDR: (a) All that is just for me to categorize and seek to enfold your thoughts. When it comes to specifics (and any debate), we are likely to begin to question which documents weigh more heavily than which if we get to a hard disagreement. I like to preclude that instead, by first asking how we would jointly use documents and inner revelation and other sources in some objective, agreed way so that we can come to the same answers with the relative certainty of math and science. That is, not calling something right or wrong by appeal to authority, but by making inferences to the best explanations. If you're someone who pursues the truth at all costs then right evaluation of revelations shouldn't be an issue.
(b) Your exposition puts you very close to one Conspiracies regular, and significantly close to the moderator of another forum I referred to. Neither are very aligned to traditional Christendom but both state they uphold original Christianity. If you'd like me to get these two folks involved, I can ping them, but I don't want to do so if you're wanting to keep it between us two for now. There is also another moderator I alluded to whose thoughts are pretty close to mine but who might be too traditional for you; that person will probably be along in time sooner or later too.
Going back to the earlier statement then:
If that is true, it would logically follow that Jesus's Jews and other rabbis' Jews did teach different things. But I don't see the proof that it's true they had different gods. Sofia and her son (Samael) don't come from Jewish tradition but from Grecized Egyptian tradition. Yah doesn't come from Greek or Egyptian tradition but from Hebrew tradition. Therefore when Apocryphon says that Samael is called Yaldabaoth it doesn't mean he automatically gets the rights of the meaning of Yah Sabaoth. Apocryphon might be truly reporting the lies of Samael's followers. For someone who doesn't understand the Near East cult of Yah to look at Yah's attributes very casually and say, oh sure, Yah must be exactly Samael, would be to fail all principles of comparative religion by comparing apples to scorpions.
And that's what I mean by (1), asking where these two Jewish movements differ. Yes, they differed in practices, but not clearly in theology. If you don't like the later church's theology, that's fine, we don't have to bring that up because we're focusing on the theology taught by Jesus. In particular you're right to note that the framing "if you don't believe in Jesus, you will burn in hell forever" is suspect because so much is missing; but that's a side point. On the main line, it seems that we'd need to come to agreement on methods of how to read and interpret sources to determine whether Jesus's Jews and other rabbis' Jews had different gods in their original theology. Transformation and belief in truth (knowledge, trust) are both essential and always accompany each other: transformation means there's belief, and belief means there's transformation.
IMHO "Follow me" is one of the most certain things the historical Jesus said. He didn't say "worship me" (who does?), but I've documented that the words for "worship" meant quite a few different things than we expect (even latria), and so when people bowed to Jesus respectfully that fell under several words for "worship" and was considered worship (even if we don't count it to have that meaning today). But, more important (if I can use Paul), the way we follow Jesus is exactly the way we follow other leaders, and in bowing cultures we bow to Jesus in the way we bow to other leaders. When you get to latria, it is only offered to the Father, but it can be offered through the physical image of God in humans and that's the direction latria should be taken (worship God who is in us).
So for (2) it's not essential to argue about the specifics of claiming to be a god, but (again) claiming many different powers and titles of divinity is very tied up with Jesus's narrative. And whenever you think about divinity in any human you find that Jesus was so one with the Monad that, whatever attribute you think of, he had first. He didn't intend us to be separate from him but that we would all be one in a many-membered "body of Christ". So, just as his nature and message align perfectly, so should ours. You make a decent description of the message and so our message, and our spark of divinity, must be united just as his was.
I've heard this, but I don't understand how we can classify these Dodecad offshoots as "good" or "not evil" if we're also calling them nonconsensual and thieving and mistaken and false. It's also not a cosmology that particularly appeals to historical truth claims better than say Zeus and Hera do. One issue is that this life involves doing physical good, and so a message of focusing solely on some other life that is not something we generally experience is an extraordinary claim that I'd ask for greater proofs of. So I appreciate your speaking so forthrightly and yet I ask the same questions of the meaning of these things that I ask others who raise similar points.
So in question (3) you give an excellent definition of the Monad. What I don't understand is why we should give any credit or value to Samael. For instance I use the word "Yah" (self-existence) to mean precisely "It is he who establishes himself", so I don't believe in awarding its forms freely to Samael (who isn't even an original of the Dodecad but an offspring).
TLDR: (a) All that is just for me to categorize and seek to enfold your thoughts. When it comes to specifics (and any debate), we are likely to begin to question which documents weigh more heavily than which if we get to a hard disagreement. I like to preclude that instead, by first asking how we would jointly use documents and inner revelation and other sources in some objective, agreed way so that we can come to the same answers with the relative certainty of math and science. That is, not calling something right or wrong by appeal to authority, but by making inferences to the best explanations. If you're someone who pursues the truth at all costs then right evaluation of revelations shouldn't be an issue.
(b) Your exposition puts you very close to one Conspiracies regular, and significantly close to the moderator of another forum I referred to. Neither are very aligned to traditional Christendom but both state they uphold original Christianity. If you'd like me to get these two folks involved, I can ping them, but I don't want to do so if you're wanting to keep it between us two for now. There is also another moderator I alluded to whose thoughts are pretty close to mine but who might be too traditional for you; that person will probably be along in time sooner or later too.