I don't think of it as defending Jews and church, I think of it as seeking to understand each tradition in its context. Some gnostics hold that all traditions have truths in them, so I would presume that finding the true points in the Yahwist tradition would be just as appropriate as in any other tradition. (If people misrepresent Yahwists disproportionately, that actually indicates likelihood that they may have disproportionate amount of truth. If everyone has part of the truth there's no need to misrepresent anyone.) Since I've found reasons why these documents survive for millennia without people concluding they are hopelessly contradictory as atheists tend to decide on snap judgment, I share those reasons; I do the same with the Quran when it's misinterpreted the same way.

Now, your fine essay about silence makes decent points, which I'll interact with separately, but they seem consistent with my point that the Monad resolves all spectra such as the volume spectrum. Jesus, like the Monad, is master of speech and silence both, and both have purpose, so much so that they are one. Which is why I say the Monad has attributes. If we want to call the attributes emanations, that's possible, but then monism itself is also an attribute and so the name "Monad" should be demoted to being just another attribute of the Indescribable. (And by "Indescribable" and other negating or apophatic words I don't create further regress, I only point out that the unknowable cannot be approximated with any word but can only be negated as to its application to any word.) Calling it "Monad" is already attributing monism or unity to it. So I have no problem with other attributes.

most people think most important messages are communicated through words & speeches. They are not. In a world saturated with noise, constant notifications, opinions competing for attention, and an endless demand for expression, what if the greatest truth was never meant to be spoken aloud?

Yes, the greatest Truth is not a secondary message but a primary entity to be communed with by our secondary experiences. All words and speeches are reflections on this one Word of Truth. (Truth, Word, Entity are attributes of course.)

Silence in this context is alignment with a higher law. This alone affirms that the logos, the divine word, emerges from the eternal silence of the absolute. To return to silence is to return to the source of all creation, the Monad.

Fine. But you contrast this with a counterfactual hypothetical, one "who could have saved him from being crucified." We are told he prayed aloud (and also sometimes wordlessly) about the hypothetical, and note Matthew's words: "O my Father, if it be possible, let this cup pass from me: nevertheless not as I will, but as thou wilt .... O my Father, if this cup may not pass away from me, except I drink it, thy will be done." First, if these words are accurate, he did pray to his Father as one by whom the cup could pass. Second, his resolution of the counterfactual was his realization that the cup would not pass unless he drank it. Not about being saved from being crucified (the false notion ascribed to his mockers), but about the suffering being over, which was to be accomplished by drinking it in.

Jesus identified in the Gospel of John as the logos made flesh understood that speaking from ego fractures truth while silence preserves its integrity.

Not sure what this means because to me "Ego" and "I Am" are the same thing and Jesus constantly uses the latter.

You identify as a Covenant Christian, how often do you seek answers through noise, endless information and external voices?

I seek answers in everything. For words I often answer in words; but Francis said, preach the gospel at all times, with words if necessary.

What if the path you are searching for cannot be found through accumulation but through subtraction, through stillness rather than stimulation?

Generically I regularly subtract (it's called fasting from things). Specifically feel free to make a recommendation.

Many early Gnostics, some were Greeks but most were not, understood that Jesus taught on two levels simultaneously. One level was accessible through words, parables, and moral instruction. The other level was transmitted through presence, gesture, withdrawal, and silence.

That's understood by many.

This deeper level was not meant to be explained openly because it could only be realized inwardly.

That's not the usual understanding. Most recognized that nonverbal communication can be further explained openly (as Jesus said about what is whispered being shouted). Paul gives a detailed theology of mystery in which what is realized inwardly has a destiny of being shared in words outwardly, while more mystery always remains. Your statement only applies to those mystics who refer to an "indescribable" (using only negative terms like this, apophatically), but they are not referring to the arcane but only to the concept that there is something in God beyond description. Those gnostics who acted like arcane wisdom exists that should be hidden because it contradicts the lower-level description were doing something different from all other communication of the period.

Consider how often Jesus speaks in ways that conceals as much as it reveals. He tells his disciples that seeing they may not see and hearing they may not hear.

That's paradox, driving someone deeper for the resolution.

This is not cruelty but precision. Silence functions as a veil that protects sacred knowledge from being reduced to concepts.

Perhaps, but then what is known is the "indescribable", not a verbal message that should remain hidden.

Jesus speaks only when speech serves alignment, never when it serves ego. This is why his words carry such enduring power. They are not reactions. They are emanations.

Perhaps; that would make him the Logos ....