The FULL STORY Of The Archons - Every Gnostic MUST Know This
(www.youtube.com)
Comments (39)
sorted by:
With all this gnosis talk I'd like to add that Jesus is lord with the perfect message to all- love one another.
u/#cheers
Most biblical scholars dont believe he was an Essene.
Personally I believe his teachings dont allign with the essenes although there are some parallels.
U can find parallels with all religions such as Buddhists.
Aldous Huxley - The Perennial Philosophy (and then on to Theosophy)
Tremendously clickbaity. Maybe we all already know it? Wanna include a submission statement, fren?
I share things I think would be helpful to others. watch it or dont. You do you.
A general statement of what is included is polite, I think. Would you be willing? Can be short, doesn't need to be an essay or anything.
You should be familiar with this. We have discussed many times in the past. I'm sure u/Nurikee is not aware of our messaging. We just have a basic, although fundamental disagreement on who the demiurge is. You believe Yahweh is God. I believe, just like the early Christians did, Yahweh is a lesser God. The first Christians discovered about Yahweh, why the Gnostic texts explicitly identify him as the demiurge and not the supreme God.
All i did was copy/paste the video title. Im not trying to clickbait anyone.
I haven't watched the video yet, I will soon. But, I'm familiar with the archons, because I have read most the manuscripts found at Nag Hammadi. All civilizations have been talking about demons, archons, jinns, morgellons or whatever other names they use. In Gnosticism, archons (Greek for "rulers") are malevolent, semi-hostile beings that govern the material universe and act as jailers to trap human souls within the physical realm.
They are led by the demiurge, a flawed creator god who fashioned the material world as a prison. Seems familiar? archons are nothing but entities the demiurge created to assist him in enforcing ignorance and separation from the divine Pleroma. The best description of the demiurge I found is in the Apocryphon of John. "Now the archon who is weak has three names. The first name is Yaldabaoth, the second is Saklas, and the third is Samael. And he is impious in his arrogance which is in him. For he said, 'I am God and there is no other God beside me,' for he is ignorant of his strength, the place from which he had come." - Apocryphon of John
The last part of the quote is found in the OT, and if you pay attention it's all beginning to make sense. Both John and Isaiah are talking about the same entity, the same jealous god, or the leader of the archons. "I am the LORD, and there is no other; there is no God but Me." - Isaiah 45:5
Well, the video title is trying to clickbait; in journalism that's called good headline writing.
What I'm wondering is where you take it. Are you a gnostic? What would gnostic mean then? Why would knowledge of archons be important for daily living? From the contributions of others: Do you have a problem with Jesus affirming a god who likes to sacrifice animals and enjoy the scent of their blood poured on a burning hot altar (we now call that BBQ)? Do you have a problem with Jesus affirming the "I AM" of the Hebrew Scriptures? Do you have a problem with the Bible calling God the Father a "Demiurge" (public servant) in Heb. 11:10?
Thanks for your consideration. I may have started with too much snark.
I don't owe you my personal feeling of every video I post on this forum or to anyone. Honestly Ive been feed up with the behavior of the mods and the user gatekeepers on all the .win forums that I dont put much care into the outcome of any of my posts. Every person will take from each media they see as they see fit. If this forum sees a need so bad for an explanation on each post perhaps there should be a box for text to do so in the submit page when creating a post. This is all I have left to say on any of this post feel free to reply but im done responding.
Removed for rule 1 violation.
Submission Statement from video creator:
• How the Demiurge created them
• Their role in shaping the physical universe
• The concept of the false god and the prison planet
• The spiritual war over human consciousness
• How Gnosis frees the divine spark within
The Father of Jesus likes to sacrifice animals and enjoys the scent of their blood poured on a burning hot altar. Amirite?
a) "And call no man your father upon the earth: for one is your Father, which is in heaven." Matthew 23:9 Putting a THE (theos; god) before FATHER implies an imposter...
b) Sacrifice implies "offering"; animal implies "all animation" aka all offering animation through each animated one within. It's putting the labels "animal" and "sacrifice" upon one another which distracts from God.
c) Same (animation) generating difference (animated) implies sacrifice...LIKE implies a self sacrifice of being differentiated from one another by choosing to behave like one another.
God divines aka makes private (apart)...not common (alike).
Set apart-Holy
The other way...from holy (whole) towards partial aka cause setting effect into position.
Better to try to be Holy then, I think.
The trial implies ones struggle to sustain particularity among commonality...within whole.
Trying to be Holy implies trying to be God...that's satanism. Trying to make holy implies tikkun olam (repairing the world by bringing together) which establishes a commonality (gentiles) under a particularity (jew) aka slavery.
TO implies God; BE implies being (life) forwarded (inception towards death) within God, which establishes the trial of sustenance.
That implies circular confinement (better vs worse)...not a free mind thinking straight.
A human trying to be Holy means to try to be set apart as God, our Creator, is set apart, (and Who sets us apart) we were made that way, to be within Him Who Created us and to be His, not to become Him.
Meaning implies holding onto aka defining as affixed to build a consensus among beings...that's a synthesis. Whole (holy) dividing (divining) partial implies an analysis.
Synthesis implies comfort (want); analysis implies trial (need)...there's a choice to be made in-between.
God remains whole (motion) while setting (momentum) apart (matter)...viewing God as apart implies God lacking parts.
Only within wholeness can apartheid come into being.
How was "our" created? By partials choosing to join together. Our implies a sum of partials ignoring whole setting partials apart from one another.
Whole cannot create for whole implies the whole of what could be created. Whole can only transform (transfer form) partial. Creationism was implanted into partial to build sums aka to permit few the summoning together of many.
Creationism implies speculative masonry permitting few to shape the imagination of many by free will of choice.
God WAS whole before partials within; set apart from one another, can suggest what IS.
US (uniting states together) contradicts apartheid (setting states apart).
Way implies singular motion...we implies plural of matter. If a singular being joins a plurality; then one loses ones way.
His implies possession...Him implies procession towards division (him/her) of being.
To become aka "coming towards being" implies His work...not aka "nihilo; nihilism" implies ones denial of His work.
It's ones consent to suggested creationism (creatio ex nihilo) which establishes nihilism (not).
If one lets go of creation, then nothing seizes to exist. Why? Because without creation there can be only transformation of everything into each thing.
ot god and nt god are different entities
How so?
a) Entity implies each being within God. Only within God (motion) can flowing abstract (momentum) form entity (matter).
b) Old Testament versus New Testament implies a circular conflict among differences turning against one another, hence making them ALIKE one another. Old vs new implies the mutual destruction of different entities, and it's based on a test/teks (to weave) of ment (mind) aka few weaving the minds of many together into a conflict.
c) "The thing that hath been, it is that which shall be; and that which is done is that which shall be done: and there is no NEW thing under the sun." ~Ecclesiastes 1:9
New implies the inversion of now, within which one old/al (to grow; nourish) aka God nourishing growth now....not before (old) or after (new). If one chooses new or old, then one ignores now aka living within k-NOW-ledge.
Maybe that's why Jesus was praying to the Father and not the god of the OT. When Jesus said, "I and the father are one," he was not claiming to be Yahweh. He was describing his consciousness in complete synthesis with the ultimate source beyond all creation.
Where do you find this?
I'm surprised you don't know this. In Gnostic belief systems, Jesus prayed to the Father (Monad) as the ultimate, ineffable source of all being, often referred to as the "God above God" or Bythos, distinct from the lesser creator deity known as the Demiurge (aka Yahweh in the OT). Gnostics viewed the Monad as a singular, formless essence without name, emotion, or form, from which all spiritual emanations (Aeons) flow, including the Christ spirit. That's what many of the early Christians believed as well.
I was curious to know what you know about it.
From my understanding, Jesus is the part of the Trinity as God's Form, and He has had other Forms before His Jesus Flesh. God's Form is inextricabley connected to His Holy Spirit and His Godhead. I've been given this knowledge from His word and Him teaching me by His Spirit.
That's what the Church teaches. It doesn't mean they're right. Jesus does not say “I am the Father” or “the Father and I am one.”. He says “the Father and I are [plural] one".
Even Tertullian admitted: “Thus the Father is distinct from the Son, being greater than the Son, inasmuch as He who begets is one, and He who is begotten is another”. That didn't go well with the orthodox theologians at that time. Some even called it heresy. After much debate orthodox settled for the paradox of the Trinity: there are three persons, all of whom are God, but there is only one God. One God, manifest in three persons, who are distinct in number but united somehow. Many people, myself included, find this mind-boggling. As many have already noted it's a notion that challenges human logic and the law of non-contradiction.
Jesus is the Most High God's physical form. See also the Burning Bush, the Fire by night and the Cloud by day, the Angel of the Lord and Melchizedek, all Jesus Christ before His Human Flesh incarnation, pretty sure.
The lesser (Samael) is so much less that he does not deserve the titles creator, deity, demiurge, or Yahweh. If gnostics are so monist you'd think they wouldn't deify some subaeonic upstart. The whole Sophia shtik is simply kicking theodicy down the road. Christ is about timeless emanation, not sequential emanation, which literally comes from Kek of the Egyptian ogdoad.
Yahweh, you mean the god of the OT, the god of the Jews. He would be so proud to see his chosen people doing so much good in the world today. From Gaza, to Lebanon and Iran. Spreading goodness and love all over the place.