description of god - gnostic style

[gnostic]

I supposed this thread for those believers of the Abrahamic religions, but anyone can participate.

I have here, god being described in one Gnostic scripture: The Apocryphon of John (or Secret Book of John).

Note that god described here, have no relation to the creator of this physical world. The creator was known as the Demiurge, the First Archon and by its names - Yaldabaoth (child of chaos), Samael (blind god), and he was offspring of Sophia (wisdom).

The god which is described below in The Apocryphon of John, has no name, and it is the first and original god, aKnd it is called Monad or the Invisible Spirit.

And I asked to know it, and he said to me, "The Monad is a monarchy with nothing above it. It is he who exists as God and Father of everything, the invisible One who is above everything, who exists as incorruption, which is in the pure light into which no eye can look.

"He is the invisible Spirit, of whom it is not right to think of him as a god, or something similar. For he is more than a god, since there is nothing above him, for no one lords it over him. For he does not exist in something inferior to him, since everything exists in him. For it is he who establishes himself. He is eternal, since he does not need anything. For he is total perfection. He did not lack anything, that he might be completed by it; rather he is always completely perfect in light. He is illimitable, since there is no one prior to him to set limits to him. He is unsearchable, since there exists no one prior to him to examine him. He is immeasurable, since there was no one prior to him to measure him. He is invisible, since no one saw him. He is eternal, since he exists eternally. He is ineffable, since no one was able to comprehend him to speak about him. He is unnameable, since there is no one prior to him to give him a name.

"He is immeasurable light, which is pure, holy (and) immaculate. He is ineffable, being perfect in incorruptibility. (He is) not in perfection, nor in blessedness, nor in divinity, but he is far superior. He is not corporeal nor is he incorporeal. He is neither large nor is he small. There is no way to say, 'What is his quantity?' or, 'What is his quality?', for no one can know him. He is not someone among (other) beings, rather he is far superior. Not that he is (simply) superior, but his essence does not partake in the aeons nor in time. For he who partakes in an aeon was prepared beforehand. Time was not apportioned to him, since he does not receive anything from another, for it would be received on loan. For he who precedes someone does not lack, that he may receive from him. For rather, it is the latter that looks expectantly at him in his light.

"For the perfection is majestic. He is pure, immeasurable mind. He is an aeon-giving aeon. He is life-giving life. He is a blessedness-giving blessed one. He is knowledge-giving knowledge. He is goodness-giving goodness. He is mercy and redemption-giving mercy. He is grace-giving grace, not because he possesses it, but because he gives the immeasurable, incomprehensible light.

My question is:

Would you think that this would describe the god of your religion?
​

In another word, do you agree with the description?

It is Gnostic concept of what the god is like.

The offspring of Sophia (Yaldabaoth or the Demiurge), on the other hand, was described like some chimera-like monster, with head of lion and body of serpent:

"And when she saw (the consequences of) her desire, it changed into a form of a lion-faced serpent. And its eyes were like lightning fires which flash. She cast it away from her, outside that place, that no one of the immortal ones might see it, for she had created it in ignorance. And she surrounded it with a luminous cloud, and she placed a throne in the middle of the cloud that no one might see it except the holy Spirit who is called the mother of the living. And she called his name Yaltabaoth.

 

[nnmartin]

yes, I believe God to be like this.

The only problem is that mainstream Christians do not seem to accept this - they say that Jesus was physical. I say not.

Perhaps I am a Gnostic?

 

[gnostic]

The only problem is that mainstream Christians do not seem to accept this - they say that Jesus was physical. I say not.

Well it is odd concept, but not truly unique.

In Hinduism, they believe in god-human, where the god becomes human. And in Egypt, the king was the living Horus.

Or in various ancient religions, offspring born of immortal and mortal parents is far more common outside of ancient Israel.

 

[sojourner]

I'm curious: If Gnosticism is about knowing -- and this "Invisible Spirit" is unknowable, doesn't that sort of place the Gnostic in an impossible position with regard to having any kind of relationship with this Spirit? And isn't that the whole point of religion: To build a relationship of some kind with Deity?

I'm not calling Gnosticism into question here, but I am curious as to how you all can garner anything useful from such a construct?

 

[jamaesi]

This is a very topical thread for me, I'm currently studying the Secret Book of John because I am becoming increasingly and exuberantly convinced this myth is in the Qur'an and fits in perfectly with my religion.

I'm curious: If Gnosticism is about knowing -- and this "Invisible Spirit" is unknowable, doesn't that sort of place the Gnostic in an impossible position with regard to having any kind of relationship with this Spirit? And isn't that the whole point of religion: To build a relationship of some kind with Deity?

I'm not calling Gnosticism into question here, but I am curious as to how you all can garner anything useful from such a construct?

I'm confused why you think you can't build a relationship with G-d, that's what prayer and meditation are for. We lift our hearts in prayer and mind in meditation to unite with G-d and receive grace and gnosis.

While G-d is unknowable to us we have been given ways to have some understanding of G-d. In Islam, we have the 99 names of G-d that give us but a small glimpse. I won't speak to this in Christian Gnosticism as I won't do it justice.

And above all, this knowing, receiving gnosis, it's not a logical thing, it's an experience. To know yourself is to know G-d.

 

[gnostic]

I'm curious: If Gnosticism is about knowing -- and this "Invisible Spirit" is unknowable, doesn't that sort of place the Gnostic in an impossible position with regard to having any kind of relationship with this Spirit? And isn't that the whole point of religion: To build a relationship of some kind with Deity?

Interesting question.

The Gnostics were ancient myth makers in order to explain their belief. Whether they believe the myth they make, I have to say I don't know.

But I'll try to explain what The Apocryphon of John (TAoJ) try to convey, at the very least my understanding of the text.

Although TAoJ speak of the Invisible Spirit with some of the descriptive attributes of this god, the real purpose of the text was really about the origin of humans and how humans may return to the fullness (pleroma) through gnosis (knowledge).

So the gnosis (at least in The Apocryphon of John) is not really about knowing god as to knowing where we come from, the spark of life from the pleroma and knowing how to liberate the spark and escape the demiurge's trap and return to the pleroma. This god is still unknowable, but (humans) knowing their origin and potential.

Well that is my view when I read The Apocryphon of John.

 

[nnmartin]

I'm curious: If Gnosticism is about knowing -- and this "Invisible Spirit" is unknowable, doesn't that sort of place the Gnostic in an impossible position with regard to having any kind of relationship with this Spirit? And isn't that the whole point of religion: To build a relationship of some kind with Deity?

?

why do you need to have a relationship with a Deity?

I don't believe that to be possible - yet I am still religious.

God can be revered and sensed but relationship sounds too man made.

 

[Landerage]

For me as a Muslim agree to that description as a way for a human being to get closer to God, however anything that the words can describe about God is still too far from the reality of God. But for our human nature it is an adequate description.

 

[Terrywoodenpic]

It is an attempt to describe the supreme nature of God.
It is rather flowery and repetitive, but not unreasonable.
I suspect many Trinitarians would find it lacking in any specific mention of Jesus or the Holy Spirit.

But I think it should be accepted for what it does say rather than for what it does not.

 

[gnostic]

why do you need to have a relationship with a Deity?

I don't believe that to be possible - yet I am still religious.

God can be revered and sensed but relationship sounds too man made.

I've never understood how anyone love a god or gods.

To me, you can only love a person who you can actually look, hear or touch, interact like speak or listen to. I can't possibly love someone who I have not met. You can't possibly know a person without meeting them.

How do you a being that you can't do any of the above?

It is truly beyond me.

So a relationship with a god? I don't see how it is possible too.

 

[gnostic]

For me as a Muslim agree to that description as a way for a human being to get closer to God, however anything that the words can describe about God is still too far from the reality of God.

That is if there is even a god to describe.

So far as I can tell, this is the only reality that exist. We only have some books of different religions, and the testimonies of dozens or so people who claimed to be "prophets", "messengers", "apostles" or "disciples".

There are Christians and Muslims who dismiss ancient polytheistic religions and their gods/goddesses to be false religions and sacred texts as myths. But from my view, I can just as easily dismiss everything in the Abrahamic religions to be myths, because I see know reality of this god as being nothing more than a mythological being.

But be that as it may, I don't actually care if there is a "true religion" or "false religion". It doesn't matter.

 

[Landerage]

That is if there is even a god to describe.

So far as I can tell, this is the only reality that exist. We only have some books of different religions, and the testimonies of dozens or so people who claimed to be "prophets", "messengers", "apostles" or "disciples".

There are Christians and Muslims who dismiss ancient polytheistic religions and their gods/goddesses to be false religions and sacred texts as myths. But from my view, I can just as easily dismiss everything in the Abrahamic religions to be myths, because I see know reality of this god as being nothing more than a mythological being.

But be that as it may, I don't actually care if there is a "true religion" or "false religion". It doesn't matter.

As what concerns the description, I dont think a human being have any use to know more about God then that. It simply wont bring him any value for his life if he knew more and he can't know more anyway about the nature of God.
"only some books" well let me tell you that humans are greedy in nature, and sometimes a "book" for them isn't enough, but thats very superficial, because some books are authetic and I beleive in the Qur'an as book of God, and no one can ever prove that it isn't God's book. If you claim it as "only a book", do know that it converted bilions for Islam and changed history. That's what a book can do. Do know that one human being called Christ was able to change the beleifs of bilions and bilions for thousands of years, same goes for prophet Muhammed. Not saying that it's right or wrong, but im telling that a "book" or a "human being" have great power, neither im telling you to look at numbers to see it's true. All im saying that we should not underestimate any human being, or any "book" unless we realise what it truely is. And prophets claiming to be prophets doesn't lack truth, because nobody can prove that such a person or such a book isn't a prophet or coming from God. If a person not willing to listen and see what is the message of that prophet or that book, that is his own problem and his own personal choice.
As for God being a mythological reality, that is your own opinion but change nothing about what religion calls for, which is moral values, repsect, honesty and simply to do good deeds in life, and for some might be the answer they were looking for.
Well your saying that it doesn't matter, but for me it's the only purpose for living, is to find why we exist and that what religion brought me, it brought me answers. Aslong as there is no better alternative (going back to Pascal) would be wrong not to aim towards the truth at all time.

 

[SCHIZO]

I supposed this thread for those believers of the Abrahamic religions, but anyone can participate.

I have here, god being described in one Gnostic scripture: The Apocryphon of John (or Secret Book of John).

Note that god described here, have no relation to the creator of this physical world. The creator was known as the Demiurge, the First Archon and by its names - Yaldabaoth (child of chaos), Samael (blind god), and he was offspring of Sophia (wisdom).

The god which is described below in The Apocryphon of John, has no name, and it is the first and original god, aKnd it is called Monad or the Invisible Spirit.




My question is:

Would you think that this would describe the god of your religion?
​

In another word, do you agree with the description?

It is Gnostic concept of what the god is like.

The offspring of Sophia (Yaldabaoth or the Demiurge), on the other hand, was described like some chimera-like monster, with head of lion and body of serpent:

As a gnostic I can tell you that the Father is known through the Son (there is nothing hidden that will not be revealed). The words of Jesus speak about the Father. The words of Jesus are the Father's knowledge. Gnosis is only achieved through the words of Jesus and Gnosis is the Union with the Father. The gospel of Thomas is a good source of gnosis since Jesus' words are found there. The new testament is a good source of gnosis since Jesus' words are found there too.

 

[SCHIZO]

I'm curious: If Gnosticism is about knowing -- and this "Invisible Spirit" is unknowable, doesn't that sort of place the Gnostic in an impossible position with regard to having any kind of relationship with this Spirit? And isn't that the whole point of religion: To build a relationship of some kind with Deity?

I'm not calling Gnosticism into question here, but I am curious as to how you all can garner anything useful from such a construct?

Many gnostics leave out Jesus. Jesus is the central figure in gnosticism. Without Jesus there is no gnosis. The Father is known through the son. The words of Jesus are gnosis because the words of Jesus are the knowledge of the Father. The gospel of thomas is a good source of gnosis because the words of Jesus are found there. The new testament is also a good source of gnosis because the words of Jesus are found there. Speaking the words of God (and understanding) is the same as going through gnosis.

 

[SCHIZO]

This is a very topical thread for me, I'm currently studying the Secret Book of John because I am becoming increasingly and exuberantly convinced this myth is in the Qur'an and fits in perfectly with my religion.



I'm confused why you think you can't build a relationship with G-d, that's what prayer and meditation are for. We lift our hearts in prayer and mind in meditation to unite with G-d and receive grace and gnosis.

While G-d is unknowable to us we have been given ways to have some understanding of G-d. In Islam, we have the 99 names of G-d that give us but a small glimpse. I won't speak to this in Christian Gnosticism as I won't do it justice.

And above all, this knowing, receiving gnosis, it's not a logical thing, it's an experience. To know yourself is to know G-d.

you don't receive gnosis through meditation and prayer. you receive gnosis through speaking and understanding the word of God (Jesus). The word of god is direct knowledge of the living Father. Only in union with this knowledge do you become a gnostic.

 

[SCHIZO]

Interesting question.

The Gnostics were ancient myth makers in order to explain their belief. Whether they believe the myth they make, I have to say I don't know.

But I'll try to explain what The Apocryphon of John (TAoJ) try to convey, at the very least my understanding of the text.

Although TAoJ speak of the Invisible Spirit with some of the descriptive attributes of this god, the real purpose of the text was really about the origin of humans and how humans may return to the fullness (pleroma) through gnosis (knowledge).

So the gnosis (at least in The Apocryphon of John) is not really about knowing god as to knowing where we come from, the spark of life from the pleroma and knowing how to liberate the spark and escape the demiurge's trap and return to the pleroma. This god is still unknowable, but (humans) knowing their origin and potential.

Well that is my view when I read The Apocryphon of John.

Everyone always leaves out Jesus when they talk about Gnosticism, especially so-called gnostics. Jesus is no myth. The only thing in gnosticism that matters is Jesus.

 

[SCHIZO]

For me as a Muslim agree to that description as a way for a human being to get closer to God, however anything that the words can describe about God is still too far from the reality of God. But for our human nature it is an adequate description.

mercy and compassion are far from the descriptive reality of God? Is there another word for mercy or compassion that those two words don't already attribute to? Mercy is mercy and compassion is compassion. There is nothing that cannot be described with words.

 

[SCHIZO]

It is an attempt to describe the supreme nature of God.
It is rather flowery and repetitive, but not unreasonable.
I suspect many Trinitarians would find it lacking in any specific mention of Jesus or the Holy Spirit.

But I think it should be accepted for what it does say rather than for what it does not.

Gnostics believe in the Holy trinity. Father Son and Holy Ghost are all relevant throughout the entire Nag Hammadi.

 

[SCHIZO]

I've never understood how anyone love a god or gods.

To me, you can only love a person who you can actually look, hear or touch, interact like speak or listen to. I can't possibly love someone who I have not met. You can't possibly know a person without meeting them.

How do you a being that you can't do any of the above?

It is truly beyond me.

So a relationship with a god? I don't see how it is possible too.

The best way to form a relationship with God is to hold onto something tangible. His living word is proof of his presence with you.

 

[CynthiaCypher]

I'm curious: If Gnosticism is about knowing -- and this "Invisible Spirit" is unknowable, doesn't that sort of place the Gnostic in an impossible position with regard to having any kind of relationship with this Spirit? And isn't that the whole point of religion: To build a relationship of some kind with Deity?

We're the same. The Fullness resides in me and I in it. The All in all , read Eph. 4.6