The origins of Gnosticism

The origins of Gnosticism

Anti-Jewish Gnosticism started in Judaism itself it first came about from a rejection of the law of Moses this can be seen from the books of Maccabees

1 Maccabees 1:11 In those days lawless men came forth from Israel, and misled many, saying, "Let us go and make a covenant with the Gentiles round about us, for since we separated from them many evils have come upon us."
[12] This proposal pleased them,
[13] and some of the people eagerly went to the king. He authorized them to observe the ordinances of the Gentiles.
[14] So they built a gymnasium in Jerusalem, according to Gentile custom,
[15] and removed the marks of circumcision, and abandoned the holy covenant. They joined with the Gentiles and sold themselves to do evil.
[16]

According to 2 Macc 4:10 When the king had granted this and Jason had taken possession of his office, he immediately made his fellow citizens change to the Greek way of life. 11 He set aside the customs established for the Jews by royal generosity, negotiated through John the father of Eupolemus (the one who had made the official journey to secure friendship and alliance with the Romans). He abolished the lawful government and introduced customs contrary to the law.

This is the creation of Anti-Jewish Gnosticism 

---

The Origins of Gnosticism

Gnosticism, broadly defined, refers to a series of religious movements that emphasized secret knowledge (gnosis) as the path to salvation, often viewing the material world as flawed or corrupt. While it reached its height in the 2nd and 3rd centuries CE through Christianized Gnostic sects like the Valentinians and Sethians, the origins of Gnosticism trace back to a much earlier time—within Jewish Hellenistic circles influenced by Greek philosophy.

Two early witnesses, Josephus and Philo of Alexandria, offer piercing criticisms of what can rightly be seen as the seeds of early Gnosticism—individuals among the Jews who blended Greek philosophical speculation with the Hebrew Scriptures, leading to mystical reinterpretations that deviated sharply from the Law.

In Against Apion (2.256–257), Josephus laments:

“Some among us have been so delighted with Greek culture that they have not only neglected their own laws, but have laughed at them and even attempted to misinterpret them with forced allegories, for the sake of Greek philosophy.”

Here, Josephus describes a trend among certain Hellenized Jews who abandoned the traditional, literal interpretation of the Hebrew Scriptures in favor of allegorized, philosophical reinterpretations. These figures, in Josephus’s eyes, betrayed the integrity of the ancestral Law in their attempt to harmonize Judaism with the dominant intellectual currents of the Greco-Roman world.

Philo, a Jewish philosopher deeply immersed in both Torah and Platonic thought, also distinguishes himself from those who went too far. In On Dreams (1.29–31), he writes:

“Some, boasting of wisdom falsely so-called, pervert philosophy into a cloak for impiety, weaving together fictions and monstrous tales, daring to call their own baseless opinions divine oracles… mixing plausible doctrines with ridiculous delusions.”

This scathing rebuke shows that even within Philo’s own allegorical approach, there were individuals or movements he deemed to be going beyond the bounds of reason and reverence. These "boasters" likely represent a form of proto-Gnosticism—combining Jewish traditions with speculative myths, secret teachings, and the language of divine revelation.

Jewish Roots of Gnostic Thought

The historical setting that gave rise to Gnosticism was the cultural melting pot of Hellenistic Judaism, especially during and after the time of Antiochus IV Epiphanes (2nd century BCE). The trauma of foreign oppression, combined with exposure to Platonic dualism and mystery religions, led some Jewish thinkers to recast their theology.

Groups like the Essenes and the Therapeutae already show elements of this development:

• A focus on asceticism and ritual purity

• A dualistic worldview of light and darkness

• A preference for symbolic and allegorical interpretations of the Law

• A view of the material world as something to be escaped or transcended

Such groups, though still rooted in Jewish tradition, were beginning to reframe the Scriptures in ways that resemble the Gnostic mythos that would later fully emerge.

One of the most revealing facts about early Gnosticism is its reuse and reinterpretation of Jewish apocalyptic literature, especially texts like 1 Enoch, In this text, divine knowledge is imparted by angels, rather than through the direct revelation of the Mosaic law, and the origins of evil are explained through the descent of the Watchers and their impartation of forbidden knowledge. This rejection of the Torah and its institutions, such as the priesthood and sacrifices, provides an early critique of traditional Jewish practices.

In Enoch 89:73, the text states:

"Upon the return from exile, the people reared up that tower (the temple) and they began again to place a table before the tower, but all the bread on it was polluted and not pure."

This rejection of the temple and its rituals aligns with the critique of the established religious order, an attitude that would later characterize Gnostic thought, which saw the material world and its institutions as corrupt and inferior to the higher, spiritual realm.

It was from this foundation that the Sethian Gnostics would arise, venerating Seth as the father of a spiritual race and interpreting the Hebrew God as a lesser being called  Yaldabaoth. These views were born in opposition to Judaism, as speculative, mystical rejections of its laws and traditions.

From Jewish to Christian Gnosticism

Early Gnostic texts like Eugnostos the Blessed are entirely devoid of Christian elements, showing that Gnostic theology originated outside the Christian movement. This text, with its complex theology of divine emanations, unknowable principles, and Aeons, later formed the core of the Christianized Sophia of Jesus Christ, where the same teachings are now placed in the mouth of the resurrected Jesus.

This shift represents the Christianization of Jewish mystical speculation. Gnosticism did not begin as a Christian heresy—it began as a radical, mystical form of Judaism influenced by Greek philosophy. It only became Christian in the 2nd century when figures began to insert Jesus into their already-developed systems.

Texts like the Apocryphon of John show the fusion point. The risen Christ appears to John the apostle, revealing the true history of the world. In this narrative, the Creator God of Genesis is reinterpreted as an ignorant or arrogant entity called Yaldabaoth, while the true Father remains hidden in the Pleroma. This represents a complete departure from Judaism, where its symbols and teachings were distorted through Hellenistic philosophy and apocalyptic myths, later being reshaped to fit a Christianized framework.

Conclusion

The origins of Gnosticism lie in a fusion of Jewish apocalyptic expectation, Greek metaphysics, and allegorical scriptural interpretation. The critiques of Josephus and Philo show that even before the Christian era, certain Jewish thinkers were blending Torah with philosophy, creating systems that emphasized secret knowledge, allegory, and speculative theology.

Later, these Jewish Gnostic streams would be absorbed into emerging Christianity, where the figure of Jesus was interpreted not just as a teacher or Messiah, but as a heavenly revealer of mysteries. But the roots are older—planted in the soil of Second Temple Judaism, watered by Greek thought, and criticized by Josephus, Philo, and later Paul, who warned Timothy to “avoid the profane babblings and contradictions of what is falsely called knowledge (gnosis)” (1 Timothy 6:20).

Gnosticism did not emerge as a mystical evolution from within Judaism but rather as a reaction to the rejection of the Torah and the customs of Israel. Beginning with the influence of Hellenistic culture under rulers like Antiochus IV Epiphanes, many Jews started to abandon their ancestral laws in favor of Greek philosophy and cultural practices. This rejection of the Law, which is evident in sources such as the Book of Maccabees, laid the groundwork for early Gnostic thought. The Gnostics adopted elements of Greek philosophy and myth, creating speculative doctrines and claiming access to secret knowledge, all while disregarding the traditional Jewish understanding of the Torah. Their approach was marked by disdain for the Jewish law, mixing Greek thought with mystical teachings that contradicted the teachings of Israel.

Yaldabaoth, Saklas, and Samael: The Symbols of Human Arrogance

"I Am God — A Biblical Exposition on Human Arrogance and False Divinity

Throughout history, human rulers and institutions have elevated themselves to positions of godlike authority, claiming divine status and demanding absolute allegiance. This ancient delusion is well-documented in both scripture and early Christian writings. A prime example appears in the Apocryphon of John, where a rebellious figure declares: “I am God and there is no other God beside me.” This statement, uttered by the arrogant archon known as Yaldabaoth, echoes through history — not as the voice of supernatural demons or fallen angels, but in the words and actions of human powers.

In this interpretation, Yaldabaoth, Saklas, and Samael symbolize not literal beings but represent the arrogance of Roman emperors and the Papacy, both of whom have historically claimed divine authority and dominion over others. These rulers assumed the role of ‘gods’ on earth, setting themselves against the true God and His purposes.

Yaldabaoth, Saklas, and Samael: The Symbols of Human Arrogance

The Apocryphon of John states:

"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."

In this passage, Yaldabaoth represents earthly rulers such as Roman emperors, who demanded worship and claimed divinity. Saklas, meaning ‘fool,’ points to the ignorance inherent in these claims. Samael, the ‘blind god,’ reveals the blindness of those powers to the one true God. None of these are literal spiritual entities; rather, they are symbolic of human institutions exalting themselves beyond their place.

Biblical Testimony Against Human Divinization

Scripture consistently warns against the sin of arrogantly claiming divine status. Paul writes:

“For though there be that are called gods, whether in heaven or in earth, (as there be gods many, and lords many)” (1 Corinthians 8:5).

These ‘gods’ are not supernatural beings, but rulers and authorities who have elevated themselves, much like Roman emperors and later religious institutions. Ezekiel records:

“Because your heart is lifted up, and you say, ‘I am a god, I sit in the seat of God, in the heart of the seas’; yet you are a man and not God, though you make your heart like the heart of God” (Ezekiel 28:2).

This was addressed to the King of Tyre — a mere man, not an angelic being. His claim to divinity was condemned because he was an earthling pretending to be divine, much like the Roman emperors seated themselves as deities and claimed the titles of divinity.

Echoes in Prophecy and History

Daniel foresaw rulers who would exalt themselves:

“And the king shall do according to his will; and he shall exalt himself, and magnify himself above every god, and shall speak marvellous things against the God of gods” (Daniel 11:36).

Paul confirms this in the New Testament:

“Who opposeth and exalteth himself above all that is called God, or that is worshipped; so that he as God sitteth in the temple of God, shewing himself that he is God” (2 Thessalonians 2:4).

This prophecy was fulfilled in both Roman emperors and the Papacy, each claiming divine authority. The Papacy, seated in what was once called “the temple of God,” appropriated to itself spiritual authority, declaring itself infallible and demanding reverence as God’s exclusive representative. Revelation likewise exposes these blasphemies:

“And he opened his mouth in blasphemy against God, to blaspheme his name, and his tabernacle, and them that dwell in heaven” (Revelation 13:6).

The Fall of Tyre and the Fall of Man

The lamentation over the King of Tyre in Ezekiel 28 is no account of a fallen angel, but of a man — one who claimed divinity in his pride. His downfall is likened to the fall of Adam:

“You are man” (v. 2) — the Hebrew word used is adam. The King of Tyre, like Adam, lifted himself up and was cast down. The description of precious stones recalls the breastplate of the high priest (Exodus 39:10-14), representing his position among earthly leaders on Mount Zion — God’s holy mountain, here symbolizing Jerusalem.

Verses 16-18 make clear that his sin was one of dishonest gain and arrogance, not angelic rebellion. His judgment, like Adam’s, was to be brought low — “to the ground” (v. 17) — a return to dust.

Conclusion: Recognizing Human Power for What It Is

This message serves as a warning to all who would elevate themselves above their station. No human institution — be it empire or religious authority — has the right to claim divine status. The history of Rome and the Papacy stands as a testimony to the folly of those who declare, “I am God.” The consistent biblical witness reveals that those who make such claims are blind, ignorant, and foolish, destined for ruin at the hands of the true God.

The faithful are called to reject these false claims and hold fast to the one true God who gives life, wisdom, and authority, not to those who boast, but to those who humble themselves before Him.

The *Apocryphon of John Does Not Teach Śūnyatā

 The *Apocryphon of John* Does Not Teach *Śūnyatā

Welcome to Pleroma Pathways, apocalyptic and mystic Christianity, where we explore esoteric and apocalyptic texts.  

The idea that the *Apocryphon of John* aligns with Buddhist *śūnyatā* is a misinterpretation. While both traditions use terms like "fullness" and "emptiness," their meanings and implications differ significantly.  

### **1. The *Apocryphon of John* Does Not Teach *Śūnyatā***  

The *Apocryphon of John* presents the Pleroma as **fullness**, not emptiness. The Great Invisible Spirit is described as ineffable, but it is not equivalent to Buddhist *śūnyatā*. The text states:  

> *"It is the immeasurable light, the pure, holy brightness, ineffable. It is unpolluted, indivisible, ineffable truth that no one can comprehend."*  

This passage clearly presents the Pleroma as fullness, not emptiness. The Gnostic concept of divine reality is one of light, truth, and indivisibility—not the negation of inherent existence, as seen in Madhyamaka *śūnyatā*. Unlike Buddhist thought, which denies an ultimate self-existent reality, Gnosticism affirms a transcendent and self-sustaining divine realm. This does not align with the Mahāyāna doctrine of *śūnyatā*, which emphasizes that all dharmas are empty of inherent existence. Gnostic cosmology **asserts the real existence of the Pleroma**—it is not merely a conceptual negation.  

### **2. Dependence vs. Emanation: Contrasting Ontologies**  

Buddhist *śūnyatā* in Madhyamaka states that all things arise dependently (*pratītyasamutpāda*), meaning they have no intrinsic being. Gnostic thought, however, teaches **emanation**, where Aeons emerge as real, divine attributes from the First Principle. The Pleroma is not *dependent* on conditions; it is a **self-existing** realm of divine fullness.  

Madhyamaka *śūnyatā* ultimately negates inherent existence, whereas Gnostic emanationism affirms **the ontological reality of divine being**. The two are irreconcilable.  

### **3. The *Apocryphon of John* Does Not Teach Non-Grasping (*Anātman-Graha*)**  

In Buddhist *śūnyatā samādhi*, liberation involves the dissolution of attachment (*ātma-graha*). The *Apocryphon of John*, however, does not describe salvation as detachment from all conditioned existence but rather as **the restoration of divine knowledge** (*gnosis*).  

The false reality constructed by the Archons is a deception, not an illusion in the Madhyamaka sense. The Gnostic path is about **recovering knowledge of one’s origin**, not merely overcoming conceptual grasping. The text speaks of **ignorance** as the cause of entrapment, not clinging to inherently non-existent dharmas.  

### **4. Parmenides and Gnostic Thought Are Not Buddhist**  

Parmenides’ notion of *Aletheia* (truth) contrasts *Doxa* (opinion), asserting that reality is unchanging and eternal. This aligns more with **Platonic metaphysics** than with Buddhist dependent origination. The *Apocryphon of John*’s reference to the Great Invisible Spirit reflects this **unchanging reality**, not the impermanence of all things.  

Additionally, the passage about Archons as afflictions does not support Buddhist *kleśa-śūnyatā*. Gnosticism does not teach purification through non-grasping but **liberation through knowledge**—the recognition of one’s divine origin.  

### **5. The True Meaning of Pleroma**  

Pleroma is **not an emptiness awaiting conceptual deconstruction**. It is the **fullness of divine attributes**. The idea that the luminous Pleroma corresponds to Buddhist *śūnyatā samādhi* overlooks the fact that Gnostic illumination is about **reunion with the divine**, not transcendence into non-dual emptiness.  

The Buddhist path ultimately negates the self. Gnosticism, however, teaches that **the self, as a divine reality, must be restored**. This is the fundamental difference:  

- *Gnosis* leads to **fullness**, not dissolution.  

- *Śūnyatā* leads to **emptiness**, negating inherent existence.  

### **Conclusion: No Synthesis Between Gnosticism and Buddhism**  

Attempts to merge these traditions distort both. The *Apocryphon of John* does not teach *śūnyatā*, *pratītyasamutpāda*, or non-grasping (*anātma-graha*). Instead, it affirms **the real existence of divine fullness**, the deception of the Archons, and the necessity of recovering knowledge of one’s divine origin.  

Buddhism and Gnosticism remain distinct: one negates selfhood, the other seeks its restoration.

Gnostic Fullness vs. Buddhist Emptiness: The True Path to Pleroma

 

Gnostic Fullness vs. Buddhist Emptiness: The True Path to Pleroma**  

One of the fundamental differences between Gnosticism and Buddhist thought, particularly in its Theravāda and Mahāyāna expressions, lies in the concept of **fullness** (*pleroma*) versus **emptiness** (*śūnyatā*). While some claim that Mahāyāna Buddhism, especially in its Dzogchen and Kashmiri Shaivite interpretations, aligns with Gnostic cosmology, this is ultimately a misrepresentation of the Gnostic pursuit of divine wholeness.  

### **The Gnostic Desire for Fullness**  

The **Pleroma** in Gnostic thought represents the totality of divine attributes, the realm of true existence. Gnosticism does not seek to **empty** itself into nothingness but to be **filled** with divine knowledge (*gnosis*), wisdom, and life. This is a direct contrast to the Buddhist concept of liberation, which often involves dissolving the self into an ungraspable void.  

As the *Apocryphon of James* states:  

*"Do you not, then, desire to be filled? And your heart is drunken; do you not, then, desire to be sober? Therefore, I say to you, 'Become full, and leave no space within you empty, for he who is coming can mock you.'"*  

Then Peter replied, *"Lo, three times you have told us, 'Become full'; but we are full."*  

The Savior answered and said, *"For this cause I have said to you, 'Become full,' that you may not be in want. They who are in want, however, will not be saved. For it is good to be full and bad to be in want. Hence, just as it is good that you be in want and, conversely, bad that you be full, so he who is full is in want, and he who is in want does not become full, as he who is in want becomes full, and he who has been filled, in turn, attains due perfection. Therefore, you must be in want while it is possible to fill you, and be full while it is possible for you to be in want, so that you may be able to fill yourselves the more. Hence, become full of the Spirit, but be in want of reason, for reason <belongs to> the soul; in turn, it is (of the nature of) soul."* (*Apocryphon of James*)  

This passage makes it clear: Gnosticism calls for the **filling of the spiritual self**, not its annihilation.  

### **Emptiness vs. Fullness: Why Gnosticism Rejects Buddhist Śūnyatā**  

In Buddhist thought, particularly within Theravāda and certain strains of Mahāyāna, the idea of *śūnyatā* (emptiness) is central. The goal is to realize that all things are devoid of intrinsic selfhood, ultimately leading to the dissolution of personal identity. In contrast, Gnostic thought holds that **the self is not an illusion to be erased but a divine fragment to be restored and filled with light**.  

Jesus does not instruct his disciples to seek **nothingness** but rather **fullness**. If emptiness were the goal, he would have taught them to abandon their longing for divine knowledge. Instead, he repeatedly tells them to **become full**, for only those who are **filled with truth and Spirit** will reach salvation.  

### **The Danger of Spiritual Emptiness**  

Buddhist emptiness leaves the door open for **deception and spiritual stagnation**. As Jesus warns, *"Leave no space within you empty, for he who is coming can mock you."* An empty vessel can be filled with anything—including falsehood. This is why Gnosticism does not advocate the destruction of the self but its **transformation** through the reception of divine knowledge.  

If we accept Buddhist emptiness as a valid path, we contradict the fundamental Gnostic understanding that **we are meant to be filled with divine knowledge, not emptied into nothingness**. The fullness of Pleroma is not a void—it is the highest reality, the ultimate truth.  

### **No Pleroma in Buddhism**  

While some attempt to link Mahāyāna concepts like *"form is emptiness, emptiness is form"* to the **Pleroma**, this is a misunderstanding of both systems. The **Pleroma is not empty—it is the** **fullness of divine reality**. Buddhist thought, on the other hand, ultimately seeks to **deconstruct the notion of inherent being altogether**. The end goal of Buddhism is **nirvāṇa**, the cessation of existence as a distinct self. The goal of Gnosticism is **union with the divine**, the restoration of the self within the fullness of Pleroma.  

### **The True Path: Fullness in Christ**  

Jesus is called **the Light of the world, the Illuminator of knowledge**. He did not teach a doctrine of negation but one of **awakening and restoration**. In John 10:10, he declares:  

> *“I have come that they may have life, and that they may have it more abundantly.”*  

This **abundant life** is the opposite of the Buddhist idea of self-dissolution. The Gospel of Thomas reinforces this idea:  

> *"If you bring forth what is within you, what you have will save you. If you do not bring forth what is within you, what you do not have will destroy you."*  

What is within us? **The divine spark, the potential for fullness**. We are meant to awaken to it, not extinguish it into emptiness.  

The idea that Gnosticism and Buddhism are fundamentally similar collapses under scrutiny. **Gnosticism seeks the fullness of divine knowledge, while Buddhism aims for emptiness and self-negation**. The *Apocryphon of James* directly instructs us to **become full and leave no space empty**, affirming that **true salvation is about filling ourselves with divine knowledge and the presence of Christ**.  

### **Conclusion: A Call to Seek Fullness, Not Emptiness**  

If we take the words of the *Apocryphon of James* seriously, we cannot embrace Buddhist emptiness as a legitimate spiritual path. Jesus’ repeated command to **become full** shows that true salvation comes through **receiving and dwelling in divine knowledge, not by erasing the self into void**.  

A Gnostic does not want to be **empty**—we want to be **filled** with the fullness of the Aeon.  

Those who seek emptiness remain vulnerable to deception. But those who **seek the Fullness (Pleroma) through Christ** will inherit the Kingdom of God.

Why Buddhism Is Not Compatible with Gnostic Christianity

 

Why Buddhism Is Not Compatible with Gnostic Christianity 

Many who claim to be Gnostic Christians are, in reality, misguided. Instead of studying the Nag Hammadi scriptures—also called the Gnostic Gospels—they mix Bible verses with Eastern mysticism, such as Hinduism and Buddhism. This is warned against in *Isaiah 2:6*:  

*"For you have abandoned your people, the house of Jacob, because they are filled with influences from the east and practice divination like the Philistines, and they clasp hands with foreigners."*  

This passage condemns the incorporation of foreign religious practices into the faith of God’s people. Those who promote Buddhism alongside Gnostic Christianity are guilty of this very error. Worse yet, some even engage in idolatry by sharing images of the Buddha online or keeping Buddha statues in their homes. This violates *Exodus 20:3-5*, which strictly forbids idolatry.  

There is no need to look outside Christianity for mysticism and enlightenment. The Nag Hammadi Library provides profound wisdom within the Christian tradition, offering a path to true understanding and self-discovery through Christ. Gnosis, as understood in Gnostic Christianity, is about self-knowledge—coming to understand one's true nature in relation to God and the divine order. This involves recognizing the indwelling presence of the Father and the Son and striving toward spiritual maturity. In contrast, Buddhism teaches the annihilation of the self, aiming for a state where individuality and personal identity are dissolved into nothingness. These two systems are fundamentally incompatible. While Gnostic Christianity calls for awakening to the knowledge of one's divine connection, Buddhism seeks to eliminate personal identity altogether. The pursuit of gnosis leads to a deepened relationship with God and the fulfillment of Jesus' teachings, whereas the Buddhist path leads away from the recognition of the self and, ultimately, away from the Father. Christian mysticism offers a transformative journey that does not reject the self but instead elevates it through divine wisdom. Therefore, there is no need to look outside Christianity for true enlightenment, as all spiritual fulfillment can be found within the teachings of Christ. Yet some attempt to merge Jewish Kabbalah with Christianity, despite its incompatibility with the true faith.  

### The Valentinians Did Not Seek to Separate from Christianity  

The Valentinian Gnostics never sought to separate themselves from the original Church. They attended church meetings while also gathering for their own discussions. This means that Gnostic Christians today can attend any Christian denomination. However, while interfaith dialogue among Christian groups is acceptable, interfaith with non-Christian religions is not.  

Jesus emphasized exclusive devotion to the truth, as illustrated in *Saying 8* of the Gospel of Thomas:  

*"The man is like a wise fisherman who cast his net into the sea and drew it up from the sea full of small fish. Among them, the wise fisherman found a fine large fish. He threw all the small fish back into the sea and chose the large fish without difficulty. Whoever has ears to hear, let him hear."*  

Just as the fisherman discards the lesser fish, true believers must reject false teachings and hold fast to the truth of Christ.  

### Jesus Alone Reveals the Truth  

Jesus alone is the source of divine knowledge, as affirmed in *Saying 38*:  

*"Many times have you desired to hear these words which I am saying to you, and you have no one else to hear them from. There will be days when you will look for me and will not find me."*  

This refutes the idea that truth can be found in Buddhism or other religions. Furthermore, *Saying 39* warns against religious leaders who distort true knowledge:  

*"The Pharisees and the scholars have taken the keys of knowledge and have hidden them. They have not entered, nor have they allowed those who want to enter to do so. As for you, be as sly as snakes and as simple as doves."*  

Thus, Gnostic Christians must not look to outside religions for wisdom but instead seek knowledge through Christ.  

Jesus also teaches that anything outside of the Father will ultimately be uprooted, as stated in *Saying 40*:  

*"A grapevine has been planted apart from the Father. Since it is not strong, it will be pulled up by its root and will perish."*  

Buddhism, which does not acknowledge the Father, will not endure. The clergy of non-Christian religions, like the Pharisees, offer nothing of true spiritual value, as *Saying 41* states:  

*"Whoever has something in hand will be given more, and whoever has nothing will be deprived of even the little they have."*  

### Christ Is the Only Path to the Father  

Jesus is the cornerstone of faith, as declared in *Saying 66*:  

*"Show me the stone that the builders rejected: that is the keystone."*  

We are to worship the Father alone, as confirmed in *Saying 15* and *Saying 27* of the Gospel of Thomas. *Deuteronomy 6:5, 14-15* reinforces the demand for exclusive devotion:  

*"You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your might… You shall not follow other gods, any of the gods of the peoples who surround you, for the Lord your God in the midst of you is a jealous God."*  

Jesus' teachings are the only way to overcome sin and lead to a higher civilization. His message must become a global reality, for *Ephesians 4:4-6* states:  

*"There is one body and one Spirit, just as you were called to one hope when you were called; one Lord, one faith, one baptism; one God and Father of all, who is over all and through all and in all."*  

This is further emphasized in *Matthew 7:13-14*:  

*"Enter through the narrow gate. For wide is the gate and broad is the road that leads to destruction, and many enter through it. But small is the gate and narrow the road that leads to life, and only a few find it."*  

Buddhism, like all non-Christian paths, is a broad road leading to destruction. There are not multiple ways to God—only Christ leads to the Father.  

### Conclusion  

Gnostic Christianity must remain distinct from Buddhism and other non-Christian faiths. Jesus Christ is the only way to the Father, and we must reject all idolatry and foreign religious influences. As *Saying 49* states:  

*"They will stand at rest by being solitaires."*  

To truly follow Christ, we must be set apart in our devotion, adhering only to His teachings.

Gnostic Church: Equality of Members

**Gnostic Church: Equality of Members**

In early Christian Gnostic communities, particularly within Valentinian circles, the concept of equality among members was a central principle, both in practice and theology. This equality was not only spiritual but was also reflected in the communal roles, social customs, and teachings on justice, as preserved in several early sources.

Tertullian, a church writer hostile to Gnosticism, provides indirect testimony of this egalitarian practice in his *Against the Valentinians* (chapter 1). Though writing critically, Tertullian reveals the inclusive and participatory nature of the Valentinian gatherings:

> “Today one man is bishop, and tomorrow another; the person who is a deacon today, tomorrow is a reader; the one who is a priest is a layman tomorrow. For even on the laity they impose the functions of priesthood.”

This rotation of responsibilities ensured that no rigid, hierarchical structure emerged among Valentinians. The leadership roles and duties circulated, emphasizing that spiritual authority came from knowledge, character, and participation, not fixed offices or titles. Tertullian’s complaint further notes the participation of women:

> “Even women could take the role of bishop, much to his horror.”

This affirmation of gender equality in spiritual practice was radical in its time, standing in sharp contrast to the developing Catholic model, where leadership was restricted to male clergy.

The philosophical basis for this equality was also articulated in the teachings of Epiphanes, son of the Gnostic teacher Carpocrates. His work *On Righteousness*, preserved by Clement of Alexandria in *Stromateis* III 6.1–9.3, offers a cosmological and moral argument for equality as the foundation of divine justice. Epiphanes writes:

> “The righteousness of God is a kind of sharing along with equality. There is equality in the heaven which is stretched out in all directions and contains the entire earth in its circle. The night reveals all the stars equally. The light of the sun, which is the cause of the daytime and the father of light, God pours out from above upon the earth in equal measure to all who have power to see.”

Here, equality is presented as a fundamental, observable aspect of creation itself — from the distribution of light and night to the equal exposure of all to the sun’s rays. It is a vision of divine justice rooted in natural order, which stands opposed to human social structures that create inequality.

Epiphanes continues:

> “For all see alike, since there is no distinction between rich and poor, people and governor, stupid and clever, female and male, free men and slaves. Even the irrational animals are not accorded any different treatment; but in just the same way God pours out from above sunlight equally upon all the animals.”

This radical egalitarianism rejects divisions of class, status, gender, or even species. For Epiphanes, God’s justice is manifest in its universal impartiality. Nature itself embodies this equality — from the growing of plants to the nourishment of animals.

Further, he emphasizes:

> “The Sun causes food to grow for all living beings alike; the universal justice is given to all equally. In this respect there is no difference between the species of oxen and particular oxen, between the species of pigs and particular pigs, between the species of sheep and particular sheep, and so with all the rest. In them universality is manifest in justice.”

This equality extends to birth and to the senses:

> “And for birth there is no written law; otherwise it would have been transcribed. All beings beget and give birth alike, having received by justice an innate equality. The Creator and father of all with his own justice appointed this, just as he gave equally the eye to all to enable them to see.”

The critique sharpens as Epiphanes contrasts this divine justice with human laws and customs that create inequality:

> “The ideas of Mine and Thine crept in through the laws which cause the earth, money, and even marriage no longer to bring forth fruit of common use. For God made vines for all to use in common, since they do not refuse the sparrow or the thief; and similarly wheat and other fruits.”

The possession of property, including marriage, is treated as a corruption of the original divine order:

> “But outlawed sharing and the vestiges of equality generated the thief of domestic animals and fruits. For man God made all things to be common property.”

Thus, human law is seen not as a means to justice but as a violator of it:

> “The laws could not punish men who were ignorant of them; they taught man to transgress. For particularity of the laws cut up and destroyed the universal equality of the divine law.”

In sexual ethics too, Epiphanes argued against exclusivity:

> “He brought the female to be with the male in common and in the same way united all the animals. He thus showed righteousness to be a universal sharing along with equality.”

The desire to possess, to privatize, is a symptom of fallen social customs:

> “And by the words Your neighbor's wife he says something even more ludicrous, since he forces what should be common property to be treated as private possession.”

In conclusion, both Tertullian’s testimony and Epiphanes’ philosophy illustrate how early Gnostic Christians rejected rigid, hierarchical social and religious structures in favor of radical equality, grounded in the natural order and divine justice. The Valentinian communities exemplified this in their shared leadership and inclusivity, while thinkers like Epiphanes provided the theological and cosmological justification for such practices.

---

Also known by the title "Concerning Justice", this text by Epiphanes, the son of the Gnostic teacher Carpocrates, is found in Clement of Alexandria, Stromaties, III 6,1-9,3.

On Righteousness

The rightousness of God is a kind of sharing along with equality. There is equality in the heaven which is stretched out in all directions and contains the entire earth in its circle. The night reveals all the stars equally. The light of the sun, which is the cause of the daytime and the father of light, God pours out from above upon the earth in equal measure to all who have power to see. For all see alike, since here is no distinction between rich and poor, people and governor, stupid and clever, female and male, free men and slaves. Even the irrational animals are not accorded any different treatment; but in just the same way God pours out from above sunlight equally upon all the animals. He establishes his justice to both good and bad by seeing that none is able to get more than his share and to deprive his neighbor, so that he has twice the light his neighbor has.

The Sun causes food to grow for all living beings alike; the universal justice is given to all equally. In this respect there is no difference between the species of oxen and particular oxen, between the species of pigs and particular pigs, between the species of sheep and particular sheep, and so with all the rest. In them universiality is manifest in justice. Furthermore all plants after their kind are sown equally in the earth. Common nourishment grows for all beasts which feed on the earth´s produce; to all it is alike. It is regulated by no law, but rather is harmoniously available to all through the gift of him who gave it and commanded it to grow.

And for birth there is no written law; otherwise it would have been transcribed. All beings beget and give birth alike, having received by justice an inate equality.The Creator and father of all with his own justice appointed this, just as he gave equally the eye to all to enable them to see. He did not make a distinction between female and male, rational and irrational, nor between anything else at all; rather he shared out sight equally and universially. It was given to all alike by a single command. As the laws could not punish men who were ignorant of them, they thaught man to transgress. For particularity of the laws cut up and destroyed the universal equality of the divine law...

The ideas of Mine and Thine crept in through the laws which cause the earth, money, and even marriage no longer to bring forth fruit of common use. For God made vines for all to use in common, since they do not refuse the sparrow or the thief; and similarly wheat and other fruits. But outlawed sharing and the vestiges of equality generated the thief of domestic animals and fruits. For man God made all things to be common property. He brought the female to be with the male in common and in the same way united all the animals. He thus showed rightousness to be a universal sharing along with equality. But those who have been born in this way have denied the sharing which is the corollary of their origin and say Let him who has taken one woman keep her, whereas all can share her, just as the other animals show us. With view to the permanence of the race, he has implanted in males a strong and ardent desire which neither law nor custom nor any other restraint is able to destroy. For it is God´s decree......

Consequently one must understand the saying You shall not desire as if the lawgiver was making a jest, to which he added the even more comic words Your neighbors goods. For he himself gave the desire to sustain the race orders that it is to be supposed, though he removes it from no other animals. And by the words Your neighbors wife he says something even more ludicrous, since he forces what should be common property to be treated as private posession.

Debunking the "Church of Love" Text Attributed to the Cathars

THE CHURCH OF LOVE

THE CHURCH OF LOVE - from a Cathar text of the year 1148. The Church of Love has no structure, only understanding. It has no members, only those who feel and know that they belong to it. It has no rivals, because it does not feed the spirit of competition. It has no ambition, it only seeks to serve. It knows no boundaries, because love has no boundaries. It is not limited to itself, it seeks to enrich all groups and all religions. It recognizes all the great teachings that have manifested the Truth of Love in all times. Those who belong to it practice the truth of love with all their beings. Who they are, they know. It does not seek to teach, but to be, for in that state of being it is able to give. Recognize the whole earth as a living being of which we are all part. Recognize that the time has come for a final turn, away from egocentricity, and for a voluntary return to unity. It does not make itself known loudly, but works in the domains of freedom of being. Greet all those who have enlightened the way of love and who have dedicated their lives to it. In their ranks there is neither hierarchy nor rigid organization because each one is equal to the other. It does not promise a reward, either in this life nor in the other, besides the joy of being and being in love. Its members are recognized for their works and for their being, and for their eyes; and for no other external sign other than support and fraternal embrace. They know neither fear nor shame,and their testimony will always be valuable, in good times as well as bad. The Church of Love has no secrets, no mystery or initiation other than a great understanding of the power of Love and the knowledge that, if desired, the world will change; but only if one changes oneself first. Those who feel that they are part of it, belong to it. They are all part of the Church of Love.

### Debunking the "Church of Love" Text Attributed to the Cathars

The text known as "The Church of Love," often attributed to the Cathars and dated to 1148, has gained popularity in various spiritual and esoteric circles. However, a thorough examination of historical evidence reveals that this attribution is unfounded. This document aims to clarify the origins of the text and demonstrate that it is not an authentic medieval Cathar writing.

#### 1. **Absence from Historical Records**

The Cathars, a Christian dualist movement prominent in 12th and 13th-century southern France, left behind a limited number of texts. Surviving Cathar writings include the "Cathar Ritual" and fragments of their theological teachings. Notably, there is no mention of a text resembling "The Church of Love" in these historical documents or in contemporary accounts of Cathar beliefs and practices. The earliest known references to "The Church of Love" text appear in the late 20th century, suggesting a much more recent origin.

#### 2. **Modern Origins of the Text**

Investigations into the provenance of "The Church of Love" text point to Colin Bloy, a British dowser and spiritual healer, as its likely author. In 1978, during a visit to Montségur—a site associated with the Cathar legacy—Bloy claimed to have received the text through spiritual inspiration. He later wrote down the "Proclamation of the Church of Love" in 1985, asserting that the words were not his own but were transmitted to him through mystical means. This account indicates that the text originated in the late 20th century, not in the 12th century as some claims suggest.

#### 3. **Anachronistic Language and Concepts**

The language and ideas expressed in "The Church of Love" text reflect contemporary spiritual and philosophical themes rather than medieval Cathar theology. Concepts such as non-competitiveness, the absence of hierarchy, and universal love align more closely with modern New Age thought than with the dualistic and ascetic beliefs of the Cathars. The Cathars held a strict dichotomy between the spiritual and material worlds, viewing the latter as inherently evil—a perspective not evident in the "Church of Love" text.

#### 4. **Lack of Scholarly Support**

Academic research on Catharism does not support the authenticity of "The Church of Love" text as a genuine Cathar document. Scholars specializing in medieval heresies and Cathar studies have not recognized this text in their analyses of Cathar literature. The absence of the text from scholarly discourse further undermines claims of its medieval origin.

#### 5. **Misinterpretation of Cathar Beliefs**

Attributing "The Church of Love" text to the Cathars involves a misrepresentation of their beliefs. The Cathars practiced a form of Christianity that emphasized spiritual purity, asceticism, and a rejection of the material world. Their theology was rooted in a dualistic worldview that saw the physical realm as the creation of an evil force. In contrast, "The Church of Love" text promotes an inclusive and affirmative view of the world, which is inconsistent with Cathar doctrine.

#### 6. **Conclusion**

The evidence indicates that "The Church of Love" text is not an authentic Cathar document from 1148 but rather a modern creation inspired by contemporary spiritual ideals. Its attribution to the Cathars lacks historical basis and reflects a romanticized reinterpretation of their legacy. While the text may offer meaningful insights for modern readers, it should not be considered a genuine artifact of medieval Catharism.

For further reading on Cathar beliefs and history, consider consulting reputable academic sources such as the Encyclopaedia Britannica's entry on the Cathari citeturn0search6 and scholarly works on medieval heresies. 

---

**“The Church of Love”: Why This Text Is Not Cathar**

The text popularly titled *“The Church of Love,”* which is often claimed to be a Cathar writing from the year 1148, has circulated widely among modern spiritual, New Age, and esoteric communities. While its message may resonate with contemporary ideals of peace, love, and unity, the claim that this document originated from the Cathars — a medieval Christian dualist movement — is historically inaccurate. In fact, this text does not align with Cathar teachings, cosmology, or their pronounced rejection of the Catholic Church. This document will explain why *“The Church of Love”* is a modern invention and demonstrate how it contradicts the actual theology and ideology of the Cathars.

### 1. **No Historical Evidence of the Text’s Existence**

First and foremost, there is no record of a text titled *“The Church of Love”* in any known Cathar manuscripts, rituals, or inquisitorial records from the 12th or 13th centuries. The surviving Cathar literature, such as *The Cathar Ritual* and fragments from interrogations of Cathar believers, make no mention of such a text or anything remotely resembling its ideas. If this document had existed in 1148, it would almost certainly have appeared in either Cathar writings, the records of the Catholic Inquisition, or medieval chronicles describing Catharism. Instead, *“The Church of Love”* appears only in modern sources, suggesting it was composed in the 20th century and falsely attributed to the Cathars to lend it an air of ancient mystery and authority.

### 2. **Modern Language, Ideas, and Tone**

The style, vocabulary, and values presented in this text reflect modern spiritual philosophy rather than medieval dualist Christianity. The language of inclusivity, universal love, non-competitiveness, and ecological awareness in phrases like *“Recognize the whole earth as a living being of which we are all part”* would have been entirely foreign to the Cathars. 

The Cathars were dualists. They believed in two opposing principles: a good, spiritual God and an evil, material creator (often identified with the god of the Old Testament). They taught that the material world was the product of the evil principle, a place of suffering and corruption. Far from embracing *“the whole earth as a living being,”* the Cathars rejected the material world and considered it something to escape. Their faith was not about unity with the physical world or finding joy within it, but rather achieving release from it through asceticism and spiritual purity.

### 3. **Contradiction of Cathar Rejection of Catholic and Worldly Religion**

Another issue is the text’s message of inter-religious harmony: *“It seeks to enrich all groups and all religions. It recognizes all the great teachings that have manifested the Truth of Love in all times.”* This is fundamentally incompatible with Cathar theology. 

The Cathars did not view all religious traditions as equally valid or valuable. They openly and actively rejected the Roman Catholic Church, condemning it as the *Church of the Evil God*, an institution that corrupted the message of Christ and perpetuated the evils of the material world. Cathar writings and testimonies from inquisitorial records make it clear that Cathars saw themselves in direct opposition to the Catholic hierarchy, sacraments, and priesthood, which they believed enslaved people to the material world.

The *“Church of Love”* text, on the other hand, promotes a message of universal acceptance without rivalry or condemnation. This is not how the Cathars operated or believed. They were a counter-Church, an alternative religious community set against what they saw as the corrupt church of the world.

### 4. **Absence of Dualism and Cathar Eschatology**

Cathar beliefs were fundamentally dualistic and eschatological. They believed in a sharp distinction between the physical and the spiritual, between good and evil, and between this world and the next. The text *“The Church of Love”* completely ignores this core teaching. 

Cathar doctrine taught that salvation involved the renunciation of the material world and the return of the immaterial spirit to the good God. This demanded strict ascetic practices, including vegetarianism, celibacy for the Perfecti (fully initiated Cathars), and the rejection of worldly pleasures and attachments. The Cathars believed in the *end of the world*, in which spirits would be freed from their material prisons. None of these concepts are present in *“The Church of Love”*. Instead, it presents a humanistic and optimistic message about transforming the world through love, which is utterly foreign to the Cathar worldview.

### 5. **Likely Modern Origins**

It is widely accepted by historians and researchers that this text originated in the 20th century. Many trace it to Colin Bloy, a British esoteric writer and healer, who claimed to have channeled this message in the 1970s. Though it draws loosely on romanticized ideas of medieval heresy and alternative spirituality, it bears no resemblance to genuine Cathar writings or medieval theology. The pseudo-historical dating to 1148 appears to be a modern fabrication designed to lend the text authenticity and ancient authority.

### **Conclusion**

*“The Church of Love”* is a modern creation falsely attributed to the Cathars. Its inclusive, world-affirming, and love-centered message directly contradicts the dualistic, ascetic, and world-rejecting teachings of the actual Cathar movement. It does not represent Cathar doctrine, theology, or their sharp rejection of the Catholic Church and the material world. While its message may be appealing to modern spiritual seekers, it should not be mistaken for authentic medieval Cathar thought.

---

Mary the Consoler the Gospel of Mary

---

**Mary the Consoler – The Gospel of Mary, Chapter 4–5**  

*Welcome to Pleroma Pathways apocalyptic and mystic Christianity where we explore esoteric and apocalyptic texts.*

The Gospel of Mary, a powerful text from the Nag Hammadi library, places Mary Magdalene in a role of spiritual leadership and strength rarely seen in canonical texts. In Chapters 4 and 5, we encounter a profound moment where Mary rises to console and inspire the other disciples after the departure of the Savior. This passage reveals both the inward dimension of the Kingdom and the spiritual maturity to which the disciples are called.

> **(4.33)** “When the Blessed One had said this, He greeted them all, saying, *Peace be with you. Receive my peace unto yourselves.*”

The Gospel opens with the risen Savior offering peace—an inner tranquility not dependent on external circumstances, but an abiding presence. This peace is meant to be received inwardly, indicating a spiritual condition, not merely an absence of conflict.

> **(4.34)** “*Beware that no one lead you astray saying ‘Lo here!’ or ‘Lo there!’ For the Son of Man is within you.*”

This declaration affirms a core Gnostic teaching: that salvation and divine presence are found within. The “Son of Man” is not merely a future eschatological figure, but a spiritual identity imprinted in the faithful. It recalls Luke 17:21: “The Kingdom of God is within you.” Here, Jesus warns against external authorities who claim exclusive access to truth. The inward journey is emphasized.

> **(4.35–36)** “*Follow after Him! Those who seek Him will find Him.*”

This is both a call to discipleship and to inner awakening. To "follow" Him means to walk the same path, to seek Him not in a geographic or physical sense, but within the self—where He already dwells.

> **(4.37–38)** “*Go then and preach the gospel of the Kingdom. Do not lay down any rules beyond what I appointed you, and do not give a law like the lawgiver lest you be constrained by it.*”

This radical instruction discourages legalism. Jesus separates Himself from the image of the lawgiver. His message is not about imposing new structures, but awakening to inner freedom. This is echoed in Paul’s statement, “All things are lawful for me, but not all things are beneficial” (1 Cor. 6:12). The disciples are warned not to create burdens where there are none, but to stay close to the simplicity of His gospel.

> **(4.39)** “*When He said this, He departed.*”

His physical departure marks the moment when spiritual maturity must take root in the disciples. The absence of the Savior becomes the test of inner transformation.

---

### **Mary the Consoler (Chapter 5)**

> **(5.1)** “*But they were grieved. They wept greatly, saying, ‘How shall we go to the Gentiles and preach the gospel of the Kingdom of the Son of Man? If they did not spare Him, how will they spare us?’*”

This moment of fear and grief is deeply human. The disciples feel the weight of their calling and the threat of rejection. Their anguish reflects the cost of following the Son of Man, and their uncertainty is understandable. This fear, however, is precisely the moment in which Mary steps forward—not just as a disciple, but as a leader and spiritual equal.

> **(5.2–3)** “*Then Mary stood up, greeted them all, and said to her brethren, ‘Do not weep and do not grieve nor be irresolute, for His grace will be entirely with you and will protect you. But rather, let us praise His greatness, for He has prepared us and made us into Men.’*”

Mary acts as the true consoler. Like Jesus before her, she greets the disciples with peace, reassurance, and strength. She reminds them of grace, divine protection, and the greatness of the Savior—not in distant theological abstractions but in personal transformation.

> **“For He has prepared us and made us into Men.”**

This phrase, powerful in both Greek and Coptic, uses the generic term "Men" not in the gendered sense but to signify “true Human beings.” This parallels the Gospel of Mary’s vision of full personhood realized in Christ. The Gospel of Thomas makes a related statement about becoming “male,” which there implies becoming spiritual and whole. In contrast, the Gospel of Mary uses “Man” to refer to a restored humanity—both male and female disciples are made “Men,” meaning *Anthropos*, the universal Human.

This also sheds light on Jesus' words in Chapter 4:  

> **“For the Son of Man is within you.”**

The Son of Man, the archetypal Human, is not an external Savior to be watched for “here or there,” but a new form of being growing from within. Mary’s consoling words reveal that Jesus has made the disciples into reflections of that Son of Man—they now carry the image and vocation of the true Human.

> **(5.4)** “*When Mary said this, she turned their hearts to the Good, and they began to discuss the words of the Savior.*”

Mary's leadership brings the disciples back to their center. She does not dominate or replace the teaching of the Savior, but calls them to remember and interpret His words. In doing so, she reflects the feminine aspect of Wisdom (Sophia) found in texts such as the *Gospel of Philip*, where Wisdom is said to be “barren” and a “pillar of salt” when misunderstood, yet fruitful when she gives birth through the Holy Spirit.

---

### **Conclusion: Mary as Sophia-Wisdom**

In this passage, Mary Magdalene is not just a witness but a guide. She embodies the Spirit of Wisdom—the Consoler, the Advocate—reminding the disciples of who they are and what they carry within. She functions as a spiritual counterpart to the Logos, the Word, echoing the role of Sophia who dwells in silence with the Father in texts like *The Valentinian Exposition*:  

> “He dwells alone in silence, and silence is tranquility... His Pair is Silence… And he possessed the All dwelling within him.”

Mary, through her silence and then her word, awakens the disciples to their true selves. This is no mere emotional comfort—it is initiation. She is a model of Gnostic insight and courage, and her role affirms that the Son of Man, the image of the true Human, is within all who follow after Him.

---

Chapter 5

1) But they were grieved. They wept greatly, saying, How shall we go to the Gentiles and preach the gospel of the Kingdom of the Son of Man? If they did not spare Him, how will they spare us?

2) Then Mary stood up, greeted them all, and said to her brethren, Do not weep and do not grieve nor be irresolute, for His grace will be entirely with you and will protect you.

3) But rather, let us praise His greatness, for He has prepared us and made us into Men.

4) When Mary said this, she turned their hearts to the Good, and they began to discuss the words of the Savior.

The Apostles think that they will not be successful in preaching the message they will suffer the same fate as the messiah himself

1) But they were grieved. They wept greatly, saying, How shall we go to the Gentiles and preach the gospel of the Kingdom of the Son of Man? If they did not spare Him, how will they spare us?

Mary now assumes the main position she acts just as the Messiah did before her embracing the Apostles and encouraging them.

2) Then Mary stood up, greeted them all, and said to her brethren, Do not weep and do not grieve nor be irresolute, for His grace will be entirely with you and will protect you.

3) But rather, let us praise His greatness, for He has prepared us and made us into Men.

Then Mary stood up. She greeted them all, addressing her brothers and sisters, "Do not weep and be distressed nor let your hearts be irresolute. For his grace will be with you all and will shelter you. Rather we should praise his greatness, for he has prepared us and made us true Human beings."

for He has prepared us and made us into Men
for he has prepared us and made us true Human beings

Men like the English both Greek and Coptic words have a term "man" which can indicate either a male individual or humanity a a whole and a term "male" which can only refer  to masculine-gendered person. In the Gospel of Thomas  the "term" is male in the Gospel of Mary it is "man" since in the  the Gospel of Mary  both men and women  disciples are made "men" the intent is generic (human beings )

This should be understood in light of Jesus's words that For the Son of Man is within you. his saving work allows us to follow after him the way to the true human existence and to find within ourselves the son of man as our own new self