Gnostic Teaching on Purgatory

Traditional Gnostic Teaching on Purgatory 

Is there a purgatory ? 

And if so, can the priest by his masses bring the faithful out of it ?''

The Roman Catholic Church teaches that the undying souls of men leave their bodies at death. The wicked (those who die in mortal sin) go to hell for eternal torment. The righteous, dying with unforgiven venial sin or undischarged temporal punishment, go to a painful purification before being fit for heaven.

Purgatory is a half-way house between 'heaven' and 'hell'. The Roman Catholic church teaches that Purgatory is a place of purging, in which the soul will suffer for a while before being fit to gain salvation in heaven. The prayers, candle-burning and financial gifts to the church of a person and his friends is supposed to shorten the length of time that the soul suffers in 'purgatory'.

The word Purgatory is not used in the Bible nor the nag hammadi texts 

Gnostic sects like the Bogomils, Pauliciani, Cathars rejected the doctrine of Purgatory

Ralph of Coggeshale goes into considerable detail of the doctrines of the Pauliciani in Flanders and England, and thereby establishes their complete identity with the Bogomils. They held, he says, to two principles-of good and evil; they rejected purgatory, prayers for the dead, the invocation of saints, infant baptism, and the use of pictures, images, and crucifixes in the churches ;

The Albigenses (also known as Cathari), named after the town of Albi, where they had many followers. They had their own celibate clergy class, who expected to be greeted with reverence. They believed that Jesus spoke figuratively in his last supper when he said of the bread, “This is my body.” (Matthew 26:26, NAB) They rejected the doctrines of the Trinity, the Virgin Birth, hellfire, and purgatory. Thus they actively put in doubt the teachings of Rome. Pope Innocent III gave instructions that the Albigenses be persecuted. “If necessary,” he said, “suppress them with the sword.” 

Protestants, like Cathars, rejected the medieval Roman doctrine of transubstantiation and infant baptism. Like Cathars and Waldensians, Protestant Churches encourage laymen to read the scriptures for themselves. Most accept women as ministers, and most affirm the dignity of labour. Churchmen themselves are increasingly working for a living rather than living off tithes. Protestant theology is that of mitigated dualism, embracing predestination and rejecting the Catholic position on Free Will. Protestants, like Cathars, reject the medieval Roman Catholic notion of Purgatory, along with the practice of praying for the dead, and the entire system of indulgences.

The Jews had originally had no concept of an afterlife, but under Greek influence they had developed an ill-defined belief in an afterlife by the time of Jesus Christ. (The words translated as hell in the Old Testament actually mean grave or rubbish-tip). In the 2nd Century BCE the Jews had developed a  belief that there was a afterlife in heaven or hell. Ideas such as Purgatory and Limbo were developed much later. More conservative Jews at the time of Jesus still held ideas of an afterlife to be an offensive novelty. As they pointed out the many punishments promised by God in scripture are all punishments in this world. None is promised for an afterlife.

Man has conceived that there is such a condition as life separate from God, and obedient to man’s thought; he has produced such a state of mind. When man changes his mind he will find that he lives in heaven continually, but by the power of his thought has made all kinds of places: earth, purgatory, heaven, hell and numerous intermediate states

The righteous are never promised salvation in heaven. The granting of salvation will be at the judgment seat at Christ's return, rather than at some time after death when we supposedly leave 'purgatory' (Matt. 25:31-34; Rev. 22:12).

All the righteous receive their rewards at the same time, rather than each person gaining salvation at different times (Heb. 11:39,40; 2 Tim. 4:8).

Death is followed by complete unconsciousness, rather than the activities suggested by the doctrine of purgatory.

We are purged from our sins through baptism into Christ and developing a firm faith in his work during our present life, rather than through some period of suffering after death. We are told to "purge out therefore the old leaven" of sin in our lives (1 Cor. 5:7); to purge ourselves from the works of sin (2 Tim. 2:21; Heb. 9:14). Our time of purging is therefore now, in this life, rather than in a place of purging ('purgatory') which we enter after death. "Now is the day of salvation...now is the accepted time" (2 Cor. 6:2). Our obedience to God in baptism and development of a spiritual character in this life, will lead to our salvation (Gal. 6:8) - not to the spending of a period in 'purgatory'.

The efforts of others to save us through candle-burning and other donations to the Catholic church, will not affect our salvation at all. "They that trust in their wealth...none of them can by any means redeem his brother, nor give to God a ransom for him...that he should still live for ever" (Ps. 49:6-9).

God has Breasts El Shaddai

 The Breasts of the Father Ode 19

In this study we will look at the feminine aspects of God but first we will start with an opening reading from the Odes of Solomon Ode 19:

Ode 19 
A cup of milk was offered to me, and I drank it in the sweetness of the Lord's kindness. 
The Son is the cup, and the Father is He who was milked; and the Holy Spirit is She who milked Him; 
Because His breasts were full, and it was undesirable that His milk should be ineffectually released. 
The Holy Spirit opened Her bosom, and mixed the milk of the two breasts of the Father. 
Then She gave the mixture to the generation without their knowing, and those who have received it are in the perfection of the right hand. 
The womb of the Virgin took it, and she received conception and gave birth. 
So the Virgin became a mother with great mercies. 
And she labored and bore the Son but without pain, because it did not occur without purpose. 
And she did not require a midwife, because He caused her to give life. 
She brought forth like a strong man with desire, and she bore according to the manifestation, and she acquired according to the Great Power. 
And she loved with redemption, and guarded with kindness, and declared with grandeur.
Hallelujah. 

Early Church Fathers' Understanding of God Having Breasts

The notion that God, or the Father, possesses feminine breasts may initially seem startling or unorthodox, yet it emerges within the early Christian writings as a profound theological metaphor. Early church fathers, particularly Irenæus of Lyons and Clement of Alexandria, frequently employed such imagery to express divine nurturing and life-giving attributes, often symbolizing the intimate relationship between God and humanity. This metaphorical understanding is rooted in the concept of God as both masculine and feminine, emphasizing the inclusive nature of divine care.

Irenæus, the bishop of Lyons in the late second century, is one of the earliest church fathers to employ this imagery. In his seminal work Against Heresies (ca. 180 CE), he speaks of the nurturing role of God, comparing divine sustenance to the act of a mother nursing her children. Irenæus writes, "Those who do not have a share in the Spirit are not nourished to life by the Mother's breasts" (Irenæus, Against Heresies, book 3, chapter 24:1). Here, the metaphor of the "Mother's breasts" refers to the nurturing aspect of the Spirit, which sustains and nourishes believers to spiritual life. This imagery is aligned with the broader Christian tradition of depicting God as a source of life and care, invoking maternal imagery to underscore the divine's role in spiritual rebirth.

Clement of Alexandria, another significant early church figure, is perhaps best known for his rich theological metaphors that portray God in both masculine and feminine terms. Clement, who flourished in the late second and early third centuries, frequently utilized the imagery of nurturing and mothering to describe the relationship between God and humanity. In his work Exhortation to the Greeks and other writings, he characterizes the divine Logos (Word) as a nourishing force, likening it to a mother who feeds her child. Clement writes, "The Word is everything to the child, both father and mother, teacher and nurse . . . The nutriment is the milk of the Father . . . and the Word alone supplies us children with the milk of love, and only those who suck at this breast are truly happy." (Clement of Alexandria, Exhortation to the Greeks).

For Clement, the "milk of the Father" is a symbol of the divine Word, which sustains and nourishes the soul. The act of "sucking" or "seeking" the Word is likened to a child feeding at the breast, an intimate act of reception and growth. This maternal metaphor aligns with the Christian understanding of salvation as a nurturing and life-giving process, where God, as both Father and Mother, provides the sustenance needed for spiritual growth.

Elaine Pagels, a renowned scholar of early Christianity, highlights the theological significance of Clement's use of maternal imagery. She notes that for Clement, "the Word alone supplies us children with the milk of love," presenting God as both a nurturing mother and a guiding father. The dual nature of God, encompassing both masculine and feminine qualities, is a recurring theme in Clement's thought, reflecting the early church's complex and evolving understanding of the divine. Pagels points out that, "seeking is called sucking; to those infants who seek the Word, the Father's loving breasts supply milk." This comparison underscores the tender and nourishing aspects of divine love, which are accessible to all believers who seek the Word in humility and faith.

Moreover, the metaphor of divine breasts in early Christian thought can be traced to the Old Testament, where God is sometimes portrayed in maternal terms. The Hebrew name El Shaddai, often translated as "God Almighty," is etymologically linked to the word "Shadd," which means "breast." This connection suggests that the biblical understanding of God includes an aspect of maternal care and sustenance, a theme that early Christian writers like Irenæus and Clement would later draw upon to express the fullness of God's nature.

Jerome, another prominent church father, acknowledged the complexity of gendered language in relation to the divine. In his commentary on the Bible, Jerome famously noted that "the word for Spirit is feminine in Hebrew, masculine in Latin, and neuter in Greek," reflecting the diversity of ways in which the divine Spirit was understood in different cultural and linguistic contexts. Jerome's observation indicates that debates surrounding the gendered language of God were taking place within the early church, particularly regarding the use of feminine language for the Spirit. While Jerome maintained that God transcends gender, his remarks suggest an awareness of the theological implications of feminine imagery in relation to the divine.

In conclusion, the use of maternal imagery to describe God, including the metaphor of divine breasts, is not a foreign or isolated concept within early Christian thought. Church fathers like Irenæus and Clement of Alexandria utilized this imagery to express the nurturing and life-giving aspects of God’s nature. By portraying God as both Father and Mother, they sought to convey the fullness of divine care and love, emphasizing God’s intimate relationship with humanity. This theological perspective, enriched by biblical tradition and the linguistic flexibility of early Christian writers, underscores the depth and complexity of the early church’s understanding of the divine..

**Shaddai and the Breasts of God**

The idea that God has breasts may sound surprising or even radical today, but it arises directly from ancient Hebrew language, biblical imagery, and early Jewish and Christian theological reflection. One of the key places this concept appears is in the name **El Shaddai**, a title for God in the Hebrew Bible, and its ancient etymological connections.

### The Meaning of El Shaddai

The main Hebrew lexicons, *Brown-Driver-Briggs* (BDB) and *The Hebrew and Aramaic Lexicon of the Old Testament* (HALOT, also known as K-B for its editors Kohler and Baumgartner), offer various possibilities for the etymology of the word **Shaddai**. One suggestion is that it derives from the verb **שדד shadad**, meaning “to deal violently with,” but none of these sources suggest that **Shaddai** means “God of violence.” Another possibility listed in BDB is that it comes from **שדה shadah**, meaning “to pour out,” referring to God as “rain giver.” 

The *Kohler-Baumgartner lexicon (HALOT)* suggests that the word could be based on the **Akkadian shadu**, meaning “mountain.” Thus, **El Shaddai** would mean “The God of the Mountain(s).” This is the prevailing scholarly consensus today. HALOT also notes other suggestions, including the idea that **Shaddai** refers to one of the ancestral gods, though the exact meaning remains uncertain.

However, one compelling possibility not noted in BDB or HALOT but found in both *Theological Dictionary of the Old Testament (TDOT)* and *New International Dictionary of Old Testament Theology and Exegesis (NIDOTTE)* is that **Shaddai** comes from **שד shad**, the Hebrew word for “breast.” In Hebrew, the word **שד shad** means “breast,” and although the noun is masculine in form, it refers specifically to female breasts.

TDOT observes that **Shaddai** follows a pattern of divine names that pair a natural element with an adjectival suffix. TDOT mentions:  

> “One thinks of ‘Artsay, Tallay, and Pidray, wives of Ba`al, whose names mean ‘One of the Earth,’ ‘The Dewy One,’ and ‘The Misty One.’” (TDOT, I:256)  

Thus, **Shaddai** would naturally mean “The Breasted One.”

Although TDOT ultimately favors the interpretation “God of the Mountain,” it acknowledges “The God of Breasts” as a meaningful and significant alternative.  

TDOT notes:  

> “Despite several attempted and suggested explanations the etymology of שדי has still not been completely clarified.” (TDOT, I:257)

This ambiguity should caution against dismissing the “God of Breasts” interpretation simply because of later scholarly trends toward “God of the Mountain(s).”

### El Shaddai — The Strong Breasted One

The title **El Shaddai** can be literally understood as “The Strong Breasted One.” This maternal imagery is deeply linked to ideas of sustenance, provision, and intimate care, much like a mother nourishing her child.

The Hebrew Bible portrays God under this name as a Provider and Sustainer. God introduced Himself to Abraham saying:  

> “I am El Shaddai; walk before me and be blameless.” (Genesis 17:1)

In Deuteronomy, we read:  

> “He found him in a desert land, and in the howling waste of the wilderness; He encircled him, He cared for him, He guarded him as the pupil of His eye.” (Deut. 32:10)

These nurturing qualities resonate with the image of God having life-giving, sustaining “breasts.”

### Early Jewish Interpretation — Shaddai the All-Sufficer

Early Jewish thinkers often associated **Shaddai** with sufficiency and nourishment. El Shaddai was the “All-Sufficer,” the One who nourishes and sustains like a mother caring for her children.

Philo of Alexandria, a Hellenistic Jewish philosopher, linked the name **Shaddai** with sufficiency:  

> “The name Shaddai signifies ‘one who is sufficient,’ meaning that God stands in need of nothing.” (*On the Change of Names* 5:23)

This echoes the idea of maternal abundance and provision, associating God’s sufficiency with nourishment.

### The Dual Nature of God — Father and Mother

Early Christians extended this imagery to describe God’s dual nature as both Father and Mother. The name **El Shaddai** hints at this duality. In its original Hebrew form:

- **El** means “God” or “Strength.”

- **Shaddai**, derived from **shad**, means “breast” — feminine and nurturing.

Some early Christian thinkers saw this as reflecting the unity of masculine and feminine within the Deity. The duality is beautifully expressed in *Genesis*:

> “So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created He him; male and female created He them.” (Genesis 1:27)

This indicates that both male and female characteristics are found in the image of God — a reflection of both strength and nurturing.

### Clement of Alexandria on the Breasts of God

Clement of Alexandria is one of the most explicit early Church Fathers using maternal imagery for God. In his *Paedagogus*, Clement writes:  

> “The Word is everything to the child, both father and mother, teacher and nurse… The nutriment is the milk of the Father… and the Word alone supplies us children with the milk of love, and only those who suck at this breast are truly happy. For this reason, seeking is called sucking; to those infants who seek the Word, the Father's loving breasts supply milk.” (Paedagogus 1.6)

This passage illustrates how Clement envisions the Divine as possessing metaphorical breasts — nourishing believers with spiritual milk.

### Conclusion

Though the etymology of **El Shaddai** remains debated, the ancient possibility of it meaning **“The Breasted One”** is supported by Hebrew linguistics and early theological interpretation. This title highlights God’s nurturing, maternal aspects alongside strength and power. Far from being shocking, the image of God as possessing life-giving, sustaining breasts was meaningful to ancient Jewish and Christian thinkers alike, reflecting a more complete, encompassing image of the Divine.

The Breasts of the Father and Christ: Nurturing Divine Sustenance and Motherhood

The concept of divine nourishment in Christian esoteric thought is often portrayed through maternal imagery, especially in the context of Christ and the Father. The symbolism of breasts as sources of milk represents spiritual sustenance and care. The Odes of Solomon, an early Christian hymn collection, provides profound insights into the maternal and nurturing aspects of both Christ and the Father. These hymns articulate divine motherhood through imagery of the Father’s breasts and Christ’s role as the provider of spiritual nourishment. In this exploration, we will examine how these maternal symbols reflect the nurturing nature of Christ and the Father, and their connection to the Church, seen in passages like Ode 8 and Ode 19.

Christ as Mother in Ode 8

One of the most striking examples of Christ depicted as a mother appears in Ode 8: “My own breasts did I prepare for them” (8:14). In this verse, Christ is not only the giver of life but also the maternal provider of milk, which sustains the faithful. The idea of Christ as the nursing mother is a radical departure from traditional representations of God as exclusively paternal, emphasizing a nurturing, feminine role. The verse continues: “I fashioned their limbs / and my own breasts I prepared for them / that they might drink my holy milk and live by it.” This passage envisions Christ not only as a father figure but as one who cares for His followers in the most intimate and nurturing way, offering life-sustaining nourishment.

This maternal image is reinforced by the contrast between the physical nourishment of milk and its spiritual parallel: just as a mother’s milk nourishes the infant body, Christ’s spiritual nourishment sustains the soul. The faithful, drinking from Christ's milk, are imbued with life, symbolizing the life-giving relationship between Christ and His followers. The image of the divine as a mother providing for the people reflects both a compassionate and intimate relationship with humanity.

The Father as Source of Nourishment in Ode 19

In Ode 19, we encounter an even more striking portrayal of the Father as a nurturing figure. The text reads: "The Son is the cup, and the Father is He who was milked; and the Holy Spirit is She who milked Him; Because His breasts were full, and it was undesirable that His milk should be ineffectually released" (Ode 19:2). In this passage, the Father is described as having “breasts,” an image traditionally associated with femininity. The Father, often depicted in masculine terms in Scripture, is here portrayed in a wholly feminine light. This reversal of typical gender roles emphasizes the fullness of divine nurturing and care, further complicated by the Holy Spirit’s role in “milking” the Father, symbolizing her action of distributing divine sustenance.

The metaphor of divine milk being "ineffectively released" suggests that God’s nurturing energy must be properly channeled, ensuring that it reaches the people in a life-giving manner. This imagery of the Father as the milked one, the Son as the cup, and the Holy Spirit as the one who milks points to a harmonious, triune action that nourishes the faithful, further highlighting the maternal role within the divine relationship.

The Virgin as the Church in Ode 19

Another significant aspect of Ode 19 is the imagery of the Virgin. The Virgin is described as “becoming a Mother” and “laboring and bearing the Son but without pain, because it did not occur without purpose” (Ode 19:6). In this context, the Virgin is not referring to Mary, but rather to the Church, which is often symbolized as a virgin in Christian esoteric thought. 2 Corinthians 11:2 states: "For I am jealous for you with godly jealousy. For I have betrothed you to one husband, that I may present you as a chaste virgin to Christ," emphasizing the purity and sanctity of the Church, the Bride of Christ.

Similarly, Ephesians 5:27 speaks of the Church as a “glorious church, not having spot or wrinkle or any such thing, but that she should be holy and without blemish,” reinforcing the idea that the Church is the Virgin that receives and nurtures the divine. Galatians 4:26 further adds, "Jerusalem above is free, which is the mother of us all," symbolizing the heavenly, nurturing aspect of the Church as the mother of all believers. The Church, as the Virgin, receives the milk of divine sustenance and gives birth to spiritual life.

The Breasts of the Father as a Source of Spiritual Life

The Odes of Solomon make repeated references to the "milk" of the Father and the role of the Father’s "breasts" in the nourishment of the faithful. Ode 19 highlights this: “the milk from the two breasts of the Father” (Ode 19:4). The Father, traditionally envisioned as a powerful, authoritative figure, is here portrayed as a source of maternal care, providing spiritual sustenance through His “breasts.” The use of feminine imagery to describe the Father does not diminish His role as the Creator but rather expands the understanding of His nature to include both masculine and feminine aspects.

This imagery finds its roots in Old Testament metaphors of God as a nurturing figure. Psalm 22:9-10 portrays God as a midwife, taking a maternal role in the formation of the believer: “Yet You are He who took me out of the womb; You made me trust while on my mother’s breasts.” Similarly, Isaiah 49:15 and Isaiah 66:13 depict God as a comforting mother, nurturing and caring for His people. In Isaiah 42:14b, God is described as “travailing in the throes of divine labor pangs,” a vivid metaphor for God’s active participation in the birthing of new life, further emphasizing the maternal aspects of His nature.

Conclusion

The imagery of divine breasts and milk in the Odes of Solomon provides a profound theological vision of God as both Father and Mother, embodying a fullness of care and nurturing that transcends traditional gender roles. Christ, portrayed as a nursing mother in Ode 8, provides spiritual nourishment, while the Father, in Ode 19, is depicted with maternal breasts that sustain the faithful. The Virgin, symbolizing the Church, receives this divine milk and gives birth to new spiritual life. This rich imagery serves to deepen our understanding of the divine nature as one that is both strong and nurturing, offering life and sustenance to all who seek it. Through these poetic and symbolic representations, we encounter a more holistic vision of God’s love, care, and provision for His people.

Medieval Christian Mystics 

In exploring the maternal imagery in Christian theology, particularly the representation of Christ as both a father and a mother, we find numerous historical figures and writings that echo this theme. From medieval mystics to monastic teachings, the concept of divine motherly affection, nourishment, and protection takes center stage, offering a powerful understanding of divine love and care for humanity.

Bernard of Clairvaux (1090-1153), a Cistercian monk, powerfully conveyed the need for spiritual leaders to embody both paternal authority and maternal tenderness. In his sermon to prelates, Bernard emphasizes the dual role of a leader: “Show affection as a mother would, correct like a father. Be gentle, avoid harshness, do not resort to blows, expose your breasts: let your bosoms swell with milk, not swell with passion.” This passage highlights the importance of gentle, nurturing care—representing the motherly aspect of Christ—while still maintaining the necessary discipline of a father. The metaphor of exposing one’s breasts and allowing the bosom to swell with milk emphasizes the nourishment and comfort leaders must provide to their spiritual charges. Furthermore, Bernard asks, “Why will the young man, bitten by the serpent, shy away from the judgment of the priest, to whom he ought to run as to the bosom of a mother?” This question illustrates how a priest, like Christ, is called to be a refuge, a nurturing presence, offering spiritual sustenance as a mother would to her child.

Similarly, Guerric of Igny, another Cistercian, reflects on Christ’s dual role as both father and mother. He writes, “Christ is a father in virtue of natural creation ... and authority. ... He is a mother too in the mildness of his affection, and a nurse. ... The Holy Spirit (is) like milk poured out from Christ's own breasts.” Here, Guerric acknowledges Christ’s nurturing role, comparing the Holy Spirit’s role to the milk that is poured out from the breasts of Christ. This divine nourishment is not only a sign of maternal affection but also a symbol of the life-giving and sustaining power of the divine.

In Clare of Assisi's vision, she experiences a deeply personal and spiritual encounter with St. Francis, which evokes the imagery of Christ as a mother. In her dream, “St. Francis bared his breast, saying ‘Come, take and drink.’ And she did so. Then St. Francis bid her suckle a second time.” The sweetness and delight Clare experiences in this vision further deepens the maternal metaphor, as she feels spiritually nourished by the divine presence. After the experience, she describes the nipple of the breast remaining between her lips, and what she finds in her mouth is "pure shining gold." The image of gold here symbolizes the purity and preciousness of the divine milk that Clare receives, reinforcing the notion of spiritual nourishment that transcends mere physical sustenance.

Catherine of Siena (1347-1380) also wrote about this intimate relationship with the divine through the imagery of Christ's milk. In her work, she reflects, “...the soul who has in truth entered the house of self-knowledge ... receives me, through affection of love, seeking to draw herself the milk of my sweetness from the breast of the doctrine of Christ crucified.” For Catherine, the “milk of sweetness” signifies the profound spiritual nourishment that comes from understanding and uniting with Christ’s sacrifice. She elaborates in another passage, describing how the soul “reposes on the breast of my divine charity, keeping in the mouth of holy desire the flesh of Christ crucified, ... the soul reposes at the breast of Christ crucified, who is the Truth, and thus draws to herself the milk of virtue.” Catherine’s writings depict a nurturing Christ who offers His milk as a source of spiritual life and sustenance, drawing those who approach Him into an intimate union.

In Julian of Norwich (1342-1413+), the image of Christ as a mother reaches its zenith. She writes, “Jesus is our true Mother in nature by our first Creation, and he is our true Mother in grace by his taking our created Nature.” Julian sees Christ not only as the nurturing mother who cares for us with tenderness but also as the mother who feeds us with His own flesh. She writes, “The mother can give her child suck of her milk, but our precious Mother Jesus can feed us with himself, and does most courteously and most tenderly with the blessed sacrament, which is the precious food of true life.” The motherly imagery of Christ feeding His children with Himself underscores the deep bond between Christ and the believer, one of complete self-giving and love.

In Christian folklore, the maternal imagery extends into stories of saints, such as St. Agatha, whose breasts were tortured during her martyrdom. Yet, she responded, “Know that in my soul I have other breasts, whose milk sustains all of my senses, which I have long since dedicated to God!” This powerful statement highlights how the nourishment of the soul transcends physical suffering. Agatha’s declaration of spiritual breasts points to the idea of divine sustenance available to the soul, independent of earthly tribulations.

The Golden Legend by Jacobus de Voragine also includes a story about a woman martyr who, while suffering, continued to feed her children with “the sweetness of thy milk,” even as her flesh was torn. The miracle that followed—milk spurted forth from her wounds instead of blood—reinforces the symbolism of the spiritual nourishment that martyrs offer through their suffering.

Finally, the life of St. Bernard’s mother illustrates the maternal role of virtue and devotion. Bernard's mother, who bore seven children, is said to have imparted to her children “the nature of their mother's virtue” through her milk. This story links maternal love with moral and spiritual development, where the physical act of nursing becomes a metaphor for the transmission of virtue and devotion to God.

In all these accounts, the metaphor of divine milk and breasts serves as a rich image of nurturing, spiritual nourishment, and affection. Whether through the writings of mystics like Bernard, Guerric, and Catherine, or through visions like those of Clare and Julian, the figure of Christ as both Father and Mother offers profound insights into the divine care and affection that believers experience in their relationship with the sacred. These maternal images remind us that divine love is both a source of authority and of intimate, tender care, providing believers with the nourishment necessary for spiritual growth and salvation.

The Shakers

Shaker theology is based on the idea of the dualism of God as male and female: "So God created him; male and female he created them" (Genesis 1:27). This passage was interpreted as showing the dual nature of the Creator

An all-important, sublime, and foundational doctrine of the Shakers is the Existence of an Eternal Father and an Eternal Mother in Deity — the Heavenly Parents of all angelical and human beings.


31. As Father, God is the infinite Fountain of intelligence, and the Source of all power — "the Almighty, great and terrible in majesty;" "the high and lofty One, that inhabiteth eternity, whose name is Holy, dwelling in the high and holy place;" and "a consuming fire." 

32. But, as Mother, "God is love" and tenderness! If all the maternal affections of all the female or bearing spirits in animated nature were combined together, and then concentered in one individual human female, that person would be but as a type or image of our Eternal Heavenly Mother. 

The Gnostic Gospels Illuminated by Cyd Ropp

 The Gnostic Gospels Illuminated by Cyd Ropp 

Fishes - 153 of them (John 21:11)

Fishes - 153 of them (John 21:11)

A fishing party, which included the present writer, once caught in a fairly short time off the coast of British Columbia, six splendid salmon. Their total weight was sixty-three pounds. If the "great fishes" caught in Galilee were on a par with these, this would make the total catch now under consideration to be about three-quarters of a ton.

But why — the question may well be asked — was John so careful as to specify meticulously how many fish were caught? At different times thousands of his readers have scented a special significance here. There is a sound instinct behind this.

Here, then, is a list of suggestions (doubtless incomplete). Some of these have a good Biblical flavour; others not at all.

1.	153 = 9x17: and 9 is the number of judgment (is it?), whilst 17 combines the ideas of "spirit" and "order": 10 + 7 (do they?). So it is said! (Companion Bible).
2.	There were not 153 fishes, but 154—and this is 11 x 14 (or 22 x 7), again with corresponding numerical meaning. Sic!
3.	Contemporary Greek zoologists asserted that the sea contains precisely 153 different species of fishes. So John saw this number as symbolizing men out of all nations within the gospel net (Hoskyns).
4.	By Gematria (that is, substituting the numerical value of each letter), the Greek word for "fishes' (ichthues) gives 1224 which is 153 x 8. Thus, "fishes" suggests those caught in the gospel net according to the eighth sign.
5.	When "Sons of God" is written in Hebrew characters it gives, by Gematria once again (par.4): 153. This result only holds true, however, if the Hebrew definite article is included: B'nei ha-Elohim, which could signify: Sons (disciples, converts) of the Mighty (the Apostles), that is, the fruits of their preaching.
6.	2 Chronicles 2:17 gives 153 thousand and six hundred as the number of "strangers", i.e. Gentiles, in Israel who were numbered by David. And in Exodus 30:14-16, numbering of the people is associated with atonement and redemption.
7.	And now, mathematics. For the reason made plain by this diagram, 10 is called a triangular number 4.
	* ** *** ****
	The next in the set is, of course, 15; and then 21, and so on.
	153 is one of this family. 153 = triangular number 17.
	Similarly, 120 (Acts 1:15) = triangular number 15 (and 15 = triangular number 5).
	276 (Acts 27:37) = triangular number 23.
	666 (Rev. 13:18) = triangular number 36 (and 36 = triangular number 8).
	These are the most noteworthy, but not the only, examples to be found in the NT The odds against all the three-figure numbers in the NT being "triangular" are enormous. Has such a thing happened by "chance"? So it looks as though the early church saw special meaning in the idea of triangular numbers. But what? Possibly, but not certainly, according to Matthew 28:19, thus:
			Father
			/	\
		Son		Holy Spirit
	There may be some other more satisfactory explanation of 153 outside the range of the seven suggestions listed here. But it is not necessary to believe that the eighth sign has eight different meanings. Studies in the Gospels. By Harry Whittaker

The Preexistence of the Son of Man in the book of Enoch

 The Preexistence of the Son of Man in the book of Enoch 

In this study we will look at the Preexistence of the son of man in the book of Enoch to begin we will have an opening reading from the book of Enoch Chapter 46:

1 And there I saw One who had a head of days,
And His head was white like wool,
And with Him was another being whose countenance had the appearance of a man,
And his face was full of graciousness, like one of the holy angels.
2 And I asked the angel who went with me and showed me all the hidden things, concerning that
3 Son of Man, who he was, and whence he was, (and) why he went with the Head of Days? And he answered and said unto me:
This is the son of Man who hath righteousness,
With whom dwelleth righteousness,
And who revealeth all the treasures of that which is hidden,
Because the Lord of Spirits hath chosen him,
And whose lot hath the pre-eminence before the Lord of Spirits in uprightness for ever.
4 And this Son of Man whom thou hast seen
Shall raise up the kings and the mighty from their seats,
[And the strong from their thrones]
And shall loosen the reins of the strong,
And break the teeth of the sinners.
5 [And he shall put down the kings from their thrones and kingdoms]
Because they do not extol and praise Him,
Nor humbly acknowledge whence the kingdom was bestowed upon them.
6 And he shall put down the countenance of the strong,
And shall fill them with shame.
And darkness shall be their dwelling,
And worms shall be their bed,
And they shall have no hope of rising from their beds,
Because they do not extol the name of the Lord of Spirits.
[And raise their hands against the Most High],
And tread upon the earth and dwell upon it.
And all their deeds manifest unrighteousness,
And their power rests upon their riches,
And their faith is in the gods which they have made with their hands,
And they deny the name of the Lord of Spirits,
8 And they persecute the houses of His congregations,
And the faithful who hang upon the name of the Lord of Spirits. 

(book of Enoch Chapter 46)

First the book of Enoch is a prophecy about the end times what Enoch saw was to take place in the future not the past

In Chapter One, Enoch is called to prophecy events that will take place in the last generation, in visions given to him by God. In the visions, he describes Jesus' Second Coming with the saints, and the judgment of the unrighteous).

[*And he took up his parable and said "Enoch, a righteous man, whose eyes were opened by God, saw

the vision of the Holy One (God) in the heavens, which the Angels (of God) showed me and from them, I heard everything; and from them, I understood as I saw, but (what I saw, and what I heard was) not for this (my) generation, but for a remote one which is 3.) for to come (in the Last Days)."]

(The generation "for to come" that Enoch alludes to in Verse 3. above is this generation, "Our Generation.

" The generation that will see the climax of all the dreams, visions, insights, experiences and wisdom given to Enoch by God concerning the last generation come to pass).

What Enoch sees or saw in this book is going to take place in the last days he did not see the Son of Man in his own time but in the latter generations when he will return at the end time. But some others understand this and Daniel’s reference to mean that the Son of Man had pre-existence before he was born, but this is not so.

Concerning the Elect (the Redeemed), I (Enoch) said and took up my parable concerning them.

BIBLE REFERENCE: [****MARK 4:10-12 As soon as He was alone, His followers, along with 

the twelve, began asking Him about the parables. 11 And He was saying to them, "To you 

has been given the mystery of the Kingdom of God, but those who are outside, get everything

in parables, 12 so that while SEEING, they may see and not perceive, and while HEARING, 

they may hear and not UNDERSTAND; otherwise, they might return and be forgiven."] NASU

This helps us to understand chapter 46 evidently the son of man is a symbolic figure 

It should be noted that chapter 46 speaks about the pre-eminence of the son of man before the Lord of spirits: 

And whose lot hath the pre-eminence before the Lord of Spirits in uprightness for ever.

48.1 And in that place I saw an inexhaustible spring of righteousness and many springs of wisdom surrounded it, and all the thirsty drank from them and were filled with wisdom, and their dwelling was with the Righteous and the Holy and the Chosen.

48.2 And at that hour that Son of Man was named, in the presence of the Lord of Spirits, the Head of Days.

48.3 Even before the Sun and the constellations were created, before the Stars of Heaven were made, his name was named in front of the Lord of Spirits.

Just says he was named and chosen, doesn't say he actually existed.
We were also chosen before the foundation of the Earth.

Eph 1:4 For he chose us in Christ before the foundation of the world that we may be holy and unblemished in his sight in love. (NET)

Rom 4:17 as it is written, “I have made you the father of many nations”—in the presence of the God in whom he believed, who gives life to the dead and calls into existence the things that do not exist  (English Standard Version)

just look at the context: after saying that his name was named, it is explained:
"He shall be a staff to the righteous...he shall be a light to the Gentiles..." etc. The naming of a thing is the defining of a thing. This is like when Abraham is named a father of many nations before he has a child, and how Immanuel is named before his time. This has to do with God's purposes. Peter also said that God chose him before the foundation of the world, so why would it be a surprise?

Just ask yourself which makes more contextual sense.
For some more idea of how this makes more sense in the first case, look at chapter 71, verses 14-16, where the author is called that son of man.

what is rendered as existence in the one translation pertains to how he was with the Father beforehand, which, in the context, has to do with how he was determined to come into His presence. The Son of Man figure, after all, is based on Daniel, where the Son of Man COMES INTO God's presence --- not that he's created in His presence.

The idea of anachronistic life (pre and post existence) is rife in the Hebrew Scriptures. Reading these in their contexts, any rational minded person should be able to discern symbolic nature of these, often metaphorical, and designed to instill eschatological truths (related to covenantal history). Levi, “being in the loins of Sbraham” when he met Melchizedek is one example (Heb 7:3-10).

Yahweh said to Jeremiah (chapter i, 5): "Before I formed you in the belly I KNEW YOU; and before you came forth out of the womb, I SANCTIFIED YOU: and I ordained you a prophet unto the nations." Now Jeremiah did not exist before his conception. Yet these words would seem to teach it, if understood as those who believe in the pre-existence of Christ, understood the statements about him. As a purpose Jeremiah existed; his person was as clearly present to the divine mind as if he had stood before Him in actual fact. This is the explanation of words, which, rigidly construed, would imply Jeremiah's pre-existence.

The principle of the argument is expressed in the words of Paul (Romans 4:17) "God who quickens the dead, and calls those things which be not (but are to be) AS THOUGH THEY WERE." See also the introductions of the gospel of John and the letter to the Colossians.
"And now, Father, glorify me at your side with the glory I had with you before the world was created . . .you loved me before the creation of the world" (John 17:5,24)
Here our difficulty is to understand how Jesus could have been honoured and loved by the Father before he actually existed as an independent person. The problem really arises from our limited view of time.
To us the passage of time is like a line. Separate events are distinct points on that line. So if we were to indicate the relative places in time of Abraham, Moses, David, Daniel, Christ and the apostles, we should get something like this:

1800 BC . . Abraham
1400 BC . . Moses
1000 BC . . David
600 BC . . Daniel
BC / AD . . Christ
50 AD etc. Apostles

An order of appearance inevitably arises. We cannot think of their place in history in any other way. But this is because of our finite minds. We have no consciousness of the distant past; and none at all of the future.
But the mind of God is not subject to these limitations. His mind is infinite in power. He is just as capable of being conscious of past situations, or of future ones, as He is of the present. So we cannot represent the Divine experience of time by a line. It must be more like the following diagram.

Now we know that Moses did not exist before Abraham, and that David lived about four centuries before Daniel. But in our diagram God is the centre of the arc; He is the same distance from them all. Our "distance" represents God's infinite consciousness. He was just as "conscious" of the sort of person they would each be, long before they were born. He could visualise them, and speak prophetically of them. So the Father knew what sort of person the Son would be before he was actually born and began to exist as a separate person. He could plan what He would eventually accomplish through him. He could "glorify" and "love" in advance His own Son, "the only-begotten of the Father".

As the Apostle Peter put it:

"Christ was foreknown indeed before the foundation of the world, but was manifested at the 

end of the times for your sake" (1 Peter 1:20, R.V.). (The A.V. uses "foreordain" here, but elsewhere translates the same word by "foreknow".)

So too the saying of Jesus to the Jews:
"Your father Abraham rejoiced to see my day; and he saw it, and was glad . . . Before Abraham was, I am" (John 8:56-58).

Abraham, having received the promises, looked forward to the coming of the One in whom "all families of the earth shall be blessed" (Genesis 12:3). Jesus knew that he was that One, having priority even over Abraham in God's purpose.

The Gnostic Nature of Jesus

The Gnostic Nature of Jesus

or

The None Docetic Gnostic Nature of Jesus

The gnosics had different views on the nature of Jesus one of those understandings is called docetism from the Greek dokein, “to seem.” Docetists took Paul literally when he said, in Romans 8:3, that Jesus came “in the likeness of sinful flesh.” Jesus only seemed to be a flesh-and-blood human, but in reality he was a spirit that had a merely phantasmal body.

Likeness

Gospel of Thomas (28) Jesus said: I stood in the midst of the world, and I appeared to them in the flesh. I found them all drunk; I found none of them thirsting, and my soul was afflicted for the sons of men; for they are blind in their heart, and they do not see that they came empty into the world, (and) empty they seek to leave the world again. But now they are drunk. When they have thrown off their wine, they will repent.

Paul used the word "likeness" to emphasise the sameness of the Lord's nature to that of our own; a complete physical identification with humankind (Heb. 2:14,17; 4:15, etc.).

Let us consider this. What about this "likeness"? Moses informs us (Gen. 5:3) that Adam begat a son in his own image and likeness. You would not say the word "likeness" means that Seth was, in any wise, different from Adam.

There is the word "image". Suppose the word "image" had been used in this remark of Paul's: "sent His Son in the image of the earthy nature". We should then have had this argument — "Ah, you see it is only the image; it is not the nature itself". Whereas, Paul says concerning ourselves in 1 Cor. 15:49: "We have borne the image of the earthy, and shall also bear the image of the heavenly". Shall we say we have not borne the earthy? Do not we bear the earthy? Yes. Therefore in apostolic language "earthy" and "the image of the earthy" mean the same thing. Upon the same principle, sinful flesh and the likeness of sinful flesh mean the same thing.

The truth of the matter does not depend upon the word "likeness" or any other single term, but upon the combination of statements made — which are all in language plain enough to be free from obscurity. At the same time, it has to be pointed out that the word "likeness" in the Greek has the force of resemblance so complete as to be sameness. This is illustrated in the statement that Jesus was made in "the likeness of men" (Phil. 2:7). The extent of the likeness is defined as extending to "all points" and "all things" (Paul's words — Heb. 2:17; 4:15). What can we say but that he was a man, and not the mere likeness of a man

Question How could Jesus have been made free from that sin which God laid upon him in his own nature, "made in the likeness of sinful flesh," if he had not died for himself as well as for us? 
Answer: He could not.

None Docetic Gnostic

Not all gnostics held this teaching some sects believed that Jesus was a man in the flesh:

Furthermore, they will say of him that he is unbegotten, though he has been begotten, (that) he does not eat, even though he eats, (that) he does not drink, even though he drinks, (that) he is uncircumcised, though he has been circumcised, (that) he is unfleshly, though he has come in the flesh, (that) he did not come to suffering, <though> he came to suffering, (that) he did not rise from the dead, <though> he arose from the dead. (The Nag Hammadi Library Melchizedek)

Here is a fragment from Basilides addressing this question. It demonstrates that early Christianity could have no qualms about attributing a deficit of goodness to Jesus while he was in the flesh:

Basilides, in Book 23 of his "Commentaries," writes

{Then, farther along, he adds:} A new-born baby, then, has never sinned before; or more precisely it has not actually committed any sins, but within itself it has the activity of sinning. Whenever it experiences suffering, it receives benefit, profiting by many unpleasant experiences. Just so, if by chance a grown man has not sinned by deed and yet suffers, he suffered the suffering for the same reason as the new-born baby: he has within him sinfulness, and the only reason he has not sinned (in deed) is because he has not had the occasion to do so. Thus not sinning cannot be imputed to him. Indeed, someone who intends to commit adultery is an adulterer even without succeeding in the act, and someone who intends to commit murder is a murderer even without being able to commit the act. Just so, if I see the aforementioned sinless person suffering despite having done no wrong, I must call that person evil by intent to sin. For I will say anything rather than call providence evil.

Nevertheless, let us suppose that you leave aside all these matters and set out to embarrass me by referring to certain figures, saying perhaps, "And consequently so-and-so must have sinned, since he suffered!" If you permit, I shall say that he did not sin, but was like the new-born baby that suffers. But if you press the argument, I shall say that any human being that you can name is human; God is righteous. For no one is pure of uncleanness, as someone once said. (Clement of Alexandria, Miscellanies 4.81.2-4.83.2)

Even the flesh of babies is considered to have the potential to sin and thereby will profit from suffering

This reminds us of the passage in the Epistle to the Hebrews that declares even Jesus Christ profited and learned as a result of suffering.

Hebrews 5:8 Although He was a Son, He learned obedience from the things which He suffered.

Here it seems Basilides is referring to the suffering of Jesus and quotes from the book of Job chapter 14 to show that Jesus did not sin but had our unclean human nature 

The quotations from the teachings of Basilides is very similar to the teachings of Dr. John Thomas in Elpis Israel 1884: 

Sin, I say, is a synonym for human nature. Hence, the flesh is invariably regarded as unclean. It is therefore written, "How can he be clean who is born of a woman?" (Job 25:4) "Who can bring a clean thing out of an unclean? Not one." (Job 14:4) "What is man that he should be clean? And he which is born of a woman that he should be righteous? Behold, God putteth no trust in his saints; yea, the heavens are not clean in his sight. How much more abominable and filthy is man, who drinketh iniquity like water?" (Job 15:14-16) This view of sin in the flesh is enlightening in the things concerning Jesus. The apostle says, "God made him to be sin for us, who knew no sin" (2 Cor. 5:21); and this he explains in another place by saying, that "He sent his own son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and for sin, condemned sin in the flesh" (Rom. 8:3) in the offering of his body once (Heb. 10:10,12,14). Sin could not have been condemned in the body of Jesus, if it had not existed there. His body was as unclean as the bodies of those for whom he died; for he was born of a woman, and "not one" can bring a clean body out of a defiled body; for "that", says Jesus himself, "which is born of the flesh is flesh" (John 3:6). (Elpis Israel)

Son of Man and Son of God

The nature of Jesus' humanity and divinity:

How did the Lord proclaim things while he existed in flesh and after he had revealed himself as Son of God? He lived in this place where you remain, speaking about the Law of Nature - but I call it 'Death'. Now the Son of God, Rheginos, was Son of Man. He embraced them both, possessing the humanity and the divinity, so that on the one hand he might vanquish death through his being Son of God, and that on the other through the Son of Man the restoration to the Pleroma might occur; because he was originally from above, a seed of Truth, before this structure had come into being. In this many dominions and divinities came into existence. (The Treatise on the Resurrection)

Here "flesh" is not a vehicle for a docetic Christ. Instead, the Treatise on the Resurrection describes Jesus tv onpici and speaks favorably about the flesh throughout. 

Distinct from other Valentinian texts, the Treatise on the Resurrection does not divide humanity into three classes: spiritual, psychical, and material. 

The second occurrence (47,S) refers to Rheginus, indicating that both he and the Lord possessed the same type of fleshly body. 

The Lamb of God

John 1:29 The next day John saw Jesus coming toward him and said, “Look, the Lamb of God, who takes away the sin of the world!

1Peter 1:19 but with precious blood, as of a lamb unblemished and spotless, the blood of Christ.

Fragment 10, on John 1:29 (In John 1:29, “The next day he saw Jesus coming toward him, and said, ‘Behold, the Lamb of God, who takes away the sin of the world!’”) John spoke the words, "Lamb of God" as a prophet, but the words, "who takes away the sin of the world" as more than a prophet. The first expression was spoken with reference to his body, the second with reference to Him who was in that body. The lamb is an imperfect member of the genus of sheep; the same being true of the body as compared with the one that dwells in it. Had he meant to attribute perfection to the body he would have spoken of a ram about to be sacrificed. (Heracleon: Fragments from his Commentary on the Gospel of John)

The lamb is a symbolic representation of the human nature assumed by Christ and subsequently sacrificed at the crucifixion

Heracleon also suggests that the phrase "lamb of God" refers to the physical form (body) of the Saviour, while the phrase "who takes away the sin of the world" indicates the being dwelling in that body the logos. The imperfection of the lamb in relation to other members of its species is relative to the imperfection of the body that harbours a perfect being such as the logos

The imperfection of the lamb does not reflect the perfection of the saviour's body in other words the body of the saviour does not have an immaculate nature. 

God "sent forth His Son made of a woman made under the law" (Gal. 4:4). Being made of a woman, he was of our nature -- our condemned and weak and mortal nature: but being begotten of God and not of man, he 13 was in character spotless "holy, harmless, undefiled, separate from sinners". Sin had hold of him in his nature, which inherited the sentence of death from Adam: but it had no hold of him in his character: for he always did those things that were pleasing to his Father. 

the character of Jesus was holy, harmless, undefiled, without spot, or blemish, or any such thing; but his flesh was like our flesh, in all its points—weak, emotional, and unclean. Had his flesh been like that of Angel-Elohim, which is consubstantial with the Eternal Spirit, it would have been unfit for the purpose of the Deity in his manifestation. Sin, whose wages is death, had to be condemned in the nature that had transgressed; a necessity that could only be accomplished by the Word becoming Adamic-Flesh, and not an immaculate nature.

According to Valentinian theologians, Jesus derived his animate "body" or essence from the Craftsman. His spiritual essence is the entire "church of the superior seed" (Excerpts of Theodotus 17:1) deriving from Wisdom (Sophia). That is why the angel told Mary, "The Holy Spirit (i.e. Wisdom) will come upon you and the power of the Most High (i.e. the Craftsman) will overshadow you" (Luke 1:35 cf. Refutation of Heresies 6:35:3-4, also Excerpt of Theodotus 60, Against Heresies 1:15:3). According to Ptolemy, the contributions from Wisdom (Sophia) and the Craftsman pass through Mary into Jesus "like water through a pipe" (Against Heresies 1:7:2). This human being is the "lamb of God" (John 1:26 cf. Fragments of Herakleon 10), that is, the one the "Father of All chose to obtain knowledge of himself" ( Against Heresies 1:15:3).

Jesus became closely identified with humanity by taking on a human body. His human body is seen as consubstantial with the Church.

The Baptism of Jesus

When he was thirty years old, he went to John the Baptist to be baptized (Luke 3:23). As soon as he went down into the water, "he came out laughing at everything (of this world), not because he considers it a trifle, but because he is full of contempt for it" (Gospel of Philip 71:3-15). The divine Savior, referred to as the "Spirit of the Thought of the Father", descended on him in the form of a dove (Matthew 3:16 and parallels cf. Against Heresies 1:7:2, 1:15:3, Excerpts of Theodotus 61:6, Refutation of Heresies 35:3) and the "Word became flesh" (John 1:14).

Jesus' baptism and the descent of the "Spirit" is his redemption (Gospel of Philip 70:34-36). Redemption was necessary even for Jesus so that "he might not be detained by the thought of the deficiency in which he was placed" (Excerpts of Theodotus 22:7 cf. also Tripartite Tractate 124:31-125:11). This is the true "virgin birth" and resurrection from the dead, for he was reborn of the virgin Spirit (cf. Gospel of Philip 70:34-71:7, Refutation of Heresies 35:5, Gospel of Philip 56:15-18).

The Redeemed Redeemer

Hebrews 5:7 Who in the days of his flesh, having offered up both supplications and entreaties to him who was able to save him out of death, with strong crying and tears; (and having been heard because of his piety

The Father did not save him "from death" (A.V.), but "out of death" (Gk., eky Heb. 5:7). Death had to come before deliverance.

Hebrews 5:3 Because of this he is required as for the people, so also for himself, to offer sacrifices for sins.

Hebrews 7:27 who does not need daily, as those high priests, to offer up sacrifices, first for His own sins and then for the people’s, for this He did once for all when He offered up Himself.

Hebrews  9:12 Neither by the blood of goats and calves, but by his own blood he entered in once into the holy place, having obtained eternal redemption for us.

So he died for us; but did he not die for himself also? How otherwise could he have been made free from that sin which God laid upon him in sending him forth in the likeness of sinful flesh? Paul says that "he that is dead is freed from sin," and that "in that Christ died, he died unto sin once," being raised from the dead, death hath no more dominion over him (Rom. 6:7, 9, 10).

The fact that Jesus needed to be saved out of death means that he himself needed to be redeemed in many Gnostic books this is referred to as the Saved Saviour or the Redeemed Redeemer

Jesus revealed himself [at the] Jordan River as the fullness of heaven’s kingdom. The one [conceived] before all [71] was conceived again; the one anointed before was anointed again; the one redeemed redeemed others. (Gospel of Philip)

Ode 8:21 And you who were loved in the Beloved, and you who are kept in Him who lives, and you who are saved in Him who was saved. (Odes of Solomon)

Ode 42:18 May we also be saved with You, because You are our Savior. (Odes of Solomon)

And as for us, we are adepts at the Word. If we sin against it, we sin more than Gentiles. But if we surmount every sin, we shall receive the crown of victory, even as our Head was glorified by the Father. (The Interpretation of Knowledge)

So that we might not be in doubt in regard to the others, even the Son himself, who has the position of redeemer of the Totality, needed redemption as well, - he who had become man, - since he gave himself for each thing which we need, we in the flesh, who are his Church. Now, when he first received redemption from the word which had descended upon him, all the rest received redemption from him, namely those who had taken him to themselves. For those who received the one who had received (redemption) also received what was in him. (Tripartite Tractate)

"He ever liveth to make intercession" (Heb. 7:25); so by reason of his bearing of sin he is himself "saved out of death" (Heb. 5:7, R.V. marg.) "through death" (Heb. 2:14), "through the blood of the everlasting covenant" (13:20).

He included Himself in the Living Offering

he emitted himself and he relinquished his majesty, taking scorn in exchange for the name. For our sake he endured the scorn. he appeared in flesh. And the humiliated one has no equipment. He has no need of the glory that is not his; he has his own glory with the name, which is the Son. Now he came that we might become glorious through the humiliated one that dwells in the places of humiliation. And through him who was reproached we receive the forgiveness of sins. And through the one who was reproached and the one who was redeemed we receive grace. (The Interpretation of Knowledge) 

He included himself in the living offering, together with your offspring. He offered them up as an offering to the All. For it is not cattle that you will offer up for sin(s) of unbelief, and for the ignorances, and (for) all the wicked deeds which they will do [...]. And they do not reach the Father of the All [...] the faith ...... (20 lines unrecoverable) 

(The Nag Hammadi Library Melchizedek) 


... (2 lines unrecoverable)
... is the sacrifice of [...], whom Death deceived. When he died, he bound them with the natures which are leading them astray. Yet he offered up offerings [...] cattle, saying, "I gave them to Death, and the angels, and the [...] demons [...] living offering [...]. I have offered up myself to you as an offering, together with those that are mine, to you yourself, (O) Father of the All, and those whom you love, who have come forth from you who are holy (and) living. And <according to> the perfect laws, I shall pronounce my name as I receive baptism now (and) forever, (as a name) among the living (and) holy names, and (now) in the waters. Amen." (The Nag Hammadi Library Melchizedek) 


What does the text of Melchizedek mean when it says "He (Jesus) included himself in the living offering, together with your offspring. He offered them up as an offering to the All." 


The same idea is found later on in the text "I have offered up myself to you as an offering, together with those that are mine, to you yourself, (O) Father of the All" 


The interpretation of this is the Lord's sacrifice was necessary for his own redemption. His sacrifice was a public demonstration that his flesh was rightly related to death and a declaration of the righteousness of God that required the offering of his life in devotion to Him. By his sacrifice the ungodly propensities (diabolos) of his nature was destroyed (Heb. 2:14; 9:12; 7:27), thus providing for the granting of immortality. 


It was necessary that Jesus should offer for himself for the purging of his own nature, first, from the uncleanness of death, that having by his own blood obtained eternal redemption for himself, he might be able afterward to save to the uttermost those that come to God by him 

Summary

Certain Gnostics embrace the idea that Jesus had a physical body made of flesh
The human body is unavoidably, from birth, inbuilt with the “activity of sinning” without actually transgressing God's laws.
Jesus in the days of his flesh had our unclean nature from which he needed to be saved  

Kabbalah and Gnostic Tarot Cards

Kabbalah and Gnostic Tarot Cards

Is magic part of classical Gnosticism? To answer this question we will have a reading from a text from the Nag Hammadi Library, called "On the Origin of the World"

Let us return to the aforementioned rulers, so that we may offer some explanation of them. Now, when the seven rulers were cast down from their heavens onto the earth, they made for themselves angels, numerous, demonic, to serve them. And the latter instructed mankind in many kinds of error and magic and potions and worship of idols and spilling of blood and altars and temples and sacrifices and libations to all the spirits of the earth, having their coworker fate, who came into existence by the concord between the gods of injustice and justice. (On the Origin of the World)

In nineteenth century Europe, spiritualism revived witchcraft and mysticism, and when wed with false Christianity, Satanism was born.

In the twentieth century, public Satanism came out, which coincides with a decline in power of Catholic church.  The opportunity for Satanism to grow comes at times of weakness and a need for good leadership.

Today, ‘Kabbalah’ is united with Satanism.  Tarot cards go with ‘Kabbalah’, the practice which developed in Babylon in the early middle ages.  The New Age religions appeal to believers of these powers, as do Free Masons, Order of the Golden Dawn.  Modern Satanism tries to define the occult in honest ways.

‘KABBALAH’. (HEBREW: tradition).  The mystical religious stream in JUDAISM, transmitted alongside the written law, seeks to explain the connection between God and creation, the existence of good and evil, to show the road to spiritual perfection, always preserving its basic Hebrew character.  Practicers of Kabbalah: Kabbalists. 

EXAMPLES: Superstitious belief in verses on amulets, or good luck charms, to protect from evil.

Spiritists: are also concerned with messages from the dead, They get involved in the whole range of spiritualist practices; tarot cards, ouija boards, automatic writing, etc.

People in the past wore amulets and talismans to protect themselves, and they turned to medicine men and shamans for cures. People today still carry “Saint” Christopher medals or wear “good luck” charms, and they have their séances, Ouija boards, crystal balls, horoscopes, and tarot cards

Some fortune-tellers work with Tarot cards. These special cards include 22 “Tarots” (or trumps) and 56 numeral cards. The numeral cards are divided into four suits. Each suit is given an overall sense and each card is given a specific meaning. The cards are interpreted according to their assigned meanings, modified by the combination of one card with another when dealt, drawn or spread out.

Tarot reading, too, is connected with astrology. The book How the Tarot Speaks to Modern Man explains that Tarot readers “base their interpretation of the cards upon the structure of the universe, particularly the solar system as symbolized by the Holy Cabala.” The “Cabala” (a body of Jewish occult doctrine) divides up the universe into three elements (fire, air and water), seven planets and the twelve signs of the zodiac—22 in all, corresponding with the 22 trump cards of the Tarot deck.

Isaiah 8:19 And when they shall say unto you, Seek unto them that have familiar spirits and unto the wizards, that chirp and that mutter: should not a people seek unto their God? on behalf of the living [should they seek] unto the dead?

20 To the law and to the testimony! if they speak not according to this word, surely there is no morning for them..

The Triacontad

The Triacontad

Triacontad meaning Thirty

these thirty Æons are most plainly indicated in the parable Matthew 20:1-16 of the labourers sent into the vineyard. For some are sent about the first hour, others about the third hour, others about the sixth hour, others about the ninth hour, and others about the eleventh hour. Now, if we add up the numbers of the hours here mentioned, the sum total will be thirty: for one, three, six, nine, and eleven, when added together, form thirty. 

Thirty is compounded of 6 χ 5 which is the number of flesh (6) blended with grace (5). That number was accepted of the angel.

The number 30 (2+4+6+8+10=30), which is also the total number of aeons in the Pleroma is called the Triacontad

The form of Valentinianism most familiar today espoused thirty aeons, the Triacontad. In this system, which seems to have been widespread and popular even then, the classical Ogdoad is expanded to include a Decad and a Dodecad. 

triacontad: The group of thirty aeons divided into the ogdoad (eight), the duodecad (twelve), and the decad (ten). 

In the Valentinian Exposition from The Nag Hammadi Library refers to the Triacontad four times:

That Tetrad projected the Tetrad which is the one consisting of Word and Life and Man and Church. Now the Uncreated One projected Word and Life. Word is for the glory of the Ineffable One while Life is for the glory of Silence, and Man is for his own glory, while Church is for the glory of Truth. This, then, is the Tetrad begotten according to the likeness of the Uncreated (Tetrad). And the Tetrad is begotten [... ] the Decad from Word and Life, and the Dodecad from Man, and Church became a Triacontad. Moreover, it is the one from the Triacontad of the Aeons who bear fruit from the Triacontrad. They enter jointly, but they come forth singly, fleeing from the Aeons and the Uncontainable Ones. And the Uncontainable Ones, once they had looked at him, glorified Mind since he is an Uncontainable One that exists in the Pleroma.

But the Decad from Word and Life brought forth decads so as to make the Pleroma become a hundred, and the Dodecad from Man and Church brought forth and made the Triacontad so as to make the three hundred sixty become the Pleroma of the year. And the year of the Lord [...perfect...] perfect [...] according to [...] Limit and [...] Limit [...] the greatness which [...] the goodness [...] him. Life [...] suffer [...] by the face [...] in the presence of the Pleroma [...] which he wanted [...]. And he wanted to leave the Thirtieth - being a szygy of Man and Church, that is, Sophia - to surpass the Triacontad and bring the Pleroma [...] his [...] but [...] and she [...] the All [...] but [...] who [...] the All [...]. He made [...] the thoughts and [...] the Pleroma through the Word [...] his flesh. These, then, are the Aeons that are like them. After the Word entered it, just as I said before, also the one who comes to be with the Uncontainable One brought forth [...] before they [...] forth [...] hide him from [...] the syzygy and [...] the movement and [...] project the Christ [...] and the seeds [...] of the cross since [...] the imprints of the nail wound [...] perfection. Since it is a perfect form that should ascend into the Pleroma, he did not at all want to consent to the suffering, but he was detained [...] him by Limit, that is, by the syzygy, since her correction will not occur through anyone except her own Son, whose alone is the fullness of divinity. He willed within himself bodily to leave the powers and he descended. And these things (passions) Sophia suffered after her son ascended from her, for she knew that she dwelt in a [...] in unity and restoration. They were stopped [...] the brethren [...] these. A [...] did not [...]. I became [...]. Who indeed are they? The [...], on the one hand, stopped her [...], on the other hand, [...]. with the [...] her. These moreover are those who were looking at me, these who, [...] these who considered [...] the death. They were stopped [...] her and she repented and she besought the Father of the truth, saying, "Granted that I have renounced my consort. Therefore I am beyond confirmation as well. I deserve the things (passions) I suffer. I used to dwell in the Pleroma putting forth the Aeons and bearing fruit with my consort" And she knew what she was and what had become of her.

But the Decad from Word and Life brought forth decads so as to make the Pleroma become a hundred, and the Dodecad from Man and Church brought forth and made the Triacontad so as to make the three hundred sixty become the Pleroma of the year. And the year of the Lord

Sometimes the Triacontad led to yet more aeons. In a variation of this extended system, the Ogdoad, Decad, and Dodecad are synthesized to get 360 (8 × 10 × 12), “the Pleroma of the year,” which is then linked to the year of the Lord (Isaiah 61.2). What role these 360 aeons played is unclear 

the names of the aeons

there are Thirty aeons each aeon has its own name and function  

• • • First generation
      • Bythos (the One) and Sige (Silence, Charis, Ennoea, etc.)
    • Second generation
      • Nous (Nus, Mind) and Aletheia (Veritas, Truth)
    • Third generation, emanated from Nous and Aletheia
      • Sermo (the Word) and Vita (the Life)
    • Fourth generation, emanated from Sermo and Vita
      • Anthropos (Homo, Man) and Ecclesia (Church)^[5]
    • Fifth generation
      • Emanated from Sermo and Vita:
        • Bythios (Profound) and Mixis (Mixture)
        • Ageratos (Never old) and Henosis (Union)
        • Autophyes (Essential nature) and Hedone (Pleasure)
        • Acinetos (Immovable) and Syncrasis (Commixture)
        • Monogenes (Only-begotten) and Macaria (Happiness)
      • Emanated from Anthropos and Ecclesia
        • Paracletus (Comforter) and Pistis (Faith)
        • Patricas (Paternal) and Elpis (Hope)
        • Metricos (Maternal) and Agape (Love)
        • Ainos (Praise) and Synesis (Intelligence)
        • Ecclesiasticus (Son of Ecclesia) and Macariotes (Blessedness)
        • Theletus (Perfect) and Sophia (Wisdom)