The Sethian Trinity and Its Differences from the Catholic Trinity

The Sethian Trinity

# **

The Sethian Trinity and Why It Is Different from the Catholic Trinity

The Sethian Concept of the Trinity

The Sethian Gnostic tradition presents a unique understanding of the divine triad, distinct from the traditional Catholic Trinity. In Sethian cosmology, the highest divine principle is the transcendent, unknowable One, often referred to as the Invisible Spirit. From this supreme source emanates the divine Forethought, Barbelo, who is both the first manifestation of the One and the androgynous Mother-Father of all existence. Together, the One and Barbelo produce a divine offspring, forming a triadic structure that mirrors the Catholic concept of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit but differs significantly in meaning and function.

As described in The Gnostic Bible, this trinity emerges through a process of emanation rather than being co-equal persons within one God:

“The original divine entity is the infinite One, the invisible Spirit (revealed as the transcendent One in the Secret Book of John and the Vision of the Foreigner). From the One emanates the divine Forethought Barbelo, and together the One and Barbelo produce a divine child, to form an exalted triad or trinity.” (The Gnostic Bible, p. 110)

This structure is not based on co-substantiality but on hierarchical emanation, where the divine unfolds itself into multiplicity while preserving unity. The One remains beyond comprehension, while Barbelo acts as its first visible manifestation, a concept absent in Catholic Trinitarian doctrine.

Barbelo as the Mother in the Trinity

One of the most striking differences between the Sethian Trinity and the Catholic Trinity is the inclusion of a feminine principle. Catholic doctrine identifies the Holy Spirit as neither male nor female but often speaks of the Spirit in masculine terms. In contrast, Sethian Gnosticism explicitly presents Barbelo as the divine Mother.

The Apocryphon of John describes how John, grieving after Jesus' crucifixion, experiences a vision in which he encounters a divine being with three forms:

“He said to me, ‘John, John, why do you doubt, and why are you afraid? ... I am the one who is with you always. I am the Father; I am the Mother; I am the Son.’” (Elaine Pagels, The Gnostic Gospels)

The inclusion of the Mother within the divine triad reflects an androgynous view of divinity, in contrast to the strictly masculine conceptualization of the Catholic Trinity. The Sethian texts emphasize that the Spirit, known as the Virgin Spirit, has both male and female attributes, which is why Barbelo is called both "Mother" and "Father":

“She became the Mother of everything, for she existed before them all, the mother-father [matropater] ... She, Barbelo, asked the Virgin Spirit for Incorruptibility. The Spirit agreed. Incorruptibility came forth and stood by Thought and Foreknowledge.” (Apocryphon of John)

This depiction of Barbelo as the Mother aligns with Sethian theology, which sees creation as emerging through a dynamic process of emanation rather than direct creation. Barbelo does not create independently but mediates divine power, producing the Upper Aeons and the spiritual realms.

The Sethian Trinity and Divine Emanation

In Sethian thought, the divine reality is structured through emanation rather than a single God existing in three co-equal persons. The Sethian Trinity maintains a clear hierarchy:

1. The Invisible Spirit (The One) – The ultimate, unknowable source of all existence.

2. Barbelo (The Mother-Father) – The first emanation, embodying both masculine and feminine aspects.

3. The Son (Autogenes, the Self-Begotten One) – The divine offspring, who embodies the creative Word and acts as the agent of divine revelation.

This structure is clearly described in the Gospel of the Egyptians:

“Three powers came forth from him (the One); they are the Father, the Mother, (and) the Son (...) The second ogdoad-power, the Mother, the virginal Barbelon.” (Gospel of the Egyptians)

The multiplicity of divine attributes within the One does not dissolve the divine unity. Instead, it reveals how the One unfolds itself while remaining indivisible. This contrasts with the Catholic Trinity, which holds that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are co-eternal, co-equal persons of one divine essence.

The Role of Barbelo in the Sethian Trinity

Barbelo is not merely an aspect of the divine but an active participant in the unfolding of existence. She is described as the universal womb, the source from which the divine realm emerges:

“She is the universal womb
She is before everything
She is:
Mother-Father
First Man
Holy Spirit
Thrice Male
Thrice Powerful
Thrice Named
Androgynous eternal realm
First to arise among the invisible realms.” (Trimorphic Protennoia)

Her role is not just to reflect the One but to act as a divine mediator who generates and sustains the spiritual cosmos. This makes her fundamentally different from the Holy Spirit in Catholicism, who does not produce divine beings or realms.

Comparison with the Catholic Trinity

While both Sethian and Catholic Trinities consist of three divine figures, their theological implications differ:

1. Emanation vs. Co-Eternal Persons – The Catholic Trinity consists of three co-equal, co-eternal persons who are distinct yet of the same divine essence. In contrast, the Sethian Trinity is structured as a process of emanation, where the Father begets the Mother, who then brings forth the Son.

2. Androgyny vs. Exclusively Masculine Language – The Sethian Trinity embraces an androgynous conception of divinity, recognizing Barbelo as both Mother and Father. Catholicism, while acknowledging that God transcends gender, uses predominantly masculine terms for the divine persons.

3. Barbelo’s Role as the Womb of the Aeons – Unlike the Holy Spirit, who sanctifies and proceeds from the Father and the Son in Catholic theology, Barbelo is an active creative force who generates the Upper Aeons, giving structure to the divine world.

4. Monotheistic vs. Polytheistic Interpretation – The Catholic Trinity maintains that God is one being in three persons, emphasizing monotheism. The Sethian system, while maintaining divine unity, presents a series of divine emanations that could be interpreted as a more complex, multi-layered divinity.

Conclusion

The Sethian Trinity fundamentally differs from the Catholic Trinity in its structure, purpose, and understanding of divinity. While Catholic theology insists on the equality and singular essence of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, the Sethian tradition envisions a hierarchical emanation where Barbelo plays a vital role as both the Mother of the Aeons and the mediator of divine power. This interpretation reflects a broader, more mystical vision of the divine, where the One unfolds itself into multiple aspects while preserving its unity.

In summary, the Sethian Trinity challenges traditional Catholic doctrine by presenting a gender-inclusive model of divinity, a process of emanation instead of co-equal persons, and a more dynamic interaction between the divine figures. This theological vision offers an alternative understanding of the divine mystery, one that resonates with the themes of hidden knowledge and revelation central to Gnostic thought.

Original text 

The original divine entity is the infinite One, the invisible spirit (revealed as the transcendent One in the Secret Book of John and the Vision of the Foreigner). From the One emanates the divine forethought Barbelo, and together the One and Barbelo produce a divine child, to form an exalted triad or trinity. (The Gnostic Bible - Page 110)

The Gnostic Gospels By Elaine Pagels:

The Apocryphon of John relates how John went out after the crucifixion with "great grief" and had a mystical vision of the Trinity. As John was grieving, he says that the [heavens were opened and the whole] creation [which is] under heaven shone and [the world] trembled. [And I was afraid, and I] saw in the light . . . a likeness with multiple forms . . . and the likeness had three forms.14 

To John's question the vision answers: "He said to me, 'J˚hn, Jo[h]n, why do you doubt, and why are you afraid? ... I am the one who [is with you] always. I [am the Father]; I am the Mother; I am the Son."15 This gnostic description of God—as Father, Mother and Son—may startle us at first, but on reflection, we can recognize it as another version of the Trinity. The Greek terminology for the Trinity, which includes the neuter term for spirit (pneuma) virtually requires that the third "Person" of the Trinity be asexual. But the author of the Secret Book has in mind the Hebrew term for spirit, ruah, a feminine word; and so concludes that the feminine "Person" conjoined with the Father and Son must be the Mother. The Secret Book goes on to describe the divine Mother:

. . . (She is) . . . the image of the invisible, virginal, perfect spirit . . .

She became the Mother of everything, for she existed before them

all, the mother-father [matropater] . . .16

The Melchizedek Tractate Anti-Docetic Gnostic Text

The Melchizedek Tractate Anti-Docetic Gnostic Text

The *Melchizedek Tractate* is a fragmentary, noncanonical text found among the Nag Hammadi codices (NHC IX, 1). It provides a significant counterpoint to Docetism, a belief system that denied the reality of Jesus Christ’s physical body, suffering, and resurrection. This ancient text emphasizes the full humanity of Jesus, aligning its theological stance with early Christian orthodoxy on the incarnation.

### Background of the Melchizedek Tractate

The *Melchizedek Tractate* is part of the Nag Hammadi Library, a collection of Gnostic and early Christian texts discovered in Egypt in 1945. However, its content is less overtly Gnostic compared to other writings in the collection. The text explicitly refutes Docetism by affirming that Jesus Christ was a real, flesh-and-blood human being who experienced suffering, death, and resurrection. Scholars believe the text may have originated with a sect known as the “Melchizedekians,” referenced by Epiphanius in *Panarion* 55, who held unique theological views but still upheld the tangible humanity of Christ.

### Anti-Docetic Polemic

One of the key features of the *Melchizedek Tractate* is its polemic against Docetism. This doctrine, popular among certain Gnostic groups, claimed that Christ only appeared to have a physical body. Docetists believed that the material world was inherently evil, making it inconceivable that a divine being like Christ could assume a physical, material body. The *Melchizedek Tractate* responds directly to such views with the following passage:

> “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.”

This statement emphasizes the tangible and historical reality of Jesus’ incarnation, a reality Docetism denied. By affirming that Jesus ate, drank, was circumcised, suffered, and rose bodily, the text insists that the human experiences of Jesus were not illusions but actual events.

### Biblical Parallels

The *Melchizedek Tractate* aligns closely with certain New Testament passages that combat Docetism. For example, 1 John 4:3 states:

> “And every spirit that confesseth not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is not of God: and this is that spirit of antichrist.”

Similarly, 2 John 1:7 warns:

> “For many deceivers are entered into the world, who confess not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh. This is a deceiver and an antichrist.”

These verses were likely written in response to early docetic teachings infiltrating Christian communities. The Johannine letters reflect a concern that denying the physicality of Christ undermines the core Christian doctrines of incarnation and redemption. The *Melchizedek Tractate* shares this concern, rejecting any interpretation of Jesus that negates his humanity.

### Historical Context

Understanding the *Melchizedek Tractate* requires situating it within the broader theological debates of the early Christian era. Docetism arose from a dualistic worldview, common in Gnostic traditions, which held that spirit is good and matter is evil. This perspective made the incarnation—God becoming flesh—an offensive concept. In response, texts like the *Melchizedek Tractate* and the Johannine letters affirm the incarnation as essential to God’s plan of salvation. Without the reality of Jesus’ human body, his suffering, death, and resurrection lose their salvific power.

### Relevance to Early Christian Doctrine

The anti-docetic emphasis of the *Melchizedek Tractate* demonstrates that early Christianity was not monolithic but engaged in active debates over the nature of Christ. While the Trinity as a formal doctrine had not yet developed, early Christians like the author of the *Melchizedek Tractate* were already defending foundational Christological truths. The tractate’s insistence on Jesus’ humanity complements the theological trajectory that culminates in the Nicene Creed’s affirmation of Christ as both fully divine and fully human.

### Conclusion

The *Melchizedek Tractate* offers a valuable glimpse into the theological controversies of early Christianity. Its explicit rejection of Docetism underscores the importance of the incarnation in Christian thought. By affirming that Jesus truly came in the flesh, suffered, and rose again, the tractate aligns itself with the broader Christian tradition and the New Testament’s teachings. This fragmentary yet profound text reminds modern readers of the rich and contested history of early Christological doctrines.

Jesus Christ, the Son of God ...They will say [...] concerning him, and concerning........ which will happen in his name. 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. (Melchizedek, The Nag Hammadi Library)

A fragmentary, noncanonical text found among the Nag Hammadi codices (IX, 1). Not to be confused with the Melchizedek Scroll (11QMelch) found among the Dead Sea Scrolls. It is notable for its anti-docetic emphasis on the real humanity of Jesus, which has led some scholars to postulate that it originated with a sect of “Melchizedekians” described by Epiphanius in Panarion 55

MELCHIZEDEK TRACTATE (NHC IX 1). This document was found in the Coptic Gnostic Library of Nag Hammadi, but its Gnosticism is less pronounced than other texts in the corpus. It explicitly rejects a docetic interpretation of Jesus (IX 1, 5.1-10) and focuses on apocalyptic, rather than realized eschatology (IX 1, 26).

Jesus Christ, the Son of God [...] from ...
... (2 lines unrecoverable)
... (lines 11-eop unrecoverable)
... which will happen in his name. 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 incipit occurs on the same small fragment as the title, and reads, "Jesus Christ, the Son [of God ... ]. " In the fragments that follow reference is made to the ministry and sufferings of Jesus, and in a remarkable passage from a relatively complete page (p. 5} an "anti-docetic" polemic is directed at those (other gnostics?) who deny the reality of the incarnation, suffering, death, and resurrection of Jesus

According to the Melchizedek Tractate the body, the flesh, and the suffering of Jesus Christ are indeed real.

1 John 4:3 "And every spirit that confesseth not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is not of God: and this is that spirit of antichrist, whereof ye have heard that it should come; and even now already is it in the world."

2 John 1:7 For many deceivers are entered into the world, who confess not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh. This is a deceiver and an antichrist.

What we must remember is that John had a particular false doctrine in mind - the Docetism. We therefore should not try to interpret this verse without understanding the history behind the letter.

We have to think about who in his day John was talking about. For many of those who believed in Docetism, Christ could never be human (flesh) because in their view the material world was evil and such a divine being could have no true fellowship with a material human body.

Docetism was a doctrine that the Christ appeared as a spirit - with an immaterial body.

This passage, therefore, was not written to support the Trinity (an unknown concept to John and the early Christians), but rather was written to prevent any Christian from following the false doctrine of Docetism

The Trinity Test

 The Trinity Test

Here is a simple but effective test.

Replace the word 'God' in the bible with 'Trinity' (or Father, Son, Holy Spirit) and then read a random collection of verses that have the word God in them.

E.g., John 14:1
"Do not let your hearts be troubled. Trust in God; trust also in me.

OK, so trust in the (Father, Son, Holy Spirit) and also in me. That makes 4. Who is 'me', if the son is already mentioned?

John 3:16
"For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life.

So the Trinity so loved the world that the Trinity gave his son. That makes 4. Given this reasoning there must be 2 sons.

Colossians 1:3
We always thank God, the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, when we pray for you,

So the Trinity is the Father of Jesus. But wait isn't Jesus part of the Trinity?

All verses that mention God and his son are rendered meaningless with a Trinitarian understanding. But Trinitarians do actually interpret God in these verses as the Father out of necessity, but not in the verses that do not mention the son.

E.g., 1 John 2:17
The world and its desires pass away, but the man who does the will of God lives forever.

A Trinitarian would most likely say that this was the Father, Son, & Spirit.

But they would also probably say that the following verse is only the Father.

Revelation 1
The revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave him to show his servants what must soon take place. He made it known by sending his angel to his servant John,

Isn't that the weirdest thing. God is the Trinity except when the son is also mentioned. Coincidence or simply picking and choosing the meaning depending on what their itching ears want to hear?

I leave you with the following verse:

1 John 5
Everyone who believes that Jesus is the Christ is born of God, and everyone who loves the father loves his child as well. 

The Godhead is just God's Family John 17:20-23

The Godhead is just God's Family 

Or

The Trinity is just God's Family

Ephesians 3: 14 For this reason I bow my knees to the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, 

15 from whom the whole family in heaven and earth is named, 

16 that He would grant you, according to the riches of His glory, to be strengthened with might through His Spirit in the inner man, 

17 that Christ may dwell in your hearts through faith; that you, being rooted and grounded in love, 

18 may be able to comprehend with all the saints what is the width and length and depth and height— 

19 to know the love of Christ which passes knowledge; that you may be filled with all the fullness of God.

20 Now to Him who is able to do exceedingly abundantly above all that we ask or think, according to the power that works in us, 

21 to Him be glory in the church by Christ Jesus to all generations, forever and ever. Amen. Ephesians 3:14-21

What is the Godhead? 

Acts 17:29 Rom 1:20 Col 2:9 the essential being or the nature of God.

Acts 17:29 “Seeing, therefore, that we are the offspring of God, we ought not to imagine that the Divine Being is like gold or silver or stone, like something sculptured by the art and contrivance of man

Rom 1:20 20  —for from [the] world’s creation the invisible things of him are perceived, being apprehended by the mind through the things that are made, both his eternal power and divinity, —so as to render them inexcusable.

The Family 

The Hebrew term mish·pa·chah´ (family), in addition to referring to a household, also means, by extension, a tribe, people, or nation. God is the architect of the family arrangement. He is the Father of his heavenly family and the one to whom ‘all the families on earth owe their name.’ (Eph 3:14, 15

The Greek for family (patria) is derived from the Greek for father (pater).

Paul: “If indeed any man does not know how to preside over his own household, how will he take care of God’s Church?” the Church being similar to a family.

The Church: A Family, a Fellowship, and the body and the bride of Jesus Christ a people and a temple a virgin these are just some of the metaphors used for the church

God is androgynous being both Father and Mother the holy spirit is the feminine aspect of God. In Hebrew the word spirit is a feminine noun. That is why it can be spoken of as a Mother giving birth. John 3:8

8 The wind blows wherever it pleases. You hear its sound, but you cannot tell where it comes from or where it is going. So it is with everyone born of the Spirit.

Now the holy spirit is a force, the invisible power and energy of the Father by which God is everywhere present. The Spirit is the power of God through which God's Family works. The chosen messengers have been given only the power and authority from Yahweh they need to accomplish their mission. Gen 1:2; Num 11:17; Mt 3:16; John 20:22; Ac 2:4, 17, 33. The Spirit is not a 'separate' or 'other' person. Ac 7:55, 56; Re 7:10 The spirit is God's own radiant power, ever out flowing from Him, by which His 'everywhereness' is achieved. Ps 104:30; 1 Cor 12:4-11.

The Spirit is personal in that it is of God Himself: it is not personal in the sense of being some other person within the Godhead"

Col 2:9 For in him dwells all the fullness of the Godhead bodily.

All the fullness of the Godhead dwells in Jesus bodily and it will also dwell within us has well:

Eph 3:19 and to know the love of the Christ which surpasses knowledge, that YOU may be filled with all the fullness of the Deity.

We like Jesus are to be filled with God fullness

2Peter 1:4 Through these things he has freely given us the precious and very grand promises, that through these YOU may become sharers in divine nature, having escaped from the corruption that is in the world through lust.

we will share God's divine nature

2Th 2:14 He called you to this through the good news we declare, so that you may acquire the glory of our Lord Jesus Christ.

We shall share Jesus' glory

John 17:20 “I do not pray for these alone, but also for those who will believe in Me through their word;

21 that they all may be one, as You, Father, are in Me, and I in You; that they also may be one in Us, that the world may believe that You sent Me.

22 And the glory which You gave Me I have given them, that they may be one just as We are one:

23 I in them, and You in Me; that they may be made perfect in one, and that the world may know that You have sent Me, and have loved them as You have loved Me.

In John 17 we are told that we are to be made perfect in one Christ in us and the Father in Christ

in the Age to come we shall be one with God by sharing his divine nature and being filled with his fullness.

So within the Godhead there is the Father, the son and the church. There are not 3 Gods in the Godhead; nor are there but 3 in manifestation; nevertheless, the Father is God and Jesus is God; and we may add, so are all the brethren of Jesus gods and "a multitude which no man can number." They are a manifold unit - One in many, and many in one. The Supreme Power, or Deity, is the source, fountain, or sole spring of Power. The Godhead is the fountain of the Deity; these other gods are the many streams which form this fountain flow. The springhead of Deity is one, not many; the streams are as numerous as the stars of the universe, in which a manifestation of Deity has a occurred.

It is not "One God in three Gods," and "Three Gods in One;" but one Deity in a countless multitude revealed in the memorial name, and expounded in the mystery of godliness.

One Deity and not three; the Holy Spirit is an emanation from His substance, intensely radiant and all pervading; and that, when focalized under the decrees of His will, things and persons without limit, as to number or nature, are produced.

This multitudinous manifestation of the one Deity - one in many, and many in one, by His spirit - was proclaimed to the Hebrew nation in the formula of Deut. 6:4, "Hear, O lsrael, YAHWEH our ELOHIM is the ONE YAHWEH;" that is, "He who shall be our Mighty Ones is the One who shall be."

Certain Mighty Ones are promised to Israel - pastors according to YAHWEH's heart, who shall feed them with knowledge and understanding; - they will be spirit, because "that which is born of the spirit is spirit." He, the Spirit, the EL, or Power of the universe, self-styled YAHWEH, is their Divine Father. His nature will be theirs; so that they will be consubstantial with Him, as all children are consubstantial with their parents. The Deity will then be manifested in the Sons of Deity; He in them, and they in Him, by the one spirit. And this company of sons, led to glory by the captain of their salvation, is "the ONE who shall be," or "the ONE YAHWEH."

Another way to look at this is to see The Godhead as the house of the Deity; these other gods or elohim are the many Members which form the house or family unit.

House does not always mean a building but it can mean the family

be quiet before you wake the whole house

So the Godhead is the family of the Deity made up of God being both Father-Mother than the son and the wife of the son the Church.

This is the multitudinous manifestation of the one Deity - one in many, and many in one, by His spirit. It is not "One God in three Gods," and "Three Gods in One;" but one Deity in a countless multitude revealed in the memorial name, and give an account of in the mystery of godliness.

The Father the son and the church God's family

Christ pre-existed but Jesus didn't John 1:1-4

Christ pre-existed but Jesus didn't John 1:1-4

In contrast to orthodox Christians, Valentinians did not believe that Christ was joined to Jesus at his birth. Instead, they insisted that Christ became joined to Jesus only at the beginning of his ministry i.e. at his baptism. The dove which descends upon Jesus at the baptism was understtod as Christ descending on Jesus and joining with him (Irenaeus Against Heresies 1:7:2, 1:15:3, 3:16:1, 3:10:3, Excerpts of Theodotus 61:6,26:1 Hippolytus Refutation 6:35:3). Christ is "the Name which came down upon Jesus in the dove and redeemed him" (Excerpts of Theodotus 22:6 cf. Gospel of Philip 70:34-36).Jesus was anointed with the Spirit of God at his baptism in the Jordan.

In the beginning was the LOGOS - (the outward manifestation of the inward thought)

the LOGOS WAS with God. (Yahweh and His Divine Plan could not be separated)
the LOGOS was God - (God and the Logos are one).

Christ, the Word, who “in the beginning laid the foundations of the earth,” therefore pre-existed before the birth of “the body prepared” of the substance of Mary, and which lay dead in the tomb. That body named Jesus, had no existence until developed by the Christ-Power. Federally, indeed, it pre-existed in the loins of Abraham and in Adam, as Levi was in Abraham, and we in Adam, before birth; but not otherwise. (On the Nature of Christ February 22nd, 1867 by Eusebia J. Lasius)

The pre-existent Christ, or Deity, was not the less Deity because he veiled himself in flesh, in our “sinful flesh,” or “sin’s flesh,” and styled himself JESUS, or he who shall be Saviour. (Dr. Thomas letter to Robert Robert July 17th, 1869)

In reference to those words of Jesus, saying,—“The bread I give for the life of the world is my flesh” (John 6.) For the bread of the Deity is He, who descending out of the heaven, and giveth life to the world.’ This was as much as to say, that the manna was representative of a life-imparting agent from heaven: even the Logos speaking by Jesus. ‘In him’—the Logos, ‘was Life,’ says John ‘and the Life, was the light of men.’ It was this Logos who said, ‘I am the Way and the Truth; the Resurrection and the Life’: ‘I am the Bread of Life,’ or the manna: ‘I came down from heaven’: this is the bread which descendeth from heaven, that a man may eat thereof and not die’ . . . ‘If any man eat of this bread he shall live in the age: and the bread that I (the Logos) will give is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world. (Eureka -- Vol 1 -- Chap 2 -- Sec 3: 8. The Hidden Manna)

Jesus was not literally the Word. He was the word "made flesh". (John:14). Jesus is the complete manifestation of the logos - "in him dwelleth all the fullness of the Deity bodily." (Col. 2:9). It was the "logos" which was in the beginning with God, not Jesus. When the "word was made flesh" (John 1:14) then, and then only, Jesus became the "Word".
Jesus is called the Word (Rev. 19:13 cf. 1 John 1:1; Luke 1:2) since his doctrine and words came from his Father (John 7:16; 17:14). He was the logos lived out in speech and action, not merely written on scrolls. (wrested scriptures)

Jesus Christ in the day of his weakness, had two sides—the one, DEITY; the other, MAN—the Eternal Christ-Power or the anointing spirit veiled in, and manifested through the flesh created from the ground; which flesh had Willfully transgressed the Divine Law, the penalty of which sent it back into the dust from whence it came. This is Jesus Christ the true Deity, whom to know is life eternal. (Dr. Thomas letter to Robert Robert July 17th, 1869)

This flesh which inhabited Paradise, like all the beasts. Was “very good” of its sort, is described as “sin” and “sin’s flesh,” because it sinned or transgressed the Eden law. Our flesh is the same as Adam’s before he sinned, only the worse for wear: for Paul says that we sinned in him, and he was sinless before he sinned; and we were as much in his loins when he was sinless, as in the act of sinning. His flesh undefiled by sin is constitutionally the same as the flesh of his posterity defiled legally thereby. The Christ-Deity veiled himself in the Adamic nature defiled by sin, in order that he might condemn sin in the flesh and to condemn sin to death in the nature which, although created “very good,” had legally defiled itself by transgression of the Eden law. This purpose would have been defeated if he had veiled himself in a clean nature. (Dr. Thomas letter to Robert Robert July 17th, 1869)

To say that the Man, Jesus, was corporeally clean, or pure, holy, spotless, and undefiled, is in effect to say that he was not “made of a woman;” for Scripture teaches, that nothing born of woman can possibly be clean: but it is testified that he was “born of a woman;” he must therefore necessarily have been born corporeally unclean. Hence, it is written of him in Psalm 51:5, “I was shapen in iniquity; and in sin did my mother conceive me.” He therefore prays, “Purge me with sop and I shall be clean; wash me, and I shall be whiter than snow.” This prayer has been answered, and he has been “Washed thoroughly from his (corporeal) iniquity, and cleansed from his sin;” so that now he has a clean nature, which is spirit and divine—“the Lord the Spirit”—once dead as to flesh, but now alive as Spirit for evermore.—(Rev. 1:18.) (Dr. Thomas letter to Robert Robert July 17th, 1869)

I believe that Christ pre-existed but Jesus didn't. It may sound complicated but it isn't really.

It's about God Manifestation - ultimately the angels the "focalisations of the Spirit", Jesus Christ and the Saints are all manifestations of God (which is why Jesus says "does it not say in your law Ye are gods?").

The exhortation is that we need to behave like that now, while we are in the flesh, because once the flesh is removed we will only be as much Spirit as has been developed in us.

Did Jesus Christ Have Two Mothers? Gospel of Thomas Saying 101

Did Jesus Christ Have Two Mothers? Gospel of Thomas Saying 101

Jesus has two Mothers

Gospel of Thomas Saying 101

Jesus said, "Whoever does not hate his father and his mother as I do cannot become a disciple to Me. And whoever does [not] love his father and his mother as I do cannot become a [disciple] to Me. For My [birth] mother [gave me death], but [My] true [Mother] gave me life." (April DeConick Translation)

"The substance of this saying has already been provided in Saying 56 [55]. Here, however, Jesus explicitly states that he himself hates his (earthly) father and mother (see Saying 96).

Thus the conundrum presented in the saying (hate parents and love parents) is resolved by positing two orders of family and two mothers of Jesus

April DeConick writes For L. 101.3,1 offer a possibility for completing the lacunae (9 or 10 letter spaces) which occurs on the last line at the bottom of p. 49 and the first two letters at the top of p. 50: 'who begot me gave death'. This construction not only fits the lacunae, but also provides contextual sense and offers a complementary parallel to the final clause. So I prefer it over Layton's reconstruction which does not fill the space 'who gave me falsehood'). 

Jesus's birth mother gave him death. Death came by genetic inheritance. for he inherited Adam's nature from Mary's blood, in which Adam's life existed, for the life of all flesh is in the blood thereof

Though the Son of God (by the Spirit) he was the son of man (Adam) by Mary, partaking of the very nature transmitted from Adam through David and Mary

If Christ was born of the spirit, by Mary, was he not spirit and not flesh, on the principle that which is born of the spirit is spirit?   

The question arises from an inaccuracy of words. Jesus was not born of the spirit by Mary but begotten of Mary by the spirit. 

Did God or man give life to Jesus?

Answer: "God himself gives to all mankind life and breath and all things 

 ;" 

consequently the question is not specific enough to make its meaning apparent. 

If it be meant, Did Mary have any participation in the impartation of life to the child born of her, the answer is Yes; for Jesus was the seed of David according to the flesh. Every one having knowledge is aware that in fetal life, the child's life is the mother's life, ministered by her blood through the umbilical cord; and that the child, so to speak, is by this connection built out of her blood. And as "the life of all flesh is in the blood", a child cannot partake of her blood, without partaking of her life. Consequently, Jesus, though developed from a Divine organism, was framed out of his mother's substance, and, consequently, was both Son of man and Son of God

Speaking of the conception and preparation of the Seed, the prophet as a typical person, says, "Behold, I was shapen in iniquity; and in sin did my mother conceive me" (Psalm 51:5). This is nothing more than affirming that he was born of sinful flesh; and not of the pure and incorruptible angelic nature. 

The nature of Mary was as unclean as that of other women; and therefore could give birth only to "a body" like her own, though especially "prepared of God" (Heb. 10:5). Had Mary's nature been immaculate, as her idolatrous worshippers contend, an immaculate body would have been born of her; which, therefore, would not have answered the purpose of God; which was to condemn sin in the flesh; a thing that could not have been accomplished, if there were no sin there. 

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).

If Christ had been a son of Adam merely, he would have been a sinner, and, therefore, unfit for sacrificial purposes. On the other hand, if he had been clothed with angelic or immaculate nature, he would have been equally disqualified, inasmuch as it was necessary that the sinning nature should suffer in him. The combination of condemned human nature with personal sinlessness was effected through divine power begetting a son from Mary's substance. A "Lamb of God," was thus produced, guileless from his paternity, and yet inheriting the human sin-nature of his mother.

The question needs to be asked who is Jesus's true Mother?

It is the comforter the holy spirit. In Hebrew the word spirit is a feminine noun. That is why it can be spoken of as a Mother giving birth. 

Jesus needed to be saved from death Hebrews 5:7 this his true Mother did at his resurrection 

Thus the holy spirit is Jesus' mother by his resurrection from the dead or by being born of the spirit or born again.

Romans 1:3  Concerning his Son Jesus Christ our Lord, who was made of the seed of David according to the flesh;
4  And declared to be the Son of God with power, according to the spirit of holiness, by the resurrection from the dead:

Jesus came in the flesh of the seed of David when he was resurrected from the dead by the spirit of holiness he was born of the spirit

John 3:6 What has been born from the flesh is flesh, and what has been born from the spirit is spirit. 7 Do not marvel because I told you, YOU people must be born again.

8 The wind blows where it wants to, and you hear the sound of it, but you do not know where it comes from and where it is going. So it is with everyone that has been born from the spirit.”

Notice the feminine description of the spirit in v8 one is born of the spirit. to use the langue of being born is describing the holy spirit as a mother

Mt 11:19 But wisdom is justified by her children.

Galatians 4:26 and the Jerusalem above is the free-woman, which is mother of us all,

Therefore the holy spirit is a feminine aspect of God

The holy spirit is a force, the invisible power and energy of the Father by which God is everywhere present. The chosen messengers have been given only the power and authority from Yahweh they need to accomplish their mission. Gen 1:2; Num 11:17; Mt 3:16; John 20:22; Ac 2:4, 17, 33. The Spirit is not a 'separate' or 'other' person. Ac 7:55, 56; Re 7:10 It is God's own radiant power, ever out flowing from Him, by which His 'everywhereness' is achieved. Ps 104:30; 1 Cor 12:4-11.

The Spirit is personal in that it is of God Himself: it is not personal in the sense of being some other person within the Godhead"

The Lord was conceived (born again) from what is imperishable, from God. The [Lord arose] from among the dead. But [He did not come into being as he was. Rather [his body] was [completely] perfect. It was of flesh, and this [flesh is indeed] true flesh.¹ [Yet our flesh] is not true, but rather a mirror-image of the true [flesh]. (¹Jn 1:14, 20:27, II-Jn 7; NHS p. 174 (The Gospel of Philip)

Errors Doctrines to be Rejected by Gnostic Christians

Errors Doctrines to be Rejected by Gnostic Christians 

 

Doctrines to be Rejected

(With Explanations Expressed Positively — in italics)

Valentinians and Cathars did not share all what would be classed as the classical Gnostic teachings on the Demiurge, the nature of immortality, and the nature of Christ

 1. We reject that the Bible is only partly the work of inspiration — or if wholly so, contains errors which inspiration has allowed. [The Bible, in its original text, is altogether the work of inspiration, and that God has been the true author of every part of His Word, thereby constituting it infallible — 2Tim. 3:16; 2Pet. 1:19-21.]

 2. We reject that God is three persons. [The doctrine of the trinity being false, it remains that God is a Being of Spirit; the Lord Jesus Christ is His Son, born of the virgin Mary; the Holy Spirit is His power — 1Tim. 2:5; Jn. 1:14; Lk. 24:49.]

To the Cathars, the Holy Trinity is a lie. For the Cathars, Jesus was neither divine nor man. He was a manifestation of the Holy Spirit sent by the good god to show us the way to freedom.

 3. We reject that the Son of God was co-eternal with the Father. [Jesus was begotten of the virgin Mary; he was only “known” beforehand in the mind and purpose of Yahweh from the beginning — Gal. 4:4; Jn. 1:1].

4. We reject that Christ was born with a “free life”. [A “free life” signifies that Christ’s nature was not under Adamic condemnation as is that of all other members of the human race, and that therefore his sacrifice was a substitute for the “lives” of others. However, he needed to obtain redemption himself in order to redeem his “brethren” — Gal 4:4; 1Tim. 2:6; Heb. 9:12.]

We reject the doctrine of docetism

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. (Melchizedek text from The Nag Hammadi Library)

Odes of Solomon 8:21 

1. 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.

42:18

1. May we also be saved with You, because You are our Savior.

The Gospel of Philip

Jesus appeared at the Jordan River with the fullness of the kingdom of heaven.
He was born before there was birth.
He was anointed once and was anointed anew.
He who was redeemed redeemed the world. 

 5. We reject that Christ’s nature was immaculate, or that he was of a different nature from other men. [Through his birth he inherited a nature sin-affected, and destined to death, being mortal, as all others — Heb. 2:14.]

Heracleon: Fragments from his
Commentary on the Gospel of John

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.

 6. We reject that the Holy Spirit is a person distinct from the Father. [The Holy Spirit is the exclusive power which emanates only from God to perform His determination — Lk. 24:49.]

The Holy Spirit is a feminine aspect of god

 7. We reject that man has an immortal soul. [The soul of man defines his being, his life, his existence; and is related to his attitude and emotions. He is wholly mortal, and has no immortal essence hereditarily.]

Heracleon: Fragments from his
Commentary on the Gospel of John

Fragment 40, on John 4:46-53 (In John 4:46, “So he came again to Cana in Galilee, where he had made the water wine. And at Capernaum there was an official whose child was ill.) The official was the Craftsman, for he himself ruled like a king over those under him. Because his domain is small and transitory, he was called an “official,” like a petty princeling who is set over a small kingdom by the universal king. The “child” “in Capernaun” is one who is in the lower part of the Middle (i.e. of animate substance), which lies near the sea, that is, which is linked with matter. The child’s proper person was sick, that is, in a condition not in accordance with the child’s proper nature, in ignorance and sins. (In John 4:47, “When he heard that Jesus had come from Judea to Galilee, he went and begged him to come down and heal his child , for it was at the point of death.”) The words “from Judea to Galilee” mean ‘from the Judea above.’. . . By the words “it was at the point of death,” the teaching of those who claim that the soul is immortal is refuted. In agreement with this is the statement that “the body and soul are destoyed in Hell.” (Matthew 10:28) The soul is not immortal, but is possessed only of a disposition towards salvation, for it is the perishable which puts on imperishability and the mortal which puts on immortality when “its death is swallowed up in victory.” (1 Corinthians 15:54)

 8. We reject that man consciously exists in death. [At death, man ceases to exist in every respect. He has no consciousness in death — Ecc. 3:19; Psa. 49:17-20.]

20 Man that is in honour, and understandeth not, is like the beasts that perish.

The Gospel of Philip 

Ignorance is the mother of [all evil]. Ignorance leads to [death, because] those who come from [ignorance] neither were nor [are] nor will be.

 9. We reject that the wicked will suffer eternal torture in hell. [The wicked are destined to eternal oblivion in the grave, excepting only those of their number who are answerable to God and will be raised to condemnation, to return eternally to the grave. — 2Thes. 1:8-9.]

A child claims the father’s legacy,
but those who inherit the dead are dead.

Heirs to the living are alive
and are heirs to life and death.

The dead are heirs to nothing.

How can the dead inherit?
Yet if the dead inherits the living,
the living won’t die and the dead will survive.

GENTILES, JEWS, CHRISTIANS

A gentile doesn’t die, never
having been alive to die.

10. We reject that the righteous will ascend to the kingdoms beyond the skies when they die. [None ascend to heaven; the Lord Jesus being the only exception, and in this case for the purpose of his continuing mediatorial work. The righteous await the return of Christ for the bestowal of immortality — Jn . 3:13.]

Yeshua said,
If your leaders tell you, “Look, the kingdom is in heaven,”
then the birds of heaven will precede you.
If they say to you, “It’s in the sea,”
then the fish will precede you.
But the kingdom is inside you and it is outside you.
When you know yourselves,  then you will be known,
and you will understand that you are children of the living father.
But if you do not know yourselves,
then you dwell in poverty and you are poverty.

11. We reject that the devil is a supernatural personal being. 

[The devil is variously manifested as that which falsely “accuses.” It is the manifestation of the ungodly characteristics of sin’s flesh, and will cease to exist when sin is ultimately destroyed — 1Pet. 5:8; Rev. 20:10.]

We reject the doctrine that Yaldabaoth and the Demiurge is the same person

Valentinian never use the word Yaldabaoth 

As we have amply demonstrated, the Demiurge in Valentinianism is quite different in character from the hostile Ialdabaoth familiar from the Sethian school. The Demiurge acts as an intermediary between the higher powers and the material world. The Valentinian view of the world created by the Demiurge is also quite different. According to Valentinian teaching, the world is created to aid the spiritual element to return to the Fullness (pleroma). Its creation was necessitated by the primordial fall into deficiency and suffering.

We reject the doctrine that the Demiurge is evil

The Valentinian teacher Ptolemy strongly criticizes non-Valentinian Gnostics who taught that the Demiurge was evil. In his view, those who view the creator as evil "do not comprehend what was said by the Savior...Only thoughtless people have this idea, people who do not recognize the providence of the creator and so are blind not only the eye of the soul but even in the eye of the body" (Letter to Flora 3:2-6). They are as "completely in error" as orthodox Christians who taught that the Demiurge was the highest God (Letter to Flora 3:2).

In contrast, he and other Valentinians steadfastly maintained that "the creation is not due to a god who corrupts but to one who is just and hates evil" (Letter to Flora 3:6). He carefully distinguished the Demiurge from both God and the Devil. According to Ptolemy, "he is essentially different from these two (God and the Devil) and is between them, he is rightly given the name, Middle" (Letter to Flora 7:4). He is "neither good nor evil and unjust, can properly be called just , since he is the arbitrator of the justice which depends on him" (Letter to Flora 7:5).

12. We reject that the Kingdom of God is “the church.” [The Kingdom of God is a divine political empire to be established on earth at the return of Jesus Christ. — Isa. 2:2-5]

13. We reject that the gospel is the death, burial, and resurrection of Christ merely. [The gospel includes the covenants of promise granted to Abraham and David and involves the establishment of God’s kingdom on earth — Gal. 3:8.]

14. We reject that Christ will not come until the close of the thousand years. [Jesus Christ returns to establish the millennium, and will reign as king during that period — 1Cor. 15:24-29; Rev. 20:6.]

15. We reject that the tribunal of Christ, when he comes, is not for the judgment of saints, but merely to divide among them different degrees of reward. [The Judgment seat of Christ is for the purpose of revealing the motives, actions and characteristics of all the responsible, and to prepare the righteous for the granting of immortality — Rom. 14:10; 2Cor. 5:10.]

16. We reject that the resurrection is confined to the faithful. [The resurrection will involve all who have known the Will of God, including those who have rejected that Will and those who have failed to uphold it in a faithful life — Jn. 12:48; 9:39-41; 15:22; Acts 15:24.]

17. We reject that the dead rise in an immortal state. [The dead come from the grave in the same state as they entered it; they will remain mortal as they appear before the judgment seat.]

Some are afraid that they will ascend from death naked, and they want to climb back to life in their flesh.They are unaware that those who wear their flesh are naked, and those who strip are not naked. “Flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of god.” What will we not inherit? The flesh we wear on us.
But what then will we inherit as our own? The body of Jesus and his blood. And Jesus said, “Whoever will not eat my flesh and drink my blood has no life within him.”  What does he mean? His flesh is the word and blood the holy spirit.
Who has received these has food and drink and clothing. I condemn those who say the flesh won’t rise. Then both are wrong. You say the flesh won’t ascend. Tell me, what will rise so I can honor you? You say spirit in the flesh and light in the flesh. What is the flesh?
You say there is nothing outside the flesh. Then rise in the flesh, since everything exists in it. In this world those wearing garments are better than garments. In heaven the garments are better than the wearers.

18. We reject that the subject-nations of the thousand years are immortal. [The nations will consist of mortal men and women, subject to the laws of Jesus Christ — Isa. 65:20.]

19. We reject that the law of Moses is binding on believers of the gospel. [The Law being fulfilled in Jesus Christ, its demands are not binding upon Christ’s disciples, as they are now subject to his commandments — Heb. 8:13.]

20. We reject that the observance of Sunday is a matter of duty. [Although the “first day” is commonly used for remembrance of the Christ-covenant, there is no obligation to limit such observance to a Sunday. It is a matter of “as oft as we do so,” whatever the day — 1Cor. 11:25.]

21. We reject that baby sprinkling is a doctrine of Scripture. [Baptism is only valid upon a confession of understanding the complete Will and purpose of God. It is the outward manifestation of an inner conviction — Mark 16:16; Acts 8:12.]

22. We reject the doctrine - that those without knowledge - through personal choice, immaturity, or lack of mental capacity - will be saved. 

[Salvation is based upon a reasonable and logical understanding of the Truth; those who are foreign to the gospel, who lack the capacity to perceive its responsibilities; or who are unable to comprehend, are outside the sphere of salvation — Acts 8:12.]

23. We reject that man can be saved by morality or sincerity, without the gospel. [Morality and sincerity must be accompanied by an acknowledgement of the gospel for salvation — Acts 10:1-6.]

24. We reject that the gospel alone will save, without the obedience of Christ’s commandments. [Obedience to the commandments is a responsibility required of all believers; salvation will be determined upon the application of faith and obedience. Rev. 22:14; Mat. 7:26; 2Pet. 2:21; Mat. 28:20; Gal. 6:2]

25. We reject that a man cannot believe without possessing the Spirit of God. [In this case, the “Spirit of God” identifies a direct, miraculous influence from God in a person’s life. Belief comes from understanding the Word of Truth.]

26. We reject that men are pre-destined to salvation unconditionally. [Salvation is based upon a personal decision by a believer to uphold God’s Truth, and is dependent upon the grace of God — Eph. 2:8.]

27. We reject that there is no sin in the flesh. [The flesh is hereditarily related to sin, caused by the transgression of Adam, the effects of which have passed upon all men, including the Lord Jesus Christ — 2Cor. 5:21.]

28. We reject that Joseph was the actual father of Jesus. [Joseph was his guardian; Yahweh, through His Spirit acting on the virgin Mary, was his Father — Lk. 1:35.]

29. We reject that the earth will be destroyed. [The earth has been created for Yahweh’s glory, and will never be destroyed — Psa. 37:11; Num. 14:21.]

30. We reject that baptism is not necessary to salvation. [Baptism establishes a covenant-relationship, and is an act of obedience required for salvation — Acts 2:38.]

31. We reject that a knowledge of the Truth is not necessary to make baptism valid. [Baptism is only valid upon a knowledge of God’s revealed will and purpose, and an open declaration and confession thereof — Acts 8:12.]

32. We reject that some meats are to be refused on the score of uncleanness. [No foods are forbidden on the grounds of divine law or ceremonial defilement; such decisions are a matter of personal conscience — 1Cor. 6:11; Col. 2:16; Mk. 7:15.]

33. We reject that the English are the ten tribes of Israel, whose prosperity is a fulfilment of the promises made concerning Ephraim. [The ten tribes comprise the Jewish people in dispersion, descendants of Shem. The English people are descendants of Japheth, and do not form part of natural Israel — 1Pet. 1:1; Jas 1:1.]

34. We reject that marriage with an unbeliever is lawful. [Marriage with the unbeliever, or with a divorced person whose spouse is living, is forbidden by the law of Christ — 1Cor. 7:39; Mk. 10:8-12.]

35. We reject that we are at liberty to serve in the armed forces, in the police force, take part in jury duty or politics, or recover debts by legal coercion. [These constitute elements of society and its law-enforcement requirements, of which the believer will have no part. — Jn . 17:16]

36. We reject that Holy Spirit Gifts are available today. [These special and miraculous personal gifts were limited to the apostolic era, and are not manifested today — 1Cor. 13:8-10.]

37. We reject that the sacrifice of the Lord Jesus Christ was not required for the cleansing of his sin nature. [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.

 38. We reject that the Bible account of creation is figurative, or parabolic, of a type of organic evolution in which all living things evolved from simpler varieties. [The record of Genesis 1-3 describes the literal work of God in creating this world and its creatures out of the previous void and chaos. Each day was a period of 24 hours duration, and does not permit an evolutionary process].

 For this reason error was angry with him, so she persecuted him. She was distressed by him, and she was made powerless. He was nailed to a tree.  He became a fruit of the knowledge of the father. He did not, however, destroy them because they ate of it. He rather caused those who ate of it to be joyful because of this discovery.

For this reason Jesus appeared; he put on that book; he was nailed to a tree; he published the edict of the Father on the cross. O such great teaching! He draws himself down to death, though life eternal clothes him. Having stripped himself of the perishable rags, he put on imperishability, which no one can possibly take away from him. Having entered the empty spaces of terrors, he passed through those who were stripped naked by oblivion, being knowledge and perfection, proclaiming the things that are in the heart, [...] teach those who will receive teaching.

 Not only (that, but) I have come to reveal to you the truth, which is within the brethren. 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 ...

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)