Is God a Holy Trinity?

Is God a Holy Trinity?

Is there a difference between emanations of the pleroma and the trinity?

Yes there is a difference between emanations of the pleroma and the catholic trinity

The Ogdoad is a group of 8 aeons which make up the primal emanations of the Pleroma or Godhead

The Trinity is a group of 3 divine beings or persons all claiming to be the same Person at the same time which makes up the Catholic Godhead

The emanations are all aspects of the One Deity 

The Deity has male and female aspects. However the 3 persons of the Catholic  Trinity are all male 

He existed before anything other than himself came into being. The Father is singular while being many, for he is the first one and the one who is only himself. (The Tripartite Tractate Einar Thomassen Translation)

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 set forth in the mystery of godliness.

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."

There are not three Gods in the Godhead; nor are there but three 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." The Godhead is the homogeneous 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 as numerous as the orbs of the universe, in which a manifestation of Deity may have hitherto occurred.

Is God a Holy Trinity?

No God is not Trinity the reason why it is called the Holy Trinity is because there are many pagan Trinitis

Valentinian tradition rejects the teaching of the trinity

Marcellus was a contemporary of the Church historian Eusebius and he was present with the latter at the Council of Nicea (c. 325). Marcellus claimed a connection between the Trinity and the teachings of the great Gnostic sage, Valentinus (c. 85–150 AD).

“Valentinus, the leader of a sect, was the first to devise the notion of three subsistent entities in a work that he entitled On the Three Natures. For he devised the notion of three subsistent entities and three persons—father, son and holy spirit.” (B. Layton, Gnostic Scriptures, pg. 232)

To understand the meaning of Marcellus’s statement it must be seen against the background of the time in which it was written. Both Marcellus and Eusebius lived in an age where the Catholic Church had achieved total dominance; and had received recognition and support from the Roman emperor. In this period the Church was split between two theological factions. One of these factions (the “orthodox”) believed that the Father, Son and Holy Spirit were three distinct persons who shared one nature or essence (homoousion). This was the position of the majority of the Catholic clergy. In opposition was the heretical faction led by an Egyptian priest named Arius (c. 250–336), who led a rebellion against the bishop of Alexandria. Arius and his followers insisted that the Father and Son had separate natures [1]. (This controversy was probably based on the paradox between Matthew 19:17 and John 10:30.) In the fragment above Marcellus is crediting the notorious heretic Valentinus with being the originator of the separate natures position as taken by the followers of Arius. I believe Marcellus is basically twisting the facts in order to smear the followers of Arius [2]. (In a similar manner Arius claimed in his Confession of Faith that the doctrine of one nature originated from the teachings of Valentinus and the Manicheans.[3])

Ironically Marcellus was later condemned by the Catholic Church for going too far toward the Monarchian position (Sabellianism) in his fanatical opposition to the Arians. Thus while Marcellus affirmed the shared essence of the Trinity, he did so to the point of denying the reality of their separate persons. http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/09642a.htm

In extant ecclesiastical literature the first use of the word homoousion in theology first appears in the doctrine of Valentinus as reported by Irenaeus, Against Heresies, 1.5.1.; see B. Layton, Gnostic Scriptures, pg. 290, footnote b. Of significance is that Irenaeus never used this word in his own doctrine, just as he never used the word “trinity.”

The problem here is that Marcellus is stretching the truth when he states that Valentinus’s concept of “Three Natures” is connected with the notion of “three subsistent entities and three persons—father, son and holy spirit.” The fact is, no other historical witness makes this claim about Valentinus; and there is no evidence in any Valentinian text that shows a connection of this sort. Valentinian texts do contain infrequent and obscure references to the “Father, Son and Holy Spirit” as I have shown above. But again there is no evidence either in Catholic or Valentinian sources that there was a prevailing theological system in Valentinian tradition that revolved around the phrase “Father, Son and Holy Spirit.” Much to the contrary, the historic evidence available shows that the “trinity” of Valentinus, and of the Valentinians, referred to something entirely different and unique.

The report of Marcellus above may be compared with the reports of the early Latin Father, Tertullian of Carthage. Tertullian lived at least 50 years before Marcellus and his writings are especially important because they show the origin and development of the word “trinity” in early Christian thought [4].

4] In extant ecclesiastical literature the notion of a three-person Godhead first appears with Justin Martyr, Athenagorus, and Irenaeus (Justin, 1 Apology, 6, 60; Athenagorus, A Plea for the Christians, 12; Irenaeus, Against Heresies, 4.20.4). These writers never use the word “trinity” but the three-fold idea is emerging in their thoughts. Most important is that these writers do not derive their three-fold ideas from any theological consensus in the NT. At best these writers refer to certain ideas that appear infrequently in certain NT passages, i.e. Mt. 28:19 and 2 Cor. 13:14. But again, there is no consensus in the NT that the Godhead is comprised of three persons. If there is any consensus at all in the NT, then the evidence most often shows that the Godhead is comprised of two figures, Father and Son (cf. Col. 2: 1–3, Jn. 1:1–3, 10:30). It is also notable that, in their polemics against heretics, neither Justin nor Irenaeus refer to any “trinity”; nor do they labor repeatedly on the notion that the godhead is ‘three-fold’ or is comprised of ‘three persons.’ This particular form of dogmatic opinion began with Tertullian (and the Montanists) and no one else (i.e. Tertullian, Against Praxeas).

Historically, Tertullian was the first Catholic writer to begin using the word “trinity” in reference to a systematic dogma.

The irony is that when Tertullian first used the word “trinity” in his earliest Catholic writings, this term was used in reference to Valentinian doctrine. Tertullian actually described this doctrine with the words “Valentinian trinity” (in Latin: trinitas Valentiniana [8]). Hence the first mention of the trinity in ecclesiastical literature actually refers to an idea that belonged to the Valentinians. Here is an example from Tertullian’s Treatise on the Soul:

“[The heretics] deny that nature is susceptible to any change, in order that they may be able to establish their three-fold theory, or ‘trinity,’ (“trinitas”) in all its characteristics as to the several natures, because ‘a good tree cannot produce evil fruit, nor a corrupt tree, good fruit; and nobody gathers figs of thorns, nor grapes of brambles’.” (Tertullian, A Treatise on the Soul, 21)

Tertullian’s description of the Valentinian “trinity” shows no connection with the three persons but instead refers to a doctrine of three natures. What Tertullian actually describes is a Valentinian doctrine which maintains that the universe is comprised of three fundamental substances or natures, which are identified as spirit, soul and matter (ibid., pg. 202; see below). Tertullian here accuses the Valentinians of teaching that the three natures are not subject to change, which he construes to mean that there is no hope for salvation, because the soul’s nature can’t change. Of course he has misstated the Valentinian doctrine; which maintains that the soul is in fact subject to change, i.e. redemption. It is the natures of spirit and matter which are not subject to change. Tertullian correctly reports this doctrine in his later treatise Against Valentinians, 25, where he admits that the soul (animal) “oscillates between the material and the spiritual, and is sure to fall at last on the side to which it has mainly gravitated.” (ibid., pg. 515f.) What Tertullian half-hazardly describes is the “trinity” which was the central tenet of ancient Valentinian tradition, and which provided the structure by which Valentinians defined their concepts of the universe, theology, christology and human nature

Photinus taught that Jesus was the sinless Messiah and redeemer, and the only perfect human son of God, but that he had no pre-human existence. They interpret verses such as John 1:1 to refer to God's "plan" existing in God's mind before Christ's birth;

Many Gnostic traditions held that the Christ is a heavenly Aeon but not one with the Father.

Nontrinitarianism was later renewed by Cathars in the 11th through 13th centuries:

Yet another movement got started in the 12th century in the south of France—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.” (mankind's search for god watchtower)

The Bogomils ("Friends of God") or Bulgars were a Gnostic Christian sect that flourished in Thrace and Bulgaria in the 10th Century. Their beliefs spread throughout Europe: to Italy, Northern Spain, the Languedoc, France, Germany, and Flanders. Bulgars rejected the Trinity and the sacraments, denied the Catholic Church's teachings on images, infant baptism, saints, and the virgin birth, and held that matter is inherently evil. A derivative sect which came to be known as Cathari flourished in the Languedoc (now Southern France) and Northern Italy . They followed a life of severe asceticism and found little difficulty in attracting the bulk of the population who were, according to Church records, sated with the corruption of the local clergy.

Those groups with early Unitarian or Socinian Christology such as Christadelphians and the Church of God General Conference identify the Angel of the Lord in the Old Testament much as Jews do, simply as angels. Early Christadelphians, notably John Thomas (Phanerosis 1869) and C. C. Walker (1929 Theophany: The Bible doctrine of the manifestation of God upon earth in the angels, in the Lord Jesus Christ, and hereafter in
"the manifestation of sons of God" Birmingham 1929) integrated angelic theophanies and God as revealed in his various divine names into a doctrine of God Manifestation which carries on into a Unitarian understanding of God's theophany in Christ and God being manifested in resurrected believers.

Satan's Trinity its what the church teaches

Satan's Trinity

Satan's Trinity its what the church teaches 

My Brothers and sisters:

Awaken from your sleep of Ignorance and be aware of that which is they teach you.

This article is taken from Eureka: An Exposition of the Apocalypse by Dr. John Thomas it should be noted that Dr Thomas understood satan has a personification of sin or human nature and not a fallen angel: 

The "Reverend Divines" of all the schools, colleges, pulpits, and platforms of Satan's Christendom, whom Paul styles prophetically DAIMONIA; men, whose vocation is to seduce from the faith, and to draw disciples after themselves; "speaking lies in hypocrisy, having had their own conscience cauterized; forbidding to marry, and commanding to abstain from meats" (1 Tim. 4:1-3), all these "reverends" and "D.D.'s," and "divines," will be taken and abolished. A daimon in Paul's day, was a god, deity, or divine, that occupied a middle station between the "Dii Superiores," the gods of the first rank, theoi, and the people who worshipped them. In the mythology of the idol-worshippers daimones were "the souls of men of the golden age hovering between heaven and earth, and acting as tutelary deities: they formed the connecting link between gods and men, and so Aeschylus (Aesch. Pers. 620) calls the deified Darius a daemon: hence when daimones and theoi are joined, the daimones are gods of lower rank."

Now, according to the theology of the Satan, the theoi, or Supreme Gods, are what they call "the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost;" that is, really their Father the Devil, his Son Antichrist, and the Ghost of the Flesh. These are their "Holy Trinity" in whom they delight, and after whom they go wondering (Rev. 13:3). Next in rank below these are "the angels" whom they also worship in praying to them and dedicating to their honour the temples in which they perform their rites (Col. 2:18). With these also may be ranked what Satan styles, the immortal disembodied souls of dead men, women, and babes, which, being furnished with wings on their arrival "beyond the skies," become angels.

These "Saints and Angels" are "the ministers of grace" between the "Holy Trinity" of the Devil, Antichrist, and their Spirit, and their Heritage on earth, "the Clergy," who are the hierophants of their mysteries in the world. These imaginary saints and angels of Skyana are the daemones of the Satan's theology; the internuncios, or mediators, between his Trinity and men; the Guardians and Protectors of nations, tribes, and peoples; and the Patrons of their bazaars of spiritual merchandize, their benefit societies, holy days, and benevolent institutions. These mythological orders of Theoi and Daimones constitute "the providence" of the Satan's theology. As a whole, it is nothing but "the Old Serpent" heathenism in a new skin -- Bible names applied to devilish things.

The "First Person" in the Satan's Trinity, is a ferocious, inaccessible, and implacable divinity. He is represented by his priests as having created myriads of human beings with the certainty of no other destiny than eternal torture in fire and burning brimstone. That he has made "faith alone" the condition of escape from this; but that none of his creatures can have this faith unless he works it in them by the operation of his spirit, bestowed in answer to the prayers of his priests, clergy, or ministers; and even then he only grants it reluctantly in special cases, at the instigation of the combined supplications of "ministers," the Virgin and her Son, and the Saints and angels of the system. Read the liturgies of Rome and Canterbury; and listen to the random outpourings of the pulpit; and witness the tumults, uproars, and bawlings of the religion-gettings of the Satan; and the character of the gods and demons of their theology may be accurately inferred from their words, and works, in conventicle.

This implacability and ferocity of the "First Person" of the Satan's Trinity necessitated the institution of a mediator, whose function should be to make "the First Person" willing to save a soul, -- in other words, to make him placable. This mediation introduces "the Second Person" as a mild, inoffensive, amiable, and benevolent Eternal God -- the milk of all kindness compared with "the First Person," whose disposition is illustrated by the fabled Saturn, who is said to have devoured his own offspring. These two incompatible personages the Satan teaches are One God -- the one in a rage; and the other, expostulating, and soothing him, and affectionately interceding with him to spare certain miserable and guilty wretches whose thefts, adulteries, murders, covetousness, and other abominations, "have found them out:" but pleading for them in vain, until he promises to go and die on a cross in their stead. With this he is hardly restrained tin the sacrifice is accomplished; but being performed, he accepts it only in behalf of the few he may send "the Third Person" to mesmerize into "feeling good," and "experiencing a hope." But it would occupy too much of our space to unveil all "the DEPTHS of the Satan, as THEY speak." I have adduced the foregoing as the extreme necessity created dogmatically by the Satan, to impress upon mankind the indispensability of their ministrations. Whose prayers are so effectual as the Satan's, in bringing down "the Third Person," "God the Holy Ghost," into the unclean, and infidel, evil hearts of the wicked, to convert them, and to give them a feeling? -- 

A feeling of hope that they are forgiven? Whose "consolations of religion" are more comforting than the Satan's, to the wretch about to be swung off by the neck for rape, arson, and murder? -- or to the exhausted debauchee fast sinking into a drunkard's grave? Whose prayers so availing as the Satan's for the bringing down of the Holy Ghost into the hearts of tyrannic kings and governors, inflated senators, and muddle-headed legislative assemblies, that they may be anointed with a wise and knowing unction? This being the general conviction inwrought by the working of the Satan for centuries past, we find them in the order of things visible occupying the position of the Demons of their theology. They are the internuncios between their three eternal persons in one eternal person, on the one part; and "their people," on the other. Because, therefore, of this, they share in the Official character of their imaginary Demons. Hence Paul selected the adjective, daimonion, "of, or belonging to, a daimon," to designate them. According to him, "those who in later times apostatize from the faith, give heed to seducing spirits, even to the teachings of Daimonia." We look into the scriptures and learn what "the faith" is; we read the history of the past, and there we see the people calling themselves Christians, wholly given to idolatry and all sorts of abomination; in this we see the apostasy from "the faith;" we look around us, and see the same sort continuing in the practices of their predecessors; and in view of all this we inquire, To whom do these people give heed, and whom do they delight to honour? To this there is but one answer to the clergy as they happen to be led. The conclusion, then, is inevitable that the Clergy are the Seducing Spirits and the Daimonia of Paul, whose dogmatic depths are destructive and subversive of the faith he labored so ardently and valiantly to establish, and transmit to posterity uncorrupted by the traditions and foolishness of men.

The Threefold Nature of Man

The Threefold Nature of Man

the flesh the soul and spirit

54 From Adam three natures were begotten. The first was the irrational, which was Cain's, the second the rational and just, which was Abel's, the third the spiritual, which was Seth's. Now that which is earthly is “according to the image,” that which is psychical according to the “likeness” of God, and that which is spiritual is according to the real nature; and with reference to these three, without the other children of Adam, it was said, “This is the book of the generation of men.” And because Seth was spiritual he neither tends flocks nor tills the soil but produces a child, as spiritual things do. And him, who “hoped to call upon the name of the Lord” who looked upward and whose “citizenship is in heaven” – him the world does not contain. (Extracts from the Works of Theodotus)


Man is a creation of the Demiurgus or the Elohim. He is formed from matter (hulê), receives a soul (psuchê) from the Demiurgus, and a spirit (pneuma) from Achamoth. The nature of man is thus a compound formed of three elements, Body, Soul, and Spirit.


Man has three natures spirit and soul and body


1 Thessalonians 5:23 May the very God of peace sanctify YOU completely. And sound in every respect may the spirit and soul and body of YOU [brothers] be preserved in a blameless manner at the presence of our Lord Jesus Christ. 24 He who is calling YOU is faithful, and he will also do it.



The “spirit” (Heb., ruach; Gr., pneuma) should not be confused with the “soul” (Heb., nephesh; Gr., psykhe´), for they refer to different things. Thus, Hebrews 4:12 speaks of the Word of God as ‘piercing even to the dividing of soul and spirit, and of joints and their marrow.’ (Compare also Php 1:27; 1Th 5:23.) As has been shown, the soul (nephesh; psykhe´) is the creature itself. The spirit (ruach; pneuma) generally refers to the life-force of the living creature or soul, though the original-language terms may also have other meanings.

The spirit is the mind of man the soul is the heart or emotions and of course the body is a physical nature

The “spirit” (Heb., ruach; Gr., pneuma) should not be confused with the “soul” (Heb., nephesh; Gr., psykhe´), for they refer to different things.





Definition: A Body is a physical or spiritual vessel. In other words a human or angelic body.

Definition: A Soul is a human body.

Definition: A Dead Soul is a dead body

Definition: A Spirit is a character, a personality. It is 'you'.



"Operating upon the brain [physical (body)], it [indwelling sin] excites the 'propensities' (the outward senses), and these set the 'intellect' [mental (spirit)], and 'sentiments' [moral (soul)] to work. The propensities are blind, and so are the intellect and sentiments in a purely natural state; when therefore, the latter operate under the sole impulse of the propensities, 'the understanding is darkened through ignorance, because of the blindness of the heart'". Ephesians 4:18


Man has three natures spirit and soul and body


The Flesh or hylics

hylics, also called somatics (from Gk σώμα (sōma) "body"),

An extension of the idea that flesh composes the visible, tangible parts of the body is the use of the word “flesh” to refer in a general way to the whole body. (Le 17:14; 1Ki 21:27; 2Ki 4:34) It is also used to refer to the person, or individual, as a human of flesh. (Ro 7:18; Col 2:1, 5

. “Flesh” is often used in the Bible to represent man in his imperfect state, ‘conceived in sin’ as an offspring of rebellious Adam. (Ps 51:5; Ro 5:12; Eph 2:3) In humans who are trying to serve God, ‘the spirit [impelling force emanating from the figurative heart] is eager, but the flesh is weak.’ (Mt 26:41) Within these servants of God there is a constant conflict; God’s holy spirit is a force for righteousness, but the sinful flesh continually wars against the spirit’s influence and exerts pressure to induce the individual to perform the works of the flesh. (Ro 7:18-20; Ga 5:17) The works of sinful flesh are contrasted with the fruitage of the spirit, at Galatians 5:19-23.

The Spiritual Man and The soulful.

The apostle contrasts the spiritual man with the physical man. He says: “But a physical [literally, soulical] man does not receive the things of the spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him.” (1Co 2:14) This “physical man” does not mean merely one living on earth, one with a fleshly body, for, obviously, Christians on earth have fleshly bodies. The physical man here spoken of means one who has no spiritual side to his life. He is “soulical” in that he follows the desires of the human soul to the exclusion of spiritual things.

Paul continues about the “physical man,” that he cannot get to know the things of the spirit of God “because they are examined spiritually.” Then he says: “However, the spiritual man examines indeed all things, but he himself is not examined by any man.” The spiritual man has understanding of the things God reveals; he sees also the wrong position and course of the physical man. But the spiritual man’s position, actions, and course of life cannot be understood by the physical man, neither can any man judge the spiritual man, for God only is his Judge. (Ro 14:4, 10, 11; 1Co 4:3-5) The apostle says by way of illustration and argument: “For ‘who has come to know the mind of Jehovah, that he may instruct him?’” No one, of course. “But,” Paul says of Christians, “we do have the mind of Christ.” By getting the mind of Christ, who reveals Jehovah and his purposes to Christians, they are spiritual men.—1Co 2:14-16.

James chapter 1 "A double minded man is unstable in all his ways" — The word "double-minded" is a translation of dipsuchos which signifies two-souled! One soul is for God, and one is for self! The double-minded man has feet in both camps. Jas 3:15 This wisdom is not one, from above, coming down, but is earthly, born of the soul, demoniacal!


Jude 1:19 These, are they who make complete separation, mere men of soul, Spirit, not possessing.

The Artificial Insemination of Mary with David's seed

The Artificial insemination of Mary

Ebionites denied Jesus' pre-existence, there was a sub-group which did not deny the virgin birth

(Artificial insemination of the natural 1000-year-old seed, miraculously preserved, by the Power of the Most High???)

Romans 1:3 - “Concerning his son Jesus Christ our Lord, which was made of the seed of David according to the FLESH.”

John 3:6 - “That which is born of the flesh is FLESH.”

Matthew 19:26 - “But Jesus beheld them, and said unto them, with man this is not possible, but with God all things are possible.”

2 Samuel 7:12-13 - “12 “When your [that is David's] days are fulfilled and you rest with your fathers, I will set up your seed after you, who will come from your body, and I will establish his kingdom. 13 He shall build a house for My name, and I will establish the throne of his kingdom forever.”

1 Kings 8:19 - “Thy [David’s] son that shall come forth out of thy loins, he shall build the house unto my name.”

Psalm 132:11 - “The Lord hath sworn in truth unto David; he will not turn from it; of the fruit of THY body will I set upon thy throne.”

John 7:42 - “Hath not the scriptures said, that Christ cometh of the seed of David?”

Acts 2:30 - “Therefore being a prophet, and knowing that God had sworn with an oath to him, that of the fruit of his loins, according to the FLESH, he would raise up Christ to sit on his throne.”

Acts 13:23 - “Of this man’s [David’s] seed hath God according to his promise raised unto Israel a Saviour, Jesus.”

Revelation 22:16 - “I Jesus have sent mine angel to testify unto you these things in the churches. I am the root and the OFFSPRING of David, and the bright and morning star.”


Some said, "Mary conceived by the Holy Spirit." They are in error. They do not know what they are saying. When did a woman ever conceive by a woman? Mary is the virgin whom no power defiled.... And the Lord would not have said "My Father who is in Heaven" (Mt 16:17), unless he had had another father, but he would have said simply "My father". The Gospel of Philip


But remember this: The unbroken of lineage is reckoned through the seed of the father (male). The lineage of Jesus in Matthew and Luke give Mary and her husband, Joseph, as descendants of David. But Joseph was not the natural father of Jesus.

Now, "That which is born of the FLESH is FLESH; and that which is born of the SPIRIT is SPIRIT" (John 3:6). This indicates that FLESH does not bring forth SPIRIT, nor does SPIRIT bring forth FLESH. Therefore, the seed that was planted in Mary, by the power of the Holy Spirit was a natural seed and not a spiritual seed. Whose natural seed did the Holy Spirit use? It plainly tells us it was the SEED OF DAVID, in the following testimonies:

2 Sam. 7:12-13 and I.. Chron. 17:1.1-1.1, quoting from Lesser’s translation:

"When thou [David] sleep with thy fathers I will set up THY SEED ... which shall proceed OUT OF THY BODY ... and I will establish the throne of his kingdom forever ... I, TOO, will be to him AS a father and he shall INDEED [by his deeds] be to me AS a son."

Gabriel's statement to Mary about Jesus' FATHER: Luke 1:32 - "...he [Jesus] shall be CALLED (not born] the son of the Highest ... and the Lord God shall give unto him the throne of HIS FATHER DAVID."

Jesus was David’s NATURAL son (not a remote descendant). "This is the Lord's doing, it is marvellous in our eyes" (Psa. 118:23). Since Jesus was not a descendant of David through the normal. MALE channel, then the NATURAL seed of David, OUT OF HIS LOINS, had to be miraculously preserved to be FERTILE and had to be ARTIFICIALLY implanted in Mary, since David had been DUST for 1000 years.

Luke's record of the birth of Jesus discloses that:

1. He was actually born of FLESH - the son of man, i. e., the son of David.
2. He was born the son of God, that is he would become the son of God INDEED, or by behaviour.
3. He was born the Saviour of the world.
4. He was born the King of the Jews.

It was necessary for Jesus to first QUALIFY for the last three TITLES, ordained of God, by a perfect obedience in the FLESH.

He qualified as the son of God at his baptism and resurrection.
He qualified as the saviour of the world at his crucifixion.
He qualified as the eternal King at his resurrection.

The Preexistence of the Church

The Preexistence of the Church

Jeremiah 1:5: Before I formed thee in the belly I knew thee; and before thou camest forth out of the womb I sanctified thee, and I ordained thee a prophet unto the nations.

The idea occurs in the NT: The existence of the church

Eph 1:4  according as He did choose us in him before the foundation of the world, for our being holy and unblemished before Him, in love,

The origins of the pre-existent spiritual Church to Ephesians 1:4,1 where Paul speaks about believers having been chosen in Christ before the foundation of the world. This speaks somewhat to the idea of pre-existence but only in the sense of the foreknowledge of God, and that was not unique to Paul’s letter to the Ephesians. 

Rom 8:29  For whom he did foreknow <4267>, he also did predestinate <4309> to be conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brethren.

The word proginosko comes from pro, before, and ginosko, to know intimately, and signifies
a knowledge that brings together. Yahweh "knows the end from the beginning, and from ancient times the things that are not yet done" (Isa. 46:10); He "calls those things which be not as though they were" (Rom. 4:17) — thus He "brings together" the past, present and future, having a complete knowledge of all things, and is able to see the future as clearly as the past. Divine foreknowledge is the basis of the divine purpose. It enables Him to extend His calling for salvation knowing the ultimate results of that calling. So He could select with perfect wisdom and justice a Jacob rather than an Esau (Mai. 1:2-3), because He knew how each would develop, and the characteristics that they would manifest. With similar ability the divine call goes out today to invite those who have the capacity and desire to reflect the divine glory (IPet. 1:2; 2Tim. 2:19).

The Greek word proginosko occurs only in the following places: Rom. 11:2- God foreknew the Jews as His people. Acts 2:23 (prognosis); IPet. 1:20 - God foreknew (foreordained) the mission and sacrifice of Jesus Christ. Rom. 8:29-30 - God foreknows those who will conform to the image of His Son. IPet. 1:2 - God foreknows {prognosis) the election of the saints. Acts 26:5 (proginosko) - Certain Jews knew Paul from before. 2Pet. 3:17 (proginosko) - We can know before the events of the future, for God has shared part of His foreknowledge with us through the scriptures.

"He also did predestinate" — The word proorizo comes from pro, before, and horizo, to mark out or bound (from which we have our word "horizon"). Thus the idea is to limit in advance; predetermine, to "divide or separate one part from another". The word refers to God's ability to mark out the ultimate destiny of His chosen ones (see Eph. 1:5,11). He has determined the "horizon" of our future, having laid out the "line" of our life. This was accomplished in the garden of Eden, when, notwithstanding the failure of mankind to live up to the obedience required, Yahweh "preserved" the "way of life" (Gen. 3:24); He provided the means by which faithful believers might ultimately enter into the promised inheritance (Rev. 2:7).
Therefore God has predetermined their destiny on the basis of His foreknowledge of how they would act. Paul says that God has "made known unto us the mystery of  His will, according to His good pleasure which He hath purposed in Himself: that in the dispensation of the fulness of times He might gather together in one all things in Christ... in whom also we have obtained an inheritance, being predestined according to the purpose of Him who worketh all things after the counsel of His own will" (Eph. 1:9-12). God has marked out beforehand the program of His actions with mankind, and therefore is able to see the results of that work before it comes to pass.
He did not, however, determine the actions of His creatures, nor force them to do what they would not willingly have done (see Phil. 2:12). The thing predeterminedis the standard of Christ, to which all must conform. God required beforehand that those whom He foreknew should conform to that image of His Son. Predestination, or the prediction of what would occur, is only possible through the prescience of Yahweh, and only divine wisdom and power can foretell
the future with unerring accuracy. The principle of predestination is summed up in the phrase: "He that believeth and is baptised shall be saved" (Mk. 16:16): it is a certain, established and defined destiny of those who remain faithful. Thus we have hope of "an inheritance incorruptible, and undefiled, and that fadeth not away" (IPet. 1:4), and which God will grant to all who conform to His precepts.

Paul is not talking about the pre-existence of the Church but about the pre-selection of believers.

Romans 9:11-14 For the children being not yet born, neither having done any good or evil, that the purpose of God according to election might stand, not of works, but of him that calleth; It was said unto her, The elder shall serve the younger. As it is written, Jacob have I loved, but Esau have I hated. What shall we say then? Is there unrighteousness with God? God forbid.

The pre-existence of the Church is well known from early Christian literature; ~ 

Ignatius, who is also called Theophorus, to the Church which is at Ephesus, in Asia, deservedly most happy, being blessed in the greatness and fulness of God the Father, and predestinated before the beginning1 of time ("before the ages."), that it should be always for an enduring and unchangeable glory, being united and elected through the true passion by the will of the Father, and Jesus Christ, our God: Abundant happiness through Jesus Christ, and His undefiled grace.


2Clem 2:1 Rejoice, thou barren that barest not. Break out and cry, thou that travailest not; for more are the children of the desolate than of her that hath the husband. In that He said Rejoice, thou barren that barest not, He spake of us: for our Church was barren, before that children were given unto her.

2Clem 9:5 If Christ the Lord who saved us, being first spirit, then became flesh, and so called us, in like manner also shall we in this flesh receive our reward.

Here Christ the Lord is the logos the anointing spirit which descended upon Jesus in bodily shape at his baptism in the Jordan, and took possession of him. This was the anointing which constituted him Christ (or the anointed), and which gave him the superhuman powers of which he showed himself possessed.

Clem. 14:1-2

2Clem 14:1 Wherefore, brethren, if we do the will of God our Father, we shall be of the first Church, which is spiritual, which was created before the sun and the moon; but if we do not the will of the Lord, we shall be of the scripture that saith, My house was made a den of robbers. So therefore let us choose rather to be of the Church of life, that we may be saved.

By “spiritual” he means something like “figuratively” (cf. Rev 11:8)

The Church pre-existed however not as a spirit being, but spiritually it seems clear that this was the case. He writes, “we will belong to the first church, the spiritual church, the church that was created before the sun and moon” (14.1), and again, “the church was spiritual, it became manifest in Christ’s flesh” (14.3). This is allegorical language figurative or spiritual

2Clem 14:2 And I do not suppose ye are ignorant that the living Church is the body of Christ: for the scripture saith, God made man, male and female. The male is Christ and the female is the Church. And the Books and the Apostles plainly declare that the Church existeth not now for the first time, but hath been from the beginning: for she was spiritual, as our Jesus also was spiritual, but was manifested in the last days that He might save us.



Again the writer is being figurative, that the church pre-existed as an idea in the foreknowledge of God, in the same way that Jesus pre-existed. So, our understanding is that Jesus only pre-existed in a figurative sense and not literally. 

2Clem 14:3 Now the Church, being spiritual was manifested in the flesh of Christ, thereby showing us that if any of us guard her in the flesh and defile her not, he shall receive her again in the Holy Spirit: for this flesh is the counterpart and copy of the spirit*. No man therefore, when he hath defiled the copy, shall receive the original for his portion. This therefore is what He meaneth, brethren; Guard ye the flesh, that ye may partake of the spirit.

A community of such individuals as these constitutes the mystical body of Christ. By faith, its elements are "members of His body, of His flesh, and of His bones." Hence, they are "bone of His bone, and flesh of His flesh;" and, therefore, the beloved Eve of the last Adam, the Lord who is to come from heaven, and make her of the same spiritual nature as His own. Thus, the church is figuratively taken out of the side of her Lord; for every member of it believes in the remission of sins through His shed blood; and they all believe in the real resurrection of His flesh and bones, for their justification unto life by a similar revival from the dead. "Your bodies are the members," or flesh and bones, "of Christ; and he that is joined unto the Lord is one spirit" (1Cor 6:15-17). "I have espoused you to one husband," says Paul, "that I may present you as a chaste virgin to Christ" (2Cor 11:15-17). 

*the reference here is to spiritual things, but not to the Holy Spirit directly. This is also true in several places that follow.

2Clem 14:4 But if we say that the flesh is the Church and the spirit is Christ, then he that hath dealt wantonly with the flesh hath dealt wantonly with the Church. Such and one therefore shall not partake of the spirit, which is Christ>.

Ptolemy's Commentary on The Gospel of John Prologue 
http://www.gnosis.org/library/ptl.htm

Ptolemy's Commentary is should be understood as a Commentary on the Pleroma

First of all the Pleroma did not always exist it was produced and formed by the Eternal Spirit this we call the emanation.

(He created the holy Pleroma in this way The Untitled Text in the Bruce Codex)

The word Pleroma means "fullness". It refers to all existence beyond visible universe In other words it is the world of the Aeons, the heavens or spiritual universe. Bythos is the spiritual source of everything which emanates the pleroma.

The Pleroma is both the abode of and the essential nature of the True Ultimate Deity or Bythos.


John 1:1–4 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2 He was in the beginning with God. 3 All things were made through him, and without him was not any thing made that was made. 4 in him was life, and the life was the light of men.

But furthermore (he says), "That which came into being in it was Life."[Jn 1:4] Here he discloses a pair. For he says that the entirety came into being through it, but Life is in it. Now, that which came into being in it more intimately belongs to it than what came into being through it: it is joined with it and through it it bears fruit. Indeed, inasmuch as he adds, "and Life was the light of human beings", [Jn 1:4] in speaking of human beings he has now disclosed also the Church by means of a synonym, so that with a single word he might disclose the partnership of the pair. For from the Word and Life, the Human Being and the Church came into being. And he called Life the light of human beings because they are enlightened by her, i.e. formed and made visible. Paul, too, says this: "For anything that becomes visible is light." [Eph 5:13] So since Life made the Human Being and the Church visible and engendered them, she is said to be their light.

Now among other things, John plainly made clear the second quartet, i.e. the Word; Life; the Human Being; the Church.

But what is more, he also disclosed the first quartet. describing the Savior, now, and saying that all things outside the Fullness were formed by him, he says that he is the fruit of the entire fullness. For he calls him a light that "shines in the darkness" [Jn 1:5] and was not overcome by it, inasmuch as after he had fitted together all things that had derived from the passion they did not become acquainted with him. And he calls him Son, Truth, Life, and Word become flesh. We have beheld the latter's glory, he says. And its glory was like that of the Only- Begotten, which was bestowed on him by the Father, "full of grace and truth". [Jn 1:14] And he speaks as follows: "And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us; we have beheld its glory, glory as of the Only-Begotten from the Father." [Jn 1:14] So he precisely discloses also the first quartet when he speaks of the Father; Grace; the Only-Begotten; Truth. Thus did John speak of the first octet, the mother of the entirety of aeons. For he referred to the Father; Grace; the Only-Begotten; Truth; the Word; Life; the Human Being; the Church.

Ecclesia or Church is in the mythology proclaimed by Valentinus one of the aeons of the primal ogdoad was named Ecclesia (Adv. Haer.1.11.1). This aeon was the consort to Anthropos, and from this consort pair emerged twelve powers (cf. Adv. Haer. 1.1.1; cf. Heracleon, Comm. John 13.51).

In a later Valentinian text, The Tripartite Tractate (third century), Church is the third member of the primal triad that “existed from the beginning” (57.34-35). 

Here the Church is also identified with the heavenly Jerusalem. which occurs by itself in Gal. 4:26  additional explanation from 4 Ezra 7.26; 1 Enoch 90:28-29; Book of Elijah 10; 2 Baruch 4:2-7; cf.Rev 21:2.

In the Tripartite Tractate, Church is a composite entity, “consisting of many men that existed before the aeons” (58.30-31). In this sense, Church is not a single aeon by composite of individual aeons, Therefore the Church is identical with the Pleroma. 

The Tripartite Tractate

the son and the church 

this is where he introduces the two parts the other two parts of God the Son and the church and the church later would sometimes be interchange with the holy spirit

Just as the Father exists in the proper sense, the one before whom there was no one else, and the one apart from whom there is no other unbegotten one, so too the Son exists in the proper sense, the one before whom there was no other, and after whom no other son exists.

The message here is that God has everything in mind from the beginning. Whatever he produces from the beginning and as the Brethren of that beginning Christ is the eternal forever in the past or at the beginning at the time of which he conceived the concept of the son as being part of the story of humankind. This does not really matter because for us humans from our perspective it is the beginning of everything anyway and that’s really all we need to know and we’ll probably likely ever know anyway.

Not only did the Son exist from the beginning, but the Church, too, existed from the beginning.

Now, he who thinks that the discovery that the Son is an only son opposes the statement (about the Church) because of the mysterious quality of the matter, it is not so. For just as the Father is a unity, and has revealed himself as Father for him alone, so too the Son was found to be a brother to himself alone, in virtue of the fact that he is unbegotten and without beginning.

Not only did the Son as it goes on to say exist from the beginning but the church too existed from the beginning. And here’s well what I was talking about we starts to introduce these ideas that everybody was with God from the beginning and what does he mean by beginning? You see some can argue that he means beginning as in God forever and eternal past. But if that’s the case, there really is no beginning with God others might argue well beginning in the sense that when God conceived of creating the perfect sons and daughters of God the human beings. Whatever other beings he might have created in the universe that was the beginning and the son was there from the beginning and the church as well.

And the church here is referring to married partner of Christ that he marries the church and the church is all the all the people that make up the third type of person which is the spiritual beings. So now he who thinks the discovery that the Son is an only Son opposed to the statement about the church because of the mysterious quality of the matter it is not so. The writer saying here that the Son is the only Son and that should not be a discovery to you for just as the father is a unity and has revealed himself as father for him alone so to the son was found to be a brother to himself alone.

virtue the fact that he is unbegotten without beginning everybody can be a son and daughter of God and even Christ talked about have I not told you there ye are all gods. And throughout the canonical text and within Gnosticism a continuing he talks about everyone being able to or having been from the beginning sons and daughters of God.

But this writer is trying to somehow bring forth the specialness of Christ I think and whether or not you agree or disagree. The and in the way in which this writer is doing it I think it’s more important of what I believe the writers trying to convey to us that Christ holds the unique place within the story. and I think we all can agree with that at least the writer goes on to say he wonders it himself along with the father and he gives himself glory and honour in love.

Furthermore he too is the one whom he conceives of as son in accordance with the dispositions without beginning and without. In thus is the matter something which is fixed being innumerable and illimitable his offspring are indivisible those which exist have come forth from the son and the Father like kisses. Because of the multitude of some who kiss one another with the good insatiable thought the kiss being a unity although it involves many kisses this is to say it is the church.

Consisting of many men that existed before the Aeons which is called in the proper sense quote the Aeons of the Aeons unquote this is the nature of the Holy impressionable spirits upon which the Son rests. since it is his essence just as the father rests upon the Son so he really is trying to bring forth the elevation of not only God but those that follow God to the point of which he’s bringing Christ and the followers of Christ all the way back to the very beginning. Whatever that means whether it’s the beginning of creation or it means beginning meaning whenever God was which we all would probably presume would be forever in the past. 

But more importantly he points out that Christ and the church existed even before the Aeons number 4 Aeons emanations and we don't know where the starts but we'll disturber says dot dot the church exists in the dispositions and properties in which the father and the son exists as I have said from the start .

Therefore its subsets in the procreation of innumerable Aeons. Christ the father and the church are all a Godhead. That goes about creating everything else and that’s an interesting concept perhaps there’s a reason we were called sons and daughters of God also in an uncountable way they to beget by the properties and dispositions and which it the church exists.

So then, the church is able to beget that its people whatever the followers of God are for these comprise its association, which they form toward one another and toward those who have come forth from them toward the Son or whose glory they exist. now this is another impression that you get from proto Orthodox the idea that God is a worshipful figure or Christ should be glorified in some way typically with the Gnosticism we don’t look at God as someone that needs to be worshipped even Christ said you know don’t worship me.

You know some of this is implied as you read through this it’s a little different from what we typically get from most of the other book are being presented with in the Nag Hammadi. so you can see how these different influences impacting each other the proto Orthodox under Peter and the more Gnostic approach of Paul and then the early church fathers Valentina’s Irenaeus and how these all kind of clash with the different followers within those different sects.

Therefore, it is not possible for mind to conceive of him he was the perfection of that place nor can speech express them for they are ineffable and unnameable and inconceivable. They alone have the ability to name themselves and to conceive of themselves elevating the followers of God along almost at the level of Christ and the Father. For they have not been rooted in these places. those of that place are inevitable and innumerable in the system which is both the manner in the size the joy the gladness of the unbegotten nameless unnameable inconceivable invisible and comprehensible One is the fullness of the paternity. so that his abundance is a beginning of the Aeons. 

Again it’s just reiterating that from this writers perspective the Aeons followed after the church the Christ and God they were forever in thought for the Father was like a thought and a place for them. so it’s almost like he’s suggesting that the aeons were merely there to be part of carrying out the prime purpose which was to create humans and then everything else kind of served that and you know indirectly or directly. they were forever in thought for the Father was like a thought and a place for them. When their generations had been established the who is completely in control wish to lay hold of and to bring forth that which was deficient in the whatever and he brought forth those in blank him when their generations had been established. the one who is completely in control wish to lay hold of but since he is as he is he is a spring which is not diminished by the water which abundantly flows from him while they were in the Father’s thought that is in the hidden depth.

The depth knew them but they were unable to know the depth in which they were nor was it possible for them to know themselves nor for them to know anything else. that is they were with the Father they did not exist for themselves rather they only had existence in the manner of a seed so that it has been discovered that they existed like a fetus. 

it’s good this writers clarifying what he means that he’s saying the church in Christ were more seeds of thought you can think of it that way. not so much entities if that’s the case then I can say that’s a little more agreeable to The way I think Gnostic Christians might might think of a place that you’d put this in the whole puzzle.

 like the word he begat them subsisting spermaticlly. and the ones whom he was to beget had not yet come into being from him the one who first thought of them the Father not only so that they might exist for him but also that they might exist for themselves as well. That they might then exist in his thought as mental substance and that they might exist for themselves too so to thought like a spermatic seed. 1 Peter 1:23 1 John 3:9

1 Peter 1:23 For YOU have been given a new birth, not by corruptible, but by incorruptible [reproductive] seed (Greek spoas´; Latin., semine.), through the word of [the] living and enduring

1 John 3:9 Everyone who has been born from God does not carry on sin, because His [reproductive] seed (Greek 4690 spora) remains in such one, and he cannot practice sin, because he has been born from God. 

4701. σπορά spora spor-ah’; from 4687; a sowing, i.e. (by implication) parentage: —  seed. σπορά, σπορᾶς, ἡ (σπείρω, 2 perfect ἐσπορα), seed: 1 Peter 1:23((equivalent to a sowing, figuratively, origin, etc., from Aeschylus, Platodown))

4690. σπέρμα sperma sper’-mah; from 4687; something sown, i.e. seed (including the male "sperm"); by implication, offspring; specifically, a remnant (figuratively, as if kept over for planting): —  issue, seed.  

Now in order that they might know what exists for them he graciously granted the initial form. Wow in order that they might recognize who is the Father who exists for them gave them the name Father by means of a voice proclaiming to them that what exists. Exists through that name which they have by virtue of the fact that they came into being because the exultation which has escaped their notice is in the name alright. 

So the concept of the idea of a Father we all have a Father rather adopt him we know that Father or not or we were in a family where we’re not adopted the idea the concept of the Father is there and that experience allows us to know God the Father in heaven. so against the same concept that Christ came to represent the Father in name and so to all the Fathers here that we have on this earth representing in name the concept of the Father. so ultimately these are archetype here’s the Father so put in a name here’s God put in the name in this case would be Christ the infant while in the form of the fetus has enough for him itself before ever seeing the one who sewed it therefore they had the sole task of searching for him


Hebrews 12:23 to the church of the firstborn, whose names are written in heaven. You have come to God, the Judge of all, to the spirits of the righteous made perfect,

Whosoever believeth that Jesus is the Christ is born of God" (1 Jn. 5:1). Our spiritual man is what is born of God. All true believers are here spoken of as if they are their spiritual man. All true believers in Christ therefore have a spiritual man within them, which we must seek out, even imagine at times, and with which we should fellowship

Our spiritual man is not limited by the bonds of space. Thus Paul was bodily absent from Corinth, " but present in spirit" (1 Cor. 5:3), i.e. his spiritual man was present with them. It was the same with Colosse: " I be absent in the flesh, yet am I with you in the spirit" (Col. 2:5). When our spiritual man groans, Christ groans too in Heaven, an infinite distance away (Rom. 8:23 cp. 26). There is no time barrier, either. Thus our spiritual man is in close fellowship with " the spirits of just men made perfect" , having died many years ago (Heb. 12:23). This is the glorious unity of the Spirit; we are not just connected with all living saints, wherever they may be, but with the spiritual characters of all true saints throughout history.


The Trinity is just God's Family

NUMBER 1

NUMBER 1

No. 1 -- Just as number 1 is the foundation of all mathematics, so Yahweh is the beginning of all. Number 1 therefore in Scripture pertains to God.

A. Number one is indivisible, it is not made up of other numbers and is therefore independent of all others; therefore it is the source of all others.

B. As a cardinal number it denotes unity—as an ordinal number it denotes primacy.

This is illustrated in the science of arithmetic. Arithmetic is the scence of numbers. The hypostasis or basis of this science is the multitudinous expression of one, a multiplication of number one. Let there be no numerical power called one, and there could be no five, fifty, or any other combination of one. One is the great power of the arithmetical universe; and all the other powers resulting from the multiplication of one combined, cannot exclude one therefrom, without annihilating themselves, and expunging the system.

one life and one intelligence--There is one Spirit; one principle of life, love, intelligence, and goodness in, through, and over all, even God, the good omnipotent.

one Mind--There is but one Mind. Every individual and the various phases of character that make that individual are but states of consciousness in the one Mind.

one presence and one power--God, Spirit, is the only presence in the universe, and is the only power. He is in, through, and around all creation as its life and sustaining power.

one Spirit-Mind--God is the one Spirit-Mind in which all ideas of life, love, substance, intelligence, and power originate.

God’s Active Force

The first holy spirit is the Active Force of the Deity

God’s Active Force; Holy Spirit. By far the majority of occurrences of ru´ach and pneu´ma relate to God’s spirit, his active force, his holy spirit.

In Hebrew the word "Spirit" is ruach is a feminine noun, leading to references as "She".

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 phrase like a dove is a descriptive comparison. The Spirit is not a dove, but descended like one in some sort of bodily representation.

Distinguished from “power.” Ru´ach and pneu´ma, therefore, when used with reference to God’s holy spirit, refer to God’s invisible active force by which he accomplishes his divine purpose and will. It is “holy” because it is from Him, not of an earthly source, and is free from all corruption as “the spirit of holiness.” (Ro 1:4) It is not Jehovah’s “power,” for this English word more correctly translates other terms in the original languages (Heb., ko´ach; Gr., dy´na·mis).

Ru´ach and pneu´ma are used in close association or even in parallel with these terms signifying “power,” which shows that there is an inherent connection between them and yet a definite distinction. (Mic 3:8; Zec 4:6; Lu 1:17, 35; Ac 10:38)

“Power” is basically the ability or capacity to act or do things and it can be latent, dormant, or inactively resident in someone or something.

“Force,” on the other hand, more specifically describes energy projected and exerted on persons or things, and may be defined as “an influence that produces or tends to produce motion, or change of motion.”

“Power” might be likened to the energy stored in a battery, while “force” could be compared to the electric current flowing from such battery.

“Force,” then, more accurately represents the sense of the Hebrew and Greek terms as relating to God’s spirit, and this is borne out by a consideration of the Scriptures.

Should We Worship Mary the Mother of Jesus Gospel of Thomas saying 79

Should We Worship Mary Gospel of Thomas saying 79 

Gospel of Thomas saying 79 A woman in the crowd said to him, "Blessed are the womb that bore you and the breasts that nourished you!" He said to [her], "Blessed are those who have heard the father's utterance (or Word) and truly kept it! For days are coming when you (plur.) will say, 'Blessed are the womb that has not conceived and the breasts that have not given milk!

This saying in Thomas also found in the gospel of Luke would certainly have been a fine opportunity for Jesus to pay special honor to his mother if that had been appropriate. He did not do so.

Jesus deflects praise from his mother and himself toward those who are obedient to God. So we should not worship Jesus’ mother or give her honour for she was just flesh and blood like us and we should only honour and worship Yahweh our Elohim

382 Mary, the mother of Jesus, was unique, in that she gave birth to a son by a special miracle, without the intervention of the customary physical means. This of course does not mean that she was more than human, any more than that her son was more than human. She had as much need to pray to Allah as anyone else. The Christian dogma, in all sects except the Unitarian, holds that Jesus was God and the son of God. The worship of Mary became the practice in the Roman Catholic Church, which calls Mary the "Mother of God". This seems to have been endorsed by the Council of Ephesus in 431 A.C., in the century before Muhammad was born to sweep away the corruptions of the Church of Christ . 

The woman who says how Blessed Mary is to have given birth to Jesus is thinking carnally. She believes that Mary gave life to Jesus, but flesh gives birth to flesh. God could turn stones into men (and He basically did!). Again man was created, but spirit is born of spirit. So God gives birth to spirit. 

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 mother [gave me falsehood], but [My] true [Mother] gave me life."


For My birth mother [gave me death], but [My] true [Mother] gave me life." April deconick translation

Jesus birth mother could only give him death or falsehood which we understand to be sin in the flesh. but his true mother give him life. Sin, is an equivalent expression  for human nature.

Jesus goes on to tell this woman that the lucky ones are those who hear the Word of God and do what He says.

The last part of this Saying is a warning of disaster to come, when children will be much more a burden than a blessing, but whether Jesus is speaking about 70 CE or at the end of the present age is impossible to determine so I think it is both.


Jesus says that difficult times are coming for those thinking and living carnally.  God will break us like a Potter breaks and then refashions a pot. He will shape us into perfection, which is His image!

79) #A woman [a Jew who understood that the scriptures were pointing to Christ] from the crowd said to Him, "Blessed are the womb [Judaism (Gal 1:15)] which bore you and the breasts [the Old and New Testaments] which nourished You [He spoke forth both of these as the Word of God]." He said to her, "Blessed are those [the Elect] who have heard [the higher/inward (spiritual) meaning of] the word [in both Testaments] of the Father [Spirit-level as opposed to the mother which is of the flesh and blood level] and have truly kept it [obeyed and observed it as opposed to the Jews and the "Christo-pagans who do not]. #For there will be days [2,000 years (2 spiritual days) of Messianic age] when you will say, 'Blessed are the womb which has not conceived [true Judaism] and the breasts [of true Christianity] which have not given milk [both were subverted into "worldly" religions before they ever had a chance to bring forth adequate fruit to give birth to the spirit in anyone] .'"