What are the Three Keys to Enlightenment?

what are the three keys to enlightenment?

what are the keys to enlightenment?

There are three keys which open the door to enlightenment

The keys are

Brotherly love, an humble mind, and solid in the faith.

The thing about faith is this if you do not have it you can not understand it. However if you do, no explanation is necessary.

1 Peter 3:8 Finally, all of YOU be like-minded, showing fellow feeling, having brotherly affection, tenderly compassionate, humble in mind, 9 not paying back injury for injury or reviling for reviling, but, to the contrary, bestowing a blessing, because YOU were called to this [course], so that YOU might inherit a blessing.

2 Peter 1:5 Yes, for this very reason, by YOUR contributing in response all earnest effort, supply to YOUR faith virtue, to [YOUR] virtue knowledge, 6 to [YOUR] knowledge self-control, to [YOUR] self-control endurance, to [YOUR] endurance godly devotion, 7 to [YOUR] godly devotion brotherly affection, to [YOUR] brotherly affection love. 8 For if these things exist in YOU and overflow, they will prevent YOU from being either inactive or unfruitful regarding the accurate knowledge of our Lord Jesus Christ.

A short Hymn

Amen. Blessing and glory, and wisdom and
thanksgiving, and honour, and pow’r, and might,
be unto our God for ever and ever.

Blessing and glory, and wisdom, and thanksgiving, and honour,
and pow’r, and might, be unto our God for
ever and ever. Amen.

Fortigurn

Fortigurn once wrote (trying to be sarcastic):

QUOTE (Gospel of the Egyptians)

Domedon Doxomedon came forth, the aeon of the aeons, and the throne which is in him, and the powers which surround him, the glories and the incorruptions. The Father of the great light who came forth from the silence, he is the great Doxomedon-aeon, in which the thrice- male child rests.

And the throne of his glory was established in it, this one on which his unrevealable name is inscribed, on the tablet [...] one is the word, the Father of the light of everything, he who came forth from the silence, while he rests in the silence, he whose name is in an invisible symbol. A hidden, invisible mystery came forth:

iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii EEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE oooooooooooooooooooooo uuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuu eeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO.

QUOTE (Gospel of the Egyptians)

IE ieus EO ou EO Oua! Really, truly, O Yesseus Mazareus Yessedekeus, O living water, O child of the child, O glorious name! Really truly, aiOn o On (or: O existing aeon), iiii EEEE eeee oooo uuuu OOOO aaaa{a}. Really, truly, Ei aaaa OOOO, O existing one who sees the aeons! Really, truly, aee EEE iiii uuuuuu OOOOOOOO, who is eternally eternal! Really, truly, iEa aiO, in the heart, who exists, u aei eis aei, ei o ei, ei os ei (or: (Son) forever, You are what you are, You are who you are)!

Yeah, I get it.


My Reply:

"Here in the Holy book of the Great Invisible Spirit or the Gospel of the Egyptians each of the vowels is written 22 times and there are 22 letters in the Hebrew alphabet

iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii EEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE oooooooooooooooooooooo uuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuu eeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO.

this means Ieou, or Yao is alpha and omega"

 the Greek equivalent Ieou of the Hebrew Yah, which is most likely "a graecizcd form of Ya(hw)ê,

Sethian Gnosticism

Sethian Gnosticism 

CLOSELY connected with the Gnostics above described are the Sethians, to whom Hippolytus next devotes Seth. his attention. He speaks of their "innumerable commentaries," and refers his readers especially to a certain treatise, called The Paraphrase of Seth, for a digest of their doctrines. But whether or not Hippolytus quotes from this document himself, or from some other treatise or treatises, is not apparent. The title, Paraphrase of Seth, is exceedingly puzzling; it is difficult to say what is the exact meaning of the term "paraphrasis," and the doctrines set forth by Hippolytus have no connection with the Seth-legend.

The term Sethians, as used by Hippolytus, is not only puzzling on this account, but also because his summary differs entirely from the scraps of information on the system of the Sethites supposed to have been mentioned in his lost Syntagma, and allied to the doctrine of the Nicolaïtans by the epitomizers. In the latter fragments the hero Seth was chosen as the type of the good man, the perfect, the prototype of Christ.

The Sethian cosmogony as most famously contained in the Apocryphon ("Secret book") of John describes an unknown God, very similar to the orthodox apophatic theology, although very different from the orthodox credal teachings that there is one such god who is identified also as creator of heaven and earth. In describing the nature of a creator god associated with Biblical texts, orthodox theologians often attempt to define God through a series of explicit positive statements, themselves universal but in the divine taken to their superlative degrees: he is omniscient, omnipotent and truly benevolent. The Sethian conception of the most hidden transcendent God is, by contrast, defined through negative theology: he is immovable, invisible, intangible, ineffable; commonly, "he" is seen as being hermaphroditic, a potent symbol for being, as it were, "all-containing". In the Apocryphon of John, this god is good in that it bestows goodness. After the apophatic statements, the process of the Divine in action are used to describe the effect of such a god.

Sethian works typically include:

• The Apocryphon of John

• The Apocalypse of Adam

• The Reality of the Rulers, Also known as The Hypostasis of the Archons

• The Thunder, Perfect Mind

• The Three-fold First Thought (Trimorphic Protennoia)

• The Holy Book of the Great Invisible Spirit (also known as the (Coptic) Gospel of the Egyptians)

• Zostrianos

• Allogenes

• The Three Steles of Seth

• The Gospel of Judas

• Marsanes

• The Coptic Apocalypse of Paul

• The Thought of Norea

• The Second Treatise of the Great Seth

I am a Gnostic Christadelphian

I am a Gnostic Christadelphian

I am a Gnostic Christadelphian

You may say that this is, is a contradiction if ever I've heard one. That's like saying "I'm a Muslim Catholic" or "I'm a Buddhist Mormon".

Well it is a self-definition and self-designation, it is very good to defy the laws of labels and be who you are!

Doctrine is Important

Doctrine is Important

Many People seem to think that being a Gnostic is Post Doctrinal claiming "Gnostic Is Not about Doctrines! That’s Orthodox."

Well Valentinian Cosmology is pretty complicated doctrinal things and some modern Gnostics have a tendency to think that Gnosticism is post doctrinal and that dogma and doctrine are bad things but to the classical Gnostics they were important and and for us as modern Gnostics they're important because cosmology (Cosmogony is the study of the creation of the universe.) determines anthropology (Christian anthropology is the study of the human ("anthropology") as it relates to God) our view of mankind.

Doctrine (from Latin: doctrina, meaning "teaching" or "instruction")

1Co 14:6  Now, brethren, if I come unto you speaking with tongues, what shall I profit you, except I shall speak to you either by revelation, or by knowledge <1108 gnosis>, or by prophesying, or by doctrine <1322>?

1322. διδαχή didache [did-akh-ay’]; from 1321; instruction (the act or the matter): —  doctrine, hath been taught.

1321. διδάσκω didasko [did-as’-ko]; a prolonged (causative) form of a primary verb δαω dao (to learn); to teach (in the same broad application): —  teach.

1319. διδασκαλία didaskalia [did-as-kal-ee’-ah]; from 1320; instruction (the function or the information): —  doctrine, learning, teaching.

1319. διδασκαλία didaskalia [did-as-kal-ee’-ah]; from 1320; instruction (the function or the information): — doctrine, learning, teaching.

2085 ἑτεροδιδασκαλέω heterodidaskaleo [het-er-od-id-as-kal-eh’-o]

from 2087 and 1320; v; TDNT-2:163,161; [{See TDNT 190 }]

AV-teach other doctrine 1, teach otherwise 1; 2

1) to teach other or different doctrine

1a) deviating from the truth

1321. διδάσκω didasko [did-as’-ko]; a prolonged (causative) form of a primary verb δαω dao (to learn); to teach (in the same broad application): — teach.

Finding the meaning of Jesus's secret teachings brings eternal life  

These are the hidden sayings that the living Jesus spoke and that Didymus Judas Thomas wrote down.
1. And he said, "Whoever finds the correct interpretation of these sayings will never die." (Translated by Stevan Davies)

The hidden or secret sayings are in signs or signified the sayings, they are symbolical that is why we are told to find the correct interpretation of these sayings. (Cp. Saying 63) 

There can be only one true correct interpretation of these sayings it is called  single doctrine in the Second Treatise of the Great Seth:

And he is entirely one, being the All with them all in a single doctrine, because all these are from a single spirit. O unseeing ones, why did you not know the mystery rightly? (The Second Treatise of the Great Seth)

The Nag Hammadi Library The Book of Thomas (the Contender)

Again the savior answered and said, "Therefore it is necessary for us to speak to you, since this is the DOCTRINE of the perfect. If, now, you desire to become perfect, you shall observe these things; if not, your name is 'Ignorant', since it is impossible for an intelligent man to dwell with a fool, for the intelligent man is perfect in all wisdom. To the fool, however, the good and bad are the same—indeed the wise man will be nourished by the truth and (Ps.1:3) "will be like a tree growing by the meandering stream"—seeing that there are some who, although having wings, rush upon the visible things, things that are far from the truth.

Thomas answered and said, "What have we to say in the face of these things? What shall we say to blind men? What doctrine should we express to these miserable mortals who say, "We came to do good and not curse," and yet claim, "Had we not been begotten in the flesh, we would not have known iniquity"?"

Then Jesus continued and said to them, "Woe to you, for you did not receive the doctrine, and those who are [...] will labor at preaching [...]. And you are rushing into [...] will send them down [...] you kill them daily in order that they might rise from death.

For it was ludicrous. It is I who bear witness that it was ludicrous, since the archons do not know that it is an ineffable union of undefiled truth, as exists among the sons of light, of which they made an imitation, having proclaimed a doctrine of a dead man and lies so as to resemble the freedom and purity of the perfect assembly, (and) <joining> themselves with their doctrine to fear and slavery, worldly cares, and abandoned worship, being small (and) ignorant, since they do not contain the nobility of the truth, for they hate the one in whom they are, and love the one in whom they are not. For they did not know the Knowledge of the Greatness, that it is from above and (from) a fountain of truth, and that it is not from slavery and jealousy, fear and love of worldly matter. For that which is not theirs and that which is theirs they use fearlessly and freely. They do not desire, because they have authority, and a law from themselves over whatever they will wish.

It sufficed for some persons to pay attention to the teaching and understand 'The Shepherds' and 'The Seed' and 'The Building' and 'The Lamps of the Virgins' and 'The Wage of the Workers' and 'The Double Drachma' and 'The Woman

From these texts we can see a strong emphasis on doctrine or teaching

From The Nag Hammadi Library we can see disagreements over doctrine. These disputes are about the nature of Jesus, the resurrection,

Melchizedek From The Nag Hammadi Library Translated by Søren Giversen and Birger A. Pearson

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 Gospel of Philip

Naked and Not Naked


Some people are afraid that they may arise from the dead naked, and so they want to arise in flesh. They do not know that it is those who wear the [flesh] who are naked. Those who are [able] to take it off are not naked.

“Flesh [and blood will] not inherit God’s kingdom.” What is this flesh that will not [57] inherit? It is what we are wearing. And what is this flesh that will inherit? It is the flesh and blood of Jesus.

For this reason he said, “One who does not eat my flesh and drink my blood does not have life within.” What does this mean? His flesh is the word and his blood is the holy spirit. Whoever has received these has food, drink, and clothing.

And I also disagree with others who say that the flesh will not arise. Both views are wrong. You say that the flesh will not arise? Then tell me what will arise, so we may salute you. You say it is the spirit in the flesh, and also the light in the flesh? But what is in the flesh is the word, and what you are talking about is nothing other than flesh. It is necessary to arise in this sort of flesh, since everything exists in it.

In this world those who wear clothes are superior to the clothes. In heaven’s kingdom the clothes are superior to those who wear them.

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.

Think

Test Everything Truth in the Father

Joy and Redemption The Gospel of Truth

The Gospel of Truth

Ode 8:8 Hear the word of truth, and receive the knowledge of the Most High.

In some texts the first sentence contains the total substance of the work in a nutshell. this is certainly true of the prologue to the gospel of truth where we find the great central concepts which will subsequently be elaborated 

The gospel of truth is joy to those who have received from the Father of truth the gift of knowing him by the power of the Logos, who has come from the Pleroma and who is in the thought and the mind of the Father; he it is who is called "the Savior," since that is the name of the work which he must do for the redemption of those who have not known the Father. For the name of the gospel is the manifestation of hope, since that is the discovery of those who seek him, because the All sought him from whom it had come forth. You see, the All had been inside of him, that illimitable, inconceivable one, who is better than every thought.

those of the middle

The "all" is used collectively of the body of Christ the church, here in the Gospel of Truth I think the term is first used for the nation of Israel and secondly for the believers 

In the "All" there is a group called "those of the middle" it is the same group of people described as "those who have not known the Father" it is this group which can be deceived and taken captive which needs redemption. 

Joy

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.

This fruit eternally will be at hand, providing insight, reunion and joy for those who eat it.

the fruit that brought joy is the crucified Jesus

those who eat the fruit that Jesus became are filled with joy.

Truth's good news generates joy in those who have received from the father the gift of knowing him.

1. To the blessed ones the joy is from their heart, and light from Him who dwells in them;
2. And the Word of truth who is self-originate,
3. Because He has been strengthened by the Holy Power of the Most High; and He is unshaken for ever and ever.
   Hallelujah.

Redemption 

Redemption is a Jewish and Christian technical team meaning to buy back it is linked to the word ransom

In modern usage, if you are ransomed it means that you have been captured and imprisoned as a hostage and that someone has paid to have you released.

In the gospel of truth the words "captive" " in chains" or "in bonds" is used to describe "those of the middle" who can be enticed and beguiled. These people are captured by Error into ignorance by means of fears and forgetfulnesses:

(The Gospel of Truth) She was preparing works and forgetfulnesses and fears in order, by these means, to beguile those of the middle  and to make them captive.

(The Gospel of Truth) Having made punishments and tortures cease - for it was they which were leading astray from his face some who were in need of mercy, in error and in bonds - he both destroyed them with power and confounded them with knowledge. 

Jesus quotes from Isaiah 61:1, 2, applying it to himself as sent by the Father “to preach a release to the captives and a recovery of sight to the blind.” (Lu 4:16-21) 

Eph 4:8;  Wherefore he says: “When he ascended on high he carried away captives; he gave gifts [in] men

Christ led a host of captives out of the bondage of spiritual Egypt

2Cor 10:5 For we are overturning reasonings and every lofty thing raised up against the knowledge of God; and we are bringing every thought into captivity to make it obedient to the Christ

“If anyone is meant for captivity, he goes away into captivity.”—Re 13:10

captivity is a state of bondage to mental confusion


The release or the ransom to escape the captive of Error is knowledge people are redeemed by knowledge

Redemption means the transformation of ignorance into knowledge this is what the gospel is about  

Col 3:10 and have put on the new man who is renewed in knowledge according to the image of Him who created him,

The inner, spiritual man is redeemed through knowledge, and it suffices to have knowledge of all things: this is the true redemption

Therefore knowledge is the redemption of the inner man. 

knowledge is the means of achieving redemption 

discovery of those who seek him

The last words of the prologue speak about discovery and seeking or searching "since it is the discovery for those who are searching for him"

Who is Lucifer Isaiah 14:12-14

Isaiah 14:12-14 How you are fallen from heaven, O Lucifer,son of the morning!
How you are cut down to the ground,You who weakened the nations!
For you have said in your heart:
‘I will ascend into heaven,
I will exalt my throne above the stars of God;
I will also sit on the mount of the congregation
On the farthest sides of the north;
14 I will ascend above the heights of the clouds,
I will be like the Most High.’.


These verse is used to prove that Satan is a fallen angel.

The words “devil” , “satan” and “angel” never occur in this chapter. This is the only place in Scripture where the word “Lucifer” occurs.

There is no evidence that Isaiah 14 is describing anything that happened in the garden of Eden; if it is, then why are we left 3,000 years from the time of Genesis before being told what really happened there?

Lucifer is identified in the chapter, but not with a rebel angel. It is clearly stated: "Take up this proverb2 against the king of Babylon, and say, How hath the oppressor ceased!" (vs. 4). (The preceding chapter is a prophecy against Babylon itself, but now the prophecy is directed against the king of Babylon). This is fullfilled in daniel chapter 4 with Nabuzzar going mad and daniel 5 with the writing on the wall A secondary fulfillment would be the overthrow of Gog or the Antichrist at Armageddon

Why is Lucifer punished for saying, “I will ascend into heaven” (v. 13), if he was already there?

5. Lucifer is to rot in the grave: “your splendour is brought down to the grave...and the worms cover you” (v. 11). Seeing angels cannot die (Lk. 20:35-36), Lucifer therefore cannot be an angel; the language is more suited to a man.

"Ascending to heaven" is symbol for increase in pride or exaltation, and "falling from heaven", symbolic complete humiliation. See Jer. 51:53 (refers to Babylon); Lam. 2:1; Matt. 11:23 (refers to Capernaum).

The meaning of Lucifer: day-star (mbd) "light-bearer" 1) shining one, morning star,

The passage in Isaiah regarding the day-star, or Lucifer (A.V.), is believed by many to refer to the fall from heaven of angels who had sinned against God; Lucifer, their leader, is supposed to be Satan. In so far as the literal understanding is concerned, this is a mistake; the text has no such implications. It refers to the fall of the king of Babylon, who had ruled in such brilliance and greatness, in such pomp and splendor, that Isaiah likened him to the morning star (Isa. 14:12; II Pet. 1:19).

The text in Isaiah, "O Lucifer, son of the morning!" signifies man's uplifting of the ruling ego (represented here by the king of Babylon), and attributing to the outward senses those qualities of light, understanding, and greatness that belong only to God. This is unfavourable and comes from the carnal mind in the individual; it must be overthrown, cast down and out of consciousness

Lucifer the thinking of the flesh or carnal mind in man that has fixed ideas in opposition to Truth. Lucifer assumes various forms in man's consciousness, among which may be mentioned egotism, a puffing up of the personality; self deception. This "self deception" makes man believe that he is genetically good.

The Coptic Church

The Coptic Church

Vast number of Jews spoke the Coptic language. It is claimed that about 40% of the population of the city of Alexandria, on the Egyptian coast, were Jews. It was in this country that Joseph and Mary sought refuge with their young child, Jesus (Mat. 2:13

The first Christian on record to preach in Africa was himself an African, the Ethiopian eunuch mentioned in the Bible at Acts chapter 8. A Jewish proselyte, he was on his way home from worshiping at the temple in Jerusalem when Philip converted him to Christianity. Without doubt, in keeping with the zeal of early Christians, this Ethiopian afterward actively preached the good news he had heard, becoming a missionary in his own land.

Historians fail to agree, however, on whether or not this was the way Christianity became established in Ethiopia. The Ethiopian Orthodox Church appears to date back to the fourth century, when a Syrian student of philosophy named Frumentius was ordained as a bishop to Ethiopian “Christians” by Athanasius, a bishop of the Coptic Church of Alexandria.

The Coptic Church—Copt is derived from the Greek word for “Egyptian”—claims that its founder and first patriarch was Mark the Evangelist. According to tradition, he preached in Egypt just before the middle of the first century. At any rate, “Christianity” spread to North Africa at an early date, with men like Origen and Augustine rising to prominence. A catechetical school in Alexandria, Egypt, became a noted center of “Christian” scholarship with Pantaenus as its first president. But by the time of Pantaenus’ successor, Clement of Alexandria, apostasy had evidently already taken its toll. The Encyclopedia of Religion reveals that Clement “advocated the reconciliation of Christian doctrine and the Bible with Greek philosophy.”

The Coptic Church carried on an intensive missionary campaign, particularly in eastern Libya. Archaeological excavations in Nubia and lower Sudan also reveal Coptic influence

Gnostic Apostolic Succession

Gnostic apostolic succession

Clement of Alexandria records that Valentinus was instructed by Theudas, and that Theudas in turn was taught by Paul (Clement of Alexandria Stromata 7:17)

According to Hippolytus, the Naassenes, or serpent-worshippers, received secret matter through Mariamne—presumably Mary Magdalene—from James, the brother of the Lord.3 This claim fits very well with titles of several extant Gnostic works (two Apocalypses of James, the Pistis Sophia, and the Gospel of Mary, for example).

the valentinians possess the true apostolic succession

No one could’ve been revealed among those who’d been entrusted with salvation unless the book had appeared.(The Gospel of Truth)

Chrism is superior to baptism. We are called Christians from the word “chrism,” not from the word “baptism.” Christ also has his name from chrism, for the father anointed the son, the son anointed the apostles, and the apostles anointed us. Whoever is anointed has everything: resurrection, light, cross, holy spirit. The father gave all this to the person in the bridal chamber, and the person accepted it. The father was in the son and the son was in the father. This is heaven’s kingdom. (Gospel of Philip)

These words I have received from the generosity of my lord, Jesus the Christ. I have taught you and your brothers and sisters, who are my children, about them, and have omitted nothing that may strengthen you. If there is anything among these written words that is obscure, ask and I will explain. (The Treatise on the Resurrection)

For, if God permit, you will later learn about their origin and generation, when you are judged worthy of the apostolic tradition which we too have received by succession. We too are able to prove all our points by the teaching of the Savior. (Ptolemy's Letter to Flora)

https://www.gnosticdoctrine.com/2020/08/gnostic-saints-or-fathers-of-christian.html