Why True Gnostics Should Use Authentic Gnostic Artifacts

---

Why True Gnostics Should Use Authentic Gnostic Artifacts

In the modern spiritual marketplace, the term “Gnostic” is often misused, diluted, and fused with a host of non-Gnostic practices and symbols. From crystal healing to stone circles and Buddhist-style meditation, much of what passes for “Gnostic” in popular culture has little or nothing to do with the historical Gnostic tradition. True Gnosticism is rooted in specific texts, symbols, and forms of contemplation that emerged from the interaction between Hellenistic philosophy and early Christian thought. A return to authentic Gnostic artifacts and sources ensures fidelity to the original current of knowledge.

The Core Textual Heritage of Gnosticism

One of the most important sources of authentic Gnostic teaching is the Nag Hammadi Library, discovered in Egypt in 1945. These Coptic codices preserve a wide range of writings from different Gnostic schools, including Valentinian, Sethian, and other strands. Among these, the Pistis Sophia is a foundational text that recounts the journey, suffering, and redemption of Sophia—the divine figure whose fall and restoration are central to many Gnostic cosmologies. It is not a vague allegory but a precise theological and cosmological narrative, reflecting the interplay of divine realms and the human struggle for liberation from decay.

Another significant text is the Gospel of Judas, which presents Judas Iscariot not as the traitor of mainstream tradition but as the disciple who understood Jesus’s mission and acted on his instructions. This alternative perspective challenges the canonical narrative and illuminates the Gnostic understanding of spiritual knowledge as something hidden from the masses yet revealed to the initiated.

The Acts of Thomas and the Acts of John, although preserved by the Church in edited forms, still contain clearly Gnostic elements. They include hymns of profound mystical symbolism and vivid descriptions of the heavenly realm. These works also integrate Greek philosophical concepts with early Christian visions, reinforcing the intellectual backbone of true Gnostic meditation.

The Bruce Codex contains the Books of Jeu, also known as the Gnosis of the Invisible God. This set of texts provides ritual instructions and cosmological maps of the divine realms, revealing how the initiate progresses through the aeons toward ultimate restoration. These writings are not speculative fantasies—they are structured systems of knowledge tied to the ancient Gnostic tradition.

Authentic Symbols and Ritual Tools

Just as the texts form the backbone of Gnostic knowledge, certain symbols and ritual objects are central to authentic practice. The Coptic cross, for example, is more than a decorative emblem—it connects directly to the Egyptian Christian heritage that preserved many Gnostic texts. Its design often incorporates intricate geometric patterns reflecting the harmony of the Pleroma, the fullness of divine reality.

The Ankh, an ancient Egyptian symbol of life, was also adopted in certain Gnostic contexts. It represents not merely physical life but the immortal life that is “put on” through knowledge and transformation, echoing Paul’s teaching that immortality is something received, not inherent.

Abraxas is another central figure in the Gnostic symbolic system. Depicted with the head of a rooster, the body of a human, and legs in the form of serpents, Abraxas embodies the synthesis of multiple divine powers. In the ancient Basilidean tradition, Abraxas was associated with the supreme deity beyond the conventional gods, and his name was inscribed on gemstones worn as protective amulets. These Abraxas stones often carried other sacred inscriptions, including Abracadabra in a triangular pattern, believed to ward off illness and evil influences. This formula, far from being a meaningless magical word, was used in Basilidean Gnostic practice and appears in Roman medical and spiritual traditions.

Abracadabra, first recorded in the writings of Serenus Sammonicus, physician to the Roman emperor Caracalla, was not a product of modern stage magic but a protective charm tied to the Gnostic milieu. True Gnostics today can reclaim its original function by inscribing it in the ancient triangular form, acknowledging its role as part of the authentic heritage rather than dismissing it as superstition.

Why New Age Substitutes Are Not Gnostic

The influx of crystal healing, stone circle rituals, and Buddhist meditation into “Gnostic” circles reflects a modern eclecticism rather than historical continuity. While these practices may have their own merits, they are foreign to the cultural, philosophical, and theological matrix of ancient Gnosticism. True Gnostic meditation is rooted in the methods of Greek philosophy—such as contemplative reasoning, theoria, and dialectic—and in the symbolic meditation found within the Bible and Gnostic scriptures. The aim is not to empty the mind into a formless void but to actively contemplate the structure of the divine realm, the ascent of the soul-body, and the nature of the higher powers.

Buddhist meditation seeks dissolution of the self into non-being, while Gnostic contemplation seeks the restoration of the self to its proper place within the Pleroma—a realm the true Gnostic understands as corporeal and material, yet wholly divine. This difference in metaphysical aim makes it clear that Buddhist methods, however ancient, are not interchangeable with Gnostic ones.

Returning to the True Path

For the serious Gnostic, reclaiming authentic texts and symbols is not mere antiquarianism—it is the re-alignment of practice with its true source. Wearing a modern “crystal healing” necklace may have personal meaning, but wearing an Abraxas stone inscribed with Abracadabra connects one directly to the ancient Basilidean tradition. Reading vague “New Age channelings” may offer emotional comfort, but studying the Pistis Sophia or the Books of Jeu provides structured, tested pathways to divine knowledge.

The Gnostic path is not about gathering every spiritual practice under one umbrella—it is about fidelity to the revelation that came through Jesus and was preserved in the esoteric tradition. This revelation was expressed through specific writings, symbols, and meditative practices rooted in the interaction of biblical tradition and Hellenistic thought. To be a Gnostic in truth is to immerse oneself in these original currents, rejecting the dilution that comes with uncritical blending.

Conclusion

True Gnosticism is a living tradition that demands discernment. It is preserved in the Nag Hammadi codices, the Bruce Codex, and other authentic writings; in symbols like the Coptic cross, the Ankh, and the Abraxas amulet; and in the disciplined contemplation shaped by Greek philosophy and the Bible. When Gnostics reclaim these authentic tools, they align themselves with the ancient stream of knowledge that leads not to vague mysticism, but to the tangible restoration of the self within the Pleroma.

---

Valentinians and John 1

**Valentinians and John 1**

Valentinians often refer to the prologue of the Gospel of John when it says, *“In the beginning was the Word”* (John 1:1). In their understanding, the “Word” (Logos) corresponds to the divine Mind and Truth. This interpretation is clear in the writings of Theodotus, a prominent Valentinian teacher.

Valentinian cosmology is complex and doctrinal. Unlike some modern spiritual movements that view dogma as limiting, classical Gnostics—including the Valentinians—considered doctrine crucial. For modern Gnostics, understanding these doctrines matters because cosmology (the study of the universe’s origin) directly shapes anthropology (the study of human nature in relation to the divine). Simply put, our view of mankind depends on our view of the cosmos.

Valentinian cosmology arises largely from a study of John’s prologue, which itself is a reflection on creation and divine attributes. Together, these elements constitute the Pleroma.

The Pleroma, meaning “fullness,” does not represent something eternal or unchanging. Rather, it was produced and formed by the Eternal Spirit through a process called emanation. The Pleroma refers to all existence beyond the visible universe — the world of the Aions, the spiritual heavens, or the spiritual universe. Bythos, the spiritual source of all, emanates the Pleroma.

The Pleroma is both the dwelling place and essential nature of the True Ultimate Deity, or Bythos. It is also a state of consciousness.

Different versions of this cosmological myth appear throughout Valentinian texts. The Aions are emanations of the Divine Mind. Unlike some Gnostic systems, Valentinians do not use the terms Barbelo or Yaldabaoth. Instead, the emanations form pairs (syzygy) such as Logos (male) and Zoe (female), Anthropos (male) and Ekklesia (female).

A brief summary of the Valentinian system is this: from the transcendent Deity emanated a male principle called Mind and a female principle called Thought. From these principles emanated others in male-female pairs, making a total of thirty Aions. These Aions collectively form the fullness, or Pleroma — the divine realm, the spiritual world beyond the physical heavens, also called the Third Heaven.

**John 1:1–4** says:

*“In the beginning was the Word (Logos or the first thought or reason of God), and the Word was with God (the Monad, the transcendent Deity), and the Word was God.

The same was in the beginning with God.

All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made.

In him was life; and the life was the light of men.”*

From *Excerpta ex Theodoto* (Theodotus), we read:

*“The verse, ‘In the beginning was the Logos and the Logos was with God and the Logos was God,’ the Valentinians understand thus: the ‘beginning’ is the ‘Only Begotten’ and he is also called God. The Logos in the beginning — that is, in the Only Begotten, in the Mind and the Truth — indicates the Christ, the Logos and the Life \[Zoe]. Hence, he also appropriately calls God him who is in God, the Mind. ‘That which came into being in him,’ the Logos, ‘was Life,’ the Companion. Therefore the Lord also says, ‘I am the Life.’”*

This Logos, understood as Mind and Truth, compares with the *Tripartite Tractate*:

*“The Father, in the way mentioned earlier, in an unbegotten way, is the one in whom he knows himself, who begot him having a thought, which is the perception of him... that is, silence and wisdom and grace, if designated properly.”*

Theodotus further explains:

*“Therefore, the Father, being unknown, wished to be known to the Aions, and through his own thought, as if he had known himself, he put forth the Only-Begotten, the spirit of Knowledge which is in Knowledge. So he too who came forth from Knowledge, that is, from the Father’s Thought, became Knowledge, that is, the Son, because ‘through the Son the Father was known.’”*

The first thought is the Logos, also called Mind and Truth. The Father, through that first thought, brings forth the Only Begotten Son.

Valentinian cosmology begins with the primal being, the Monad, meaning the One. The *Valentinian Exposition* states:

*“The Monad who is, the Father, that is, the Root of the All, the Ineffable One. He dwells alone in silence, and silence is tranquility since he was a Monad and no one was before him.”*

From the *Valentinian Exposition*, we see that the primal ineffable Father has two components or aspects: a male called Bythos (Depth) and a female called Sige (Silence). The supreme Deity is incomprehensible, cannot be seen or heard, and is androgynous. This is expressed in the phrase:

*“He dwells in the Dyad and in the Pair, and his Pair is Silence.”*

This dyadic or syzygy consists of the primal Depth (male) and Ennoia or Thought (female).

A biblical parallel appears in **Proverbs 8:22–30**, where Wisdom is personified as being brought forth before creation:

*“Jehovah possessed me in the beginning of his way... When there were no depths, I was brought forth... When he established the heavens, I was there... Then I was by him, as a master workman; and I was daily his delight.”*

Here, Wisdom is not a separate deity but the personification of God’s attribute of wisdom: truth, justice, value, faithfulness, and eternal companionship.

Thus, from both John 1 and Proverbs 8, the God of the Bible is seen as incorporating masculine and feminine characteristics through these aspects, with the Father creating the universe. This aligns with the Valentinian understanding.

Returning to John’s prologue, Ptolemy’s *Commentary on the Gospel of John* states:

*“The entirety was made through it, and without it was not anything made” (John 1:3). For the Word became the cause of the forming and origination of all the Aions that came after it.”*

From *Excerpta ex Theodoto*:

*“All things were made by him; things both of spirit, mind, and senses, in accordance with the activity proper to the essential Logos. ‘This one explained the bosom of the Father,’ the Saviour... ‘First-Born of all creation.’ But the essential Only-Begotten... is the Light of the Church, which previously was in darkness and ignorance.”*

*“And darkness comprehended him not”: the apostates and the rest of men did not know him, and death did not detain him.”*

Valentinians maintain that the essential Logos is God in God, “in the bosom of the Father,” continuous and undivided — one God.

Ptolemy’s commentary further explains the pair (syzygy):

*“That which came into being in it was Life” (John 1:4). This discloses a pair. The entirety came into being through it, but Life is in it, joined with it and through it bears fruit. Since ‘Life \[Zoe] was the light of human beings,’ John discloses the Church by means of a synonym, so with a single word he might disclose the partnership of the pair.”*

*“From the Word \[Logos] and Life \[Zoe], the Human Being \[Anthropos] and the Church \[Ekklesia] came into being. He called Life the light of human beings because they are enlightened by her, i.e., formed and made visible.”*

John thus reveals the second quartet: Word, Life, Human Being, Church.

Moreover, John discloses the first quartet: Father, Grace, Only-Begotten, Truth. Together, these two quartets form the first octet — the mother of all Aions. The Savior is, according to Irenaeus, the fruit of the entire Pleroma.

In conclusion, the Valentinian reading of John 1 centers on divine emanations — Mind, Truth, Life, Human Being, and Church — as the fundamental components of the spiritual cosmos, formed through emanation from the Monad, the ultimate transcendent Deity. This reading reflects a deeply doctrinal and cosmological vision, affirming the essential importance of dogma in understanding the human condition and our place in the fullness (Pleroma) beyond the material world.

Divine Attributes as Aeons

Divine Attributes as Aeons

In the theology of emanations, the fullness (Pleroma) of the Deity is expressed through distinct realities, called aeons. These are not mere abstractions but living manifestations of the divine attributes, each possessing form and substance within the incorruptible realm. The aeons are the radiations of the Father’s own nature—extensions of His hypostasis into distinct, harmonious expressions. When Scripture describes the qualities of the Deity—love, wisdom, justice, power, holiness—it is not describing impersonal traits, but eternal realities that, in the heavenly order, exist as personal and active manifestations.

---

Primary Attributes as Aeons

Some of the most fundamental attributes of the Deity are plainly set out in Scripture. “God is love” (1 John 4:8)—love is the self-giving nature of the Father toward His creation, an aeon that binds all other virtues together in perfect unity. “The LORD gives wisdom” (Proverbs 2:6); “O the depth of the riches both of the wisdom and knowledge of God!” (Romans 11:33). Wisdom, in its aeonic form, is the divine intelligence through which all worlds are framed and ordered. Justice, declared in Deuteronomy 32:4 as the foundation of His ways, is the aeon that safeguards equity and righteousness in the divine order. Power, shown in Job 37:23 and Luke 1:35, is the active force that accomplishes all the Father wills.

The Father is also a God “not of disorder but of peace” (1 Corinthians 14:33). Peace, in its aeonic expression, is not mere absence of conflict but the perfect harmony of all parts of creation under divine order. Holiness, described in Isaiah 6:3, Habakkuk 1:13, and Revelation 4:8, is the incorruptible purity that characterizes the Father’s being and those who share His nature. Happiness (1 Timothy 1:11) and mercy (Exodus 34:6; Luke 6:36) likewise proceed as living emanations from Him.

---

The Thirteen Attributes from Exodus 34:6–7

When the name of Yahweh was proclaimed to Moses, the Deity revealed Himself by declaring thirteen distinct attributes (Exodus 34:6–7). Each of these, in the aeonic sense, is a perfected reality within the Pleroma:

1. Yahweh – He who will be: the self-existent One, faithful to His purpose.

2. Yahweh – The repetition signifies constancy and unchanging nature.

3. El – Power, the might that undergirds all creation.

4. Compassionate – Tender regard for the weak and suffering.

5. Gracious – Freely bestowing favor apart from merit.

6. Slow to Anger – Measured patience, never ruled by impulse.

7. Abounding in Loving-kindness – Overflowing covenant loyalty.

8. Abounding in Truth – Perfect reliability and fidelity.

9. Keeping Loving-kindness for Thousands – Enduring benevolence to multitudes.

10. Forgiving Iniquity – Lifting the burden of moral corruption.

11. Forgiving Transgression – Removing acts of rebellion.

12. Forgiving Sin – Cleansing moral failure and missing of the mark.

13. By no Means Clearing the Guilty – Upholding justice, ensuring righteousness prevails.

These are not simply verbal descriptions—they are the names of eternal realities. In the heavenly realm, each of these attributes has its own distinct mode of existence as an aeon, fully in harmony with all others, proceeding from the one divine source.

---

The Sevenfold Spirit from Isaiah 11:2–3

Isaiah 11:2–3 reveals the “Spirit” that would rest upon the promised Branch, Messiah, in a sevenfold description. Each of these may also be seen as an aeon, proceeding from the Deity and operative within the Son:

1. The Spirit of Yahweh – The essential divine presence, source of all other emanations.

2. The Spirit of Wisdom – Insight into the true nature of all things.

3. The Spirit of Understanding – The ability to discern meaning and purpose.

4. The Spirit of Counsel – Perfect guidance, leading in the right path.

5. The Spirit of Might – The power to accomplish divine intent.

6. The Spirit of Knowledge – Complete acquaintance with truth and reality.

7. The Spirit of the Fear of Yahweh – Reverent awe, perfect submission to the divine will.

These seven are presented as a unity, “resting” upon the Anointed One. In aeonic terms, they exist as harmonious emanations, fully active in Him and, by extension, in those who share His nature.

---

Aeonic Harmony and Divine Personality

When Scripture says that “God is love,” “God is light,” or “God is holy,” it is not stating that these are abstract qualities in Him—it is declaring that His entire nature is the fullness of these aeons. The aeons are personal, for they are expressions of a living Being. They are also relational, flowing into one another without conflict, each enhancing the beauty of the whole.

In creation, these aeons are reflected imperfectly. Love is tainted by selfishness; justice is warped by partiality; wisdom is obscured by ignorance. But in the Pleroma, the aeons exist in their original perfection, as the radiant outflow of the incorruptible Spirit-substance of the Deity.

---

Aeons as the Bridge Between the Father and Creation

The aeons function as the mediating realities between the Father’s unapproachable glory and the creation that proceeds from Him. They are the means by which His nature is communicated without diminishing His essence. For example, the aeon of Wisdom orders the cosmos; the aeon of Justice maintains its moral balance; the aeon of Mercy extends restoration to the fallen. All act in perfect unity because they are all rooted in the one hypostasis of the Deity.

In this way, the divine attributes listed in 1 John 4:8, Proverbs 2:6, Deuteronomy 32:4, Job 37:23, 1 Corinthians 14:33, Isaiah 6:3, 1 Timothy 1:11, and the other passages are more than scriptural descriptions—they are eternal powers in the incorruptible realm, existing as aeons, proceeding from the source of all being.

---

Conclusion

The attributes of the Deity are not mere adjectives—they are living, personal emanations that constitute the order of the Pleroma. The thirteen revealed in Exodus 34:6–7 and the seven from Isaiah 11:2–3 provide a map of this divine order. Love, wisdom, justice, power, holiness, peace, happiness, and mercy all exist as incorruptible realities, proceeding from the Father, harmonizing perfectly in the eternal fullness. Through these aeons, the Deity is known, creation is sustained, and redemption is accomplished. They are the radiance of His nature—the bridge between the uncreated glory and all that exists.

The Doctrine of Emanation: The Outflow of the Aeons from the Father

**The Doctrine of Emanation: The Outflow of the Aeons from the Father**

The doctrine of emanation concerns the way in which all things proceed from the Father—not by separation, division, or detachment, but by an extension of His own being. The *Tripartite Tractate* expresses this clearly:

> “The emanation of the Totalities, which exist from the one who exists, did not occur according to a separation from one another, as something cast off from the one who begets them. Rather, their begetting is like a process of extension, as the Father extends himself to those whom he loves, so that those who have come forth from him might become him as well.” (*Tripartite Tractate*)

This understanding affirms that the Aeons are not foreign creations, but the very outflow of the incorruptible substance of the Father. They proceed as light from a source, yet remain of the same nature as that source.

Wisdom speaks in the Proverbs:

> “By me,” says Wisdom, “Yahweh formed the earth.” “I am understanding;” and “by understanding he established the heavens.”

This matches the testimony of Job:

> “By his SPIRIT he garnished the heavens” (Job 26:13).

And in the Psalms:

> “By the WORD of Yahweh were the heavens made; and all the host of them by the Spirit of his mouth” (Psalm 33:6).

The Psalm continues:

> “For he spake, and it was done; he commanded, and it stood fast.”

From these statements, it is evident that Wisdom, the Word, and the Spirit are not separate entities, but different expressions of the same divine outflow. The apostle John writes:

> “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. The same was in the beginning with God. All things were made by him; and without him was made not any thing which exists. In him was life, and the life was the light of men.” (John 1:1–4)

The Word, Wisdom, Spirit, and the Deity are one in essence, being the emanation of the Father Himself. They are not foreign instruments but the direct breath and expression of His own being.

Hebrews explains:

> “Faith is the assured expectation of things hoped for, the evident demonstration of realities (5287 ὑπόστασις *hupostasis*) though not seen. For by means of this the men of old times had witness borne to them. By faith we perceive that the ages (165 αἰών *aeon*) were put in order by the word of God, so that what is seen has come to be out of things that do not appear.” (Hebrews 11:1–3)

The ages, or Aeons, were set in order by the word of God. This means they were breathed forth—emanated—from God’s own substance, the unseen realities. The term “word of God” here is not merely speech, but a living, active force proceeding from Him.

This is confirmed in Paul’s letter to Timothy:

> “Every scripture is God-breathed (2315 θεόπνευστος *theopneustos*), and profitable unto teaching, unto conviction, unto correction, unto the discipline that is in righteousness.” (2 Timothy 3:16)

The inbreathing here relates directly to God’s Spirit (*pneuma*), which can also be translated “breath.” As Archer explains:

> “2315 (*theopneustos*) is better rendered ‘breathed out by God’ as the emphasis is upon the divine origin of the inscripturated revelation itself.”

If the Scriptures are breathed out by God, then the same principle applies to the Aeons—their origin is the breath, the radiance, the extension of the Father’s incorruptible substance. Thus, the things that are seen were not made from visible things, but from the invisible outflow of the Father. This is the doctrine of the emanation of the Aeons.

Paul affirms:

> “Yet to us there is but one God, the Father, out of whom are all things and we in Him, and one Lord Jesus Christ on account of whom are all things, and we by Him.” (1 Corinthians 8:6)

The Father is the absolute power, the incorruptible substance before all existing things. From Him radiates the holy spirit, the active force, the concentrated essence of omnipotence. This spirit substance contains all intellectual, moral, and physical attributes. All things come *out of* the Deity—not from nothing, but from His own radiance.

The sun, moon, stars, and all their hosts were not created from emptiness, but from the active force that flows from the Father, pervading and sustaining all things. By this, all creation remains connected to its source. This radiant force is the “light which no man can approach unto” (1 Timothy 6:16).

John affirms again:

> “All things, through him, came into existence, and without him came into existence not even one thing which has come into existence.” (John 1:3)

The Eternal Spirit (Hebrews 9:14), as Creator, is necessarily before all things, the *Theos* and *Logos* of John’s testimony. Paul concludes:

> “For out of Him (*ex autou*), and through Him, and for Him are all things. To Him be the glory for the Aeons. Amen.” (Romans 11:36)

The source and fountain of all power is one. All that exists is out of Him. Therefore, creation is not the product of nothingness, but of the divine outflow—emanation from the Father’s own being.

The sun, moon, stars, and every perceivable thing—seen, heard, touched, tasted, or smelled—are derived from the radiant active force of the Deity. Yet we must not confuse the created order with the Deity Himself; rather, we recognize that all creation is the product of His extension.

This is the mystery of the emanation: that the Father, without diminishing Himself, extends His own substance into ordered reality. The Aeons, therefore, are both from Him and of Him—realities proceeding from the incorruptible source, existing for His glory, and returning to Him in the fullness of time.

**The Doctrine of Emanation: The Outflow of the Aeons from the Father**

The emanation of the Totalities, as the *Tripartite Tractate* declares, is not a matter of separation or division, as though something were cut away from the One who begets them. Rather, it is a continuous extension, a radiant outflow of the Father Himself toward those whom He loves. In this act, those who come forth from Him do not remain alien to Him but participate in His own being, becoming what He is. Emanation is thus not subtraction but expansion—without depletion—an extension of substance, life, and power from the source.

Wisdom testifies to this process, saying, “By me, Yahweh formed the earth. I am understanding; and by understanding He established the heavens.” Job speaks in the same manner: “By His Spirit He garnished the heavens” (Job 26:13). David also confirms this: “By the Word of Yahweh were the heavens made, and all the host of them by the Spirit of His mouth” (Psalm 33:6). This creative outflow is expressed in three terms—Wisdom, Word, and Spirit—yet these are not three separate beings, but three ways of describing the same emanation from the same fountain.

The Apostle John unfolds the mystery more fully: “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. All things were made by Him, and without Him was not anything made that exists. In Him was life, and the life was the light of men” (John 1:1–4). Here the Word, Wisdom, Spirit, and the Deity are understood as one reality: the fountain of all existence, emanating from Himself that which becomes all things.

The writer of Hebrews teaches that faith is “the assured expectation of things hoped for, the evident demonstration of realities though not seen” (Hebrews 11:1). These unseen “realities” are the Aeons—the divine orderings of time and space—which, as verse 3 states, “were set in order by the Word of God, so that what is seen has come to be out of things that do not appear.” This is not creation ex nihilo, but the visible world formed from an unseen, incorruptible substance flowing out from the Deity.

Paul writes that there is “one God, the Father, out of whom are all things, and one Lord Jesus Christ on account of whom are all things” (1 Corinthians 8:6). The Father is the absolute power, the incorruptible spirit-substance in which reside all attributes—intellectual, moral, and physical—condensed into one living, self-existing Being. This substance is Spirit, not in the sense of immaterial nothingness, but as the essential, tangible essence of divine life. From this Spirit-substance radiates the holy active force—the breath of God—that gives rise to all things.

Therefore, the visible universe—the sun, moon, stars, and all earthly forms—was not created from nothing but from the radiant outflow of the Father’s own being. By this emanation, all creation remains connected to its source. As Paul said in Acts 17:28, “In Him we live, and move, and have our being.” This same truth was known to the prophets: that no creature falls from existence apart from the sustaining flow of divine life.

The Eternal Spirit, who is before all things, is both *Theos* and *Logos*—both the Source and the Word through which all things came into being (John 1:3). Paul writes in Romans 11:36: “For out of Him, and through Him, and for Him are all things. To Him be the glory for the Aeons.” If all things are *out of Him*, then they are formed from His substance.

This means the so-called “material” world is not a separate, alien stuff unrelated to the divine. Rather, every atom owes its origin to the same source, for all existence has its root in the emanation of divine substance. However, this does not mean that created things *are* the Deity in the fullness of His being; they are extensions of His power and life, shaped into various forms according to His wisdom. The emanation is truly from Him, but the forms it takes are the works of His will, not the totality of His essence.

Thus, the doctrine of emanation rejects the notion of absolute nothingness as a starting point. The Aeons, as divine realities, pre-exist the shaping of the visible world. They are the unseen order by which times, spaces, and worlds are arranged. They are “God-breathed” (*theopneustos*), just as the Scriptures are said to be (2 Timothy 3:16). The act of God breathing forth His Spirit to form the Aeons is parallel to His breathing forth the Word that becomes written revelation. Both proceed from the same substance and reveal the same source.

In this way, emanation is the divine self-extension: the Father pouring Himself forth without diminution, generating Wisdom, Word, and Spirit as expressions of His being. From these proceed the Aeons, and from the Aeons proceed the visible worlds. The chain is unbroken: the visible is rooted in the invisible, the invisible in the divine substance, and the divine substance in the Father Himself, who is before all and through all and in all.

The doctrine of emanation, therefore, is not mystical speculation detached from Scripture—it is the logical and scriptural truth that the universe exists because the Father has extended His own incorruptible life outward. Creation is the manifestation of the Father’s being through His Word, His Spirit, and His Wisdom, by which the heavens were formed, the earth established, and the Aeons set in order. The entire cosmos is thus the radiant expression of the One from whom, through whom, and for whom are all things.

WAS HERMAS A TRINITARIAN

**WAS HERMAS A TRINITARIAN?**

The *Shepherd of Hermas* is a significant early Christian work, often grouped among the Apostolic Fathers. J.B. Lightfoot affirms its ancient pedigree, writing that *The Shepherd of Hermas* “is entitled in the most ancient notices.” The dating of the work is debated; some scholars place it as early as 80 AD, while others suggest it was written in the middle of the second century. Regardless of the exact date, the text represents a pre-creedal theology—one not influenced by later developments such as the doctrine of the Trinity.

While the terms “God,” “Lord,” and “Holy Spirit” appear frequently throughout the text, they are never arranged in a triadic formula nor portrayed as coequal persons of one divine essence. Indeed, it would take, as some might say, considerable *mischievousness* to find a Trinitarian framework in this work. The language and structure of *Hermas* consistently oppose the later Trinitarian theology articulated in the fourth-century councils.

Hermas begins his ethical instruction in *The First Mandate* with an unambiguous affirmation of monotheism:

> “First of all, believe that God is One, even He Who created all things and set them in order, and brought all things from non-existence into being.” (*Mandate 1.1*)

Here, God is singular. There is no mention of a triune nature, no coequal persons. God is identified clearly as *He*—not *They*—and as the sole Creator. Hermas does not write, “Believe God is Three,” or “Believe God is One, even They who created all things.” On the contrary, God is “One,” and He alone “brought all things from non-existence into being.” This language is more compatible with strict monotheism than Trinitarianism. Indeed, if all things were brought into existence by this One God, that would logically include the Son—suggesting that the Son is part of creation rather than coeternal with the Father.

In *Mandate Eleven*, Hermas offers insight into the nature of the Holy Spirit:

> “This then is the greatness of the power as touching the Pneuma of the deity of the Lord.” (*Mandate 11.5*)

He also refers to “the angel of the prophetic spirit,” indicating that the Pneuma is a messenger or a functional agent rather than a personal being. The Spirit is consistently described in terms of power, function, and inspiration, not as a distinct person within a triune godhead.

Another revealing passage comes from *Similitude 5.7*, as translated by Lightfoot (p. 207):

> “God ... created the people, and delivered them over to His Son ... (who) is Himself Lord of the people, having received all power from His Father. ... The Holy Pre-existent Spirit, Which created the whole creation, God made to dwell in flesh that He desired. This flesh, therefore, in which the Holy Spirit dwelt, was subject unto the Spirit.”

In this passage, Hermas outlines a hierarchy: God the Father is the Creator, who gives authority to the Son. The Spirit, described as “Holy” and “Pre-existent,” is the power by which creation occurred—but not a person coequal with God. Rather, God *made* this Spirit “to dwell in flesh,” which is a direct reference to the incarnation of the Son. Notably, “this flesh ... was subject unto the Spirit,” indicating the subordination of the Son to the indwelling Pneuma. In Hermas’s framework, the Father gives power, the Spirit empowers, and the Son obeys. This is a functional hierarchy, not a triune equality.

Trinitarians often cite *Similitude 9.12* (Lightfoot, p. 229):

> “The Son of God is older than all His \[God’s] creation, so that He became the Father’s adviser in His creation. Therefore also He is ancient.”

At first glance, this might appear to affirm the Son’s eternality. But Hermas says the Son is “older than all His creation,” not uncreated. He calls the Son the “Father’s adviser,” not His equal. The term “adviser” evokes Proverbs 8:22–30, where Wisdom says:

> “The LORD created me at the beginning of His course, as the first of His works of old. ... I was with Him as a confidant.” (*Jewish Tanakh*)

Hermas appears to draw on this tradition, portraying the Son as preeminent within creation but still subordinate and derived. The use of “ancient” is not synonymous with “eternal.” The Son is portrayed as having a beginning—as being brought forth as a helper in God’s creative work, not as an uncaused cause or coeternal being.

Perhaps the most ambiguous—and potentially henotheistic—statement occurs in *Similitude 9.23* (Lightfoot, p. 236):

> “If God and our Lord, Who ruleth over all things and hath the authority over all His creation ... ”

The phrase “God and our Lord” can be interpreted in two ways. It may refer to two persons: God (the Father) and our Lord (the Son). Or, more controversially, it could be that Hermas applies the title “God” to the Son in this singular instance. If so, then Hermas has presented *two Gods*—one who delegates power, and another who receives it and rules. This is not the language of one being in three persons, but of two distinct beings with divine titles—supporting a henotheistic framework.

In conclusion, *The Shepherd of Hermas* does not support Trinitarianism. Its portrayal of God, the Son, and the Spirit is hierarchical and functional, not ontologically unified. God is One—the Creator of all things, including the Son. The Son is “ancient,” preeminent in creation, but not eternal or coequal. The Spirit is a divine power, not a person. At best, Hermas’s theology may be considered henotheistic, acknowledging the supremacy of one God while also granting divine status to the Son. But it is a far cry from the Trinity.

WAS BARNABAS A TRINITARIAN

WAS BARNABAS A TRINITARIAN?

The Epistle of Barnabas, referenced by early church father Clement of Alexandria, remains a unique voice among early Christian writings. J.B. Lightfoot notes: “It stands alone in the literature of the early Church” (The Apostolic Fathers, p. 133). Though some in antiquity believed it to be authored by Paul’s early missionary companion (Acts 13:2), the epistle was not universally accepted as canonical. Scholars generally assign it a date between 70–79 AD, placing it close to the apostolic era but independent in tone and theology.

The question arises: was Barnabas a Trinitarian? A close reading of the epistle provides a resounding no. Those looking for a formal Trinitarian doctrine — Father, Son, and Holy Spirit as coequal, coeternal persons in one essence — will be disappointed. The work lacks any developed theology remotely resembling later creeds such as the Nicene or Athanasian definitions.

The epistle begins by invoking divine authority: “Blessed be God who has placed wisdom, understanding, and insight of his ordinances within us through his Spirit” (Barnabas 1.1). Some eager Trinitarian interpreters attempt to construct a triadic formula from such verses: “God,” “Spirit,” and later, “the Lord.” However, this loose grouping does not suggest co-equal persons or a divine essence shared among three. These are not presented as one God in three persons, but as distinct entities functioning in different capacities.

A commonly cited passage comes from Barnabas 5.5. It reads:

“If the Lord endured to suffer for our soul, He being Lord of the whole world, unto whom God said from the foundation of the world, ‘Let us make man after our image and likeness,’ how did He endure to suffer at the hands of men?”

Here, two beings are plainly mentioned: one is "the Lord," identified with Jesus who suffers; the other is "God," who speaks to this Lord. The quotation from Genesis 1:26 is key: “Let us make man in our image.” According to this passage, God is addressing the Lord (Jesus), attributing to Him preexistence and involvement in creation. But the relationship is dialogical—one speaks to another—not ontological in the Trinitarian sense. There is no conflation of being or essence. Rather, the distinction between the speaker (God) and the one addressed (the Lord) is clear.

The term “Lord of the whole world” is worth examining. The passage calls Jesus “Lord of the whole world,” a title that implies dominion and divine authority. But this title is not exclusive. Near the conclusion of the epistle, Barnabas writes:

“And may God, who is Lord of the whole world, give you wisdom, understanding, and knowledge of his judgments.” (Barnabas 21.3)

This statement assigns the title “Lord of the whole world” to God — presumably the Father, Yahweh. If the same title is given to both Jesus and God, then by any fair and literal reading, Barnabas is speaking of two divine figures. This does not resolve into a singular divine being with three coequal persons, but rather two distinct beings: God and the Lord. The title is shared, not unified. As such, Barnabas’s theology is best described as henotheistic — the belief in one supreme God while acknowledging the existence (and even worship) of other divine beings.

This is further confirmed in Barnabas 6.12, where the Genesis 1:26 quotation appears again:

“The Son of God says again to the Jews, when they smote Him: ‘Why do you strike me, who have prepared your way?’ If the Lord endured to suffer for our soul, though He was Lord of the whole world, to whom God said from the foundation of the world, ‘Let us make man after our image and likeness,’ how did He endure to suffer at the hands of men?”

Once again, God speaks to the Son, and the Son is presented as subordinate — not coequal. This is not Trinitarianism. It is a hierarchy: God above, the Son beneath, and the Spirit barely mentioned at all.

Indeed, references to the Spirit are extremely rare in the letter. Aside from the mention of “his Spirit” in 1.1, the Spirit does not play a central role in Barnabas’s theology. There is no discussion of the Spirit as a divine person, no doxologies involving the Spirit, and no language that would support later formulations of a divine third person of the Godhead. This absence is striking when compared with the works of later Trinitarian theologians.

Even when divine actions are attributed to the Spirit, such as imparting wisdom or inspiration, the language used is functional, not personal. The Spirit is a means by which God acts, not a coequal identity within a unified Godhead.

In sum, The Epistle of Barnabas offers no evidence that its author was a Trinitarian. Rather, the document reflects an early Christian worldview in which God (Yahweh) is supreme, Jesus is his exalted agent — even preexistent — but clearly distinct from God, and the Spirit is an impersonal force or power. When titles like “Lord of the whole world” are applied to both God and the Son, this is not an affirmation of one God in three persons, but rather an acknowledgment of divine hierarchy and shared authority.

Thus, the theology of Barnabas aligns more closely with early Jewish-Christian henotheism than with the later philosophical doctrines of the Trinity. The epistle stands as an early witness against Trinitarianism, not for it.

Mary Conceiving the Gospel of Philip

Jesus' Two Mothers: The Ebionite and Valentinian View of Spirit, Birth, and Resurrection

Both the Ebionites and the Valentinians present a compelling, non-Trinitarian framework for understanding the origins and exaltation of Jesus. Far from the later creeds that declared Jesus to be eternally divine, these early movements emphasized his humanity, his adoption by God, and his new birth by the spirit at the resurrection. From this perspective, Jesus is the natural child of Joseph and Mary, adopted as the Son of God at his baptism and fully made the Son of God in power by the resurrection from the dead (Romans 1:3–4). In both Ebionite and Valentinian thought, Mary is understood as the mother of Jesus according to the flesh, but not the source of his imperishable life. His new birth through the Holy Spirit makes the spirit his second mother—one who gives him life in truth.

This idea is made explicit in The Gospel of Philip, a Valentinian text that challenges the idea of Mary conceiving by the Holy Spirit. It states:

“Some said Mary became pregnant by the holy spirit. They are wrong and do not know what they are saying. When did a woman ever get pregnant by a woman? Mary is the virgin whom none of the powers defiled. This is greatly cruse to the Hebrews, who are the apostles and apostolic persons. This virgin whom none of the powers defiled [wishes that] the powers would defile themselves. The master [would] not have said, ‘My [father who is] in heaven,’ if [he] did not also have another father. He would simply have said, ‘[My father].’” — Gospel of Philip

This passage contains multiple layered implications. First, it clearly asserts that Mary did not conceive by the Holy Spirit. The argument hinges on the fact that in Hebrew, the word “spirit” (ruach) is grammatically feminine. As the author of Philip quips: “When did a woman ever get pregnant by a woman?” The logic is not about divine impossibility but about coherence within spiritual typology: the Holy Spirit as a feminine power cannot be the cause of physical conception in Mary. This means Mary’s pregnancy was natural, not supernatural. Jesus was the biological son of Joseph and Mary, a position also affirmed by the Ebionites and by Paul in Romans 1:3.

The Valentinians, like the Ebionites, believed Jesus became the Christ at his baptism. From that point, the Spirit descended on him, adopting him as God’s son. However, his full glorification came at the resurrection, when he was “born again” by the Spirit into imperishable life. The Gospel of Philip says:

“The Lord was conceived (born again) from what is imperishable, from God. The [Lord arose] from among the dead. But [He did not come into being as he was. Rather [his body] was [completely] perfect. It was of flesh, and this [flesh is indeed] true flesh.¹ [Yet our flesh] is not true, but rather a mirror-image of the true [flesh].” — Gospel of Philip

This is congruent with Paul's teaching in Romans 1:3–4:

“Concerning his Son Jesus Christ our Lord, who was made of the seed of David according to the flesh;
And declared to be the Son of God with power, according to the spirit of holiness, by the resurrection from the dead.”

Thus, Jesus’ true identity as the Son of God was not established by his birth from Mary, but through the resurrection—his new birth from the Spirit. This new birth is described in Johannine language as being “born from above” or “born again”:

“What has been born from the flesh is flesh, and what has been born from the spirit is spirit. Do not marvel because I told you, YOU people must be born again. The wind blows where it wants to, and you hear the sound of it, but you do not know where it comes from and where it is going. So it is with everyone that has been born from the spirit.” — John 3:6–8

Here, the Spirit is again portrayed in feminine terms—as one who gives birth. To be born from the spirit is to have the spirit as a mother. This clarifies The Gospel of Thomas Saying 101 (not 110):

“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.”

The mother who gave Jesus “falsehood” is Mary—not because she sinned, but because the flesh inherited from her (and Joseph) was subject to mortality and what Paul calls "condemnation." By falsehood, we understand this to mean the genetic inheritance of Adamic mortality—cellular aging and death. Jesus, being born from flesh, inherited the condition of death and had to be saved from it, as Hebrews 5:7 confirms:

“In the days of his flesh, he offered up both prayers and supplications with loud crying and tears to the One able to save him from death, and he was heard because of his piety.”

Jesus’ true mother, then, is the Holy Spirit, who raised him from the dead into incorruptibility. The resurrection is the moment he is born from the spirit—conceived anew from the imperishable.

The Ebionite and Valentinian perspectives converge in rejecting the idea that Jesus’ physical birth involved divine impregnation. Both affirm his full humanity and assert that divine sonship is a title bestowed through obedience and resurrection, not divine DNA. The “powers”—angels, elohim, and even the Holy Spirit—did not touch Mary. Jesus’ true transformation came not at Bethlehem but at the empty tomb, when he was declared the Son of God in power, born not of flesh, but of the Spirit.

Thus, Jesus has two mothers: Mary, who gave him corruptible life according to the flesh, and the Spirit, who gave him imperishable life according to the resurrection.

Mary Conceiving the gospel of philip, gospel of thomas, 

Mary Conceiving

Some said Mary became pregnant by the holy spirit. They are wrong and do not know what they are saying. When did a woman ever get pregnant by a woman?

Mary is the virgin whom none of the powers defiled. This is greatly cruse to the Hebrews, who are the apostles and apostolic persons. This virgin whom none of the powers defiled [wishes that] the powers would defile themselves.

My Father

The master [would] not have said, “My [father who is] in heaven,” if [he] did not also have another father. He would simply have said, “[My father].”

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 [she was not defiled when the holy spirit impregnated her through David's seed see my study The Artificial Insemination of Mary with David's semen. Because David's seed and Mary's egg were implanted. Later the embryo was holy but still Adamic by which we mean our fall sinful nature].
[Mary was impregnated by the Father however Mary is not the true mother of Jesus, the true mother of Jesus is the Holy Spirit ]

Jesus has two Mothers: 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." Gospel of Thomas Saying 110

In Hebrew the word spirit is a feminine noun. That is why it can be spoken of as a Mother giving birth. Therefore Jesus has 2 mothers Mary is Jesus' natural mother according to the flesh who could only give him falsehood or death by genetic inheritance. By falsehood we understand this to mean adamic condemnation which brings forth death which Jesus needed to be saved from Hebrews 5:7

when the holy spirit overshadowed Mary this was a miracle however Jesus was made of human nature his flesh was the same as our flesh he did not an immaculate nature or angelic nature. Therefore he would need to be born of the spirit to have eternal life

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

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

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

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

John 3:6 What has been born from the flesh is flesh, and what has been born from the spirit is spirit. 7 Do not marvel because I told you, YOU people must be born again.
8 The wind blows where it wants to, and you hear the sound of it, but you do not know where it comes from and where it is going. So it is with everyone that has been born from the spirit.”

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

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

Therefore the holy spirit is a feminine aspect of God

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

Mary is the virgin whom no power defiled [she was a Righteous woman]. She [Mary – the symbolic “womb” of spiritual birth] is a great anathema to the Hebrews, who are the apostles and the apostolic men [even these were anathema because they were all still “double minded” and could not comprehend what Mary truly represented at the time]. This virgin whom no power defiled [...] the powers defile themselves.

And the Lord would not have said "My Father who is in Heaven" (Mt 16:17), unless he had had another father [the other father was the “first man Adam” through His physical “genetic” seed line for one must first be born of flash for "that", says Jesus himself, "which is born of the flesh is flesh" (John 3:6)  and this Paul explains in another place by saying, that "He sent his own son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and for sin, condemned sin in the flesh" (Rom. 8:3) in the offering of his body once (Heb. 10:10,12,14). Sin could not have been condemned in the body of Jesus, if it had not existed there. His body was as unclean as the bodies of those for whom he died; for he was born of a woman, and "not one" can bring a clean body out of a defiled body;], but he would have said simply "My father"  [Jesus also had a physical father in Eli and was adopted in the Royal family by Joseph].

The real historical Jesus

**The Real Historical Jesus**

The real historical Jesus was not the divine figure later fashioned by Gentile Christianity but a man born of two human parents—Joseph and Mary. He entered the world in the ordinary way all humans do and was known simply as Jesus of Nazareth. It was only at the age of thirty, when he was baptized by John in the Jordan, that the Spirit descended upon him, marking the beginning of his public role as prophet. This event, not his birth, was the turning point in his life. As one early source put it, "It was only at his baptism, at thirty years of age, that the Spirit descended upon him and he became a prophet."

His teachings, remembered and treasured by his followers, were preserved orally. The earliest community of believers—known as the **Ebionites**—regarded these Sayings as a sacred deposit to be passed on with fidelity. To them, Jesus was not a pre-existent divine being but a man specially chosen and anointed by the Spirit of God. Indeed, the title *Christ* (Greek *Christos*, meaning "anointed") did not indicate a supernatural identity but a status similar to that of Old Testament figures such as Saul, David, and the prophets. "It is true that Jesus was 'Christ,'" they believed, "but so also would anyone who was anointed with the Holy Spirit like Saul, David and the prophets."

The Ebionites rejected any notion of Jesus being divine or pre-existent. Church historian Epiphanius of Salamis recorded that they saw Jesus as fully human and described him as "the biological son of Joseph and Mary, who, by virtue of his righteousness in perfectly following the letter and spirit of the Law of Moses, was adopted as the son of God to fulfill the Hebrew scriptures." Their Christology was strictly adoptionist, meaning that Jesus became the Son of God not by nature but by divine selection and moral excellence.

In fact, their view of Jesus was deeply rooted in Jewish tradition. They saw him as the prophet foretold in *Deuteronomy 18:15-19*, the one like Moses who would arise from among the people of Israel. In this sense, Jesus was not the fulfillment of a Greco-Roman mystery religion, but the next phase in Israel’s own prophetic heritage. As one scholar notes, "The Ebionites viewed Jesus as a Messiah in the mold of a new 'prophet like Moses'… They believed Jesus came to call all descendants of the Twelve Tribes of Israel who had strayed from the covenant with God… to repent and follow both the Law of Moses and Jesus' own expounding of the Law."

For the Ebionites, Jesus had a mission of national and spiritual reform. He was calling his people back to covenantal faithfulness, not establishing a new religion. His life was a model of obedience to the Torah, and he taught a stricter interpretation of it, emphasizing inner righteousness and ethical purity. There was no contradiction between Jesus and Moses—Jesus was Moses renewed.

Furthermore, according to *Epiphanius*, the Ebionites believed Jesus "proclaimed the abolishment of animal sacrifices," which placed him in direct opposition to the Temple priesthood. He sought to replace the elaborate and corrupt system of temple rituals with a simpler, more ethical religion rooted in mercy and justice. Consequently, he was seen not as a sin-bearing sacrifice but as a prophet-martyr. The Ebionites did not believe that "Jesus suffered and died for the atonement of the sins of Israelites or mankind." Instead, his death was the tragic result of his bold public challenge to the existing religious order and his messianic claim. Jesus was arrested and crucified not to fulfill divine wrath, but because he "was arrested and sentenced to death by crucifixion, both for his messianic claim and his failed attempt at ending the Temple sacrificial system."

The earliest believers did not believe in the pre-existence of Jesus. The idea that Jesus existed in heaven before his birth would have been foreign and blasphemous to the Ebionites, who held firmly to Jewish monotheism. As the Church Fathers repeatedly attest, "The Church Fathers agree that most or all of the Ebionites rejected many of the precepts central to proto-orthodox Christianity, such as Jesus' divinity and pre-existence."

Instead, they awaited a future revelation of the Messiah. Jesus had come once as a prophet, but his role as king and messianic ruler was still to come. As one account puts it: "He was a manifestation of the Messiah… but he had not yet appeared as the Messiah; that would only be at his second coming." The Ebionites believed in a literal future reign of the Messiah on earth, when all nations would be subject to Israel, and a thousand years of peace and justice would follow.

In this light, Paul was seen not as a true apostle, but as an apostate. He taught doctrines utterly alien to the Jesus they had known and revered. "They naturally repudiated Paul and his new doctrine entirely; for them Paul was a deceiver and an apostate from the Law, they even denied that he was a Jew." The Ebionites clung to the Law of Moses and the teachings of Jesus as inseparable. In their eyes, Paul's antinomian gospel—divorced from Torah observance and reliant on a dying-rising savior—was heresy.

In conclusion, the real historical Jesus, as preserved in the memory of the Ebionites, was not a divine being but a righteous man and prophet. He was the anointed one of God in the same sense that many before him had been anointed: by the Spirit, for a mission. He lived and died as a reformer within Israel, calling his people back to God through repentance, mercy, and obedience. His memory was cherished not as that of a god, but of a just man who was willing to die for truth.

The Ebionites

The Ebionites: An Overview of Beliefs and Practices

The Ebionites were a sect of Jewish Christians whose beliefs and practices diverged significantly from what became the dominant form of Christianity. Drawing upon Jewish traditions and scriptures, the Ebionites maintained a strong commitment to the Law of Moses, strict monotheism, and a deeply human view of Jesus. Patristic sources—primarily hostile—portray the Ebionites as a heretical group, yet these reports also preserve vital historical details that shed light on the diversity of early Christian thought.

Adherence to the Law and Jewish Identity

The Ebionites were characterized by their rigorous observance of Jewish law. They are said to have revered Jerusalem as the holiest city and maintained kosher dietary practices, limiting table fellowship to Gentiles who had fully converted to Judaism. They did not consider belief in Jesus to be a replacement for the Torah but saw his message as a call to stricter obedience to it. This emphasis placed them at odds with Gentile Christianity, which increasingly distanced itself from Jewish customs in the second century.

Christology: A Human Jesus Adopted by God

One of the defining features of Ebionite theology was their rejection of the doctrine of Jesus’ divinity and pre-existence. According to Church Fathers like Origen, Eusebius, and Epiphanius, the Ebionites held that Jesus was a man born naturally of Joseph and Mary. He became the "Son of God" not by nature, but by adoption at his baptism, when the Christ—the Spirit or angel of God—descended upon him. This separationist Christology is emphasized by Epiphanius, who claimed that the Ebionites made a distinction between Jesus and the Christ, viewing the latter as a heavenly being who temporarily indwelt Jesus.

Although all Ebionites denied the pre-existence of Jesus, there were variations within the sect regarding the virgin birth. Theodoret, relying on earlier sources, described two sub-groups: one that denied the virgin birth and used the Gospel of the Hebrews, and another that accepted it and used the Gospel of Matthew. Even within the latter, their version of Matthew was reportedly edited to begin at Jesus’ baptism, omitting the infancy narratives which later orthodox Christianity emphasized. This demonstrates a strong tendency within the Ebionite tradition to focus on Jesus’ adult life and prophetic mission, rather than supernatural origin stories.

Scriptural Sources and Textual Traditions

The Ebionites are commonly associated with Jewish-Christian gospels, particularly versions of Matthew in Hebrew or Aramaic. Irenaeus reported that they used a truncated form of Matthew’s Gospel, starting with the baptism by John the Baptist, and lacking the nativity account. This version reflected their theological perspective: Jesus became important not by divine birth but by divine commissioning. These scriptural texts were seen as complementary to the Hebrew Bible, which they continued to regard as authoritative.

Jesus as Prophet and Reforming Messiah

The Ebionites viewed Jesus as the fulfillment of Deuteronomy 18:15–19—the prophet like Moses—sent to recall Israel to covenant faithfulness. Jesus’ messianic role, in their eyes, was not to die for sin but to instruct and reform. He came to guide both Jews and righteous Gentiles to a purer observance of the Law, emphasizing mercy, justice, and personal repentance.

The Ebionite understanding of Jesus’ death was likewise distinctive. According to Epiphanius, they denied that Jesus died for the sins of the world. Instead, they saw him as a martyr who was executed for his challenge to the Temple priesthood and the animal sacrificial system. Jesus, in this interpretation, sought to restore a more ethical, spiritual form of worship grounded in repentance and moral action rather than ritual bloodshed. His death was thus seen as a consequence of prophetic opposition, not a salvific offering.

Prophets and Inspiration

In their views on prophecy, the Ebionites also differed from both Judaism and emerging orthodox Christianity. Methodius of Olympus claimed they believed that the Hebrew prophets spoke by their own insight rather than being inspired by the Holy Spirit. If accurate, this suggests a rationalistic or moralistic understanding of divine guidance, where righteousness and wisdom arose from obedience and reflection rather than supernatural possession.

Conclusion

The Ebionites represent a significant stream within early Christianity—one that remained deeply rooted in Jewish tradition, emphasizing the humanity and prophetic role of Jesus. Their rejection of Christ’s divinity, their strict adherence to the Law, and their use of alternative gospels place them outside the trajectory that led to Nicene orthodoxy. Yet, their theology preserves a vision of Jesus as a human reformer, calling for ethical renewal and faithfulness to the covenant. In many ways, the Ebionites embody an early Christian attempt to follow Jesus without abandoning the religious framework of first-century Judaism.

Although known almost entirely through the writings of their opponents, the Ebionites challenge modern readers to reconsider the range of beliefs held by the earliest followers of Jesus and the complex process by which one version of Christianity emerged as dominant. Their commitment to the Law, their view of Jesus as a righteous man chosen by God, and their moral focus offer a glimpse into a form of Christianity that has largely been forgotten but was once a living and competing vision of the faith.

The Valentinian Understanding of Matthew 10:28 and the Rejection of Reincarnation

 **The Valentinian Understanding of Matthew 10:28 and the Rejection of Reincarnation**    

Matthew 10:28 states:  

*"Do not fear those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul. Rather, fear the one who can destroy both soul and body in Gehenna."*  

Valentinian theology, as expressed in the writings of Heracleon and Theodotus, rejects the notion of reincarnation. Their interpretation of Matthew 10:28 emphasizes that the soul is not an immortal, transmigrating entity but is instead perishable, subject to destruction along with the body. This stands in direct opposition to the idea that the soul is continually reborn into different bodies.  

### **Heracleon’s Refutation of Immortality and Reincarnation**  

Heracleon, an early Valentinian commentator, explicitly uses Matthew 10:28 to refute the idea of an immortal soul. He states:  

*"By the words ‘it was at the point of death,’ the teaching of those who claim that the soul is immortal is refuted. In agreement with this is the statement that ‘the body and soul are destroyed in Gehenna.’ (Matthew 10:28) The soul is not immortal, but is possessed only of a disposition towards salvation, for it is the perishable which puts on imperishability and the mortal which puts on immortality when ‘its death is swallowed up in victory.’ (1 Corinthians 15:54)"* (*Fragment 40, on John 4:46-53*)  

Heracleon directly challenges the idea that the soul exists eternally in different forms. Instead of teaching that the soul reincarnates, he emphasizes that it is *perishable*—it does not continue in an endless cycle of rebirths. Rather, it must be transformed, putting on imperishability through divine intervention, specifically at the Resurrection. If the soul could move from one body to another, as in reincarnation, it would be inherently immortal and not subject to ultimate destruction, which Heracleon explicitly denies.  

### **Theodotus on the Soul’s Corporeality and Final Judgment**  

Theodotus further reinforces this view by arguing that the soul is corporeal and does not survive independently in an eternal cycle of reincarnation. He states:  

*"The demons are said to be incorporeal, not because they have no bodies (for they have even shape and are, therefore, capable of feeling punishment), but they are said to be incorporeal because, in comparison with the spiritual bodies which are saved, they are a shade. And the angels are bodies; at any rate they are seen. Why even the soul is a body, for the Apostle says, ‘It is sown a body of soul, it is raised a body of spirit.’ And how can the souls which are being punished be sensible of it, if they are not bodies? Certainly he says, ‘Fear him who, after death, is able to cast soul and body into Gehenna.’"* (*Theodotus 14*)  

By affirming that the soul is a *body*, Theodotus denies the dualistic idea that the soul exists apart from the physical realm in a cyclical rebirth process. In reincarnation beliefs, the soul is typically seen as an immaterial essence that migrates from one body to another. Theodotus refutes this by arguing that the soul, like the body, is corporeal and therefore subject to dissolution rather than transmigration. If the soul could move between bodies, it would need to be an independent, non-physical essence—an idea that Valentinianism rejects.  

### **Destruction in Gehenna as the Final End**  

Theodotus continues this theme by emphasizing that the psychic nature, which includes both the body and the soul, can be permanently destroyed:  

*"Therefore man is in man, ‘psychic’ in ‘earthly,’ not consisting as part to part but united as whole to whole by God's unspeakable power. Therefore he was created in Paradise in the fourth heaven. For there earthly flesh does not ascend but it was to the divine soul as material flesh. This is the meaning of ‘This is now bone of my bones,’ – he hints at the divine soul which is hidden in the flesh, firm and hard to suffer and very potent, – and ‘flesh of my flesh’ – the material soul which is the body of the divine soul. Concerning these two also, the Saviour says, ‘That is to be feared which can destroy this soul and this body, the psychic one, in Gehenna.’"* (*Theodotus 51*)  

Here, Theodotus clarifies that Jesus’ warning in Matthew 10:28 concerns the final destruction of the *psychic* nature—both body and soul—in Gehenna. This destruction is not a transition to another life but a definitive end. If reincarnation were true, destruction in Gehenna would be temporary, merely a transition before rebirth into another body. However, Theodotus, like Heracleon, insists that the psychic self is completely subject to annihilation unless it is transformed through salvation.  

### **The Valentinian Alternative to Reincarnation: The Resurrection**  

Rather than teaching reincarnation, Valentinianism emphasizes the Resurrection as the means by which those destined for salvation attain imperishability. Heracleon’s reference to *1 Corinthians 15:54*—*"the perishable puts on imperishability"*—demonstrates that eternal life is not a matter of repeated earthly existences but a singular transformation at the end of the age. This aligns with Paul’s teaching that the body of the soul is *sown* as perishable but *raised* as imperishable (*1 Corinthians 15:42-44*).  In 1 Corinthians 15:42-44, the "natural body" (σῶμα ψυχικόν) refers to the "body of the soul," indicating that the body and soul are equivalent expressions. The "natural body" is not merely a vessel for the soul but is itself the soul in its embodied form, showing they are synonymous. Paul’s use of "soul-body" terminology affirms that the body and soul, in this context, represent the same entity rather than two separate components.*.  

### **Conclusion: Valentinianism Rejects Reincarnation**  

The Valentinian interpretation of Matthew 10:28 provides a strong argument against reincarnation:  

1. **The Soul Is Not Immortal** – Heracleon explicitly denies the immortality of the soul, which contradicts the fundamental premise of reincarnation.  

2. **The Soul Is Corporeal and Perishable** – Theodotus argues that the soul, being a body, does not transmigrate but is subject to destruction along with the physical form.  

3. **Gehenna Represents Final Destruction, Not a Transition** – Matthew 10:28 is interpreted as a warning against the ultimate annihilation of the psychic self, not as a reference to the soul continuing in another body.  

4. **Salvation Comes Through Resurrection, Not Rebirth** – Instead of multiple lives, the Valentinian hope is for transformation through Resurrection, where the perishable is *clothed with imperishability*.  

Ultimately, Valentinian theology does not support the idea of reincarnation. The soul does not migrate from one existence to another but is either transformed into a spiritual body through salvation or faces destruction in Gehenna. This interpretation of Matthew 10:28 affirms a linear eschatology focused on Resurrection, rather than the cyclical framework of reincarnation.