Gnosticism

>Yes, and the Talmud was never meant to be read by Goyim. It was meant to be kept internal. That's why there's a famous quote from a Rabbi to the effect that it must be kept secret because we'd kill them all if we knew what it said about us.
Yes, and the Talmud is literally a 2nd century BC invention. Much of it is baseless "tradition" meant to justify jewish domination, and laws that have literally no basis outside of it (like Noahidism).
>After the Babylonian Exile, the Jews realized the importance of hiding their practices from the nations they would inhabit (having lost sovereignty). Thus, they redacted the Torah and tried to remove references to their child sacrifices. In the case of the Isaac story, they simply added one line to the end to the effect of "and then a ram appeared and he killed it instead".
I'm saying that the story was intended as a removal of child sacrifice. Just because some scholars (editor's note: kikes) argue it wasn't and justify it with some moderate mental gymnastics, doesn't make such a theory true.
>Actually child sacrifices was clearly practiced by the Jews/Israelites and there is plenty of archaeological and literary evidence.
Indeed, and this literally is mentioned in Chronicles. The kings of Judea were said to have burnt their children on an altar of Moloch. However, it was of course always depicted in a negative context.
Same thing applied to the Phoenicians, especially in Carthage and Sicily.
>Then why were they written in Greek??
Matthew was likely written in Aramaic, because again, the church fathers noted it was written in Hebrew, it contains actual Aramaic sayings that have notes to explain it in the Greek version, and the Greek used in Matthew is actually very bad Greek, Greek linguists would note it. So although many scholars try to object, Matthew was most likely originally written in Aramaic. John and Luke on the other hand were originally Greek, with John even using Greek concepts like logos.

You have to go back and study the properties of light, and how these properties and interconnected to every material object and living being.
I don't think God created this world, I think it was ripped off, with stolen energy/abilities.
Why do you guys think the material world is a good thing just because you live in it?

>jewish mysticism
lmao, if anything it's the most antisemitic mysticism possible.

Attached: 1565320515661.png (1142x800, 1.02M)

Which king?

>Gnostics worship Lucifer

Nice try you fucking kike.

Gnosticism is literally the most red pilled, and "antisemitic" religion in existence. The real red pill is the fact that the God of the OT (Saturn) is in fact the devil and the Jews are his chosen people. Anybody who engages in his worship is doing the bidding of kikes and sowing the seeds of their own damnation.

reddit.com/r/Gnostic/comments/cemoqi/addressing_antisemitism_within_gnosticism/

enkiptahsatya.com/41-anu-yahweh-the-true-devil.html

Do your resesrch, you literal dumb fucking goy.

>Enki, the serpent, provided knowledge and genetic advancement to mankind in rebellion against Ea
Dude, Enki and Ea are the same being. Enki is the Sumerian name, Ea the Akkadian. This is not debatable.

>Much of it is baseless "tradition" meant to justify jewish domination, and laws that have literally no basis outside of it (like Noahidism).
So what? The point is that the Jews themselves, in books meant to be secret, admit that the Torah had been edited and that they practiced child sacrifice. That was my point, and it's a relevant point.

>Indeed, and this literally is mentioned in Chronicles. The kings of Judea were said to have burnt their children on an altar of Moloch. However, it was of course always depicted in a negative context. Same thing applied to the Phoenicians, especially in Carthage and Sicily.
It was edited to appear negatively after the Babylonian Exile, as I've been claiming. It was a sacred Semitic practice going back thousands of years. For example, as Jacob is fleeing Mesopotamia, his wife steals her fathers idols. The actual word used in the bible is "teraphim". Teraphim were the severed heads of firstborn sons used in divination, and this is probably connected with archaeologically-attested foundation sacrifices of children practiced in Semitic areas. It's always been their practice. It's still their practice to this day. They only portray it negatively to goyim so we don't know how holy it is to them.

>Matthew was likely written in Aramaic
No it wasn't, and the church fathers were wrong. Even if that were true, Matthew was based on Mark which is known to have been originally Greek due to textual analysis. Thus, even if Matthew were written in Hebrew based off the Greek Mark, it would only further support my previously-stated position about the Jewishness of Matthew and its purpose in Semitizing the Aryan Jesus.

Well did you at least buy any chainlink yet?

Attached: 1561490810218.gif (500x500, 70K)

good thread to dump this again

Attached: spiritual redpill1.png (777x2777, 905K)

Attached: spiritual redpill2.png (1222x3222, 924K)

Attached: spiritual redpill3.jpg (1222x3555, 677K)

Attached: spiritual redpill4.jpg (777x4444, 658K)

Attached: spiritual redpill5.jpg (1222x4777, 770K)

I don't recall if it was ever specified. Should be easy to google. I've been arguing gnostic stuff for hours and I'm too worn out to look.

But the point is, that the king was being taunted for thinking he was as high as "helel ben sahar", which is likely a reference to Venus as the Morning Star. Regardless, it's certainly got nothing to do with any "Satan" or other supernatural entity within context, and appears nowhere else in the bible.

Most of what Christians believe about Lucifer comes from Paradise Lost - literally a fictional poem.

>So what? The point is that the Jews themselves, in books meant to be secret, admit that the Torah had been edited and that they practiced child sacrifice. That was my point, and it's a relevant point.
>Jews themselves
Again, the jews themselves are filthy liars, and you can't trust what they say. Even among themselves, they preach their own false headcanon that can be used... ...to justify jewish world denomination.
>It was edited to appear negatively after the Babylonian Exile, as I've been claiming. It was a sacred Semitic practice going back thousands of years. For example, as Jacob is fleeing Mesopotamia, his wife steals her fathers idols. The actual word used in the bible is "teraphim". Teraphim were the severed heads of firstborn sons used in divination, and this is probably connected with archaeologically-attested foundation sacrifices of children practiced in Semitic areas. It's always been their practice. It's still their practice to this day. They only portray it negatively to goyim so we don't know how holy it is to them.
Okay, and? The Israelites practiced child sacrifice within their own lifetimes, starting from the last Judean kings, to the Babylonian exile, to the Persian resettlement.
This stopped after the Persian resettlement where they became monotheists, which you say is when they started to "hide" it.
>teraphim
biblehub.com/hebrew/8655.htm
Seems like a pretty baseless claim honestly.
Again, I'm not denying child sacrifice was huge in the Semitic world, just that it was for the OT.
>No it wasn't, and the church fathers were wrong.
Then explain why the Greek of Matthew is so shitty if it was originally in Greek.
And again, Marcian priority is very questionable. I've already explained last thread, but just see this video:
youtube.com/watch?v=_l0Say2wMw0

The square and compass and two towers are roman numerals.

The square and compass form two X's, the towers form two I's, so together it's IXXI, and in roman numerals means 9-11.

In jewish gematria 9 is divine, 10 is god, 11 is rebellion, going to far. That's what the square and compass really mean. The great plan is the overthrow of God. Not gonna happen.

thx man

Attached: 1552941103245.jpg (333x382, 26K)

>Again, the jews themselves are filthy liars, and you can't trust what they say. Even among themselves, they preach their own false headcanon that can be used... ...to justify jewish world denomination.
I agree. But why would they lie to make themselves look worse? Why would they lie to make it appear as if they sacrificed children when they didn't? The better explanation is that they were simply admitting the truth in private, not expecting goyim to be able to access the Talmud.

>This stopped after the Persian resettlement where they became monotheists, which you say is when they started to "hide" it.
Yes, that's the point. It never stopped. It continued to this day. Hilary Clinton's leaked emails reference Moloch sacrifice, and elite pedo rings still engage in their practices. They engaged in them thousands of years before the Bible and thousands of years after. Yahweh is Moloch is Satan.

>Seems like a pretty baseless claim honestly.
Again, the Jews themselves admit this:

(1200) Daat Zkenim Genesis Commentary

31:19

“Rachel stole the teraphim; what precisely are “teraphim”? According to Pirke de rabbi Eliezer chapter 36, they were deities that people like Lavan worshipped. How did they originate? A firstborn male human being was slaughtered; they cut off his head, salted it (to preserve it from decomposing) using both salt and oil. They inscribed on the forehead of that slain person the name of a deity such as a demon, hung it up under the tongue of the slain person on the wall, lit candles in its honour, prostrated themselves before it, and it would start speaking to the worshipper. (presumably answering questions addressed to it, like to an oracle.) These teraphim are referred to as doing this in the Book of Zecharyah 10,2: כי התרפים דברו און, “for the teraphim spoke delusions.” Rachel stole them so that they could not speak to their father and tell him that Yaakov had fled and where he was going. Not only this; she may have used the opportunity to destroy all idols in her father’s home.

>Then explain why the Greek of Matthew is so shitty if it was originally in Greek.
I don't believe it was originally Hebrew, but for the purpose of this conversation I will grant concede that to you. As I said, it only supports my position that Matthew was intended to Semitize the non-Semitic Jesus. It may have just been shitty because the author sucked, you know. Don't have time to watch video need to leave and do errands in a little while.

>that reddit thread
the Jew cries out as he downvotes you
>Matthew was intended to Semitize the non-Semitic Jesus
It's an interesting explanation on why each gospel has different small details but the same overarching story. It's exactly the sort of thing that happens when people agree on a big lie, but don't work out each detail before telling it.

Look at the last thread if you're interested - I explained my view, with referenced to the scholarly consensus in more detail. Basically, Matthew and Luke were probably both elaborations of the earlier Mark, written by different authors with different intents for different audiences based off the same source document (Mark) and other unique sources. You can also google "Marcan priority" for more info.

>I agree. But why would they lie to make themselves look worse? Why would they lie to make it appear as if they sacrificed children when they didn't?
4D chess. It's the same reason why they say Noahidism is what the goyim should follow, and at the same time most Christians literally do follow Noahidism (they don't follow the Mosaic Law) and are content with that.
>Yes, that's the point. It never stopped. It continued to this day. Hilary Clinton's leaked emails reference Moloch sacrifice, and elite pedo rings still engage in their practices
And none of them follow the Old Testament. Look at Epstein. He's supposedly a religious jew and engaged in all source of nonsense.
>Yahweh is Moloch is Satan.
"Moloch" just means king. and in Chronicles specifically refers to a variant of Ba'al.
>Again, the Jews themselves admit this:
Around the time that was written, the jews were already speaking Latin or Yiddish, and had this incredibly broken Hebrew (which is why they had to entirely rewrite the language in the 19th century). Most linguists don't agree with this translation of teraphim.
>I don't believe it was originally Hebrew, but for the purpose of this conversation I will grant concede that to you. As I said, it only supports my position that Matthew was intended to Semitize the non-Semitic Jesus. It may have just been shitty because the author sucked, you know
And at that, the Marcian priority is very questionable. Thus, if Matthew was in Hebrew/Aramaic, and was actually the first, then the New Testament would be Semitic in origin, which would fit the historical canon of the church fathers. This thus blots out the Gnostic Gospels.
>Don't have time to watch video need to leave and do errands in a little while.
Farewell, then.

Balak perhaps?

you along with every other dumbfuck will kill
themselves once you learn who lucifer really is.
none of you stop to think, why do i know the name
lucifer, the devil would never tell his real name.
i know his real names. that's why he's my bitch.
you are all being made to look stupid through
reverse psychology, being made to hate a name
that doesn't belong to satan and never did.

Attached: 1431580593650.jpg (1035x794, 331K)

You're a retard. Shouldn't you be in school?

>4D chess
I simply disagree. They tried to hide the Talmud and succeeded for hundreds of years. It was only put online in English in 2010, and there's still no readily available English translation of the Jerusalem Talmud today.

>And none of them follow the Old Testament. Look at Epstein. He's supposedly a religious jew and engaged in all source of nonsense.
Yes they do. The OT is full of evil nonsense, like Yahweh having 42 kids mauled by bears for calling someone bald, Samson beating 1,000 people to death with a donkey bone, Yahweh killing 60,000 people because David took a census, Israelites massacring the Shechemites after making a pact with them, regular child sacrifice and rape, etc etc

>"Moloch" just means king. and in Chronicles specifically refers to a variant of Ba'al.
Yes, exactly. And the EXACT consonantal term MLK is applied to Yahweh himself dozens of times in the OT, but translated in English as King. Amos 5:26 makes it clear that Moloch was carried in the tabernacle in the desert for 40 years, and Moloch sacrifices were carried out later IN Yahweh's temple. Yahweh = Moloch. This was even influentially argued in the 19th century by multiple scholars and became the consensus position until after WW2. For example see: "(1842) Friedrich Wilhelm Ghillany - Die Menschenopfer Der Alten Hebräer"

>Most linguists don't agree with this translation of teraphim.
You could discount that definition, but the fact remains that the Jews who wrote that commentary explicitly claimed that their ancestors engaged in that practice. This is relevant, whether you agree with their interpretation of Teraphim or not.

>And at that, the Marcian priority is very questionable.
Marcan priority is quite secure for a number of reasons, including the political background depicted in each Gospel differing in ways corresponding to known political events like the destruction of the Second Temple. Also, at least some of the gnostic gospel content was earlier even than Mark - like portions of Thomas.

>Farewell, then.
Gotta run and do errands. You were less of a fag than initially thought and I enjoyed talking to you. Hope you will reconsider gnosticism as a position.

>Balak perhaps?
Could be. Can't be fucked to google right now, got to run to town.

>I simply disagree. They tried to hide the Talmud and succeeded for hundreds of years. It was only put online in English in 2010, and there's still no readily available English translation of the Jerusalem Talmud today.
The French king literally had the Talmud translated and had it all burnt afterwards because he saw what actually is. The Roman church was actually the first to publish it.
>Yes they do. The OT is full of evil nonsense, like Yahweh having 42 kids mauled by bears for calling someone bald, Samson beating 1,000 people to death with a donkey bone, Yahweh killing 60,000 people because David took a census, Israelites massacring the Shechemites after making a pact with them, regular child sacrifice and rape, etc etc
In comparison to Greek/Roman mythology, and even to what the other Semites like Assyrians did, claiming mauling kids with bears is so evil makes you a pussy.
Pic related.
>Yes, exactly. And the EXACT consonantal term MLK is applied to Yahweh himself dozens of times in the OT, but translated in English as King. Amos 5:26 makes it clear that Moloch was carried in the tabernacle in the desert for 40 years, and Moloch sacrifices were carried out later IN Yahweh's temple. Yahweh = Moloch. This was even influentially argued in the 19th century by multiple scholars and became the consensus position until after WW2. For example see: "(1842) Friedrich Wilhelm Ghillany - Die Menschenopfer Der Alten Hebräer"
There were two Molochs however, one refers to Jehovah, one refers to another title of Ba'al Hammon (to the Carthaginians).
>remains that the Jews who wrote that commentary explicitly claimed that their ancestors engaged in that practice
Oh yes, the Yiddish/Latin speaking kikes that have had hardly a history in Judea spanning back to the Persian empire and relied on the Talmud for their beliefs. Such an authority.
Later.

Attached: cortona_rape_of_the_sabine_women_01.jpg (1207x802, 180K)

Lucifer and the God of the old testament and the real God are all evil
Were fucked
The only pill is the black pill

I take zero pills.

Bump

Attached: 1566857245862.jpg (474x547, 27K)

>Crowley took all of his occultism from Alexandrian Gnosticism

Attached: 1550784330327.jpg (300x413, 25K)

Funny thing, gnostics loved Paul so that says alot about him.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_Catholic_Brahmin
>Jesuits are behind religious syncretism with Hindus and Buddhists
referenceworks.brillonline.com/entries/jesuit-historiography-online/from-missionaries-to-zen-masters-the-society-of-jesus-and-buddhism-COM_204365

Didn't Paul specifically address some of the Gnostics in a part of Corinthians?

Gnosticism most likely wasn't even around when Paul was alive.

I've heard that the early Gnostics were around as early as 40s/50s AD (Paul's time), and only later did they become what we now view as Gnostics.
In 1 Corinthians 1, he apparently was addressing Gnostics.

Gnostic texts are carbon dated to earliest around 150 AD.

Yeah, but early Gnostics might've existed as early as that time, only later (like you said 150 AD) did they evolve into the Gnostic heresies that were addressed by the church fathers.

Maybe but Paul's letters are dated to before 50 AD, and Valentinus lived between 100-150 AD.

Gnostics are attempting to seize power and control the Catholic Church by pushing it into a more progressive phase

I'm saying some of the early Gnostics in Alexandria might've existed as early as the 50s AD, and these are the "divisions" that Paul was talking about.
Jesuits already control the Catholic church, and they're simply using their own monastic theology against them. Wake up and leave papistry already.

gnosticism is closest to christianity and the final redpill
OP is a disinfo jew posting from Antwerp

Attached: 1547147061287.jpg (864x488, 71K)

Well well Mr. Hans Rothschild, you didn't seem to know Antwerp is in Flanders?
You're just assmad that people are waking up to your anti-matter, anti-nature, feminist, NWO religion.

>gnosticism
>NWO religion

Attached: 1542749517940.jpg (555x445, 36K)

Brainlet Wojak is a JIDF favourite.

>not even addressing the argument
classic disinfo shill

Attached: 1559355824791.png (426x510, 154K)

to put this bluntly, it basically is an allegory for materialism corrupting the individual. you can dwell in the dirt, chasing lambos, big titties to coooom to and fine wine to sate your thirst but that only gets you so far.

the esoteric philosophies are just neoplatonic teachings, in those teachings the saturnic black cube you are all scared of in the platonic solids correlates to the element of Earth (which you should immediatly see the connection to saturn with his aspect of harvests and fertility, reaping what is sown). the polarity of this fact is that while saturn may represent great harvests what comes up must come down and this correlates to famines, death, destruction.

ebb and flow, tidal balance. Market Cycles.

The world is "evil" because it traps you in that illusionary cycle of hollow joy followed by suffering.

Attached: 67136173_358224638408747_6808623380162412544_n.jpg (881x566, 90K)

Well the thing is I'd rather believe in Paul than gnostics just because of the carbon dating alone. Only one text the gnostics had can be dated to 150 AD at the earliest(Thomas). Other texts are around 250-350 AD But I'm sorta precarious with Paul and idk if he is good or bad, because Jesus did warn us about pharasies.

You made no argument. All you made is an appeal to ridicule fallacy.
You're better off eating sausage and drinking beer than arguing about Gnosticism being the NWO religion, jiddisch schweinehund. But you know it is.

Attached: 1550907596366.png (1552x1564, 1006K)

gnosticism is actively hidden from the people by the NWO
NWO worships Yaldabaoth, Jahbulon or whatever they call it, its the exact opposite of the teachings of Christ
you argument is bad

How does the NWO hide Gnosticism? Scholars study Gnosticism all the time.
See the pic I attached. Crowley literally derives all his teachings from Gnosticism. Freemasons love Templars who became Gnostics.
And the "Demiurge" is actually the creator God who Gnostics demonise, but is good.

nice rebuttal retard

Yet he is the prince of it.

your pic just lists occult and satanic shit which has nothing to do with gnosticism, its disinfo
you are fake news not worth my time, just know that spreading lies has consequences for you

>And the "Demiurge" is actually the creator God who Gnostics demonise, but is good.
yes, all the suffering and misery in this world is so good, satanists worship this stuff
you are a jew in your hearth
keep spreading lies and misery, everything comes back at some point. enjoy

No, Crowley's occultism and all of modern western occultism comes from either Neoplatonism or comes from Gnosticism. This is anthropologically proven.

So-called "suffering" and everything bad of the material world comes from man's own sin, it doesn't come from the creator. You have a false dialectic, either life a miserable life where you indulge in material sin, or life a miserable life where you seclude yourself and isolate yourself from the world, all while intentionally guarding the truth.
Either accept the truth, or go join your fellow CIA homos and get out of Germany.

crowley perverted the teachings like a satanists or jews do everytime, its their nature. you are bluepilled af and not fit to talk about such topics

Ok, in a similar vein, Christianity comes from Judaism. This is anthropologically proven. But what does that prove about Judaism? Nothing.

you don't know what your talking about. Crowley received his training from the Golden Dawn. much of Crowley's techniques are just rebranded Golden Dawn techniques given a OW THE EDGE flavour because hes a faggot. The Golden Dawn are a syncretic movement inspired by the myth of surviving Rosicrucians in their day which in turn was inspired by the neo platonic Christian Scholars like Marcello Ficino.

what is the point of attaching this to "the elites" exactly. yes elites are aware of magick and regularly use it to cause catastrophes and effect outcomes as much as they can, this much is obvious. it has no real standing on weather Gnosticism or occultism in general is evil considering the same techniques can be used against them

I dont see how men is responsible for a lion going for the youngest antelope in the herd.
demiurge created the material including nature, and nature is the cruelest mistress out there
your arguments are shit
gnosticism leads to paradise were the lion sleeps next to the lamb and has no desire to harm it

ask jesus to guide you to the light

Attached: 1562358238513.jpg (333x326, 14K)

Doesnt it belong on /x/

Actually the demiurge is behind the masons

In Christianity mankind post Adam has been degraded by cybernetic implants that were never intended to be there in the first place - such as gross physical pleasure, passions, etc. The same goes for the natural world, it has been corrupted. This was done by cooperating with the highest of the Angels...

In a way Adam and Eve were the first trans humans.

Attached: St Maximos.jpg (597x380, 67K)

The thing is if you search out books about this shit its all written by israeli jews

Banned TEDTalk about Psychic Abilities | Russell Targ |
youtube.com/watch?v=hBl0cwyn5GY

Astral Voyages by Bruce Goldberg

Stalking the Wild Pendulum by Itzhak Bentov

>The Jews are the ones telling us that the God of the Torah is bad!

>lucifer = satan

Attached: 1567448506383.png (1200x1500, 96K)

I'm not bluepilled. I take zero pills. Neither the redpill, nor bluepill, nor blackpill, nor whitepill, nor ironpill. Not taking pharma is what stops you from being indoctrinated.
No, because modern Judaism is an entirely different thing, and so were the sects at Christ's time (the Pharisees later becoming the Judaism of today). This isn't like Crowleyism coming from Gnosticism.
Golden Dawn which again comes from Neoplatonism.
I'm saying that Gnosticism is anti-nature, anti-matter, and feminist, and this is why Gnosticism is bad.
You see, this is just how weak man has gotten. Rejecting Eden, paradise for comfort.

Is the material world good? Do you like it? Or is it literally hell?

Thanks for proving how traditional Orthodox theology created modern liberalism and even progressivism at that. The "gnomic will". Man and women being the same until after the fall.
All this stuff that arose from metaphysics.

Attached: maximustheconfessorcommie.png (495x667, 642K)

>Not taking pharma is what stops you from being indoctrinated.
am I being trolled?

Attached: 1563781109126.gif (320x310, 2.36M)

I'm not, I'm simply telling a clever metaphorical truth here. Taking the "redpill" and taking the "bluepill" are both different kinds of evil indoctrination.

>No, because modern Judaism is an entirely different thing
I wasn't talking about modern Judaism. I'm saying being a derivative of something does not disprove the source. Though I would deny that Crowley was related to Gnosticism at all, anyways.

Modern "gnosticism" isn't gnosticism at all.
Mostly just perversion and degeneracy using ancient ideologies they don't understand.

what is the source where Isaac dies?

everything is indoctrination and lies, just as the material is just an illusion meant to misguide you
only you can find the truth by yourself, which is at the core of gnosticism
youre a gnostic but dont even know it, congratulations

There's apparently a story in the Talmud where Isaac was actually sacrificed.
Because well, it's the Talmud.

The original text of Matthew and probably Luke was Aramaic. John was written in Greek around the 80 A.D.
All original texts were edited and revised during the Nicean Council in the IV century A.D.

FACT: Gnostics de-jewed Christianity.
Keep sucking demiurge cock, you fucking hylic nigger

This.
Though Luke likely would've been Greek too since Luke was a Greek or at least a Hellenised Semite. Matthew and Mark would've been in Aramaic.

How about you stop worshipping Hellenistic syncretism started by Alexandrian jews, you kangaroo-fucker?
Also hylics = Gnostic version of "goyim".

Your archonic brainwashing doesn't work on me, somatic

Neither does your indoctrination on me, reprobate.

what is your source on Torah redaction?

also, let me tell you why that is bullshit
1) the story of Abraham is added after the Babylonian exile. Possibly as an extra ethnography or genesis story to go along with the might and staying power and the historicity of the exodus story and law. (There are several other instances in the bible where the Jerusalem authorities slaughter the other priest and religious practicioners on the re-discovery of the Deuteronomy book) You could see how that is therefore contentious by its staying power and its potentially deadly impacts. The priests then re-initiate communicaiton and possibly political subservience to egypt/ pharaoh. I don't know precisely what they do that for but that is their interpretation of Deuterocanonical law being put into practice. (Think about it.)

2) The Talmud is not self consistent. In a way that is far more difficult to qualify then just the number of direct contradictions in terms and laws throughout the bible. The Talmud often more "asks" should one X or Y and why. And is filled with complaints. Statements about the Talmud are like saying "Jow Forums says". Largely this might become a question of who actually said so and why and what is the RATIONALE. Tough cookie that RATIONALE.

Fucking P-Zombie

Gnosticism is heresy, but why is it Kikery?

God experiences himself through layers of understanding. Farthest distance is Sophia. Sophia wants to understand itself and looks everywhere for God, but can not find him.

In her sorrow she inadvertently creates a new universe. This Universe auto generates a new God, but this God knows no one but itself. This Demiurge gives his chosen mastery of the physical world (money, sex, pleasure, power).

Sophia is fucking horrified by her act. God finds Sophia and forgives her, but places himself as the Logos into this false reality.

The Logos helps the creations escape the false world.

Gnosticism in a nut shell. This worlds fake, the spiritual world is real, evil forces try to contain us here, the Logos/Savior reaches down to try and save us.

Attached: 1568386484515.jpg (801x1024, 181K)

So.. you're saying YHVH, the god of jews is THE GOD, the good creator?

>muh YHVH is jew god

Attached: 1563120363714.jpg (800x731, 149K)

how exactly is it heresy then?

Ok, I will correct my statement.
YHVH, the god of the OT jews