/lit/ - Literature

just read Nag Hammadi bro

fuk u demiurge

>>14192628
fuk u demiurge

Gnosticism is based. Old testament god goes around raping and pillaging and telling moses to keep sex slaves. Such a cope when Christians try and reconcile him with Based Jesus

>>14192628
Pistis Sophia

>>14192628

The Canonical Gospels are actually very "Gnostic".

Just pull it out your ass, like all gnostics do

>>14192628
Your article is garbage

fuk u demiurge

i have nothing for you sorry

>>14192628
Nag Hammadi, not much else. I can recommend some secondary sources too, if you would like.

>>14192628
fuk u demiurge

From a comparison angle, you can cite Vedanta and Taoist texts on the transience and impermanence of manifestation.

>>14192628
The god delusion by Richard Dawkins

>>14193162
Gnosticism says god is evil though, nice try.

>>14193170
Sethian psy-op boogeyman
Demiurge is ignorant, prideful, and flawed, but not inherently evil.

>>14193023
>>>/r/christianity
you have to go back

>>14193222
Marcionism also said it though, but I agree is not universal that they all view the demiurge as evil.

>>14192628
The three main gnostic texts are the Gospel of Thomas, the Gospel of Judas and the Secret Book of James. Reading those should have you covered pretty well. St. Iranaeus' tract Against Heresies is a critique of gnosticism also well worth reading. Avoid Elaine Pagels since she is a gnostic herself and romanticises what is really a poisonous doctrine. It is probably also worth looking into the Church's cautions regarding the 'sin of curiosity'.

Did Gnostics accept parts of the Bible in addition to their own texts? Or did they reject the Bible altogether?

>>14193320
>Elaine Pagels
I've read her and it's literally 'le evin much soggy knee' in le patriarchal church. Women should be banned from academia.

>>14193379
Discussing religion in an academic context should be banned, period.

>>14192644
t. baby blood orgy degenerate

>>14193401
Pseud post

>>14193343
From what I've heard, most of the new testament and the canon gospels were accepted and read by Gnostics

What is Gnosticism, what isn't Gnosticism, is the dichotomy between Orthodoxy and Gnosticism made up? The Gospels of Thomas is fairly recent since it was discovered, I personally find many of the sayings truthful as a Christian

>>14193745
Explain

>>14192628
Gospel of Thomas, of course, but no one studying gnosticism can forgo a reading of the Gospel of John from a gnostic perspective. Then you'll want to read more Nag Hammadi, go with the Gospel of Philip, Hypostasis of the Archons, the several apocalypses, the Gospel of Truth, etc. All that is negotiable but John and Thomas absolutely must be your starting points.

Yikes. Gnosticism is heresy.

>>14194247
Gospel of Thomas would be canonized if I had my way (as a Christian). Both Thomas and John are esoteric but not strictly speaking Gnostic; they simply serve as the scriptural jumping-off point for that heresy.

>>14193401
Why do you fear it?

>>14194261
>a reading of the Gospel of John from a gnostic perspective
Can you elaborate on this?

>>14194571
Various portions are amenable to a gnostic interpretation. "That which is born of flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the spirit is spirit" suggests the absolute divide between the carnal and the spiritual. "And ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free" of course suggests gnosis as the enlightenment that frees one from one's flesh-prison. "I have overcome the world," i.e. material existence. "And this is life eternal, that they might know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom thou hast sent" again proves that salvation is in a particular godly knowledge or gnosis. Many also read the description of the Logos in the first chapter in a gnostic lens.
Of course, the Resurrection is a strong repudiation of Gnostic ideals. The Gospel of John is not Gnostic, but you must understand that these are the sorts of passages to which the Gnostics had access and used to shape their worldview.

From Wikipedia for your convenience:
>In the first half of the 20th century, many scholars, primarily including Rudolph Bultmann, have forcefully argued that the Gospel of John has elements in common with Gnosticism.[35] Christian Gnosticism did not fully develop until the mid-2nd century, and so 2nd-century Proto-Orthodox Christians concentrated much effort in examining and refuting it....Bultmann, for example, argued that the opening theme of the Gospel of John, the pre-existing Logos, along with John's duality of light versus darkness in his Gospel were originally Gnostic themes that John adopted. Other scholars, e.g. Raymond E. Brown have argued that the pre-existing Logos theme arises from the more ancient Jewish writings in the eighth chapter of the Book of Proverbs, and was fully developed as a theme in Hellenistic Judaism by Philo Judaeus.[40] The discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls at Qumran verified the Jewish nature of these concepts.[41] April DeConick has suggested reading John 8:56 in support of a Gnostic theology,[42] however recent scholarship has cast doubt on her reading.[43]
>Gnostics read John but interpreted it differently from the way non-Gnostics did.[44] Gnosticism taught that salvation came from gnosis, secret knowledge, and Gnostics did not see Jesus as a savior but a revealer of knowledge.[45] Barnabas Lindars asserts that the gospel teaches that salvation can only be achieved through revealed wisdom, specifically belief in (literally belief into) Jesus.[46]
>Raymond Brown contends that "The Johannine picture of a savior who came from an alien world above, who said that neither he nor those who accepted him were of this world,[47] and who promised to return to take them to a heavenly dwelling[48] could be fitted into the gnostic world picture (even if God's love for the world in 3:16 could not)."[49] It has been suggested that similarities between John's gospel and Gnosticism may spring from common roots in Jewish Apocalyptic literature.[50]

>>14192628
isn't gnosticism a bridge between apostate christianity and luciferianism? i see threads shilling gnosticism everywhere on chan these days

>>14194809
Gnosticism is neo age spirituality for pseuds

>>14194283
As a modern institution, academia is intrinsically secular. Studying religion under a critical lens only yield deconstructive analyses and sociopolitical critiques which add nothing positive to the discussion. Even scholars who take a syncretist approach tend to downplay a religion's more questionable characteristics, which tend to lead to conflict with other religions, for a disingenuous and hamfisted "all religions are one" message. Not to mention the professors who call themselves "experts" of a religion(s), despite the fact they are not followers and practitioners of that religion.

Hey I made that meme when I was like 15

>>14192628
For a long time, the main sources in the west for Gnostic thought were
1) Against Heresies (a tractate against Gnosticism)
2) Pistis Sophia (a long form Gnostic text about secret teachings Jesus supposedly have his apostles between his resurrection and his ascension)
The discovery of the nag hammadi library was a huge breakthrough in understanding Gnosticism. The gospel of Thomas is the most famous, but that’s mainly because it’s similar to the proposed Q source (a hypothetical gospel scholars said would have existed before Mark, and was used by the writers of Matthew and Luke). I wouldn’t rely on Thomas alone, I’d suggest you read the larger works of cosmology
It may be best to just get a physical copy and skim it

>>14192628
fuk u demiurge

>>14192628
The Gospel of John is a Gnostic Gospel disguised as a Canonical Gospel. And St Paul is a Gnostic Apostle disguised as an Orthodox Apostle.
(2 Corinthians 4:4)
"The god of this world has blinded the minds of unbelievers, so that they cannot see the light of the gospel that displays the glory of Christ, who is the image of God."


Some Good examples of Gnosticism in Johns Gospel are:
John 6:32-33
John 7:7
John 8:19
John 8:21-23
John 8:43-44
John 10:7-8


Also read the Gospel of Thomas, anything in the Nag Hammadi Library, and the book "Pistis Sophia" (Pistis sophia is a Gnostic Gospel that was found independently from Nag Hammadi)
The Dead Sea Scrolls are also a Good example of "Proto-Gnosticism" within Judaism


- Fuk u Demiurge

>>14193222
Finally someone else gets it. Ive been screaming this at the Neoplatonists every time they hate on Gnosticism with >Le sad demiurge

>>14192628

against heresies by ireneaus

pistis sophia

the nag hammadi codex

the gnostic gospels + the gnostic paul by elaine pagels

Here is a good website for anyone interested in Gnosticism, you can access pretty much every Gnostic text for free

http://gnosis.org/welcome.html

fuk u demiurge

>>14193284
Marcionites weren't really Gnostics. They were just liberal Christians who invented their own Orthodoxy and didnt like the God of The Old Testament doing bad things

They didnt claim to have any "secret teachings" or tell people to search for a hidden knowledge, or escape from the cycle of reincarnation in the physical world.

Everyone only calls them Gnostics because of the Sethian psyop Boogeyman

>>14194264

Catholic church is heresy it should have been abolished by right of conquest after the arian christian goths conquered and administred rome and ravenna

>>14194264
Cringe

>>14195807
Based

>>14193343
There are some parts such as the Gospel of John that are placed above the other gospels. Paul is also highly revered as a figure who achieved gnosis - how much they investigate the authorship of the pauline letters i do not know though.

>>14194917
Explain to me how something like New Age Religion and Western Culture by Wouter J. Hanegraaff fails on any of these accounts

>>14195857
Paul was so Gnostic that the Orthodoxytards have to twist themselves into a pretzel trying to interpret some of the verses in his letters. He also opposed St Peters teachings, the Gnostics considered Peter to be one of the disciples who didn't fully grasp the teachings of Jesus

(2 Corinthians 4:4)
"The god of this world has blinded the minds of unbelievers, so that they cannot see the light of the gospel that displays the glory of Christ, who is the image of God."


Christians have to interpret this verse as "Satan" being the "God" of the world, but not its creator..

>>14195896
Paul is gnostic af. He even mentions the pleroma and the archons right in the fucking “canonical” epistles. Christians are aware of that so they translate these words into fullness and rulers to escape the inevitable association with Gnosticism if they transliterated instead.

>>14195896

Peter was such a soullet

>>14195990
I've heard some people theorise that Simon Magus was actually Saul of Tarsus, and the Gnostic teachings of Simon Magus that were mostly "lost" actually still exist in the epistles of Paul...

>>14195990
>>14196023
>B-b-but it m-means something different when we r-r-real Christians say it
seethingchristian.jpg

>>14195896
this is why dualism is the only tenable position. everything else is a contrivance, and a thousand years of wet fart Christian theodicies only proves me right. even if you accept the free will argument, Christians can't account for predation in nature in a satisfactory way

>>14196062
I like Dualism, but don't they both emanate from the Oneness/Monad anyway?

>>14196075
the monad is only the unitive principle of good and evil. that in virtue of which they posit themselves as themselves. their property of being absolutized

>>14196062
>Actually thinking the problem of evil is worth taking seriously
Theodicy is just pointless speculation. God does what He wills.

>>14196103
The Architect does what he wants, our goal is to escape from the Samsara

>>14196103
>calls himself a Christian
>petulantly dismissive of the problem of evil
>actually defends divine caprice

Every time.

>>14196114
No argument, huh?

>>14196103
If God was perfect though, He could have made perfect humans. The fact that Humans are imperfect, and capable of evil, means god must also be imperfect, as we are made in the image of him.

I dont buy the Sethian Psyop though, I can still be optimistic >>14193222

>>14196127
The fact that God is perfect means that humans cannot be perfect. Otherwise, something else would be comparable to God, which is impossible. Read Plotinus.

>>14196122

Uh, where's yours?

>>14196131
o shit the Neoplatonists found our thread

(Psalm 82:6)
"I said, 'You are "gods"; you are all sons of the Most High.'

>>14196131
Humans are perfectly adapted/designed to rule over earth, in the same way that the Demiurge is perfectly adapted to rule over the physical world, neither us nor the Demiurge are "perfect" though

>>14196146
>humans are meant to rule the world

Demiurgic claptrap.

As an anti-gnostic/sethian The Hymn of the Pearl is nice.

>>14196135
>God does what He wills.
Explain why you have any right to question God about what he does. Read Romans 9.

>>14196137
Cope. And Mormon-tier interpretation of scripture.
>I say, "You are gods,
>children of the Most High, all of you;
>nevertheless, you shall die like mortals,
>and fall like any prince."

>>14192628
Also this goes very unnoticed in Gnostic circles, but the whole book of the Proverbs of Solomon have VERY Proto-Gnostic themes in them.

(Proverb 8:22)
"The LORD brought me forth as the first of his works, before his deeds of old;

(The subject of this proverb is personified Wisdom, ie Sophia)

>>14196157
"Humans are Mortal Gods, Gods are Immortal Humans"
- Hermes Trismegistus

also
>Letter to the Romans

see >>14195896
>>14195990


>>14196151
I never said they are MEANT to, just that the Demiurge designed them to... over the Earth

>>14196159
read Wisdom of Solomon.

>>14196166
I have Got it in my collection, i think I had read it ages ago but I will read it again. Solomon was a legit Gnostic

Read Timaues jesus christ

>>14196190
It's a Good Book, most Gnostics should like it, with the exception of the Sethian Emos

>>14196165
>"Humans are Mortal Gods, Gods are Immortal Humans"
Unscriptural platitude.

>>14195896
>He also opposed St Peters teachings
Paul is never mentioned as opposing Peter, only a "Cephas" who could have been anyone else.

>Christians have to interpret this verse as "Satan" being the "God" of the world, but not its creator..
Because
>All things came into being through him, and without him not one thing came into being.

>>14195990
Completely different context.

>>14196205
>Implying Cephas isn't Peter

Orthodoxytards are reaching max cope levels

>>14196205
>All things came into being through him, and without him not one thing came into being.

Yes, Gnostics still agree with this verse at the Beginning of John.

I know the Gnostic Metaphysics is difficult to Grasp, but once you read Plato it becomes clearer.

I will try my best to explain it here, but my knowledge isn't perfect

The Demiurge based the whole Physical world, off of the Divine Pleroma/Logos (Thats the realm of Archetypes in Platos Philosophy)

Jesus is the Manifestation of the Logos, that was used to design the whole physical world by the Demiurge

Also see: >>14195163

>>14196212
>When Paul mentions Cephas, he apparently does not mean Simon Peter, the disciple of Jesus.
https://sci-hub.se/https://www.jstor.org/stable/3267052

>>14196236
Of course not, that would cause huge problems for the church.

Just like Paul discussing the Pleroma and the Archons would be, or Paul saying that the God of the world has blinded people from believing in Jesus would be.

Scripture can be interpreted literally however you want

>>14196279
cope

>>14196285
No u

>>14196205
Tell me why Paul says that Satan is the literal God of the world.

When in the Old Testament God says "I am a Jealous God and there is NO God beside me"

>>14196236
>Bart D Ehrman
lol ok

The Dead Sea Scrolls were written by Hermetic/Gnostic Jews, they are a from of Proto-Gnosticism and have very similar themes to those in the Nag Hammadi Library

(Wars between the Sons of Light vs Sons of Darkness etc.)

>>14192628
Moby-Dick.

>>14194749
>Of course, the Resurrection is a strong repudiation of Gnostic ideals.

How so?

>>14196953
physical reincarnation is the worst thing that could happen to a gnostic. you are supposed to experience gnosis and your soul return to the plemora of the godhead not be reincarnated within your erring body.

>>14192628
fuk u sophia
I can't hate le Demiurge. It isn't his fault he's retarded. If a pregnant mother drinks and does drugs and her baby comes out retarded, you don't blame the baby. You blame the fuckup mother who should have know better.

>>14197260
valentian gnosticism suggests you shouldn't hate the demiurge anyway

>>14197253

I think he resurrects, then returns, because he wants to. Abduction to Pleroma being just tyrannical as reincarnation, and simply leaving the world being just as yielding to the world as staying. Resolving paradoxes, "overcoming the world", and so on and so forth.

>>14197352
I think from the perspective of Jesus he has arrived brought the goodnews issued the secret teachings he has no need to stay on earth anymore and as he was a guide in life he is now a guide in the physical death that leads the return to the pleorma where he awaits us to follow.

>>14193343
The Bible is literally the only Gnostic text, Gnosticism did not exist outside of Christianity.

>>14196953
Ignore the other guy. The Resurrection and the Incarnation more generally are God condescending to inhabit mortal flesh, thereby redeeming the same. In other words, the material, fleshly world is not evil as Gnostics claim, since Christ partook of the same nature.

>>14197260
>insulting Sophia
Never gonna make it pal.

>>14197652
>The Resurrection and the Incarnation more generally are God condescending to inhabit mortal flesh
this is not what most/any gnostics believe

>>14197692
That’s my point. Gnostics have to go all revisionist history on the Incarnation/Resurrection since the plain interpretation of these events would debunk their “matter is le evil” thing.

>>14194264
anything that accepts the Trinity is the real heresy desu

>>14197432
>What is Hermeticism
>What is Platonism/Pythagoreanism/Orphism/Neoplatonism

>>14196205
>Unscriptural platitude.
>Muh Church Canon

Shut the fuck up Soullet

(Gospel of Thomas, saying 3)
Jesus said, "If those who lead you say to you, 'See, the kingdom is in the sky,' then the birds of the sky will precede you. If they say to you, 'It is in the sea,' then the fish will precede you. Rather, the kingdom is inside of you, and it is outside of you. When you come to know yourselves, then you will become known, and you will realize that it is you who are the sons of the living father. But if you will not know yourselves, you dwell in poverty and it is you who are that poverty."

>>14195896
>"The god of this world has blinded the minds of unbelievers,
>so that they cannot see the light of the gospel that displays the glory of Christ, who is the image of God."
????????

>>14196127
>If God was perfect though, He could have made perfect humans. The fact that Humans are imperfect, and capable of evil, means god must also be imperfect, as we are made in the image of him.
Retarded Gnostic. Where are our Lion heads and snake tails?

>>14199837
?????
Unbelievers exist because Yaldabaoth doesn't want them to believe in Jesus and be saved?


>>14199850
Cringe, the physical description of the Demiurge is obviously an allegory.

But it still dosen't answer why The God of Israel, couldn't create perfect humans, since humans were made in his image, and he is supposed to be perfect

>>14199910
>The god of this world has blinded the minds of unbelievers, ...Christ, who is the image of God."

>>14199910
>I-It's an allegory
Every time

>>14199928
>There are no Allegories in religious texts

>>14199950
Sethian Psyop Boogeyman


>>14199955
In Gnosticisim its better to say that humans were based off of the Divine Logos. Everything Yaldabaoth creates is based on the Archetypes in the Pleroma, Jesus was the manifestation of the Archetypal man.
Humans were made in the image of the Logos BY Yaldabaoth

>>14199920
Not the same God. Yaldabaoth vs the Monad.
Yaldabaoth still creates everything through the Logos, he just thinks his ideas are his own

>>14199978
I'm not suffering though

>>14200023
*Blocks your path*

>>14200023
>I live in a first world country and experience minimal suffering and am therefore oblivious to everyone else suffering in the world

>>14200075
>>14200085
How do gnostics practice selflessness?

Modern Gnostics are just larpers. They combine the different streams of Gnosticism and it makes no sense

>>14197260
honestly, most of what he's allegedly done I probably would've done but worse

>>14200106
By having literally no attachment to the physical world & Physical posessions

>>14200112
And Orthodox Christards aren't Larpers? lol okay

>>14199978
oof, saved.

>>14200112
>Gnostic metaphysics makes no sense to me because I am a brainlet

>>14200125
>>14200138
In this thread you have people combined Sethian teachings with Valentinian teachings. Combining them makes no sense. You Gnostics just want the excitement of being part of a mystery cult

>>14199910
If the Monad is infinite and perfect why would anything it produces be lesser than it? In what sense can there even be anything other than the Monad if it is boundless?

>>14200152
Uhh Most people in this thread oppose Sethianism (So do most modern Gnostics).

Valentinians still cut all attachment to the physical world and consider the Demiurge to be an "Imperfect" being, they just don't believe he is "Evil".
The Demiurge, to Valentinians, is a tool or a force of nature that creates the physical world based off of the Pleroma.

Sethian texts still have good content in them, in regards to the cosmological heirachy of Yaldabaoth and his Archons, but they generally represent an exaggerated version of Gnosticism.

>>14200212
>the demiurge just wants a hug bro
>it's all good bro

>>14200157
Panentheism.

>>14200235
What is that supposed to be?

>being so metaphysically retarded you need to blame the fallings of man and flesh on an imperfect entity that the True Source simply allows to do whatever it wants
Childhood is thinking gnostics were right
Adulthood is the benediction of the Albigensian Crusade.

>>14200235
He is what he is

>>14200246
Tell me why Humans are not perfect, if they were made in the image of a God who is perfect.

>>14200255
Freewill to not be the reflection of God we can be.

>>14200246
>don't fuck
>church tries to kill you for it

>>14200245
A skinned seal. I post it when nerds who have never even been in a fight start making excuses for absolute evil

>>14200267
They supported sodomy over normal sex.
And what really got the King and Pope's panties in the knot was that Cathar didn't believe in paying taxes or written contracts. Both of which were the entire basis for medieval states.

>>14200246
>Christians think imputing evil to an omnibenevolent God of love makes more sense
>implying God doesn't just let the Prince of Darkness do whatever he wants
>implying Satan's dominion over this world isn't basically crypto-gnosticism

Ironically, it's the gnostics who preserve God's goodness

>>14200288
>hurr durr the gnostics had satanic child sex orgies

Its the stupidest Anti-gnostic propaganda the church has ever come up with. Alot of Gnostics (especially Sethians) were volcels anyway and saw sex as a way of becoming attatched to the physical world and thought it was immoral to trap a divine spark in a physical body

>>14200305
>believing satan has any power
Papists and Papist subgroups are just as bad as Gnostics.
>>14200311
I never said anything about satanic sex orgies don't bring strawmans here. I was talking about general sex you can't just tell peasants "ya stop fucking your wife lol" so they came up with a solution to there "it's ebil to bring children into this world" doctrine.

>>14200334
The early church did make those claims, however

>>14200334
>Thinking satan has no power

Bro,
2 Corinthians 4:4 btfos Orthodoxytards every time

The god of this world has blinded the minds of unbelievers, so that they cannot see the light of the gospel that displays the glory of Christ, who is the image of God

>>14200288
oh, a money thing
lmao

>>14200347
>2 Corinthians 4:4 btfos Orthodoxytards every time
How that has literally nothing to do with what we're talking about.

>>14200385
I'm retart I looked at Corinthians 1. And the greek says "age" not world so I'm going for a much different meaning than you or any papist takes.

>>14200263
But what "God wants people to be" apparently changes over time.

If the completely perfect and true God (ie. Jesus, according to the Orthodox) gave the Laws to Moses. Why did Jesus then have to come and "Perfect" them?

Why did Jesus abolish "An eye for an eye" and abolish divorce, and not establish the kingdom of heaven on earth like the Old Testament said he would?
Instead Jesus's Kingdom "was not of this world", because it was of the Pleroma...

>>14200461
>B-b-but the KJV translation is the direct word of God

>>14200486
Because Religious is tailored for the people it's given to. What's needed at one time is back stepping in another.
Illiterate desert tribals needed Mose's law and then it needed to be updated as humanity as a whole had progressed from that stage.

>>14200494
KJV doesn't get it completely right either they messed up all kinds of translations my favorite being the "my father's house has many rooms" passage being much different in Greek.

>>14200506
Yes, I too agree with Perennialist Philosophy

>>14200506
Too bad that means that Christianity isn't the one true world religion, its only true for the Europeans it was Given too, and it wasn't even given to the Europeans it was supposed to be for the Israelites, who were followers of the Law of Moses

>>14200552
I never said it was the one true world religion. Good god all I get is strawmans here why do I keep coming back? And it was meant for the Israelis and Europe as a whole but the jews didn't want it they wanted their death messiah to come kill Romans.

>>14200574
Oh, I assumed you were an Orthodox Christian

>>14200506
Are you implying there's an original message beyond the "tailorization"

>>14201602
Renunciation of the Physical world/possessions seems to be the one big thing that all religions have in common.

And the Golden Rule of course

>>14201679
>Renunciation of the Physical world/possessions
I dont know if Judaism follow this
>the Golden Rule of course
Is killing in self defense part of the golden rule?

>>14201727
Renunciation of the physical world exists in Judaism although to a much lesser extent than what it is in Christianity and Islam.
Its likely that certain parts of Judaism were slightly altered by Rabbis because they didnt like the laws god gave them. Thats why there was so much of an emphasis on it by Jesus.


>Is killing in self defense part of the golden rule?
It can be I guess? Religions like Jainism and Buddhism would discourage it, but the Abrahamic religions consider it okay.

I never said all religions interpret it in the same way, and the people that follow said religions may not even follow them properly. Just that the same concepts are pretty universal across religions

>>14192836
>no replies

Utterly hopeless.

>>14196037
Christians are such farcical liars, they look like children caught with cookie crumbs in their face and hands and lying to their parents that they didn’t eat the cookies, but using sophistical word games like “in my religion cookie means broccoli so I actually didn’t eat the cookie”. Lol

>>14202342
there have been heaps of posts in this thread about Gnosticism in the Canonical Gospels. Though mostly in the Gospel of John, and the Epistles of Paul

>>14195163
>>14195896
>>14195990

>>14202463
kek. it's no coincidence Christian theodicies are the most unsatisfying on the planet.

>>14192628
Nobody's mentioned the most Based Gnostic Gospel that wasn't in the Nag Hammadi Library.

Christians on this thread, why would Jesus pick Judas to be his disciple? when he knew Judas would betray him.

Don't say
>He needed to get betrayed to fulfil what is written in the Psalms
Because that means that Judas literally did nothing wrong, and Jesus wanted to get betrayed right from the beginning.

>>14200288
>They supported sodomy over normal sex.
Not true.

>>14202680
>Because that means that Judas literally did nothing wrong, and Jesus wanted to get betrayed right from the beginning.
How can gnostics be this cringe while pretending to be so philosophically-sophisticated? Read some reformed theology dude.

>>14199559
>Hermeticism
>Neoplatonism
>Gnostic
This is why people laugh at Gnosticism.

>>14202680
I think that is right though. If the texts are to be taken as true, then Jesus knew Judas would betray him. Historical revulsion for Judas seems like a natural human reaction to something humans can't quite understand (that Judas did nothing wrong).