ADN

I copy / pasted a part of this apocryphon in this other thread, but it is only a fraction of the complete text.

ever since reading John's Apocryphon I have been wondering what it exactly means, who wrote it, where some of the knowledge described in it comes from.

for example:
QUOTE...

\"The first one began to create the head. Eteraphaope-Abron created his head; Meniggesstroeth created the brain; Asterechme (created) the right eye; Thaspomocha, the left eye; Yeronumos, the right ear; Bissoum, the left ear; Akioreim, the nose; Banen-Ephroum, the lips; Amen, the teeth; Ibikan, the molars; Basiliademe, the tonsils; Achcha, the uvula; Adaban, the neck; Chaaman, the vertebrae; Dearcho, the throat; Tebar, the right shoulder; [...], the left shoulder; Mniarcon, the right elbow; [...], the left elbow; Abitrion, the right underarm; Evanthen, the left underarm; Krys, the right hand; Beluai, the left hand; Treneu, the fingers of the right hand;  

...

this list goes on and is amazingly detailed at times.

I also wonder now how much of this text is non-translatable. raum has demonstrated that linguistical etymology frequently is needed to get the complete picture... so how much can we understand really?!



my understanding so far is that
1. yes, there is a God (sounds funny putting it like that lol), but he is assisted by a multitude of other powerful entities (aeons and / or archons).
2. Ruling supreme is "the Spirit" ("tao" if you will)
3. all was good until the Sophia of the Epinoia conceived a thought of herself and ended up creating an archon Yaltaboath (or Saklas or Samael).
4. Yaltaboath removed himself from Sophia, declared himself the chief archon and ended up creating 12 other authorities (seven for the heavens, 5 for the abyss).
5. He declared to the others "I am a jealous god and there is no god besides me". This sounds familiar. Isn't this mentioned in the bible as well as coming from the God we are supposed to worship?
6. He created - together with the authorities - man.

Hence... man is created evil. :shock:


hmmm... "John's Apocryphon". I am wondering why it is not part of the bible...

Excellent post Brains...This should be good, let me pull up a chair...I have not been to gnosis in a long time, and will definitely head there to read the piece you speak of now...

the Gnostic approach to man's origns are often mistranslated, but even more often, their message is MISUNDERSTOOD for this reason. I say this as a Gnostic, with a valid ordination of Ecclesia Catholica; or Universal Spirit.

it is not to say that man is created evil, in that man should be ashamed of it,..

but that what man defines as evil is in fact inherent in his very origins, and thus he should re-evaluate the aversion he attempts to foster towards it, if he wishes to understand the entirety of his being, and his cosmic progenitor.

These borrow heavily from the Chaldean oracles, by the way, and certainly indicate some direct influence, with a heavy contribution from the essene teachings. The Chaldean oracles are of heavy influence by the stories of the pre Dynastic "The August Ones" (San Huang) of proto-chinese legends. These form a level of intricacy that defies simple stories of reproduction, and strike to the very heart of all Judeo Christian mysticism, sufi and esoteric messianic philosophy.

But this should not be suprising; all of gnosticism comes from peoples of Proto-China speaking a root for the Indo european and proto-hebraic languages who dwelled in the Tamrin basin (near what would later be the Asian limits of Alexander the Great's reign), and they spoke Indo european languages until about 8 A.D. Their language roots are essential to learning any language, and where they all come from, and the inherent eschatology of those roots indicate the likelyhood of them being a lingusitic key to understanding hoe the brain actually processes sound into thought, and vice versa. As early as 2,500 BC, they were developing the ideas that govern the three most powerful religions in the world. They literally marched directly down the Silk road and intergrated their teachings into the fledgling Gnostic groups to escape the madates which forbid their religion and lifestyles as their kingdoms were conquered, they grew stronger. This is exactly correlated to why Shang is condemned to be the physical sun (The Yellow Emperor); the heresy of man's creation...and the source of divine providence. This is the origin of man's creator being condemed for creation of man. Shang was sentenced by Pan Ku because he released the Chi into the limbs and billows of man. Pan Ku is the uncreated who creates nothing, who is the primordial EVERYTHING before anything ever was. His name is root of Pan, the greek word for All, and the root of the eluesian mysteries. Chi is the word for "Life", the root being a glottal exasperation, or "hard Ch."

Pan Ku despises and punishes Shang (also spelled Xiang) because he created not just a man, but he stole part of Pan Ku's bride, Nu Wa (Infinite Space), who is clothed with the stars, to fashion a counterpart for his creation. He steals the body of Nu Wa and fashions it to the dreams of his man, who he made with mud, and woman is created. Nu Wa is left intangible, but omnipresent. This causes lust to drive Pan Ku mad, and he becomes Chaos.

The name shaddai el chai, the name Abraham gives his god in the Torah, is linguistically "shao tai erh Chi," a name for Shang (the sun) meaning "Mighty Supreme Origin of Life" compare to "Shaddai El Chai", which means "Almighty Living God", and the origin is clear that even Judiasm's roots in proto-hebraic sense are rooted in these esoteric teachings, and both are indications of the sun as a symbol of human virility.

compare this to teachings in Gnosticism of the phosphoros and the agathodaemon.

wow raum. you are going too fast buddy. take it easy. not all of us are into languages or into eastern philosophy as much as you are. /wink.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=";)" border="0" alt="wink.gif" />

i wondered where this text came from. you did touch its origins i suppose but skipped a few vital steps methinks.

let me rephrase: how come I - being educated a rome catholic one - came accross this text, which almost made it to the canon. even more intriguing: how come it didn't make it? how come Islam (or Judaism) is not referring to it with Islam having the same roots than Roman Catholicism?

oh, you mean the text, not the content.

Basically, this book was accepted until it was refused and directly pronounced heretical by one of the Father saints of early Christiandom, Irenaeus. It was he who established the basis of the 4 canonical Gospels, no more and no less, expressing 1 unified god. It was he who taught man was not quite ready when he was put in the world, and will be perfected after the second coming. Ireneus also claimed a discipleship to John the Evangelist (Paul's John, not The John of Revelations or Jesus's John - though sometime he indicates Jesus's John and the John of Pauls are one in the same... which may be the reason for that common error). His claim of that authority was through his mentor known as Polycarp. He felt this "apostolic lineage through Polycarp gave him credence, and this Philosophy is still a major tenet of the church; though in truth it predates even the Essenes, where Jeshua learned it.

His book on Gnositicsm was considered definitive, until the papyrii Nag Hammadhi were discovered in the mid 40's. oops.

Many modern scholars consider this one evidence that proves this one man's teachings about the early Christians to be inaccurate and deliberately designed to spread th authority of the church...and this one man's teachings at the core of the church stand to prove the whole thing an invention of man shrouded in contrived history. Thus, began the death of the lie that is modern Christianity, with this first collapse of integrity.

More ancient Christians had a copy of the Apocryphon than the Pauline Gospels canonized by *Saint* Irenaeus. We know this. There have been at least four manuscript copies found. One thing they all hold true is a long quote on the diversity of God, as seperate functions, if not beings. This completely supports the rabbinical teachings and the philosophy of the essenes. Their Pantheism is what made them opponents to the corrupt monotheism that was prevalent.

He is regarded as a martyr, but no one knows much other than he was killed with a would in the side (how delightfully Christian is this legend!!) His martyrdom is likely completely contrived. It is for this reason it is said by the Gnostic Christians "The wound gored in the side of Irenaeus is inflicted with the Sword of Truth, and not the spear of Longinus."

as for islam's refusal... It shows a diversity of God they consider heretical, and was of significance to Jesu, whom they simply consider a prophet of another people.

At one time, back in the days of good old drinking and debating islam, it was likely a very hot item. but now, not so.