Podcast: Play in new window | Download (Duration: 31:59 — 43.9MB)
For regular Gnostics Insights, subscribe here. Apple Podcasts | Amazon Music | TuneIn | Deezer | RSS
Welcome back to Gnostic Insights and to the Gnostic Reformation on Substack. We’re continuing this week with part three of my long interview with Bishop Nathan Wilson of the Gnostic Union. We don’t usually talk about this sort of thing here at Gnostic Insights, and so this is a special treat for those of you who like this sort of thing. This week we’re going to hear Brother Nathan speaking about why he chose the words he decided to use in his translation of the New Testament and the Gnostic Gospels.
He calls his translation The Gnostic Christian Truth Bible, and that’s because it includes the original Gnostic words that were chosen and were used by the writers of the Gospels that have been changed and Latinized and Anglicized and don’t have the same Gnostic meanings as the actual original writers used.
So in the old days, in the beginning, the Christian religion was much more Gnostic. There were many sects of practicing Gnostics who were Christians and accepted as Christians. Now they were all taken away, and they were all wiped out during that Nicene Council phase in the 300’s when the Catholic Church took over the preaching of the Gospel, and they got rid of the competition, i.e. the Gnostics and others. So what Brother Nathan has done is plugged back in those original Gnostic words, and we’re going to hear many of these familiar passages now with the original Gnostic translations, the original Koine Greek in them, and see if those subtle differences make a difference in what the Gospels say and mean. So here’s Brother Nathan.
Cyd:
You know, in the Tripartite Tractate, it is unique in that the Aeon who fell is not Sophia, but Logos. And so, because that is the book that I resonate to, I’m always talking about Logos. And it seems to me, Bishop, this is a question for you—I’ve always thought that making the Aeon who fell a female character is just another way of demonizing, in the bad sense of the word, of maligning women. To say that the Aeon who fell had this, you know, illegitimate child, and here we have the fallen world. This doesn’t seem right to me. What do you think of that? So I prefer Logos because it’s just a neutral Logos.
Bishop Nathan Wilson:
Well, I think some of it was to rip on to women as well, but I think a lot of it comes from a misunderstanding of Simon Magus and then also with some with the Logos in a sense, I don’t mind it, but I’ll see that as another Gnostic interpretation. I go back to the original idea and I reckon this is where the misidentification of the full and feminine comes from, and it’s from Simon Magus’ work of the Great Declaration. We don’t have the original, we only have the quotations by the Church Fathers.
So that’s the only text we know for 100% that was written by someone who actually knew the disciples and was baptized by them. We don’t have any other text we can guarantee that for a fact. So the Catholics wanted to burn that before, well, they made sure to whinge about it before burning it. So it’s lucky they whinged about it, otherwise we wouldn’t have access to it at all. And it mentions about the feminine falling in a sense, but not what people think it is. It meaning that feminine aspect is the qualities of life basically. So meaning that this life we see now is a fallen state.
So what that really is meaning is that the feminine aspect of God is the birthing of creation and it’s the creation of that birth that has fallen. So that’s very different and that’s the first thought, so the very first form comes from the female. So that’s the first physical form coming from the feminine mind of God basically. So it’s not that God’s fallen or any part of divine or divinity is falling, but rather how we live in this material world that’s fallen. So we’ve strayed from our divine purpose basically is what Simon is stating. So he states that there’s the mental mind of the universe. So what he’s talking about is also the Father being basically the seed, the forethought of all things and the Mother is the feminine power of the creation. So what births, what you can touch and see, experience around you, while the Father is the spirit what you can’t see.
So it’s very interesting. So you have a God beyond sex. So that’s what Simon is describing and he also believed in a demiurge, but he believed it was Yahweh. He believed that Yahweh was the leader of the fallen angels, but he believed that he was the creator of this material world and that the spiritual Father created the spiritual world.
But I think he [Simon Magus] misunderstood the disciples and Jesus as well. I think he carried on his own teaching. He was still accepted by the disciples, but I think he was slightly confused. When I was looking at the text, I don’t think Jesus believed that this world was created by the devil, but rather the devil ruled it—so what corrupted this world, so what led it away from God. So rather what he’s [Jesus] speaking about is heaven within and returning to God. So that meaning of repentance is to change your mind, change the inner human, change within and return to God. So that’s all what it obviously all really means. So he’s speaking about heaven within, finding God within and returning to God and that the archon of this world is falling.
And I’ll read that as well from some of the text as well. So we can go into some of those. I was going to let you choose what you’d like me to choose from first. I can also go into the original gospel of John, so I can go into the feminine aspect there.
Cyd:
That’s very good. Yeah. Whatever you’d like to share. This is great.
Bishop Nathan Wilson:
Okay. And then after that, I’ll mention about the archon of the world and I can go into where some of the texts of Sophia, where gnosis is also mentioned, because sometimes we have Jesus having gnosis and understanding what everyone’s thinking around him, which has also been hidden, they want you to see anything to do with that.
But if you go to the gospel of John, for instance, in the beginning, and this is what I kept because it’s been obviously censored and this is a Carpocration belief. So they believed in Theos being the Monad and Logos being the Word of God, and that was basically being Jesus, and they believed in Zoe—so that was their Sophia. So, and you see this mentioned “In the beginning.” So in chapter one, 1:1 to 1:4,
“In the beginning, there was Logos and Logos was to God and Logos was God. This one was in the beginning with God. All things were made through him. And without him, not one thing was made. With him was Zoe and the Zoe was a light of mankind.”
So men, so whenever you see men, it is actually mankind, not just men in general. No.
Cyd:
So the feminine humanity, I use the word humanity.
Bishop Nathan Wilson:
Yes. It’s much better. It’s much better.
So I found it interesting. So as a divine feminine, that’s the light of all mankind—of humanity. And that’s fascinating.
Cyd:
So the indwelling of the Holy Spirit, you, you translate as Sophia?
Bishop Nathan Wilson:
Yes. Sophia and Zoe, I’ll put that as well. It’s usually referenced to, but I like the word Sophia.
Cyd:
What we generally think of as the Holy Spirit. See, I think of the Holy Spirit as the, well, the Tripartite Tractate has first order of powers being the Aeons in the Fullness that we’re the second order of powers. And the third order of powers is the “Army of Christ” that came after—that’s that Pentecost kind of indwelling. You know, when you accept, when you move your ego away and you accept the Christ, that is the third order of powers coming in. But it’s the first order of powers I think of as the original Holy Spirit, when the Christians think of Holy Spirit. And that I think is what you’re calling Sophia is the Fullness of God.
Bishop Nathan Wilson:
Yes. So what brings you to God basically as well, that divine presence you experienced within yourself or what gives you the divine spiritual baptism. I feel very much like that.
I also liked The Wisdom of Solomon where it says that Sophia is the emanation of God, the life giving spirit. And that’s beautiful as well. So what makes humans friends of humans and prophets, friends of God, which is being mentioned in that very old text and that’s before Jesus time and Christians adored that text. It’s very, very Gnostic. So it’s the text that mentions basically a Messiah will call himself a child of God and a son of God. And he will be put to death in a shameful way. So very much adored by Christians and rejected by Jews. And then later on rejected by Protestants because it was just too Gnostic. They don’t want anything basically.
So, but that’s a very, very Gnostic element being at the start. And you see that being the Carpocratian Trinity. So their Trinity was the Logos and Monad and Zoe.
And we also had very much a lot of female members within the Carpocratian sects, such as Marcellina, who ran her own Carpocratian movement, who was married or a lover to the founder, Carpocrates. And her idea was a little bit different as well. And she very much embraced a divine feminine and she was invited to Rome during Pope Antigonus, Pope Anicetus, sorry, becoming Pope. So very interesting. So she was actually invited to Rome because of her popularity. So fascinating. So I also like Helen, so, the wife of Simon Magus. Very fascinating figure.
So I’ll go into some things as well. And I’ll mention some things about the Archon being mentioned. So I’ll go into John 12:31 and then 14:30 and 16:11 I can go into, which is just all in John, which is same gospel, basically. And it’s just regarding about the Archon being cast out by a very, very Gnostic element, which I chose to keep because it’s not going to keep this word in any English translations because they’re going to think how these guys are going to know about Gnosticism, can’t have that. But I kept it.
So this is 12:31. So this is after Jesus answering,
“Now is the judgment of this world. Now is the Archon of this world cast out.”
So that’s interesting. So meaning the ruler of this world. And he also says, “Who’s the ruler of this world?” He’s stating that who’s the Archon of this world. So that’s the devil he’s speaking about. That’s Gnostic that they’re using. So that again is a very ancient term that they don’t want people to see.
Cyd:
Is it the same as the Demiurge?
Bishop Nathan Wilson:
Yes. So this is the ruling Demiurge, the Archon, basically. So the head ruling Archons, an Archon of Archons, basically.
So when we look at the belief of the Demiurge, it was a lieutenant of sorts. So leading up of other fallen powers or leading lesser powers, depending on the theology of what Demiurge is and what you’re looking at, because it would extend to different groups.
Go to 14:30. And we have here,
“I will not speak with you much longer for the Archon of this world is coming. He has no hold on me.”
So that’s clearly Jesus saying he’s not worshiping this God. It has no hold on him.
It has no power over him. So he’s not this God. So he’s not the God of this world.
So very, very mystic. So we didn’t have this belief within the Pharisees. They would have opposed Jesus as a heretic, which they did. They see him as blasphemous. And when we look at early Christianity, it was a Jewish heresy. So a Gnostic heresy, which is beautiful.
And then we have 16:11.
“And in regard to judgment, because the Archon of this world now stands condemned.”
So that’s fascinating. So we have very much very Gnostic elements here. But it’s not just restricted to a demonic being, though. We have in the Gospel of Mark, for instance, which we have the Archon of Gentiles, and that’s in 10:42. So Archon can just mean a political ruler, as well as a ruler or a spiritual ruler. So it depends on the context of use being used. So I kept this here to show that it’s not always necessarily a bad thing. But again, depending on how the word’s being used. So in the Gospel of Mark we have the Archon of this world being mentioned.
“And having summoned them, Jesus says to them, you have seen that the Archons of the Gentiles rule over them, and their great ones exercise authority over them.”
So the Archon of the Gentiles, meaning the Archon of those who are not Jewish.
So non-Jewish rulers. Right.
Basically, so that’s all it is. We have the Archon, an Archon’s daughter being healed. So that’s also interesting. So now we’re having a politician who’s not Jewish, and he has a daughter, and she’s being healed by Jesus. So these words are definitely being mentioned. So the Archon of Gentiles and Archon of daimons as well, that’s in 9:34 of Matthew. So I’ll bring up that stage too, and then we can move into where Sophia is mentioned, which is very beautiful. I definitely was excited when I found Sophia found in the New Testament. So I was surprised. I was like, wow. Archon of daimons is what I want. So that’s, oh, you can also find it in Mark as well. So that’s good. I can go back to Mark at the very beginning. Oh, I didn’t know that. 3:22 of Mark:
“And the scribes who came down from Jerusalem said that he has Beelzebub and that he cast out daimons with the Archon of daimons.”
So that’s interesting there too. So he’s saying this is from the scribes. So this would be from Pharisees. They’re saying that he’s using pagan gods to cast out other pagan gods, but they didn’t believe that these pagan gods were actually a physical adversary against God, but rather law forces that were used by God. So God was the creator of evil and goodness, light and darkness. That was a Pharisee belief. So some Essenes believe that too. Some Essenes believe that God created both light and darkness, but only to destroy darkness, which is a bit different.
Cyd:
We believe that the God Above All Gods is all good. He did not create darkness. The darkness comes from this material world.
Bishop Nathan Wilson:
Yes, that’s a very interesting case. So that’s fantastic. So that’s something that a lot of people don’t take into account as well.
So the God that Jesus is speaking of is a perfect being that’s denying sacrifice, that’s also denying harm of children as well. So when you look at the first Christians, they’re also rescuing children from pagan brothels as well as Christians that would go out into the wilderness, rescuing children that were left to die by their pagan parents because they were unwanted. So back in Rome and Greece, a man had charge of his family and could choose to get rid of his children or marry them off as well as even send them to temple orphanages, not temple orphanages, sorry, becoming temple prostitutes, I was meant to say, or send them off to temples, basically—become priests. So the father had full right of their children. They were in charge. So Christians didn’t like that.
And so they rescued these children. That’s fantastic. So Christianity was very different and they wanted to be like Jesus in that case. So that’s fascinating too, because he was stating that the children are innocent. But I’ll give something also I mentioned, say in the temple scene where you have the doves being auctioned off and Jesus basically saving these doves, we have the Gospel of James mentioning the Virgin Mary as a dove and a temple priestess or sorry, basically a temple virgin. So she was given to the temple at the ages of three, raised there into 14 and given to Joseph.
Cyd:
Where was this? Where did you get that from?
Bishop Nathan Wilson:
That’s from the Gospel of James and also from church father writings. So you see, because I believe other church fathers wrote down that the Virgin Mary was a temple virgin. So these temple virgins were from the line of David. They were believed to give birth to the Messiah. They were married to the Pharisees and Sadducees. The Sadducees didn’t believe in the Messiah. They just viewed these girls as sacred coming from the line of David or from the Hasmonean
dynasty. The Pharisees believed that these girls would give birth to a Messiah. The Herodians did too, the ones who supported that. So very fascinating when you look at that.
So that meaning if you change that text around where Jesus is calling the saying that the priests are turning this temple into a spēlaion, being a den or grotto for lēstai, being pirates, predators or rebels or revolutionary fighters and guerrilla fighters. So we have the children crying for help Hosanna. So the word krazō, crying out help Hosanna, meaning to save us. So these are shouting out to Jesus, Save us, Jesus. Then the dove’s being sold.
So that’s something that people don’t take into account. So the first Christians that are saving children are trying to copy Jesus saving children. So it’s a horrible tradition that was going on. So the temple veil that split during Jesus’ crucifixion, that was woven by 80 temple virgins. So three to 14 year olds. So when people were being married back then, they were quite young.
So we have the demanding of virgins being forced into marriages in the gospel. So in numbers 31:32-35. So that’s Yahweh demanding the harm of children. That’s very evil. So we see Jesus challenging this God saying that this God’s the devil. So when we look at the actions of the past, we understand a bit of things.
I’ll quickly read about some things about Sophia as well. And this in the Gospel of Mark. Later on, I’ll read that temple scene for you too. But I also have in here the Gospel of James and it mentions about Mary being given to the temple and being a dove in the temple receiving nourishment from the hand or translates to from a power of the angels. Fascinating. Jumping to Matthew for 6:2. This is we have Sophia being mentioned. We have Sophia found in Mark and Matthew.
I’ve got Mark, which is the original text. I better go on to Mark first. So that’s 6:2. Mark is considered the oldest canonical text, but we have older texts of Mark. So the Greek Gospel of Thomas, for instance, that’s much older. We have that actually actively being mentioned in the first century as the Logia of Yesu. So before it was called the Gospel of Thomas, it was just called the Sayings of Jesus.
And so I personally believe that’s the oldest gospel that we have, which they don’t like to admit that. So I think that’s what they talk about being Q source. So Q source is just going to be Sayings of Jesus. The only gospel that’s like that is the Gospel of Thomas. So a cornerstone of the church.
So this is in the Gospel of Mark 6:2:
“And on the Sabbath day, he began to teach in the synagogue and many heard him were amazed, saying, when did this man learn these things? And what is this Sophia that has been given to him and the powers?
Or it can translate to miracles that are done by his hand.
So that’s kind of trippy. So they’re asking, who is this Sophia? Because the Pharisees didn’t believe in Sophia. They didn’t believe in a feminine Holy Spirit. They believed it was just the spirit within that guide us to God. But rather, the Gnostic approach is that’s the feminine aspect of God entering into us, basically. So that’s a very Gnostic understanding, a mystic understanding.
And some of them also viewed, say, the Mother Earth being the physical emanation of God, being feminine as well. So we have very different beliefs in these ancient pasts. And we see that in, I think it’s the Gospel of the Ebionites or the Gospel of Nazarenes. But that’s being mentioned in an ancient Jewish Christian source. We don’t have the original text. We just have a quotation from the church fathers because they’re the ones who had the text before destroying it, which is very unfortunate.
So then we have the Gospel of Matthew in 11:19. And this one’s beautiful. I actually very much like this translation because it’s mentioning about Sophia being justified by her works. So I wanted to keep this for sure. So we do see Sophia being mentioned and most people don’t know this. And it’s a shame it’s been denied to us because the church is very anti-female, which does no justice because the early Christians had many female leaders. The first to witness the resurrection story is Mary Magdalene. So it’s always been centered around women, which is such a shame that they have been ultimately removed from this story because it was not the case. Jesus would be quite upset with that.
“The Appearance of Christ to Mary Magdalene” by Alexander Ivanov, 1834-1836. / Wikimedia Commons.
So 11:19 I need. So I’m 11:9. All right.
“The son of man came eating and drinking. They say, behold, a man eats a glutton and a drunkard, a friend of tax collectors and sinners. And Sophia was justified by her works.”
Again, we have Jesus now mentioning Sophia.
Cyd:
Mm hmm. What book was that in? Was that Mark?
Bishop Nathan Wilson:
That one there is Matthew 11:19. And we also have 12:42, which mentions the Sophia of Solomon, so the Wisdom of Solomon, which also have a text called this to the Wisdom of Solomon. And I think that was personally read by Jesus. I believe he read this text. And I certainly see the first Christians adoring it for this reason. So I think that I think Jesus went out of his way to fulfill certain prophecies, such as the donkey going into the city like the Messiah’s mentioned. So he wasn’t silly. And I think he was reading this text. And that’s why you see the crucifixion. I don’t think he was personally going out of his way to be killed. I think it was another option and he accepted his fate and knew that it could happen. And he accepted it.
So I think that he believed in these prophecies as well. I see that he was a Jewish man. He was a human being that became the Christ that was filled with Gnosis. So I’m big on him becoming Logos, which is my theology in a sense. I go by an old Christian term with that. I love the term Logos being God’s word or authority or song or speech, because we did have also some that believed that God sung the world into existence or the universe as well. So that’s a very ancient belief, too.
So 12:42:
“The Queen of the South will rise up at the judgment with this generation and condemn it, for she came from the end of the earth to hear the Sophia of Solomon and behold, something greater than Solomon is here.”
So beautiful again—Sophia is mentioned. And the last one I wrote down is Matthew 13:54 for Sophia. And then I put a couple of times for Gnosis and I put a couple of times for Magus, because I like Magus being mentioned because of Simon Magus. I think he’s also a way of understanding Christianity as well.
Cyd:
Where do we find Simon Magus if somebody wants to go and read him?
Bishop Nathan Wilson:
Well, Simon Magus, he is mentioned in the book of Acts. So they mostly use him to condemn him as trying to buy the Holy Spirit. And then he repents and he’s forgiven basically. That’s the end of the text. It’s not really bad what they’re saying. Paul sent money to the brother of Jesus. But the thing is, the earliest text of that story ends at Simon being baptized. So what we’re reading is a later add in. So they didn’t want the story to end at that. [Early Christian writings keep Simon Magus separate from Jesus’ family, though later writers sometimes blended the many Simons.]
It’s like, we can’t have these guys saying that their founder, who we call a heretic, was baptized by the disciples and leave it at that, you know, so they were quite upset. And they also called him worse than Satan. They said that he was associated with a prostitute. And the worst thing is that he saved this prostitute, which they want to call her, who was Helen, who became second in charge of the Christian movement. So she was forced into this. She wasn’t just… didn’t want to choose to this life. So she was forced to sex slavery, possibly quite young, possibly born into it. And come Simon saves her, the two fall in love. So they marry. That’s fascinating. So she fell in love with the man who rescued her. This is not some scandal. This is pure romance and love. And he’s seen her as an expression of God. So he’s seen the expression of the divine feminine in her.
So she in turn helped develop his faith and bring closer into his faith and hers. So these two went throughout Rome rescuing others. So they would have been rescuing children, something that the Catholic Church never has done. So which is quite a big shame.
Cyd:
So where can we read about this? I’m just wondering.
Bishop Nathan Wilson:
If we look at Church of the Apostles, they mentioned about the first Christians rescuing children. And then we mentioned about Romans viewing them taking children as strange because they didn’t see human beings in the child. So they were told not to be too attached to the child because children died quite often, especially in infant mortality rate was quite high. And so was women that died in childbirth. So they were told not to be too attached. So if the child was misshapen or sickly, they left it out to die.
So the Christians that were rescuing these children during the first century, the Catholic Church didn’t exist back then. So you’re going to have to think about who these Christians were. It’s not going to name them. It’s just going to tell you they were Christians and Jewish Christians. So who are these Christians? They’re Gnostic Christians. They’re the only ones that existed at this time because the Catholic Church wasn’t around then. They came later. So even when we have, I forget his name now, he was a Greek opponent against Christianity. I always forget his name and mix them up. And no, it’s not Arius, that was a Christian. He was the founder of the Aryan Christians. I forget his name. But there was a Greek opponent of Christianity and he mentions the Christians of his time. He doesn’t mention the Catholic Church because they didn’t exist yet. He was mentioning Gnostic Christians and Jewish Christians. He said that he basically said that they cannibalized their God, which has taken the Eucharist, and that there are different versions of them and they disagree with each other. So he didn’t like that. So he thought that was weird. So he thought that what a religion that can’t even get along with each other basically or can’t agree. So he mocked him for that.
So he didn’t know any better. So we have to look at those early Christians, who they were. Then we understand what’s going on. Then we understand with the Gnostic Christians, viewing children as innocent and also viewing women as something special, being the feminine aspect of God in human flesh as we’re created in God’s image, male and female. So the soul as well, that returning to God through the expression of the divine feminine, through the expression of divine masculine. So our inner human, that inner child returning to God. So again, that inner child is also being mentioned too. So they’re viewing that as also as the children with innocence, the innocence within. So they’re connecting all this together.
So they’re wanting to be like Christ, so Christ-like. So they’re just following the teachings of their master. So it’s fascinating.
It’s like when you mentioned some propaganda against the Gnostics when regarding to the Catholic Church, the thing was that these Christians are trying to be like Jesus. So we have to take that into account. So meaning that these Catholic opponents are just writing propaganda against them.
So it’s like the Ophites that they say that were eating bread that had semen in it. That was just pure propaganda because these Christians were actually trying to be like Jesus and they wouldn’t be doing this in other words. So they didn’t like that. They also didn’t like that some Gnostics were open to people being homosexual. They didn’t mind gay people or lesbians. Some Gnostics didn’t agree with it though, but there were some that welcomed everyone and the Catholic Church hated that.
So there was even the church group or a Christian community called the Adamites. The Catholics did not like them. They were Christian nudists. They were in the second century and they were two sects. They both attempted to live like Adam and Eve. It’s just that one took one sex partner only. They didn’t believe in marriage. They believed marriage came after sin. So they lived naked in the woods attempting to live like Adam and Eve in the community with one sex partner. But others had orgies and were having sex with each other. The Catholics killed them. So they didn’t like it. They called them heretics and they existed, I believe, all the way up to the fourth or sixth century. So they existed for a little bit. So they hung on for a little bit.
So I owe the power to them, which isn’t too bad as well. So I admire them for that. I personally don’t think they would have kept going because they were always driven off into the underground. I think they would have had a lot of trouble in the winter being naked. That’s just my personal thing. I don’t know how they handle it. So I think you need some sort of clothing or at least shelter to be able to survive that. They need a lot of warmth.
So I’ll go on to some times that we have Gnosis being mentioned too as well. I can go on to Mark first in 8:7. Then I can go on to say that temple scene or I can read that scene from an unknown gospel with the pigs jumping into water that the Pharisees baptize into, which is trippy text. It’s pretty cool.
Well, there we have part three of my interview with Bishop Nathan Wilson of the Gnostic Union. We’ll finish it off next week. I hope you’re enjoying this foray into the history of the words that were chosen for the New Testament, and how so many of those words were Gnostic words, and you don’t get that flavor in all of our Latin-derived New Testament translations.
So, this is the unique gift that Brother Nathan has given us. I’ll give more of my own thoughts next week, after we’ve concluded with our interview, because I don’t necessarily agree with everything Brother Nathan is saying, but I see his points, and God bless him for doing it.
So, until next week, God bless us all, and onward and upward.