Reading 4 2 14, The Alchemical Tarot Renewed by Robert M Place

Reading 4 2 14, The Alchemical Tarot Renewed by Robert M Place



Position 1 Hanged Man, air, beginning…

Position 2 The Magus, reversed. Fire. changing. maturing

Position 3, the Queen of Vessels, Water of Water, Goddess as grail bearer of the Ocean

Position 4 9 swords, Air, destruction, cutting, moon, sex, completion not quite complete

Position 5 The High Priestess, Sophia, Lifter of the Veil, Bearer of Gnosis, Shekinah, Her of the heavens.



Tarot is an interesting thing. It works on many levels and in many ways. Some even view it as the perfect window into the soul. I don’t believe they are that good, personally…One large aspect of modern Tarot is the Hermetic traditions. The Hermetic traditions center around a form of Gnosticism (see the passages of the Corpus Hermeticum in comparison to Sethian for example cosmological beliefs etc.) centering around a divine priest in the Melchizadeck tradition honoring all priests, but from Thoth. Thoth the A Egyptian God, to Thoth the Atlantean. To a more familiar Hermes and Mercury. As an archetype for all priests the Hermetic tradition then is an interesting one. By archetype we mean more Platonic archetype and not Jungian.

One key principle or more accurately axiom of Hermeticism is “As above, So below.” The concept of macro and microcosm. The universe in miniature and in full expanse, the self and the Self. Hermeticism textually goes back around 2000 years, or approx. 1st Cent CE. Of course all text documents, of such nature are often far older than their written equivalents, oral tradition can date things… but that’s an argument for another time.

Tarot then can be seen through this lens of the Hermetic Axiom. We can see the court cards and number cards as the Microcosm, or the self. The trumps then can be seen as the Macrocosm. The Macrocosm of course can be seen as the Nous or divine mind, the mind of the divine.


The above reading is interesting in that it is composed of three potent Macrocosmic images and two Microcosmic images.

Nous: “Mind”, The soul, not the same as ‘pneuma’ or spirit. It is the part of
the anima that gives us consciousness. The anima as a whole gives life (or
literally movement.. “animates”) to our bodies. Tatian declares the soul as a
special kind of spirit. (See; Tatian’s “Letter to the Greeks’)


Ogdoad: Regarded in some texts as the “eighth kingdom above the hebdomas.” It is the realm of the Demiurgos (or sometimes that is the 7th, with the eighth being that of Sabaoth), as well as usually being the realm of the zodiac
(dodecon). Sometimes it is also seen as the beginning of freedom from the
Archons, and the beginning of connection to the Aeons. Pythagoris says…
“The ogdoad–8–was sacred because it was the number of the first cube, which
form had eight corners, and was the only evenly-even number under 10
(1-2-4-8-4-2-1). Thus, the 8 is divided into two 4’s, each 4 is divided into two
2’s, and each 2 is divided into two 1’s, thereby reestablishing the monad. Among
the keywords of the ogdoad are love, counsel, prudence, law, and convenience.
Among the divinities partaking of its nature were Panarmonia, Rhea, Cibele,
Cadmæa, Dindymene, Orcia, Neptune, Themis, and Euterpe (a Muse).” (Thomas
Taylor’s Theoretic Arithmetic, Thought by one source to be the rarest and most
important compilation of Pythagorean mathematical fragments extant.)

”… the Ogdoad, which is the eighth, and that we might receive that place of
salvation.” (”The Testimony of Truth.” See also; ”A Valentinian
Exposition.”) ) The Sacred ogdoad according to some sources is: Barbelo (deep), Sige (silence), Nous (mind), Veritus (truth), Sermo (word), Vita (life), Homo (man), Ecclesia (church). The last member of the group acts to syncretize the group.


Rba , Rabai – elect priest, chief intator and the ordainer of new Mandaean priests. Holds the office known as rabuta. Compare to the Jewish “rabbi”.

Seth: ”From Adam three natures were begotten. The first was the irrational, which was Cain’s, the second the rational and just, which was Abel’s, the third the spiritual, which was Seth’s. Now that which is earthly is “according to the image,” that which is psychical according to the ” likeness ” of God, and that
which is spiritual is according to the real nature; and with refer­ence to these three, without the other children of Adam, it was said, “This is the book of the generation of men.” And because Seth was spiritual he neither tends flocks nor tills the soil but produces a child, as spiritual things do. And him, who “hoped
to call upon the name of the Lord” who looked upward and whose “citizenship is in heaven – him the world does not contain.” (Theodotus, Criddle Collection.)

Sethian: It is a name for a specific sect of Gnostics, but also a category created by scholars to refer to a number of sects that are related to Valentinians. The Sethians as a group were known to Hippolytus who dedicated Book Five in his work, ”The Refutation of All Hereseys,” to denouncing them. (See Gaffney) Seth was a character of Gnosticism who represented a savior figure and third son of Adam, founder of the Gnostic race. Generally Sethian works include, “Pistis Sophia,” “Allogenes,” ”The Gospel of Mary,*” “Sentences of Sextus,” “Marsanes,” “Gospel of The Egyptians,*” ”The Apocalypse of Adam,*”
“Origin of The World,” ”The Gospel of Thomas,*” ”The Gospel of Philip,” “The Three Steles of Seth,” “Melchizidek,” ”The Apocryphon of John,” ”The Gospel of Judas,” Trimorphic Protennoia,” the un-named text in the Bruce Codex, and ”Zostrianos.” (Others) Some Sethian works suggest strong ties with
Jewish Gnosticism, as well as Platonic thought, as well as Zoroasterism. (They maintained three principles; darkness below, light above, and spirit in-between, according to work attributed to Dr. Roy Blizzard, University of Texas. See also; ”Sethian Gnosticism, A Literary History,” Turner) see also; ( * Indicates works from the Nag Hammadi Lib., with other works by the same name.)

Sethian Monadology: The system of the monad, constructed through the tetraktys
of the decad, which serves as an underlying philosophy in Sethian Gnosticism. It
is developed from the creation myths. The system is like, and based upon that
of Pythagoreans, and resembles the principles of the ancient Chinese philosophy
of the Tai Chi., which is based upon the ogdoad. The system is based upon
working variations of numerical values. Turner states, ”….vigorous
arithmological speculation on the first ten numbers, but especially the first
four numbers, comprising the Pythagorean tetraktys (the {mode} of the first four
numbers). This was carried on by such Pythagoreanizing Platonists as Theon of
Smyrna and Nicomachus of Gerasa, who in turn depend in part on similar
arithmological and mathematical theories produced by such early first century
Platonist figures as Dercyllides, Adrastos of Aphrodisias (a Peripatetic
commentator on Plato’s Timaeus) and Thrasyllos, a court philosopher under the
Emperor Tiberius. The harmonic ratios produced by these first four numbers and
the geometric entities of point, line, surface, and solid had been applied to
the structure and the creation of the world soul long before by Plato and his
successors in the Old Academy, especially Speusippus and Xenocrates. (See;
Turner, See also; ”The History of Chinese Philosophy, Vol. 2.,” by Fung
Yu-Lan, Princeton, 1953, See also; ”A Valentinian Exposition.”)



The Sufi mystic Ibn al-Arabi drew a diagram similar to the one used to develop a pattern around a khatam (see above). However, Al-Arabi’s diagram’s diagram is concerned with spirituality, not ornamentation. He drew it as part of his explanation that “all phenomena are nothing but manifestations of Being, which is one with God.” Conincidentally, Al-Arabi was born in Spain at around the same time the practice of zillij, mosaic design, was starting to flourish. As Sufism had particular appeal to North Africa, his spirtual use of the pattern may explain the prolific use of the eight-point star and and symetries of eight in Moroccan Islamic patterns.


The number eight was important among Sufi mystics. “The octagon, with a ninth point in the center, is also central to the mystical symbology of Sufism. It is the seal or design which Ernest Scott says ‘reaches for the innermost secrets of man’. Meaning wholeness, power and perfection, this primary geometrical symbol is one which Sufis associate with Shambhala …”

On his website of natural patterns, Ian Alexander refers to the eight-point star as both the Sufi star and the Moroccan star. He offers the following explanation, as quoted from Friday mosque in Iran “Form is symbolised by the square. Expansion is symbolised by the square with triangles pointing outwards (an 8-pointed star). Contraction is symbolised by the square with triangles pointing inwards (a 4-pointed star). The two star-shapes together symbolise the cycle of creation, ‘the breath of the compassionate.’”

Origins and Meanings of the Eight-Point Star




If this metaphysical space is to be known,

such knowledge can be attained only by faith and grace,

not by ‘entering’ but by ‘being entered’

-this is so because the greater must reveal itself to the lesser.

Put differently, that which is immanently ‘Spirit’ can only be known receptively,

through its own intellective vision, and not any derivative faculty such as reason,

feeling or sensation. Reason can only discern conceptually,

at best reducing reality to a dualism of subject and object

(as in the case of Descartes) or catagorical postulate

(as in the case of Kant) or dialectic process

(as in the case of Hegel) – its ‘telos’ will tend to be utopian(as in the case of Marx),

fundamentalist( as in the cases of religious, political or secular dogmatism)

or anthropocentrically consencual (as in the case of Rousseau’s social contract);

while sensation or feeling even where elevated to

the level of empirical ‘science,’ can only discern reality as matter or as psyche,

quantitatively, thereby cutting it off from its transcendent

and qualitative roots, leading to an emphasis on hypertrophic subjectivism

(as in the case of Nietzsche), Psychologism(as in the case of Freud),

or reductive positivism(as in the cases of philosophical positivism and of scientism).

That which transcends us cannot be known reductively

but only by that transcendent faculty which is immanent in us-which in

Tradition is termed the ‘Intellect’

or the Self-knowing Spirit. To know is to discern BEING.

We must empty ourselves or our ‘self’ in order to know who we ARE.

We must return to the sacred emptiness of the space that is our

ontological core in order to know that which truly IS.

–M Ali Lakhani (the Distance between us, found in Sacred Web issue 31)




Soaring upwards
Can be like reaching down

Pushing forward

Can be like pushing back

Going right

Can be like Going left

Within is within

All things begin

And end at the cross roads

–GraalBaum 2013



This world-mountain was Nizir to the Chaldeans, Olympus to the Greeks, Hara Berezaiti to the Persians of the Avesta, the later Alborz and Elburz; a transfer, as says Mme. Ragozin, of ‘mythical heavenly geography to the earth.’ This mountain—the solar hill of the Egyptians—we shall again refer to in the next two or three chapters. At its apex springs, the heaven tree on which the solar bird is perched. From its roots spring the waters of life—the celestial sea, which, rushing adown the firmament, supplies the ocean which circumscribes the earth or falls directly in rain. At their fountain these springs are guarded by a goddess. In Egypt Nut, the goddess of the oversea, leans from the branches of the heavenly persea and pours forth the celestial water. In the Vedas, Yama, lord of the waters, sits in the highest heaven in the midst of the heavenly ocean under the tree of life, which drops the nectar Soma, and here, on the ‘navel of the waters,’ matter first took form. In the Norse, the central tree Yggdrasil has at its roots the spring of knowledge guarded by the Norns, the northern Fates; two swans the parents of all those of earth, float there. In Chaldea the mighty tree of Eridu, centre of the world, springs by the waters. The Avesta gives a very complete picture—Iran is at the centre of the seven countries of the world; it was the first created, and so beautiful, that were it not that God has implanted in all men a love for their own land, all nations would crowd into this the loveliest land. To the east somewhere, but still at the centre of the world, rises the ‘Lofty Mountain,’ from which all the mountains of the earth have grown, ‘High Haraiti;’ at its

summit is the gathering place of waters, out of which spring the two trees, the heavenly Haoma (Soma), and another tree which bears all the seeds that germinate on earth. This heavenly mountain is called ‘Navel of Waters,’ for the fountain of all waters springs there, guarded by a majestic and beneficent goddess. In Buddhist accounts, the waters issue in four streams like the

Eden from this reservoir, and flow to the cardinal points, each making one complete circuit in its descent. In the Persian Bundahish there are two of these heavenly rivers flowing east and west. To the Hindus the Ganges is such a heavenly stream. ‘The stream of heaven was called by the Greeks Achelous.’ The Nile in Egypt, the Hoang-Ho in China, and the Jordan to the Jews, seem to have been celestial rivers. This mountain of heaven is often figured in Christian art with the four rivers issuing from under the Throne of God.

Sir John Maundeville gives an account of the earthly Paradise quite perfect in its detailed scheme. It is the highest place on earth, nearly reaching to the circle of the moon (as in Dante), and the flood did not reach it. ‘And in the highest place, exactly in the middle, is a well that casts out the four streams’—Ganges, Nile, Tigris, and Euphrates. ‘And men there beyond say that all the sweet waters of the world above and beneath take their beginning from the well of Paradise, and out of that well all water come and go.


It is precisely the challenge involved

in using inadequate words

that drives the mind

beyond all words…

At the borders of speech

we open ourselves

to the positive value of silence….

Literary reading,

through its complexity, its music,

its suggestiveness, points to a fuller realm of being.

–Edward k Kaplan (citing Abraham Joshua Heschel)

Who is the giver?

What is given, and to whom?

and the receiver, who is that?

and what is gotten?


Who is the teacher?

What is taught, and to whom?

Who is the knower of That?

and what is known?


Upon knowing, upon realization

what will that one say?

or having said that -

of what value is it?


What can that one hope to gain -

What does that one have to give?

Is there any value in what such a one

would offer us?


What has been gained?

What great jewel has that one found?

Of what use is his tapasya?

Of what use his penance?


At the end, in the desire to give

in the hope that what will be given

be of value and worth, lies a quandry.


The evidence of the value of what would be given,

does not yet shine in the life of that one having arrived.

There is no evidence, “but the giving itself.”


After the giving, after the sowing

the crop bares fruit, not otherwise.

Yet the Sadhu would give only what has value.

But who is the knower of that value?


To the one desiring to give

arises the desire that what would be given,

be of value to the receiver.

That one desiring so, cannot see the worth

until after the fruit is eaten.


The taste of truth is not given by the giver

nor does it exist in the sweet words uttered;

“That” lies only in the arising of love

in the receiver.


Giving belongs to God, to the consciousness,

never to the Sadhu.

and it is also the consciousness

that is the receiver of the gifts.


Yet the Sadhu mutters, “I will not give

a thing which has no value”.

He does not realize that wealth

has no value unless used for the good of all!


Selfishness has no part in truth

nor any part in Love. Love that is selfish

is just that; “Selfish”

It is that which excludes and disqualifies

us from realization due to selfhood;

Due to I-Ness and Me-ness.


Due to ownership, an I exists!

Due to the mere desire to give

there is a giver, an “I”!


True Wisdom is not great knowledge

nor the ownership of understanding;

Wisdom is the realization of charity.

Thus what can be given with wisdom

can only be what is loving to all.


Which knowledge is that, and who is the knower of it?

Which knowledge is for the good of all

and who could be the giver of that?

The knowledge can only be knowledge of the One Self

And the giver of such as that,

can only be one who has realized that self.


Who is the receiver of great wisdom, of great love?

and who the giver? It is certainly not the one

crying from the mountain-top;

Nor is it the one who seeks value in giving;


It is not the one who seeks to be paid homage

neither is it the one seeking absolution.

The receiver and the giver are but one.


There can be thus no gain, nor any loss

for in the acceptance of the receiver -

the giver is also the receiver.


Wisdom is charity, nothing more.

While it is Love that is the hidden force

of consciousness and the knower of the known.


Having known everything, it is time to give.

At this time what can be received?

Nothing what-so-ever,

but the knowledge of “The Love of The One Self”

What can be given?

Nothing what-so-ever, but “The Love of The One Self”.


In this way, the one having arrived nowhere

comes home……….. Home to the heart!

Home to Love……. The light then shines.

> I think that the True Man can be more accurately described as the

> Jesus-Man through which the Christ can become manifest.


> As for the mirror/reflection analogy … I think of the Biblical

> phrase that we were created in the “image” of God. The word “mirror”

> can be found in the definition of “image” … not that we are/were

> “The” God, but were created in the likeness of God … a reflection of

> the divine.


> Regards,




these are important questions


“I think that the True Man can be more accurately described as the

> Jesus-Man through which the Christ can become manifest.”


The power of God is with you at all times; through the activities of mind,



senses, breathing, and emotions; and is constantly doing all the work


using you as a mere instrument.”


 –The Gita



So is Jesus the vessel and christ wine that is poured into the vessel?


Or is Jesus the vessel and the wine as is the Christ?


One day as Manjusri stood outside the gate,


the Buddha called to him,


“Manjusri, Manjusri, why do you not enter?”


Manjusri replied,


“I do not see myself as outside. Why enter?”




> As for the mirror/reflection analogy … I think of the Biblical

> phrase that we were created in the “image” of God. The word “mirror”

> can be found in the definition of “image” … not that we are/were

> “The” God, but were created in the likeness of God … a reflection of

> the divine.


Where does God end and man begin?



“When my Beloved appears,With what eye do I see Him?


With His eye, not with mine,


For none sees Him except Himself.”


–Ibn Arabi




Two points as opposites when stretched for infinity will bend in upon themselves and meet. Thus mnaking the end in the begining, or perhaps that there is no end or beginning; see college level math and chapter one of the Sefer yetzirah in theory and practice, A. Kaplan translation.


if we are alike God, but not God… is this not duality?


If I am not God, does this mean that there exists God and not God?




“He who sees himself only on the outside,


not within, becomes small himself and makes others small.”


–Mani (turfan fragment M 801)




Ain Sof in the Kabbalah of Azriel of Gerona


 (from “Origins of the Kabbalah” by Gershom Scholem)




 ”If…..there was at first a great deal of uncertainty about the use of the term ‘en-sof, no such ambiguity exists any longer in the mystical vocabulary of the school of Gerona [13th century]. ‘En-sof there is a technical, indeed artificial, term detached from all adverbial associations and serving as a noun designating God in all his inconceivability. Here it is well to remember that the determination of God as the Infinite served for for the thinkers of antiquity and the Neoplatonists…..precisely as a symbol of his inconceivability, and not as an attribute that can be grasped by reason (such as it became with the Scholastics). Among the kabbalists, God is regarded as Infinitude no less than as the Infinite One. The inconceivability of the hidden God and the impossibility of determining him, which, occasionally seem to point to a neutral stratum of the divine nature, are nevertheless those of the infinite person on the whole, the latter being the theistic reinterpretation of the Neoplatonic ‘One.’ Azriel himself introduces him as such at the beginning of his questions and answers on the sefiroth, for he identifies ‘en-sof—a word he employs often and without hesitation—with the leader of the world and the master of creation…..


        Azriel’s…..spoke of ‘en-sof as the God whom the philosophers had in mind, and whose sefiroth were but aspects of his revelation and of his activity, the ‘categories of the order of all reality.’ Precisely the most hidden element in God, that which the mystics had in mind when they spoke of ‘en-sof, he transformed into the most public. In doing so he already prepared the personalization of the term ‘en-sof, wich from the designation of an abstract concept begins to appear here as a proper name. Whereas in general, and even in Azriel’s own writings, ‘en-sof still has much of the deus absconditus, which attains anapprehensible existence in the theosophic notion of God and in the doctrine of the sefiroth only, the commentary on the ten sefiroth already presents the ‘en-sof as the ruler of the world, which certainly suggests an image of the government of the world that is very different from that of the theosophy of the Infinite and its sefiroth. For Azriel the highest sefirah is evidently the unfathomable or unknowable and especially the divine will, which in this circle is elevated above the primordial idea. In the abstract the latter could be distinguished from ‘en-sof, but in the concrete it constitutes a real unity with it. The hidden God acts by means of this will, clothes himself in it, as it were, and is one with it. In order to express this, the kabbalists of Gerona readily speak of the ‘will up to the Infinite,’ the ‘height up to the Infinite,’ the ‘unknowable up to the Infinite,’ by which they evidently mean the unity in which the supreme sefirah, represented in each case by the corresponding symbol, extends up to the ‘en-sof and forms with it a unity of action…..


        Azriel is fond of referring Job 11:7 : ‘Can you find out the depth of God?’ to this primordial depth of God, which can signify both the fathomable as well as precisely that in the will that is unfathomable and beyond the grasp of all thought. From this primordial depth flwow all the paths of wisdom and it is this primordial depth that in the ‘Chapter on the kawwanah‘ is literally called ‘the perfection of the depth that is one with ‘en-sof,’ a phrase that can also be translated equally literally as ‘that unites itself with ‘en-sof,’ that is, that extends up to its infinity. Thus the terminology of cheqer, the primordial depth, at which all contemplation of the divine is aimed, changes at the same time into that of the ‘undepth’ (Hebrew: ‘en-cheqer), this primordial depth proving to be precisely the unfathomable, and thereby a perfect analogy, in its linguistic form as well, to the Infinite, ‘en-sof.


        The will as primordial depth thus becomes the source of all being, and the deity, insofar as it can be envisioned from the point of view of the creature, is conceived entirely as creative will…..The fact that this creative will is then understood by Azriel, in the context of the ideas analyzed in the foregoing, as the Nought, is by no means an isolated instance in the history of mistical terminology. Jacob Böhme, whose Ungrund is reminiscent of Azriel’s formulations, considers the will that eternally emerges from this Ungrund as the Nought. It is therefore no wonder that in these writings the will never appears as something emanated, but rather as that which emanates…..


        A state in which ‘en-sof would be without the will accompanying it is thus inconceivable. This again raises the problem of the necessity of the emanation versus the freedom of ‘en-sof in the primordial act of the creation…..


        It can be said of ‘en-sof as well as of the Will that nothing exists outside it.




‘All beings come from the incomprehensible primordial ether, and their existence [yeshuth] comes from the pure Nought. However, this primordial ether is not divisible in any direction, and it is One in a simplicity that does not admit of any composition. All acts of the will were in its unity, and it is the will that preceded everything…..And that is the meaning of (Job 23:13): “He is One”—He is the unity of the will, outside of which nothing exists’ [Perush Aggadot, 107).....




Neither is 'en-sof nor in the will is there any differentiation; both are designated as the indistinct root of the opposites. For this indistinctness.....the 'Iyyun circle and Azriel use the Hebrew hashwa'ah; unseparated and indifferent is there called shaweh, literally 'equal,' a word that is never used in this snese elsewhere in the Hebrew literature. 'En-sof as well as the will are 'indifferent with regard to the opposites.' They do not conjoin the opposites.....but no distinctions are admitted at all; since the opposites in these supreme principles are 'equal,' that is, indistinct, they coincide in them. It is in this sense that mention is often made of the 'indistinct unity' or of the 'indifference of unity' in which apparent opposites coincide.....The oppoistes are abolished in the infinite.....




'En-sof is the absolute indistinctness in the perfect unity, in which there is no change. And since it is without limits, nothing exists outisde of it; since it is above everything it is the principle in which everything hidden and visible meet; and since it is hidden, it is the [common] root of faith and unbelief, and the investigating sages [the philosophers] agree with those who say that our comprehension of it can take place only through the path of negation’ [Sha'ar ha-Sho'el].”



Gender in Gnosticism

If the woman had not separated from the man, she should not die with the man. His separation became the beginning of death. Because of this, Christ came to repair the separation, which was from the beginning, and again unite the two, and to give life to those who died as a result of the separation, and unite them. But the woman is united to her husband in the bridal chamber. Indeed, those who have united in the bridal chamber will no longer be separated. Thus Eve separated from Adam because it was not in the bridal chamber that she united with him.

–Gospel of Philip

God, the one true God, the source of being is seen as a force that transcends gender and ultimately God is beyond categories of gender. But at the same time gender is very formative of our human experience. So just like God in an absolute sense cannot be contained in words but we still have to approach God through language, right? Through myths and stories and theology and…which is all kind of creating analogies about God. Similarly we have to approach God, or approach God through gender. And traditionally of course there’s been this hyper masculinisation of God, in which God has been primarily confined to male attributes, the father, the son or you know, God as the old bearded guy of the Cisteen Chapel ceiling or God as Superman, shooting down fire from the sky and destroying people. What Gnosticism works to change this image, not to destroy the male imagery of the father, the son or the imagery of the brother, but rather to compliment it with female imagery as well. SO that we understand in some sense that our relationship to God is like a father and a mother, like a lover and the beloved, a brother and a sister; so it’s like a complimentary to the relationship.

So what I want to talk about tonight is the metaphysical nature of gender itself. I’m going to leave the question of God alone for this evening and talk about our own experiences of gender and what the spiritual significances of those might be. I think we begin from a Gnostic perspective that gender arises out of the cosmos, out of the material reality or the physical reality and like other dualities, good /evil, light/dark, right/left…these are seen as the constituents parts of material reality, its these dualities and divisions and separations that make the material what it is and create the limitations that we associate with physical reality. And of these limitations it is probably gender that Gnosticism sees as the most traumatic one of all, well except maybe the good/evil dichotomy. But the division of male/female gender, the division is very traumatic in a lot of ways, it’s been a sort of division of the wholeness of the spirit into two separate pieces and as a result can often lead to very self destructive behavior as all too often when we adhere to the gender identity that we are taught to display and see in ourselves and we don’t find a way to pursue the complimentary aspects of the spirit then we quickly descend into patterns of abuse and dependence and domination that are really devoid of the true spiritual connection.

So one of the goals of Gnosis is to transcend and heal these dualities and divisions in human experience. And thus the question of gender and the question of how we heal the brokenness that is sort of implicit in it is stressed in the Gospel of Thomas especially saying 22:

Jesus saw some infants nursing. He said to his disciples, “These nursing infants are like those who enter the (Father’s) kingdom.”

They said to him, “Then shall we enter the (Father’s) kingdom as babies?”

Jesus said to them, “When you make the two into one, and when you make the inner like the outer and the outer like the inner, and the upper like the lower, and when you make male and female into a single one, so that the male will not be male nor the female be female, when you make eyes in place of an eye, a hand in place of a hand, a foot in place of a foot, a likeness in place of a likeness, then you will enter [the kingdom].”

So when we look at this issue of what needs healing and the reconciliation, the issue, the problem, is that we’ve been taught and conditioned not just in our own lifetimes but over in generations of humanity to ascribe huge importance over what are really minor biological differences and not really seek to expand our consciousness in this area. To assume that we are locked in this duality and that there is no way to transcend it.

So what Gnosticism does, is to argue that each of us has a spiritual identity and it is the spiritual identity that can lead us back on a path to wholeness this is because even though we live in a very divided and sometimes painful existence in the physical world the spirit has what the Gnostic teacher Carpocrates would call a “deep spiritual memory.” These are the words he uses “the spiritual memory.” The most famous place where he talks about what this memory is when he makes his Christological statement about Jesus and says “That Jesus is a man like any other man, the son of Joseph; except that he was different from other people in that his mind, pure and clear could remember, could exercise memory of what it had seen in the realm of the ungenerated God.”

So if Jesus is a great model for what we can attain, then through Gnosis we can gain access to these spiritual memories of what was in the realm of the ungenerated God, to use Carpocrates’ term. And these memories are of wholeness, of a unity, indeed not a cessation of our individual existences, but rather as it were a completion of them. And part of this spiritual memory of wholeness beyond the divisions of gender is part of what makes up this spiritual memory, and it is in this sense that the Gospel of Thomas puts this question as central to the idea of what is going to bring us into what the Gospel calls the Kingdom. It is very important to make clear here that, the Gospel of Philip makes it clear that not only is this unity, the Pleroma, the fullness, it’s not only our destiny, but it’s also as spiritual beings, but also as in the words of the Gospel of Philip, our earliest origin, the earliest origin of things. So there is some way that this wholeness of the Pleroma is imprinted and on our spirits, this pneuma or the breath that gives us life, or rather makes us human, and we can access those memories that are imprinted on us. But it is something that takes time as we are held back by other things.

So when we begin to pursue through Gnosis a kind of healing and wholeness through the question of gender a number of things begin to happen in our lives and in the way we experience the world. First of all we begin to revolutionize the way in which we relate to others especially those of the other gender or to use the more common term, the opposite sex…and really what begins to happen is instead of seeing them quote “as the opposite sex” as something to be possessed or owned or intimidated or feared or dominated or dominated by in an unhealthy way, we can begin to construct relationships with those of other genders in a way that really engage in a true human level; and seek on those others how we can begin to complete our own spiritual existence. In this sense relationships between men and women are very important because they have so much to teach us about this completeness, this wholeness and what it might look like. We are in many ways, forces of revelation to each other. Allowing us to open up the mysteries of the hidden things concealed in those things visible, to use the words of the Gospel of Philip. Or to return to the Gospel of Thomas as Jesus says “The person of light, lights up the whole world.” Or in other words, we are each other’s light. These places of spiritual wholeness are sometimes shrouded in a kind of darkness and ignorance. Through the light provided by other people we can begin to see the contours of their meaning.

So I think there is an importance for anyone seeking the Gnostic path to obtain a certain degree of intimacy with people of the opposite sex. Now what I want to make clear is what I am talking about is not tied in any way to what is called sexuality. I’m certainly not saying that heterosexual sexuality is somehow necessary for Gnosis, although it can indeed be an important manifestation of this kind of intimacy. Or it can be a barrier to this kind of intimacy, as we know. Of course we know there are lots of people who are simply not heterosexual. They don’t share this sexual orientation, as part of their constituent identities; they have some kind of other sexual orientation; that they are drawn to other ways of living as sexual beings. Gnosticism of course is generally open to lots of different forms of sexual identity.

But ultimately what I am saying is, it is not that important about sexual contact, it’s about intimacy. The kind of inter gender intimacy that can be pursued in lots of ways. Through friendship, through intellectual exchange, through the kind of connection where you learn to build mutual networks of care…and exchange of thoughts and ideas, and spiritual growth. Men and women learn from each other in a mutual way when they begin to experience this intimacy. Which indeed, indeed, even when it does involve sexuality, when it does involve heterosexual contact is in fact something that transcends it. It is an intimacy that takes place on the spiritual level and transcends merely the physical level.

So this should make clear, as is important to state, that gender like other forms of division in the material world are not EVIL; it’s not as if gender is something bad and evil and something we want to run away from. These sources of division are indeed sources of limitation. U ironically or paradoxically, the very things that create these limitations can be the sources of the transcendent liberation, that can lift us up out of the world as defined by limitations and limits or rather live in that world in a way that helps set our spirits free.

The question of suffering, similarly suffering is something we see as to be transcended through Gnosis but at the same time, it offers us things. It offers us understanding and compassion toward others. Again it can make us bitter and angry people or it can make us much more open to other people. And I think gender is much the same way. It can be a very troubling phenomenon or it can be something we harness the force of to propel us along the spiritual journey in a way that incorporates healing and reconciliation. So ultimately I think though, the pursuit of gender wholeness, if that is what we want to call it, is probably more importantly something that happens within ourselves. Our intra-gender identities rather than our inter-gender relationships.

When we begin to search for that spiritual memory that Carpocrates talks about; that memory of spiritual wholeness. In the Pleroma, that was later divided through the shaping of the Demiurge. We are really searching to recover in our own beings a wholeness of gender that has been divided and separated in our own experience of life. It is important to remember that of course that, Demiurgic forces and Archonic forces and Pleromic forces are not so much beings but are forces operating within us. So we are looking for something in our own identities and what we want to do is move closer to wholeness. And it is this wholeness that is already deep within us. As I said, as Carpocrates said it is imprinted on the spiritual memory, that we all possess through the pneuma, through the spirit that is within us.

So we want to move closer to that wholeness that is both our ultimate destiny and is our earliest origins. To use the words of the Gospel of Philip, we want to gradually transform our lives, and our beings and our existences into that image of that spiritual memory at the heart of the pneuma, the spirit. Which is indeed what really makes us human.

The journey of Gnosis is predicated on the idea that even in the midst of this limited material existence we can begin to transform things and transform ourselves. Our bodies, our minds, in a way that infuses them with a new wholeness of the spirit. And as you see in that same verse, saying 22 of the Gospel of Thomas that we not only recreate the unity of gender, that it goes on to say that we, it goes on to say that we, you know, make the hand in the place of a hand and the foot in the place of a foot and likeness in the place of a likeness… One way to think of that is it is talking about a recreation of the self and the image of the spirit. Or as some have said, through our spirit we are created in the image of God. What we need to do through Gnosis is to recreate ourselves into the likeness of God. That is to transform the entirety of our being into a full realization of this image of God that is in our deepest human natures.

In a very real sense we have already in our spirits a sort of latent inner partnership between things we have called male and female in our experience of the material and intellectual world. Thus, in a very real sense each of us has within us, a sort of inner man and inner woman, what some mystics have spoken of as the Animus and Anima. We must pursue the kind of inner metaphysical partnership that will allow their mutual complimentarity that will shine forth in our lives and transform our consciousness.

Just as we want to revolutionize our relationships externally with regards to gender, and the opposite sex; so in parallel, we want to revolutionize our gender relationships internally within our own identities.

Now, if we look at Christ and Sophia, I want to discuss how they personify a Gnostic theory of gender both in terms of what we should do unto others and how we should persue that wholeness of gender within ourselves. We see in the stories of Christ and Sophia a great exchange, a great partnership, a sort of dialogue that is going on in these stories of “cosmic missions” and developments in time. These forces that represent in some sense the feminine and the masculine within the whole unity of the Pleroma.

If we look at the creation myth of the Valentinians, these were the Gnostics that followed Valentinus, the great preacher of the 2nd century, it is a little more different and complicated from what you may be used to. Just to give you a taste of what I mean, what happens to Sophia in this story is that… of course it starts off the same, she’s an Aeon, she’s in fact sometimes portrayed as the yuoungest of the Aeons, and she goes off by herself. Wanting to obtain more about her origins, thinking she can learn more by being alone and thinking alone. This of course brings about division and separation. What she produces, now in the Valentinian story is not the Demiurge immediately, but rather a realm of imperfection, the cosmos or chaos which is the stuff that the Demiurge will later create the cosmic world. What happens in the Valentinian story (again you’ll see how this is different to the simpler Gnostic story) is that this is so traumatic that Sophia literally gets split into two pieces. There ends up being a higher Sophia, who remains kind of connected fully in the Pleroma, but there also emerges a lower Sophia, part of Sophia’s identity becomes trapped in the imperfect realm. It becomes trapped in the cosmic chaos, and it tries and tries to get out, but it can’t. What happens is the Demiurge emerges out of the imperfect realm and begins to create all this stuff and eventually creates human beings. In the Valentinian story the Demiurge thinks its creating everything on its own for its own power. But in fact the lower Sophia (Echamoth) with the help of the Aeons, is influencing the Demiurge. They are subtly, sort of influencing what he does. In particularly, subtly pressing him into the creation of human beings.

The lower Sophia realizes the only way she can free herself and the rest of the spirit that is trapped in the cosmic world is if there can emerge some kind of beings that will have some kind of amalgamated identities. That is, they will be, part of the cosmic world and part of the spirit world. Part cosmos and part Pleroma. This she sees in human beings. So there is a sort of subversion of what the Demiurge wants to do. He wants to create automatons to worship him, but Sophia wants to create autonamus beings that can achieve liberation. So it is the lower Sophia, in this Valentinian story that comes into the form of the serpent. The lower Sophia says, “Alright, I have to get in contact with the human beings.” And so she says “What I’ll do is that I will go into the most humblest and the most simple of physical things. This animal that simply slithers along the ground, the serpent.” The Demiurge is so overwhelmed with his own arrogance and his own power that he’s not going to notice something as humble as the serpent. It is going to be completely off his radar screen.

So the lower Sophia, enters the serpent and comes to the people and then has the dialogue in which she begins to tell them the truth about things which is as she says, the Demiurge is not the one true God. That in fact human beings have this divine core within them and that if they would have the courage to eat the fruit of moral truth, if they have the courage to face the realities of the universe or rather not the universe but of all existence. Then they too can be transformed into God.

So you can see that is a little more complicated than other stories. I wouldn’t say it contradicts “on the origin of the World” more that it compliments it. What we see is the relationship between Christ and Sophia becomes more explicit. When Christ comes down to earth and manifests in the human being Jesus, Valentinian Gnostics would say “Why?” you know, why? This is a problem, why does Christ come into the world? I mean what is the point? They would say it is to help liberate Sophia. It is because Sophia is so important, so fundamental to him in the Pleroma, that he sees the lower Sophia and the rest of the spirit in the cosmic realm. He wants to enter that world; he wants to be willing to empty himself into a human existence so that he can help bring about the liberation of the lower Sophia and the reunification of the two parts of Sophia. Because there is a great pain involved in the separation for every being in the Pleroma because their wholeness has been ripped apart. So there is very much a sense that Christ and all the other beings or Aeons and God, even God, is deeply moved by compassion. It is compassion that moves all of these forces to try to help us. It is compassion and it is suffering. As Origen, an early Christian theologian said something interesting, he said, he was talking about Jesus Christ and he said “Christ suffered before he died on the cross.” And that “Actually Christ suffered before he was even born.” He goes on to say that “If Christ did not suffer, he would have never have come down to Earth.” That is his explanation of why Christ enters the world. That you can see is tied into this very interesting relationship between Christ and Sophia.

Brother Matthew Ouroboro


Sophia: Means “Wisdom.” Like the Logos this is considered a primal form. While the Logos is personified as male, Sophia is female. Logos has a direct and intellectual basis for guidance, Sophia is inspirational (sometimes even sensual). The basic idea is comparable to wisdom being Sophia (sofia) or “Holy
Spirit” in the form of pure wisdom. Pistis, means faith, hylic, or Prunikus Sophia refers to the imperfect or earthly state of the living, or earthly form from Pleromic origins. ”As appropriated by Sethianism and the Gnostics in general, Sophia is a hypostatized form of Hokmah, (i.e., the divine Wisdom of Proverbs 8, Job 28, Sirach 24).” ( See; Turner.)

Carpocrates: (100?-150 CE); Formed a sect in Alexandria known as Carpocrations. Possible successor to Samaritan Simon Magus. He taught reincarnation in his Gnostic philosophy. An individual had to live many lives and adsorb a full range of experiences before being able to return to God. They practiced free sexuality. They believed that Jesus was the son of Joseph. They questioned the docetic aspects attributed to Jesus. (See; “Stromata,” Bk 3.)

Pleroma: The word means “fullness,” and the ‘All.’ It refers to ”all existence
beyond matter. Refers to the world of the Aeons, the heavens or spiritual
universe, which represents being out of the state of matter. According to the
“Gospel of Truth” “….all the emanations from the Father are Pleromas.” see
Tractates 3, 2, Codices, I, and XII, Nag Hammadi Lib. Pleroma can have other
connotations according to the Gnostic school of thought, some differences in
Sethian and Valentinian (other) schools can be noted. Pleroma, is different than
Logos. (See; Logos, See also; Gaffney, p. 246.)

Pneumatic: One who identifies with the spirit (pneuma), beyond that of the
physical (hylic) world and the intellect alone (psychic). The pneuma, described
in the ”Gospel of Phillip,” as ‘breath,’ refers to bonding with the internal
spark (spinther) that came from and is drawn to reunite with the Father in some
Gnostic schema. One who awakens it (the spinther) within the self does it
through the process of gnosis. (See; Gregory of Nicea (Basil), who used the term
in his mystical teachings, and is a later term which connotes Gnostic. See;
Early Christian Mystics,” McGinn, Crossroads, 2003.)

the “Pneumatics”, correspond with “Pneuma”, the spiritual
“breath”, the spiritual order.  These are the Gnostic Initiates,
those who go beyond mentality/consciousness, and all modes related to
the individuality.  That which concerns Pneumatics, is as different
from the psychics, and the psychics from the hylics.

Aeon: These are characterized as emanations from the ‘first cause,’ the Father in some Gnostic schema. The word not only refers to the “worlds” of emanation, but to the personalities as well. Sophia, Logos, and the other high principles are aeons. ”A link or level of the great chain of being, the sum total which is the ‘All’ or Pleroma…Can also mean a world age.” (See; Gaffney) ”According to other Gnostics, for example Valentinus, the first principle is also called Aeon or the unfathomable, the primeval depth, the absolute abyss, bythos, in which everything is sublimated…” translated by Scott J. Thompson from G.W.F.
Hegel’s ”Vorlesungen über die Geschichte der Philosophie ii ,” (Theorie Werkausgabe, Bd. 19), Frankfurt a.M., Suhrkamp Verlag, 1977, 426-430] ( See also; Pleroma.) The first ten aeons in the Valentinian schema are, Bythios (Profound) and Mixis (Mixture), Ageratos (Never old) and Henosis (Union), Autophyes (Essential nature) and Hedone (Pleasure), Acinetos (Immoveable) and Syncrasis (Commixture,) Monogenes (Only-begotten) and Macaria (Happiness).

Demiurge: Meaning ‘Creator’ in Greek. Thought to be the “Craftsman” or creator of the material world. (Heracleon) In Orthodox thought this is a supernatural entity or force, such as the appearance of God to Moses. In the Gnostic schema the Word refers to an order, and it may be a natural sort of intelligent design, related to wisdom, the earthly or kenomic state of the higher wisdom, or form from the Pleroma. The material state is considered less than the Pleromic, and highly flawed. Archons seem to be emanations from the Demiurge process, much like other emanations from the Pleroma. (See; Pleroma, Kenoma, Archon.)

Echmoth: (Echamoth) Meaning a form of wisdom; “Echamoth is one thing and Echmoth, another. Echamoth is Wisdom simply, but (e) Echmoth is the Wisdom of death, which is the one who knows death, which is called “the little Wisdom”. (”Gospel of Phillip, NHL.)

Abyssinia. The highlands of Aithiopia are thronged by various

tribes, called Ḥ abash by Arabs (“ mixed ”), and so Abasi, or Abassinos, by Portuguese. The land is called by natives Mangesta Itiopia, or “ Aithiopian Kingdom.” Dr Glaser connects the word with the tribal name of the ’Abāsāt of Māhra (Eastern Ḥ agramaut), whose capital was Abasem or Abasa—the Abyssa of Uranius, Ptolemy, and Pausanias, famous for its export of myrrh and frankincense (aṭyub or “good things”), with which he connects Aithiopes (see Aithiopes, and Arabia).

The presence of Sabean Arabs in Abyssinia explains their legend of the “Queen of Sheba,” who visited Solomon about 1000 B.C. The ’Abasa advanced on Yaman, perhaps as early, and Abyssinia accepted Yamanite rule in our 1st or 2nd century. Down to the 5th the Arabs persecuted Abyssinian Christians, who were established by Roman emperors. In 512 A.C. the Abyssinians conquered Yaman, and held it till 634 A.C., when Islām overwhelmed them, “so that they

Slept for a thousand years, forgetful of the world by which they were forgotten” (Gibbon).

The temple in Yeha, Tigray region, is dated back ca. 8th century BC and believed to be one of the oldest structures in Ethiopia.

The temple in Yeha, Tigray region, is dated back ca. 8th century BC and believed to be one of the oldest structures in Ethiopia.

As early as Solomon’s time, says Prof. Leo Reinish (Inaugural lecture, Vienna University, see Rl. Geog. Journal, March 1897), the Sabeans of Yaman had a trading “ association ” (or Ḥ abasah) ; and Sabeans became the carriers of the products of India, Arabia, and East Africa, to Egypt and Syria. Hebrews recognised their antiquity, calling Saba or Sheba the “Son of Cush” (Gen. x, 7). At the ancient capital of N. Abyssinia, called Yeha or Awa, about 14 miles north of Adowa (the Adulis of Ptolemaic times), Mr. Bent found, amid extensive ruins, seven Sabean texts, and “a grand and beautiful tower well proportioned,” and of good masonry, near which were a church and monastery, evidently modern, and poor by comparison —like the early Christian churches beside Irish round towers. Axum succeeded Adowa as a capital, but it was to Yeha, according to tradition, that Solomon’s son Menelak brought the Jewish Ark, and where dwelt Queen Candace. Prof. D. H. Muller connects the expression “ Awa his house,” in a text of Yeha, with Ba’al-awa commonly worshiped in Sabean Arabia.

His Imperial Majesty Emperor Yohannis IV, Emperor of Ethiopia and King of Zion, with his son and heir, Ras Araya Selassie Yohannis

His Imperial Majesty Emperor Yohannis IV, Emperor of Ethiopia and King of Zion, with his son and heir, Ras Araya Selassie Yohannis

Ptolemy, in his Geography, calls this region the “ Regio Trogloditica ” : for Adulites and Avalites lived mostly in caves on the “ Ava-lic Gulf.” They imported ivory, spices, and gold dust into Sabean Arabia. The masses in Abyssinia are still virtually pagans, worshiping fetishes, rude sun-stones, or lingams, like Tartar Ōbōs (Rivers of Life, ii, p. 247). Their altars often have cups and channels, for the blood or libations—like those of the Mithraic rites in Italy. They are of all kinds, from the uncut to the highly decorated stone (Bent’s Abyss., p. 145). “ Some of the monolithic inscriptions,” says Prof. Muller, “are purely Sabean.” They date (he thinks) from the 9th century B.C., down to the 4th century A.C. Drs Glaser and Sayce say the 7th to 5th centuries B.C. (Academy, 8th Sept. 1894, and Nov. 1895). [The script however is the same as that of dated

Sabean texts not older than 3rd century B.C.—ED.] In the 5th

century Christian (Koptik) missionaries, from Alexandria, were sent to convert the highlanders of Abyssinia, and established themselves near Adowa. Their religion became one purely of rites, feasts, fasts, and superstitions, Hebrew, Christian, or pagan. Children (of both sexes) are circumcised : food and persons are subject to purifications more or less Jewish. Priests may not marry, and are under the Abuna (“our father”), or high priest, nominated by the Coptic Patriarch of Alexandria.

The churches have three circular enclosures; the outside one

For the laity: the central for priests: and the inmost as the Holy of Holies. The services include reading the Scriptures in a tongue not understood by any: the Eucharist: and worship of the Virgin, as queen of heaven and earth, and chief intercessor; as well as of many saints, whose ikons abound, and who are more important than the Deity. There are three sharply divided Christian sects, ever disputing as to the unction of Christ, and cursing one another.

A traditional Ethiopian depiction of Jesus and Mary.

A traditional Ethiopian depiction of Jesus and Mary.

The Gheez, or ancient Aithiopik, of the N. Tigrē province (a Sabean dialect) is the language of literature and religion. The later Amharik prevails at court, and in the army, and among merchants; and the Agou dialect in several provinces: these present Arabic affinities, and are mixed with African words. The Gala race of the South have, since the 16th century A.C., overrun the highlands, and have long furnished the bulk of the army. There are few chiefs not of Galla blood: yet the people are, as a whole, evidently of mixed Arab and African race. The confederated chiefs owe fealty to the Amhara ruler, for purposes of defence, and he is now called king.


Jack Kilmon wrote:

I think this is an important issue often ignored in “historical Jesus
studies.” I agree with Barker and will go further to label the historical
Jesus (sorry, mythers) as an Enochian rather than a Mosaic Jew.

Lets look at Jesus as an Enochian, like the Essenes albeit, I believe, He
differed with the Qumran folks on eschatology. Now this is lengthy but if
the hypothesis is a form of Judaism (Daniel-Enochian) from which both the
DSS People arose and to which Jesus also subscribed, I have
to back it up.

We have seen books depicting Jesus the sage, cynic, magicin, healer,
messiah…there is probably a book somewhere claiming he’s a Presbyterian.

He was, IMO, an apocalyptic.

If the Dead Sea Scroll corpus is a good barometer, the late 2nd temple
period saw an
emergence of Daniel-Enochian fervor. In both Daniel and the Enochian
literature, the “son of man” plays a central role.

Jesus himself, NOT ONCE, refers to himself with certainty as the Messiah
but instead refers to himself as the bar nasha/ben adam of Daniel and
Enoch…”coming on the clouds, etc.” It was Paul of Tarsus…hostile to the
Nazarenes, who conferred the name of XRISTOS on Jesus in his reconstruction
of Jesus as the Pauline “Christ Crucified.”

The cradle from which both Jewish and Christian “mysticism” arose was
Enochian apocalypticism, the same cradle from which post-destruction Ma’asei
Merkavah (which would eventually develop into Kabbala) and the Hekhalot
literature arose which deals with “mystical” ascents into heaven.

Anyone pursuing the ancient Jewish sources from which the Nazarenes arose,
should read the considerable Enochian literary corpus now available thanks
to the Qumran texts. The Books of Enoch and their related texts, Jubilees,
Giants, Weeks, Parables, Watchers, Testimonies of the 12 Patriarchs, Dreams,
etc. Enochian apocalypticism is a reflection of a Mesopotamian alternative
to Mosaic” Judaism with its focus on Enmeduranki, the 7th antediluvian king
Sippar in the Sumerian Chronicles and a counterpart (or model) for Enoch..

There was a considerable influence by Zoroastrianism on Judaism as a result
to the Babylonian Captivity after which they brought the Enochian traditions
to Jerusalem upon the return. The Jerusalem priests at that time hated the
Enochian Jews (and it is my position that Jesus was an Enochian Jew) who
supported the Maccabees thereby gaining favor with the Hasmoneans. These
Enochian Jews became,
IMO, the Essenes who subsequently developed serious
issues with the Hasmonean priest-kings. I don’t think anyonewould argue
that the Dead Sea Scrolls are not strongly Enochian.

The Jewish Nazarenes (“branchers”) were heirs, IMO, to the Enochian
traditions but Gentile Christianity imported a constellation of influences
from Graeco-Roman sources. That Enochian Judaism was an alternative to
Mosaic nomian Judaeism can explain why Paul appears anti-nomian and why
Enoch was not included in the Rabbinical canon.

Quoted in the Book of Jude:

“And behold! He cometh with ten thousands of His holy ones To execute
judgement upon all, And to destroy all the ungodly: And to convict all flesh
of all the works of their ungodliness which they have ungodly committed, And
of all the hard things which ungodly sinners have spoken against Him.”
(Enoch 1:9)

Other references to the SON OF MAN in Enoch:

“And there I saw One who had a head of days, And His head was white like
wool, And with Him was another being whose countenance had the appearance of
a man, And his face was full of graciousness, like one of the holy angels. 2
And I asked the angel who went with me and showed me all the hidden things,
concerning that 3 Son of Man, who he was, and whence he was, (and) why he
went with the Ancient of Days? And he answered and said unto me: This
is the Son of Man who hath righteousness, With whom dwelleth righteousness,
And who revealeth all the treasures of that which is hidden, Because the
Lord of Hosts hath chosen him, And whose lot hath the pre-eminence before
the Lord of Hosts in uprightness for ever.” (Part 8 Chapter 46:1-3)

1 And in that place I saw the fountain of righteousness Which was
inexhaustible: And around it were many fountains of wisdom: And all the
thirsty drank of them, And were filled with wisdom, And their dwellings were
with the righteous and holy and elect. 2 And at that hour that Son of Man
was named In the presence of the Lord of Hosts, And his name before the
Ancient of Days. 3 Yea, before the sun and the signs were created, Before
the stars of the heaven were made, His name
was named before the Lord of Hosts. 4 He shall be a staff to the righteous
whereon to stay themselves and not fall, And he shall be the light of the
Gentiles, And the hope of those who are troubled of heart. 5 All who dwell
on earth shall fall down and worship before him, And will praise and bless
and celebrate with song the Lord of Hosts. 6 And for this reason hath he
been chosen and hidden before Him, Before the creation of the world and for
evermore. 7 And the wisdom of the Lord of Hosts hath revealed him to the
holy and righteous; For he hath preserved the lot of the righteous, Because
they have hated and despised this world of unrighteousness, And have hated
all its works and ways in the name of the Lord of Hosts: For in his name
they are saved, And according to his good pleasure hath it been in regard to
their life. (Part 8 Chapter 48:1-7)

The Book of Daniel, like Enoch, was written originally in Aramaic. It
contains the most famous reference to the SON OF MAN.

Daniel 7:13-14 (WEB)
13 חזה הוית בחזוי ליליא וארו עם־ענני שׁמיא כבר אנשׁ אתה הוה ועד־עתיק יומיא
מטה וקדמוהי הקרבוהי׃ 14 ולה יהיב שׁלטן ויקר ומלכו וכל עממיא אמיא ולשׁניא לה
יפלחון שׁלטנה שׁלטן עלם די־לא יעדה ומלכותה פ

13 I saw in the night-visions, and, behold, there came with the clouds of
the sky one like a son of man (כבר אנש [kibar 'anash]), and he came even to
the ancient of days, and they brought him near before him. 14 There was
given him dominion, and glory, and a kingdom, that all the peoples, nations,
and languages should serve him: his dominion is an everlasting dominion,
which shall not pass away, and his kingdom that which shall not be

Jesus spoke of himself, just as above in Daniel, at Matthew 24:30 And
then shall appear the sign of the Son of man in heaven: and then shall all
the tribes of the earth mourn, and they shall see the Son of man coming in
the clouds of heaven with power and great glory.

……and at Matthew 26:64 Jesus saith unto him, Thou hast said:
nevertheless I say unto you, Hereafter shall ye see the Son of man sitting
on the right hand of power, and coming in the clouds of heaven.

As you can see, Jesus refers to himself as the SON OF MAN (Aramaic bar
nasha) of Daniel and Enoch and not,
IMO, as simply the bar nash/a idiom for
“just a guy.”

Now let’s see how many times Jesus calls himself the bar nasha (son of
man)…he never referred to himself with certainty or non-cryptically as
the Messiah.

Matthew 8:20 And Jesus saith unto him, The foxes have holes, and the birds
of the air [have] nests; but the Son of man hath not where to lay [his]

Matthew 9:6 But that ye may know that the Son of man hath power on earth to
forgive sins, (then saith he to the sick of the palsy,) Arise, take up thy
bed, and go unto thine house.

Matthew 10:23 But when they persecute you in this city, flee ye into
another: for verily I say unto you, Ye shall not have gone over the cities
Israel, till the Son of man be come.

Matthew 11:19 The Son of man came eating and drinking, and they say, Behold
a man gluttonous, and a winebibber, a friend of publicans and sinners. But
wisdom is justified of her children.

Matthew 12:8 For the Son of man is Lord even of the sabbath day.

Matthew 12:32 And whosoever speaketh a word against the Son of man, it shall
be forgiven him: but whosoever speaketh against the Holy Ghost, it shall not
be forgiven him, neither in this world, neither in the [world] to come.

Matthew 12:40 For as Jonas was three days and three nights in the whale’s
belly; so shall the Son of man be three days and three nights in the heart
of the earth.

Matthew 13:37 He answered and said unto them, He that soweth the good seed
is the Son of man;

Matthew 13:41 The Son of man shall send forth his angels, and they shall
gather out of his kingdom all things that offend, and them which do

Matthew 16:13 When Jesus came into the coasts of Caesarea Philippi, he asked
his disciples, saying, Whom do men say that I the Son of man am?

Matthew 16:27 For the Son of man shall come in the glory of his Father with
his angels; and then he shall reward every man according to his works.

Matthew 16:28 Verily I say unto you, There be some standing here, which
shall not taste of death, till they see the Son of man coming in his

Matthew 17:9 And as they came down from the mountain, Jesus charged them,
saying, Tell the vision to no man, until the Son of man be risen again from
the dead.

Matthew 17:12 But I say unto you, That Elias is come already, and they knew
him not, but have done unto him whatsoever they listed. Likewise shall also
the Son of man suffer of them.

Matthew 17:22 And while they abode in Galilee, Jesus said unto them, The Son
of man shall be betrayed into the hands of men:

Matthew 18:11 For the Son of man is come to save that which was lost.

Matthew 19:28 And Jesus said unto them, Verily I say unto you, That ye
which have followed me, in the regeneration when the Son of man shall sit in
the throne of his glory, ye also shall sit upon twelve thrones, judging the
twelve tribes of

Matthew 20:18 Behold, we go up to Jerusalem; and the Son of man shall be
betrayed unto the chief priests and unto the scribes, and they shall condemn
him to death,

Matthew 20:28 Even as the Son of man came not to be ministered unto, but to
minister, and to give his life a ransom for many.

Matthew 24:27 For as the lightning cometh out of the east, and shineth even
unto the west; so shall also the coming of the Son of man be.

Matthew 24:30 And then shall appear the sign of the Son of man in heaven:
and then shall all the tribes of the earth mourn, and they shall see the Son
of man coming in the clouds of heaven with power and great glory. (this is
right out of Enoch 7)

Matthew 24:37 But as the days of Noe [were], so shall also the coming of
the Son of man be.

Matthew 24:39 And knew not until the flood came, and took them all away; so
shall also the coming of the Son of man be.

Matthew 24:44 Therefore be ye also ready: for in such an hour as ye think
not the Son of man cometh.

Matthew 25:13 Watch therefore, for ye know neither the day nor the hour
wherein the Son of man cometh.

Matthew 25:31 When the Son of man shall come in his glory, and all the holy
angels with him, then shall he sit upon the throne of his glory:

Matthew 26:2 Ye know that after two days is [the feast of] the passover,
and the Son of man is betrayed to be crucified.

Matthew 26:24 The Son of man goeth as it is written of him: but woe unto
that man by whom the Son of man is betrayed! it had been good for that man
if he had not been born.

Matthew 26:45 Then cometh he to his disciples, and saith unto them, Sleep
on now, and take [your] rest: behold, the hour is at hand, and the Son of
Man is betrayed into the hands of sinners.

Matthew 26:64 Jesus saith unto him, Thou hast said: nevertheless I say unto
you, Hereafter shall ye see the Son of man sitting on the right hand of
power, and coming in the clouds of heaven.

Jesus is reported by Matthew alone to have claimed to have been the SON OF
MAN (bar nasha) of Daniel and Enoch THIRTY TIMES….so why don’t we believe
him? Why do we believe Paul of Tarsus instead? It doesn’t require pesher
interpretation, fiction, theologoumenon or midrash…just read the red

An Enochian Jew, in the late second temple period, is one who believed in
the Enochian apocalyptic such as the Essenes and John the Baptist.

Jesus/Yeshua was indeed, IMO, an apocalyptic herald of the “imminent”
d’alaha (
Kingdom of God) in the Enochian tradition and, as such, outside of
“normative” Mosaic Judaism. I think there are other indicators that this
“Son of Man” from the ancient of days could be “Lord of the Sabbath” as well
as the Mosaic laws (seen in the formula “It is written” or “You have
ABC “but *I* tell you”…XYZ).

So yes, he was apocalyptic but, in his mind, just not a “sage” but THE bar
nasha that was expected by /John (Matthew 11:3), the Enochian apocalyptic
redeemer of Daniel 7:13-14.


Now what I am commanding you today is not too difficult for you or beyond your reach. It is not up in heaven, so that you have to ask, “Who will ascend into heaven to get it and proclaim it to us so we may obey it?” Nor is it beyond the sea, so that you have to ask, “Who will cross the sea to get it and proclaim it to us so we may obey it?” No, the word is very near you; it is in your mouth and in your heart so you may obey it.

–Deut 30: 11-14


To be pure and still means to be open to purity and stillness

As a result you can intuit the truth. This means that the light can shine

Revealing the workings of cause and effect

And leading to the place of Peace and Happiness.

Simon, know this. I carry myself in strangeness

In words that can reach out north, south, east, and west.

And if I am everywhere in the world, then 1 don’t know how

I am

If I am truly in my words, then I don’t know what I signify.

If a person has a made-up name, no one really knows who

he is.

Trying to know and to see are irrelevant. Why is this?

People struggle trying to figure it all out.

This struggle creates the desire to do something.

Doing creates movement which results in anxiety:

Then it is impossible to find Rest and Contentment.

This is why I teach no wanting and doing without doing

It stops you thinking about things which disturb you

Then you can enter into the source of pure empty being.

Detach yourself from what disturbs and distracts you,

And be as pure as one who breathes in purity and emptiness.

This state is the gateway to enlightenment

It is the Way to Peace and Happiness.

–The Sutra of Returning to your original nature (Extract from The Jesus Sutras by Martin Palmer)


In Hebrew, a prophet is called a navi. Practioner Ayeh Kaplan pointed out that this word has three etymologies. One is navach (to cry out), another is nava (to gush, to flow forth) and the last is navuv (to be hollow). All three etymologies help us understand biblical meditation and its relationship to prophecy and enlightenment. For the prophet was as one hollow, his or her ego stripped away. The prophet was the flute through which flowed the Infinite One’s wind and melody.

–Avram Davis (The Way of Flame: A Guide to the Forgotten Mystical Tradition of Jewish Mysticism)

Next Page »


Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 50 other followers