John 14:26 But She—the Spirit, the Paraclete whom He will send to you, my Father, in my name—She will teach you everything; She will remind you of that which I have told you.
(Translation by Danny Mahar, author of Aramaic Made EZ)
John 14:26 But She—the Spirit, the Paraclete whom He will send to you, my Father, in my name—She will teach you everything; She will remind you of that which I have told you.
(Translation by Danny Mahar, author of Aramaic Made EZ)
The name Eve (חַוָּה) bears resemblance to an Aramaic word for “snake” (O.Arb. חוה; J.Arm. חִוְיָא).  In Genesis, Eve is associated with the snake.
“Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign;
Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son,
and shall call his name Immanuel.” (Isa 7:14 KJV)
Immanuel (or Emmanuel or Imanu’el, Hebrew עִמָּנוּאֵל meaning “God is with us“)
Jesus Teacheth How to Pray
Error Even In Prophets
1. As Jesus was praying in a certain place on a mountain, some of his disciples came unto him, and one of then said, Lord teach us how to pray. And Jesus said unto them, When thou prayest enter into thy secret chamber, and when thou hast closed the door, pray to Abba Amma Who is above and within thee, and thy Father-Mother Who seest all that is secret shall answer thee openly.
We should remember that the New Testament, as we have it, is much more dominated by Paul than appears at first sight. As we read it, we come across the Four Gospels, of which Jesus is the hero, and do not encounter Paul as a character until we embark on the post-Jesus narrative of Acts. Then we finally come into contact with Paul himself, in his letters. But this impression is misleading, for the earliest writings in the New Testament are actually Paul’s letters, which were written about AD 50-60, while the Gospels were not written until the period AD 70-110. This means that the theories of Paul were already before the writers of the Gospels and coloured their interpretations of Jesus’ activities. Paul is, in a sense, present from the very first word of the New Testament.
God had a wife, Asherah, whom the Book of Kings suggests was worshiped alongside Yahweh in his temple in Israel, according to an Oxford scholar.
In 1967, Raphael Patai was the first historian to mention that the ancient Israelites worshiped both Yahweh and Asherah. The theory has gained new prominence due to the research of Francesca Stavrakopoulou, who began her work at Oxford and is now a senior lecturer in the department of Theology and Religion at the University of Exeter.
Information presented in Stavrakopoulou’s books, lectures and journal papers has become the basis of a three-part documentary series, now airing in Europe, where she discusses the Yahweh-Asherah connection.
“You might know him as Yahweh, Allah or God. But on this fact, Jews, Muslims and Christians, the people of the great Abrahamic religions, are agreed: There is only one of Him,” writes Stavrakopoulou in a statement released to the British media. “He is a solitary figure, a single, universal creator, not one God among many … or so we like to believe.”
“After years of research specializing in the history and religion of Israel, however, I have come to a colorful and what could seem, to some, uncomfortable conclusion that God had a wife,” she added.
Stavrakopoulou bases her theory on ancient texts, amulets and figurines unearthed primarily in the ancient Canaanite coastal city called Ugarit, now modern-day Syria. All of these artifacts reveal that Asherah was a powerful fertility goddess.
Asherah’s connection to Yahweh, according to Stavrakopoulou, is spelled out in both the Bible and an 8th century B.C. inscription on pottery found in the Sinai desert at a site called Kuntillet Ajrud.
“The inscription is a petition for a blessing,” she shares. “Crucially, the inscription asks for a blessing from ‘Yahweh and his Asherah.’ Here was evidence that presented Yahweh and Asherah as a divine pair. And now a handful of similar inscriptions have since been found, all of which help to strengthen the case that the God of the Bible once had a wife.”
Also significant, Stavrakopoulou believes, “is the Bible’s admission that the goddess Asherah was worshiped in Yahweh’s Temple in Jerusalem. In the Book of Kings, we’re told that a statue of Asherah was housed in the temple and that female temple personnel wove ritual textiles for her.”
J. Edward Wright, president of both The Arizona Center for Judaic Studies and The Albright Institute for Archaeological Research, told Discovery News that he agrees several Hebrew inscriptions mention “Yahweh and his Asherah.”
“Asherah was not entirely edited out of the Bible by its male editors,” he added. “Traces of her remain, and based on those traces, archaeological evidence and references to her in texts from nations bordering Israel and Judah, we can reconstruct her role in the religions of the Southern Levant.”
Asherah — known across the ancient Near East by various other names, such as Astarte and Istar — was “an important deity, one who was both mighty and nurturing,” Wright continued.
“Many English translations prefer to translate ‘Asherah’ as ‘Sacred Tree,'” Wright said. “This seems to be in part driven by a modern desire, clearly inspired by the Biblical narratives, to hide Asherah behind a veil once again.”
“Mentions of the goddess Asherah in the Hebrew Bible (Old Testament) are rare and have been heavily edited by the ancient authors who gathered the texts together,” Aaron Brody, director of the Bade Museum and an associate professor of Bible and archaeology at the Pacific School of Religion, said.
Asherah as a tree symbol was even said to have been “chopped down and burned outside the Temple in acts of certain rulers who were trying to ‘purify’ the cult, and focus on the worship of a single male god, Yahweh,” he added.
The ancient Israelites were polytheists, Brody told Discovery News, “with only a small minority worshiping Yahweh alone before the historic events of 586 B.C.” In that year, an elite community within Judea was exiled to Babylon and the Temple in Jerusalem was destroyed. This, Brody said, led to “a more universal vision of strict monotheism: one god not only for Judah, but for all of the nations.”
The Sins of Augustine
by Chuck Fisher
(Used by permission)
Augustine Aurelius, Bishop of Hippo, arguably is considered the most influential theologian after St. Paul. As a pastor and bishop in North Africa, Augustine was one of the most prolific church writers, dealing with the many theological issues that faced the Church in his day. As a teacher, he influenced the course of the Church, and as a bishop, he influenced the politics of Rome. Without a doubt, Augustine it is considered a great man. But does he deserve this reputation?
FactsThe history of Augustine’s life is pretty straightforward and well-known. Son of a pagan father and Christian mother, Augustine grew up knowing the truth of the gospel, but led his own life, his father taking delight in his son’s sexual escapades. Augustine became a well-known orator and studied the pagan philosophies of Plato. Augustine became a Christian at age 32, after discussions about Christianity with a friend, and hearing a child’s voice telling him to pick up a scroll and read it. This conversion story is one the most famous in Christendom.
After being baptized, in 387, Augustine moved back to his hometown of Tagaste, in North Africa, to found a monastic community and become a monk. In 391, the church at nearby Hippo pressed him to become a priest, and five years later, he was made Bishop of Hippo. As a Church leader, he became an active pastor, not only for his congregation and diocese, but for his Faith. His life is best known for his doctrinal fights against Donatists and the followers of Pelagius.
Perverter of the Church?Augustine has been called the Great Teacher of the Church, and the Doctor of Grace, because of his influence on the doctrines of the Church. His voice was so powerful that a simple “Augustine Dixit,” “Augustine says ,” settled all arguments. Augustine is still beloved theologian of theologians, studied in seminaries and schools of philosophy around the world. However, there are a few things that those who sing Augustine’s praises neglect to tell us, things which, if widely known, would call into question his supposedly great contributions to philosophy and theology.
First of all, believe it or not, Augustine couldn’t read Greek! It is not required, in ministers, that they be able to read Greek. Many, many ministers have been to Bible schools that did not required them to learn Greek. This does not mean that they’re not qualified to pastor churches, to preach and teach the gospel. However, for a theologian to not be able to consult the original languages of the Word of God, this is a critical failure.
This means that Augustine was not able to understand what Paul or Peter or John wrote, without relying on the sayso a translator. Which Augustine did. Augustine relied on the translation of his close ally, Jerome of Palestine. Jerome was the man who translated the Bible from the Hebrew and Greek, into Latin. Unfortunately, Jerome was an extremely biased, didactic theologian, and in at least one theological area, that of justification, made an unfortunate translation that has affected the Church ever since. Augustine took a word from Jerome’s Latin Vulgate and gave us a Roman court model for justification, rather than the model that Paul presented, in the original Greek, that of a king declaring a subject in right standing with his/her king. Robert Brow, in his article, “Did Paul Teach Law Court Justification?” wrote:
The words in the original Greek might allow, but they never require a judicial interpretation. Since the time of Chrysostom it has been pointed out in the Greek Church that dikaioo could equally well be translated “make upright or righteous” …. If this Greek Orthodox reading of the Epistle is correct then it would seem that it was the legal minds of the first Latin translators and Jerome’s Vulgate which introduced the forensic virus into the western church. Augustine did not know Greek, and he set the Roman law court model in stone. Anselm and Calvin clarified that logic with ruthless perfection. http://www.biblical-theology.com/salvation/justific.htm
A second problem with Augustine is where he got much of his theology from. Before becoming a Christian, Augustine studied two different religions/philosophies, that he allowed to influence him, and brought their doctrines with him into the Church.
For nine years, Augustine was a Manichean, a devotee of of the teachings of Mani, founder of a Persian moral cult. Like the Gnostics of the first century, Mani and his followers were dualistic, teaching that the flesh was sinful and impure, while the spirit was light and life. As a Manichean, this teaching was a comfort to Augustine, as it let him blame his continued sexual sin on his lower fleshy nature, but still be moral by emphasizing the separateness of flesh and spirit.
Augustine’s years with the Manicheans left its impact on the Church, as he brought this teaching into the the Church through his teaching on Original Sin. A. T. Overstreet, in his on-line book, “Are Men Born Sinners?, The Myth of Original Sin,” notes:
Augustine’s nine years with them [the Maniceans] accustomed him to regard human nature as essentially evil and human freedom as a delusion. Augustine next fell under the influence of Neo-Platonism, and his theological views were strongly influenced by this philosophy as well. However, his doctrine of sin shows the obvious influence of the Gnostic teachings of Manichaeism, in which he assumes the most ridiculous teaching of all the heathen philosophies the teaching that matter can be sinful. And this is the source of his doctrine that sin can be passed on physically from one person to another.
We have, finally, in Augustine’s doctrine of sin a strong Manichaean and Gnostic element; for Augustine never wholly surmounted Manichaeism.
Augustine’s doctrine of sin, with his belief in the inherent sinfulness of the physical constitution, is wholly Manichaean. His idea that sin is propagated through the marriage union, that sexual desire is sin and that sexual lust in procreation transmits sin is also Manichaean. Augustine built his doctrine of original sin upon this premise that sexual lust in procreation transmits sin.
As mentioned in the quote above, Augustine studied the teachings of pagan Greek philosophers, the Neo-Platonists. In fact, Augustine was ” converted ” to Christianity through Neo-Platonist philosophy! “World Book Encyclopedia” had these two comments to make about the influence of pagan philosophy on Augustine:
“The writings of the Neo-Platonists and sermons of Saint Ambrose, the bishop of Milan, convinced Augustine to accept Christianity. ”
“Augustine’s study of neoplatonism convinced him that God existed in the soul of every human being.”
The following is from the “Concise Columbia Encyclopedia” article on Neoplatonism:
“Neoplatonism, ancient mystical philosophy based on the later doctrines of Plato, especially those in the Timaus…. Neoplatonism, widespread until the 7th cent., was an influence on early Christian thinkers (e.g., Origen) and medieval Jewish and Arab philosophers. It was FIRMLY JOINED WITH CHRISTIANITY BY AUGUSTINE, who was a Neoplatonist before his conversion.” (emphasis mine)
Did you get that last line? Augustine brought the pagan philosophies, learned before his conversion, into the church and much of our doctrine today is based on this.
What is generally not known about Augustine is that he favored his philosophers more than the Old Testament revelation. Bishop Ambrose, who was instrumental in converting Augustine, had to help him overcome his problem with the Old Testament : it seems that Augustine felt that the God of the Old Testament was capricious and vindictive, and at odds with the God of the New testament.
So how did Ambrose and Augustine overcome the apparent contradiction ? By using a method of interpretation called allegory. The teachings of the Old Testament, according to Augustine, could only be understood by taking the Old Testament as allegory. Augustine spiritualized the Old Testament, teaching that the histories of the Old Testament had nothing to do with God, in reality, that the stories about God in the Old Testament only taught about God in pictures, like parables. According to Augustine, the Old Testament was not a perfect revelation of God and his character, but contained bits and pieces about God that we had to figure out with allegorical interpretation. Augustine’s influence was so great that, for a thousand years, his method of interpreting the Bible was the official method of interpretation used by the Church.
Here is what James J. O’Donnell wrote in his on-line article, “Augustine the African”
Here Christianity began to appear to him in a new, intellectually respectable light. As before, his most pressing personal problem was his sense of evil and his responsibility for the wickedness of his life; with the help of technical vocabulary borrowed from Platonic philosophy Ambrose proposed a convincing solution for Augustine’s oldest dilemma. Augustine had besides a specific objection to Christianity that only a professor of belles-lettres could have: he could not love the scriptures because their style was inelegant and barbaric. Here again Ambrose, elegant and far from barbaric, showed Augustine how Christian exegesis could give life and meaning to the sacred texts.
How did Augustine’s philosophical background affect Christian doctrine ? His neo-platonic views affected his view of God, which is passed on to the Church, at large.
Augustine bought into the Platonic beliefs about the Perfect Ideal. Plato taught that everything that existed was merely a mirror of the one true thing that was perfection, and this Perfect Ideal was unchangeable. If it could change, it wouldn’t be perfect. With that as his philosophical presupposition, Augustine brought in an un-biblical definition about God’s immutability that survives as orthodoxy to this day. This is from Chapter Two of Bob Moore’s on-line book, “Calvinism — Ten Little Caveats”:
From Plato comes the concept of “the forms” or perfect ideals. This gave students of philosophy (one being Augustine) the notion that God does not change in any way because he is perfect. What is perfect, it is argued, does not change because by definition “perfect” means the level beyond which nothing can exceed. Nothing is more perfect than flawless, A+, or 100%. For a Platonist, things which change are inferior to things which do not change.
The Bible presents God as changeless, but the Christian tradition being shaped by Augustine and others, had to interpret what that meant. They had to decide if it meant that God did not change in character or if it meant that he did not change in some stronger sense.
Don’t believe that our Christian orthodox doctrine relies on Greek philosophy? Then read these quotes from “The Providence of God,” by Benjamin Writ Farley, as cited in Bob Moore’s book:
the rudiments of a reformed doctrine of the providence of God lie deeply embedded in the western philosophical tradition. There is little point in debating this. Wisdom and truth consist in acknowledging the fact and in showing how Christian and later Reformed doctrines differ significantly from the older, inherited, philosophical views.
Farley reflects further,
Has Reformed theology wed itself too closely to the classical world’s concepts of God’s perfection, omnipotence, omniscience, and immutability in its attempts to witness to the God of Scripture? To be certain, such concepts have their place in guiding the church’s reflection on the biblical God of providential activity. They enable the church to avoid the pitfalls of defining God in ways that make him subservient to other factors in the universe; they call the church’s attention to glaring inconsistencies in its assertions about deity. But they need not ‘control’ our understanding of God’s interaction with his world.
A third problem with Augustine that is not discussed often is his tendency to develop doctrine based on his experience rather than scripture. I have heard it said, “A man’s philosophy is dictated by his morals.” The same is true for his theology. Augustine wrote an autobiography, considered to be a classic, Confessions, and in it, he discusses his problems with sin. He spends a great deal of time dealing with an incident (as a young teenager ) in which he stole pears from a neighbor’s tree, and uses this event to develop and teach the doctrine of Original Sin.
Because Augustine had a problem with promiscuity and lust, and even as a churchman and bishop, had problems with his thought-life, he concluded that no one is able to choose to do good. His problem with the settings and formed the basis for the doctrine of the other depravity of man. This experiential theology, based on his own moral failures, caused him to attack the Biblical theology of Pelagius and Celestius and Julian of Eclanum, who taught man’s responsibility to choose to follow God.
A fourth problem area with Augustine is an area that, while well-known among scholars, is not widely discussed, but is absolutely critical in evaluating the truth of the doctrines that he developed and foisted on the Church. This last area deals with Augustine’s method of dealing with those who disagreed with his teachings. Since Augustine’s teachings became the touchstone for church doctrine, both Catholic and Protestant, it is vital that we examine the process by which Christian doctrine became settled, and was handed down to us.
Augustine was born in 354, in the time of a Christian Roman empire. Augustine did not have to live through the time of persecution that had been on the Church for 250 years, and so did not know the powerlessness that the meek followers of Christ had experienced. Instead, Augustine came into a Church with politically well-connected bishops, who had direct lines of communications to authorities on all levels, including the Roman Emperor. And Augustine, as a bishop of his time, used his resources well.
Early in Augustine’s Christian career, a controversy arose over the views of Donatus. Do not be deceived by classical theologians into thinking that Donatists were heretics. They were not. Instead, Donatists were basically Christians who believed in holiness. Coming out of the time of the great persecution of Diocletian, Donatus and his followers refused to accept the leadership and ministry of priests and bishops who had shown cowardice in the face of persecution. The appointment of a minister who had handed over scriptures to be burned was a rallying cry of the Donatists.
As an opponent to the Donatists, Augustine was a vigorous fighter for the Catholic Church. He weighed in with sermons and writings condemning them, which, given his perspective as a Catholic, is understandable. After all, as Christians, we’re called to contend for the faith, and if we believe that people are teaching false doctrines, heresies that endanger the faith of weaker Christians, we’re to expose the error and preach the truth. However, Augustine took the fight one step further. Ignoring the lessons of the history of the early Church and its experiences with bitter, angry men who sought to destroy it with persecution, Augustine advocated the persecution of the Donatists.
in Aurelius of Carthage and in Augustine the catholics at last had leaders who were a match for the Donatists. Augustine issued exhaustive historical and theological counter-arguments and a justification of coercion, while Aurelius’ organizing ability produced effective action. Yet it took legal sanctions to check Donatism–especially the Edict of Unity (405) and the proscription which followed the convention in Carthage in 411. Eerdman’s Handbook to the History of Christianity.
Did you get that? Augustine wrote justifying the legal “coercion” of Christians who disagreed with him. Since when do we resort to legal courts and edicts to decide Christian practice?
It is in the last battle of his life, with the Pelagians that Augustine really distinguished himself as a man willing to use the methods of the world, and not the Bible, to achieve his purposes.
Pelagius, by all accounts (including Augustine’s) a godly man, was appalled at Augustine’s teaching on Original Sin, and taught differently than Augustine, thus earning Augustine’s enmity. He did not believe that all were tainted with the sin of Adam, and opposed Augustine’s teachings.
Pelagius also merited the anger of another so-called Father of the Church, Augustine’s compatriot, Jerome, who translated the Bible into Latin. It seems that there was a monk whose name was Jovinian, who taught that it was alright for priests to marry, that there was no great virtue in remaining celibate. Jerome, along with Augustine, was one of the leaders of the teaching that married saints were of a lesser class than celibate saints. Jerome was a vicious man, known for his disgusting attacks on opponents, and his characterization of Jovinian was no different. Jerome depicting this saint as a Bacchanalian orgyist. Pelagius took Jerome to task for such a rotten manner of arguing, thus earning the hatred of Jerome.
Finally, Pelagius was a holiness preacher. Living in Rome, he condemned the loose morals of the Emperor’s court, thus earning the enmity of Emperor Honorius.
As many did when it looked like the barbarians might overwhelm Rome, Pelagius left Rome for other parts, specifically, Palestine. While living in Palestine, several of Augustine’s followers in Palestine brought charges of heresy against Pelagius, and Jerome joined in the accusations.
There were two trials/synods held in Palestine, and at both of these examinations, Pelagius was declared to be orthodox. He was present to defend himself and explain what he taught. Not content to have Palestinian bishops try Pelagius, Augustine had two more trials/synods held to “examine” Pelagius’ teachings, both in North Africa, in Augustine’s own home town. To no one’s great surprise, these two kangaroo courts declared Pelagius to be a heretic. Mind you, these two trials were held in North Africa, under Augustine’s direction, and without Pelagius there to defend his teachings.
The results of these four trials were sent to Pope Innocent of Rome, who sided with Augustine. But Innocent had been lobbied hard by Augustine ahead of time. And Pelagius had not had a chance to defend his teachings. Knowing that Augustine was working to have him declared heretical, Pelagius prepared a defense of his teachings and sent it to Rome.
Now, here is the rub. Innocent died before Pelagius’ defense arrived, and a new pope was selected, Zosimus. Zosimus received Pelagius’ written defense, and after reading the defense, reopened the case. After examining both sides, Zosimus declared Pelagius orthodox. This is not widely known. Pelagius was declared by an impartial bishop to be orthodox in his doctrine.
This gave Augustine and his party fits, and so they decided to enlist a little more help. Remember how Augustine supported using legal force to settle church matters in the matter of the Donatists? Augustine decided to enlist the Emperor in this matter of doctrine. Augustine and his party decided to appeal to Emperor Honorius to join in on this matter of doctrine. In addition, a fellow bishop and friend of Augustine, Alypius, sent a bribe of 80 stallions to Honorius to use his influence on Zosimus. Again, to no one’s surprise, the following year, Zosimus bowed to Imperial pressure and declared Pelagius a heretic.
The church, after the death of Augustine and Pelagius, and under the sting of Imperial pressure and Jerome’s hatred, went on to declare all of Pelagius’ teachings heretical and all of Augustine’s as orthodox.
It is due to the ungodly efforts of Augustine and his party that we owe the spectacle of church doctrine being decided by political power and chicanery.
SummaryDoing the research we can see that Augustine, far from being a saint, was responsible for much bad theology being introduced into the Church. Because of him, we have the teachings of Gnostics and Pagans masquerading as Christian doctrine. Because of Augustine’s appeal to force, we have a Christian history marred with the image of a blood-stained church willing to kill to enforce its positions.
The Gnosis of all times can clarify many subjects in the field of theology, since Gnosis is the supreme source in which one can drink when we are thirsty of integral knowledge. We have often been used to accepting dogmatic opinions on controversial and interesting themes like: What is the true nature of God? Which is the way to be able to experience our union with the divinity? Is there a real possibility of attaining the famous Enlightenment, which was longed by all the ancient Christians, medieval mystics and ascetics, and in general, all those who, in truth, yearn for finding the supreme knowledge? Let’s scrutinize at least one part of all this very interesting theological sea, with the help of some scholars …
Firstly, let’s mention the eminent researcher Mrs. Pagels, author of a lot of treatises and research about the Gnostics. In one of her works, THE GNOSTIC GOSPELS, this researcher highlights the greatness of Gnosis, for it was able to explain the masculine and feminine nature of God. Let’s quote some paragraphs:
Unlike many of his contemporary deities of the ancient Near East, the God of Israel did not share his power with a feminine Deity, nor He was a divine husband or lover of any feminine Deity. As a matter of fact, Judaism, Christianism and Islamism are characterized by the absence of feminine symbolism relating to God. This is in great contrast to the rest of the religious traditions of the world, such as the ones from Egypt, Babylon, Greece and Rome, or from Africa, India and North America, in which the feminine symbolism abounds. Nowadays the Jewish, Christian and Islamic theologians rush to indicate that God should not be defined by means of any kind of sexual terms. In spite of it, the real language that they daily use for the cult and preaching, transmits a different message: Is there a person grown in the Jewish or Christian tradition, who has been able to get rid of the obvious impression that God is masculine?
Although Catholics worship Maria as mother of Jesus, they never consider her to be divine by its own right: Although Mary is Mother of God, however She is not Mother in the same level as God is Father! Of course, Christianity added the Trinitarian terms to the Jewish description of God. However, two -the Father and the Son- out of the three divine persons are described with masculine terms, and the third person -the Holy Spirit- suggests the asexuality of the neuter gender, used by the Greek when making reference to the Spirit, Pneuma.
A group of Gnostic sources claim to have received a Jesus’s secret tradition from James and Mary Magdalen. The members of this group raised their prayers to both the divine Father and the divine Mother: “From you Father, and through you, Mother, the two immortal names, the divine parents, and you, inhabitant of the sky, humanity, of the mighty name … ”
Other texts show that their authors had wondered: whom was talking to the only and masculine God when saying: “Let us make man in our image, after our likeness” (Genesis 1:26).For the chronicle of the Genesis says that humanity was created male and female -Genesis 1:27-, some got the conclusion that the God to whose image we have been made, has to be masculine and feminine, Father and Mother at the same time.
Precisely, the virtue of gnosis consists in being a cognoscitive knowledge -that is, it goes to the core of the things- which can scrutinize the true nature of creation and its author. Because Gnosticism as a doctrinaire system not only investigates by means of the dialectics, but rather, through practical methods which allow the comprehension of that Whole by means of the mystic direct experimentation. This is why the Father of Contemporary Gnosticism, Mr. Samael Aun Weor has said:
Unquestionably, the faculties of human cognition will never go beyond the cosmic realm of the Male-Female Logos, the Creator Demiurge, or the Army of the Voice -the Word.
JAH-HOVAH, the secret Father-Mother of each of us, is the authentic JEHOVAH.
Jod, as a Hebrew letter, is the membrum virile -the Masculine Principle.
Eve, Heve, as well as Hebe, the Greek goddess of youth, or Hercules’ Olympic bride is the Yoni, the divine Chalice, or Eternal Feminine.
Jesus Christ did not worship the anthropomorphic “Jehovah” of Jewry. Instead, the divine Rabbi of Galilee worshipped his divine “male-female” (Jah-hovah), the inner “father-mother”.
The holy Jesus, crucified on the place of the skull, cried with a great voice and said: “Father, into your hands I commit my spirit”. “Ram-Io”, “Isis”, his divine mother Kundalini, accompanied him in his “Via Crucis”.
All nations have their first God, or Gods, as androgynous; it could be no other way, for those nations thought, just as the Chinese do nowadays, that their distant primitive progenitors, their ancestors, were twin sexed.
In effect, the unnatural conception of an anthropomorphic and exclusivist “Jehovah”, independent of his own work, sitting up there on a throne of tyranny and despotism, throwing thunder and lightning at this sorrowful human anthill, is the result of ignorance, mere intellectual idolatry.
This wrong conception of the truth has unfortunately seized both the western philosopher and the religious person affiliated to any sect lacking completely in Gnostic elements.
What the Gnostics of all times have rejected is not the unknown God, one and always present in nature, nor nature “In Abscondito”, but the God of the orthodox dogma, the awful avenger deity of the law of the Talion.
The Abstract Absolute Space, the unknown God, is not an unlimited void nor a conditioned plenitude, but both things at the same time.
The author of the world of forms is then a group of mystical creators, male-female or double gods, such as Tlaloc, the god of the rain and thunder, and his wife Chalchiuhtlicue, the one of the jade skirt in the Mayan, Aztec,Olmec and Zapotec pantheons.
The idolatrous cult of the anthropomorphic “Jehovah”, instead of the “Elohim”, is certainly a powerful
Certainly, “Elojim” – with a “J” – is translated as “God” in the diverse authorized and revised versions of this sacred book.
It is an incontrovertible fact – not only from an esoteric standpoint, but also from a linguistic one – that the term “Elohim” is a feminine noun with a plural masculine ending.
The correct translation, stricto sensu, of the noun “Elohim” is Gods and Goddesses.
“And the spirit of the feminine and masculine principles were hovering over the surface of what was formless and the creation took place”.
Unquestionably, a religion without “Goddesses” is halfway to complete atheism.
If we really want a perfect balance of psychic life, we need to worship the “Elohim” (the Gods and Goddesses of ancient times), and not the anthropomorphic Jehovah rejected by the Great Kabir Jesús, obstacle to achieving the supranormal conscious states.
We, the Gnostic anthropologists, instead of laughing sceptically – as the profane anthropologists do – at the representations of the Gods and Goddesses of the diverse pantheons: the Aztec, Maya, Olmec, Toltec, Inca Chibcha, Druid, Egyptian, Hindu, Chaldean, Phoenician, Mesopotamian and Tibetan ones, etc., etc., etc., throw ourselves on our knees at the feet of those divinities, for in them we recognize the Elohim creator of the universe in them “Whoever laughs at what he does not know is on the way to becoming an idiot”…
As a corollary to the concepts that have been set forth by Samael Aun Weor, our reader can end up understanding the aforementioned postulates, following the lines written by the pen of the prestigious researcher of the Sorbona, Dr. Serge Hutin:
In Gnosis, we find again the cult to the Divine Woman, to the Mother, to the eternal feminine: She is the “path” between God and the world; She can punish the world, but she also can save it. Some Gnostics do not hesitate to conceive the Mother -assimilated to the Holy Spirit- to be the third hypostasis of the manifested Absolute: She is God-Mother, Sophia, Our-Lady-the-Holy-Spirit; She is also the Paraclete, That-Which-has-to-come. Thus we return to the old Egyptian Trinity: Father, Mother -Isis- and Son.
In a lot of sects, their doctrine and cult turn around a metaphysical entity, Barbelo -name that perhaps derives from the Hebrew name Barbhe Eloha “God is in four”, alluding to the divine tetrad: Father, Son, feminine Pneuma and Christ. Barbelo is the first exteriorization, the force, the image, the Father’s light; It plays -in the world- the role commonly attributed to the Logos. However, it is an ambivalent figure, similar to the disturbing goddesses of the ancient Mediterranean cults of fertility -such as Astarte, Astargatis, etc.): It symbolizes the immaculate virginity and also the regenerative power.
Analogous speculations can be found in a lot of related sects: the so called Gnostics, ebionites, estratiotics, levitics, the Adepts of the Mother, barbeliotes, ofites, sethians, etc. The myth of the “Divine Thought” always appears. It is the myth of the Mother who falls into the matter -the chaos, abyss, darkness or “water”- from which She has to be saved later on.
Many Gnosis frequently appeal to myths and images of sexual character. Sometimes the whole cosmogonical process is reduced to a divine marriage”.
In his treatise titled The Perfect Matrimony, Samael Aun Weor describes the masculine and feminine nature of God -in a synthetic way- as the source of that which is called love by the humans:
God as FATHER is WISDOM. God as MOTHER is LOVE. God as Father dwells in the Eye of Wisdom. The Eye of Wisdom is situated in a point between the eyebrows, at the root of the nose.
God as Love is found in the Heart-Temple. Wisdom and Love are the two columns of the Great White Lodge.
To love! How beautiful it is to love! Only the great Souls know how to love. Love is infinite tenderness… Love is the life that palpitates in every atom and in every Sun.
Love cannot be defined because it is the Divine Mother of the World; it is That Which come to us when we are really in love.