The Gnostic Testament

The content of the New Testament certainly parallels Gnostic teaching. And, since the Bible does not teach the Bible, but does teach "writings" (e.g. 1 Corinthians 4:6), we can of course compare the Biblical content to other writings. And, as is manifest, the Gnostic context simply fits the New Testament.

Along with the Infancy Gospel (1:6 [John 9:6]; 2:12 [Rev 2:23]; 3:3-6 [Luke 2:45-52]) and the Gospel of Thomas (1:3 [Luke 17:21]),1 you have texts like The Revelation of Peter, which contain emphatic Gnostic teaching. In this writing, the one who is crucified is not the living Jesus, but rather, "a substitute for him" (81,3-82,3). Moreover, in The Second Discourse of Great Seth (55, 9-56, 20), Christ says that it was not him who "drank the gall and the vinegar." He also says: "someone else, Simon, bore the cross on his shoulder. Someone else wore the crown of thorns." He says "They nailed their man to their death." 
Matthew 27:32-35 Now as they came out, they found a man of Cyrene, Simon by name. Him they compelled to bear His cross. And when they had come to a place called Golgotha, that is to say, Place of a Skull, they gave Him sour wine mingled with gall to drink. But when He had tasted [it,] He would not drink. Then they crucified Him, (NKJV, bold added)
Here, we have evidence in the passage that contextually, "Simon" is the one who "they crucified". He is also the one who was given the gall, but according to The Discourse of Great Seth writing, it was "their father" who it was given to (cf. Mark 15:21). This seems to fit with "the devil" in John 8:44. Simon (of Cyrene) would then be the devil who was given the drink (Matthew 27:32-35) in this view. 

So there is evidence in the text of another (Simon) being crucified, but the writings being in the hands of certain people may have been tampered with and added to over time. However, the Gnostic trail is left in⁠—these specific "Gnostic features" being manifest. It labels the material in a certain manner.

The purpose of this post is simply to exemplify; in my upcoming book entitled Consecrated Evil, I plan to cover the Gnostic New Testament in great detail. Nevertheless, be fooled not by Christian trickery; the Bible is coated in ancient occultism, Gnostic teaching fitting right into such a category. 

Robert Anthony



1. In The Nag Hammadi Scriptures, edited by Marvin Meyer, it says: "Further, although the Gospel of Thomas has some features in common with Gnostic texts, it is not easily classified as a Gnostic work without considerable qualification" (p. 133). Yet, there is no reason to muddy the waters to such a level here. Read the text for yourself, it appears emphatically Gnostic in its content. The problem comes down to the way certain "scholars" even categorize Gnosticism; when you understand the specific motifs and contexts depicted however, such a category becomes quite clear, and less of a complication (as Meyer puts it).

No comments:

Post a Comment