Sunday, 24 July 2016

Ptolemy's Letter to Flora is truly a gem of a work

Ptolemy's letter to Flora is a slap on those who believe that the Gnostics were not intellectuals and believed in some nonsensical mythical beliefs produced from their own little fantasies. 

Ptolemy's letter to Flora is a fine introduction to the unique thinking and attitude of the Valentinians which can be preached to all the masses irrespective of their psychic, pneumatic or hylic nature as it does not contain any esoteric stuff like in the other Valentinian texts like the Gospel of Philip and the Gospel of Truth.


Some of the interesting and factual ideas that come out of this outstanding letter are:

The Torah Law and its commandments is quite alien to the nature and thought of the perfect Father of all.

The Holy Father who is above Jehovah in the above Pleroma is not a person who judges on humanity instead he unconditionally loves all of humanity by giving us unmerited grace and sows the spiritual seed in all of us. In fact he has pre-ordained this cosmos in order to provide salvation to all of humanity. Our salvation is inevitable no matter what sins we commit or what good things we achieve. It is only a matter of time that one receives salvation early and others receive it late. The perfect Holy Father does not condemn humanity by placing eternal damnation of sins on them. In fact we all are above sin because we are not responsible for the events which are occurring in this world because everything is working according to the will of the Father.

The Law giver Jehovah is not an evil god but a just one.

This is the unique belief of the Valentinians compared to the other gnostic sects like the Sethians who taught that the creator and the world to be evil. Ptolemy criticizes those who believe that the law giver and the creator of this world is the highest God and equally criticizes those who believe on contrary that he was the Devil.

The tripartite division on the just but incomplete Laws of Jehovah and the imperfect unjust Laws of Moses and the elders of the Jewish people.

Ptolemy teaches us that the Saviour approved the Torah (The laws of Jehovah) but rejected the Halakha (The Jewish interpretation of the Law by its elders). The historical Jesus on many different occasions broke many laws of the Old Testament like the Sabbath and defended his actions impeccably against his accusing Pharisees by explaining and providing the true purpose of those laws given by Jehovah and accused back at the Pharisees and silenced them in having not understood the true purpose of those laws and striving away from them by following the unjust laws established by the elders of the Jewish people.

The Saviour came to fulfill and complete the Laws of Jehovah and not to nullify it.

This is the idea which should receive much attention and I hope this perception at least stops all the Pauline hate that goes on among the Jewish Christian circles like the Ebionites, among atheists who try to seek contradictions in the bible and among Christians who doubt and hate Paul.

When people find what Jesus says in Matthew that he has not come to abolish the Law but to fulfill it until the last stroke of every prophecy is fulfilled and when on the other hand they see Paul teaching that people are saved apart from the works of the Law and nullifies the Law, the Jewish Christians raise a huge tumult against Paul and accuse him as a false apostle and atheists in seeing these contradictions come to the hopeless conclusion that the bible was written by human goat herders lacking any kind of divine intervention and inspiration. Scholars doesn't do much to stop this misery and add their own stubborn prideful views.

Ptolemy teaches us that the Saviour not only came to fulfill the Law but to complete it and it was this completion and perfection of the Old Testament Law which was the good news preached by Paul in his Gospel and people often misunderstand Paul as contradicting and not giving any credit to the historical Jesus in his writings, on the contrary Paul was the only one who truly understood the mind and the thought of the Saviour. This is the reason the Valentinians revered and respected him so much.

15 “Go!” said the Lord. “This man (Paul of Tarsus) is My chosen instrument to carry My name before the Gentiles and their kings, and before the people of Israel. 16 I will show him how much he must suffer for My name.” 17 So Ananias went to the house, and when he arrived, he placed his hands on Saul. “Brother Saul,” he said, “the Lord Jesus, who appeared to you on the road as you were coming here, has sent me so that you may see again and be filled with the Holy Spirit.” (Acts 9:15-17)

Saturday, 23 July 2016

How astrology can help you in a relationship

My Venus is in scorpio. 






My friend's Venus is in Sagittarius.




That pretty much sums up my story. A Venus in Scorpio wants a committed relationship and its very difficult for them to move on while a Venus in Sagittarius wants to run away from one and its very easy for them to quickly move on.

I think it would be very odd to choose your relationship based on your compatibility with the zodiac signs because it just doesn't work out that way. It is quite often the case that you fall in love with some stranger which you don't know much about them. It would be very odd to ask for their zodiac and then decide whether you are going to fall in love with that person or not. Love just happens we don't pre-plan it. You might even fall in love with a person from a different culture and different religion too and later realize that you have a hell lot of differences between each other. All I am saying is that if it is pre-planned then it is not called love, it would be more like an arranged business than love.

So the place where astrology can help you out is when you have already entered into a relationship and then you can use astrology as a guide to decide how far you really want to take this relationship forward because there is no point in being in a relationship with lots of incompatibility and expecting each other to change for the better which is very difficult since people are hard-wired to behave according to their past karmic actions by the gods. It is much better to know in advance that the relationship is not going to work rather than going too far and getting terribly hurt. One can definitely use astrology as a damage control and helps us understand why people act like the way they do.

Thursday, 21 July 2016

Christian yoga is nothing but Mithraism in disguise

For Christians who are practicing Yoga there are two choices either listen to your pastor and stay away from yoga or attend a Yoga session and slowly convert to Mithraism without you yourself being aware of it. Since majority of the people who perform yoga in the western world are mainly women I would blame their husbands in not giving sufficient advice to their wives in order to make them stop the practice of yoga.

This problem does not exist in India because Indian Christians and Muslims know that yoga is deeply rooted in Hinduism and that it is a heathen ritual practice. The various chakras of the yoga philosophy is mentioned in complete detail in the Lalitha Sahasranama Hindu text which are chanted by Hindus widely.

Not Yoga but Jesus Christ: As an Indian christian why I don’t practice yoga
Yoga in philosophy and practice is incompatible with Christianity

The below question was asked by me when I was in Quora long time back.

Are Hindus offended by the words "yoga pants", "hot yoga", "Christian yoga", "yoga dog pose," etc.?

The responses pretty much sums up the mood of Indians on this particular issue. Christians the choice is yours, don't force us to physically hurt you guys, we already have a lot of hate for what you guys did with your own Gnostics.

Tuesday, 19 July 2016

Catholicism was constructed as a defense against Marcion


What a load of shitty speculation right over there! The claim that Marcion and his followers namely the marcionites wrote the Pauline corpus is very absurd. Marcion was the man who believed that only Paul understood the true message of Christ and rejected the Old Testament and its Jewish god Jehovah completely. So for Marcion, a ship owner of Pontus to convert and arrive at the conclusion of Marcionism the Pauline Epistles must already have been in existence for him to get influenced by Paul and his teachings. Robert Price knows that this version of his view is actually a chicken and the egg problem. Marcion wrote the Pauline letters but for Marcion to get influenced in order to write the Pauline letters the Pauline corpus must have been in existent before Marcion became active.

To tackle this problem he makes an even more absurd claim that Simon Magus was actually Saint Paul of Tarsus. We cannot rely on the information of Simonism from Irenaeus because in a hurry to refute the heretics he took whatever sources that was available to him without checking there credibility and therefore his works are very unreliable. In fact the Gnostic systems which he attributed to Valentinus was not the actual system which Valentinus himself believed in instead his accusations were directed to the later modified systems of Valentinian followers like Heracleon and Ptolemy. So are the clementine homilies which cannot be trusted.

Secondly, one of the other argument of Robert Price is that there are contradictions with in the Pauline Corpus for example comparing Corinthians and Galatians where Paul says that he received his wisdom of Christ while talking with the elders of Jerusalem and on the other hand in Galatians he says that his teachings were mainly derived from his personal revelations of divine and not taught by any human or angel. Robert Price thinks that such contradictions shouldn't be there in a corpus if it was claimed to be written by only one man so he concludes that Marcion wrote Galatians.

What I believe is that instead of Marcion writing Galatians it is more likely that the sentinels of the Catholic church edited Corinthians to make it appear more mainstream and made it leaning towards their own dogmatic beliefs. Suppressing the truth that the relationship between Paul and the church at Jeruasalem was not smooth and suppressing the portrayal of a zeolot anti-Semitic Paul who used to accuse them straight on their faces.

The last idea of Paul being Simon Magus is ridiculous because:

  • Paul was a tent maker while Simon was a sorcerer.
  • Paul was born and brought up in Tarsus while Simon was from Gitta, a village in Samaria.
  • Paul loved the Gentiles and his mission was directed towards the Gentiles but we have no evidence to prove that Simon had any interests in converting and persuading the Gentiles to the ministry of Jesus. Paul's division of teaching one thing to the Jews and another to the Gentiles appears as early as in Romans.
  • Paul displayed sensitivity towards a wide range of complex issues but Simon lacked any such sensitivity.
  • It was Saul who was under the tutelage of the great Gamaliel and not Simon.
  • It was Saul who was struck blind fold on his road to Damascus and not Simon.
  • It was Paul who held a Roman citizenship and could fluently read and write Greek and not Simon.
Marcion may have indeed been the first person to collect the different Pauline letters and showed the value of them to the world and his polemic indeed triggered his rivals to establish a different canon of their own by editing and adding verses and by forging new Gospels in the name of Paul which suited to their own agendas. Well if not Marcion I am damn sure Valentinians would have collected and compiled the Pauline Corpus irrespective of whether Marcion collected it or not because no one on earth loved Paul so much other than the Valentinians. Even the Gospel of John has gone through a series of successive editions before making it to the biblical canon of the Catholics because there are many verses in them which are offensive to the Gnostics and equally there are anti-Semitic verses in it which goes to the extreme supporting Gnosticism in full force. All this shows that the New Testament as we have today is not the same version as people saw it two thousand years ago.

The real historical Paul was never really like the Paul of the Catholics as we know today. He was a zealot anti-Semite and more of a Valentinian than a Catholic.

Sunday, 10 July 2016

Revering emperor Julian and Saint Paul together




     Julian the Emperor and Saint Paul of Tarsus, the two most charismatic influential figures in the history of the western world. There can be no other joy in the world when you have these two personas standing beside you. Julian representing Helios-Mithras was an initiate of Mithraism and Saint Paul of Tarsus representing Christ was the second founder of Christianity who wrote some of the fantastic passages in all of Bible.

Saint Paul predated Julian but Julian who was raised under the tutelage of Christian teachers was very much aware of Saint Paul's writings. Julian being a Gentile was very much disinterested and irritated by the dogmatic exoteric interpretation of the Bible which his Christian teachers were shoving onto his throat. Unfortunately, Julian never encountered the esoteric Gnostic Paul in his studies of Christian scriptural texts and held a negative view on Paul due to his dogmatic orthodox Christian upbringing who portrayed Paul in a rather uninteresting way to him. Had if Julian encountered the Gnostic Paul the relationship between Julian and Paul would be something completely different.

Mithraism and Christianity the two rival religions competing for the world dominion could never ever have gone together hand in hand because each of these two religions claimed two entirely different divinities, Mithras and Jesus respectively as the sole path for the salvation and immortality of the human race. Christians could never ever accept Mithras and delineate from Jesus and Gentiles could never ever accept the exclusive worship of Jehovah, the God of the Jews as their heavenly holy father. So these two faiths were mutually exclusive either there has to be one or the other. As usual Christian church fathers being threatened by Mithraism charged them with devil worship since they do not know anything else other than to show such cheap shallow display of ignorance which many Christian pastors often do till this day. Similarly Julian rejected Christianity by claiming Jehovah as one of the terrestrial gods out of many and denied him as the supreme god of the Cosmos.

If Julian's reign had continued the western world would have worshiped Mithras and instead of a church across their streets there would have been mithraeums erected with tauroctony depicted on its walls. The chaldean oracles would have been the canonical scripture of their daily prayers. As it turned out as we all know Julian died and the dogmatic orthodox Christianity triumphed.

So how can the relationship between these two representatives of a rival faith be strengthened, pacified and changed from being rival enemies to friends. Julian and the Paul of orthodox Christianity would continue to remain as rivals and they never like to see each other faces in future but Julian and the Gnostic Paul will embark on a new journey of friendship which is everlasting due to the sincere efforts of a pious 2nd century, Syrian Christian mystic named, Valentinus.

Mithraism and Valentinian Gnostic Christianity can indeed be reconciled into a single common faith destroying every other faith in the world including secularism. One can imagine the power of Jesus and Mithras combined into one producing a new generation of pneumatic Pagan Gnostic Valentinian Christians. Its a irony that the followers of Julian and Paul worshiped the same heavenly father and yet remained as rivals throughout the ages most probably because they didn't had the technology and information which we have now compared to the past.