Isaiah 45:7 - I make peace, and create evil

I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things. 

-Isaiah 45:7

I have long argued that God is both a murderer and a savior. Check out this post ---| http://my-waking-dream.blogspot.in/2015/11/god-is-both-murderer-and-saviour.html

Jehovah, the god of the Jews is absolutely correct here. God creates both good and evil as he himself admitted. Now I am a Valentinian gnostic and not a Marcionite to use the above verse as an evidence to prove that the god of the Jews was an evil god. We Valentinians respect the God of the Jews in believing that he is almost equivalent with the Holy Father in the Pleroma but he is just a lesser ignorant being than the beings in the Pleroma which resides above him.

Evil was created in the cosmos when the Holy Father in the above Pleroma made the choice to with hold the perfection of the Aeons with in himself. The Holy Father did not created us as perfect beings instead he created us with imperfection. There is no flaw in us but instead there is an inherent flaw in the very creation itself. The Holy Father in the Pleroma allowed evil to originate into existence when he decided to create us as ignorant beings. Evil exists as long as the ignorance of the father exists. Why did God created an imperfect world with imperfect beings? It is because he wants us to love him and he will give us back our perfection in return of returning to him out of love and humility. But, hey, how can he expect us to love him when he has not given any freedom whatsoever to make our own choices? No matter how much righteous you are and how much you consciously refuse to sin, God could always manipulate you and push you towards evil and make you sin and finally deny a place in the heaven which you longed for so much. God can elect anyone and reject anyone based on his personal whim. Saint Paul has advised us not to judge God's actions and choices. Where does this leave us? We have to lead our lives as slaves of God and be a part of his grand plan and blindly hope that one day God is going to free us from our bondage?

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.

Ptolemy's Letter to Flora

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)

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.

Why was Jehovah not mentioned in the New Testament?

The God of the Old Testament self identifies himself on numerous occasions in the name of Jehovah but the same thing doesn't happen in the New Testament. Why doesn't the New Testament testify that the Holy Father of Jesus Christ was none other than Jehovah by clearly mentioning or stating it in the NT? 

The actual truth is that Jesus and Christ were two separate beings, Jesus was the son of Jehovah and Christ was the son of Helios-Mithras. Jesus was sent to earth by Jehovah through the virgin Mary and Christ was sent by Helios-Mithras who descended onto the body of Jesus at the time of his baptism by John the Baptist.

The reason why the name of Jehovah was not mentioned in the NT was because the Holy Father of NT was none other than Helios-Mithras. I have arrived at this conclusion by a thorough studying of Valentinian scriptural writings and by recognizing the fact that the ontology of the Holy Father of the Valentinians was none other than the ontology of Helios-Mithras.

We know how much Irenaeus struggled to refute Valentinianism and tried to convince everyone else that there was only one Christ who descended, resurrected and died for our sins. But if it was so clear then why didn't your Jehovah self proclaim himself in the NT leaving no doubt whatsoever after all the NT was believed to be his true words and his religion. The ground reality was that Jehovah was never in control of anything in fact he was manipulated like a puppet by Achamoth (The lower Sophia) and he fooled himself into believing that he created the heavens and the earth all by himself without realizing that there was an Immortal perfect One, King Helios-Mithras above him who brought forth him into existence that's why he was called as Saklas or Yaldaboath ('The foolish one').

Even the mouths of the Jewish prophets were manipulated to make a prophecy which would lead to the appearance of Jesus Christ according to the perfect plan of Helios-Mithras. My theology is indeed anti-Semitic but I cannot back away from telling the truth to people around the world just because it offends the people of Israel who belong to a small part of the world.

In fact Christ existed before Jehovah was born and this is the reason why the Pharisees picked up stones to stone Jesus as he proclaimed himself to be before the time of Abraham in the Gospel of John which offended them so much and could not accept him as their Messiah since their Messiah would not speak to them in such terms.

I know orthodox Christians cannot accept this fact but one or the other day you have to face this sordid truth and move forward accepting the fact that your theology was wrong.