Our Awesome Origin cover art

Our Awesome Origin

Our Awesome Origin

Listen for free

View show details

About this listen

 Hello there and welcome back to Gnostic Insights. There have been a few things on my mind I would like to share with you today. You know, I’ve mentioned in the past that I do listen to the radio preachers because I want to hear what they’re teaching. I want to see what is the current state of Christian belief and knowledge. By now you realize that this Gnostic Gospel is definitely Christian, because salvation and redemption revolves around the Christ. But the thing that is difficult for me is that there are a few basic principles in this Gnostic Gospel that are in disagreement with what is taught out there generally as Christianity, and I believe that those differences were hardwired into the Bible when the Nicene Council sat down around 330 AD and decided what books to keep and what books to throw out. And, among the books that they threw out was the Tripartite Tractate, which is the primary source that I am deriving my Christian knowledge from in addition to the New Testament. Christians are taught not to seek external sources of truth—that the truth is entirely captured and relayed to us through the Bible. And, if you accept what are called extra-biblical, which means outside of the Bible, sources such as the Nag Hammadi or the Qumran scrolls, the Tripartite Tractate that I am sharing with you, then you will be led astray. You’ll come to wrong opinions, and you are part of the problem and not part of the solution. I don’t want to be part of the problem; I want to be part of the solution. That’s why I do not give up the basic idea that the Savior that we call the Christ is a special, ethereal character that was designed and sent down to us to help us here. Now, ordinary Christian belief states that Christ is the original Son of God that was made at the beginning—was the first emanation of thought from God, and I disagree with that. In the Tripartite Tractate there seems to be a distinct difference between the Son, who is the first emanation of the thought of the Father, and the Christ, who was produced after we 2nd order powers were sent to Earth. The specific mission of the Christ is to help us out. So the Christ figure has, I like to say, all the mojo of the Father and the Son and the Fullness of God, as well as the things that Logos learned from falling to earth and then returning back to the Fullness, such as how to operate within the Boundary and the existence of the Demiurge and the archons. The Christ was designed to overcome all of that. We also disagree about what happens to you if you don’t accept the Christ here on Earth before you die. Conventional teaching is that you will go to Hell and be tortured forever. That’s absurd. That’s absolutely absurd on the face of it, because the nature of the Father is love; the nature of the Son is love. The consciousness of the Father and love are intertwined inextricably together. More than that, we are emanations from the Father and the Son through the hierarchical pattern of what is called the Fullness of God. We come from above. How on earth—how in this cosmos—would all of us not return to the Fullness above? If we did not go back because we ignorantly or stubbornly or through misguided overblown egos believe that we’re the be-all and end-all, and that’s what sends you to Hell for an eternity of torture? Well, there’s two basic principles that are being violated there. One—how does a loving God punish someone eternally? It is not consistent with the nature of God. Now, I was looking up what it means to fear God because one of the radio preachers this week said, Oh, you better fear God! That’s the problem with culture nowadays—people don’t fear God. And the Bible says why do you fear men whose punishment only lasts for a short period but you don’t fear God whose punishment is eternal? That’s entirely incorrect in my opinion. First off, the word fear is a translation of a Hebrew word yirah, YIRAH, and it is just as properly or even more properly interpreted as awe. As in awesome—awe. Which means beholding or seeing something that is so completely beyond our ability to understand and to grasp that we drop our jaws open and our knees tremble because it’s so incredible. That’s what it means to be awesome. And by the way, as a kind of humorous aside, it really bugs me that on the iPhone with the auto fill words, when someone texts me back and they mean to say, Ah, isn’t that cute! or Ah, I’m so sorry! that iPhone autofill types in Awe. Because that isn’t the word. The word for Ah, isn’t that cute. Ah, that’s so neat, that’s A H. Ah. It’s just a sound. It’s an interjection. And I’m not so sure that this isn’t on purpose by some archon that’s in charge of the iPhone as a means of degrading the magnificence of the word, AWE. When you say, Ah, that was really thoughtful of you, it’s not AWE. AWE means you have come face to face with the transcendent God or you’ve visited heaven and ...
No reviews yet
In the spirit of reconciliation, Audible acknowledges the Traditional Custodians of country throughout Australia and their connections to land, sea and community. We pay our respect to their elders past and present and extend that respect to all Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples today.