Bathing with the Devil

220px-St_John_the_baptist_-_Leonardo_Da_Vinci

As you may have guessed based on the title of this article, John the Baptist will be the subject. Many readers will be at least aware of who he is or was and many will know his story well. Not as many readers will be aware that there are several conflicting stories witnessed through different lenses, each packed with a bias and a myth of it’s own. There is the generic Catholic-Orthodox John, the Muslim Yahya, Mandaean Yohana, and the more modern occult/ mythicist John, and a more conspiracy theory Leonardo da Vinci mystery John. This article will have a little bit for each group. However, the point might not sit well with any of these groups. I propose that John was the forerunner of Simon Magus, and an astrologer and Magician. He never met any man named Jesus and he was dead before Simon Magus returned from Alexandria, Egypt to compete with Dositheus for the primacy of the sect. Later, these characters were remodeled into people like Jesus, Paul, and Peter. Jesus being based in ways on John and Simon and even Dositheus sometimes, Peter taking the name of Simon and being based on Dositheus and being named Nathanael at times, Paul being Simon Magus and in some instances Dositheus. The authentic John, Simon, and Dositheus are hidden in these masks.

I will show you a John not of sight and sound, but of mind. Our next stop, the Clementine Homilies:

“But that he came to deal with the doctrines of religion happened on this wise. There was one John, a day-baptist, who was also, according to the method of combination, the forerunner of our Lord Jesus; and as the Lord had twelve apostles, bearing the number of the twelve months of the sun, so also he, John, had thirty chief men, fulfilling the monthly reckoning of the moon, in which number was a certain woman called Helena, that not even this might be without a dispensational significance.

For a woman, being half a man, made up the imperfect number of the triacontad; as also in the case of the moon, whose revolution does not make the complete course of the month. But of these thirty, the first and the most esteemed by John was Simon; and the reason of his not being chief after the death of John was as follows:

He being absent in Egypt for the practice of magic, and John being killed, Dositheus desiring the leadership, falsely gave out that Simon was dead, and succeeded to the seat. But Simon, returning not long after, and strenuously holding by the place as his own, when he met with Dositheus did not demand the place, knowing that a man who has attained power beyond his expectations cannot be removed from it.

Wherefore with pretended friendship he gives himself for a while to the second place, under Dositheus. But taking his place after a few days among the thirty fellow-disciples, he began to malign Dositheus as not delivering the instructions correctly. And this he said that he did, not through unwillingness to deliver them correctly, but through ignorance.

And on one occasion, Dositheus, perceiving that this artful accusation of Simon was dissipating the opinion of him with respect to many, so that they did not think that he was the Standing One, came in a rage to the usual place of meeting, and finding Simon, struck him with a staff. But it seemed to pass through the body of Simon as if he had been smoke. Thereupon Dositheus, being confounded, said to him, ‘If you are the Standing One, I also will worship you.’ Then Simon said that he was; and Dositheus, knowing that he himself was not the Standing One, fell down and worshipped; and associating himself with the twenty-nine chiefs, he raised Simon to his own place of repute; and thus, not many days after, Dositheus himself, while he (Simon) stood, fell down and died.” -Simon Peter (1)

Notice that John is referred to as the forerunner of Jesus according to the method of conjunction/ combination. Peter explains elsewhere in the Homilies that Simon is his own forerunner and he thus sees the one who proceeds another as somewhat of a bad thing and a deceiver, dupe, liar, or con-artist. This John is adamant about having twenty-nine and a half followers to mimic the lunar cycle in his following. Whereas Jesus is representative of the solar cycle. This is reflected in the tale of the Mandaean book of John in which, “Yahyā proclaims in the nights, Yōhānā on the Night’s evenings.” (2) Yahya and Yohana are Mandaic and Arabic names for John respectively. John is a representative of the moon, the ancient symbol of Israel. However, Yahya and Yohana appear to be different men. Both named John, one a Jew and the other a Sadducee closely associated with the high priest Eleazar ben Boethus in the final days of the reign of king Herod the Great. John was thus born far before the Gospel of Luke suggests.

John the baptist

     “John was thus born far before the Gospel of Luke suggests.” 

For some people like Leonardo da Vinci, John was the Christ. This belief goes back at least as far back in literature as the Clementine Recognitions which in my humble opinion are to be dated to a later time than the Homilies. The reason being that Helena’s name is changed to Luna to reflect what was stated in the Homilies above about her being half a man and making up the imperfect cycle of the moon in it’s final half day. Luna means moon and is Latin. Not to mention, there are tales about James the Just from Clement of Alexandria included. John here is even a cause of division like Jesus!

Yea, some even of the disciples of John, who seemed to be great ones, have separated themselves from the people, and proclaimed their own master as the Christ. But all these schisms have been prepared, that by means of them the faith of Christ and baptism might be hindered.” (3)

“And, behold, one of the disciples of John asserted that John was the Christ, and not Jesus, inasmuch as Jesus Himself declared that John was greater than all men and all prophets.” (4)

Now you are aware of a non-Jewish John who has non-Jewish followers. A John who taught Dositheus and Simon Magus, the notorious heresiarchs of the early days of a blooming ‘Christianity’. You are likely familiar with the rebellious yet righteous John who chastises kings and loses his head after a lap dance of death. Which head he lost is best left to the imagination. This same John appears in the Gospel of John in which his opponents are ‘Jews’ and his follower Nathanael is an Israelite and his buddy Jesus is accused of being a Samaritan Magician with a daemon. Nathanael actually means ‘gift of God’ as does Dositheus. Plus, John has a followers named Simon who is renamed Cephas ‘a rock’ which is very similar to being called a ‘standing one’. He says that God can raise up children to Abraham among these ‘stones’.

“Then answered the Jews, and said unto him, Say we not well  that thou art a Samaritan, and hast a devil?” John 8:48

John losing his head is a strange occurrence. To be decapitated is usually a sign that one was a Roman citizen. Paul was said to have been decapitated as well. In Egypt and the world of Game of Thrones it is to have one’s spirit cut off from the afterlife or the night lands. This is a common motif in ancient literature and cultural beliefs. The nagging question remains to be answered: Was John a Roman citizen?

                                                    salome-with-the-head-of-st-john-the-baptist-1507

It is said that John was killed while Simon was in Egypt. In the Gospel of Matthew we find that Jesus was in Egypt before the baptism scene (see Matthew 2:13-18), but instead of returning upon the death of John, Jesus returns upon the death of Herod (see Matthew 2:19-23). To make matters even more intriguing, Herod the Great never slaughtered the infants as told in this writing. In Josephus’ writings the information is relayed that Herod planned to fill up the Hippodrome with infants and then slaughter them but died before he carried it out. Hell, there’s even a story about his relative Joseph sleeping with Mary his Hasmonean wife in a bout of adultery and betrayal!

(Note: insert a quote of Josephus)

This leads me to the John of Josephus. In Josephus’ records, Jesus is killed before John the Baptist as found in the golden passage that is so controversial. John is then killed in 26/27 AD or 33 AD depending on what, “About this time”, means following, “in the twentieth year of the reign of Tiberius”.

“Now, some of the Jews thought that the destruction of Herod’s army came from God, and that very justly, as a punishment of what he did against John, that was called the Baptist; for Herod slew him, who was a good man, and commanded the Jews to exercise virtue, both as to righteousness towards one another, and piety towards God, and so to come to baptism; for that the washing would be acceptable to him, if they made use of it, not in order to the putting away of some sins only, but for the purification of the body; supposing still that the soul was thoroughly purified beforehand by righteousness. Now, when others came in crowds about him, for they were greatly moved by hearing his words, Herod, who feared lest the great influence John had over the people might put it into his power and inclination to raise a rebellion, thought it best, by putting him to death, to prevent any mischief he might cause, and not bring himself into difficulties, by sparing a man who might make him repent of it when it should be too late. Accordingly he was sent a prisoner, out of Herod’s suspicious temper, to Macherus, the castle I before mentioned, and was there put to death. Now the Jews had an opinion that the destruction of this army was sent as a punishment upon Herod, and a mark of God’s displeasure against him.” (5)

josephus

Then there is the John of the Gnostic writings found in the Apocryphon of John, Gospel of Thomas, and the Testimony of Truth. There are so many more Orthodox traces in these writings that it seems they have been Christianized as Scholars have speculated as in the Testimony of Truth in which John is not Christ and not born of Mary but rather Elizabeth, as in Luke’s Gospel. This is a detail Marcion’s gospel never mentioned and neither does any other New Testament book.

“But the Son of Man came forth from Imperishability, being alien to defilement. He came to the world by the Jordan river, and immediately the Jordan turned back. And John bore witness to the descent of Jesus. For it is he who saw the power which came down upon the Jordan river; for he knew that the dominion of carnal procreation had come to an end. The Jordan river is the power of the body, that is, the senses of pleasures. The water of the Jordan is the desire for sexual intercourse. John is the archon of the womb.” (8)

John is symbolic of the womb and that womb’s waters are the Jordan or the seas of the world, the living waters. The life-giving water; no planet can flourish with life, none of mankind could thrive or even exist without its life-giving water. This water at the same time enslaves us. As in the Mandaean book of John it is said that Yahya did not marry like the Jesus of the Gospels. John knew that procreation and the cosmos would come to an end so he was trying to just cut mankind’s losses and throw in the towel prematurely it seems. The mystery of child birth was a great one for the ancients and even for Simon Magus. It is mentioned in patristics and Simon’s Great Declaration. The Jordan became a symbol of this. This is likely why children are emphasized along with water and birth pangs, in many Christian/ Gnostic documents. It reminds me of the movie Aliens symbolizing birth trauma. 

In the Secret book of James, John is so important that he is the great prophet, the last prophet. The author almost speaks as highly of John as John spoke of himself. The narcissism of John in the Mandaean book of John is unrivaled by any other Biblical figure. It does not specify what this is supposed to mean. It could be an attack on Simon Magus’ claim to be a prophet and Paul’s that prophecy continued in his assemblies.

“Do you not know that the head of prophecy was cut off with John?” (9)

It is not altogether clear what this passage is intended to mean. It could be a derogatory passage against prophets but who really knows for sure?

The Gospel of Thomas is very much in opposition to the above texts:

“Jesus said, “From Adam to John the Baptist, among those born of women, no one is so much greater than John the Baptist that his eyes should not be averted.

But I have said that whoever among you becomes a child will recognize the (Father’s) kingdom and will become greater than John.” (10)

It seems Thomas is trying to say that John was so great one could not look upon him as a sign of respect, as if he were the Lord himself. Yet, whoever becomes a child of light will recognize the kingdom of the Father and become greater than John. This John is merely a servant of the Demiurge. It would not be shocking for him to represent the Demiurge, as many scholars such as Elaine Pagels have noticed similar instances in which figures such as David and Abraham are symbolic of the Demiurge in Valentinian exegesis of the Apostolikon (see The Gnostic Paul by Elaine Pagels).

John and Jesus refer to the Jews as a ‘brood of vipers’ much like in Micah 7:17 as pointed out by GRS Mead. This is a case of inverting the meaning of a passage and using it against the Jews (an inverted hermeneutic or the product of mimesis in some ways). The Samaritan’s view themselves as true Israelites in whom there is no deceit as is said of Nathanael. John can even raise up children to Abraham from ‘these stones’, his circle of thirty followers, his moon stones. (see the synoptic gospels).

800px-forbidden_fruit

Mead speaks of the Taheb of the Samaritan’s in the following excerpt,

“Now in Samaritan tradition, and it will be remembered that the Samaritans rejected all the Jewish scriptures save the Five Fifths of the Law, their future Redeemer was to be called Joshuah. This Deliverer they called the Ta’eb, the Returner, and they believed he would be a reborn or returned Joshuah. The Ta’eb is the Samaritan ‘Messiah.’ In this connection a recently translated Samaritan Midrash (B.M. Samaritan MS. Or. 33931) is especially instructive. It understands the title Ta’eb as signifying ‘he who repents’ or even ‘he who makes to repent,’ not so much the Returner as the Turner-back of others. It is brought into close connection also with Noḫam, meaning Repenting, and is thus by word-play associated with Noah. Our Samaritan Midrash accordingly brings Noah on to the scene of expected redemption, and becomes a spiritualized version of the Deluge-story, abounding in mystical word-plays. One or two specimens (p. 22) of them may now be given, as the ideas behind them are reminiscent of the John-circle of ideas.

Whereas in the old story Yahveh orders Noah: “Make thee an ark (tebah),” the Midrash makes God say unto the Ta’eb: “Make thee a conversion”—or repentance (Aram. shuba, tubah). And so it continues in many details glossing the original parts of the ark by means of word-play, introducing notions of propitiation, expiation and atonement. A single passage from the original will make this clear, and in reading it we should remember that Samaria was a hot-bed of mystic and gnostic movements of all sorts.”

“Behold I bring a [flood of] conversion [and] of divine favour upon the earth, to save Israel and gather it from everywhere under the sky. I shall perform my covenant, which I have set up with Abraham, Israel and Jacob. And thou shalt enter into the conversion, thou and thy house and the whole house of Israel with thee; and take with thee all kind of . . . praying and fasting and purification, which thou performest, and take all unto thee, and it shall be for conversion for thee and for them. And the Ta’eb did everything as God had commanded him. The ark (tebah) saved Noah from the flood of perdition, and the conversion (shubah, tubah) will save the Penitent One (Ta’eb) and all the sons of Israel from the [flood of] perversion. The ‘flood of perversion’ is that of ‘the cursed æon.’ Among the many Messianic expectations of those days, therefore, was the belief that in the Last Days it would again be as in the times of Noah, as indeed we are expressly informed by Q (Mt. 24:37ff. = Lk. 17:26ff.)” (6)

samaritan1

This Taheb caused people to repent and took the title Jesus! Thus, the terms Jesus and Christ would imply the savior or messiah of all Israel. The Lost Sheep are not the Jews or the Samaritan’s but rather the soul itself in each man. A soul in need of liberation of bondage to material creation and ignorance of it’s origins. Simon saw the prophets as belonging to different archons or gods (see Irenaeus AH book 1, ch. 30, paragraph 11). The many false gods of the Jews. Each tribe technically having a god.

“Moreover, they distribute the prophets in the following manner: Moses,  and Joshua the son of Nun, and Amos, and Habakkuk, belonged to Ialdabaoth;  Samuel, and Nathan, and Jonah, and Micah, to Iao; Elijah, Joel, and Zechariah to  Sabaoth; Isaiah, Ezekiel, Jeremiah, and Daniel, to Adohai; Tobias and Haggai to  Eloi; Michaiah and Nahum to Oreus; Esdras and Zephaniah to Astanphaeus. Each one  of these, then, glorifies his own father and God, and they maintain that Sophia,  herself has also spoken many things through them regarding the first Anthropos  (man),324 and concerning that Christ who is above, thus admonishing and reminding men of  the incorruptible light, the first Anthropos, and of the descent of Christ. The  [other] powers being terrified by these things, and marvelling at the novelty of  those things which were announced by the prophets, Prunicus brought it about by  means of Ialdabaoth (who knew not what he did), that emissions of two men took  place, the one from the barren Elizabeth, and the other from the Virgin  Mary.” (12)

So it appears that the birth of John and Jesus was thought to be a trick on Ialdabaoth by Prunicus in order to bring a vessel for the descent of the Christ into the material creation in order to liberate the children of light from those who, “wise of their own interests beyond the children of light”, as mentioned by the Gospel of Luke. These dual redeemers- one who made the way, and the other the paraclete who explained it- would free mankind from the flood of ignorance that the angry and jealous false notions of God had brought by way of the prophets. Thus, the Gnostics have a lower view of the prophets in the sense that only some of which each said was inspired by Sophia or Wisdom.

John proclaims himself the standing one in the Mandaean book of John when he says, “Stand not I here alone? I go to and fro. Where is a prophet equal to me? Who makes proclamation equal to my proclamations, and who doth discourse with my wondrous voice?”

                                                    rrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr

One John complains about Jesus, the carpenter God, and Paul even:

“YAHYĀ proclaims in the nights.—Glory rises over the worlds.

Who told Yeshu (Eshu)? Who told Yeshu Messiah, son of Miryam, who told Yeshu, so that he went to the shore of the Jordan and said [unto Yahyā]: “Yahyā, baptize me with thy baptizing and utter o’er me also the Name thy wont is to utter. If I show myself as thy pupil, I will remember thee then in my writing; p. 49 I attest not myself as thy pupil, then wipe out my name from thy page,”

Thereon Yahyā answered Yeshu Messiah in Jerusalem: “Thou hast lied to the Jews and deceived the priests. Thou hast cut off their seed from the men and from the women bearing and being pregnant. The sabbath, which Moses made binding, hast thou relaxed in Jerusalem. Thou hast lied unto them with horns and spread abroad disgrace with the shofar.”

Notice here that we have a Jesus who discourages procreation and relaxes the Sabbath. This Jesus is like the Jesus of the Gospel of John, who’s Father is always at work. This God of his is the great invisible spirit. He never took a day off, he never had a Sabbath but rather he allowed the Sabbath for man as a consolation for his hardships in life (Egypt). This is a God who did not rest on the seventh day but still is at his work. The Mandaean book of John continues:

Thereon Yeshu Messiah answered Yahyā in Jerusalem: “If I have lied to the Jews, may the blazing fire consume me. If I have deceived the priests, a double death will I die. If I have cut off their seed from the men, may I not cross over the End-Sea. If I have cut off from the women birth and being pregnant, then is in sooth a judge raised up before me. If I have relaxed the sabbath, may the blazing fire consume me. If I have lied to the Jews, I will tread on thorns and thistles. If I have spread disgrace abroad with horn-blowing, may my eyes then not light on Abathur. So baptize me then with thy baptizing, and utter over me the Name thy wont is to utter. If I show myself as thy pupil, I will remember thee then in my writing; if I attest not myself as thy pupil, then wipe out my name from thy page.”

Then spake Yahyā to Yeshu Messiah in Jerusalem: “A stammerer becomes not a scholar, a blind man writes no letter. A desolate house mounts not to the height, and a widow becomes not a virgin. Foul water becomes not tasty, and a stone does not with oil soften.”

Here, we have a very critical John who considers Jesus unlearned, a multiplier of words, a blind guide who could never write down sound and wise instructions. He sees Jesus as a desolate house unfit for breeding that could never grasp the concept of immortality of the soul. He sees his mother as a poor old widow, rather than a virgin. His spirit is foul like unsavory water. Even the redemption by unction could not unharden him, because he is a dead stone, an idol. It continues:

Thereon Yeshu Messiah made answer to Yahyā in Jerusalem: “A stammerer a scholar becomes, a blind man writes a letter. A desolate house mounts unto the height, and a widow becomes a virgin. Foul water becomes tasty, and a stone with oil softens.”

Thereon spake Yahyā unto Yeshu Messiah in Jerusalem: “If  thou givest me illustration for this, thou art [really] a wise Messiah.”

Thereon Yeshu Messiah made answer to Yahyā in Jerusaem: “A stammerer a scholar becomes: a child who comes from the bearer, blooms and grows big. Through wages and alms he comes on high; he comes on high through wages and alms, and ascends and beholds the Light’s region.

“A blind man who writes a letter: a villain who has become virtuous. He abandoned wantonness and abandoned theft and reached unto faith in almighty Life.

“A desolate house who ascends again to the height: one of position who has become humble. He quitted his palaces and quitted his pride and built a house on the sea [-shore]. A house he built on the sea [-shore], and into it opened two doors, so that he might bring in unto him whoever lay down there in misery,—to him he opened the door and took him within to himself. If he would eat, he laid for him a table with Truth, If he would drink, he mixed for him [wine-] cups [with Truth], If he would lie down, he spread a bed for him in Truth. If he would depart, he led him forth on the way of Truth. He led him forth on the way of Truth and of faith, and then he ascends and beholds the Light’s region.”

This Jesus speaks of building a house on the seashore, something the New Testament Jesus gives a parable about.

“A widow who a virgin becomes: a woman who already in youth has been widowed. She kept her shame closed, and sat there till her children were grown.

If she passes over, her face does not pale in her husband’s presence.

“Foul water that is made tasty: a girl wanton who has got back her honour: she went up a hamlet and she went down a hamlet without taking her veil from her face.

“A stone with oil softens: a heretic who has come down from the mountain. He abandoned magic and sorcery and made confession to almighty Life. He found a fatherless and filled him full and filled full the widow’s pockets.”

A stone here represents a heretic for his heart is uncircumcised so to speak. What softened him was that he abandoned magic and sorcery in order to take up the cause of the widow and the fatherless like the ancient Epic hero of the Canaanites: Danel. (see the Epic of Aqht).

“Therefor baptize me, O Yahyā, with thy baptizing and utter o’er me the Name thy wont is to utter. If I show myself as thy pupil, I will remember thee in my writing; if I attest not myself as thy pupil, then wipe out my name from thy page. Thou wilt for thy sins be haled to account, and I for my sins will be haled to account.”

When Yeshu Messiah said this, there came a Letter out of the House of Abathur: “Yahyā, baptize the deceiver in Jordan. Lead him down into the Jordan and baptize him, and lead him up again to the shore, find there set him.”

Then Rūhā made herself like to a dove and threw a cross over the Jordan. A cross she threw over the Jordan and made its water to change into various colours. “O Jordan,” she says, “thou sanctifiest me and thou sanctifiest my seven sons.”

[Then follows what, from its animadversion on Christian institutions and especially on the use of the crucifix, is plainly a later addition. Rūhā is apparently still speaking; she is the Mother of all heresies.]

“The Jordan in which Messiah Paulis was baptized, have I made into a ‘trough.’ The bread which Messiah Paulis receives, p. 52 have I made into a ‘sacrament.’ The drink which Messiah Paulis receives, have I made into a ‘supper.’ The head-band which Messiah Paulis receives, have I made into a ‘priest-hood.’ The staff which Messiah Paulis receives, have I made into a ‘dung [-stick].'”

“Let me warn you, my brothers, let me warn you, my beloved! Let me warn you, my brothers, against the . . . who are like unto the cross. They lay it on the walls; then stand there and bow down to the block. Let me warn you, my brothers, of the god which the carpenter has joinered together. If the carpenter has joinered together the god, who then has joinered together the carpenter?” (7)

                                                            109g-12-21331941051060

Mary even appears as John’s mother who forsook Judaism! While Miriam is the mother of Yeshu. It seems to me that there are just too many difficulties with the names of parents and the possibilities of royal bastards that it isn’t much worth worrying about who was the son of who.

“Where hast come from, thou debauched trough, whom [? locks] and bars [cannot keep in]? Where hast thou come from? Woe [unto thee], thou bitch in heat, who [? mindest] not [door-] pins and lockings! Where hast thou come from? Woe, woe [unto thee], thou bit of coarse stuff that has been patched on my robe!”

“If I am a debauched trough, I will burst thy [boltings] and bars. If I am a bitch in beat, I will draw back the pins and the lockings. If I am a bit of coarse stuff that has been patched on thy robe, then out of thy robe cut and rip me.”

Thereon he cried: “Come (pl.), look on Miryai, who has left Jewry and gone to make love with her lord. Come, look on Miryai, who has left off coloured raiment and gone to make love with her lord. She forsook gold and silver and went to make love with her lord. She forsook the phylacteries and went to make love with the man with the head-band.”

Then Miryai makes answer unto him: “Far lies it from me to love him whom I have hated. Far lies it from me to hate him whom I have loved. Nay, far from me lies it to hate my Lord, the Life’s Gnosis, who is for me in the world a support. A support is he in the world for me and a helper in the Light’s region. Dust in the mouth of the Jews, ashes in the mouth of all of the priests! May the dung that is under the feet of the horses, come on the high ones and Jerusalem’s mighty rulers.” (7)

Irenaeus gives us some juicy gossip the Nag Hammadi does not yield. It comes from the Valentinian tradition:

” They show, further, that that Horos of theirs, whom they call by a variety  of names, has two faculties,-the one of supporting, and the other of separating;  and in so far as he supports and sustains, he is Stauros, while in so far as he  divides and separates, he is Horos. They then represent the Saviour as having  indicated this twofold faculty: first, the sustaining power, when He said,  “Whosoever doth not bear his cross (Stauros), and follow after me, cannot be my  disciple; ” and again, “Taking up the cross follow me; ” but the separating power when He said, “I came not to send peace, but a  word.” They also maintain that John indicated the same thing when he said, “The fan is  in His hand, and He will thoroughly purge the floor, and will gather the wheat  into His garner; but the chaff He will burn with fire unquenchable.” By this declaration He set forth the faculty of Horos. For that fan they explain  to be the cross (Stauros), which consumes, no doubt, all material objects, as fire does chaff, but it purifies all them that are saved, as a fan does wheat. Moreover, they affirm that the Apostle Paul himself made mention of this cross in the following words: “The doctrine of the cross is to them that  perish foolishness, but to us who are saved it is the power of God.” And again: “God forbid that I should glory in anything save in the cross of Christ, by whom the world is crucified to me, and I unto the world.”

In the above paragraph, Horos or Stauros (the cross of John) is the limit (X) of Plato’s Timaeus which separates the chaff from the wheat. Simon taught this same exact thing. The cross symbolizes the separation of powers and realms. It represents the apokatastasis, the Stoic conflagration, the baptism by fire. Paul speaks of this fire that purifies and tries men’s works. To be crucified to the world is to bear the symbol of the cross which is a flat-out denial of YHWH and the elohim archon’s creation. It is to spit in the face of the fateful gods of the Greek’s like Socrates. It is hemlock to the flesh and to the spirit it is immortality.

Getting back to the Orthodox John the Baptist. It is stated in the Gospel of Luke that Jesus came to be baptized by John the fifteenth year of Tiberius. This is roughly 28 AD, after September 18th. That means it occurred around the winter of 28/ 29AD. That is about one to two years after John died in 26/ 27AD! This lends credence to my conjecture that Jesus was just a title for Simon who returned from Egypt after the death of John. Probably about year after his death. In that year, Dositheus who is Peter/ Nathanael, ran the sect. Anyway, I hope I have showed you a side of John you hoped you’d never see and I hope I busted your Orthodox cranium wide open. Until next time truth seekers.

Sources:

1. Clementine Homilies 2.23-.2.24

2. http://gnosis.org/library/grs-mead/gnostic_john_baptist/gjb-2-1.htm

3. Clementine Recognitions 1.54

4. Clementine Recognitions 1.60

5. Antiquities of the Jews 18.5.2 and 18.3.3, Josephus

6. http://gnosis.org/library/grs-mead/gnostic_john_baptist/gjb-1.htm

7. http://gnosis.org/library/grs-mead/gnostic_john_baptist/gjb-2-1.htm

8. Testimony of Truth

9. Apocryphon of James

10. Gospel of Thomas

11. Against Heresies (AH) 1.3.5, Irenaeus.

12. AH 1.30.11

Advertisements
Categories: Uncategorized | Tags: | Leave a comment

Post navigation

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Blog at WordPress.com.

%d bloggers like this: