Allah Is Lucifer

youssef4342

Peace, i actually found the article interesting.

1- "Satan" in hebrew (hasatan) (fom the story of Job in the Hebrew Bible), means Accusser

2- I might argure where the Garden was. In the Quran there are many Gardens (such as the heavenly Garden of Eden & paradise). In the Quran God Almighty states to "descend" from the garden, the same word is used when Moses tells the Children of Israel to "descend" to a city/Egypt to find what they were asking for (food), thus, "descend" does not have to mean to descend from a heavenly place, but instead might be descending from a state of status. God Almighty already had the intention of creating a successor on earth, and so Adam & his wife may have already been on earth. God created adam from Mud, and we can conjecture that the Mud was from the earth. Adam and his wife may have descended from their heaven-on-earth, into the wilderness of the earth.
Furthuremore, God Almighty will made new heavens and a new earth, this is prophecized in both the Quran and the NT, (144. The Garden/paradise will be as wide as the heavens(3133).

1B) God In the Bible did not lie to Adam/Eve, because yes they did die. Death was their recompense of their sin (Wages of sin is death). Also, the tree was a kind of like a tree of knowledge because in both scriptures (bible/Quran), when Adam/Eve ate from the tree, something became known to them, that wasn't known to them from before.
Moreover, in both Scriptures, God seems merciful. He directly calls at them in both scriptures, and there narrative seems alike in both scriptures, also the storey of their sons. We are told to believe in the previous scriptures, not disbelieve in them. It might seem that Muslims like to show how the bible is so called corrupt, but to me it might just show their unlettered minds.
Many of the so called contraditions of the bible have to deal with the number of things. Many of them are in the translations, not in the original text. (See refutations against so called "contraditions). Moreover, one begining fact that may seem like a "contradition" to Muslims in the bible is that God Almighty decided to create Man in his "Image/liking". To me, Yes indeed God Almighty Made us in his liking. No one fully Equals God, but we do have some of his characteristics. We have the ability to think, create, like, dislike, perfect, etc.). When Jesus was Questioned and accussed of being the "Son of God", he directed them at the fact that in the Pslams, it states that the scripture was given to gods, and if they were gods, then what makes God? being the "Son of God" is not a literal sense it seems, there are many "sons of God", angels, people who do good (as jesus stated) (This is from memory, and so is not to be taken 100% accurate)

3- Jesus had to know Hebrew, even if it was not his native language, since he was taught the Torah

4- Jesus's Body might have been Crucified, but his soul was not. This Notion comes from the fact that God Almighty "lifted" jesus (i.e his soul) beforehand (415. Jesus himself states in the Quran that God terminated his life (5117), so he obviously dead, but it was not the Jews who killed him; Jesus's death/crucifiction was made to LOOK LIKE he was in that state (4157) , but in reality, it is God ALmighty who terminated his life beforehand by lifting his soul (415, and leaving his body. (consider people in a vegetative state/brain dead, are they dead, or are they alive? Can you kill them or are they already dead? Do they have souls? or are they soul-less?

MaverickMonotheist

The gnostics were docetists. They did not believe that Jesus was truly flesh and blood. If you don't believe me, read the Gospel of Phillip in the Nag Hammadi codices. They also believed that the creation of the world was inherently flawed, and must be rejected. In other words, they HATED all things material and tangible.

Gnosticism is a nihilistic, world-hating belief system. It is utterly incompatible with the teachings of Moses, Jesus, and Mohammed. Purge that sickness. The world, rightly ordered by obedience to God, is a good place. )

-Joel

As-salaam Alaikum

Lucifer - noun - Latin = "light bearer".

an-Nur - "The Light" = One of the 99 names of Allah

Ayat an-Nur

"Allah is the Light of the heavens and the earth. The parable of His Light is a niche wherein is a lamp? the lamp is in a glass, the glass as it were a glittering star? lit from a blessed olive tree, neither eastern nor western, whose oil almost lights up, though fire should not touch it. Light upon light. Allah guides to His Light whomever He wishes. Allah draws parables for mankind, and Allah has knowledge of all things." - al-Qur'an 2435

In esoteric symbology, light is always represented by divine presence, knowledge, and truth. Therefore, to bear or give light means to give knowledge and presence of the divine. Lucifer then is just that, the "knowledge bearer".

Refuting The Christian View of Lucifer - Satan vs. Lucifer

The Christian view of Lucifer as being an evil or fallen angel and even Satan himself is a gross corruption that has been propagated over the years due to people?s lack of understanding and the Christian leaders teaching misinformation. Lucifer is not evil nor Satan, or the Shaytan rather. Iblis is the Shaytan, as according to the Qur'an. Iblis is never called Lucifer (I know that Lucifer is Latin and the Qur'an is Arabic but there's still not an equivalent given for Lucifer in Arabic) nor is Iblis an angel, let alone a fallen angel.

Meaning of Satan Satan (Shaytan) means "the opposer". This concept goes back to Ancient Kemet (Egypt) to the divinity Set. Set was the divinity of opposition. While Set would be an opposer to Heru (Horus), in the Ancient Egyptian's understanding he was not an evil deity. Set simply symbolized all opposing forces, which were necessary forces in the universe.

Satan is therefore not a proper name but a title. It is a name given to one opposing you. When your enemies come to oppress you, they are opposing you; therefore they are Shaytans to you. You are opposing them by defending yourself, in their eyes you are a Shaytan. Our fraud governments are "Set"anic for the way they treat the masses and the planet. Iblis however is a specific Shaytan.

Where does that leave Lucifer? Let's refer to the Adam and Eve as told in the Bible.

Though the two are similar, the stories of Adam and Eve as told in the Qur'an and Bible are significantly different in their esoteric deeper meanings. While one's setting is in a garden on Earth, the physical or material world (Bible), the other takes place in Jannah, not on Earth, the immaterial or spirit world (Qur'an).

The biblical account starts off with Adam and Eve being placed on Earth and being told by the biblical god YHWH not to eat from the Tree of Knowledge. YHWH claims that eating from the tree of KNOWLEDGE will cause Adam and Eve to die. The serpent however, tells Adam and Eve that they surely won't die, but rather become like YHWH. When they do eat from the tree, they do not die but rather their eyes are opened. When YHWH finds out they ate from the tree, YHWH acts out in jealousy and becomes angry and curses his creation and even admits that Adam and Eve have become like him (Genesis 322-24). Adam and Eve then spend the rest of their lives outside the garden away from the tree of LIFE. Notice how they did not die though when they ate the fruit like YHWH said they would. Yes, they eventually died, but it was not from the tree of KNOWLEDGE, it was because they were prevented from eating the tree of LIFE which would have made them eternal. All of this also takes place in the physical realm, the garden here on earth.

What we learn from the Biblical version of the tale is first YHWH lied to Adam and Eve and concealed the truth of the true nature of the tree of KNOWLEDGE, where the serpent told them the truth. Also, the serpent didn't force Adam and Eve to eat from the tree, nor did he tempt them. He simply told them the true nature of the fruit and let them decide what to do. The serpent gave Adam and Eve a CHOICE. YHWH however used FEAR and DECEPTION to prevent Adam and Eve from eating from the tree and to submit to him blindly. He didn't give them a choice, he wanted blind submission. When they didn't blindly submit to him, he cursed them and prevented them from life.

Now applying this story to real life, YHWH prevented Adam and Eve from KNOWLEDGE and kept them blind and ignorant. Who does this today? Does not "big brother" keep the masses blind and ignorant while holding knowledge from them? And when certain ones gain knowledge and don't submit to big brother, does he not then try to keep you away from life? Does not big brother use fear and lies to control the masses?

The serpent however rebelled and gave the KNOWLEDGE to Adam and Eve. This is like someone today who rebels against this world system and informs the masses of the true nature and intent of their corrupt government. Of course to ?big brother?, someone doing such a thing is an enemy. That is why the serpent is called Set-an. So the serpent is not called "Satan" because it is evil or did anything wrong, but rather because it is an enemy to YHWH, in the sense that a truth speaker is an enemy or a "terrorist" to today?s corrupt governments or "big brother".

The Christians over time started to call the serpent "Lucifer". Again however, Lucifer is not a proper name but a title, Lucifer meaning "light bearer", light in an esoteric sense being equated with knowledge or "gnosis". The serpent is the one responsible for giving the "gnosis" or knowledge to Adam and Eve. Therefore, he was their "light bearer" or Lucifer. This is the reason Satan and Lucifer are always equated as being the same being, but again these are just titles. This is why in many cultures the serpent is not a symbol of anything evil at all, but rather a symbol of knowledge and wisdom. The Gnostics call the serpent Sophia, which means wisdom and is also feminine because the entire subject deals with the suppression of the divine feminine principle as well (I can go into detail about that later if you wish me to). Sophia was a revealer of gnosis who came from the true "god", the great Mother-Father who is ultimately above simply being a god, which is ultimately Allah.

Allah does not keep man ignorant nor prevents man from knowledge, but rather sends knowledge to man as guidance

?Certainly, We have brought to them a Book (the Quran) which We have explained in detail with knowledge, - a guidance and a mercy to a people who believe.? ? al-Qur?an 752

?And in their footsteps, We sent 'Iesa (Jesus), son of Maryam (Mary), confirming the Taurat (Torah) that had come before him, and We gave him the Injeel (Gospel), in which was GUIDANCE and LIGHT and confirmation of the Taurat (Torah) that had come before it, a guidance and an admonition for Al-Muttaqun (the pious)? ? al-Qur?an 546

Now to briefly explain Allah and the Quranic version of the tale for clarity. First before the creation of the Earth, Allah announces He is creating Adam. When He does create Adam, He creates Adam in His image (meaning the light of Allah was within Adam) and tells all to prostrate to Adam. All do except for Iblis, who is jealous of Adam. Remember who acted with jealousy in the biblical tale? Adam is then placed in paradise where Allah tells Adam to avoid the tree of DESIRE. Iblis then appears to Adam and causes Adam to eat from the tree. Allah however is fully aware of what Adam has done but does not act in a vengeful way, but rather forgives Adam and clothes him, and then sends him to earth.

The major differences you have to understand here is first, unlike the biblical tale, all this takes place in the spirit realm, for in the Quranic version, paradise is in the spirit realm and not on earth like the Bible's Eden. Also, the name of the tree is different. It is not the tree of KNOWLEDGE; it is the tree of DESIRE. Since we are dealing with the spiritual sense, Allah was not trying to keep Adam away from knowledge; he was rather telling him to avoid his lower, carnal desires. Also, the way Allah reacted to what Adam had done is totally different. He does not get angry and vengeful, but forgives Adam and sends him to earth. Allah had full knowledge and preordained that Adam would eat the fruit of DESIRE so Adam being sent to earth was not a punishment, for that was in Allah's plan from the beginning when he announced that he was creating Adam to be viceroy on Earth. Allah then makes Adam aware that he would send him guidance. The Quranic tale ultimately demonstrates that Allah was in full control the entire time, was loving and forgiving, and was a guiding light rather than a being trying to conceal the truth from Adam.

?(Allah) said ?Get you down (from the Paradise to the earth), both of you, together, some of you are an enemy to some others. Then if there comes to you guidance from Me, then whoever follows My Guidance shall neither go astray, nor fall into distress and misery.?? ? al-Qur?an 20123

Now back to the biblical story, the serpent who is called Sophia by the Gnostics would be a clear example of Allah?s light and guidance being sent down to mankind on Earth in order to help against the oppression of this man made system that keeps the masses ignorant and expects blind submission through fear and deception and in which man or more specifically ?the State? is god (the Jewish concept of YHWH, whom the Gnostics called the demiurge or ?false god?, known in the modern day as ?big brother?).

To briefly explain the difference between the concept of YHWH and the concept of Allah, the concept of YHWH is one who plays a flawed "big brother" figure while the concept of Allah is one who is in full control of everything good and/or evil, is loving and forgiving, and wants to give you the guidance and knowledge (or gnosis) to illuminate the light inside you. The Quranic version of the tale is the correct version of the story and the correct concept of the Most High, while the Biblical version is of a big brother being who its writers called YHWH who is ultimately a concepted entity like big brother who aides in the authors hidden agenda.

The Gnostics, who were often named ?heretical? by the powers that be, were in actuality the true followers of the Prophet Isa (pbuh), who was also a Lucifer (light bearer)

?Then spake Jesus again unto them, saying, ?I am the light of the world he that followeth me shall not walk in darkness, but shall have the light of life.?? ? John 812

The Gnostics believed that Isa was not sent by YHWH but rather sent by the same One that had sent the serpent to Adam and Eve in the garden. This is true, for Isa (pbuh) said himself that the one he called ?Father? was not the same as the Jew?s god

?I am telling you what I have seen in the Father?s presence, and you are doing what you have heard from your father. ?Abraham is our father,? they answered. ?If you were Abraham?s children,? said Jesus, ?then you would do what Abraham did. As it is, you are looking for a way to kill me, a man who has told you the truth that I heard from God. Abraham did not do such things. You are doing the works of your own father.? ?We are not illegitimate children,? they protested. ?The only Father we have is God himself.?

Jesus said to them, ?If God were your Father, you would love me, for I have come here from God. I have not come on my own; God sent me. Why is my language not clear to you? Because you are unable to hear what I say. You belong to your father, the devil, and you want to carry out your father?s desires. He was a murderer from the beginning, not holding to the truth, for there is no truth in him. When he lies, he speaks his native language, for he is a liar and the father of lies. Yet because I tell the truth, you do not believe me! Can any of you prove me guilty of sin? If I am telling the truth, why don?t you believe me? Whoever belongs to God hears what God says. The reason you do not hear is that you do not belong to God.? ? John 838-47 (NIV)

Those verses makes it clear that Isa (pbuh) was not sent by the one whom the Jews worshipped called YHWH, who he called the devil, but was sent by the True God whom the Jews had not known.

Many believe that the name ?Yeshua? is the Hebrew name and proper name is Isa (pbuh) that means ?YHWH saves?, which would in turn mean Isa (pbuh) was sent by YHWH, but this is false.

Taken from http//www.answering-christianity.com/name_of_jesus.htm

Interestingly, the word "Yeshua" (meaning "safety" in the Hebrew language), whom Christians attempt to proselytize their theories of a "man-god" Jesus by saying this name of his meant "Salvation", does not have a static definition of "Salvation" but also means "Saved".

Another problem is that the type of "safety" which "yasha" refers to is in a very worldly sense, and mostly having to do with being saved from the hands of Israel's worldly enemies. Every single usage of "yasha" in the Bible has to do with warfare and violence. There is not a single reference to deliverance from sin, or salvation of the ethereal soul. It only refers to salvation of the physical body and life.?
Jesus spoke Aramaic. Thus, the New Testament would have to be dependent upon it. Much of the Old Testament was in Aramaic as well, and the earliest Christian societies throughout Arabia from Palestine, to Syria, to Nabataea spoke Aramaic. So what is Jesus' name in Aramaic?

"EESHO M'SHEEKHA" meaning Jesus the Messiah.

"Eesho M'sheekha" in Syriac. Syriac is a late variant of Aramaic widespread in Christendom, thus coined "Christian Aramaic".
"Eesho M'sheekha" in Aramaic, taken directly from the "Peshitta". The "Peshitta" is the Aramaic New Testament and closely resembles the language of Jesus.

Thus, Jesus would have even called himself "Eesho" or more specifically "`Eesaa" since the Northern Palestinian Jews pronounced the letter "shin" as "seen".

?The word "EESA" ( ) in the Qur'an comes from "EESHO" ( ) in Aramaic, a language which predates Hebrew by several hundred years and never had any etymological ties with the Hebrew derivative "YESHUA" ( ) or even the word "E'SAU" ( )

?Since the language Jesus (pbuh) spoke and taught was Aramaic, the Qur'an have accurately taken his name in Aramaic and not the Hebrew derivative, "YESHUA" ( )

?The name "YASO'A" ( ) for Jesus (pbuh) in the Arabic Bible is merely a transliteration of the Hebrew name "YESHUA" ( ) and is therefore fallacious to claim that this is the correct Arabic name of Jesus (pbuh) since as originally said, Hebrew is not Jesus' native tongue. Therefore, the Noble Verses which clearly states that the Qur'an is in pure Arabic remains unchallenged.

I would recommend reading the entire article about Isa?s (pbuh) proper name here http//www.answering-christianity.com/name_of_jesus.htm

The Gnostics spoke the truth of the Prophet Isa (pbuh) and were his true followers and it was for this reason why the Catholic Church labeled them heretics and violently persecuted them and destroyed many of their scriptures and gospels, and replaced them with gospels that deceived the masses into believing that YHWH was the god of Isa (pbuh). The truth however can still be found in the four gospels today by reading them with a correct understanding rather than the indoctrinated teachings of the Christian/Catholic Church, along with reading the Gnostic gospels and scriptures that did survive (which can be found in the Gnostic Bible - http//www.amazon.com/Gnostic-Bible-Revised-Expanded/dp/1590306317/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&qid=1325953906&sr=8-2 )

I?m sure many of you here on this site are well aware of the corruption and falsehood of the Catholic Church, and that it was only established as a means of controlling the masses (hence the State being god, the Catholic Church being agents of YHWH and the disbelieving Jews), so it should be fairly easy to see the hidden agenda behind the Catholic Church labeling the Gnostics as heretics and establishing the worship of Prophet Isa (pbuh) as god, leading to shirk.

Another Way The Gnostics Are Linked To Islam

While the Christians/Catholics believe that Isa (pbuh) was crucified on the cross, both the Gnostics and Muslims and the Qur?an are in agreement that this did not happen.

?And because of their saying (in boast), ?We killed Messiah 'Iesa (Jesus), son of Maryam (Mary), the Messenger of Allah,? - but they killed him not, nor crucified him, but the resemblance of 'Iesa (Jesus) was put over another man (and they killed that man), and those who differ therein are full of doubts. They have no (certain) knowledge, they follow nothing but conjecture. For surely; they killed him not But Allah raised him 'Iesa (Jesus)] up (with his body and soul) unto Himself (and he is in the heavens). And Allah is Ever All-Powerful, All-Wise.? ? al-Qur?an 4157-158

In the Second Treatise of the Great Seth (a Gnostic text), Isa (pbuh) says, "I did not die in reality, but in appearance. Those in error and blindness....saw me; they punished me. It was another, their father, who drank the gall and vinegar; it was not I. They struck me with the reed; it was another, Simon, who bore the cross on his shoulder. I was rejoicing in the height over all....And I was laughing at their ignorance."

Unlike the canonical gospels, Jesus' crucifixion and resurrection are not narrated and neither do any of the hundred and fourteen sayings in the Gospel of Thomas (a Gnostic gospel) directly refer to these events. Thomas's Jesus is a dispenser of wisdom, much like the traditional Muslim view of Isa (pbuh), not the crucified and resurrected Lord.

In the Muslim view, Isa (pbuh) was a mortal man who was the living Word of Allah sent to mankind for guidance. This is equivalent to the Gnostics view of Isa (pbuh) being a mortal man who brought ?gnosis? (the Word of Allah) to mankind for guidance. Neither view alludes to Isa (pbuh) being sent to Earth as a human sacrifice to YHWH for the forgiveness of sins. To think that Allah would demand a human sacrifice for forgiveness is ludicrous to both the Muslim and the Gnostic.

In conclusion, Allah is indeed Lucifer, the giver of light, knowledge, and guidance for mankind based on the evidence provided. Over time, those who serve YHWH (?big brother?, the State) changed the original names, meanings and understandings to deceive the masses in order to control them and have the masses submit to them, the State. They took what was truly good and demonized the good so that the masses would turn away from the good and believe what the State presents to them is truly good, when it is the State that produces that which is actually evil. Interestingly enough, the Gospel of Phillip (another Gnostic gospel) even reveals this truth

?The rulers wanted to fool us, since they saw we were connected with the good. They took the names of the good and gave them to the not good so with names they could trick and rope us to the not good. As though doing us a favor, they took names from the not good and placed them on the good. They knew what they were doing. They wanted to grab those of us who were free and make us eternal slaves.?

All praise is due to Allah for keeping His promise to send mankind guidance, presently in the form of the Qur?an, to make clear the truth from the falsehood.

Paradox_Uncreated

I make a point of separating gnosticism from "demiurge" texts etc. It is also called gnosticism but the universal understanding of gnosis is what I have pointed out in my previous post in this thread. I think the difference is important, because gnosis is used about knowledge of God, even today, and should be deassociated from these demiurge-teachings. Gnosticism is then about gnosis. For instance, not long ago it was common to name Buddhism, a gnostic direction. The hippies also use the term "gnosis". In more recent times, buddhism in popular culture here, is called atheism, or belief in "no god or all gods". Which ofcourse is incompatible with Buddhanautre being allknowing, and allknowingness can only be one force.

Gnosis, is at the root of any true religion. That is why the same god and same phenomena is reported everywhere, independently in history, back to the oldest known times. You always have "breath of life", which is Zi in animism. Even the pharaoes had "Ankh" as the lifeforce. Ofcourse with many distortions and additions. In hinduism atman is brahman, judaism ruach "breath of life", which is Ruh in Islam.

There are "gnostic" themes in the Quran aswell.

He it is Who has sent down to thee the Book In it are verses basic or fundamental (of established meaning); they are the foundation of the Book others are allegorical. But those in whose hearts is perversity follow the part thereof that is allegorical, seeking discord, and searching for its hidden meanings, but no one knows its hidden meanings except Allah. And those who are firmly grounded in knowledge say "We believe in the Book; the whole of it is from our Lord" and none will grasp the Message except men of understanding.

"those who are firmly grounded in knowledge". I know other verses also talk about knowledge, and that God can give knowledge of himself to anyone he wants. Mohammed (pbuh) was ofcourse a gnostic. And khidr was "taught by the prescence of God".

Gnostic "demiurge" texts, also deal with that the world is negative.
But you have this statement in the Quran aswell.
For instance 143 to those who have chosen the life of the world in preference to the Hereafter, who hinder people from the Way of Allah, and seek to make it crooked. They have gone far astray.

I do believe that was the original understanding, before those "gnostic" texts got distorted.

note even though I mention hippies here, I do not condone LSD use, or any other similar drug/intoxicant. It is of satan and forbidden in the Quran. I do however respect shamanic culture, and that they believe it is of value, but it is not my way of life.

Gnosis

As-Salaam Alaikum

I am surpirsed that you did not choose the word God in an English title for an English speaking audiance and you picked the Arabic translation.

I choose the word Allah over God because Allah is most proper. Allah for one is above simply being a god and secondly the word god denotes gender (male, goddess being the female alternative). The word Allah is genderless.

The gnostics were docetists. They did not believe that Jesus was truly flesh and blood. If you don't believe me, read the Gospel of Phillip in the Nag Hammadi codices. They also believed that the creation of the world was inherently flawed, and must be rejected. In other words, they HATED all things material and tangible.

Gnosticism is a nihilistic, world-hating belief system. It is utterly incompatible with the teachings of Moses, Jesus, and Mohammed. Purge that sickness. The world, rightly ordered by obedience to God, is a good place. )

-Joel

The belief that Jesus was not human at all is only in one school of Gnostic thought. There are many different schools of Gnostic thought. The Gospel of Thomas fully supports the idea that Jesus was only human and not divine.

Also, I think it is a misunderstanding people have with the Gnostic position on the material world. I don't think they believed the actual material world was evil but rather just an illusion, basically like the Islamic concept of the Dunya. They rejected materialism more so than believing everything material was evil for we can use logic and come to the conclusion that if they literally believed everything material was evil, what would have stopped them from killing themselves to escape the material world? So I think it is a misunderstanding as Parodox pointed out.

Gnostic "demiurge" texts, also deal with that the world is negative.
But you have this statement in the Quran aswell.
For instance 143 to those who have chosen the life of the world in preference to the Hereafter, who hinder people from the Way of Allah, and seek to make it crooked. They have gone far astray.

I do believe that was the original understanding, before those "gnostic" texts got distorted.

Parodox, I wish you had read the entire OP before responding and you would have seen that we are basically saying the same thing only in two different ways. The gnostic position (well atleast my personal interpretation of it) is not that the demiurge is a god along side Allah or that Allah is even a demiurge; far above be Allah from such blasphemy. The demiurge is nothing to be worshipped and really the concept behind the demiurge represents man made power i.e. the governments of today as I pointed out in my OP. There is only One true Power behind all, and that is Allah, but Allah is obviously not the god as understood in man made religions. This distorted view of the Most High is what gnostics refer to as the demiurge. I agree completely with you with what you said about gnosis being the root of all religions and knowledge of Allah.

If you go back and read my OP I think you will find that what we appear to be in disagreement about here we are actually in agreement with. The differences in our views is like myself saying a half glass of water is half full while you say the glass is half empty. We are really saying the same thing, only using two different analogies and wording.

I have to ask many of you that seem to be against the idea of Gnosticism, have you actually sat and read the text for yourselves?

Gnosis

DUPLICATE

MaverickMonotheist

As-Salaam Alaikum

I have to ask many of you that seem to be against the idea of Gnosticism, have you actually sat and read the text for yourselves?

i have my son on my knee, so to give you a short answer, yes. i've read the entire nh codices a few times and some of the related scholarly materials related to context. will write a better answer later.

Paradox_Uncreated

As-Salaam Alaikum

I choose the word Allah over God because Allah is most proper. Allah for one is above simply being a god and secondly the word god denotes gender (male, goddess being the female alternative). The word Allah is genderless.

The belief that Jesus was not human at all is only in one school of Gnostic thought. There are many different schools of Gnostic thought. The Gospel of Thomas fully supports the idea that Jesus was only human and not divine.

Also, I think it is a misunderstanding people have with the Gnostic position on the material world. I don't think they believed the actual material world was evil but rather just an illusion, basically like the Islamic concept of the Dunya. They rejected materialism more so than believing everything material was evil for we can use logic and come to the conclusion that if they literally believed everything material was evil, what would have stopped them from killing themselves to escape the material world? So I think it is a misunderstanding as Parodox pointed out.

Parodox, I wish you had read the entire OP before responding and you would have seen that we are basically saying the same thing only in two different ways. The gnostic position (well atleast my personal interpretation of it) is not that the demiurge is a god along side Allah or that Allah is even a demiurge; far above be Allah from such blasphemy. The demiurge is nothing to be worshipped and really the concept behind the demiurge represents man made power i.e. the governments of today as I pointed out in my OP. There is only One true Power behind all, and that is Allah, but Allah is obviously not the god as understood in man made religions. This distorted view of the Most High is what gnostics refer to as the demiurge. I agree completely with you with what you said about gnosis being the root of all religions and knowledge of Allah.

If you go back and read my OP I think you will find that what we appear to be in disagreement about here we are actually in agreement with. The differences in our views is like myself saying a half glass of water is half full while you say the glass is half empty. We are really saying the same thing, only using two different analogies and wording.

I have to ask many of you that seem to be against the idea of Gnosticism, have you actually sat and read the text for yourselves?

We are not at all talking about the same. Allah is allah, as defined in the Quran. Satan is satan. The story of "the fall of lucifer" isn`t correct with regards to the claim that it is an angel that becomes evil. There is no such thing as an evil angel.

Angels do the commands of Allah. Not shaytan. Shaytan is a polytheist. The angels are constantly conscious of God (monotheism / dualism (mind/body dualism) - this is the only view that fits with the omnipresent invisible God of the quran) And being conscious of God protects against spirits (and shaytan)

And as you see from my logic thread, God is a completely logical, logical extreme. No demiurge, and this description of God is not a demiurge. God is knowable, and known on Judgement Day.

And it is a pefect creation, and a perfect system based in allknowingness, and a perfect divine rule, by the one perfect divine arranger.

MaverickMonotheist

Peace Gnosis,

I wanted to add to my comment that the gnostic movement arose out of a failed Jewish approach. After Rome took over Judea following the failure of the Jewish state re-founded by the Maccabeans to unify, an apocalyptic movement began in certain Jewish circles. The idea began to grow that they were living in the time that God would miraculously destroy the Roman oppressors. The Qumran community is a good example of this. They supposedly had revelation from God on how this was going to happen. But you and I know that it didn't happen. So they had to figure out how to make sense of things. To do this, they allegorized their "revelations" about the coming war, they discovered and embraced Platonism, and they were so angry at YHWH that they changed him into the Platonic demiurge. He failed them so he must be Plato's demiurge. This Jewish gnosticism spread westward to Egypt, namely to Alexandria. Once there, it mingled with Egyptian religion (hence the Nag Hammadi references to the ogdoad and the god Set). Later, some Christians embraced gnosticism and wrote Jesus into gnostic myths.

So essentially, gnosticism is the result of a failed apocalyptic movement. For some scholarly ideas on this, see April DeConick's work on how editors transformed the Gospel of Thomas over time from an apocalyptic text to a mystical one. You can see a summary of it here

http//www.aprildeconick.com/gospelofthomas.html

Peace,
Joel

Gnosis

We are not at all talking about the same. Allah is allah, as defined in the Quran. Satan is satan. The story of "the fall of lucifer" isn`t correct with regards to the claim that it is an angel that becomes evil. There is no such thing as an evil angel.

Angels do the commands of Allah. Not shaytan. Shaytan is a polytheist. The angels are constantly conscious of God (monotheism / dualism (mind/body dualism) - this is the only view that fits with the omnipresent invisible God of the quran) And being conscious of God protects against spirits (and shaytan)

And as you see from my logic thread, God is a completely logical, logical extreme. No demiurge, and this description of God is not a demiurge. God is knowable, and known on Judgement Day.

And it is a pefect creation, and a perfect system based in allknowingness, and a perfect divine rule, by the one perfect divine arranger.

As-Salaam Alaikum

Again, I agree with everything you said here. I didn't call Allah a demiurge, neither did I suggest Satan was an angel...I actually said the opposite. Did you even bother to read my post?

If you are a true Muslim why don't you greet me back with peace and respond to me in a loving way and atleast give me the respect to read my post before responding? You are creating fitna my brother. I won't bother to waste my time and energy responding to you anymore since you can't seem to give the same mutual respect. It makes me question your intentions here.

Peace Gnosis,

I wanted to add to my comment that the gnostic movement arose out of a failed Jewish approach. After Rome took over Judea following the failure of the Jewish state re-founded by the Maccabeans to unify, an apocalyptic movement began in certain Jewish circles. The idea began to grow that they were living in the time that God would miraculously destroy the Roman oppressors. The Qumran community is a good example of this. They supposedly had revelation from God on how this was going to happen. But you and I know that it didn't happen. So they had to figure out how to make sense of things. To do this, they allegorized their "revelations" about the coming war, they discovered and embraced Platonism, and they were so angry at YHWH that they changed him into the Platonic demiurge. He failed them so he must be Plato's demiurge. This Jewish gnosticism spread westward to Egypt, namely to Alexandria. Once there, it mingled with Egyptian religion (hence the Nag Hammadi references to the ogdoad and the god Set). Later, some Christians embraced gnosticism and wrote Jesus into gnostic myths.

So essentially, gnosticism is the result of a failed apocalyptic movement. For some scholarly ideas on this, see April DeConick's work on how editors transformed the Gospel of Thomas over time from an apocalyptic text to a mystical one. You can see a summary of it here

http//www.aprildeconick.com/gospelofthomas.html

Peace,
Joel

This is partially true. Again, there were many schools of Gnostic thought and this only refers to the Jewish thought. Ancient Egypt already had it's own form of Gnostic thought long before the Jews adopted it. As stated earlier, Gnosis in itself is experience and knowledge of Allah, so technically Gnosticism has been around since the beginning.

I don't have time to read the link you posted right now as I am getting ready to go to work, but insha'Allah I will when I get home.

Paradox_Uncreated

You are completely incoherent. The thread title is Allah is satan. And you called Allah demiurge just recently in your post. And you used the same demiurge, in another thread I talked to you. You use the name lucifer which is about a "fallen angel". Which I refuted. And I am not the one creating fitna. Provcations coming from a man with a thread title "Allah is lucifer". That is fitna.

No dont bother replying, its not going to change my views anyway. Its SWILL and so was your post, in another thread I talked to you.

MaverickMonotheist

Peace Gnosis,

Some people say that the gnostics were a diverse group, BUT I think the most accepted scholarly position is that there are certain things that are common to them. The acceptance of Platonism, the belief that there is secret knowledge available to only the most spiritual, and a belief in some hierarchical structure to the universe - with those over the air being hostile to humans - most readily come to mind. Though the Gospel of Thomas does not present a docetic Jesus, there is the emphasis on secret knowledge and esoteric sayings, and the archons do play at least a minor role in the text.

And yes, a distinction does need to be made between gnosticism and gnosis, but an inordinate emphasis on gnosis is not spiritually healthy. Some people aren't into that kind of knowledge, but they are obedient to God, and that characteristic IMHO is much more important. I consider myself to be a pretty smart guy, I'm well read, and I've had some some spiritual experiences I'd consider gnosis, BUT because of not being obedient to God, I've had to spend the past several months trying to re-establish myself as a good father and husband after being so caught up in anger that my marriage almost ended. It has been hard work, and one that has required a lot of prayer, discipline, and submission to God (hence my posting here only being sporadic over the past few months). If you look at my post history, you can maybe read some of the desperation I had when things were at their lowest.

So. Obedience. Submission. If gnosis is a by-product of that, great. If not, no big deal. Gnosis does not make one person spiritually more mature than the one who fully submits himself to God.

Anyway, back to the topic. Egypt only developed its own gnostic tradition when it was exposed to Platonism. There was Hermeticism, but this is more a magical tradition and is a greek adaptation of the god Thoth.

I have an acquaintance who is a former neo-gnostic, and even completed a Master's degree in Coptic studies. In the end, he found the tradition to be no more spiritual than any other. He once told me (after he returned to being a practicing Roman Catholic) that gnostics, both ancient and modern, were no more experiential than a lot of the orthodox Catholics he met in his studies.

Although it is clear you have touched a nerve with some with your post, I think you are just playing with some ideas like a new toy. Nothing wrong with considering new ideas. But I personally think that once you begin considering the implications of what you are saying here, maybe you will see that there isn't much here but a novel idea. There's nothing that makes submission to God any easier, nothing that unites the righteous, etc. I hope that does not sound harsh, I'm just telling you what I think in the hopes you will consider it further. What are the implications of what you are saying here, particularly based on what the prophet Isaiah said in chapter 14 of the Jewish scriptures?

How art thou fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the morning! how art thou cut down to the ground, which didst weaken the nations! For thou hast said in thine heart, I will ascend into heaven, I will exalt my throne above the stars of God I will sit also upon the mount of the congregation, in the sides of the northI will ascend above the heights of the clouds; I will be like the most High. Yet thou shalt be brought down to hell, to the sides of the pit.

Peace,
Joel

This is partially true. Again, there were many schools of Gnostic thought and this only refers to the Jewish thought. Ancient Egypt already had it's own form of Gnostic thought long before the Jews adopted it. As stated earlier, Gnosis in itself is experience and knowledge of Allah, so technically Gnosticism has been around since the beginning.

I don't have time to read the link you posted right now as I am getting ready to go to work, but insha'Allah I will when I get home.

Paradox_Uncreated

"Ive had some spiritual experiences Id call gnosis". Lol.
Well I started using the term here, so I guess I should purify that abit, but not without also becoming mystical.

Fighting against satan, gives you gnosis. Going with satan, obscures gnosis.

Now it is up to however of you is the best, to pursue it.

Gnosis

Peace Gnosis,

Some people say that the gnostics were a diverse group, BUT I think the most accepted scholarly position is that there are certain things that are common to them. The acceptance of Platonism, the belief that there is secret knowledge available to only the most spiritual, and a belief in some hierarchical structure to the universe - with those over the air being hostile to humans - most readily come to mind. Though the Gospel of Thomas does not present a docetic Jesus, there is the emphasis on secret knowledge and esoteric sayings, and the archons do play at least a minor role in the text.

And yes, a distinction does need to be made between gnosticism and gnosis, but an inordinate emphasis on gnosis is not spiritually healthy. Some people aren't into that kind of knowledge, but they are obedient to God, and that characteristic IMHO is much more important. I consider myself to be a pretty smart guy, I'm well read, and I've had some some spiritual experiences I'd consider gnosis, BUT because of not being obedient to God, I've had to spend the past several months trying to re-establish myself as a good father and husband after being so caught up in anger that my marriage almost ended. It has been hard work, and one that has required a lot of prayer, discipline, and submission to God (hence my posting here only being sporadic over the past few months). If you look at my post history, you can maybe read some of the desperation I had when things were at their lowest.

So. Obedience. Submission. If gnosis is a by-product of that, great. If not, no big deal. Gnosis does not make one person spiritually more mature than the one who fully submits himself to God.

Anyway, back to the topic. Egypt only developed its own gnostic tradition when it was exposed to Platonism. There was Hermeticism, but this is more a magical tradition and is a greek adaptation of the god Thoth.

I have an acquaintance who is a former neo-gnostic, and even completed a Master's degree in Coptic studies. In the end, he found the tradition to be no more spiritual than any other. He once told me (after he returned to being a practicing Roman Catholic) that gnostics, both ancient and modern, were no more experiential than a lot of the orthodox Catholics he met in his studies.

Although it is clear you have touched a nerve with some with your post, I think you are just playing with some ideas like a new toy. Nothing wrong with considering new ideas. But I personally think that once you begin considering the implications of what you are saying here, maybe you will see that there isn't much here but a novel idea. There's nothing that makes submission to God any easier, nothing that unites the righteous, etc. I hope that does not sound harsh, I'm just telling you what I think in the hopes you will consider it further. What are the implications of what you are saying here, particularly based on what the prophet Isaiah said in chapter 14 of the Jewish scriptures?

How art thou fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the morning! how art thou cut down to the ground, which didst weaken the nations! For thou hast said in thine heart, I will ascend into heaven, I will exalt my throne above the stars of God I will sit also upon the mount of the congregation, in the sides of the northI will ascend above the heights of the clouds; I will be like the most High. Yet thou shalt be brought down to hell, to the sides of the pit.

Peace,
Joel

Wa Alaikum Salaam,

I would have to disagree. Not all schools of gnostic thought deal with Platonism for example, Mandean gnostics and Manichaean gnostics didn't have platonic ideologies in their beliefs. Gnosticism is really just a world view, it was never really an organized group of people or a set of established beliefs. That is why there were Hermantic gnostics, Jewish gnostics, Christian gnostics, even Muslim gnostics. Technically, even Sufis are Muslim gnostics. Any world view that holds they can have direct knowledge and experience of Allah (or whatever you call the Most High in your belief system) is Gnosticism. The earliest idea of this comes from Ancient Egypt. Plato learned from the Ancient Egyptians himself, this is well documented. The Ancient Mysteries of Egypt were basically the seed of Gnosticism which gave birth to Platonism.

I used some Gnostic examples in my post to prove my point, but really this topic was not meant to deal with Gnosticism. We can make a new thread and discuss it if you would like, but my main point for this topic was to point out the use of the word Lucifer, and how Allah trully is Lucifer (the light bearer). Whether you agree with the Gnostic example is irrelevant to the main points I was trying to address which were these

Refuting The Christian View of Lucifer - Satan vs. Lucifer

The Christian view of Lucifer as being an evil or fallen angel and even Satan himself is a gross corruption that has been propagated over the years due to people?s lack of understanding and the Christian leaders teaching misinformation. Lucifer is not evil nor Satan, or the Shaytan rather. Iblis is the Shaytan, as according to the Qur'an. Iblis is never called Lucifer (I know that Lucifer is Latin and the Qur'an is Arabic but there's still not an equivalent given for Lucifer in Arabic) nor is Iblis an angel, let alone a fallen angel.

Meaning of Satan Satan (Shaytan) means "the opposer". This concept goes back to Ancient Kemet (Egypt) to the divinity Set. Set was the divinity of opposition. While Set would be an opposer to Heru (Horus), in the Ancient Egyptian's understanding he was not an evil deity. Set simply symbolized all opposing forces, which were necessary forces in the universe.

Satan is therefore not a proper name but a title. It is a name given to one opposing you. When your enemies come to oppress you, they are opposing you; therefore they are Shaytans to you. You are opposing them by defending yourself, in their eyes you are a Shaytan. Our fraud governments are "Set"anic for the way they treat the masses and the planet. Iblis however is a specific Shaytan.

The important thing about this is, the Qur'an never refers to Iblis as Lucifer or a "light bearer" but does refer to Allah as "The Light" (an-Nur). So with that being said, it is extremely inaccurate and wrong to refer to the cursed one as a "light bearer" for that basically equates to shirk. Such a notion is saying that Iblis is the one that bestows knowledge (light) to man (which would go against the Qur'an in the examples I gave and would be associating partners with Allah).

Allah is the One who gives knowledge and guidance to man, therefore he is Lucifer, the "light (knowledge) bearer".

The verse from Isaiah that you quoted is the verse Christians use to say that Satan was an angel that fell from heaven, but in Jewish theology that verse simply refers to a malicious human king who happened to call himself Lucifer (which is a title as pointed out, not a name), which is not surprising considering when you read the text around it you see it was an evil king that was setting himself up to be worshipped as a god (shirk).

The uproar here seems to deal with a few people looking at the word and title "Lucifer" through a Christianized understanding of the word and title, but the problem here with that is when you call the cursed Shaytan Iblis "Lucifer", you are giving him the title of "light (knowledge) bearer", in which the Qur'an specificaly says that Allah is the Light and is the bestower of all knowledge. So when you call Iblis "Lucifer", it is literally equating to shirk. That was that point ultimately being addressed here, I was trying to point this fact out so that we could avoid any shirk. Sorry for any misunderstandings, but it's hard to really gain an understanding of what I'm trying to address when there are those who refuse to just read the post and understand the context in which I am using my words and instead just try to criticize the post based on a prejudgement.

MaverickMonotheist

Peace Gnosis,

Yes, we did get sidetracked on the subject of gnosticism, which isn't exactly relevant to your op. Here's my last two statements, then I'll let it be.

First, God cannot be Lucifer. God is not the light-bearer, the one who brings the light, he is the LIGHT. sun

Second, about Isaiah the king of Tyre was addressed in the verses before the ones I quoted. The context changes to address a spiritual being (probably the tribal or personal "god" of the king of Tyre). But it the Jewishs exegesis is correct, then you have king of Tyre=Lucifer. Therefore God =/= Lucifer.

Make sense?

Paradox Uncreated,

You, sir, have no class or honor.

-Joel

the_path_of_light

I am astounded by some of the absolute hatred this topic has generated. The original poster was respectful and kind, and should be treated with the same decency.

Zulf

We all just need to constantly remind ourselves about being humble and forgiving and make an effort not to take the easy path of ego, which leads to defensiveness, confrontation, tension and misunderstanding. Strive toward betterment. We should remember and realize that the words we type here simple cannot do justice to what we what to communicate... and that misunderstanding, deliberate and involuntarily, is all too common. Forgive and let go. We should not let our egos get hurt... we are bigger than that, but it takes effort and we often fall to the ground... I know. Let's not get caught up in a negative feedback loop which just spirals further and faster down and down. Break out and up!

Peace and Love! group

lordfox

This is one of the best articles of the forum, I really congratulate and thank you for sharing all of this here. The only thing I disagree with is your use of Isa and Jesus interchangeably, when they are not the same.

http//free-minds.org/forum/index.php?topic=9599509.msg232976#msg232976
http//free-minds.org/forum/index.php?topic=9603137.msg287444#msg287444
http//free-minds.org/forum/index.php?topic=9598926.msg218263#msg218263

loxbox13