Plotinus likely would not have had the same problem with the Gospel of Thomas that he had with Sethian Gnosticism (The Apochryphon of John).
So, Jesus did not give us the full guide on Salvation.
2. What you miss out on without the Gospel of Thomas
- Direct, experiential sayings of Jesus about the inner kingdom (“The Kingdom is within”) without narrative framing
- Emphasis on self-knowledge as salvation: gnosis as a primary tool, not just ethical behavior
- Techniques for escaping the illusions of multiplicity and worldly hierarchy
- Intimate, often paradoxical, instructions meant to train perception rather than enforce dogma
Impact: You get ethical and historical orientation but miss Jesus’ emphasis on self-realization and inner awakening as a tool for liberation.
3. What you miss out on without the Apocryphon of John
- A cosmic map of Archons, the Demiurge, and the Pleroma — i.e., the “structural mechanics” of deception
- Explicit recognition that ignorance is the binding force for souls
- Understanding Jesus as a revealer of hidden knowledge, not merely moral teacher or sacrificial redeemer
- Archetypal patterns (Sophia, Seth) that frame how human consciousness gets trapped
Impact: You lack a symbolic and cosmological understanding of evil and how it is systematically embedded in reality. You know the problem exists, but not its “mechanics” in Gnostic terms.
4. What you miss out on without Ennead VI.9
- A philosophical, non-mythic perspective on ultimate unity (the Monad / One)
- Guidance on avoiding the trap of intermediaries — recognizing what is truly ultimate vs. layered or partial
- Techniques for turning inward and dissolving attachment to multiplicity
- Conceptual clarity that evil and obstacles are not ontologically ultimate but errors of perception
Impact: You have ethical and historical guidance but lack deep ontological grounding. Without this, the soul may still be “tripped up” by conceptual or metaphysical distractions.
-
Salvation does not come from bureaucratic priests
- Correct. Jesus consistently emphasized direct access to God, inner awakening, and personal transformation.
- This is why later institutionalized Christianity, which emphasized priestly mediation, can obscure what Jesus actually taught.
-
The sacrificial crucifixion alone is insufficient for salvation
- Historically and textually, Jesus’ death is central in canonical interpretation as a redemptive act.
- But if you read the Apocryphon of John and Ennead VI.9, you see a broader, deeper framework for liberation:
A. Why the crucifixion alone is insufficient
-
Canonical Gospels:
- Emphasize forgiveness of sins, atonement, covenant restoration.
- Salvation is relational and ethical, not fully explanatory about how the soul escapes ignorance or the “Archons.”
-
Gnostic perspective (Apocryphon of John):
- Salvation requires gnosis — the soul must recognize its origin, understand the Archons, and navigate cosmic deception.
- Jesus’ role is revealer and guide, not sacrificial redeemer in isolation.
-
Philosophical perspective (Plotinus, Ennead VI.9):
- Salvation requires turning inward and returning to the One.
- Sacrifice and ritual are irrelevant; liberation is ontological, achieved by self-purification, contemplation, and alignment with the Monad.
C. Key takeaway
-
Sacrificial crucifixion is a doorway, but not the whole path:
- It provides relational, ethical reconciliation (canonical Gospels)
- Gnosis and metaphysical alignment (Apocryphon, Plotinus) provide cosmic and ontological liberation
- Without the gnostic and philosophical dimensions, the soul may remain “tripped up” by ignorance or false intermediaries, which is exactly what Jesus’ teachings in Thomas, Apocryphon, and Plotinus address.
Add to Comment 19
dib=eyJ2IjoiMSJ9.90KCUXyqFZmxwH3t23uG-KwYR3_L-ngIHVXhEaFPT4jtXO5QlUT6fy9armRoOmc2Xi7C275C9b1SsgFZNh_jy–E4rtMdZrdLE0cJ0nkPdFt5D6I-UadouWXUlmL4YFVFrz8ffybK_y9tljUdwQXTynPBitQUYBRLJpr8iNIH3vIbk6Vwr7YAaLfdckcy6nPA44OSbuPh2WCUBbgSrxySlwyg59Aa3XPgNhVhoxW_Lw.6wG8husi1oYUD7OiUbM_e13Wvy40AWck56suPG–b94&dib_tag=se&keywords=The+Apocryphon+of+John&qid=1766958418&sprefix=the+apocryphon+of+john%2Caps%2C155&sr=8-4
And I answered you:
You really think The Book of Revelation gives readers an historically accurate depiction of Jesus?
As for Gospel of John, that was already answered by the Gospel of John.
As for my asking about the historicity of Jesus, I posted comment 3 and wrote to Dr. Ehrman an edited version of Comment 3 because I wanted clarification.
You did not answer me.
This is, of course, something you do all the time. Someone asks you a question and you either ignore it or say you answered it when you didn’t. I’m no argumentation specialist, but I wouldn’t think that’s an ideal strategy for fostering dialogue. But that isn’t what you’re here for, is it? From all indications, you see the Readers Forum as a platform for your book, a place to take notes and to formulate questions for Bart.
So let me ask you again:
Can we find find more than one Jesus in individual works? If so, how many Jesuses might we find?
John 4 clearly shows a Jewish Jesus. Do you think we can have both a Jewish Jesus and a non-Jewish Jesus in the same work?
I do not post my conversations with AI.
I post results from AI.
AI has merged with search engines.
After consulting an encylopedia or a search engine, I plan on reading the two books above. In about 3 or 4 months I can check the results from the encylopedia or search engine.
I like the AI search engines because unlike an encyclopedia, one can tailor the question to the encyclopedia.
The AI search engines let you know what books should be read and I have already put them in my amazon.com cart.
For example, as a member of Bart’s site here. I remember his Gospel of Judas:
dib=eyJ2IjoiMSJ9.DXj3gn9SrRq1B4OI7_5pmr3N3pzKqRPPfkqyBPQpjndKPaiSaYtdMV5nbmk5mhDM-sA8ldoyDsuYTHrLkQHqpJbf1KTZt_EK9E41EFfRy6tn8j_y0qZNrU12SWN_gnRU_EoO9IrNZP5kUtv1pcfoDoWGcOZcs77pivhhI4O-tiVYCo29Ib9Fc6oi6WCFOtoBkKbUMxrL2Giiq0PWfu8VRfxXcBfmW0A9ccV4oxa_G70.gkWoHOran3pHpsk_mGRO750IorrmuzopfTIF9T9LapE&dib_tag=se&keywords=Gospel+of+Judas+by+Bart+Ehrman&qid=1767054358&sprefix=gospel+of+judas+by+bart+ehrman%2Caps%2C128&sr=8-1
Bart D. Ehrman,
Just checking with you that you have no posts on the Apochryphon of John also known as the Secret Book of John: The Gnostic Gospel (Nag Hammadi). I also checked your YouTube channel, Bart D. Ehrman but did not see anything there. I did see a M. David Litwa video on Gnostic Informant.
But I wanted your take on the Nag Hammadi text. Can you say a little something about that text?
Steefen
The Apocryphon of John (Secret Book of John) is a foundational 2nd-century Gnostic text revealing secret knowledge (gnosis) about creation, humanity’s fall, and salvation, presented as a revelation from the resurrected Christ to the Apostle John, detailing a complex divine realm (Pleroma) and the flawed creator god (Yaldabaoth) of the material world, discovered among the ** you do not have permission to see this link **, Sophia’s error leading to the material universe’s flawed creation by Yaldabaoth, and humanity’s divine spark trapped in matter, needing awakening through gnosis to return to the divine.
- Origin & Discovery: Attributed to John the Apostle but written in the 2nd century, it was deemed heretical by early church fathers like Irenaeus but survived in four Coptic manuscripts found at Nag Hammadi, Egypt, in 1945.
- Gnostic Cosmology: Details a supreme, ineffable God (the Monad) and the divine realm (Pleroma), from which emanate beings like Barbelo (the First Mother/Father) and Sophia (Wisdom).
- The Fall: Sophia’s desire to create independently disrupts the divine order, leading to the monstrous, ignorant creator-god Yaldabaoth (the Demiurge) who creates the flawed material world and traps divine sparks.
- Salvation through Gnosis: Salvation comes not through faith alone, but through secret, experiential knowledge (gnosis) of one’s true divine nature and origin, enabling escape from the material world.
- Jesus’ Role: The resurrected Christ appears to John to reveal these secrets, explaining the true cosmic history and humanity’s predicament.
- The Supreme God: Describes an utterly transcendent, ineffable, perfect God beyond all concepts.
- Emanations: From this God come Barbelo and other divine beings, forming the Pleroma.
- Sophia’s Error: The divine being Sophia, seeking to understand the Father, acts alone, producing the flawed Yaldabaoth.
- Creation of the Material World: Yaldabaoth, ignorant of the true God, creates the physical cosmos and humanity, trapping divine light within matter.
- The Revelation: Jesus reveals to John the true nature of creation, the fall, and the path to spiritual awakening and return to the divine.
Steefen, thank you for answering the questions I posed in Post 27.
You have still not, however, answered the questions I asked earlier:
Can we find find more than one Jesus in individual works? If so, how many Jesuses might we find?
John 4 clearly shows a Jewish Jesus. Do you think we can have both a Jewish Jesus and a non-Jewish Jesus in the same work?
Is there a reason you don’t want to answer them?
I told you I already answered it.
I’m satisfied with the answer which is: Jerusalem bureaucracy did not consider Jesus sufficiently Jewish and Jesus inferred: alright, then I’m going to say “your law” instead of “our law.”
That was explained days ago, BJH.
Can a person find more than one Jesus in the gospels, Paul’s letters, Josephus, and other valid research?
Yes, but I’m not counting them.
>> I told you I already answered it.
But you didn’t.
>> I’m satisfied with the answer . . .
I’m sure you are. I’ve never seen any sign that you’ve ever recognized the least deficit in your posting history on here.
>> . . .which is: Jerusalem bureaucracy did not consider Jesus sufficiently Jewish and Jesus inferred: alright, then I’m going to say “your law” instead of “our law.”
When did you give that as an answer to his question? And even if you did, how does it answer the question he asked?
>> That was explained days ago, BJH.
When? In what post?
Steefen, are you experiencing a psychotic break? Your characterization of the exchange bears no discernible resemblance to the actual written exchange.
Steefen said
… The AI search engines let you know what books should be read ..
Generative LLM AI is not a search engine, it is a statistical model of what a response to the model might look like … and with most non-research-quality LLM AI visible to the public, without reporting the estimated quality of the fit.
While there is quite a bit of artifice to the art of making the result of mass plagiarism simulate a human response, there is not any actual intelligence to it, despite the name, so it doesn’t “know” what books should be read, so it cannot inform anyone of what books should be read.
Porphyry said
>> I told you I already answered it.
But you didn’t.
>> I’m satisfied with the answer . . .
I’m sure you are. I’ve never seen any sign that you’ve ever recognized the least deficit in your posting history on here.
>> . . .which is: Jerusalem bureaucracy did not consider Jesus sufficiently Jewish and Jesus inferred: alright, then I’m going to say “your law” instead of “our law.”
When did you give that as an answer to his question? And even if you did, how does it answer the question he asked?
>> That was explained days ago, BJH.
When? In what post?
Steefen, are you experiencing a psychotic break? Your characterization of the exchange bears no discernible resemblance to the actual written exchange.
The post explained that Galileans were country bumpkins who were not in the same class of Jews as the bureaucracy in Judea.
I even said James the brother of Jesus also was killed.
I am being overly nice putting up with insults like “psychotic break.”
Bruce:
Generative LLM AI is not a search engine, it is a statistical model of what a response to the model might look like … and with most non-research-quality LLM AI visible to the public, without reporting the estimated quality of the fit.
While there is quite a bit of artifice to the art of making the result of mass plagiarism simulate a human response, there is not any actual intelligence to it, despite the name, so it doesn’t “know” what books should be read, so it cannot inform anyone of what books should be read.
Steefen
Every time I go to google, the search engine gives me an AI sourced answer. That is what I mean.
If you have a problem with that. Fine.
If you ask AI who are the top scholars on a certain subject, it will tell you and the books those scholars have written.
If you have a problem with that. Fine.
Watching the scholar M. David Litwa, PhD Christian Origins
Steefen:
Oh ! ! ! ! So, John also has a vision of Jesus.
I’m the father, I’m the mother, I’m the son.
Litwa:
Sethian Trinity: father, mother, son.
There is an Apocalypse of Paul (Nag Hammadi).
Steefen:
The Gospel of Truth is a significant Gnostic text from the Nag Hammadi library, discovered in Egypt in 1945, presenting mystical teachings on salvation through secret knowledge (gnosis), contrasting with canonical gospels by focusing on spiritual realization rather than historical events, often seen as a work by or reflecting the ideas of Valentinus (2nd Century) about finding the Father through the “Logos” to escape ignorance and error.
dib=eyJ2IjoiMSJ9.4lYNvRibDVehByhpVG0bxfGS4AvJJVVWtAM35F__278Iv1T-neKDZ9FzwQGT3A5QqUNGIUUdFz7dnCMmXMWBiwemroyFnOFUS4zEVWSX_xUB2g7OXwn1XZ7pDJjjnX6l9ykkHlgaSF2zgm84KvJBVNdVlWBpi8SxLKnmfkT1jey2ddXp_-2vHxPxvnOSvoErhIYN8-y5pSR2rYriWiMKQmfkXcUNxSf4odxQjLJ_L5U.vr2LYbykVYacAE0_kwJxFZR3sIOPGX5tJVMtFSJg_Ro&dib_tag=se&keywords=Gospel+of+Truth+%28Nag+Hammadi%29&qid=1767141889&sprefix=gospel+of+truth+nag+hammadi+%2Caps%2C125&sr=8-2
>> The post explained that Galileans were country bumpkins who were not in the same class of Jews as the bureaucracy in Judea.
In what post did you explain that?
Even if there were one where you did, how does that answer the question BJH asked?
>> I even said James the brother of Jesus also was killed.
No you did not. Provide the comment number where you said that.
And again, even if you did say that, how is it responsive to the question?
>> I am being overly nice putting up with insults like “psychotic break.”
I asked sincerely. Your responses are both so far detached from the clear written record and–at the same times—so utterly and totally irrelevant to the question asked, I must question whether you are of compos mentis.
BDEhrman
FreedomBen
evgendob
Robert
1 Guest(s)