my take….

understanding got all messed up with the transition from mythos to logos.. we basically moved into the dark ages of material, or literalism.. on the other hand it was a veil , or ring pass not that only initiates could pass thru..

look up the wikipedia page on yahweh, which roughly translates as, ‘i am that i am’….. or take the qoute from jesus, ‘before abraham was, i am’….

the problem with symbolism as i understand it, is the tendancy for neophytes to think they know what something means, and usually it is in a literal and unimaginative sense..

maybe i am hard on people generally.. they put so much faith in manucripts or statues and forget to appreciate, or are incapable of perceiving the wisdom behind the word or symbolism..

james crankypants…

james_m wrote:my take….

understanding got all messed up with the transition from mythos to logos.. we basically moved into the dark ages of material, or literalism.. on the other hand it was a veil , or ring pass not that only initiates could pass thru..

look up the wikipedia page on yahweh, which roughly translates as, ‘i am that i am’….. or take the qoute from jesus, ‘before abraham was, i am’….

the problem with symbolism as i understand it, is the tendancy for neophytes to think they know what something means, and usually it is in a literal and unimaginative sense..

maybe i am hard on people generally.. they put so much faith in manucripts or statues and forget to appreciate, or are incapable of perceiving the wisdom behind the word or symbolism..

james crankypants…

I'm definitely on the same page. To add to your comment on manuscripts, I think the "sola scriptura" approach often used in Protestant denominations is flawed because it creates a situation where people don't understand the full context of a passage and come away with incorrect conclusions about it. A good example of this is John 1:1:

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

This translation of the passage might lead a layperson to think that "the Word" is referring to the bible, but in the original Koine Greek text the word used is "Logos" (in the Platonic sense). Logos of course has a much deeper meaning than the phrase "the Word" would suggest; however without drawing upon external non-biblical sources it would be extremely difficult to understand what this passage is actually talking about. This is just a minor example, but it illustrates well how misunderstandings can compound when the average person is following a sola scriptura approach.

I guess that brings us back full circle to the original dual structure of early Christianity. Practically speaking it's difficult to convey sophisticated, abstract notions to every single person; some people will get it but most will not (and who can blame them?). Naturally we'll end up with two understandings of a doctrine, one higher and one lower. In this light, since the majority of people will be laypersons it makes sense that the exoteric orthodox Christian church eventually prevailed. I can't imagine a situation where the esoteric gnostic Christians would have enough numbers to establish themselves as the dominant form of Christianity.

This reminds me of a present day situation which is very similar. When it comes to astrology, modern astrology is very exoteric since it's all about sun signs and newspaper horoscopes etc (which the majority of people will be familiar with). OTOH Hellenistic astrology is very esoteric/philosophically complex so there are only a few people that are familiar with it. In a very natural manner the increasing complexity of a subject automatically separates the neophytes from the more initiated. Of course it goes without saying that I don't judge anyone, I get that everyone has to find a message they can digest.

In the area of critical bible studies there's a theory that the apostle Paul is actually a cipher for the infamous Simon Magus of Acts (or vice versa). I found the book "The Falsified Paul" by Hermann Detering to be very informative about this topic. Below is a link to a free PDF of the book although the book can also be found on Amazon as "The Fabricated Paul":

http://www.egodeath.com/FalsifiedPaul/FabricatedJHC.pdf

Personally I think the second half of the book is more interesting than the first half (starting around page 100), but regardless the entire book is a very good read. The section on Simon Magus starts on page 142. The reason this is significant is because it connects a lot of the theological/astrological points I brought up in previous posts. I'll list out the most pertinent points below:

1.Simon Magus was essentially teaching a nondualistic message (like Advaita Vedanta) with his highly mythologized and metaphorical tale of a woman named Helena who descended from Simon (here assuming the role of nous) as his first thought and went on to create the material world. According to the myth, Helena becomes trapped in the material world by the same spirits that she originally emanated to help build the world. Afterwards Simon descends into the material world to retrieve Helena and bring her back to the original realm (the world of nous/forms).

As I said, the Helena myth is highly mythologized and metaphorical but if you're familiar with the common philosophical outlook extant to Simon's time (Platonism/Pythagoreanism) then you can understand the intended meaning of the myth. It's talking about the concept of the monad and the dyad. The monad (representing nous/form) is the source from which the dyad emanates and creates matter. Everything begins and ends with the monad (Brahman), the dyad (maya) is just a temporary reflection of the monad. As I've been outlining throughout this thread, gnostic Christianity itself is a nondualistic, buddhist-like religion. The possible Paul/Simon connection helps explain the origin of their theology.

2.I mentioned in an earlier post that I was unsure whether or not the Valentinians believed in reincarnation. Keep in mind the Valentinians claimed they learned their doctrine from "Theudas" who in turn was a disciple of Paul. If the connection between Paul and Simon is legitimate then it explains where they got this belief from (although they may have gotten this belief from multiple sources). To clarify, in the Helena myth it explicitly suggests reincarnation in the part where Helena became trapped in the material world and had to wander for centuries inhabiting different bodies until Simon came to rescue her. It's already widely acknowledged that the various gnostic sects believed in reincarnation and I was aware of this, but it's only recently that I realized (for myself) that they probably inherited this belief from Simon Magus whom Irenaeus and other patristic writers considered as the arch-heretic/the father of all the gnostic heresies.

3.It seems like the gnostic Sophia myth is derived from the Helena myth:
https://www.gaia.com/article/worlds-sou ... yth-sophia

In the Gnostic myth of how the world works, Sophia, the feminine personification of wisdom, lives happily with spirits of light (especially her twin brother), in the unified limitless potential of her Father’s radiance, created by the twin powers of Depth and Silence.

She’s so dizzy with love for the Creative Source that when she sees a brilliant shimmering light below, she flings herself down into the darkness, mistakenly following what she believes to be her Father’s radiance, fooled by a mere reflection. There, in the abysmal unrealized potential of the world, she is trapped – separated from the light, the spiritual realization of Gnosis – the knowledge of transcendent unity.

There, the powers of the underworld have their way with her, using, abusing, and exploiting her, until all she knows is sadness in the struggle to return herself up to the light she has lost, but not forgotten. She gives birth to a bunch of bad boys, demigods called archons, including the worst of them all, the demiurge who becomes the creator of this world, infecting it with pride, ignorance, fear, and his lust for power and pleasure.

But Sophia remains present, and in her resurgent power she brings great beauty and spiritual potential to the Earthly realm and its inhabitants. Witnessing the irresponsible creation of the world by her errant offspring, Sophia conceals Consciousness in the body of the demiurge’s first man, “Adam,??? and then brings it into the world as “Eve.???

Finally, Sophia breaks free and ascends back up to the true light of life, raising humanity with her ever so slightly. But she refuses to abandon the sad world of humans, and so she divides herself, keeping a part below, ever present and available for the enlightenment of all.

All the major elements of the gnostic Sophia myth can be found in the original Simonian Helena myth. My impression is that the Sophia myth primarily derives from the Helena myth but also draws inspiration from Poimandres (Corpus Hermeticum), Plato's Timaeus and archaic Jewish Wisdom traditions. I'm pleased to find the likely source of the gnostic Sophia myth because it helps contextualize the myth. Without knowing the background of the myth it's very easy to dismiss it as a baseless gnostic fabrication that's a poor copy of the original Jewish creation myth, but if we know the origin of the myth then it acquires its own authenticity. That being said, the gnostic creation myth is still partially derived from the original Jewish creation myth, there's no denying this. However, the gnostics themselves never denied this and more importantly they didn't consider their creation story as a replacement for Genesis, rather they understood it as a teaching tool to convey certain concepts. Its value was more practical than doctrinal. In fact, it's said that Simon Magus explicitly acknowledged that the Helena myth was just a myth. He never promulgated it as a serious inviolable cosmogonical religious doctrine. Also the gnostics did their own exegeses on the meaning of the canonical Genesis book, they still felt it had value.

One last observation is that the roots of gnostic Christianity are more Jewish and less gentile/pagan than I originally thought. Simon Magus himself was Jewish (a Samaritan Jew) and lots of the gnostic Christian theology derives from Jewish gnosticism. It's important to understand that (originally) the antipathy that gnostic sects showed towards Yahweh was more a matter of intra-Jewish theological disagreements ("two powers in heaven" heresy) as opposed to being a gentile movement that found itself at odds with Judaism. The latter position is the most natural one to assume but the reality is just the opposite; during antiquity Judaism was more diverse than what people think.

4.The Helena myth conforms with my earlier speculations regarding the thema-mundi and lunar symbolism related to Sophia (in Simonian gnosticism the concept of Sophia is often interchangeable with Helena). There are texts discussing Simon Magus where his companion Helena is referred to as Luna or some connection between Helena/Luna is implied. Luna of course means the Moon. This correlation is strengthened by the fact that the Moon represents the dyadic, material quality while the Sun represents the monadic, noetic/formal quality. This exactly follows the schema outlined in the Helena myth between the monadic Simon and his dyadic first thought Helena/Luna.

This persistent solar/lunar symbolism also might explain why the concept of the syzygy/"the bridal chamber" was so important in gnosticism. I think that the syzygy between the Sun and the Moon represents the (re)union between nous and matter. In practical terms this is suggesting enlightenment/henosis ("bohdi"). That is, the realization that there is no separation between subject and object, the observed and the observed are one. Note that in the book "The Gnostic Paul" there's numerous sections talking about the syzygy, especially in the exegeses for 1 Corinthians. In particular I'm looking at page 68 which is discussing the symbolic importance of 1 Corinthians 7. That being said, syzygy is a very flexible word in gnosticism, it doesn't always carry the meaning of enlightenment (although I think that's the ultimate expression of it). It's often used to metaphorically describe the relationship between two parties, like husband and wife, psychic Christians and pneumatic Christians etc. A good heuristic to understand the syzygy is to think of the yinyang symbol. The yinyang symbol seems to be the eastern representation of the form/matter, monad/dyad distinction.

5.If Paul is actually Simon Magus then it explains why there is coded astrological symbolism in the book of Hebrews (the Melchizedek reference). The term magus means magician. During the classical antiquity period magicians would be knowledgeable about many different occult practices, among them astrology. Furthermore, it's speculated that Simon Magus was actually an acquaintance of an astrologer named Anubio. There's a few pages talking about this in Chris Brennan's "Hellenistic Astrology: The study of fate and fortune" on page 95. Either way, both of these provide a plausible explanation for why Paul/Simon would be familiar with astrology and include veiled astrological symbolism in his letters. I've discovered a second possible coded astrological reference in 2 Corinthians which I'll discuss in a later post.

This covers most of the important points about the possible connection between the apostle Paul and Simon Magus. Personally I think that Paul is probably Simon, although there are people out there that dispute the theory too. For me, the argument that Paul is Simon is confirmed by the philosophical framework suggested by the embedded astrological symbolism (both direct and indirect) of the Pauline epistles. I think there's a deep, systematic logic undergirding the epistles (as well as their relation to the four gospels) which exists at such a fundamental level that it was impervious to Catholic interpolations and redactions to the original texts. I have more thoughts about this which I'll go over in a followup post.

kubernetes wrote: I'm definitely on the same page. To add to your comment on manuscripts, I think the "sola scriptura" approach often used in Protestant denominations is flawed because it creates a situation where people don't understand the full context of a passage and come away with incorrect conclusions about it. A good example of this is John 1:1:

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

This translation of the passage might lead a layperson to think that "the Word" is referring to the bible, but in the original Koine Greek text the word used is "Logos" (in the Platonic sense). Logos of course has a much deeper meaning than the phrase "the Word" would suggest; however without drawing upon external non-biblical sources it would be extremely difficult to understand what this passage is actually talking about. This is just a minor example, but it illustrates well how misunderstandings can compound when the average person is following a sola scriptura approach.

I guess that brings us back full circle to the original dual structure of early Christianity. Practically speaking it's difficult to convey sophisticated, abstract notions to every single person; some people will get it but most will not (and who can blame them?). Naturally we'll end up with two understandings of a doctrine, one higher and one lower. In this light, since the majority of people will be laypersons it makes sense that the exoteric orthodox Christian church eventually prevailed. I can't imagine a situation where the esoteric gnostic Christians would have enough numbers to establish themselves as the dominant form of Christianity.

This reminds me of a present day situation which is very similar. When it comes to astrology, modern astrology is very exoteric since it's all about sun signs and newspaper horoscopes etc (which the majority of people will be familiar with). OTOH Hellenistic astrology is very esoteric/philosophically complex so there are only a few people that are familiar with it. In a very natural manner the increasing complexity of a subject automatically separates the neophytes from the more initiated. Of course it goes without saying that I don't judge anyone, I get that everyone has to find a message they can digest.

good post kubernetes!

i too agree with most all of what you say here... i had to look up sola scripture to understand what that term implied..

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sola_scriptura

i think your analogy with sun sign verses hellenistic astrology holds true.. one is a light superficial read, while the other requires a much deeper grounding and thought process.. really it comes down to people and the level of interest one invests in understanding the mysteries of our bountiful world.. i have always loved the nature of the parables in the bible as it challenges this same process that some will engage in and others will have to have laid out for them.. symbolism is like that.. it can be read and interpreted any number of ways...

2 things... trying to understand what someone was trying to convey from the deep path is no easy task! that is the first thing... the 2nd is trying to understand the present which is what motivates me and i would like to think - most astrologers.. this symbolic language "written in the stars" is no easy task! if we can gleam some insights and understanding from those from the past or those in the present - i am all for it.. in this regard i am willing to pull from any number of astrological sources.. there is no purity in my outward approach.. i am not an adherent to one school of anything. my purity is in my intention and desire to learn more and to try to remain unbiased in taking it all in..

perhaps if i had a specific teacher and school of methodology that i adhered to, it would be different.. i view everyone as my teacher and give thanks to all those who have helped me to understand and appreciate all that i have..

thanks for your post!

In 2 Corinthians 12 there's an interesting verse:

2 I know a man in Christ who fourteen years ago was caught up to the third heaven. Whether it was in the body or out of the body I do not know—God knows. 3 And I know that this man—whether in the body or apart from the body I do not know, but God knows— 4 was caught up to paradise and heard inexpressible things, things that no one is permitted to tell.

What exactly is the third heaven that Paul is referring to? There's two possible cosmological models he could be referring to. The first one is the classic seven heavens schema that was used during classical antiquity:

Each of the seven heavens are ruled by a specific planet according to the Chaldean order.

Here's the second one but I'm not familiar with it and can't speak authoritatively on it. There could be good arguments for it but I haven't dug deep into them and can't comment either way. What I can say is that there's many reasons to believe the seven heavens schema is the one that Paul was actually referring to. These reasons are contextual clues embedded in the surrounding text, corroborating details in other Pauline epistles that support the metaphysical framework of the seven heavens schema and finally the usage of a seven heavens schema in an early Christian text called "The Ascension of Isaiah". I'll go over each of these separately:

1.The third heaven that Paul was brought up to corresponds to the Venus layer in the seven heavens schema. This is significant because Venus is exalted in Pisces. Likewise the Melchizedek reference in Hebrews was important because it directly connects Jesus with Jupiter, Jupiter of course is the domicile ruler of Pisces. Besides these there's tons of other Piscean references scattered throughout the New Testament so it seems kind of deliberate. That said, let's consider what Venus symbolizes:
https://www.astrology-x-files.com/x-files/planets.html

Venus: Main principle: to unify, pacify and smudge with leveling force. Venus is cool and wet by nature. The wetness brings people together in common unity and makes unclear any distinctions and differences that might separate them. The coolness aids in social harmony by deactivating any controversial issues that might create disharmony. Venus is a feminine planet by nature.

Venus represents this idea of bringing things together. It's the antithesis of Mars which separates things:

Mars: Main principle: to energize, activate and direct. Mars is exceedingly hot and dry (choleric) by nature which qualifys it as a malefic. The heat creates disturbance and anger and the dryness creates distinctions by which ideologies can further animosities and keep opposites apart. Mars is a very masculine planet. Its main purpose is survival instinct. It signifies war, violence, danger, actions and decisions.

The following is a quick example to help illustrate the opposing natures of these two planets:

If you consider the zodiac wheel as a map of existence then you can discern a certain pattern. Aries is considered the celestial beginning of the zodiac, which is appropriate since the Sun (representing nous/the monad) is exalted in Aries. The Sun philosophically represents the ultimate source or beginning of all things. It's exalted in a sign that's ruled by Mars which suggests the underlying motive of the Sun is to split off from itself or to create something (Mars and the Sun are both praxis planets, so they want to take action).

Now visualize a dyad emanating from the Sun/monad and traveling through the signs until it reaches Libra. Libra is opposite Aries and Saturn is exalted in this sign. If the Sun in Aries represents nous/monad then Saturn in Libra represents the opposite qualities of matter/dyad. At this point, Saturn in Libra being ruled by Venus suggests a desire to rejoin the source, likewise Venus exalted in Pisces suggests the completion of this process. Venus also has a special connection with the Sun through their equal ascension relationship (Aries and Pisces) which further strengthens its symbolism of reconciliation with the source. Note that the equal ascension pair Aries and Pisces are opposite Virgo and Libra which are themselves an equal ascension pair. As I've already established, the equal ascension relationship implies a synergistic dynamic. For Aries and Pisces, Venus supports the noetic oneness/wholeness of the Sun with its unifying energy. Likewise for Virgo and Libra, Mercury supports the material separateness of Saturn with its dualizing energy:

Mercury: Main principle: to split and quicken (quicksilver), duality, logos. Mercurys main purpose is to act as the go between for all dualities and all types of opposites, such as hot and cold, wet and dry, light and dark, hard and soft. For this reason it is none of these principles in itself (though it tends slightly toward dryness), but rather mimicks whatever principles happen to be most prevalent. It signifys transit, communication, language, and mental capacity. It is neuter as to sex.

If Virgo/Mercury represents duality then the opposite sign Pisces/Venus represents non-duality. This is why nondualistic religions like Buddhism and Christianity began appearing during the age of Pisces which (directly and indirectly) emphasize that separation is an illusion and everything is one. Going back to Venus and reconciliation, there's coincidentally an entire passage discussing reconciliation with God in 2 Corinthians 5:

16 So from now on we regard no one from a worldly point of view. Though we once regarded Christ in this way, we do so no longer. 17 Therefore, if anyone is in Christ, the new creation has come:[a] The old has gone, the new is here! 18 All this is from God, who reconciled us to himself through Christ and gave us the ministry of reconciliation: 19 that God was reconciling the world to himself in Christ, not counting people’s sins against them. And he has committed to us the message of reconciliation. 20 We are therefore Christ’s ambassadors, as though God were making his appeal through us. We implore you on Christ’s behalf: Be reconciled to God. 21 God made him who had no sin to be sin for us, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God.

Reconciliation is only mentioned five times in the New Testament and 3/5 of those occurrences are in 2 Corinthians:
https://www.biblegateway.com/quicksearc ... ersion=NIV
I think it's odd there's a cryptic reference to Venus in one of the few places that mentions reconciliation in the New Testament.

To be clear, I'm proposing a dual reading of this passage. Psychic Christians will understand this passage in its traditional religious sense while pneumatic Christians will understand that reconciliation with God means something like enlightenment/henosis. I can't prove this is the intended meaning but this is the most natural interpretation when taking into account the gnostic nature of Paul/Simon, the theology of the gnostic Christians and what the embedded astrological symbolism is suggesting. Also it's important to note that the Eastern Orthodox practices of hesychasm/theosis sounds similar to the idea of enlightenment/henosis. They use different language and metaphors to describe it but it sounds like they're talking about the same concept. I think the gnostics were essentially saying the same thing as the orthodox, the only difference is they were more explicit about it.

As a side note, in Hellenistic astrology Venus rules over cleanliness/purity and priesthood. I forgot the exact reasoning for it but it involves Venus' particular synodic cycle with the Sun. This is relevant because Christianity has a major focus on sin and Venus represents concepts that are the antithesis of sin. Even in the above passage at verse 21 it says that Jesus was made without sin, thus he was pure. Something else to consider is that reconciliation is conceptually related to forgiveness, which is a large part of Christianity. Forgiving others is a symbolic microcosmic version of reconciliation with God. Coincidentally Paul says a lot about forgiveness in the same book, 2 Corinthians 2:

Forgiveness for the Offender
5 If anyone has caused grief, he has not so much grieved me as he has grieved all of you to some extent—not to put it too severely. 6 The punishment inflicted on him by the majority is sufficient. 7 Now instead, you ought to forgive and comfort him, so that he will not be overwhelmed by excessive sorrow. 8 I urge you, therefore, to reaffirm your love for him. 9 Another reason I wrote you was to see if you would stand the test and be obedient in everything. 10 Anyone you forgive, I also forgive. And what I have forgiven—if there was anything to forgive—I have forgiven in the sight of Christ for your sake, 11 in order that Satan might not outwit us. For we are not unaware of his schemes.

Lastly, there's a potential connection between Paul and Simon in 2 Corinthians 12. There's this story about Simon Magus flying that occurs in the apocryphal Acts of Peter. I get the impression that it's trying to lampoon Paul(Simon?)'s story about being brought up to the third heaven. Remember that Peter and Paul were adversaries, therefore Peter (or the pro-petrine author of the Acts of Peter) had a motive to depict Simon/Paul in an unflattering way.

2.There's a consistent underlying theological theme in the Pauline epistles which supports the idea of a seven heaven schema. Here's an article explaining it:
https://isthatinthebible.wordpress.com/ ... -theology/
The header for the section in question is "Paul and the Cosmic Gospel". Below is a partial excerpt of the argument:

One of Paul’s core teachings seems to be that Christ offers deliverance from the influence of cosmic entities and forces:

For I am persuaded that neither death nor life, nor angels nor archons nor powers … nor height nor depth, nor any other created thing, shall be able to separate us from the love of God which is in Christ Jesus our Lord. (Rom. 8:39)

Paul’s vocabulary of angels, archons and powers has cosmic meaning in both Jewish and philosophical texts (see below), and ‘height’ and ‘depth’ are drawn specifically from the astronomical vocabulary of the first century CE (see Lewis, p. 59 for references; Van Kooten, pp. 93ff.).

Cosmic fatalism is also in view when Paul teaches that “when we were children, we were enslaved by the elements of the cosmos??? (Gal. 4:3). This cryptic doctrine is readily explained by the contemporary teachings of Plutarch and Philo, who say that mortals are subject to the generative and destructive nature of the elements (Van Kooten, pp. 60–65).

This helps us understand what Paul means in the ensuing verses (Gal. 4:4–9), where he equates the conversion of non-Jewish Galatians to the Jewish law as a return to servitude under the cosmic elements. For Paul, the “Law??? (Nomos) is an oppressive cosmic system, identical to the elements of Greek cosmology, and not merely a set of religious rules. This may fit with Pseudo-Plutarch’s description of fate as a cosmic law administered by planetary forces (see Dillon, p. 321). Furthermore, as Van Kooten shrewdly observes in his insightful book on Pauline cosmology, for Paul’s argument to make sense, he must intend both Jewish and Gentile religious legislation alike when he refers to “those under the law??? (Gal. 4:5):

The basic idea is that Paul is using the concept of Jewish law to metaphorically describe bondage to (planetary induced) heimarmene, he's not literally talking about Jewish law. This is a lengthy article but very good, I highly recommend it.

3.An early Christian pseudepigraphical text called "The Ascension of Isaiah" explicitly makes use of a seven heaven schema. Below is a link to the text:
http://www.pseudepigrapha.com/pseudepig ... saiah.html

The interesting thing is that in chapter 8 Isaiah ascends to the 6th heaven and first learns about Jesus. In the seven heaven schema the 6th heaven is associated with Jupiter. Jupiter of course is the domicile ruler of Pisces which is connected with Christianity and Jesus is explicitly connected to Jupiter (Melchizedek) in Hebrews, so there's a consistent repeating astrological theme here involving Jupiter.

Another interesting thing is that in this text the seventh heaven is considered the highest heaven and the abode of God himself. The seventh heaven in the planetary schema is connected with Saturn. However, in gnosticism Saturn is usually associated with the demiurge instead of the highest God. In regards to this I want to bring up two caveats:

1.I haven't read the entire text, only parts of it. From what I've seen it doesn't explicitly suggest it's using a seven heavens planetary schema. It could be a seven heavens schema that doesn't involve the planets at all. However, in the article I posted previously there's a brief section on the text and a useful footnote:

My own brief research shows that the term “throne??? (thronos) was used to describe planets in certain configurations that allowed them to exert astrological influence (cf. Claudius Ptolemy, Tetrabiblos I.23; see note 125 on this page for sources). In the Ascension of Isaiah, each of the seven levels of heaven (= seven planetary spheres) has its own throne. This might be an example of astronomical language being interpreted literally by a Christian writer.

This suggests it is using a planetary schema but it's still kind of ambiguous.

2.There's a lot of ambiguity when it comes to identifying the highest god in gnostic Christianity. Originally I believed there were two separate gods but as I've researched this more I think there's only one god, but we're dealing with different aspects of him. In this regards I suspect that Philo's approach is probably correct (Philo is a Hellenistic Jewish philosopher that lived during the 1st century AD). That is, there's a transcendental noetic aspect of God but also a demiurgic, logoic aspect. I've come up with a simple analogy to explain the differences between the orthodox and gnostic Christian concepts of God.

The orthodox Christians only see the entire circle(God) and fail to systematically recognize the two separate parts within it, meanwhile gnostic Christians only focus on the two separate parts without realizing that it belongs to the same circle. The orthodox Christians are wrong in the right way and the gnostic Christians are right in the wrong way.

That said, I'm not entirely convinced the gnostics actually believed there were two different gods. Some definitely believed this but others probably had a view similar to mine. The issue is that the gnostics loved allegories and speaking cryptically. It's impossible to know whether to accept their writings/doctrines at face value or to read between the lines. Although even Jesus spoke in parables, so I guess this can apply to Christianity in general too.

On this topic, it's interesting that the "Christian" God is actually more cruel than the "Jewish" God. The Jewish God might be cruel to people in this life but in the end he just sends them to sheol, meanwhile the Christian God sends people to hell for an eternity. Regarding this, my impression is that the gnostic Christians had a more sophisticated concept of God that was derived from archaic (Samaritan?) Jewish traditions and was different from both the orthodox Christian God and the (orthodox) Jewish God. Nominally the gnostics opposed the OT God but in reality they only opposed the orthodox Christian version of him and not the Jewish version. The gnostics mostly had problems with orthodox Christians, I don't recall them having issues with Jews. Also I think this pattern persists even to the current day. I find the Evangelical Protestant God to be unlikable however I find the Jewish understanding of the same God to be sophisticated and enlightening. Hopefully more modern day gnostics become aware of this distinction and correctly qualify their criticisms of the OT God.

This concludes my write-up of the astrological symbolism in 2 Corinthians. On a closing note it's important to acknowledge that Paul might have been intentionally ambiguous about which model of heaven he was referring to since the verse can be interpreted in a pro-orthodox way or a gnostic way (if you're aware of the encrypted astrological meaning). This would be entirely congruent with the image of Paul (who speaks in code) that I've outlined so far in this thread.

I'm re-posting the legend for the psychic/pneumatic schema because I'll be referring to it often:

Hylic - These people are said to be entirely earthly/carnal oriented. They aren't spiritual at all and lack an inclination for esoteric understanding.

Psychic - These people are a mixture of earthly/carnal and spiritual essence. They have moderate spiritual inclination. This can also mean an intermediate level of spiritual instruction.

Pneumatic - These people are mostly spiritual essence. They have a strong spiritual inclination and ability to understand esoteric concepts. This can also mean an advanced level of spiritual instruction

In a previous post I remarked on the apparent wordplay with the names of Peter and Paul and their respective roles in the NT. Although I consider that speculative it did make me consider the possibility of a broader pattern in the New Testament. I propose there's some tacit interplay between the four gospels and the authentic Pauline epistles which in turn dictates how the NT should be understood. More importantly, the underlying framework I'm going to sketch out might help legitimize the idea that Christianity was originally a two-tiered mystery religion.

From very early on in the New Testament we're provided with a template to understand Christianity from:

Mark 4:33-34
33 With many similar parables Jesus spoke the word to them, as much as they could understand. 34 He did not say anything to them without using a parable. But when he was alone with his own disciples, he explained everything.

It says that Jesus only taught publicly using parables but in private explained to his disciples what they really meant. This conforms perfectly with the structure of a mystery religion where neophytes are only given the exoteric message while more advanced initiates are given the true esoteric meaning. In mystery religions there's a strong dichotomy between public and private meaning, the many and the few. What's public will be an incomplete truth and what's private will be the full truth. This pattern plays out again with the twelve apostles vis a vis Paul. During his earthly ministry Jesus taught numerous disciples:

Luke 6:13
13 When morning came, he called his disciples to him and chose twelve of them, whom he also designated apostles:

Yet Jesus appeared only to Paul in a private, spiritual vision:

Galatians 1:12
I did not receive it from any man, nor was I taught it; rather, I received it by revelation from Jesus Christ.

A natural inference is that the earthly Jesus taught a psychic message to many disciples but the spiritual Jesus taught a pneumatic message to Paul alone through spiritual revelation. Recall the distinction between an earthly Jesus and a spiritual Jesus correlates with the Platonic form/matter distinction. That is, what's spiritual/formal is eternal, unchanging and perfect while what's material is a temporary, changeable and imperfect version of the spiritual. Therefore the disciples received an "imperfect" teaching while Paul received the "perfect" teaching. I can also demonstrate this intratextually without recruiting external philosophical concepts. Paul himself has a lot to say about this:

1 Corinthians 2:1-6
And so it was with me, brothers and sisters. When I came to you, I did not come with eloquence or human wisdom as I proclaimed to you the testimony about God. 2 For I resolved to know nothing while I was with you except Jesus Christ and him crucified. 3 I came to you in weakness with great fear and trembling. 4 My message and my preaching were not with wise and persuasive words, but with a demonstration of the Spirit’s power, 5 so that your faith might not rest on human wisdom, but on God’s power. 6 We do, however, speak a message of wisdom among the mature, but not the wisdom of this age or of the rulers of this age, who are coming to nothing.

Paul is talking about two teachings. His first teaching was very basic and humble while his second teaching is more sophisticated and for the "mature" (the initiated). The orthodox interpretation of this passage is probably that Paul is teaching a single message with the implicit assumption that the reader (presumably a devout Christian) is among the mature who correctly interpret Paul's message as wisdom. If we only take this verse in isolation then the orthodox interpretation is reasonable (although still questionable), however if considered within the broader context of the NT then my interpretation seems more likely. Recall that Jesus spoke in parables to the masses and only explained the real meaning to his disciples, likewise Paul is doing the same here. Notice how Paul repeatedly emphasizes he was speaking in plain language about "Jesus and him crucified", which is a very orthodox message. The implication is that the orthodox message itself is like a parable which Paul explains only to the initiated. Paul reiterates this theme in the following chapter:

1 Corinthians 3:1-2
And I, brethren, could not speak unto you as unto spiritual, but as unto carnal, even as unto babes in Christ. 2 I have fed you with milk, and not with meat: for hitherto ye were not able to bear it, neither yet now are ye able.

Once again Paul is talking about two levels of teaching: "milk" and "meat". He says that his audience weren't ready for the "meat" teaching then and still aren't ready for it now. Notice in the previous verse Paul talks about the "mature" (the initiated) and in this verse he talks about "babes in Christ" (neophytes), thus reinforcing this idea of two tiers of believers in Christianity. He also makes a strong spirit/matter distinction, connecting the neophytes to carnality (I used the KJV for this verse, the NIV substitutes the word solid food for meat. I thought this inauthentic translation detracts the intended nuance from the original verse). Isn't it strange that the only apostle who received a special spiritual revelation is the same one talking about advanced teachings? Furthermore, in mystery religions the highest secret teachings are what's considered the mystery. The impression of Paul as a special pneumatic teacher is statistically confirmed if you look up how often the word "mystery" shows up in the New Testament:
https://www.biblegateway.com/quicksearc ... chtype=all

Mystery is used twenty times in the NT, 16/20 of those occur in the Pauline epistles and the last four are in Revelation and seem to be talking about mystery in a different context. To account for possible translation differences I also checked the Greek NT where the word "mysterion" occurs twenty-seven times. Twenty of those are the same ones I already found, four of those are additional mentions in Pauline letters and the last three are in the gospels: Luke 8:10, Mark 4:11 and Matthew 13:11. All three occurrences in the gospel are a similar verse:

Matthew 13:11
11 He replied, “Because the knowledge of the secrets of the kingdom of heaven has been given to you, but not to them.

There are two interesting things about these verses:

1.Jesus might be talking about the same mystery as Paul but it feels a little different how he talks about it. One thing I've learned from looking over these different verses is that small details can matter a lot. I'm going to assume they're talking about the same mystery though.

2.Jesus says he's given them this knowledge, but it doesn't mean they understood it. This sounds pedantic but I'll show why I think this in a later section about the "psychic disciples".

In terms of the mystery, Paul dominates the discussion. Jesus is the only other person besides Paul that talks about the mystery. To my knowledge the disciples never talk about the mysteries and the silence from them is extremely interesting. Through spiritual revelation Paul was the only apostle that received the mystery which is why he refers to it so often. However, this pattern isn't obvious unless you cross-reference the texts. Lastly, Paul might be making deliberate allusions to mystery religions when he's talking about the mysteries. It feels this way and audiences during this time period would probably get that impression too since mystery religions were flourishing back then:
https://www.britannica.com/topic/myster ... ristianity

Christianity originated during the time of the Roman Empire, which was also the time at which the mysteries reached their height of popularity.

On that topic, I would consider mystery religions as a very Piscean phenomena considering their nature and when they started emerging. So, to recap everything I've said about Paul so far:

1.He explicitly talks about two levels of teaching.
2.He implies two levels of believers.
3.Both of the above are fully congruent with the template established by Mark 4:33-34.
4.He himself subscribes to a spirit/matter distinction, perhaps similar to the Platonic one?
5.He was the only apostle recruited through spiritual revelation and coincidentally he monopolizes the discussion on the mysteries.

Almost all the points above strongly suggest Christianity was originally conceived as a mystery religion which would be completely expected since mystery religions had their peak during that time period. In light of the canonical evidence at hand, we have to seriously consider the legitimacy of the much disparaged gnostics who explicitly claimed they were the inheritors of Christianity's esoteric traditions.

So far I've talked plenty about the pneumatic Paul but now I'm going to go in detail about the psychic disciples by sharing numerous instances which demonstrate their psychic nature:

Mark 4:39-41
39 He got up, rebuked the wind and said to the waves, “Quiet! Be still!??? Then the wind died down and it was completely calm. 40 He said to his disciples, “Why are you so afraid? Do you still have no faith???? 41 They were terrified and asked each other, “Who is this? Even the wind and the waves obey him!???

In this verse the disciples still don't really understand Jesus. Even Jesus asked them why they still had no faith.

Mark 8:14-21
14 The disciples had forgotten to bring bread, except for one loaf they had with them in the boat. 15 “Be careful,??? Jesus warned them. “Watch out for the yeast of the Pharisees and that of Herod.??? 16 They discussed this with one another and said, “It is because we have no bread.??? 17 Aware of their discussion, Jesus asked them: “Why are you talking about having no bread? Do you still not see or understand? Are your hearts hardened? 18 Do you have eyes but fail to see, and ears but fail to hear? And don’t you remember? 19 When I broke the five loaves for the five thousand, how many basketfuls of pieces did you pick up???? “Twelve,??? they replied. 20 “And when I broke the seven loaves for the four thousand, how many basketfuls of pieces did you pick up???? They answered, “Seven.??? 21 He said to them, “Do you still not understand????

This passage was written in a way that makes the disciples look really incompetent. Jesus even suggests they're blind and deaf, both of which can symbolically represent agnoia (ignorance) which psychics are partially afflicted with.

Mark 8:31-33
31 He then began to teach them that the Son of Man must suffer many things and be rejected by the elders, the chief priests and the teachers of the law, and that he must be killed and after three days rise again. 32 He spoke plainly about this, and Peter took him aside and began to rebuke him. 33 But when Jesus turned and looked at his disciples, he rebuked Peter. “Get behind me, Satan!??? he said. “You do not have in mind the concerns of God, but merely human concerns.???

Psychic Peter doesn't understand the broader spiritual purpose of Jesus, he still sees things in human (carnal) terms. Keep in mind that Peter will become the patriarch of the future orthodox church. Jesus himself assigns Peter to this role:

Matthew 16:18
And I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not overcome it.

In a previous post I talked about the subtle symbolism of Peter/Cephas which means rock and implies a more terrestrial/psychic orientation as opposed to a spiritual/pneumatic one. Coincidentally the gospels seem to imply the same thing. The previous verse Mark 8:31-33 has a second layer of significance since Peter can also be used to symbolize the orthodox church. Jesus admonishing Peter could suggest the orthodox church means well but doesn't fully understand, thus reinforcing the notion that it's psychic.

Mark 14:66-72
66 While Peter was below in the courtyard, one of the servant girls of the high priest came by. 67 When she saw Peter warming himself, she looked closely at him. “You also were with that Nazarene, Jesus,??? she said. 68 But he denied it. “I don’t know or understand what you’re talking about,??? he said, and went out into the entryway. 69 When the servant girl saw him there, she said again to those standing around, “This fellow is one of them.??? 70 Again he denied it. After a little while, those standing near said to Peter, “Surely you are one of them, for you are a Galilean.??? 71 He began to call down curses, and he swore to them, “I don’t know this man you’re talking about.??? 72 Immediately the rooster crowed the second time. Then Peter remembered the word Jesus had spoken to him: “Before the rooster crows twice you will disown me three times.??? And he broke down and wept.

Peter only has shaky faith and because of this he denies Jesus three times. Symbolically this could suggest Peter himself isn't ready for a higher gnosis; as with the previous verse it could also be interpreted as applying to the orthodox church. I have to emphasize that I'm not carelessly exegesizing here. Peter plays a very important role in the early orthodox church so verses that cast Peter in such a negative light are probably saying something important. I have more examples but I think these get the point across. In the gospels it's repeatedly shown that the disciples (who learned from the earthly Jesus) had incomplete understanding while Paul (who learned from the spiritual Jesus) had a perfect understanding. I have a final example of a different nature that supports my position:

Matthew 10:5-6
5These twelve Jesus sent out with the following instructions: “Do not go onto the road of the Gentiles or enter any town of the Samaritans. 6Go rather to the lost sheep of Israel.

In a previous post I was discussing how Paul used the terms "Jews" and "Gentiles" metaphorically to mean psychic Christians and pneumatic Christians. If we apply the same usage here then this verse's meaning changes significantly. Moreover, it changes in a way that's congruent with the broader theme I've been outlining so far. Jesus tells the twelve to only go to the lost sheep of Israel ("Jews"). This makes sense since the disciples are psychic and only capable of teaching other psychics. In the gospels, Jesus himself was part man and part divine which foreshadows the target of his (earthly) ministry who are the psychics which are part carnal and part spiritual. Likewise Jesus returned in spirit form to recruit Paul for his spiritual ministry to the pneumatics. This dual ministry schema is perfectly congruent with the rest of the arguments I've made so far. Also, the inclusion of Samaritans in this verse is interesting since arch-gnostic Simon Magus/Paul was a Samaritan and allegedly had a big following with them. In this sense, "Gentiles" and "Samaritans" can both mean pneumatics. Is this a legitimate hidden meaning in the text? I can't definitely say but it fits well with everything else I've been outlining. It's likely the Valentinians (being aware of Paul's esoteric code) would have read this verse in a similar manner.

BTW I realize this is a canonical anachronism since Paul (and his code) didn't arrive on the scene until after the events of the gospels. My response is that I think the four gospels are mostly fiction with some historical fact. This is also what most non-apologetic bible scholars think. Only apologetic scholars think they're historical writing (in spite of the numerous literary devices used which suggest fictional prose). Scholarly opinion also usually considers the Pauline epistles as the earliest Christian writings, so it's entirely possible the author of Matthew (or a later interpolator) deliberately wrote this into it. There could be other reasons not to use "Paul's code" on this verse but canonical anachronism is not one of them.

The above point does raise questions about the orthodoxy's compilation process of the New Testament. I get a strong impression that *some people* in the orthodox church had a full awareness of Christianity being a mystery religion and deliberately framed the gospels in such a way that highlights their striking contrast with the Pauline epistles in order to underscore this fact. This may sound farfetched but I don't think it's that implausible. I mean, there's many old churches and religious paintings with zodiacal symbolism in them. Why is that there? This suggests that some people knew about their relation to Christianity. Equally important is acknowledging that the leadership of the orthodox church had no reason to reveal this information even if they did have it. A pastor's job is keeping his congregation happy, not rocking the boat. For that reason I can understand why it's easier to keep the status quo regarding the truth about Christianity's dual nature.

There's some interesting symbolism in the gospels which I'll go over now. First is the story of the bread and the fish:

Matthew 14:13-21
13When Jesus heard about John, He withdrew by boat privately to a solitary place. But the crowds found out about it and followed Him on foot from the towns. 14When He stepped ashore and saw a large crowd, He had compassion on them and healed their sick. 15When evening came, the disciples came to Him and said, “This is a desolate place, and the hour is already late. Dismiss the crowds so they can go to the villages and buy themselves some food.??? 16“They do not need to go away,??? Jesus replied. “You give them something to eat.??? 17“We have here only five loaves of bread and two fish,??? they answered. 18“Bring them here to Me,??? Jesus said. 19And He directed the crowds to sit down on the grass. Taking the five loaves and the two fish and looking up to heaven, He spoke a blessing. Then He broke the loaves and gave them to the disciples, and the disciples gave them to the people. 20They all ate and were satisfied, and the disciples picked up twelve basketfuls of broken pieces that were left over. 21About five thousand men were fed, in addition to women and children.

This story is interesting because the bread and the fish correspond with the signs Virgo and Pisces (Virgo rules the harvest and granaries which is why it's associated with bread). Recall in an earlier post where I talked about the significance of the two pairs of equal ascension signs Aries/Pisces and Virgo/Libra. The Aries/Pisces pair represents the idea of merging back with the primordial noetic monad while the Virgo/Libra pair represents the full manifestation of spirit/form into matter. Thus each sign pair represents one end of a polarity representing spirit vs matter. As such, Pisces carries an implicit meaning of "spirit" while Virgo carries an implicit meaning of "matter". The fish represents pure transcendental spiritual teaching while the bread represents a more mundane, earthly teaching. Due to their mixed spiritual/carnal nature Psychics can only understand a diluted spiritual message which is symbolized by Jesus giving them bread and fish.

This symbolism is repeated in the gospels through Jesus's virgin birth. Jesus (Pisces) was born of a virgin (Virgo), he was half spiritual and half carnal so he could reach the psychics. Note that out of the four gospels, the virgin birth story only occurs in Matthew and Luke. Coincidentally those two gospels are also considered the most pro-orthodox while Mark and John are considered mildly pro-gnostic (it's because of subtle themes in them, it's not overt). Likewise the first orthodox church was the Catholic church which places a large emphasis on the Virgin Mary (a reminder of Jesus's carnality) as well as having the body of a crucified Jesus on their crosses which also reflects their psychic, carnal oriented disposition.

At this point I'm going to provide example exegeses on the verse below to help vividly illustrate the difference between the psychic and pneumatic outlook:

Galatians 3:28
There is neither Jew nor Gentile, neither slave nor free, nor is there male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus.

Psychic exegesis - Once you join a church and become a Christian then various identifying categories no longer matter to personal identity.
-This exegesis comes from a perspective that assigns importance to belonging to an organized religion based on events that happened at a specific moment in time involving real people that experienced birth and dying.

Pneumatic exegesis - Christ Jesus is the state of spiritual enlightenment. When "in Christ Jesus" the illusion of separation disappears and personal identifiers no longer matter when you realize that everything is one (God).
-This exegesis comes from a perspective that recognizes spiritual, eternal, unchanging archetypes. Jesus Christ was a man but also represents the timeless concept of a redeemer that reunites man with God. Jesus only experienced birth and death during his earthly ministry, for his spiritual ministry (through Paul) he was never born and never died. This is a small detail but it has tremendous symbolic importance.

That being said, I want to clarify that I don't think the pneumatic teaching is "better" than the psychic one. Early Christianity had two tiers for a reason, different people need different messages. The psychic teaching is more practical than the pneumatic one even if the pneumatic one might be more true. The average person goes to church/follows Christianity for many different reasons besides trying to find the highest religious truth. Even if they're seeking that they still need to find a message they can digest. There's an interesting story on that topic. The Valentinians were known for "infiltrating" the Catholic church (Irenaeus's term) in order to gently guide those who showed interest/capacity in learning the higher mysteries of Christianity. Understood figuratively, it's a good example of how pneumatic Christians were expected to treat their psychic brethren. Paul's pneumatic exegesis of 1 Corinthians 8 ("the Gnostic Paul") talks about this specifically. Note the last verse especially:

1 Corinthians 8
13Therefore, if what I eat causes my brother to stumble, I will never eat meat again, so that I will not cause him to stumble.

Paul could be obliquely referring to 1 Corinthians 3:1-2 where he referred to advanced teachings as "meat". If so then Paul is figuratively warning pneumatic Christians not to weaken the faith of psychic ones by being too careless with their higher gnosis or the greater moral freedom it brings (the pneumatics had more relaxed moral attitudes than the psychics). This is a really important point, especially regarding higher gnosis. Not everyone needs deep spiritual enlightenment. Orthodox Christianity perfectly fits the spiritual needs of many. Moreover, I see gnostic Christianity as more of a life philosophy than a religion. In fact, many gnostic Christians during the classical antiquity period organized themselves as philosophical schools (think Plato's academy) instead of churches. Regardless some people accept spiritual truth better as religion and others as philosophy. The renowned Valentinian gnostic Heracleon once remarked: "Everyone understands God in their own way".

Lastly, I'm going to explain how to understand the New Testament through the framework I've established. I put all the books of the NT into three categories:

1.Psychic oriented - The four gospels would go here. They're the only books where Jesus appears as a human which suggests they're intended for a psychic audience. As mentioned previously, John and Mark are more pneumatic while Matthew and Luke are more psychic. Since the gospels are for a psychic audience this implies that everything should be considered highly allegorical. Jesus spoke in parables to the psychics so if the gospels are psychic oriented themselves then they should be understood as parables too.

2.Pneumatic oriented - All of Paul's authentic letters go here. Since Paul was the only apostle recruited by spiritual revelation we should consider all his letters as pneumatic. There's a lot of controversy over which letters are considered authentic. I would put the following ten letters in this category: Romans, 1 Corinthians, 2 Corinthians, Galatians, Phillipians, 1 Thessalonians, Philemon, Hebrews, Colossians and Ephesians. Scholarly opinion is that Hebrews and Colossians aren't authentic but I'm including them because the Valentinians used them. I wouldn't count the pastorals (Titus, 1 & 2 Timothy) or 2 Thessalonians. Obviously Paul's letters contain psychic teachings but being intended for pneumatic audiences they also contain coded pneumatic teachings. Most of the recovered ones are in the book "The Gnostic Paul" (where you can learn Paul's cipher) however the author Elaine Pagels notes in the introduction (current as of 1975) that there's numerous Pauline references in the 4th tract of the Jung Codex which were only discovered after the book was already finished so they weren't included.

In spite of the corpus of pneumatic Pauline exegeses being heavily fragmented/incomplete, in certain cases it's possible to make educated guesses at what the intended pneumatic exegesis would have been as I've done myself a few times in this thread. I do recognize the patristic sources (Tertullian, Irenaeus etc) accused the gnostics of purposely misinterpreting texts (which probably happened) but it's also possible most of these pneumatic exegeses are legitimate. Everything I've shown about Christianity in this thread supports this possibility. Mystery religions were very secretive and they loved speaking in code, just like Jesus himself often did.

3.Miscellaneous - All the books not in category #1 or #2 go here. I don't have a strong opinion about these books either way but I think many of them are psychic oriented, which is my semi-informed opinion. I would like to know which of these books the Valentinians used though.

This concludes my observations about the New Testament. Everything I've said is provisional and just a casual theory based on some interesting observations. I don't deny there could be some flaws in the case I've presented but I do think I'm detecting an actual pattern though. I've been wanting to research this for awhile since I knew the Valentinians used the New Testament but I didn't know how they interpreted it. In particular, I read the Valentinians believed (the earthly) Jesus only came for the psychic Christians and not the pneumatic Christians. I was curious where they got this belief from but now I think I understand. It's fortunate this pattern exists at such a fundamental level that it's not affected by redactions and interpolations to the original text. Regarding those, it's difficult for a layperson to detect them although I like the book "The Pre-Nicene New Testament" by Robert Price which has a detailed commentary on many books from the NT explaining their history, textual alterations and other pieces of background information. "The Amazing Colossal Apostle" by the same author also has an extensive write-up of the textual history of the Pauline epistles in the second half of the book. I highly recommend either if you're interested in this topic.

I want to point out something else about the fish and bread story. In all four versions there's five loaves of bread and two fish which Jesus multiplies to feed 5000 people:

John 6:8-9
8 Another of his disciples, Andrew, Simon Peter’s brother, spoke up, 9 “Here is a boy with five small barley loaves and two small fish, but how far will they go among so many????

Notice how there's over twice as much bread as there is fish. Using the symbolism I outlined previously, the fish represents spiritual teaching while the bread represents a more grounded, earthy message. This suggests that when it came to "feeding" the masses (5000 people) it was necessary to give them a higher amount of mundane, grounded teaching with a lower amount of spiritual teaching. Compare this with the fishing story in John 21:

6 He said, “Throw your net on the right side of the boat and you will find some.??? When they did, they were unable to haul the net in because of the large number of fish.

7 Then the disciple whom Jesus loved said to Peter, “It is the Lord!??? As soon as Simon Peter heard him say, “It is the Lord,??? he wrapped his outer garment around him (for he had taken it off) and jumped into the water. 8 The other disciples followed in the boat, towing the net full of fish, for they were not far from shore, about a hundred yards.[c] 9 When they landed, they saw a fire of burning coals there with fish on it, and some bread.

10 Jesus said to them, “Bring some of the fish you have just caught.??? 11 So Simon Peter climbed back into the boat and dragged the net ashore. It was full of large fish, 153, but even with so many the net was not torn. 12 Jesus said to them, “Come and have breakfast.??? None of the disciples dared ask him, “Who are you???? They knew it was the Lord. 13 Jesus came, took the bread and gave it to them, and did the same with the fish. 14 This was now the third time Jesus appeared to his disciples after he was raised from the dead.

In this story involving only the disciples, there's an emphasis on the large amount of fish they caught and It's implied they ate fish and bread in an equal ratio. These two stories fit the original pattern I mentioned:

In mystery religions there's a strong dichotomy between public and private meaning, the many and the few. What's public will be an incomplete truth and what's private will be the full truth.

The larger the crowd, the less "fish" and more "bread", the smaller the crowd, the more fish and less bread. The crowd of 5000 people, the disciples and Paul can all be put on a spectrum of spiritual teaching:

5000 person crowd => least amount of spiritual teaching

12 disciples => high amount of spiritual teaching

(1) Paul => highest amount of spiritual teaching.

To elaborate on this, keep in mind that Paul never met the earthly Jesus who was born of a virgin (Virgo/bread) and was part divine (Pisces/fish); rather Paul only met the spiritual Jesus (represented by the fish by itself). Therefore symbolically, through spiritual revelation from the pneumatic Christ, Paul received a teaching that was only "fish" and no "bread" at all.

james_m wrote: good post kubernetes!

i too agree with most all of what you say here... i had to look up sola scripture to understand what that term implied..

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sola_scriptura

i think your analogy with sun sign verses hellenistic astrology holds true.. one is a light superficial read, while the other requires a much deeper grounding and thought process.. really it comes down to people and the level of interest one invests in understanding the mysteries of our bountiful world.. i have always loved the nature of the parables in the bible as it challenges this same process that some will engage in and others will have to have laid out for them.. symbolism is like that.. it can be read and interpreted any number of ways...

2 things... trying to understand what someone was trying to convey from the deep path is no easy task! that is the first thing... the 2nd is trying to understand the present which is what motivates me and i would like to think - most astrologers.. this symbolic language "written in the stars" is no easy task! if we can gleam some insights and understanding from those from the past or those in the present - i am all for it.. in this regard i am willing to pull from any number of astrological sources.. there is no purity in my outward approach.. i am not an adherent to one school of anything. my purity is in my intention and desire to learn more and to try to remain unbiased in taking it all in..

perhaps if i had a specific teacher and school of methodology that i adhered to, it would be different.. i view everyone as my teacher and give thanks to all those who have helped me to understand and appreciate all that i have..

thanks for your post!

No disagreement here brother. While I personally dislike modern astrology (I spent eight years studying it before discovering Hellenistic astrology, so I paid my dues ), I wouldn't discourage anyone else from studying it. As you yourself suggested, insights and understanding can come from all sources!

I think the current renewal of interest in gnosticism is great although there's often an inconsistent understanding of the material. What's usually overlooked is that gnosticism is a product of the classical antiquity period and can't be fully understood outside of that context. During that time period esoteric knowledge was always conveyed through metaphors or code but in modern society we're more literal and less allegorical than people back then were. Beyond encoded esoteric knowledge there's also extant philosophical concepts and cultural influences that impact how the material was understood and without being aware of those it's difficult to understand its true meaning. Below are some misconceptions (in bold) I occasionally see:

The archons that Paul speaks of are malevolent disincarnate spiritual beings which fly around creating ignorance and problems.
-The archons are actually a reference to the seven classical planets (in particular their negative manifestations) which symbolize different types of human foibles as well as being the mediators of one's fate ("heimarmene"). If one doesn't realize that archons are referring to the planets then their deep astrological relationship to heimarmene (and its ultimate significance in gnostic Christianity) can't be fully appreciated.
-The archons are the likely origin of the Catholic doctrine of "The seven deadly sins" and the Eastern Orthodox doctrine of "Aerial Toll-houses".
-Hellenistic astrology was developed around the 2nd century BC and is contemporary with the onset of Christianity. This is interesting because the age of Pisces would activate the entire Pisces/Virgo axis. Christianity of course is related to Pisces/Jupiter while astrology is traditionally associated with Mercury which is the ruler of Virgo. Seen in this light, the interplay between Christianity and astrology makes more sense as well as explaining the onset of the western astrological tradition itself.

Through gnosticism you can control your fate/heimarmene and live how you want to live, similar to "the law of attraction".
-The idea of being freed from the archons and heimarmene is suggesting after death you'll no longer be obligated to reincarnate and be re-bound to heimarmene. It's true they're usually talking about freedom from heimarmene in a more immediate sense but it's figurative language that religious rites often employ.
-The role of heimarmene in gnostic Christianity is roughly equivalent to samsara in Buddhism; while they're not the same concept, they're often used in similar ways, i.e. "Jesus liberates one from bondage to heimarmene", "Buddha helps free people from samsara".
-I'm skeptical of things like the law of attraction due to years of practicing Hellenistic astrology, reading charts and seeing heimarmene in action. This is one factor influencing my perception that gnostic Christianity is more about reaching higher states of consciousness/awareness than it is about manifesting desires. If circumventing heimarmene was as easy as practicing the LOA then why wouldn't Paul say so instead of raving about the archons? I don't deny that manifestation might be part of the Christian tradition (there's canonical verses suggesting it afterall) but as far as gnostic Christianity is concerned, there's a greater emphasis on elevating consciousness.

Through gnosticism you can become a god or something along those lines.
-I particularly dislike this misconception due to its hubristic ring. As I've shown throughout this thread, gnostic Christianity is teaching something similar to Buddhism, which is enlightenment. Enlightenment is seeing reality without the illusion of separation and realizing that "God" is a singular consciousness that encompasses everyone and everything. In this sense, we're all God but in a different manner than actually being God. Established religions like Hinduism and Buddhism avoid this confusion because they have relatively well known terms like "Brahman" and "atman" to describe these concepts; gnostic Christianity has some equivalent terms (i.e. "pleroma", "father", "bridal chamber" etc) but they're not as well known and are used within a more allegorical context.
-The Valentinians and other gnostic sects favored the Gospel of John which coincidentally has the highest occurrences of the word "father" out of all the gospels (Matthew: 71, Mark: 17, Luke: 42, John: 109). It's speculated the Gospel of John was originally a gnostic text that was later edited and repurposed for Catholic use.

Many perceive the conflict against the Demiurge as literal instead of allegorical.
-I recall seeing an interview with Elaine Pagels (the author of "The Gnostic Paul") where she remarked that her impression of the underlying meaning of the Pauline epistles is that all of material existence is like a grand tragedy for God (tragedy in the sense of the Greek genre of plays, not literal tragedy as we commonly understand it. I'll post the video link if I can find it again*). Coincidentally, the planet representing theatre in astrology is Saturn which also represents material reality (as opposed to spiritual/noetic reality). This reminds me of a quote by the philosopher Alan Watts:

God likes to play hide-and-seek, but because there is nothing outside of God, he has no one but himself to play with! But he gets over this difficulty by pretending that he is not himself. This is his way of hiding from himself. He pretends that he is you and I and all the people in the world, all the animals, plants, all the rocks, and all the stars. In this way he has strange and wonderful adventures, some of which are terrible and frightening. But these are just like bad dreams, for when he wakes up they will disappear.

The full quote is here: https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/962898 ... is-nothing

The underlying meaning of gnostic Christianity (that is, the highest meaning of Christianity itself) is that all existence is divine theatre for God, God is entertaining/experiencing himself. Christ is the archetype that awakens the scattered fragments of God consciousness and reminds them of the truth of existence.

To further elaborate on the Demiurge, it's often thought that it causes bad things on Earth or has created an unpleasant world but the Demiurge is actually a metaphor for material reality which is inherently dual in nature. It's impossible to know good without bad, happiness without sadness, hot without cold etc etc. The gnostics borrowed the demiurge concept directly from Plato's Timaeus and applied it to the Old Testament God; there was never a real demiurge, rather it was always understood as a philosophical overlay of an existing concept.

Gnostic Christianity is extremely esoteric.
-This was more true in antiquity than it is now. Gnostic Christianity is basically Greco-Judeo Buddhism. It's not more arcane than that. I've seen extra concepts attributed to it but these are due to misunderstandings of the unfamiliar (uniquely western) metaphors used by it. There are some new age variants of gnosticism floating around the internet, but these don't represent classic antiquity era gnosticism. Furthermore, originally gnostic Christianity (circa 2nd century AD) was understood as a philosophy, it wasn't intended to be understood in esoteric religious terms. One major clue is the "Sophia"-centrism of the gnostic sects. Sophia means wisdom in Greek, which is the same word used in the word "philosophy" (in greek, "φιλοσοφία", "philosophia"), that is, love of wisdom. The Catholic patristic source Irenaeus criticized the gnostics for being fond of fables and mythology and "not taking scripture seriously"; what's likely is that he failed to understand why/how the gnostics were using mythology; the gnostics were using mythology as a way to suggest that the highest message of Christianity was philosophical and not religious/literal.

That covers most of the misconceptions I've seen. Deep familiarity with Hellenistic astrology was a prerequisite for initially understanding the paradigmatic space of gnostic Christianity. Given the obscurity of topics like this (and Hellenistic astrology itself!) frequent misconceptions are understandable. Even my own contributions were only made possible through the research of the late Robert Schmidt whose rediscovery of the Platonic paradigm underlying astrology completed my own understanding of Hellenistic astrology. On a closing note, I want to point out that the aforementioned Alan Watts had also explored esoteric Christianity:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alan_Watts

Watts left formal Zen training in New York because the method of the teacher did not suit him. He was not ordained as a Zen monk, but he felt a need to find a vocational outlet for his philosophical inclinations. He entered Seabury-Western Theological Seminary, an Episcopal (Anglican) school in Evanston, Illinois, where he studied Christian scriptures, theology, and church history. He attempted to work out a blend of contemporary Christian worship, mystical Christianity, and Asian philosophy. Watts was awarded a master's degree in theology in response to his thesis, which he published as a popular edition under the title Behold the Spirit: A Study in the Necessity of Mystical Religion.

I've been a casual fan of Alan Watts for many years but it's only recently that I discovered his interest in re-establishing mystical Christianity. I haven't read his book yet and don't know how successful his attempt to reconcile Christianity with mysticism was but in the decades since his passing things have come full circle due to a plethora of novel research by people like Elaine Pagels, Hermann Detering, Project Hindsight and Robert Schmidt (and many others) which have provided the missing pieces needed to fulfill Watts's original vision. There's still a lot of work to do, but now there's at least a firm foundation to deeply understand and practice mystical Christianity from.

*While looking for that video clip I came across this free online version of "The Gnostic Paul":
https://archive.org/details/elaine-page ... aul_202007

Sin is a major theme of Christianity, however like many other things in Christianity it has a dual meaning. The Greek word most commonly used for sin in the New Testament is "hamartia". The literal meaning of this word is "to miss the mark", however its figurative meaning describes a mistake or an act of ignorance. In the context of Christianity this word assumes extra layers of moral and religious meaning. Apologetic Christian scholars maintain this is the only correct interpretation of the word in the NT, however these scholars are unaware of evidence suggesting Christianity is a mystery religion with a dual message, as such they're unaware that the secular meaning of hamartia might be the higher, intended understanding of it. Below is an apologetic source that outlines both usages of the word:

https://www.wenstrom.org/downloads/writ ... martia.pdf

Throughout this thread I've often referenced "Paul's code" which entails the usage of the terms "Jews" and "Gentiles/Greeks". According to Paul's code, "Jews" is referring to (saturnine) psychic Christians and "Gentiles/Greeks" is referring to pneumatic Christians.

Romans 1:14
14 I am obligated both to Greeks and non-Greeks, both to the wise and the foolish.

Here Paul makes the subtle assertion that Greeks are "the wise" and non-Greeks are "the foolish". Paul's repeated association of Gentiles/Greeks with pneumatic quality implies the audience themselves can apply secular, philosophical understandings of concepts to get the higher esoteric meaning from the text (during antiquity Greeks were well known for philosophy). Hamartia is a perfect candidate for this kind of pneumatic exegesis. Furthermore, this idea of interpreting hamartia in a dual-fashion can be statistically supported by considering its frequency in the (coded, pneumatic) Pauline epistles compared to the rest of the NT. In the entire NT hamartia appears 173 times. This link shows the breakdown of occurrences in each book (note the second tally of 150 only describes how many verses it occurs in, not how many times it's actually used):

https://www.biblestudytools.com/lexicon ... artia.html

The NT has twenty-seven books and Pauline epistles constitute about half of those. Around half (77/150) of the verses with hamartia occur in Pauline epistles. Paul as the singular author of these books was using this word more frequently than any other individual authors from the NT were. Hamartia most commonly occurs in Romans (39 verses) and Hebrews (24 verses), both of which are Pauline epistles. Coincidentally, hamartia occurs most frequently in the same book as the above Romans 1:14 verse. There's decent preliminary evidence to support interpreting "sin" in an esoteric fashion, especially when combined with the schema I previously established for systematically understanding the NT. In the future, I will probably draft a systematic presentation of Paul's code so there's reliable guidelines for pneumatic exegesis.

At this point, I want to go deeper into the colloquial meaning of hamartia and its implications for esoteric Christianity. Principally, hamartia was used to convey ignorance:

From the above Wenstrom PDF:
"In the figurative sense the verb signified a lack of intellect and in the literal sense it referred to improper acts."

In Hellenistic astrology ignorance is symbolized by Saturn. Saturn can represent actual lack of intelligence or can indicate various other types of ignorance. According to Valens, Saturn is associated with "falling on the face", with the implication that one can't see properly so they trip over their feet and fall forwards on themselves. This subtle connection between Saturn and vision problems is also reflected in the zodiac where the domiciles ruled by Saturn (Aquarius and Capricorn) oppose the domiciles ruled by the Sun and Moon (Leo and Cancer), which are associated with vision because they're luminaries AKA "lights", hence their connection with vision. Note that the Sun symbolizes both physical and metaphorical vision (the quality of nous/spirit/understanding). Likewise, Saturn symbolizes either literal or metaphorical vision impairment (agnoia). Saturn also joys in the 12th house which rules over self-undoing caused by ignorance. These various associations of Saturn come full circle with the literal definition of hamartia meaning "to miss the mark", which is an archery metaphor implying visual deficiency that causes one to miss the target. Valens himself uses this phrase in his book:

Valens Anthology IV, #25.The Distributions of the Four Lots
If Daimon is unfavorably situated with malefics in aspect it brings changeable fortunes and emotional anguish, insensibility, cross-purposes. It makes men consider their own mistakes as successes, and makes them lay the blame on others, missing the mark in most respects. As a result such men lose heart; they sometimes contrive danger for themselves, are treated like the insane, and are struck mad.

The academic definition I previously gave for this word was quite dry but here it's being used in a more natural context. Note that Valens uses this phrase when describing the distributions of "daimon", which is "the lot of spirit" AKA the lot of the Sun, which is associated with spirit/nous as previously noted. So Valens is also using this word within the context of solar metaphors. In this sense, Hamartia is identical to the Buddhist concept of "avidya" which is likewise predicated on sight/knowing metaphors. Keeping the blindness metaphor in mind, recall verses like this:

Mark 8:17-18
17 Aware of their discussion, Jesus asked them: “Why are you talking about having no bread? Do you still not see or understand? Are your hearts hardened? 18 Do you have eyes but fail to see, and ears but fail to hear? And don’t you remember?

Note how Jesus associates this idea of seeing with understanding. Another interesting passage:

2 Corinthians 4:2-4
3And even if our gospel is veiled, it is veiled to those who are perishing. 4The god of this age has blinded the minds of unbelievers so they cannot see the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the image of God. 5For we do not proclaim ourselves, but Jesus Christ as Lord, and ourselves as your servants for Jesus’ sake. 6For God, who said, “Let light shine out of darkness,” made His light shine in our hearts to give us the light of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Jesus Christ.

There's numerous metaphors referencing visibility, hiddenness, light, blindness etc in this passage, which reads differently once one is familiar with the esoteric meaning of vision/blindness. It's also intriguing how Paul insinuates that others are accusing him of teaching a veiled gospel (implying his message has a secret, higher meaning). Note that he doesn't deny this accusation, he just sidesteps it. This impression of Paul teaching a veiled gospel is fully congruent with other verses I discussed in a previous post.

Mark 8:22:25
22 They came to Bethsaida, and some people brought a blind man and begged Jesus to touch him. 23 He took the blind man by the hand and led him outside the village. When he had spit on the man’s eyes and put his hands on him, Jesus asked, “Do you see anything?” 24 He looked up and said, “I see people; they look like trees walking around.” 25 Once more Jesus put his hands on the man’s eyes. Then his eyes were opened, his sight was restored, and he saw everything clearly.

Blindness is being used as a metaphor for ignorance. Notice how it takes Jesus two attempts to heal the man's sight, which is strange for an omnipotent being. This suggests there's a two-tiered message in Christianity. Everyone has "sin" but Jesus (as a religious figure or as a concept) absolves their "sin" in different ways. Here's another good example:

John 8:12-13
12 When Jesus spoke again to the people, he said, “I am the light of the world. Whoever follows me will never walk in darkness, but will have the light of life.” 13 The Pharisees challenged him, “Here you are, appearing as your own witness; your testimony is not valid.”

This passage uses a detailed light/vision metaphor and implies the Pharisees don't have the light and "walk in darkness", ergo they're blind. Here's one final verse:

John 5:37
37 And the Father who sent me has himself testified concerning me. You have never heard his voice nor seen his form

In this verse Jesus is speaking to the Jewish leaders and telling them they've never seen the form of his father (implying blindness). In Greek, this verse uses the word "eidos" for form (https://biblehub.com/greek/1491.htm). This is the same eidos from the phrase "hulê and eidos" (matter and form), referencing the Platonic theory of forms. If you're aware of the symbolic meaning of Judaism as it relates to Saturn then you'll recognize the alternate reading of this verse. Nominally Jesus is talking to the Jewish leadership about his father, but he's allegorically stating that a matter oriented mind cannot perceive noetic truth. Recall this gospel was favored by the Valentinian sect and was speculated to have originally been a gnostic text that was reworked by the Catholic church. It also has the highest occurrence of the word "father" out of the four gospels. In this verse "father" is connected with this idea of form (eidos), which is synonymous with things like spirit, the monad, "Brahman" etc. The author of John takes great pains to ensure the astute reader understands the true nature of the "father":

John 4:23-24
23 Yet a time is coming and has now come when the true worshipers will worship the Father in the Spirit and in truth, for they are the kind of worshipers the Father seeks. 24 God is spirit, and his worshipers must worship in the Spirit and in truth.”

I've given many examples of how an esoteric interpretation of hamartia ties into the broader underlying logic of the NT. These numerous mutually-referential puzzle pieces are just the tip of the iceberg. I strongly suspect "Paul's code" can be entirely inferred through cross-referencing NT verses with each other. If someone merely adopts an informed classical antiquity era philosophical perspective without any a priori religious assumptions about the text then these connections really begin popping out. The orderly and consistent patterns in the text strongly suggests deliberateness in its construction. Do note that many of these verses came from the gospels yet still have apparent dual meanings. In light of that, I'm amending my original NT schema by clarifying that both the gospels and Pauline epistles contain coded messages. I reiterate the schema's original intent (based upon organic patterns in the text) was always to isolate orthodox doctrine derived from the gospels away from the truer esoteric message. In an analogous fashion to Paul's discursion about Jewish law in Romans (which he saw as a "necessary evil" until the new covenant arrived), doctrine derived from the gospels should be understood in the sense of spiritual training aids for psychic Christians. Also, this paradigm elegantly resolves the long noted contradictions between the teachings of Jesus in the gospels and Paul in his epistles by recognizing their messages are likely intended for different audiences.

In Irenaeus's book "Against Heresies", book III, chapter 11, paragraph 8, Irenaeus assigns each of the gospels to a specific sign of the tetramorph:

For, [as the Scripture] says, The first living creature was like a lion, Revelation 4:7 symbolizing His effectual working, His leadership, and royal power; the second [living creature] was like a calf, signifying [His] sacrificial and sacerdotal order; but the third had, as it were, the face as of a man,— an evident description of His advent as a human being; the fourth was like a flying eagle, pointing out the gift of the Spirit hovering with His wings over the Church. And therefore the Gospels are in accord with these things, among which Christ Jesus is seated.

For that according to John relates His original, effectual, and glorious generation from the Father, thus declaring, In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. John 1:1 Also, all things were made by Him, and without Him was nothing made. For this reason, too, is that Gospel full of all confidence, for such is His person.

But that according to Luke, taking up [His] priestly character, commenced with Zacharias the priest offering sacrifice to God. For now was made ready the fatted calf, about to be immolated for the finding again of the younger son.

Matthew, again, relates His generation as a man, saying, The book of the generation of Jesus Christ, the son of David, the son of Abraham; and also, The birth of Jesus Christ was on this wise. This, then, is the Gospel of His humanity; for which reason it is, too, that [the character of] a humble and meek man is kept up through the whole Gospel.

Mark, on the other hand, commences with [a reference to] the prophetical spirit coming down from on high to men, saying, The beginning of the Gospel of Jesus Christ, as it is written in Esaias the prophet,— pointing to the winged aspect of the Gospel; and on this account he made a compendious and cursory narrative, for such is the prophetical character.

https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0103311.htm

For convenience's sake I've provided a legend below (with the gospels rearranged in the order that they appear in the NT):

Matthew => Aquarius (Saturn)
Mark => Scorpio (Mars)
Luke => Taurus (Venus/the Moon)
John => Leo (the Sun)

Each of the gospels correlates thematically with the symbolism of the planet ruling the sign that's associated with that gospel, which I'll explain in detail below (note that the tetramorph signs Aquarius, Scorpio and Leo have no exalted planets, only Taurus does. The fact that only Taurus has an exalted planet out of the four fixed signs has special symbolic importance related to "matter", which I described in detail in a previous post):

Matthew:

Matthew was writing to and for the Jews and focuses his work around the idea that Jesus is the King of the Jews; "Where is the one who has been born king of the Jews? We saw his star in the east and have come to worship him." (Matthew 2:2). There were two main reasons Matthew wrote his book. The Gospel of Matthew was written as a message of encouragement and strength for Jewish Christians. Despite Jesus being killed by Jews, Matthew's first message is to strengthen Jewish Christian's faith in the knowledge that Jesus was the Messiah. To prove that Jesus was the promised Messiah of the Old Testament, Matthew quotes the Old Testament more than any other synoptic writer.

The second reason he writes his book is to show that Jesus was truly the Messiah. He illustrates this by starting out with Jesus's genealogy and by further quoting the Old Testament. "A record of the genealogy of Jesus Christ the son of David, the son of Abraham:" (Matthew 1:1). This verse fulfills the prophecy from 2 Samuel 7:12-14 "When your days are over and you rest with your fathers, I will raise up your offspring to succeed you, who will come from your own body, and I will establish his kingdom. He is the one who will build a house for my Name, and I will establish the throne of his kingdom forever. I will be his father, and he will be my son."

https://owlcation.com/humanities/Compar ... e-and-John

Matthew's gospel is associated with Aquarius, which is addressed towards a Jewish audience and is heavily concerned with the law, both of which are things connected with Saturn:

Matthew 5:17-20
17 Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil.
18 For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.
19 Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.
20 For I say unto you, That except your righteousness shall exceed the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees, ye shall in no case enter into the kingdom of heaven.

Recall that according to Paul's code, "Jews" is to be understood metaphorically (typically referring to entanglement in matter in some capacity) and doesn't necessarily refer to literal Jews or Jewish culture. Matthew's focus on the genealogy of Jesus is also highly significant because Saturn is connected to roots and ancestry. Keep in mind that in Hellenistic astrology there's two universal indicators for the father, Saturn in a nocturnal chart and the Sun in a diurnal chart. We see the same pattern of "two fathers" in the gospel/tetramorph arrangement as well. In Matthew (Aquarius/Saturn) it discusses Jesus's lineage through his physical father Joseph, while in John (Leo/Sun) it talks about Jesus's heavenly/spiritual father; remember that Aquarius and Leo are signs in opposition to each other, and in a similar manner Matthew and John are thematically opposed to each other. There's another layer of symbolism to this though:

Matthew begins his Gospel (Matthew 1:1-16) with a genealogy, starting with Abraham and then tracing Jesus' lineage through King David down through the generations until Joseph. The genealogy is paradoxical in that it proves Jesus' Davidic lineage through Joseph, and yet Matthew claims that Joseph was not Jesus' physical father. It goes on to explain that Joseph's discovered his betrothed wife,[2], Mary, to be pregnant before he had intercourse with her.

https://www.newworldencyclopedia.org/en ... _of_Jesus)

Matthew 1:18
18 Now the birth of Jesus Christ was on this wise: When as his mother Mary was espoused to Joseph, before they came together, she was found with child of the Holy Ghost.

Jesus is not the actual physical son of Joseph, so in some sense Joseph is the step-father of Jesus. According to Valens, Saturn has the following attributes:

It puts into one’s hands great ranks and distinguished positions, supervisions, management of others’ property, and the fathership of others’ children.

To recap, the gospel of Matthew (which is associated with Aquarius/Saturn) is the only gospel that talks about the genealogy of Jesus via his father Joseph, who is actually his "step-father" and not his "real" father. Symbolically, this could suggest that the Matthean (psychic) Christianity appears to be legitimate but is actually a false, lower message, meanwhile the Johannine (pneumatic) Christianity is the actual real, higher message. Although I stress that I'm using "false" and "real" very lightly here.

Mark:

When we are about to read Mark’s gospel, it’s time to strap on our seatbelts, take a few deep breaths, and prepare for speed, movement and intensity. We are going to get action more than long discourses. We will find more of an emphasis on “doing” than “being,” and more on application than theology. Mark’s gospel contains less than one-third of the number of parables of Luke’s gospel and less than half the parables of Matthew’s gospel. In Mark’s account, scenery changes quickly, and stories often begin and end abruptly.

Mark’s account was written in such a style as to appeal to his intended Roman/Gentile readers, not known for their intellectualism or their interest in theology, philosophical thought, syllogisms, or drawn out arguments. Romans were known for action and for power. They respected authority more than flowery thought or elaborate speeches. They were committed to a worldview which we might characterize by the phrase, “ready, fire, aim!”

https://cutpaste.typepad.com/understand ... lukes.html

Confrontation. Peter knew and declared that Jesus was the Messiah, even though his conception of the Messiah was not predicated on the same understanding that Jesus possessed. What led Peter to this unequivocal testimony of Christ but only a partial understanding of His mission? Perhaps the answer lies in Jesus’ ministry to that point. Mark shows us clearly that Jesus’ ministry was characterized by conflict and confrontation from the beginning. The Spirit led Jesus out into the wilderness to be tempted by Satan (see Mark 1:12). That cosmic confrontation then became an earthly conflict as Jesus confronted demons, disease, religious leaders, and ultimately even His own disciples who did not understand the nature of His ministry. [11]

https://rsc.byu.edu/sperry-symposium-cl ... /mark-luke

The Gospel of Mark has none of the literary polish of the other gospels, but its plain and more direct manner has made it one of the more popular accounts of Jesus’ life and teachings. Yet there are many aspects of Mark’s gospel which are enigmatic and even baffling, not least of which is the abrupt ending to his account of the Resurrection.

https://interestingliterature.com/2021/ ... -analysis/#

Mark's gospel is associated with Scorpio and written in a characteristically martian fashion and deals with martian themes. Also interesting is that Mark's gospel is known for being secretive and enigmatic, both of which are traits associated with Scorpio. In case you're wondering why I equate the eagle in the tetramorph with Scorpio, it's explained on this page:

If, as the Egyptians believed, scorpions represent initiation into the sacred mysteries, we can consider the sign’s other related creature, the eagle, as a higher expression of Scorpio power. Many ancient and historical astrologers, including Ibn Ezra, recognised eagle symbolism as valid to this sign since the biblical prophet Ezekiel described a vision, believed to be drawn from Babylonian astrology and representative of the ‘fixed cross of matter’:

https://skyscript.co.uk/scorpio.html

Recall that in a previous post (viewtopic.php?p=125317#p125317), many of the verses I used to depict the ineptitude/ignorance of the disciples came from Mark. Mark is associated with Scorpio/Mars and Mars as the lesser malefic is associated with "weak vision" (per Valens), which can presumably be used to denote impaired vision in a figurative sense as well.

Luke:

A universal gospel. Luke was a Gentile. Thus, the question of whether the gospel was limited to Israel or was for all people was important to him personally. The gospel was for everyone—rich and poor, men and women, Jew and Gentile—although some persons might have more trouble hearing and responding to it than others.

From the very beginning of the Gospel of Luke, the reader is made aware of the Lord’s concern for women. In the birth narratives, women are clearly the dominant figures. Elisabeth (see Luke 1:5–7, 24), Mary (see Luke 1:26–56), and Anna (see Luke 2:36–38) play prominent roles. Zacharias and Joseph are essentially silent; Simeon is the only male, apart from Jesus Himself, who plays an active role—namely, affirming Jesus’ identity and mission. It is Mary, not Joseph, who receives Simeon’s witness (see Luke 2:34). Luke alone among the synoptic [23] writers included the account of the raising to life of the son of the widow of Nain (see Luke 7:12–13), the sinful woman’s anointing of Jesus (see Luke 7:37–50), the identification of some of the women who followed Jesus (see Luke 8:1–3), the account of Mary and Martha [24] (see Luke 10:38–42), the woman with a spirit of infirmity (see Luke 13:11–17), the woman searching for the lost coin (see Luke 15:8), the woman and the unjust judge (see Luke 18:2–8), Jesus’ words to the women on the way to His Crucifixion (see Luke 23:27–28), and the account that the women amazed the disciples with their story of being unable to find Jesus’ body (see Luke 24:22–24). Clearly, Jesus violated so many Jewish sanctions against association with women that other writers, like Mark and Matthew, may have been hesitant to include all such accounts. But Luke understood that Jesus had opened the heavens to all persons, regardless of sex, and thus he included Jesus’ association with persons who were considered inferior to devout Jewish males.

https://rsc.byu.edu/sperry-symposium-cl ... /mark-luke

The abundance of food is also portrayed in the Luke. Some of Jesus’ parables have setting of banquet and feasts. He makes altogether nineteen references to food or meal and thirteen of them are very exclusively only into his gospel. The number of references also shows the significance of gathering together and having meal together. Jesus took opportunity of every feast or meal time that is mentioned in the gospel to reveal who he is and what is his teaching all about. He uses these times to communicate really something very important. The punch line is, he is disclosing his divine identity that he is the only source of both spiritual and physical life. In addition, Luke also emphasizes how Jesus communicates about his kingdom with his people. The kingdom is a full of forgiven sinners – outcasts, unclean, and poor.

One of the big and controversial differences it has is the genealogy of Jesus Christ. Luke seems to have followed the lineage of Mary, the mother of Jesus, as he writes that Heli is the father of Joseph which contradicts with the account of Matthew who has Jacob as the father of Joseph (Luke 3:23). If we look into these genealogies side by side, we find only two names in common in the genealogy are Shealtiel and Zerubbabel (Matthew 1:12; Luke 3:27). The disparity between Matthew and Luke quite suggests that Luke might have interviewed Mary to write down about the supernatural virgin birth and inserted her lineage into the genealogy which is quite unusual in the Jewish culture in Jesus’ time.

https://cafn.us/2011/01/11/the-gospel-o ... nt-page-1/

Luke's gospel is associated with Taurus and deals with venusian/lunarian themes like females and food. Also note that only Matthew and Luke have a genealogy of Jesus; this is significant because Aquarius (Matthew) and Taurus (Luke) are signs of equal ascension and are intimately connected with the concept of carnality/incarnation into matter. Notably, Matthew deals with Jesus's paternal ancestry (Saturn) and Luke deals with Jesus's maternal ancestry (the Moon). Luke's gospel is also very universal and seeks to receive all people. This idea of "reception" is an attribute associated with the Moon which tends to draw things into itself:

The Moon: Main principle: to suck, draw inward and collect with magnitism, creating a vacume. The Moon is cold and wet in nature which means that it tends to unify and not make distinctions. The coldness lowers the activity level and creates calmness. It is a very feminine planet and functions as a receiver for all spiritual input so that it can be brought into material form.

https://www.astrology-x-files.com/x-files/planets.html

Luke's gospel is also significant because it has certain peculiarities associated with the character of Mary Magdalene, who had special significance to the gnostic Christians since it's speculated the character was actually a historicized account of older Simonian myths related to the fallen Helena/Sophia. This is especially significant in light of the connection between Helena/Sophia and the Moon/the dyad. You can read more about the important role that Mary Magdalene plays in Luke's gospel (from an apologetic perspective) here:

https://catholicoutlook.org/mary-magdal ... l-of-luke/

You can read about the connection between the character of Mary Magdalene and the fallen Helena/Sophia here @ pages 147-148, 168-171:

http://www.egodeath.com/FalsifiedPaul/FabricatedJHC.pdf

I strongly suspect that the exorcism of the seven spirits from Mary Magdalene (mentioned numerous times in the above apologetic source) is an allegorized reference to the seven classical planets. My suspicion is especially strengthened since Mary Magdalene is apparently associated with the fallen Helena/Sophia, who was trapped in her own creation by the "archons" (the seven classical planets); hence the actual underlying meaning of Mary Magdalene's exorcism could be that she (representing human-kind) was liberated from bondage to the seven classical planets (heimarmene?) by Jesus (gnosis). Keep in mind that Luke is sometimes considered as Paul's gospel:

Try reading Luke chapter 1 right after reading Mark chapter 1. The differences are as striking as the differences between Peter and Paul, and for good reason. Mark wrote his gospel account according to Peter’s testimony, while Luke wrote according to Paul’s testimony. This arises from the facts that Mark was a companion and disciple of Peter, and Luke was Paul’s friend, associate in ministry, and personal physician. Many scholars have noted that because of these influences, the gospel accounts of Mark and Luke can be thought of more or less as the Gospels of Peter and Paul, respectively.

https://cutpaste.typepad.com/understand ... lukes.html

This is interesting because Paul is possibly Simon Magus (who was the consort of Helena), and the gospel associated most with Paul features peculiarities related to Mary Magdalene (who is speculated to represent Helena/Sophia) that aren't present in the other gospels. Even more significant is that Luke also wrote Acts (which is considered a sequel to Luke's Gospel) which is where Simon Magus is introduced for the first time (Acts 8:9), as well as Paul/Saul himself (Acts 7:58). I have a lengthy digression on Acts and its significance which I will write a post about later.

John:

4. 'HIGH' CHRISTOLOGY AS OPPOSED TO THE SYNOPTICS.
The Prologue to John’s Gospel (1:1-18) presents Jesus as the Lovgo" become flesh (1:14). John begins his Gospel with an affirmation of Jesus’ preexistence and full deity, which climaxes in John 20:28 with Thomas’ confession “My Lord and my God!” The non-predicated ejgw eijmi sayings in the Fourth Gospel as allusions to Exod 3:14 also point to Jesus’ deity (John 8:24, 28, 58). Compare Mark who begins his Gospel with Jesus’ baptism and Matthew and Luke who begin theirs with Jesus’ birth. John begins with eternity past (“In the beginning the Word already was…”).

11. REALIZED ESCHATOLOGY IN THE GOSPEL OF JOHN.
The problem of so-called ‘realized’ eschatology in the Gospel of John (the term was popularized by C. H. Dodd) can be seen in microcosm in John 5:20b-30. On the one hand there are statements that speak of the parousia (second advent) as a future event in the traditional sense: “…for an hour is coming when all who are in the tombs will hear his voice and come forth, those who have done good to a resurrection of life, and those who have done evil to a resurrection of judgment” (John 5:28-29 NASB). Alongside these on the other hand are statements that seem to speak of the full realization for believers of salvation in the present (5:20-27): “Truly, truly, I say to you he who hears my word and believes him who sent me, has eternal life; he does not come into judgment, but has passed from death to life” (John 5:24 NASB). There is an obvious tension between these statements that must be reconciled; judgment cannot be both present and future at the same time. Related to John’s emphasis on ‘eternal life’ as a present reality is the stress on judgment as realized in a person’s response to Jesus (John 3:19). In addition John’s Gospel does not emphasize the second advent of Christ as a future eschatological event (John 14:3 is about the only clear reference).

https://bible.org/seriespage/2-major-di ... ic-gospels

John's gospel is associated with Leo and is very noetic oriented (in Hellenistic astrology the Sun is connected with the concept of nous). Recall how I mentioned earlier that the Valentinians favored the gospel of John the most, which has the strongest gnostic undertones out of all the gospels. Note how John's gospel deals with a loftier, more abstract idea of Christ and salvation which transcends the more earthly/carnal understandings of these concepts. Interestingly enough, John's gospel also seems to prefigure the arrival of the apostle Paul (Paul as the Paraclete):

John 16:7-16
7 Nevertheless I tell you the truth; It is expedient for you that I go away: for if I go not away, the Comforter (paraclete) will not come unto you; but if I depart, I will send him unto you.
8 And when he is come, he will reprove the world of sin, and of righteousness, and of judgment:
9 Of sin, because they believe not on me;
10 Of righteousness, because I go to my Father, and ye see me no more;
11 Of judgment, because the prince of this world is judged.
12 I have yet many things to say unto you, but ye cannot bear them now.
13 Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth: for he shall not speak of himself; but whatsoever he shall hear, that shall he speak: and he will shew you things to come.
14 He shall glorify me: for he shall receive of mine, and shall shew it unto you.
15 All things that the Father hath are mine: therefore said I, that he shall take of mine, and shall shew it unto you.
16 A little while, and ye shall not see me: and again, a little while, and ye shall see me, because I go to the Father.

Protestant denominations think that the Holy Spirit is the paraclete, but Marcion (the leader of the Marcionites, a 2nd century major quasi-gnostic movement contemporary with the Valentinians) believed that Paul was the paraclete.

Aside from the surprisingly tidy thematic correlations between the gospels and the respective sign/planet they're associated with, I have another interesting observation. Note the order of the planets according to how the gospels are arranged in the NT:

Matthew => Aquarius (Saturn)
Mark => Scorpio (Mars)
Luke => Taurus (the Moon)
John => Leo (the Sun)

The planets go from the greatest malefic (Saturn), to the lesser malefic (Mars), to the lesser luminary (the Moon), to the greater luminary (the Sun). Recall that Saturn rules darkness/blindness/agnoia. Likewise as noted earlier in the section on Mark, Mars is also connected with vision impairment, which makes sense since both of the signs ruled by the Moon (which is a luminary, hence sight/vision) are Cancer and Taurus which are opposed by signs ruled by Mars (Capricorn and Scorpio). I understand the ordering of the four gospels as representing a metaphorical progression from darkness to light, which is like a microcosm of the psychic/pneumatic dynamic I mentioned earlier involving the gospels themselves vis a vis the (authentic) Pauline letters. To reiterate my earlier point in Matthew, according to this schema the gospel of John (associated with Leo/the Sun, therefore the most "light"/spiritual) would be more "true" than the gospel of Matthew (which is associated with Aquarius/Saturn and is the "darkest"). Whatever is said in Matthew would be superceded by John, which in turn would be superceded by Paul (note that both John and Paul talk about a higher Christology and realized eschatology, practically speaking there is less difference between them than between Matthew and John).

Elaborating further on this, I suspect the gospels (and the book of Acts) were written and structured in such a way that they gradually induce the astute reader into a higher degree of gnosis, preparing them for the truest teachings which are contained in Paul's letters. This could explain why there's four similar yet different gospels, which seems redundant on its face, but it's possible the reader is expected to compare and contrast the thematic differences between the four gospels in order to reveal the veiled seed elements for Paul's cipher. One possible key to sniffing out these patterns could involve acknowledging the zodiacal relationship between the signs of the tetramorph. Recall how earlier I noted a sympathetic thematic connection between Matthew and Luke, both of which are associated with signs linked by an equal ascension relationship (Aquarius and Taurus), couldn't the same be true for Mark (Scorpio) and John (Leo)? Or what about signs in opposition to each other? Matthew (Aquarius) is thematically opposed to John (Leo), so wouldn't this pattern hold up for Luke (Taurus) and Mark (Scorpio) as well? To be clear, I just view this as a broad, overarching guideline, and we shouldn't arbitrarily confine our methods of inquiry to just these zodiacal relationships between the gospels; there could still be connections between the four gospels that exist outside of this model as well. Also the gospels and Acts likely contain hidden components within themselves individually without the need for cross-referencing them with each other. I found a likely example of this in Luke 23:32-43:

32 And there were also two other, malefactors, led with him to be put to death.
33 And when they were come to the place, which is called Calvary, there they crucified him, and the malefactors, one on the right hand, and the other on the left.
34 Then said Jesus, Father, forgive them; for they know not what they do. And they parted his raiment, and cast lots.
35 And the people stood beholding. And the rulers also with them derided him, saying, He saved others; let him save himself, if he be Christ, the chosen of God.
36 And the soldiers also mocked him, coming to him, and offering him vinegar,
37 And saying, If thou be the king of the Jews, save thyself.
38 And a superscription also was written over him in letters of Greek, and Latin, and Hebrew, This Is The King Of The Jews.
39 And one of the malefactors which were hanged railed on him, saying, If thou be Christ, save thyself and us.
40 But the other answering rebuked him, saying, Dost not thou fear God, seeing thou art in the same condemnation?
41 And we indeed justly; for we receive the due reward of our deeds: but this man hath done nothing amiss.
42 And he said unto Jesus, Lord, remember me when thou comest into thy kingdom.
43 And Jesus said unto him, Verily I say unto thee, Today shalt thou be with me in paradise.

I believe this passage is where the concept of "Jews" (referring to psychic christians who are part hylic and part pneumatic) comes from. I'll break this down step by step:

1.Jesus is hung between two criminals, one on his left and one on his right.
-This suggests Jesus symbolizes an intermediary/inbetween quality (in a similar fashion, the earthly Jesus was part man and part divine).

2.Above Jesus is hung a sign that says: "This Is The King Of The Jews"
-Jesus is broadly (archetypally?) connected with the concept of "Jews".

3.The criminal on one side of Jesus mocks him by saying, "If thou be Christ, save thyself and us".
-This criminal symbolically represents a petty carnal/hylic mindset, where he was only concerned with earthly salvation from impending physical death.

4.The criminal on the other side of Jesus is portrayed as righteous and asks Jesus to remember him when Jesus comes into his kingdom.
-This criminal represents a loftier spiritual/pneumatic mindset, where he was concerned only with spiritual salvation.

Therefore, Jesus being inbetween a hylic coded personality and a pneumatic coded personality implies that Jesus (as king of the "Jews") is "psychic". It's easy to see how the concept of "Jews" as referring to psychic Christians could be derived by symbolically reading the text. I found something similar in John that symbolically reveals how Greeks represents pneumatics, although I don't remember it off the top of my head, I'll have to go through my notes to find it again. In the same fashion, I propose the most fundamental components of Paul's cipher can be derived from the gospels and Acts, while the more advanced components (which build on top of the fundamental ones) are found in Paul's letters themselves.

In conclusion, this is part of a broader schema I've been developing for how to properly understand all 27 books of the NT, and to which audiences they're addressed to. When time permits I will write out the remainder of the (admittedly speculative) schema. On a different note, the fact that Irenaeus had proposed an implicitly zodiacal schema to the four gospels that fits surprisingly well brings up a lot of questions. Was the orthodox, Catholic, fierce anti-gnostic and anti-heretic Irenaeus knowledgeable about astrology? Irenaeus spilled a lot of ink criticizing the gnostics and "disproving" their beliefs, but it's surprising that the very schema he suggested for the gospels fits so perfectly into a conceptual framework that itself is highly sympathetic to the gnostic position. Maybe the most likely explanation is that Irenaeus wasn't knowledgeable about astrology and was drawing purely upon scriptures, which unbeknownst to Irenaeus, is itself apparently a form of astrological allegory. Therefore Irenaeus was unknowingly reading coded astrological messages which he managed to derive correct symbolic truth from.

What follows is a speculative theory for properly reading the entire 27 books of the NT which is based on organically occurring patterns in the text. Before explaining this theory I'll preface it by describing a related concept below:

A tale of two triads
================
While discussing Christianity and the significance of the astrological symbolism in it I've frequently referenced a three-part system the gnostic Christians used for dividing people into different categories of spiritual potential; that system uses the terms: "hylics", "psychics" and "pneumatics". The hylics are the most carnal/material (ergo the least spiritual), the psychics are an intermediate state of mixed carnal/spiritual nature while the pneumatics are the most spiritual. This underlying carnal/spiritual dichotomy being used is identical to the Platonic matter/form schema. With that in mind, I've noticed there's two implicit triads relating to "spirit/matter" concept in Hellenistic astrology:

1.The Chaldean triad - If you look at the Chaldean order of the planets (Moon, Mercury, Venus, Sun, Mars, Jupiter, Saturn) then you can discern an interesting pattern. The planets connected with the generation of matter (the Moon) and its passing away (Saturn) are the first and last planets; meanwhile the planet connected with the forms/nous (which is the source of matter itself) is the Sun, which is located exactly in between the Moon and Saturn. Note the "horizontal" equality between the Moon and Saturn since both play an equally important role in the realm of matter where all things have a beginning and an ending. Meanwhile, the Sun being connected to the realm of forms represents an eternal, unchanging quality that exists independently of beginnings and endings, which can be symbolically portrayed by the Sun being in the middle.
-An interesting observation is that the Chaldean order of planets exactly correlates with the order of the signs in the lunar half of the zodiac with the exception of the Sun which has no domicile sign there:

Cancer/Moon => Gemini/Mercury => Taurus/Venus => Sun (no domicile) => Aries/Mars => Pisces/Jupiter => Aquarius/Saturn

-I realized the Chaldean order of planets corresponds with the geocentric model of the solar system:


2.The Thema Mundi triad - The TM contains a triad that linearly progresses from matter to spirit (or vice versa), which is identical to the schema the gnostic Christians were using. This can be seen from how Libra/Saturn (representing full manifestation into matter) is the 4th house/bottom of TM, meanwhile Cancer/Moon & Capricorn/Saturn (respectively representing intermediate states of entering and leaving the realm of matter) are the 1st & 7th houses/middle of TM, lastly Aries/Sun (representing pure spirit) occupies the 10th house/top of TM:

Highest: Aries/Sun (pneumatic)
^
Middle: Cancer/Moon & Capricorn/Saturn (psychic)*
^
Lowest: Libra/Saturn (hylic)

This triad has a distinct hierarchal, "vertical" feeling to it, suggesting that Aries/pneumatic is superior to Cancer & Capricorn/psychic which in turn is superior to Libra/hylic.
-The Chaldean triad is connected with the lunar half of the zodiac and based upon the geocentric model of the solar system, likewise the TM triad should be connected with the solar half of the zodiac which I discovered corresponds with the heliocentric model:

https://i.postimg.cc/httCskvB/heliocentricmodel.png
-the picture isn't posting the right size for some reason, but above is a link to a diagram of the heliocentric planetary model

Leo/Sun => Virgo/Mercury => Libra/Venus => Moon (no domicile) => Scorpio/Mars => Sagittarius/Jupiter => Capricorn/Saturn

You can see how the astronomical/heliocentric order of the planets conforms to the linear pattern of the TM triad (Saturn => Moon => Sun)
-This time the Moon is the odd one out with no domicile sign. In retrospect this makes sense, consider how the Sun being in the lunar half of the zodiac (hence out of its native sphere) "has no home", likewise the same would apply to the Moon in the solar half of the zodiac.
-It's fascinating how the Sun and the Moon are implicitly intertwined in each other's half of the zodiac; looking onwards, we can deduce the agenda of each side of the zodiac by carefully considering what the different ordering of the planets associated with each side of the zodiac symbolically suggests. In a different thread (viewtopic.php?t=12156) I proposed a theory about the underlying meaning of the zodiac and while I still think my observations are generally correct, it's not a perfect model. This new insight might help refine/correct the original model.

One interesting thing about both triads is that by virtue of symbolically representing horizontal and vertical axises they create a cross when overlaid on each other. I don't know if this is a legitimate second layer of meaning but I do know the gnostic Christians had a special symbolic understanding of the cross (I'm not familiar with it yet). This is something I'll have to look into later. That being said, the Chaldean Triad is the only relevant triad for this post, I only discussed the TM triad in order to acknowledge the existence of two different triads and pre-emptively clear up any confusions regarding the different systems.

*For the logic of the TM triad I used the exalted planets of Aries and Libra, but not for Cancer (and Capricorn), instead using their domicile rulers. The reason why is because using Jupiter (exalted ruler of Cancer) and Mars (exalted ruler of Capricorn) partially obscures the logic of gradual progression from most dark/material (Saturn) to most light/spirit (Sun). While this seems like a subjective and even arbitrary choice, I based it on the fact that the Moon is the only planet lacking a domicile in the solar half of the zodiac, therefore suggesting it has special significance that transcends the planetary exaltation schema, likewise with regards to the Chaldean triad, the Sun has special significance since it's "homeless" in the lunar half of the zodiac. As for Saturn, it's the natural companion to the Moon and Sun through a zodiacal oppositional aspect. In the zodiac there's two luminaries (Sun and Moon) which each have their own domiciles (Leo and Cancer), which in turn are opposed to Aquarius and Capricorn, both of which are ruled by Saturn. So there's two different luminaries but only one "anti-luminary" (in terms of domicile rulership, not counting exaltation relationships which entail Mars). Therefore Saturn is able to play double duty as the counterpart to both the Moon (regarding the realm of matter) and the Sun (regarding the realm of forms).

The structure of the New Testament
===============================
-The NT is composed of 27 books.
-Paul's letters alone comprise 14 of these books and the remaining 13 are written by other authors.
-It's interesting that the pneumatic Paul is responsible for a little over half of the books in the NT while the psychic disciples/their associates are responsible for the rest of it. From a bird's eye view, that's an almost perfect two part division in the NT split along pneumatic and psychic lines.
-The books written by the psychic disciples/their associates occupy the beginning of the NT (the four gospels and Acts) and the last part of it (James, 1&2 Peter, 1-3 John, Jude and Revelation). Recall that psychic Christians only understand things from a carnal, matter oriented perspective that entails everything that's coming into being (beginning) and passing away (ending).
-Paul's letters occupy the middle of the NT, thus falling in between the books written by the psychic disciples/associates. Paul is pneumatic and pneumatic Christians have a formal/spirit oriented perspective that's centered around what's eternal and unchanging. The highest and truest messages of Christianity are found in Paul's letters (according to the gnostic Christians).
-Surprisingly the structure of the NT follows the logic of the Chaldean triad. The books written by the psychic disciples/associates occupy the beginning (the Moon) and the end (Saturn) of the NT, while the books written by the pneumatic Paul occupy the middle (the Sun) of the NT.

Deeper considerations of the structure of the NT
==========================================
-Unfortunately this division of the NT isn't perfectly symmetrical. Regarding books authored by the psychic disciples/associates, the books in the beginning number five while the books in the end number eight, however there's another layer to this. Consider how many unique authors there are for the books in the beginning and end of the NT respectively:

Beginning of the NT
--------------------------
-Matthew
-Mark
-Luke
-John
-Acts (also written by Luke)

There's four unique authors for the books in the beginning of the NT.

End of the NT
------------------
-James
-1 Peter
-2 Peter
-1 John
-2 John
-3 John
-Jude
-Revelation (said to be written by John)

The multiple books written by Peter and John can be collapsed into single authors respectively, thus giving us a total of four unique authors for the books in the end of the NT as well.

So unexpectedly there's a perfect underlying symmetry in the structure of the NT; four unique authors in the beginning (Matthew, Mark, Luke and John), one unique author in the middle (Paul) and then four unique authors in the ending (James, Peter, John and Jude). This is quite interesting and seems possibly deliberate, it's completely congruent with the framework I've been establishing so far regarding the structure of the NT. Interestingly enough, this seems like part of a larger dualistic fractal within the bible as a whole. Going from the largest fractal to the smallest one:

1.The Old Testament (psychic) and New Testament (pneumatic)

2.(almost) half of the NT written by the psychic disciples/associates and the other half written by the pneumatic Paul.

3.Within the four gospels themselves, there's a division between the most psychic (Matthew and Luke) and most pneumatic (Mark and John) gospels. Keep in mind that Saturn (Matthew/Aquarius) representing matter (psychic) is exalted in Libra which is a domicile ruled by Venus (Luke/Taurus), meanwhile the Sun (John/Leo) representing form/spirit (pneumatic) is exalted in Aries which is a domicile ruled by Mars (Mark/Scorpio). Thus there's an underlying, subtle symmetry here based upon the equal ascension relationship between the sign pairs.

Further considerations
====================
-This framework suggests the entire NT (specifically the beginning and the end, but also including Paul's letters [recall that Paul was commissioned to both the psychics and the pneumatics]) is addressed to psychic Christians, while Paul's letters alone are addressed exclusively to pneumatic Christians. This isn't to say there aren't useful teachings for pneumatic Christians contained in the non-Pauline books, but in theory these teachings should be considered as "optional" or supplementary. Recall that psychic Christians only perceive salvation in simplistic terms related to beginnings and endings (Genesis/Revelation), meanwhile pneumatic Christians understand that true salvation is something related to the eternal present (the past and future are illusions, all that exists is the present moment.) This is likely the actual meaning of "realized eschatology".
-Paul's books outnumber the books written by other authors by one (14 to 13). Assuming this is a legitimate, intentional pattern in the structure of the NT, what's the significance of this? Maybe it's meant to symbolically imply that Paul is more right or authoritative.
-As noted in the previous post, there's a gradual progression from most psychic to more pneumatic within the four gospels and Acts, which eventually leads to the most pneumatic works of the NT which are Paul's letters (bolded). However, Paul's letters end with the pastorals (1&2 Timothy, Titus and Philemon, with the exception of Hebrews?) which are more psychic in orientation which suggests there's an equivalent progression downwards again, from most pneumatic to more and more psychic:

Matthew
Mark
Luke
John
Acts
Romans
1 Corinthians
2 Corinthians
Galatians
Ephesians
Philippians
Colossians
1 Thessalonians
2 Thessalonians
1 Timothy
2 Timothy
Titus
Philemon
Hebrews
James
1 Peter
2 Peter
1 John
2 John
3 John
Jude
Revelation

I haven't gone over James, 1&2 Peter, 1-3 John and Jude in detail yet, but in theory they should demonstrate an opposite gradual progression from pneumatic to more psychic (even anti-pneumatic) teachings. Perhaps something like this:

1 John 2:26
I have written these things to you about those who are trying to deceive you.

This verse is speculated to be part of a polemic against the gnostic pneumatic Christians who claimed they were taught by Paul (Simon Magus?). This link below has a more detailed discussion of it:

In the First Epistle of John there is a distinct polemical purpose. There is no book of the New Testament which is more purposeful in its attack of error. There is "the spirit of error" (1 John 4:6), opposing the Spirit of truth. "Many false prophets are gone out into the world" (1 John 4:1), and this from the church itself, "They went out from us, but they were not of us" (1 John 2:19); and these false prophets are distinctly named "the antichrist" (1 John 2:22) and "the liar" (same place), and "the deceiver and the antichrist" (2 John 1:7). This peril, against which the apostle writes, and from which he seeks to defend the church, was Gnosticism, as is proved by what is said again and again in the epistle of the characteristics of this insidious and deadly teaching...

https://hermeneutics.stackexchange.com/ ... ned-in-226

Recall that Simon Magus was called the antichrist by Jewish Christians:

This explains the peculiar circumstance that in the JewishChristian polemic of the second century Simon, who was denounced (by Jews and Jewish-Christians) as the Antichrist, or Beliar, etc., exhibits characteristics of the apostle Paul, and conversely why the figure of Paul, who meanwhile has become revered by the church, exhibits characteristics of Simon Magus, the Heresiarch and Antichrist.

pg.148, http://www.egodeath.com/FalsifiedPaul/FabricatedJHC.pdf

What's interesting is that the Johannine epistles (from the end of the NT) seem to be mirroring the gospel of John (from the beginning of it), but in an inverse way:

1 John 2:18
Dear children, this is the last hour; and as you have heard that the antichrist is coming, even now many antichrists have come. This is how we know it is the last hour.

In this verse John warns about a coming antichrist, but in the gospel of John, the author talks about a future messenger (the paraclete):

John 16:7-16
7 Nevertheless I tell you the truth; It is expedient for you that I go away: for if I go not away, the Comforter (paraclete) will not come unto you; but if I depart, I will send him unto you.
8 And when he is come, he will reprove the world of sin, and of righteousness, and of judgment:
9 Of sin, because they believe not on me;
10 Of righteousness, because I go to my Father, and ye see me no more;
11 Of judgment, because the prince of this world is judged.
12 I have yet many things to say unto you, but ye cannot bear them now.
13 Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth: for he shall not speak of himself; but whatsoever he shall hear, that shall he speak: and he will shew you things to come.
14 He shall glorify me: for he shall receive of mine, and shall shew it unto you.
15 All things that the Father hath are mine: therefore said I, that he shall take of mine, and shall shew it unto you.
16 A little while, and ye shall not see me: and again, a little while, and ye shall see me, because I go to the Father.

In both cases the common historical denominator is Paul/Simon Magus. The Jewish Christians claimed that Simon Magus (Paul) was the antichrist, yet the gnostic Christians claimed that Paul (Simon Magus) was the paraclete. This contradiction is resolved when one realizes that the books in the end of the NT are possibly a thematically negative mirror to those in the beginning of the NT. This would explain why the same John exhibits significant thematic differences in his gospel compared to his epistles (assuming that the same John is the author of both, he may not be).

Here's a verse from the end of the NT that could possibly be a direct criticism of Paul:

Revelation 2:2
I know your deeds, your hard work and your perseverance. I know that you cannot tolerate wicked people, that you have tested those who claim to be apostles but are not, and have found them false.

Notice how this verse emphasizes "deeds and hardwork". This could be subtle reference to "works of the law". Recall that Paul was infamously antinomial and advocated faith over works:

Galatians 2:16
know that a person is not justified by the works of the law, but by faith in Jesus Christ. So we, too, have put our faith in Christ Jesus that we may be justified by faith in Christ and not by the works of the law, because by the works of the law no one will be justified.

Secondly regarding "those who claim to be apostles but are not", in 1 & 2 Corinthians it's implied that Paul was accused of being an inferior (less legitimate?) apostle. Recall that Paul was not part of the original twelve disciples and never met the earthly Jesus, thus it's implied there were doubts about Paul's legitimacy because of this:

1 Corinthians 9:1-2
Am I not free? Am I not an apostle? Have I not seen Jesus our Lord? Are you not the result of my work in the Lord? 2 Even though I may not be an apostle to others, surely I am to you! For you are the seal of my apostleship in the Lord.

2 Corinthians 11:5-6
I do not think I am in the least inferior to those “super-apostles.”[a] 6 I may indeed be untrained as a speaker, but I do have knowledge. We have made this perfectly clear to you in every way.

Strangely enough, the doubts about Paul's apostlehood (which he received in a spiritual revelation) seem to loosely correlate with a passage from the pseudo-Clementine literature where Peter disputes Simon Magus’s claim that it's possible to experience the same thing by means of a dream or a vision as on the basis of direct eyewitness, to which Simon responds:

You have claimed that you came to know the teaching of your master (Jesus) very accurately because you heard and saw him directly when he was present, and that, on the other hand, it is impossible for someone else to experience the same thing by means of a dream or a vision. I will show you that this is false... On the contrary, the vision provides, together with the appearance, certainty that what is seen comes from God.

page 157, http://www.egodeath.com/FalsifiedPaul/FabricatedJHC.pdf

Here's another passage that seems targeted towards pneumatic Christians:

Revelation 2:14-15
14Nevertheless, I have a few things against you: There are some among you who hold to the teaching of Balaam, who taught Balak to entice the Israelites to sin so that they ate food sacrificed to idols and committed sexual immorality. 15 Likewise, you also have those who hold to the teaching of the Nicolaitans.

This verse appears to be talking about the eating of food sacrificed to idols and seems to contradict what Paul taught:

1 Corinthians 8:4-8
4 So then, about eating food sacrificed to idols: We know that “An idol is nothing at all in the world” and that “There is no God but one.” 5 For even if there are so-called gods, whether in heaven or on earth (as indeed there are many “gods” and many “lords”), 6 yet for us there is but one God, the Father, from whom all things came and for whom we live; and there is but one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom all things came and through whom we live. 7 But not everyone possesses this knowledge. Some people are still so accustomed to idols that when they eat sacrificial food they think of it as having been sacrificed to a god, and since their conscience is weak, it is defiled. 8 But food does not bring us near to God; we are no worse if we do not eat, and no better if we do.

The second half of the article below goes into detail on this. I especially recommend reading the comments, they're very interesting. The second link is an exhaustive list of times where Paul contradicts Jesus and is also an interesting read:

Does “eating food sacrificed to idols” simply address the same question we find in Paul’s letter to the Corinthians: should a Christian worry about purchasing meat from a butcher if there is a suspicion that it comes from an animal that had been sacrificed to an idol?

https://vridar.org/2022/05/23/the-doctr ... colaitans/

"The Paul Paradox"

https://metalogos.org/files/paul_p.html

I'm not claiming that Revelation 2:14-15 is definitely a polemic directed at (pneumatic) Pauline Christians from (psychic) Jamesian/Petrine Christians but it appears to be a possibility. This would make sense since Revelation (being the last book of the NT) would theoretically be the most psychic, along with the first book of the NT the gospel of Matthew; coincidentally both are pro-law and implicitly opposed to Paul's pneumatic teachings. This idea of different parts of the NT strongly opposing/contradicting each other shouldn't be surprising in light of the deep, structural psychic/pneumatic divide that I've been writing about throughout this thread. In fact, there's at least one passage in the NT which provides an apparent meta-commentary on this conflict:

Galatian 2:11-13
11 When Cephas (Peter) came to Antioch, I opposed him to his face, because he stood condemned. 12 For before certain men came from James, he used to eat with the Gentiles. But when they arrived, he began to draw back and separate himself from the Gentiles because he was afraid of those who belonged to the circumcision group. 13 The other Jews joined him in his hypocrisy, so that by their hypocrisy even Barnabas was led astray.

If symbolically read, this passage suggests there's inherent tension between the message of pneumatic Christianity (as represented by Paul) and psychic Christianity (as represented by Peter). Without digressing too much, I emphasize this passage should be read allegorically instead of historically. My current opinion is that the gospels and Paul's letters should be considered as historically inspired fiction that's loosely based on real events but was re-imagined and written in such a way to intentionally convey symbolic messages. This isn't that far of a stretch when considering that Paul might actually be Simon Magus, which in that case all of Acts and Paul's letters are a "lie" (in the sense that they're misrepresenting actual historical identities).

Furthermore, there's verses which suggest the orthodox message of Christianity is intended to actually impede the understanding of psychic Christians and only allow the "worthy" to understand the deeper meaning of Christianity. This can be seen here:

Luke 8:9
9His disciples asked him what this parable meant. 10He said, “The knowledge of the secrets of the kingdom of God has been given to you, but to others I speak in parables, so that,
“ ‘though seeing, they may not see;
though hearing, they may not understand.’

This passage is explicitly suggesting that Jesus speaks in parables to the masses so that they don't understand its true meaning. This is supported by this verse:

1 Corinthians 1:22-24
22Jews demand signs and Greeks search for wisdom, 23but we preach Christ crucified, a stumbling block to Jews and foolishness to Gentiles, 24but to those who are called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God.

If you know Paul's code then the secret meaning of this passage becomes apparent. The orthodox message of Christ crucified is a "stumbling block" that impedes/limits the understanding of "Jews" (psychic Christians). As for the "Gentiles" (pneumatic Christians), they think the literal understanding of Christ crucified is foolishness since they understand the deeper symbolic meaning behind the message. To recapitulate, the psychic message of Christianity/parables are intended to bring the neophyte listener up to a lower, limited level and keep them there, but if a psychic Christian is capable of seeing through the "imperfect" orthodox message then by default they're more ready/capable of understanding the deeper meanings of Christianity. Historically, this would seem more efficient since it means the pneumatic Christians didn't have to manually guide all psychic Christians in an egalitarian manner towards a higher understanding (many of whom may or may not be capable of it), but rather only focus on those select few that showed potential.

Conclusion
==========
This speculative framework for correctly reading the NT still needs more research but it seems legitimate so far. Assuming it's legitimate though, it brings up interesting questions about the Catholic church and how much they knew about the true dual nature of Christianity. Initially, when I began my research into gnostic Christianity I assumed the Catholic church were trying to cover up the real higher message of Christianity out of a place of ignorance or religious zeal, but now I'm seriously reconsidering this position. I now suspect the highest levels of the Catholic church (and maybe emperor Constantine 1 himself) knew the truth all along, but for the political purposes of creating a unified state religion they suppressed the (numerically inferior, doctrinally dissenting) gnostic Christians, promoted the orthodox church and carefully edited/interpolated the original Pauline letters used by the gnostics to give them more continuity with the rest of the NT, while at the same time carefully encrypting the true, gnostic message of Christianity within the NT. Therefore, instead of thinking of the NT as an arbitrary collection of religious books, we should instead perceive it as a sophisticated masterpiece of politically motivated religious-philosophical engineering exemplary of Classical Antiquity era thought.

Orthodox Christians often quote this verse to discourage interpreting the bible in a non-religious manner:

Colossians 2:6-8
6 So then, just as you received Christ Jesus as Lord, continue to live your lives in him, 7 rooted and built up in him, strengthened in the faith as you were taught, and overflowing with thankfulness. 8 See to it that no one takes you captive through hollow and deceptive philosophy, which depends on human tradition and the elemental spiritual forces of this world rather than on Christ.

However this injunction to not use "hollow and deceptive philosophy" has a significantly different meaning if you read the rest of the chapter:

Colossians 2:16-23
16 Therefore do not let anyone judge you by what you eat or drink, or with regard to a religious festival, a New Moon celebration or a Sabbath day. 17 These are a shadow of the things that were to come; the reality, however, is found in Christ. 18 Do not let anyone who delights in false humility and the worship of angels disqualify you. Such a person also goes into great detail about what they have seen; they are puffed up with idle notions by their unspiritual mind. 19 They have lost connection with the head, from whom the whole body, supported and held together by its ligaments and sinews, grows as God causes it to grow.

20 Since you died with Christ to the elemental spiritual forces of this world, why, as though you still belonged to the world, do you submit to its rules: 21 “Do not handle! Do not taste! Do not touch!”? 22 These rules, which have to do with things that are all destined to perish with use, are based on merely human commands and teachings. 23 Such regulations indeed have an appearance of wisdom, with their self-imposed worship, their false humility and their harsh treatment of the body, but they lack any value in restraining sensual indulgence.

The chapter is full of references to Jewish cultural practices which appear to be the worldly philosophy that Paul was actually condemning*. Below is an excerpt from a fascinating article that lists out all the biblical references from that passage:

Moreover, Simonians claimed it was the world-making angels who, to enslave men, instituted at least certain parts of the Law. Correspondingly, the worship of the stoicheia that the author of Colossians condemns looks very much like Judaism. It involves observance of festivals, new moons, and Sabbaths (Col. 2:16), which listing corresponds to the special religious days of Judaism: “the festivals, the new moons, and the Sabbaths” (Ezekiel 45:17); “I will put an end to her festivals, her new moons, and her Sabbaths” (Hosea 2:11). In Galatians these “special days and months and seasons and years“ (Gal. 4:10) are mentioned too alongside circumcision and are condemned as being a form of slavery to the stoicheia. Colossians adds to the picture precepts—“Do not handle! Do not taste! Do not touch!” (Col. 2:21)—that can be understood as pejorative references to Jewish dietary and purity laws.

https://vridar.org/2013/10/06/a-simonia ... -paulines/

I highly recommend this article, it's part of a twenty part series debating whether Paul was actually Simon Magus or if Simon Magus was just a later interpolator of Paul's letters. I found the first six entries to be especially engaging, although I need to clarify that I don't fully agree with everything the author says**.

Now there's two interesting things about this passage from Colossians:

1.Colossians 2:18 talks about the worship of angels:

Colossians 2:18
Do not let anyone who delights in false humility and the worship of angels disqualify you. Such a person also goes into great detail about what they have seen; they are puffed up with idle notions by their unspiritual mind.

This sounds related to an earlier passage from Galatians:

Galatians 3:19-20
19 Why, then, was the law given at all? It was added because of transgressions until the Seed to whom the promise referred had come. The law was given through angels and entrusted to a mediator. 20 A mediator, however, implies more than one party; but God is one.

In this passage Paul describes the events of Exodus 21-24 where Moses receives the law from God, however according to Paul, the law was given through angels and entrusted to a mediator (Moses). The implication is that the deity that gave Moses the law was not God himself but were actually angels. Keep in mind that Simon Magus's followers believed that God didn't directly create the world, rather he had world-making angels create it for him, which sounds suspiciously similar to the gnostic's beliefs (who claimed they were taught by "Paul") of the demiurge who only created the world but wasn't the highest god. Therefore the "angels" are the demiurge. On the surface Paul appears to be contradicting what the bible itself says however there's a deeper layer to the original Jewish conception of God which exonerates Paul. You can see evidence of this more complicated concept of God in Exodus 19:3:

Exodus 19:3
And Moses went up unto God, and the Lord called unto him out of the mountain, saying, Thus shalt thou say to the house of Jacob, and tell the children of Israel;

Notice how it says that Moses went up to God, and then the Lord called out to him. The implication is that God and "the Lord" are two separate entities with the Lord acting as the servant or mediator for God. I don't fully understand the intricacies of this concept but if you're interested in learning more about it I highly recommend the book: "The Great Angel: A Study of Israel's Second God" by Margaret Baker. This is the same concept I was referring to in previous posts where I briefly discussed the Jewish-Hellenistic philosopher Philo's musings on the nature of God as well as the intra-Jewish "two powers in heaven" heresy.

The passage from Galatians concludes with a cryptic remark:

Galatians 3:20
A mediator, however, implies more than one party; but God is one.

I suspect this verse suggests Moses is a symbolic representation of the angels/demiurge through his role as a mediator for the law, while Paul reminds the reader that this concept of a second creator god (the demiurge) is metaphorical and not literal. Interestingly enough, this passage could be where the Valentinians derived the idea of Moses as symbolizing the demiurge from:

"Moses, that is, the lawgiver himself," the demiurge: he is "the servant of God who executes his wrath" (page 19 of "The Gnostic Paul")

There's another verse from earlier in Galatians which is interesting in this context as well:

Galatians 1:8
But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed.

Paul says that any other gospel, even a gospel received from "an angel from heaven" is illegitimate. If you understand the context of angel as outlined above then you realize that Paul appears to be making a coded reference to the demiurge, which represents the gospel of psychic Christianity based on the law which was mediated by "angels". If Paul is actually referring to psychic Christianity in this verse then he's explicitly saying it's an illegitimate message. This would be congruent with the symbolism in the rest of the NT that portrays Paul as having received the perfect gnosis through spiritual revelation instead of the law based gnosis that the other disciples received from the earthly Jesus.

2.Colossians 2:16-23 has some clever platonic references which I bolded below:

Colossians 2:16-23
16 Therefore do not let anyone judge you by what you eat or drink, or with regard to a religious festival, a New Moon celebration or a Sabbath day. 17 These are a shadow of the things that were to come; the reality, however, is found in Christ. 18 Do not let anyone who delights in false humility and the worship of angels disqualify you. Such a person also goes into great detail about what they have seen; they are puffed up with idle notions by their unspiritual mind. 19 They have lost connection with the head, from whom the whole body, supported and held together by its ligaments and sinews, grows as God causes it to grow.

20 Since you died with Christ to the elemental spiritual forces of this world, why, as though you still belonged to the world, do you submit to its rules: 21 “Do not handle! Do not taste! Do not touch!”? 22 These rules, which have to do with things that are all destined to perish with use, are based on merely human commands and teachings. 23 Such regulations indeed have an appearance of wisdom, with their self-imposed worship, their false humility and their harsh treatment of the body, but they lack any value in restraining sensual indulgence.

Paul talks about shadows (matter) and reality (form), the head (form) and the body (matter). In verse 23 he closes the passage by saying that the law lacks value in restraining sensual indulgence. Psychic Christians understand "sensual indulgence" as vice/immorality but pneumatic Christians understand it as a purely philosophical statement about being overly reliant on sensory instead of noetic perception. This is what Paul was referring to earlier in 1 Corinthians 1:22:

1 Corinthians 1:22
For the Jews require a sign, and the Greeks seek after wisdom:

Jews (psychic Christians) are carnal and primarily perceive by seeing or sensing hence they need "signs", Greeks (pneumatic Christians) are spiritual and perceive things intellectually/conceptually. This is the kind of "sensuality" that Paul was actually talking about. Psychic Christians are fixated on sensuality in the sense of sexual immorality because they're carnally oriented and don't realize the abstract meaning of things like "fornication" (which carried a connotation of prostitution back then). As for the esoteric meaning of fornication, it's related to the original Simonian Helena myth where Helena got lost for many lifetimes in the material realm and was then found by Simon as a prostitute in a brothel in Tyre. The implication being that fornication/prostitution is a metaphor for being lost in the realm of matter (the brothel) and forgetting the true noetic reality. Now consider this verse:

1 Corinthians 5:1
It is reported commonly that there is fornication among you, and such fornication as is not so much as named among the Gentiles, that one should have his father's wife.

This verse is nominally talking about a man sleeping with his father's wife but if you understand that "Paul" is actually Simon Magus then the true meaning is revealed. In the Helena Myth, Simon (representing nous) plays the "father"*** and Helena as his first thought is the "mother" (of all material creation). So if you understand the underlying Simonian context then the esoteric meaning of this verse is that pneumatic Christians are guilty of "fornication" when they lose themselves with the "father's wife" which refers to the "mother" Helena who represents the realm of matter. Again, this isn't intended to be understood as a religious, moralistic stricture but rather as a philosophical truism. Also note where the verse suggests that "such fornication" is not tolerated amongst the "Gentiles" which implies that it does happen amongst non-Gentiles (that is, psychic Christians), thus it's making a secondary statement about the proclivity of psychic Christians for mistaking material reality for noetic reality.

Now that we're aware of what Paul means by "philosophy" let's examine the following passage:

1 Corinthians 2:1-8
2 And I, brethren, when I came to you, came not with excellency of speech or of wisdom, declaring unto you the testimony of God. 2 For I determined not to know any thing among you, save Jesus Christ, and him crucified. 3 And I was with you in weakness, and in fear, and in much trembling. 4 And my speech and my preaching was not with enticing words of man's wisdom, but in demonstration of the Spirit and of power: 5 That your faith should not stand in the wisdom of men, but in the power of God. 6 Howbeit we speak wisdom among them that are perfect: yet not the wisdom of this world, nor of the princes of this world, that come to nought: 7 But we speak the wisdom of God in a mystery, even the hidden wisdom, which God ordained before the world unto our glory: 8 Which none of the princes of this world knew: for had they known it, they would not have crucified the Lord of glory.

The NT was originally written in Koine Greek. The word for wisdom in Greek is "sophia", therefore the original Koine Greek version of this passage would have used the word sophia instead of wisdom. Sophia is the same word used in the word philosophy (in Greek, φιλοσοφία/philosophia), that is, "the love of wisdom". Paul is using "wisdom" in this passage to refer to different kinds of philosophies, one worldly and the other divine. There's a few interesting points about the above passage:

1.Throughout the first half of this passage Paul thrice de-emphasizes the role of mundane wisdom for understanding God, however in 1 Corinthians 2:6 he implicitly acknowledges "the wisdom of this world" is being taught to the lower psychic Christians while overtly claiming the perfect (pneumatic) Christians are being taught the wisdom of God. The fact that psychic Christians are taught the wisdom of this world (Jewish law) indirectly confirms that orthodox Christianity is in fact, the lower message of Christianity (Orthodox Christianity is generally pro-law, they often quote Matthew 5:17-20 to support this).

Also note that the phrase "yet not the wisdom of this world, nor of the princes of this world, that come to nought (nothing)" is usually interpreted as meaning uselessness but when esoterically read this verse is actually making a philosophical statement about the nature of matter ("this world"), which is constantly changing, coming into being and passing away, hence it "comes to nought", spirit OTOH is eternal and unchanging, hence it never "comes to nought" but rather always "is".

2.This passage suggests three levels of teaching which correlates with the Valentinian three part categorization system:

The wisdom of man (that is, Jewish law) => hylic
The power of God => psychic
The wisdom of God => pneumatic

The "power of God" seems to be related to the "signs and wonders" mentioned throughout the NT. According to the NT, signs and wonders are things like exorcism, healing, speaking in tongues etc. These things typically involve the body/corporeality in some fashion, thus they're carnal/psychic oriented. This connection between "signs and wonders" and psychic orientation is explicitly made in the story of Jesus healing the nobleman's son of Capernaum:

John 4:48
“Unless you people see signs and wonders,” Jesus told him, “you will never believe.”

This story indirectly qualifies pneumaticness through implying psychics have a lower degree of understanding. Ironically it only appears in John which is the most pneumatic of the four gospels. Now, pay special attention to the following verse:

1 Corinthians 2:4
And my speech and my preaching was not with enticing words of man's wisdom, but in demonstration of the Spirit and of power:

Paul talks about his speech and his preaching in this verse. In the Koine Greek version Paul uses the word "logos" for speech and "kerygma" for preaching****. The word "logos" implies a more technical and sophisticated kind of argumentation (happening within a private context), meanwhile "kerygma" means a (public) proclamation, especially regarding the basic points of a doctrine. So Paul is openly admitting he has two teachings, but this distinction between "speech" and "preaching" is easy to overlook. In the latter half of the verse Paul goes on to mention "Spirit" and "power". Notice how "Spirit" lines up with "speech" while "power" lines up with "preaching". The implication is that "speech" is the higher pneumatic teaching while "preaching" is the lower psychic teaching. Note that Paul mentions "Spirit"/"speech" before "power"/"preaching" which suggests the pneumatic teaching is more important than the psychic teaching. In the following verse Paul suggests a progression in faith from "the wisdom of man" (hylic) to "the power of God" (psychic):

1 Corinthians 2:5
That your faith should not stand in the wisdom of men, but in the power of God.

After which he talks about speaking the wisdom of God amongst the perfect (pneumatic):

1 Corinthians 2:6
Howbeit we speak wisdom among them that are perfect: yet not the wisdom of this world, nor of the princes of this world, that come to nought:

Which he connects with the idea of "Spirit" a few verses later:

1 Corinthians 2:10
But God hath revealed them unto us by his Spirit: for the Spirit searcheth all things, yea, the deep things of God.

The phrase "God hath revealed them unto us by his Spirit" seems to be pre-figuring what Paul says in Galatians 1:12 about a special (pneumatic) gospel received through spiritual revelation. The line: "for the Spirit searcheth all things, yea, the deep things of God" is likely referring to the "hidden wisdom" mentioned earlier in 1 Corinthians 2:7.

1 Corinthians 2:6-7
7 But we speak the wisdom of God in a mystery, even the hidden wisdom, which God ordained before the world unto our glory:

Regarding "hidden wisdom", this seems like another platonic reference which can be seen where Paul juxtaposes worldly wisdom against hidden wisdom; what's worldly is visible since the world/realm of matter concerns all that can be seen or sensed, while the hidden wisdom is implicitly invisible therefore it's related to nous/spirit/form which can only be mentally perceived. As you can see now from the overall passage, Paul is outlining the classic three part categorization system in a very subtle way.

3.Recall the gnostic Christians had a very "Sophia"-centric theology (referring to the Sophia/Helena myth) which they claimed they learned from Paul. It's ironic the original Koine Greek version of 1 Corinthians 2:6-8 (a letter written by Paul) explicitly mentions "sophia" (wisdom) within a special context related to the "perfect" (pneumatic Christians). Therefore the canonical NT directly references the gnostic Sophia myth but it's been lost in translation all these years:

1 Corinthians 2:6
6 Σοφίαν (sophia/wisdom) δὲ λαλοῦμεν ἐν τοῖς τελείοις, σοφίαν (sophia/wisdom) δὲ οὐ τοῦ αἰῶνος τούτου οὐδὲ τῶν ἀρχόντων τοῦ αἰῶνος τούτου τῶν καταργουμένων·

We speak wisdom (sophia), however, among those who are full grown, yet a wisdom (sophia) not of this world nor of the rulers of this world who are coming to nothing.

https://www.greekbible.com/1-corinthians/2/6

While on this topic, I'm going to elaborate on the original Simonian Helena myth and how it relates to this:

Helena (1), said to have been the companion of SIMON Magus. According to Justin Martyr (Apol. i. 26) and Irenaeus (i. 23, p. 99), who possibly makes use of a lost work of Justin's, she was a prostitute whom Simon had purchased from a brothel at Tyre and led about, holding her up to the veneration of his disciples. Giving himself out to be the Supreme Power and the Father above all, he taught, says Irenaeus, that "she was the first conception of his mind, the mother of all things, by whom in the beginning he conceived the thought of making the angels and archangels; for that this Conception proceeded forth from him and, knowing her father's wishes, descended to the lower world, and produced the angels and powers, by whom also he said that this world was made. But after she had produced them, she was detained by them through envy . . .

https://ccel.org/ccel/wace/biodict.html ... on%20Magus

In the Helena myth Helena is the first thought (ennoea) of Simon which is a motif that Simon borrowed from the Greek myth of Athena being born from the forehead of Zeus (excerpt from the same source above):

The honour paid to Helena by the followers of Simon was known to Celsus, who says (v. 62) that certain Simonians were also called Heleniani, from Helena, or else from a teacher Helenus. We are told also by Irenaeus and Hippolytus that the Simonians had images of Simon as Jupiter and of Helen as Minerva, which they honoured, calling the former lord, the latter lady. This adaptation of the myth of Athene springing from the head of Zeus to the alleged relation of Ennoea to the first Father is of a piece with the appropriation of other Grecian myths by these heretics.

In Greek mythology Athena is the Goddess of wisdom (sophia), therefore in a roundabout way Helena is Athena, Athena is Sophia and Sophia is Helena. Notably the orthodox patristic source Irenaeus complained that the gnostic Christians were fond of using fables and mythology, which is something they probably inherited from Paul (Simon Magus). Keep in mind that Simon Magus himself was a hellenophile and even considered works like Homer's Odyssey as religious texts, so it's possible that "Helena" is actually a veiled homage to Greek culture (the word for Greece in Greek is Ἑλλάς, "Hellas", hence "Helena":

These ancient Greek tribes conquered ancient Thessaly, and other Greek cities, and the people of these conquered areas came to be known as “Hellenes”, and their territory, “Hellas” (Ellas-Ἑλλάς).

And so, Greeks were known as the “Hellenes” of “Hellas”, until the onset of Christianity (The Byzantine period), when the name “Hellenes” smacked of pagan rituals, idolatry, a belief in Zeus and the worshiping of the twelve gods of Olympus.

https://greekerthanthegreeks.com/hellas ... be-called/

The idea of Paul actually being the hellenophile Simon Magus would also explain why Paul uses Greeks in such a positive manner throughout his cipher, frequently associating them with wisdom (Sophia/Athena).

4.1 Corinthians 2:6 also appears to contain a coded reference to the demiurge/the archons:

Corinthians 2:6
Howbeit we speak wisdom among them that are perfect: yet not the wisdom of this world, nor of the princes of this world, that come to nought

In the gnostic Sophia myth, the fallen Sophia gives birth to the Demiurge who in turn creates the seven archons (planets) which control the realm of matter. Below is a partial excerpt of the story from a book in the Nag Hammadi called "The Apocryphon of John". Note that this book was used by the Sethian sect and not by the Valentinians, so some details might not reflect authentic Valentinian doctrine although the overall Sophia myth is pretty similar amongst all the gnostic sects:

...Sophia saw what her desire produced.
It changed into the form of a dragon with a lion’s head
And eyes flashing lightning bolts.
She cast him far from her,
Outside of the realm of the immortal beings
So that they could not see him.

[She had created him in ignorance.]...

The Fashioning of This World
Yadabaoth united with the thoughtlessness (aponoia) within him.
He begot ruling authorities (exousia)
Modeling them on the incorruptible realms above.

The first is Athoth
The second is Harmas [called the eye of flame]
The third is Kalilaumbri
The fourth is Yabel
The fifth is Adonaiu [called Sabaoth]
The sixth is Cain [called the sun]
The seventh is Abel

The eighth is Abrisene
The ninth is Yobel
The tenth is Armupiel
The eleventh is Melcheir-adonein
The twelfth is Belias
Who rules over the very depth of Hades.

He made the first seven rulers to reign in the seven spheres of heaven.
He made the next five rulers to reign in the five depths of the abyss...

http://www.gnosis.org/naghamm/apocjn-davies.html

Note that the demiurge is described as being in the form of a dragon with a lion's head. This is significant for a few reasons which will require its own lengthy digression:

*The demiurge could be a zodiacal reference
The solar half of the zodiac (Leo, Virgo, Libra, Scorpio, Sagittarius, Capricorn) begins with Leo and ends with Capricorn, Leo of course is the lion and Capricorn is the sea goat. Thus we could use the lion's head from Leo and the sea goat's body from Capricorn to create a creature that looks like a lion headed dragon. Therefore the demiurge could be an allegorical way of describing the solar half of the zodiac, which is ironically where the Moon (Luna/Helena/Sophia) lacks a domicile, hence the Moon has fallen into a strange place which reflects the events of the Sophia myth.

The solar half of the zodiac closely (but not perfectly) aligns with the material half of the Thema Mundi which is Cancer, Leo, Virgo, Libra, Scorpio, Sagittarius and Capricorn (technically Cancer and Capricorn are in both the material and spiritual halves of the TM since they represent the two inflection points where spirit turns into matter [Cancer ascendant/birth] and matter turns back into spirit [Capricorn descendant/death]). Notice how the sign Leo (the demiurge) occupies the second house of the TM and comes after the sign Cancer (Sophia) which could symbolize the demiurge "being born" from Sophia. Regarding the second house, Valens assigns it the following meanings:

II Life, the Gate of Hades, shadowy, giving and receiving, association

https://www.csus.edu/indiv/r/rileymt/Ve ... entire.pdf, page 80

The Gate of Hades is an interesting signification. I've heard of the second house being associated with this before but I don't know the reasoning behind it. Is it possible that "Hades" could represent a deeper ingress into the material world? The gnostics essentially believed the material realm was hell/hades itself so it would make sense that the demiurge (as Leo) is "guarding" the Gate of Hades in the TM. This interpretation is reinforced by the fact that Leo symbolizes kings which is congruent with how the gnostics regarded the demiurge as the tyrant king of this world. The idea of the demiurge as an allegorized depiction of the solar half of the zodiac makes a lot of sense but I do admit it's speculative.

*The demiurge could be related to the Greek myth of Heracles fighting the Nemean lion

The Nemean Lion was a legendary creature in Greek mythology that ravaged the area of Nemea. Its fur was impenetrable by the weapons of humans and hence, was unstoppable. It was considered to be the child of Typhon and Echidna, father and mother of all monsters. Other accounts mention Zeus and Selene as its parents.

The Nemean lion is described as a tyrant and some accounts say it's the child of Zeus and Selene (which means the Moon) which sounds suspiciously similar to the gnostic Sophia myth in terms of the lion-headed demiurge's behavior and also its mother Sophia/Helena/Luna*****. It also resembles the zodiacal symbolism I outlined above with regards to Leo and Cancer.

Slaying the Nemean Lion was the first task that King Eurystheus asked of the demigod Heracles during the myth of the Labours of Heracles. One version has it that the lion kidnapped women from Nemea and kept them in its lair...

Heracles is a demigod so he's half man and half god which is like Jesus who's also half man and half god. Heracles struggles against the Nemean lion while Jesus struggles against the lion-headed demiurge. Furthermore the lion kidnapped women and kept them in its lair, which sounds similar to how Sophia was trapped in the realm of matter by her offspring the lion-headed demiurge.

Heracles tracked down the lion and tried to kill it by shooting arrows. He realised though that it was no use because of its impenetrable fur. He then waited until the lion entered its lair from one of the two entrances. He then blocked off the second entrance, and entered the cave as well. There, he managed to kill the lion by strangling it with his bare hands.

Heracles kills a monstrous lion in a cave. The symbolism of a cave wouldn't be lost on the explicitly platonically influenced Valentinians. Recall the gnostic Christians borrowed the concept of the demiurge (including the term "demiurge" itself) from Plato's Timaeus. So read symbolically, the demigod Heracles goes into a cave (the realm of matter) to slay its ruler which is a lion. This sounds a lot like the gnostic Sophia myth where Christ in the noetic pleroma is dispatched to the world of matter (Plato's cave) to save humanity from its ruler the lion-headed demiurge.

He then tried to remove the skin from the lion but his knife was unable to cut it. After a lot of effort, the goddess Athena decided to help him, and told him to use one of the lion's claws to skin the creature. Heracles emerged victorious on the thirtieth day after he had met the boy.

https://www.greekmythology.com/Myths/Mo ... _lion.html

Athena (Sophia) makes a surprise appearance and helps Heracles by telling him to use the lion's own claws to skin the creature. This loosely resembles how Sophia uses the lion-headed demiurge's own creation Adam to sabotage the demiurge's prison world by hiding light/consciousness in him:

But Sophia remains present, and in her resurgent power she brings great beauty and spiritual potential to the Earthly realm and its inhabitants. Witnessing the irresponsible creation of the world by her errant offspring, Sophia conceals Consciousness in the body of the demiurge’s first man, “Adam,??? and then brings it into the world as “Eve.???

https://www.gaia.com/article/worlds-sou ... yth-sophia

In the original Nemean lion myth Heracles emerges victorious on the 30th day after he met the boy. There's about 29.5 days between new moons, the new moon of course is the conjunction (syzygy) between the Sun and the Moon which represent form and matter respectively, their reunion suggesting the lack of separation between the viewer and the viewed (that is, enlightenment). Is it possible the Heracles Nemean lion myth itself might have the same underlying platonic meaning that the gnostic Christians were (possibly) using this myth to convey? To reinforce this idea, the myth does reference the syzygy in an indirect fashion through Selene/Moon and the Nemean lion/Sun. The existence of syzygy symbolism in this myth would be another significant point since the syzygy was an extremely important concept to the gnostic Christians.

In conclusion, there's a strong thematic overlap between the gnostic Sophia myth and the Nemean lion myth across numerous points. The two myths don't match up perfectly (the attributes of the gnostic Sophia are split up among different characters in the Nemean lion myth) but you can still see clear thematic resemblances. I also think the Heracles myths are potentially zodiacally derived themselves (Heracle's twelve labors?) which would explain why there's common thematic similarities between the Nemean lion story, the gnostic Sophia myth and the symbolism represented by the solar half of the zodiac in relation to the TM. Likewise, if you read through some of the books in the Nag Hammadi it's obvious they're allegorically describing astrological concepts. Now having finally explained the possible origins and symbolism of the demiurge concept, here's how it's connected to 1 Corinthians 2:6:

1 Corinthians 2:6
Howbeit we speak wisdom among them that are perfect: yet not the wisdom of this world, nor of the princes of this world, that come to nought

The demiurge is connected with Leo which symbolizes kings and the demiurge was considered the tyrant king of the world among the gnostics. The verse above mentions "princes" which implicitly suggests the existence of a king, which would be the lion-headed demiurge who created the seven "princes" (planets) to control the material world. Note that in the original Koine-Greek version the word used for princes is "archonton" which means lords. I'm not extremely familiar with Koine-Greek so I don't know if archonton carries the same nuance as princes but I'm assuming it does since the KJV compilers decided to use this word. So this verse (which also mentions "Sophia/wisdom") implies a king who rules the world with his princes/archons. There's another verse which reinforces this interpretation of "princes of this world" which I'm going to go over now:

Ephesians 6:12
12 For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places.

This verse has multiple nuances:

*Paul is clearly describing the seven planets here, which rule the world (realm of matter) and are located in high places, that is the sky. To be more specific, I understand "spiritual wickedness in high places" as a reference to the seven deadly sins (considered as ailments of the soul) which are represented by the seven classical planets. This is probably the same concept underlying the story of Mary Magdalene being exorcised of seven devils in Luke 8:2.

*The conventional understanding of the phrase: "of the darkness of this world" implies ethical/moral depravity but I think it's a coded statement about the inherent nature of matter (which is "dark") that's intended to reinforce Paul's usage of "world" in a philosophical/platonic sense. Recall that Saturn (symbolizing matter) is associated with darkness/the color black, meanwhile the Sun (symbolizing nous/spirit) is associated with light.

*Paul begins Ephesians 6:12 by clarifying that the "principalities and powers" aren't flesh and blood, meanwhile the conventional interpretation of 1 Corinthians 2:6 is that "princes of this world" are referring to people. However if "principalities and powers" are the same "princes of this world" mentioned in 1 Corinthians 2:6 then those "princes of this world" can't be referring to actual people. Note that the original Koine Greek NT uses the words "archas" for principalities and "archonton (sharing the same root word as "archas")" for princes, which carries over in the English translations as well where a "principality" is the domain ruled by a "prince". Therefore Paul appears to be referencing the seven classical planets in both 1 Corinthians 2:6 and Ephesians 6:12. Pages 118-119 and 128 in "The Gnostic Paul" touch further on this, especially regarding the "prince of the power of the air" mentioned in Ephesians 2:2 and how it relates to the demiurge:

https://archive.org/details/elaine-page ... aul_202007

Regarding the seven classical planets, I want to clarify that the gnostic Christians had a sophisticated cosmology which wasn't purely astrological. For example, consider the Sophia myth where Sophia gets trapped in the realm of matter by the archons/the seven classical planets, but how can this be if Sophia herself is represented by the Moon which is one of the seven classical planets? The answer is that the seven classical planets are only material representations of eternal pre-existent qualities within the invisible noetic cosmic soul (Robert Schmidt explains this well in his "Image and Original" lectures). Therefore the pre-existent concept of Sophia can be represented by the Moon in certain contexts, but Sophia isn't the Moon itself. Also the gnostic Christians had a nuanced understanding of the archons/planets similar to the Catholic Church with its doctrine of the seven deadly sins and the seven Catholic virtues, they didn't believe the seven classical planets were completely bad.

In conclusion, Colossians 2:8 is not referring to secular philosophies (like Platonism) but rather to Jewish law which itself is being used as a complex metaphor for entanglement in the realm of matter, which in turn supports the gnostic interpretation of Christianity. Note that when I first came across the Valentinian esoteric exegeses of Paul's letters in "The Gnostic Paul" I had suspected they were arbitrary interpretations of verses that were twisted to fit particular meanings, however when one considers the intricate web of underlying historical, textual and theological points I've covered so far it suggests there's a real, legitimate gnostic undercurrent to orthodox Christianity.

*When read between the lines, one shouldn't take Paul's condemnation of Jewish culture too literally. Within the context of Christianity, Judaism (Saturn/Mercury) is being used as a foil against which to contrast the message of Christianity (Sun/Jupiter). Christianity is a message told from the perspective of Pisces and opposing archetypes are being used to describe each other. Paul's strongly worded criticisms of Jewish culture should be read in this figurative, relative sense instead of as a serious condemnation of Judaism. Likewise, I think on the grand cosmic scale everything is about duality, the yin and yang, matter and form etc etc, so "Judaism" is just as necessary as "Christianity".

**I primarily disagree with the author's ultimate conclusion that Simon Magus was not Paul. IMO the author gets mired down in overly-speculative positions towards the second half of the series regarding specific hypothetical textual influences that he believes disprove that Paul was actually Simon Magus while simultaneously glossing over the numerous odd historical/theological/physical similarities between the two personalities. It felt as if the author was missing the forest for the trees. It's important to note however that the author is approaching the issue from a purely conventional perspective, seeing the NT as being a genuinely conflicting body of literature with its constituent parts organically interpolated throughout time by different parties as opposed to my position (not fully mutually exclusive with the former), which is that the final version of the NT we possess was a deliberately structured, interpolated and harmonized piece of literature intended to convey a dual message.

***Simon didn't actually see himself as a God (as the Catholic church tried to frame it), rather the Simonians considered "Simon" as a concept. This post talks more about it:

According to one myth about Simon Magus, Dositheus (supposed successor to John the Baptist and contemporary and competing Samaritan c.50 AD) queries Simon: "If you are 'The Standing One' I also will worship you." If Simon claimed to be God, or a god, which deity is it precisely? I was curiously about that both visually or metaphorically: where does 'The Standing One' come from, what does this mean?...

https://earlywritings.com/forum/viewtop ... 14#p157414

****The NT was originally written in Koine Greek, as such the Koine Greek version of the NT captures these subtle nuances the best. I highly recommend this Greek interlinear bible if you're trying to find/clarify esoteric meanings in the text:

https://scripture4all.org/OnlineInterli ... _Index.htm

*****The link between Sophia, Helena, Luna and Selene is further explained in this excerpt:

Baur has suggested (Christliche Gnosis, p. 308) that Justin in his account of the honours paid at Samaria to Simon and Helena may have been misled by the honours there paid to Phoenician sun and moon divinities of similar names. On this and other cognate questions see SIMON. Suffice it here to say that one strong fact in support of his theory, viz. that in the Clementine Recognitions (ii. 14, preserved in the Latin of Rufinus) the companion of Simon is called Luna, may have originated in an early error of transcription. She is Helena in the corresponding passage of the Clementine Homilies, ii. 23; and we find elsewhere the false reading Selene for Helene, e.g. in Augustine (de Haer. 1).

https://ccel.org/ccel/wace/biodict.html ... on%20Magus