Aeons and Angels

[g_n_o_s_i_s]

I'm starting a new thread on Angels and Aeons that came from a couple of posts by Xpistis sopheiaX and Soulgazer talking about Angels in the "Who believe Jesus is God" thread.

""Angels" are not something that we would necessarily think are a good entity, as we don't consider them particuarily trustworthy"

SG, I've seen you mention this before. I'm pretty curious, what is this based on?

They are created beings that come from multiple places, sometimes just from man's imagination.

Now the prime parent Yaldabaoth, since he possessed great authorities, created heavens for each of his offspring through verbal expression - created them beautiful, as dwelling places - and in each heaven he created great glories, seven times excellent. Thrones and mansions and temples, and also chariots and virgin spirits up to an invisible one and their glories, each one has these in his heaven; mighty armies of gods and lords and angels and archangels - countless myriads - so that they might serve. The account of these matters you will find in a precise manner in the first Account of Oraia.

~On the Origin of the World

On account of the reality of the authorities, (inspired) by the spirit of the father of truth, the great apostle - referring to the "authorities of the darkness" - told us that "our contest is not against flesh and blood; rather, the authorities of the universe and the spirits of wickedness." I have sent this (to you) because you inquire about the reality of the authorities. Their chief is blind; because of his power and his ignorance and his arrogance he said, with his power, "It is I who am God; there is none apart from me." When he said this, he sinned against the entirety. And this speech got up to incorruptibility; then there was a voice that came forth from incorruptibility, saying, "You are mistaken, Samael" - which is, "god of the blind."
His thoughts became blind. And, having expelled his power - that is, the blasphemy he had spoken - he pursued it down to chaos and the abyss, his mother, at the instigation of Pistis Sophia. And she established each of his offspring in conformity with its power - after the pattern of the realms that are above, for by starting from the invisible world the visible world was invented.~Hypostasis of the Archons

"And the arrogant one took a power from his mother. For he was ignorant, thinking that there existed no other except his mother alone. And when he saw the multitude of the angels which he had created, then he exalted himself above them.~Secret John

My understanding from the Nag Hammadi Library is that anything above Yaldabaoth are Aeons and not Angels. Angels are created beings by Yaldabaoth and/or other Archons and thus belong to Yaldabaoths realm. Technically Yaldabaoth is an Aeon as he is emanated and not created, even though badly so. Thoughts, ideas or anything that would change my mind in my understanding?

g

 

[Ran77]

Would you briefly explain the difference between an angel and an aeon?

 

[g_n_o_s_i_s]

Would you briefly explain the difference between an angel and an aeon?

An Aeon is an emanation (bringing forth from oneself) of God while an Angel is created. An Aeon would be an aspect of God. Thus in Gnosticism the Pleroma (the sum totality of all Aeons or as translated in the bible, fullness) is God proper. An Angel is created as a helper of Yaldabaoth and/or other Archons and are beings in their own right. At least that is my understanding of the two.

 

[Ran77]

An Aeon is an emanation (bringing forth from oneself) of God while an Angel is created. An Aeon would be an aspect of God. Thus in Gnosticism the Pleroma (the sum totality of all Aeons or as translated in the bible, fullness) is God proper. An Angel is created as a helper of Yaldabaoth and/or other Archons and are beings in their own right. At least that is my understanding of the two.

Okay. Thank you.

 

[Soulgazer]

An angel is a created being; any Aeon may create one. That is why they are not considered trustworthy in early Judeo Christianity. In the book of Acts, Stephen is stoned to death, for "blasphemy against Moses" for saying that angels brought Moses the law.

My understanding from the Nag Hammadi Library is that anything above Yaldabaoth are Aeons and not Angels.

Anything above an angel is it's creator. Yaldoboath, came into being from fallen wisdom without love, is the "God of Justice", or "Samael", the "blind god", a product of the imagination of those that practice "blind faith". The Aeons and Archons are metephors for the human condition, and an attempt to explain why we are the way we are, and how to fix it.

The "Hypostasis of the Archons" was an expansion of Paul's teaching about not fighting flesh and blood, but spirits in "high places". The highest place a spirit may hold a throne is in the human soul, ala "Exegesis on the Soul". Thus Stephen was not killed by flesh and blood, but by the spirits inhabiting flesh and blood, angels of "Samael".

It's all part of the chaos of free will of all thoughts existing in the mind of the Monad, but that's a different thread

 

[Ishraqiyun]

An Aeon is an emanation (bringing forth from oneself) of God while an Angel is created. An Aeon would be an aspect of God. Thus in Gnosticism the Pleroma (the sum totality of all Aeons or as translated in the bible, fullness) is God proper. An Angel is created as a helper of Yaldabaoth and/or other Archons and are beings in their own right. At least that is my understanding of the two.

That's my understanding too at least when it comes to the classical Gnostics like the Valentinians , Sethians, and most the other folks whose writings are found in the Nag Hammadi.

 

[Phantasman]

An angel is a created being; any Aeon may create one. That is why they are not considered trustworthy in early Judeo Christianity. In the book of Acts, Stephen is stoned to death, for "blasphemy against Moses" for saying that angels brought Moses the law.

Anything above an angel is it's creator. Yaldoboath, came into being from fallen wisdom without love, is the "God of Justice", or "Samael", the "blind god", a product of the imagination of those that practice "blind faith". The Aeons and Archons are metephors for the human condition, and an attempt to explain why we are the way we are, and how to fix it.

The "Hypostasis of the Archons" was an expansion of Paul's teaching about not fighting flesh and blood, but spirits in "high places". The highest place a spirit may hold a throne is in the human soul, ala "Exegesis on the Soul". Thus Stephen was not killed by flesh and blood, but by the spirits inhabiting flesh and blood, angels of "Samael".

It's all part of the chaos of free will of all thoughts existing in the mind of the Monad, but that's a different thread

So, basically when people talk about Satan, archangels, angels and demons and such, it is really an uneducated or simple way to describe spiritual entities. The true wisdom of what spirituality is was contained in things like the Gospel of Truth, which are backed up by the Apostles scriptures that didn't make the Canonized Bible.

If Jesus said to spread the Gospel, then the NT Gospels are incomplete. I wonder why the scriptures in the NT doesn't mention Archons or Aeons, or do they?

 

[g_n_o_s_i_s]

If Jesus said to spread the Gospel, then the NT Gospels are incomplete. I wonder why the scriptures in the NT doesn't mention Archons or Aeons, or do they?

But oh it does, so many times.

Archons:

Blue Letter Bible - Lexicon

Aion:

Blue Letter Bible - Lexicon

Aionios (from Aion):

Blue Letter Bible - Lexicon

 

[Phantasman]

But oh it does, so many times.

Archons:

Blue Letter Bible - Lexicon

Aion:

Blue Letter Bible - Lexicon

Aionios (from Aion):

Blue Letter Bible - Lexicon

They are not proper (capitalized) in the Lexicon. Aion as meaning time is different than:

"This is the manifestation of the Father and his revelation to his Aeons" -Gospel of Truth.

It is the latter that I wondered why was never in the NT. Archons as rulers, I can see. Archangel seems to tie into the same format (ruling angel).

It just seems that if these words were in the NT, people like Hippolytus wouldn't have had a field day trying to disprove it.

 

[Soulgazer]

So, basically when people talk about Satan, archangels, angels and demons and such, it is really an uneducated or simple way to describe spiritual entities. The true wisdom of what spirituality is was contained in things like the Gospel of Truth, which are backed up by the Apostles scriptures that didn't make the Canonized Bible.

If Jesus said to spread the Gospel, then the NT Gospels are incomplete. I wonder why the scriptures in the NT doesn't mention Archons or Aeons, or do they?

I wouldn't go so far. In order to come up with catholicism, they had to go to the lowest common denominator. A lot of Gnostic writings merely expand on Gospel or Pauline themes with a dab of psychollogy; What is true now, is true then ---- fifty percent of the world is below average without a hope in hell of understanding something as complex as psychollogy.

 

[Phantasman]

I wouldn't go so far. In order to come up with catholicism, they had to go to the lowest common denominator. A lot of Gnostic writings merely expand on Gospel or Pauline themes with a dab of psychollogy; What is true now, is true then ---- fifty percent of the world is below average without a hope in hell of understanding something as complex as psychollogy.

I took classes in psychology and human development. Understanding the human mind, one can say did God create us or did we create God, so the mind needs to experience it's "nirvana" or euphoria through faith. The Bible (especially Revelations) has been a very good Neuro-Linguistic tool. While it works well, it has made the world a better place overall. Though you are correct in that the truth seems to be more of perception from simple acceptance rather than apprehensive seeking. It's not whether we trust God, but how God is given to us.

 

[g_n_o_s_i_s]

They are not proper (capitalized) in the Lexicon. Aion as meaning time is different than:

"This is the manifestation of the Father and his revelation to his Aeons" -Gospel of Truth.

FIRST OF ALL CAPITALIZATION MEANS VERY LITTLE IN BIBLICAL DOCUMENTS AS ALL LETTERS ARE WRITTEN IN UPPERCASE (Just making a point, not screaming at you). Capitalization were made by later scribes according to their idea of what a passage meant.

Some passages that would fit the Gnostic idea of Aeon.

"And be not conformed to this Aeon: but be ye transformed by the renewing of your mind, that ye may prove what [is] that good, and acceptable, and perfect, will of God."

"Howbeit we speak wisdom among them that are perfect: yet not the wisdom of this Aeon, nor of the Archon of this Aeon, that come to nought"

"In whom the god of this Aeon hath blinded the minds of them which believe not, lest the light of the glorious gospel of Christ, who is the image of God, should shine unto them."

I'm going to partially correct my definition of Aeon above. Creation and Yaldy seems to go hand in hand. Both seems to be product of Sophia's emanation.

"And the great angel Eleleth, understanding, spoke to me: "Within limitless realms dwells incorruptibility. Sophia, who is called Pistis, wanted to create something, alone without her consort; and her product was a celestial thing. A veil exists between the world above and the realms that are below; and shadow came into being beneath the veil; and that shadow became matter; and that shadow was projected apart. And what she had created became a product in the matter, like an aborted fetus. And it assumed a plastic form molded out of shadow, and became an arrogant beast resembling a lion. It was androgynous, as I have already said, because it was from matter that it derived."

Opening his eyes, he saw a vast quantity of matter without limit; and he became arrogant, saying, "It is I who am God, and there is none other apart from me". When he said this, he sinned against the entirety. And a voice came forth from above the realm of absolute power, saying, "You are mistaken, Samael" - which is, 'god of the blind'. -- Hyp Arc

"And the Sophia of the Epinoia, being an aeon, conceived a thought from herself and the conception of the invisible Spirit and foreknowledge. She wanted to bring forth a likeness out of herself without the consent of the Spirit, - he had not approved - and without her consort, and without his consideration. And though the person of her maleness had not approved, and she had not found her agreement, and she had thought without the consent of the Spirit and the knowledge of her agreement, (yet) she brought forth. And because of the invincible power which is in her, her thought did not remain idle, and something came out of her which was imperfect and different from her appearance, because she had created it without her consort. And it was dissimilar to the likeness of its mother, for it has another form.

"And when she saw (the consequences of) her desire, it changed into a form of a lion-faced serpent. And its eyes were like lightning fires which flash. She cast it away from her, outside that place, that no one of the immortal ones might see it, for she had created it in ignorance. And she surrounded it with a luminous cloud, and she placed a throne in the middle of the cloud that no one might see it except the holy Spirit who is called the mother of the living. And she called his name Yaltabaoth.-- Apoc John

It is the latter that I wondered why was never in the NT. Archons as rulers, I can see. Archangel seems to tie into the same format (ruling angel).

It just seems that if these words were in the NT, people like Hippolytus wouldn't have had a field day trying to disprove it.

Perhaps that is exactly the problem, the heresy hunters knowing full well they are in there trying their best to diminish the impact of them.

 

[Soulgazer]

I took classes in psychology and human development. Understanding the human mind, one can say did God create us or did we create God, so the mind needs to experience it's "nirvana" or euphoria through faith. The Bible (especially Revelations) has been a very good Neuro-Linguistic tool. While it works well, it has made the world a better place overall. Though you are correct in that the truth seems to be more of perception from simple acceptance rather than apprehensive seeking. It's not whether we trust God, but how God is given to us.

Well, Philip said that God created man, then man returned the favor

 

[Soulgazer]

FIRST OF ALL CAPITALIZATION MEANS VERY LITTLE IN BIBLICAL DOCUMENTS AS ALL LETTERS ARE WRITTEN IN UPPERCASE (Just making a point, not screaming at you). Capitalization were made by later scribes according to their idea of what a passage meant.

NORARETHERESPACESBETWEENWORDSORANYTYPEOFPUNCTUATION


Phantasman; Heresy hunters are the very first anti-chists. Re: Gospel of Mark

 

[g_n_o_s_i_s]

NORARETHERESPACESBETWEENWORDSORANYTYPEOFPUNCTUATION

You are absolutely correct.

 

[Xpistis sopheiaX]

is there any distinction between the functions Aeons and angels carry out? Or is it simply a matter of free will, aeons can choose who they server, and angels only serve their creators?

 

[Soulgazer]

is there any distinction between the functions Aeons and angels carry out? Or is it simply a matter of free will, aeons can choose who they server, and angels only serve their creators?

In practical Jungian terms, Aions fall into overall generalities, where "angels" would be addressed in more specific terms.

Say you wished to quit smoking; there are two Archons involved. The overarching physical addiction, and the overerarching mental addiction. These in turn send their "angels" to stand in the way of your goal. Each "angel" may seem powerful in it's own right, however they are subservient to their individual archons. It's pointless to fight the Mental Archon if an angel is physical and vice versa.

 

[Phantasman]

NORARETHERESPACESBETWEENWORDSORANYTYPEOFPUNCTUATION


Phantasman; Heresy hunters are the very first anti-chists. Re: Gospel of Mark

I tend to agree that the antichrist is something that would not be detected easily and would mislead many through the changing of truth by methods that the mind could easily accept without detection(a redefining of truth).

The mind can receive thoughts of antichrist without even perceiving it. Sort of a Scotoma of sorts where the mind accepts an idea but doesn't see the underlying ruin associated with it.

The mind has the capability to believe anything it is told to, regardless of whether it's factual or not. If one is told over and over that a demon lives in a certain house, they will eventually see it. Once the mind accepts something as real (or true), it has the capability to create a 3D concept of it, mainly because the mind doesn't want to be considered a liar.

I'm not saying demons and angels don't exist, but so many that see them see the sharp teeth or the wings associated with lore, and it becomes real to them if it fits the idea they already created.( why do UFOs always look like saucers?)