Almost every post will start bringing attention to the fact that Solus Dominus,
The One and Only True Master of Spiritual Enlightenment and Gnostic-Christian
Prophet, cannot continue to Enlighten the world unless there is the right woman
in his life. This is Vision, Revelation, and Prophecy. No woman in the life of the
Master = No continuation of Spiritual Visions, Revelation and Prophesies.
There is a JOURNAL below, That is for sale on the Amazon website.
This is the first two pages of a very long Introduction.
Remember that Gnosticism is 2,000 + years old, and is very popular in
2023 and growing rapidly, But Solus Dominus, The One and Only True
Master of Spiritual Enlightenment and Gnostic-Christian Prophet, and
Master teaches Reformed Gnosticism, Reformed through the Revelation
and visions experienced personally by Solus Dominus.
Gnosticism is the the most compatible religion / religious philosophy, rituals
and protocol, with Spiritual BDSM,
GNOSTICISM, GNOSTICS,
AND THE GNOSTIC BIBLE.
The gnostics were religious mystics who proclaimed gnosis, knowl-
• edge, as the way of salvation. To know oneself truly allowed gnosJL. tic men and women to know god directly, without any need for
the mediation of rabbis, priests, bishops, imams, or other religious officials.
1. Throughout the present volume we have tried to avoid unnecessary capitalization of the
word god and the names of personified spiritual powers and aeons. We are aware that the word
god may be used as a name for the divine, but it frequently functions as a general term for the
divine, so that even when "god" appears to be a name, it retains its primary nature as a term
signifying the concept of divinity. For the same reason, other names of divine expressions, such
as divine forethought, afterthought, and wisdom, are likewise left uncapitalized. Conversely, for
the sake of clarity, when the Greek word "Sophia" is used for wisdom, that is capitalized, as are
other names that are transliterated directly from other languages. We also want to avoid the
common practice of singling out a particular deity, for example, the Judeo-Christian-Islamic
deity, for the exclusive honor of the capitalized name "God," while other deities are relegated to
the status of mere "gods" and "goddesses." We do not wish to limit the divine by restricting
deity through name or selectivity. Traditionally the name and face of the divine are essentially
unknowable, and so it is in this volume.
INTRODUCTION 2
Religious officials, who were not pleased with such freedom and independence, condemned the gnostics as heretical and a threat to the well-being and
good order of organized religion. Heresiologists—heresy hunters of a bygone
age who busied themselves exposing people judged dangerous to the Christian masses—fulminated against what they maintained was the falsehood of
the gnostics. Nonetheless, from the challenge of this perceived threat came
much of the theological reflection that has characterized the intellectual history of the Christian church.
The historical roots of the gnostics reach back into the time of the Greeks,
Romans, and Second Temple Jews. Some gnostics were Jewish, others GrecoRoman, and many were Christian. There were Mandaean gnostics from Iraq
and Iran; Manichaeans from Europe, the Middle East, North Africa, and all
the way to China; Islamic gnostics in the Muslim world; and Cathars in western Europe. The heyday of their influence extends from the second century CE
through the next several centuries. Their influence and their presence, some
say, continue to the present day.
Gnostics sought knowledge and wisdom from many different sources,
and they accepted insight wherever it could be found. Like those who came
before them, they embraced a personified wisdom, Sophia, understood variously and taken as the manifestation of divine insight. To gain knowledge of
the deep things of god, gnostics read and studied diverse religious and philosophical texts. In addition to Jewish sacred literature, Christian documents,
and Greco-Roman religious and philosophical texts, gnostics studied religious works from the Egyptians, Mesopotamians, Zoroastrians, Muslims, and
Buddhists. All such sacred texts disclosed truths, and all were to be celebrated
for their wisdom.
Gnostics loved to explore who they were and from where they had come,
and hence they read creation stories such as the opening chapters of Genesis
with vigor and enthusiasm. Like others, they recognized that creation stories
not only claim to describe what was, once upon a time, but also suggest what
is, now, in our own world. The gnostics carried to their reading a conviction
that the story of creation was not a happy one. There is, they reasoned,
something fundamentally wrong with the world, there is too much evil and
pain and death in the world, and so there must have been something wrong
with creation.
Consequently, gnostics provided innovative and oftentimes disturbing interpretations of the creation stories they read. They concluded that a distinction, often a dualistic distinction, must be made between the transcendent,
INTRODUCTION 3
Spiritual deity, who is surrounded by aeons and is all wisdom and light, and
the creator of the world, who is at best incompetent and at worst malevolent.
Yet through everything, they maintained, a spark of transcendent knowledge,
wisdom, and light persists within people who are in the know. The transcendent deity is the source of that enlightened life and light. The meaning of the
creation drama, when properly understood, is that human beings—gnostics
in particular—derive their knowledge and light from the transcendent god,
but through the mean-spirited actions of the demiurge, the creator of the
world, they have been confined within this world. (The platonic aspects of this
imagery are apparent.) Humans in this world are imprisoned, asleep,
drunken, fallen, ignorant. They need to find themselves—to be freed, awakened, made sober, raised, and enlightened. In other words, they need to return
to gnosis.
This distinction between a transcendent god and the creator of the world
is all the more remarkable when it is recalled that many of the earliest gnostic
thinkers who made such a distinction seem to have been Jews. What might
have led them to such a conclusion that seems to fly in the face of Jewish
monotheistic affirmations? Could it have been the experience of the political
and social trauma of the time, culminating in the destruction of the Second
Temple in 70 CE, which prompted serious reflection upon the problem of evil
and stimulated the production of Jewish apocalyptic compositions? Could it
have been the reflection of hellenistic Jewish thinkers who were schooled in
Judaica and Greek philosophy and recognized the deep philosophical and theological issues surrounding the transcendence of the high god and the need
for cosmic intermediaries to be involved with this world? Could it have been
that among the creative Jewish minds, representative of the rich diversity of
Judaism during the first centuries before and of the Common Era, who boldly
addressed the real challenges of Jewish mysticism before Kabbalah, of the wisdom and Hokhmah of god, of world-wrenching apocalyptic, of theodicy and
evil in the world, there were those who finally drew gnostic conclusions? We
know the names of some of these creative Jewish people: John the baptizer,
who initiated Jesus of Nazareth and preached apocalyptic ideas in the vicinity
of Qumran, where Covenanters and Essenes practiced their separatist, ethical
dualism; Simon Magus and Dositheos, who lived about the same time as Jesus
and advocated their ideas in Samaria and beyond; Philo of Alexandria, a hellenistic Jewish thinker who provided Greek philosophical perspectives on the
Hebrew Bible; Rabbi Elisha ben Abuya, nicknamed Aher, "Other," who dabbled
in dualism; and there were more. We will encounter some of these Jewish...
