The Problem With Esoteric Gnosis & Spiritual Authority Written in January of 2005 at age 25 - slightly revised in early 2012 Call me thick headed but I am still awaiting a concise definition from you of orthodox gnosis... I cannot get my head around your point without a definition nor can I evaluate your statements until I understand how you intend it call me a stubborn mule but help! I wish I could give you the concrete definition that you are looking for, but I am not sure how many more ways I can put this. Orthodoxy is the straightforward literal-historical theology of a given religious group of people. This is the playground that is safe for the multitudes to develop their spiritual walk towards spiritual perfection. Gnosis is the knowing of higher spiritual truths, which are not obvious or known to the multitudes. In fact, they can be quite harmful to the multitudes, because of the all chaos that comes about from conflicting esoteric-spiritual teachings. Although harmful for the multitudes, they can be good for the individual who wishes to advance their path towards perfection now, rather than waiting with the rest of the people. Why live thousands of unnecessarily lifetimes if you can reach the ultimate goal of christhood in a handful? Orthodox gnosis is simply an expression that implies that both traditions, or expressions, are valid and authentic. It is gnosis which builds up orthodox communities. A gnostic does not cling to dogma, but rather expounds upon the mysteries of God, which are contained within a given orthodox tradition. I am not sure that any of this helps or not, but I am essentially saying that orthodox gnosis is not really something that you can label and define. It is a reference to a more universal gnosis that all may accept in their path towards perfection, rather than allowing for multiple versions of gnosis, which divides everyone into conflictive camps. It is thus the unified and diversified gnosis, which Christ commissioned the church with, when he commanded her to make disciples of all nations. Sadly, such gnosis was largely lost, and the church lost her way as she attempted to make converts, by political prostitution and swords. Today, many have put aside their swords, but continue the politics of eternal damnation. Soon, the gnosis will be unveiled to the bride as she awakens to the bridegroom’s call. Then, she will set aside all false orthodox and gnostic traditions, and expound on the full gospel which christ entrusted to her, at the beginning of her commissioning. I wanted to build off one of your responses. I also come from a very exoteric-orthodox  background that embraces very literal-historical interpretations of sacred scripture and linear history. There is no way that I could possibly divorce myself from all the sacred exoteric-orthodox truths that I know to be true. Do not be mistaken, I do not embrace orthodox dogma as absolute truths. I do accept orthodox gnosis. Almost all my entire orthodox life, I lived in fear of demons, devils, false prophet-teachers, deception, etc. I also avoided all esoteric-gnostic knowledge due to the fact that much of it clashed with orthodox dogma. I say all this because it is important to realize that I do have a background in the orthodox-catholic church, whereas it appears that most members on Allan's forums do not, as it is clear from their posts that many possess a shallow knowledge of true orthodox traditions-dogma. Indeed, many of them scoff at orthodox dogma and completely ignore the reality of orthodox gnosis. If not, they would have given my posts a lot more attention and respect than they have. Indeed, almost all of my posts have either been ignored completely, or else dismissed - my gnosis is higher and more elevated than yours or do not bother me with a gnosis that is beneath me, btw here are hundreds of different quotations to make my point - I could also point to frequent references to a few select individuals who have been together for multiple lifetimes as they evolve together to perfection through the essene-nazirene-ebionite traditions. Do not get me wrong, I am not questioning this reality. I am, however, concerned with an elitist orientation and skewed perspective that comes from this. It may be true that James held the highest position of authority, and knowledge, within the original church in Jerusalem. It may also be true that the spirit, or soul-self, of James is here among us in the person of Allan today. It is clear to me that he is indeed who he says he is. It may also be true that Allan has had any number of mystical experiences and memories of his past life as James. It may even be true that Allan currently contains more pure, or higher, gnosis than anyone on this planet at the moment. It does not, however, follow that everything that he writes and speaks of is absolute truth. He has not, to my or the church's knowledge, been commissioned in the manner that the historical Yeshua commissioned the historical James to rule over all matters of doctrine and church relations. The spirit of James resides within Allan, but Allan and James are separate identities, just as the spirit of Elijah resided within John the baptist, though both were separate identities. Furthermore, James guided the flock in Jerusalem, and expounded upon their relationship to the historical Yeshua. Paul, Peter, Thomas, & John expounded upon other sacred truths and traditions that included a more orthodox orientation. In fact, many even had a flavor of mithraicism, hinduism, buddhism and other non-Jewish traditions. What's my point here? Well, I just want to make sure that people realize that almost everyone who outright rejects orthodox gnosis, and perceives Allan's gnosis as absolute authoritative, have had little or no real experience within the orthodox traditions. Are the spirits, our soul-selves, of the other original 11 Apostles walking among us today? Are their perspectives any less important or truthful? Indeed, the spirit of Paul is reportedly walking among us today, surely his insights are noteworthy. Afterall, the orthodox church owes much of its existence to him. And what if the spirit of Origen was here? Would he be so easily dismissed as possessing a lesser gnosis just because he continued to proclaim orthodox gnosis? It is rather clear to me that Origen made enemies and friends within both gnostic and orthodox circles simply because he was an orthodox gnostic who still had possession of the sacred gnosis handed down directly from the apostles. This gnosis put him at odds with both camps because he chose to walk an orthodox gnostic path rather than an exclusive gnostic or orthodox path. This is why, like those of Paul, many of his writings are used by both camps to make their points concerning the original gnosis or dogmas. I am sorry, but it's obvious to me that it is far too early to outright dismiss any gnosis until all things be revealed and manifested in the sons of God again. Til then, we should be far more respectful concerning all gnosis carried by the children of light. But setting spiritual authority aside, allow me to redirect this message back to its original purpose. When I am among exoteric-orthodox circles, almost all esoteric-gnostic knowledge is rejected and condemned. Yet, I can tell you that there are many today, within restorational circles, which possess orthodox gnosis. Many of these restorational apostle-prophets will reject and deny any claim of gnosis, but many of us are beginning to accept the terminology and truth. I am happy to say that many of them are building in the footsteps and gnostic traditions of Paul and Origen. Sadly, some of them stubbornly refuse to accept the ultimate gnosis concerning the redemption of Christ, the restoration & reconciliation of all creation, and instead insist on eternal damnation and separation of the wicked. Nevertheless, they will also come along in due time. When I am among esoteric-gnostic circles, almost all exoteric-orthodox knowledge is rejected and condemned. Most esoteric proponents fall into the same errors of the exoteric proponents. Their truths are exclusively true. All diverging opinions are considered worthless, to them anyways. These elitist groups gather around one another and continually bathe each other's gnosis with praise as if they had somehow arrived to christhood already. It is tragic, really, but true. I have seen it the past few weeks on these forums and among the aspiring disciples of other great gnostics, such as Samael Aun Weor, Abbot George Burke, Aleister Crowley, Etc. In fact, it was just this past week that I ran across this particular paradox. If any of you know anything about Samael Aun Weor and Abbot George Burke, you would know that they, like Allan, considered or perceived their personal gnosis beyond reproach. It is clear from reading their materials that they both highly esteem their gnosis as being complete or flawless. Much of their gnosis is indeed compelling. Yet, Samael Aun Weor matter-of-factly declares the holy spirit to be masculine and absolutely denies any possibility of a feminine nature. Abbot George Burke, however, spends several pages in his autobiography explaining why women can not be ordained to the priesthood for the fact that the holy spirit is feminine & thus requires a male priesthood for proper compatibility. That is not to mention other paradoxes and contradictions that exist between Samael, George, Allan, & others. The ironic thing is that all these sacred truths have been acquired from a lifetime pursuit of esoteric knowledge and practice. It would be very easy to extol the gnosis, of any one particular would-be guru, as perfect and complete, only to later find out that other gnostics contain equally compelling gnosis that is in fact more truthful. Okay, it is time to wrap up this round of rambling. It is one thing to declare the exoteric-outer traditions as the doorway for the multitudes and to describe the esoteric-inner traditions as the path to enlightenment. It is quite another thing to flat out reject orthodox tradition as worthless and inferior. The time will come when all things will be unveiled. Many of you are happy to blindly accept all esoteric truths that you stumble across. That is fine, but do not be shocked if you one day find out that the exoteric-orthodox church rightly rejected much of your messages. The visible-orthodox-exoteric church is the container that was designed to protect the multitudes, especially since self-proclaimed esoteric gurus continually spit out contradicting messages and teach doctrines that can rightfully be considered spiritually harmful to the multitudes. It is true that Yeshua was a radical revolutionary who rejected the exoteric-orthodox traditions of his people and was highly influenced by the esoteric-gnostic communities within Israel. It is also true that he fullfilled the traditions held by the exoteric church, such as atoning for the sins of the world as the lamb of God, and also rose above the elitist mindset of the essenes. Indeed, he is the true catholic, or all-inclusive, savior of the world who calls all of creation towards redemption. While the gnostics of his day continued to extol one another concerning all of their great gnosis and special status, Jesus was out unveiling mysteries to the nations and respecting their traditions. Maybe we should follow his footsteps lest our gnosis become a lost memory of history and the dark ages fall upon us again. I do not object to your allegorical and spiritual interpretations of scriptures. My concern has always been your insistence that the literal-historical interpretations are absolutely worthless from a spiritual and historical perspective. You may, in fact, be absolutely right. Perhaps the only authentic interpretation is purely spiritual. Unfortunately, the vast majority of people have not had anywhere near the kinds of experiences that you relate. Many people have, however, had many mystical and supernatural experiences that have taught them things that clearly support the historical-literal interpretations of scriptures. That has been the original premise of this entire message thread, as esoteric spirituality is not safe for the vast majority of people. It is hardly even safe for me. Ask my wife, she would tell you how much of a roller coaster I have been on over the past 5 years. I am surprised that I have not been institutionalized yet given all the crazy-ideas that I now espouse regarding spiritual issues. As for revelations, I used to take a very literal interpretation of a pending apocalypse. In recent years, however, it has become more of a platform to launch into vertical heartfelt worship towards the father. More recently, it has also become an unveiling of the eucharistic mass. I have heard of the Edgar Cayce study-guide, and intended on purchasing it, but it has had to sit on the back burner for now. Personally, I prefer these more allegorical and spiritual interpretations because I do not agree with the angry vengeful concepts of God portrayed within various scriptures. The false god of the mind can cling to its angry god if it wants, but I have moved on to higher truths. As for the kingdom, there are multiple kingdoms within the christian tradition. Many continue to wait for Christ to bring a physical kingdom to them. I am part of a modern gnosis which seeks to manifest the spiritual kingdom, within, in the physical world, without. We are part of a stream that believes as-above-so-below or that it is our obligation to bring about a physical manifestation of the spiritual kingdom through a spiritual means. We are not about forcibly converting anything, rather our purpose is the restore the physical creation back to its original purity or completeness. Then, there are others who only advocate a purely spiritual kingdom within. It does not surprise me that you bump heads with some people regarding the nature of the kingdom, as it remains one of the more divisive issues in the christian world, but I will explain more on that latter. I just got home and don’t have time to answer everyone’s posts right now, but I have to at least address this one. Yes, my coining of phrases is meant to be a oxymoron of sorts. It is part of my innate desire to reject duality and integrate oneness by resolving, or at least acknowledging, the paradoxes of life. Just a few days ago, I was attempting to explain to a few co-workers that love and hate are not opposites. Rather, hate is simply the absence of love. It is like a container. You can have a container that that is empty-hate or full-love but it is usually a complicated formula leading to a percentage of fullness, or what some might call moral relativism. The answer to all the evil in the world is not to rage war against evil as if it is some sort of co-equal superpower in opposition to love. If you really want to work on eliminating evil, the empty container void of love, then you should start filling it with love, what it is actually missing. I know that this probably seems overly complicated, but it really is not. The more love that is poured into evil the less powerful, or real, evil becomes. Hence, my solution to all the evils of the world would be a very idealistic approach of teaching the multitudes of people the higher gnosis of love rather than allowing them to wander blindly in a world of duality. My approach towards any given religious tradition would be to uphold and expound upon all true and authentic aspects of the tradition while guiding the multitudes away from the counterproductive parts. I am thus very much in agreement with Allan on this point; we just differ with regards to whether or not the orthodox-literal-historical traditions have any long-lasting and enduring truths that are worthy to hold onto. Perhaps I will feel differently when I am also able to enter into the realm of the souls. Yes Gary, I am very much trying to find a safe middle ground whereby the two extremes are merged together in oneness. We hear a lot of talk about merging opposites through esoteric traditions, but it seems odd to me that I am one of the few who actually seeks to apply it in this manner. My gnosis has been in conflict with the orthodox world around me for almost my entire life, yet I am married to her. What can I say? I am called to be a friend of the bridegroom who is to prepare the bride for her wedding. She has been unfaithful and done many horrific things over the centuries, but love covers a multitude of sins. In due time, the light of Christ shall dispel the darkness, revealing the immaculate bride hidden underneath the filthy rags that she currently wears. Yes, I can not begin to tell you how many orthodox gnostics I know who would reject the label in a heartbeat. Last night, I was with a pastor of a small group of believers who has incredible gnostic knowledge concerning many orthodox issues. Yet, he still clings to the doctrine of eternal separation. Sadly, most of his flock is no more enlightened today then when I found the group some 3 years ago. Yet, I owe a lot of my gnostic insights to this apostolic pastor. I know another group of charismatic or word-of-faith christians down the road that are absolutely convinced that they are on the cutting edge of what God is doing today. Yet, many of them are just as sin-conscious as ever, and about 10 years behind the rest of the restorational third-wave church. I can not even begin to express to you how many experiences I have had with these and other quasi-orthodox groups over the years.   In fact, these experiences are what ultimately led me home to the catholic church during easter 2003. I enjoy their modern approach towards worship, and their valiant attempts to the restore the church, but sadly, they are not sacramental and therefore not truly orthodox. Yet, in all the bad amongst these groups, there are tremendous signs pointing towards a coming restoration of authentic signs-and-wonders christianity. This restoration will bring forth the promised man-child or manifested sons-and-daughters of God which creation awaits. Perhaps all this orthodox christian gnosis is severely flawed, and no such restoration and reconciliation is coming, or maybe it is absolutely true. I am not dogmatic about the issue, but I know that it is a major part of my purpose in this life. That is why I remain faithful to the body of Christ, and nothing short of a truly divine encounter with the risen Christ will derail me from this conviction. I took the better part of an hour reviewing some of the dialogue that you and others held with the RCC forum. While I could not possibly read everything, there are at least a couple observations that come to mind. 1. They are rather ecumenical in the sense that they are not the type of people looking for any doctrinal issues to become divisive. Your viewpoints are unfortunately seen in that light. It does not help when others, rightfully or wrongfully, come onto their turf trying to cast holes into their preexisting theological mindsets. I can certainly see how and why they responded the way they have. Will apparently has a great heart and a good motive towards uniting all the flocks of God under a single gnostic christian worldview. I applaud him for that because I share many of his convictions in that sense. Furthermore, it is his group and it is his obligation to protect the flock from any and all perceived false angels-of-light which attempt to mislead the innocent into spiritual harm. But with that said, it is truly tragic that he has not taken the time to investigate your writings in any detail. His ignorance unfortunately blinds him from the truth, and his hostility was quite unnecessarily. 2. Accepting gnostic scriptures, rituals, and terminology does not automatically qualify this or any other group as a legitimate example of orthodox gnostic christianity. I applaud their efforts to restore the authentic gnostic church, but it does not appear to me that they are any where near arriving yet to that status. Perhaps I am a bit biased due to my kingdom-now and dominion-sonship orientation, but the fact that they do not realize that adam, lucifer, and christ are all intimately connected, with all of humanity, speaks a number of things to me regarding their level of modern gnostic completeness. In this respect, Judas acted on behalf of all humanity, so that we could finally reconcile with our fallen light bodies, and start our journey back to the kingdom of light, from whence we fell. I guess I am trying to say that there are a number of things here that I like, but I would have to insist that they do not represent the complete modern orthodox gnostic tradition, which I personally advocate. I am not sure if the restoration of all things is a part of their theology yet, but it would help bring a few issues into perspective for them. 3. Yes, they do appear quasi-fundamentalist. I do not consider this to be a bad thing, obviously, but it can have some serious limitations that are not easily recognized initially. Namely, you need a really good grasp on all the types-and-shadows within scripture and a more complete understanding of the nature of God before you can make an accurate literal interpretation of scripture. I am not sure that they have this sort of depth, but in fairness to them: I have only read a portion of their materials, and thus can not say for certain whether they do or not. 4. It is an open forum for anyone to come and go as they please. Their ecumenical appeal could possibly be allowing an above average number of spiritual babes to congregate there. I am all for having children around to learn from the mature, but it also means that the adults have an increased responsibility to protect the flock. The children naturally praise their shepherd for their defense, and lash out at the intruder who would do them harm. Perhaps they have more spiritual maturity than I have assumed, but my limited exposure would suggest otherwise. 5. Lastly, it is very difficult to have any real constructive dialogue anytime a person or group of people become defensive and self-righteous. The best that can happen in these situations is that all parties say-their-peace and move on. I know because I have been in enough of these sorts of doctrinal disputes, over the years on different forums, to see how futile the whole endeavor ultimately becomes. In a nutshell, I am trying to say that I understand why the two groups clashed. It has been part of my own battle for understanding as well. I get the impression that my experiences within the christian worldview are much broader and concentrated than most. That is one of the reasons that I ultimately found your writings. I was seeking for a way to reconcile gnostic pauline christianity with the Gospel of the Holy 12-Nazirenes due to the sacred truths that I have uncovered in my lifelong journey. My experience within orthodox and gnostic christianity includes many different backgrounds, which I do not feel that they adequately represent. Nevertheless, I would have to admit that they are much more in touch with the ancient sacred rituals, terminology, and texts than I am. Anyhow, I wish both groups well in each respective path towards all knowledge and truth. This question just came across one of those Orthodox Gnostic Churches you make reference to:  "Well, I know Kabbalistic teachings use astrology, but not sure how that figures into anything. Does anyone know where the wise men were supposed to have traveled from? Was it Persia?"  So should I lie to this person and speculate on their traditions that actual astrologers came from another country? Or should I tell them that the three wise men represent aspect of themselves? Actually, we got thrown off their forum for attempting to tell them the truth. The truth is that they only want to know what truth confirms what they already believe I can see how this would be a problem for someone in your position. I would not recommend that you personally lie to them about the subject at hand. I would, however, recommend that someone, who is properly initiated, in both traditions, act as a mediator. It seems that we do have a few individuals who are attempting to fulfill this role, but I can not speak regarding how well either tradition is currently grasped by those individuals. I know that I would have to spend some time with the group in order to adequately understand which traditions they represent and promote. Aside from that, I would also recommend for them to continue pursuing whatever path they are on, so that that path would ultimately lead them beyond their current limitations. Any attempt to shake up their convictions by introducing foreign concepts could awaken a select few, but it is more likely to set the group back. In fact, I would suspect that the group is even more resolved to oppose your heresy now, than had the group been allowed to find these truths according to their own traditions, as opposed to foreign ones. By the way, I have seen a number of complaints about various fundamentalist-literal mindsets on this forum. It is as if a literal-historical mindset is a disease that must be eliminated at all costs. It may in fact be a hindrance to overall growth, but so is the rejection of the literal-historical word. There are many spiritual truths hidden within the plain site of the literal text, that many of you will overlook, should you continue in this absolute anti-literal mindset. But with that said, I am really behind the curveball on taking a more allegorical-spiritual interpretation of these scriptures. I am continually amazed at some of the insights and wisdom that is brought forward through these interpretations. I do not think I would have ever considered these kind of scenarios had I not ran across them here. Perhaps I will see enough of them over the years to come to also let go of all literal interpretations.