By: General Jim – 9/28/24
“O Timothy! Guard what was committed to your trust, avoiding the profane & vain babblings & contradictions of what is falsely called KNOWLEDGE [i.e. gnosis] – by professing it, some have strayed concerning the faith.” – 1 Tim. 6:20,21
Paul the apostle of Christ warned Timothy against “gnosis,” falsely called “knowledge.” This was Paul’s concluding appeal for faithfulness in his first epistle to Timothy, his own spiritual son in the faith (1 Tim. 1:2). Timothy was to pass this information on to church officials et al. Paul was warning him to watch out for “other doctrines” being introduced into their Ekklesia (vs.3). He warns him not to “give heed to fables & endless genealogies” (vs.4). Some translations use “myths” rather than “fables.” Paul mentions “Jewish fables” or “fables” in his epistle to Titus (Tit. 1:14). Scholars believe “Jewish Myths” or “Jewish Fables” would be (Gnostic) speculations based on the Old Testament scriptures. [note: to describe them as “Jewish” is to designate them as belonging to an old dispensation now superseded; to describe them as “myths” is to brand them as fantasy, not revealed religion. The word “myth” (Gk. μύθος) occurs only 2 times in the Apocrypha (e.g., wisd. Sol. 17:4 & Ecclus. 20:19). In the N.T., excepting 2 Pet. 1:16, it occurs only in the Pastorals (1 Tim. 1:4; 4:7; 2 Tim. 4:4; Tit. 1:14). Myths are usually or always assumed to be imaginative, therefore, FALSE/UNTRUE. “Myths” as opposed to “Jewish myths” showed the difference between Jewish or Christian orthodoxy or Gentile.
Paul, in his second epistle to Timothy, again writes about “profane & vain babblings” that will lead to more ungodliness (2 Tim. 2:16). In other words, avoid heretical teachers. Moffatt calls it “profane jargon.” I dare say that today’s contemporary church is full of such. We call it “Political Correctness,” “Wokeism” etc.
Church leaders have either allowed or personally brought in all this secular (antitheses chatter). Since the word contradictions (“antitheses”) later came to have technical meaning in Gnosticsm (“G”), & since these heretics are Gnostics of sorts, “it is,” as one Historian/Bible expert stated, “tempting to see in the word a reference to some form of Gnostic dialectic critical of or hostile to the Christian faith as championed by the author, since the word is not defined in the text, the possibility that it holds some such technical meaning must be left open. However, it need mean no more than that the teachings of the heretics, falsely called knowledge, stand over against or contradict the Christian faith & are therefore to be left alone, or that such teachings are a tissue of inner contradictions, a hodgepodge of unresolved ‘pros & cons’ without the clarity & certainty of the Christian faith” (Prof. F.D. Gealy, 1 Timothy. vol.XI, p.458, 1955).
The heretic Marcion wrote a book having to do with the “contradictions” between law & gospel.
Paul’s warning to Timothy, in short, was about carefully preserving the Christian doctrine(s). Paul, in his epistle to the Corinth Ekklesia, he spoke of “the word of KNOWLEDGE” (1 Cor. 12:8)“For to one is given, by the Spirit, the word of wisdom; to another the word of knowledge, by the same Spirit.”
What is the difference between “wisdom” & “knowledge”? Someone once said that broadly speaking, in our own time one may distinguish between knowledge & wisdom by saying that wisdom is that deeper insight which can turn knowledge to the best advantage. Well, was this the way the apostle perceived it?
Background on “Gnosticism”
Historically, the primary heresy in the pre-Nicene Ekklesia was Gnosticism. There were many heretics in the days of the early Church Fathers – just as we have them today. The LGBTQIA+ plague has infiltrated & indoctrinated the universal Church. Now we have active sex-offenders/perverts in all kinds of positions – teaching myths/fables/lies.
Back in the day (early Church) there was the false teaching that humankind & the earth were not created by God, the Father of Jesus. Rather, the “Demiurge,” who was either a wicked angel or a lesser deity, created humans/earth. A Demiurge (Gk. dēmiourgos),” one who works for the people, skilled workman, creator;” dēmios, “belonging to the people;” demos, “the people:” see Democracy). This “Demiurge” god has been around for centuries. Plato’s view was that of a deity or creative force that shaped the material world. In Gnosticism, a deity subordinate to the supreme deity, sometimes considered the “Creator” as “Evil.” We have this Demiurgic Devil ruling this nation at this time under the Biden/Harris et al. regime!
It was believed because of the imperfections of the Demiurge, all humankind was inherently messed up, they could never get help, hence, incapable of eternal salvation. The God of the Old Testament was harsh & unloving according to the Gnostics. There were degrees of views; some called him the “just God” in contrast to Jesus’ Father, who is the “good God,” as author David W. Bercot writes in his book on Early Christian Beliefs. The “just God” belief believes the “just God” sent his Son to show humankind the way to salvation, but since the flesh was inherently corrupt, the Son never actually became man, contrast this with what the Bible teaches in John one (see vs.14: “And the Word (Logos) was made flesh, & dwelt among us, (& we beheld His glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father full of grace & truth”).
According to the Bible, not Gnostic teaching, the “Word” became “flesh,” i.e. “human.” This is a complete repudiation of all Gnostic disparagement of man’s physical nature, for the statement asserts the real/true humanity of Jesus’ earthly life. “Flesh” is contrasted with “spirit” (3:6 & 6:56) In Romans 8:3, Paul writes “… the law could not do in that it was weak through the flesh, God did by sending His own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, on account of sin: He condemned sin in the flesh.”
It is a Biblical & historical FACT that Jesus dwelt among the early believers (Jews). The Logos of God “dwelt among us” John writes. This may imply far more than the English verb suggests. The Greek word ἐσκήνωσεν, derived from the noun for “tent,” is often used without any reference to its etymology. John may have thought of the tabernacle in the wilderness (Ex. 25:8,9; 40:34). The “glory” was the pillar of cloud, typifying the visible dwelling of Jesus among His believers (and the Jewish nation itself). The Old Testament called it “Shekina” (Gk. “skēnē”/ “σκηνή” or “tent”).
Some Gnostics called “Docetists,” taught that the Son took on only the illusion of flesh. Docetism was a sect that contended with Christianity. Still other Gnostics believed in Jesus, He was an actual man, whose body the Son of God possessed/used – only to abandon Jesus at the cross!
Most Gnostics believed in both male & female deities: some were very strict (ascentisism); others were extremely & notoriously licentious – just as there are so-called “Christians” today.
In the second century there were several leading Gnostic teachers such as Basilides: He was a foremost Gnostic teacher who lived in Alexandria during the first half of the 2nd century. He taught Nous was the First-Born of the Unborn Father – from him was born Logos; from him, Phronesis; from him, Sophia & Dynamis. (according to what Irenaeus wrote in 180 A.D., 1:349.)
Irenaeus also wrote against Basilides (his teachings). Basilides taught that “the chief of the angels is he who is thought to be the God of the Jews. And inasmuch as he desired to render the other nations subject to his own people, that is, the Jews, all the other princes resented & opposed him. Therefore, all the other nations were at enmity with his nation. The Father without birth & without name, perceiving that they would be destroyed, sent his own First-Begotten Nous (He it is who is called Christ) to bestow deliverance on those who believe in Him, from the power of those who made the world. Christ appeared, then, on earth as a man, to the nations of these powers, & He worked miracles. For that reason, He did not himself suffer death, but Simon, a certain man of Cyrene, being forced, carried the cross in his place. Christ changed the appearance of this Simon, so that Simon might be thought to be Jesus. Therefore, Simon was crucified, through ignorance & error. In the meanwhile, Jesus himself took on the form of Simon, &, standing by, laughed at them.” (180 A.D., 1:349) (see Matt. 27:32; Mk. 15:21).
This is not the end of exposure of Basilides. Clement of Alexandria had this to say: “The hypothesis of Basilides says that the soul, having sinned previously in another life, endures punishment in this life.” (195 A.D., 2:424). He goes on to write: “It was later, in the time of Hadrian the King, that there arose those who invented the heresies. And they extended to the age of Antoninus the elder. One example is Basilides – although he claims Glaucias, the interpreter of Peter, was his master.” (195 A.D., 2:555)
Church Father & Christian writer (160-230 A.D.), Tertullian mentions both Basilides & Marcion in his writings (210 A.D., 3:546), as does Hippolytus (170-236 A.D.), in which he wrote the following: “[Basilides says] the light… descended from the hebdomad upon Jesus, the son of Mary, & He had radiance imparted to Him by being illuminated with the light that shown upon Him.” (225 A.D., 5:108. For a more extended research/study, see also 2:355, 2:371-2:372; 2:423, 5:100-5:109).
Heretic Carpocrates, also a leading Gnostic teacher (lived in Alexandria), was exposed by the same Christian leaders/authors. Tertullian wrote: “… it is not for you [Simon Magus] alone that the reincarnation philosophy has fabricated this story. Carpocrates also makes equally good use of it. He was a magician & a fornicator like yourself, only he did not have a Helen.” (210 A.D., 3:216); “Carpocrates states that the world & the things in it were made by angels, far inferior to the un-begotten Father. He says that Jesus was begotten of Joseph & that, although having been similar to other men, He was more just than the rest. He says that His soul – inasmuch as it was made vigorous & undefiled – remembered the things seen by it in its conversation with the un-begotten God.” (Hippolytus, 225 A.D., 5:113) He continues with, “[The disciples of Carpocrates] make counterfeit images of Christ, alleging that these were in existence at the time… & were fashioned by Pilate.” (225 A.D., 5:114, see also 1:35-351).
Irenaeus wrote: “Carpocrates & his followers claim that the world & the things that are in it were created by angels greatly inferior to the unbegotton Father. They also hold that Jesus was the son of Joseph & that he was just like other men.” (180 A.D., 1:350)
Cerinthus was another Gnostic heretic. He taught around 100 A.D. Victorinus (304 A.D.) was bishop of Poetovio in Syria (who died as a Martyr). He wrote this concerning Cerinthus:
“They are not to be heard who assure themselves that there is to be an earthly reign of a 1,000 years. They think like the heretic Cerinthus. For the Kingdom of Christ is already eternal in the saints – even though the glory of the saints shall be manifested after the resurrection.” (Victorinus, 280 A.D., 7:360) Dionysius of Alexandria (264 A.D., pupil of Origen, later bishop of Alexandria (from 247). He wrote against Cerinthus, Sabellianism & opposed Paul of Samosta. The following in his contention against Cerinthus:
“The doctrine taught by Cerinthus is this: that there will be an earthly reign of Christ, since Cerinthus was himself a man devoted to the pleasures of the body, & completely carnal in his dispositions, he imagined that the Kingdom would consist in those kinds of gratifications on which his own heart was set.” (262 A.D., 6:82)
Hippolytus wrote: “A certain Cerinthus, himself being disciplined in the teaching of the Egyptians, asserted that the world was not made by the primal Deity, but by some virtue that was an offshoot from that Power.” (225 A.D., 5:114)
Irenaeus, in 180 A.D. wrote, “Cerinthus, again, was a man who was educated in the wisdom of the Egyptians. He taught that the world was not made by the primary God, but by a certain Power far separated from Him… He denied that Jesus was born of a virgin. Instead, he represented Him as being the son of Joseph & Mary.” (180 A.D., 1:351);
“There are also those who heard from [Polycarp] that John, the disciple of the Lord, went to bathe at Ephesus. But realizing that Cerinthus was within [the bath house], John rushed out of the bath house without bathing. Instead, he exclaimed, ‘Let us fly, lest even the bath house falls down, because Cerinthus, the enemy of the truth, is within.” (180 A.D., 1:416)
Irenaeus finishes with, “John, the disciple of the Lord, preached this faith. And he sought, through the proclamation of the Gospel, to remove that error that Cerinthus had disseminated among men.” (180 A.D., 1:426)
Now we find Eusebius (270-340 A.D.) quoting Caius, that “Cerinthus, too, through written revelations by a great apostle (as he would have us to believe!) brings before us fantastic things. And he pretends these things were shown him by angels. He alleges that after the resurrection, the Kingdom of Christ is to be on earth & that the flesh dwelling in Jerusalem is again to be subject to desire & pleasures. And being an enemy to the Scriptures of God & wishing to deceive men, he says that there is to be a space of a 1,000 years for marriage festivals.” (215 A.D., 5:601)
Valentinus, a native of Egypt, constructed an elaborate cosmology of male-female aeons who (supposedly) governed the universe. Irenaeus, had plenty to say concerning this gnostic. Clement of Alexandria, Tertullian, (who also had plenty to say), the Muratorian Fragment, & Hippolytus wrote against him. I’ll give a few (shortened) quotes from each:
Irenaeus: “The Valentinians maintain, then, that in the invisible & ineffable heights above these exists a certain perfect, pre-existent Aeon. They call it, Proarche, Propator, & Bythus…” (180 A.D., 1:316);
“… the Demiurge imagined that he created all these things of himself… He fashioned man, yet did not know man.” (1:322);
“… the Valentinians deny that Christ assumed anything material [into His nature], since indeed matter is incapable of salvation… they do not have perfect knowledge [gnosis]…” (1:324);
“The ‘most perfect’ among the Valentinains addict themselves without fear to all kinds of forbidden deeds…” (1:324);
“… they boast that they have a perfect knowledge, beyond all others. They gather their views from other sources than the Scriptures.” (1:326);
“… those who are from Valentinus are altogether reckless…” (1:429).
Clement of Alexandria:
“…they claim that knowledge [gnosis] sprang up in themselves…” (195 A.D., 2:349);
Valentinus, in a sermon, writes “you are originally immortal & children of eternal life’… Valentinus, like Basilides, also supposes there is a class who are saved by nature…” (2:425);
“Where was Valentinus then, the disciple of Platonism?… they were in the (Catholic) Church of Rome under the episcopate of the Eleutherus…” (Tertullian, 197 A.D., 3:257);
“One man perverts the Scriptures with his hand; another perverts their meaning by his exegesis. For although Valentinus seems to use the entire volume [Scripture], he has none the less laid violent hands on the truth. Only, he does it with more cunning mind & skill than Marcion.” (3:262);
“… the Valentinians (if asked questions) answer you with a stern look & wrinkled brow…” (200 A.D., 3:503,4);
“… the Valentinians… they pretend to disavow their name. It is true that they have departed from their founder;” (3:505);
“Valentinus had expected to become a bishop, because he was an able man both in genius & eloquence… he separated from the Chruch of the true faith… he devoted himself with all his might to exterminate the truth.” (3:505);
“Axionicus at Antioch is the only man who at the present time honors the memory of Valentinus…” (3:505);
“Whenever the Valentinians have hit upon any novelty, they immediately call their presumption a ‘revelation’! They call their own perverse ingenuity a ‘spiritual gift’”! (3:505);
“… they say He [Christ] was produced by means of a virgin, rather than of a virgin. By this they mean that He descended into the virgin & passed through her, instead of receiving a birth by her. … He did not experience a mother in her, but only a conduit.” (3:516);
“Valentinus was more consistent & more liberal [than Marcion]. For, having once imagined two deities, Bythos & Sige, he then poured forth a swarm of divine essence – a brood of no less than 30 Aeons.” (207 A.D., 3:274);
“Of the writings of Assinous, also called Valentinus… we receive nothing at all [as canonical].” (from the Muratonion Fragment, 200 A.D., 5:604).
The “Muratonion Fragment (MF) says, “… different matters are taught us in the various books of the Gospels, there is no difference as regards the faith of believers. For in all of them, everything was related under one imperial Spirit.” (200 A.D., 5:603). It goes on to say, “As to the epistles of Paul, … he wrote first of all – and at considerable length – to the Corinthians, to curtail the schism of heresy; & then to the Galatians, to forbid circumcision; & then to the Romans on the rule of the O.T. Scriptures, & also to show them that Christ is the first object in them.” (5:603). The M.F. goes on to speak of other epistles of Paul, ending with the Apocalypse of John.
I’ll end the discussion on Valentinus with what Hippolytus wrote:
“The heresy of Valentinus is certainly, then, connected with Pythagorean & Platonic theory.” (225 A.D., 5:81). [note: Pythagoreanism is the philosophy of Phthagoras, the main tenants of which were the transmigration of the soul & the belief in numbers as the ultimate elements of the universe.]
Hippolytus continues:
“Valentinus says that all the prophets, therefore, & the Law, spoke by means of the Demiurge – a silly god. They were fools who knew nothing. He says it was for this reason that the Savior states, ‘All who came before Me are thieves & robbers.’” (5:89). There are lots more quotes if one cares to research them.
Now we come to Marcion, who has been mentioned in some of the quotes. We’ve all read about this heretic (2nd century) who contended that the O.T. & the N.T. God was not the same God. He did, however, accept the Gospel of Luke and the writings of Paul for his New Testament canon but had to alter even these to fit his teachings.
Early Church fathers had to deal with his un-Biblical teachings, men such as Justin Martyr, Irenaeus, (who wrote quite a bit), Tertullian (who likewise wrote quite a bit, actually the most. I’ll condense his quotes), Hippolytus, & Cyprian.
Let’s get started:
Cyprian:
“Does Marcion, then, maintain the trinity?…” (250 A.D., 5:38; see also 2:356, 9:348, 9:463, 9:504; extended discussion; 5:110-5:113);
Hippolytus:
“Marcion… was far more frantic than these [Gnostics]. He omitted the majority of the tenets of the greater number [of Gnostics] … He supposed there to be two original causes of the universe… one good & one evil.” (225 A.D., 5:110);
Tertullian:
“Let Marcion know that the fundamental principle of his creed comes from the school of Epicurus… But how remote is our truth from the work of this heretic…” (207 A.D., 3:471) (note: Epicurus (b.342, d.270 B.C.) was a Greek philosopher who taught that the goal of man should be a life of pleasure. He also taught that the universe came into existence by the spontaneous joiner of atoms & there is no afterlife. Sounds like some of these modern-day Church heretics! There were Church fathers like Theophilus, Clement of Alexandria, Tertullian, Clement of Alexandria, Tertullian, Hippolytus, & Lactantius refuted his teachings);
Tertullian continued on Marcion:
“As our heretic is so fond of his pruning-knife, I do not wonder when syllables are expunged by his hand…” (207, 3:467);
“The serious gaps Marcion had made in this epistle [Romans], especially by withdrawing whole passages at his will, can be clear from the unmutilated text of our own copy.” (207, 3:457;
“Marcion does not in any way admit the resurrection of the flesh (see my article on the “Resurrection”). Rather, it is only the salvation of the soul that he promises.” (3:450);
“… Marcion wholly prohibits all sexual intercourse to the faithful, & when he prescribes repudiation of all engagements before marriage, whose teaching is he following – that of Moses or that of Christ?” (3:443);
“It would contribute very well to the support of Marcion’s theory of a phantom body, that bread should have been crucified/” (3:418);
“The opinion of the heretics [Marcionites] is splintered to pieces, who say that there is no salvation of the flesh” (3:412);
“Marcion… turns the passage (rich man & Lazarus] to another end. He decides that both the torment & the comfort are retributions of the Creator. They are reserved in the next life for those who have obeyed the Law & the Prophets…” (3:406);
“Marcion does not unite the nuptial bond. Nor, when contracted, does he allow it. He baptizes no one but a celibate or a eunuch…” (3:361);
“… Christ came not to destroy the Law & the Prophets, but rather to fulfill them. But Marcion has erased that passage as an interpolation.” (3:352);
“Marcion has laid down the position the Christ was revealed by a previously unknown God for the salvation of all nations, in the days of Tiberius. Maricon says this Christ is a different Being from the one who is ordained by God… Between these two Christs, he interposes the separation of a great & absolute difference.” (3:351);
“… And should you want to know their pedigree, you will more easily discover apostasy in it than apostolicity – with either Marcian or one of Marcion’s swarm as their founder. Even wasps make combs. So also these Marcionites make churches.” (3:350);
“In the scheme of Marcion, … the mystery of the Christian religion begins from the discipleship of Luke… Marcion labors very hard to destroy the character of those Gospels that are published as genuine.” (3:248);
“You must know that Marcion… ascribes no author to his Gospel… Now, even if Marcion had published his Gospel in the name of Paul himself, the single authority of the document would not be a sufficient basis for our faith…” (3:347);
“Christ promises to the Jews… the recovery of their country. And after this life’s course is over, he gives rest in Hades in Abraham’s bosom… when He restores in amnesty that which He took away in wrath!…” (3:342)
“The Marcionites are those whom the apostle John designated as antichrist (see 1 Jn. 2:18; 4:2,3) for they deny that Christ has come in the flesh… to reject the bodily substance of Christ.” (3:327);
There are more long quotes from Tertullian which he wrote against Marcion: working on the Sabbath, baptism in water (immersed), God is never angry & will not punish anyone in Gehenna, the Gospel being at variance with the Law, being addicted to astrology, his 2 views on God (the war God vs. the placid God), Marcion cut up the Scriptures to suit his own matter, separating the O.T. from the N.T., & his restless curiosity he was expelled from the Church.
Justin Martyr wrote: “There is Marcion, a man or Pontus, who is even at this day alive. He teaches his disciples to believe in some other God greater than the Creator.” (160 A.D., 1:17)
Irenaeus wrote: “… advanced the most daring blasphemy… against God & the Prophets. Marcion says that his God is the author of evils, takes delight in war, is infirm of purpose, & is even contrary to Himself…” (180 A.D., 1:352);
Irenaeus continues: “Marcion mutilated the Gospel… removing all that was written concerning the generation of the Lord… he dismembered the epistles of Paul… salvation will be the attainment only of those souls who have learned his doctrine…” (180, 1:352);
“By dividing God into two, declaring that one is ‘good’ and the other is ‘just,’ Marcion actually puts an end to Deity altogether.” (180, 1:459);
“The spiritual man will also examine the doctrine of Marcion – how he holds that there are two Gods, separated from each other by an infinite distance.” (180, 1:506,507)
Can you list some modern-day men & women who claim Christianity but hold views like the ones we examined? Modern day Basilides, Carpocrates, Cerinthus, Calentinus, Marcion et al.
Basic Gnostic Tenants
Paul writes Timothy about “profane & vain babblings & contradictions of what is falsely called KNOWLEDGE [gnosis]…” (1 Tim. 6:20,21) John wrote about antichrists (gnostics).
Ignatius (105 A.D., 1:70) wrote about Jesus’ “seemed to suffer,” as the Gnostics believed. He wrote that they blaspheme the Lord Jesus (105, 1:88). He wrote that they abstain from communion, denying the blood/body of Jesus (105, 1:89).
Justin Martyr wrote that they deny the resurrection (160 A.D., 1:239; 1:294). The Gnostics believe (some) that Jesus was “spiritual” not “fleshly.” (160, 1:295).
Hegesippus (b.110, d.180 A.D.) wrote a lengthy quote about “the confederacy of godless error… its rise through the treachery of false teachers (Gnostics)…” (170 A.D., 8:764). Hegesippus was an early church historian (some fragments remain/preserved in Eusebius’s Ecclesiastical History).
Irenaeus wrote a lot about what the Gnostics believed & did not believe. To start, they denied salvation by & through Jesus (180 A.D., 1:324). He wrote a lengthy quote about the Demiurge (male), about Achamoth (female), who they claim was “creator.” They called upon “the incorruptible Sophia, who is in the Father, & is the Mother of your mother.” (180, 1:340)
Irenaeus also points out another one of their tenets: “Saturnus [a Gnostic teacher] presented it as a truth that the Savior was without birth, without body, & without form… “Christ Jesus” did not suffer death… rather, Simon, a certain man of Cyrene, (took) his place…” (180, 1:349)
Irenaeus goes on in his writings to expose their tenets: that the world and all things in it were created by angels (heretic Carpocrates & his disciples) (180, 1:350); They maintain that things are evil or good simply because of human opinion. (180, 1:351). This tenet/doctrine is found in today’s liberal/contemporary Church which claims, “sin is sin only if you claim it is sin.”
Irenaeus continued: “… there arose Marcellina, who came to Rome under [the episcopal of] Anicetus. Holding these doctrines, she led multitudes astray. They call themselves Gnostics…” (180, 1:351)
Irenaeus wrote about his book exposing Gnosticism. He explains the tenets/doctrines of Gnostic teachings, the heresies that originated with them, (180, 1:359)
“[The Gnostics] possess no proof of their system… they reset upon certain numbers; sometimes, on syllables; & still other times, on names.” (180, 1:401);
“… They represent Him as having passed through Mary (the believers)… others allege Him to be the Son of the Demiurge, upon whom the dispensational Jesus descended… however, none of the heretics acknowledge that the Word of God was made flesh.” (180, 1:427)
Irenaeus spends considerable time on refuting the gnostic heresy that Jesus was not a human as well as God in flesh, as he does refuting “the good God” as opposed to the “the evil God.” God never sins. The “evil” He does or allows is (as found in Isa. 45:7) in the physical realm: ra’ or râ’a’ = to spoil (lit. by breaking in pieces) to make good for nothing, afflict, do harm, punish. This Hebrew word means also, adversity, calamity, displeasure, distress, grief, sorrow, trouble etc. (see my articles on “evil/ra’”).
Origen also writes about “the good God.” He points out the gnostic teachings “… they have ventured to designate the Father of the Savior Jesus Christ as the “Good God.” However, they say that the “God of this world” [i.e., the Creator] is a different one.” (225 A.D., 4278)
Origen goes on to write that the Gnostics “… think that since the Demiurge was an imperfect & unloving God, the Savior had come to announce a more perfect Deity.” (225, 4:356,357) He continues: “I see the heretics attacking the holy Church of God… under the pretense of having ‘higher wisdom’ …” (228 A.D., 9:348).
Gnostic Female deities
Church fathers, e.g., Irenaeus, Tertullian, & Hippolytus (usually these 3) points out for us what the Gnostics believed concerning their female deities:
Hippolytus: “Sophia… was outside the pleroma. She was searching for Christ, who had given form to her & to the Holy Spirit. She was terrified that she would perish if He separated from her… during the utterance of her entreaties, Christ, who is within the Pleroma, had mercy upon her.” (225 A.D., 5:87);
“Marcus asserts that the Tetrad came to him in the form of a woman, for he says the world could not bear the male form of this Tetrad (Greek, tetras, “a group or set of 4”). He says that she revealed who she was, & explained to him alone the creation of the universe, which she had never revealed to anyone else – to neither gods nor men.” (225, 5:93);
[According to the Gnostics,] “Jesus possesses this inexpressible generation. For from the mother of the universe (I mean the first Tetrad), there proceeded forth the second Tetrad, in the manner of a daughter.” (225, 5:97);
“They allege that the first four elements were created by the Mother. They say these four elements are fire, water, earth, & air.” (225, 5:98; see 1:386 also)
Tertullian: “[According to the Gnostics,] He [begets] by means of Monoganes Nus, a male-female [Aeon], for there is this variation of statement about the Father’s sex.” (200 A.D., 3:509 (was he referring to androgyny?).
Tertullian continues: “Although they say that Achamoth devised these forms in honor of the Aeons, they yet transfer this work to Soter as its author. For they say that he operated through her, so far as to give her the very image of the invisible & unknown Father.” (200, 3:513);
“Meanwhile, [to be one of them] you must believe that Sophia has the surnames of Earth & or Mother – ‘Mother Earth,’ of course – and… even Holy Spirit. In this way they have conferred all honor on that female.” (200, 3:514);
“I would not tarry a moment longer on this point were it not for those heretics who introduce into the soul some spiritual germ (which passes my comprehension) conferred upon the soul by the secret generosity of her Mother, Sophia, without the knowledge of the Creator.” (210 A.D., 3:191)
Irenaeus: “They (Gnostics) also call this Mother by the names of Ogdoad, Sophia, Terra, Jerusalem, Holy Spirit, & (with a masculine ref.) Lord. Her place of habitation is an intermediate one.” (180 A.D., 1:323);
“They also declare that there were the manifested Mother, the Father, & the Son… the Holy Spirit has been sent forth, whom they also call Sophia & Prunicus… The Father & the Son thus both had relations with the woman…” (180, 1:354);
“They declare that, at the consummation of all things, their Mother will re-enter the pleroma, & receive the Savior as her consort.” (180, 1:402);
“They maintain that, according to nature & substance, three sorts [of beings] were produced by the Mother.” (180, 1:403);
“What work, then, will they point to as having been accomplished through themselves by the Savior, or by their Mother?” (180, 1:404);
“They imagine a lofty [mystery] about their Mother, whom they represent as having been begotton without a father, that is, with God, a female from a female.” (180, 1:460).
Irenaeus finishes with, “This world belongs to Him & was made by Him, according to the Father’s will. It was not made by angels, … nor by any power of Prunicus, whom certain of them also call ‘the Mother.’” (180, 1:546)
Fin
One can dig deeper into “heresies” & “heretics” (see Gal. 5:19-21; 2 Tim. 4:3,4; 2 Pet. 2:1 et al.) Firmilian (b.200, d.268 A.D. – bishop of Caesarea in Cappadocia, friend of Origen) wrote: “Just as a heretic may not lawfully ordain or lay on hands, so neither may he baptize, nor do anything holy or spiritual.” (256 A.D., 5:392).
We find this written by the Seventh Council of Carthage: “In addition to all these things, there is also this evil: that the priests of the devil dare to celebrate the Eucharist.” (256 A.D., 5:566)
Lactantius wrote: “We must regard it as most impious to search into those things that God wished to be kept secret.” (304 A.D., 7:56)
In the Disputation of Archelaus & Maner we read: “What alien dogmas has he destroyed – whether he is a Valentinus, Marcian, Tatian, or a Sabellius – or of any others of those who have constructed for themselves their peculiar systems of knowledge.” (320 A.D., 6:211)
Speaking of Sabellianism (aka Monarchianism, i.e. “Modalistic Monarchianism,” which refers to the belief that the Father, Son, & Holy Spirit are all different modes or revelations of ONE & the SAME person, not 3 separate Divine Beings which are ONE/UNIFIED. Patripassianism is another name the heretics equate with Modalism & Sabellionism. But in popular use, this belief is generally referred to as “Jesus Only” or “Oneness” – which when I was in training in a Pentecostal denomination, there were the “Oneness” & the “Trinity.”
John 1:1 has been fought over for centuries; “In the beginning was the Word, & the Word was with God, & the Word was God.” John, the Scholars tell us, uses “God” in the sense of “the Father.” But they point out here that the word “God” is in a different sense. He is writing about the nature of the “Word,” being divine He has all the attributes of true divinity. He & the Father are two different Beings, but they share the same divine nature. (we could compare the name “adam,” in Hebrew it means “mankind” or “human.” Yet, as Bible scholars/theologians point out, it is also the proper name of the first human, Adam. The name adam/Adam are used in two different ways or senses. When we say Eve was “with Adam,” we are using Adam as a proper name, referring to Adam, Eve’s husband. But when we say that Eve “was Adam,” we are using the term in the sense of “human.” Both Adam & Eve were “adam” – human. Need proof? “He created them male & female & blessed them and called them mankind in the day they were created.” – Gen. 5:2, NKJV. Other translations have “Humankind.” Still other versions have “Adam.” “Mankind” / “Humankind” translate the same Heb. word (ādām). So the man/male & the woman/female were called “Adam” or “Humankind” = two persons with the name “Adam.”
Similarly, as Bible scholar & historian D.W. Bercot points out, not realizing that John was using the Gk. word “theos” in 2 different senses in Jn. 1:1, the unwary reader may think that John is writing, in essence, “the Word was with the Father & the Word was the Father.”
TWO of the early teachers of Monarchianism were Noetus & Praxeas. Early Church fathers like Hippolytus, Tertullian, Origen, Novation, Cyprian, Firmilian, Athanasius, Methodius wrote about Monarchianism, as did Ignatius, Hermas, Justin Martyr, Hegesippus, Irenaeus, Clement of Alexandria, Tertellian, Firmilian, Lactantius, et al. write about heretics & heresies.
I need to mention one more heretic before I close: Paul of Samosata, who was bishop of Antioch (260-268 A.D.). He denied Christ’s preexistence. He was condemned by other Church fathers, one being the bishop of Caesarea in Cappadocia, Firmilian (one can read Malchion’s account (270 A.D., 6:169) where he mentions that Firmilian went to Paul of Samosata twice to rebuke him for his false teachings.
Alexander of Alexandria (died in 328 A.D.), bishop of the Church at Alexandria, Egypt opposed both Paul & Famosata & Arius, presbyter in the Church at Alexandria who disputed with his bishop over the nature of Christ. He later was condemned at the Council of Nicaea. He was born in 250 A.D. & died 336 A.D. Alexander of Alexandria wrote:
“Nor is [Arianism] anything else but an imitation of Paul of Samosata, bishop of Antioch. And he [Paul] was put out of the Church by the judgment & counsel of all the bishops.” (324 A.D., 6:294; see his extended discussion: 6:169-6:171).
Many of these heresies are still around today.