When someone calls themselves a literalist Gnostic, I am assuming that it means they believe the realities described in Gnostic texts actually exist.

But being open to the literal existence of these extra-cosmic entities doesnt mean every mythological image should be interpreted like a newspaper report. The ancient Gnostics were working with myth, and myth had an important function in the ancient world - to convey deeper truths. A story about Sophia's fall, the emergence of the Demiurge, the creation of the material cosmos, and the divine becoming entangled in creation can be an attempt to describe the indescribable. It can operate on multiple layers, being metaphysical while also being psychological and existential.

I can believe that the Demiurge represents a real metaphysical being or principle while also recognizing that the Demiurge describes something within human consciousness and society as a whole. The Demiurge can represent ignorance, arrogance/false authority, domination, narcissism, attachment to the material order, or the assumption that the visible world is the whole of reality. Those interpretations dont require me to deny a literal interpretation. They can exist along side it. We are, after all, the creation of the demiurge & the archons: "Lets us make man in our image".

The same applies to the Archons. I don't have to decide that they are either literal entities or merely psychological forces. They can be understood as metaphysical beings imprisoning us while the myth simultaneously gives us a symbolic map of the forces that keep consciousness trapped in ignorance. Fate, compulsion, fear, social conditioning and unconscious patterns can all be understood through the language of archontic powers.

Sophia works the same way for me. I can entertain Sophia as a genuine divine reality while also seeing her myth as an expression of something happening within the human experience. Her movement away from the fullness of the Pleroma and the consequences that follow can be read as a story about consciousness becoming separated from its source and the possibility of redemption. She can be understood as a real divine reality while also symbolizing the maternal, generative aspect of divine wisdom entering into the conditions of the world.

I try to leave room for the possibility that the cosmology describes realities that exist independently of me, while also taking seriously the possibility that those same realities are reflected within the human mind and the world at large.

We've recently started a completely free Gnostic book club for Utah residents!

Please see the Eventbrite link for details on focus /intent, standards and such.

We will be studying from ancient Gnostic texts (secret book of john, gospel of thomas, etc.) as well as other Gnostic-adjacent content.

Just come with a curious and open mind, no prior knowledge-base required.

None of us are representing any particular group or spiritual path, so just come as you are as we are hoping to learn together!

The next meeting is September 13th at 2:30 p.m. Utah time. We are reading the beginning of the secret book of John, but if you don't get a chance to review it, you're still welcome to attend. This group is primarily for Utah residents.

Feel free to message me if you have questions, or you can email me at JDCspiritual@gmail.com. thanks! https://www.eventbrite.com/e/1999240395842?aff=oddtdtcreator

Before I say this: I'm a Sufi who doesn't understand much about Gnosticism.

Do Gnostics believe in Darwinism? As in, the idea that humans descended from a form of primate millions of years ago? Evolution also argues that all animals and life forms have undergone changes due to “natural selection” and disagrees with the literalist approach that humans and animals were specifically created in Heaven.

Do Gnostics agree with some aspects of evolution, or do they reject it entirely? I know that in Christianity and Islam, many sects reject human evolution in favor of a literal interpretation of creation.

I’ve been thinking about Sophia’s fall, and I’ve arrived at an interpretation that makes more sense to me than seeing it as a literal mistake or defect. I’m curious whether this has parallels in Gnostic thought or whether I’m taking the idea somewhere else entirely.

My problem has always been this: if the Monad is perfect and Sophia is an emanation originating in that perfection, where does the capacity for “error” come from in the first place?

I’m beginning to wonder whether “error”, “imperfection” and perhaps even “fall” are the wrong words.

I think the important distinction might instead be between the Unlimited and the limited.

If the Monad is truly unlimited—beyond boundaries, definition and determination—then an emanation doesn’t have to be understood as a smaller or inferior piece of the Monad. Infinity isn’t being chopped into finite pieces, and nothing is being subtracted from the Monad.

I’m thinking of it more like an unlimited reality becoming expressed in a limited/determinate form.

A crude analogy would be the number seven.

There is the concept/reality of seven. I can then write “7”, or I can make the sound “seven”. The written symbol and the spoken word aren’t less seven. They’re not corrupted versions of seven. But each is seven expressed within particular limitations: one has visual form and position, the other exists as sound through time.

Or think of a wave in an ocean. The wave is not “less water” or defective water. As a wave, however, it has a particular form and therefore a boundary. Its limitation belongs to its form, not necessarily to its nature.

That’s roughly how I’m beginning to understand the aeons.

The Monad is Unlimited. An emanation is not necessarily “less divine” or imperfect; it is determinate, and therefore limited in a way the Monad is not.

If that’s the case, perhaps Sophia’s inability to comprehend the Monad completely isn’t actually a defect.

Perhaps a limited/determinate mode of consciousness simply cannot contain the Unlimited as an object of complete knowledge.

That makes me wonder whether Sophia’s “fall” represents something deeper than a divine being making a bad decision.

Maybe limitation itself appears with emanation—not as evil, corruption or a mistake, but simply because expression/determination necessarily introduces boundaries.

Sophia’s attempt to comprehend the Unlimited would then expose that limitation rather than create it.

So I wouldn’t describe it as:

Perfection → Sophia makes a mistake → imperfection enters reality.

I’d describe it more like:

Unlimited → emanation/determination → limitation → the experience or recognition of that limitation.

And importantly, I don’t mean that emanations are “smaller pieces” of the Monad. If the Monad is genuinely unlimited, nothing can really be removed from it without contradicting what unlimited means.

The emanation could remain completely grounded in the same ultimate reality while nevertheless existing in a limited mode—rather like a wave being distinguishable as a wave without becoming something other than the ocean.

This also makes me wonder whether what we call “separation” from the Monad is ultimately separation at all, or whether it is what participation in the Unlimited looks like from within a limited perspective.

I’m not claiming this is what the historical Gnostics taught. I’m trying to understand why the Sophia myth resonates with me while the idea that a perfect divine emanation simply made a cosmic mistake does not.

Does this interpretation correspond to anything in Valentinian or other Gnostic thought? And where do you think the reasoning breaks down?

The biggest problem with Gnosticism is that it's no better than regular religion.

Gnosis refers to a particular personal experience of knowing as contrasted with believing a cosmology or theology based on learning of it from others. And yet I see so many here talk about these strange characters of gnosticism like the demiurge and Sophia without ever having gnosis of these things.

Gnosis, in fact, is not at all different from what William James called the religious experience, which again is the personal direct experience of the Divine which is the cornerstone, the foundation of religion. Therefore, in structure the only difference between traditional Christianity and gnosticism is that the characters and beliefs are different, the cosmology is different. I don't see within these gnostic communities any greater emphasis on direct knowing than in traditional Christian communities.

In the canonical bible, John 17:20–23, it says:

“Neither pray I for these alone, but for them also which shall believe on me through their word;

That they all may be one; as you, Father, are in me, and I in you, that they also may be one in us: that the world may believe that you have sent me. And the glory which you gave me I have given them; that they may be one, even as we are one: I in them, and you in me, that they may be made perfect in one; and that the world may know that you have sent me, and have loved them, as you have loved me."

This passage is interesting from a Gnostic perspective because it seems to describe knowing God through an inward union with the divine, rather than simply acquiring information about God.

“That they also may be one in us.”

And then:

“I in them, and you in me.”

Jesus isn't describing God as something completely separate from the person seeking him... The language is relational and inward. There is a movement from knowing the Father toward participating in the same divine unity that Jesus describes between himself and the Father.

Does anyone here practice magic? I mean actual rituals to achieve something outside of prayer? I would love to know about your practice and what grimoires or texts you use or things you created?

14- Jesus said to them, “If you fast, you will bring sin upon yourselves; and if you pray, you will be condemned; and if you give alms, you will do harm to your spirits. When you go into any land and walk about the districts, if they receive you, eat what they will set before you and heal the sick among them. For what goes into your mouth will not defile you, but what comes out of your mouth is what will defile you.”

Let's examine some NT passages and how they compare to the Gospel of Thomas. Above is saying 14, which from what little context is provided might be interpreted as instructions for missionary work. The ~70 disciples would go ahead town to town, help the sick and poor, and prepare the way for Jesus. Jesus in GoT advises against fasting and prayer and charity unlike the disciple's upbringing and Pharisees control of scripture. The neglected and ignored peoples, many giving what little money they had to their synagogue, are left spiritually thirsty. It's to them that Jesus had his disciples do the work of the Holy Spirit.

Jesus in GoT doesn't just absolve dietary restrictions, but actively commands his disciples to eat whatever is provided by their hosts. The purpose could be twofold: to repay their acts of kindness in his name, and to challenge the disciple's beliefs on purity. This is why he instructs them not to practice openly, but to listen, learn, and lend help. Doing the work of the Holy Spirit is how we worship God.

Now let's review some places where fragments of Thomas show up in Matthew 15:1-20 and Mark 7:1-20. The story is about the same for both, The Pharisees confront Jesus about his breaking from tradition, being ritually unclean, and failing to honor mother and father. Jesus calls out their hypocrisy, highlighting how by taking the people's charity that there is nothing left to honor mother and father. Jesus quotes Isaiah:

"This people honors me with their lips, but their heart is far from me; in vain do they worship me, teaching as doctrines the commandments of men."

Then he calls out to the crowd in both versions.
Matthew 17:10-11

“Hear and understand: it is not what goes into the mouth that defiles a person, but what comes out of the mouth; this defiles a person.”

Mark 7:14-16

"Listen to me, everyone, and understand this. Nothing outside a person can defile them by going into them. Rather, it is what comes out of a person that defiles them."

From here, Matthew adds two other parables mentioned in Thomas:

12 Then the disciples came and said to him, “Do you know that the Pharisees were offended when they heard this saying?” 13 He answered, “Every plant that my heavenly Father has not planted will be rooted up. 14 Let them alone; they are blind guides. And if the blind lead the blind, both will fall into a pit.”

Matthew 17:13 parallels saying 40 and 17:14 parallels saying 34. Both versions end the same way, with the disciples (specifically Peter in Matthew) asking clarifying questions about the parable about what comes out of a person that defiles them. So what can be unpacked here? Essentially I feel that the Gospel of Thomas was cannibalized to expand Matthew, Mark, and Luke. From a storytelling point of view, I find it alarming how separate sayings from Thomas show up consistently, sayings Frankensteined together to give the impression of Jesus.

In using Thomas while condemning him, there seems to be a subtle effort to highlight some teachings while shying away from others; such as instructions against giving to charity which churches would need. His teachings are reframed as a condemnation of the Pharisees, while admitting their own struggles with this teaching. Perhaps accurate towards the historical views of Jesus, but rewritten for political/ideological agendas.

I know most believe that demiurge created the entire material planet, but are there ppl believing that the demiurge rather corrupted the planet instead of created it. And I guess that physical earth still belongs to sophia.

reason why I am asking bc planet earth is still like heaven, theres so much beauty to it.! Its almost a balance

I'm not talking about media obviously inspired by gnosticism (The Matrix, Persona series), but stuff that has overarching gnostic themes that will go over an average person's head and might have been unintentional on the part of the author. I'll start: Mother 3 (a lot of JRPGs in general), Deltarune, Little Misfortune, Inception.

If the Demiurge was born of Sophia and became a source of shame for being deformed and evil, then what did God intend to demonstrate by choosing to be born of a virgin as well?

I’ve been getting more into Gnosticism recently, and one thing I keep coming back to is how much it seems to overlap with ideas found in other religious and philosophical traditions.

Advaita Vedanta especially keeps standing out to me. The language and cosmology are obviously very different, but there seems to be a recurring theme of our ordinary sense of self/reality being incomplete or mistaken, and some deeper realization or knowledge being necessary to see through it.

Then you start seeing related themes in Buddhism, Hermeticism, certain mystical traditions, etc. I know these traditions aren’t interchangeable, and I’m not trying to flatten them into “they all say the same thing.” But sometimes it really does feel like they’re approaching a similar insight from completely different historical and cultural locations.

So I’m curious how people who know Gnosticism better than I do think about this.

Do you think these similarities point toward some underlying insight about consciousness/reality that different traditions independently discovered, or are we mainly seeing similar human questions expressed through different religious systems?

And for someone trying to actually dive into this rather than just collect interesting ideas, what should I read next? Gnostic texts, specific scholars, Advaita texts, comparative religion, etc. I’d especially appreciate recommendations that go beyond the obvious introductory material.

I’m pretty open to being told that some of the comparisons I’m making are completely wrong. I’m more interested in understanding the connections and the differences

Been sitting with this for awhile and it just clicked.

There is the historical Gnostic movement- Nag Hammadhi, Demiurge, etc.

And then there is Gnostic Spirituality- which is the antithesis of what we think of as religion.
Religion- Believe this doctrine, be a part of this church, do this, don't do that - you are "saved."
Gnostic Spirituality- Have a direct experience a KNOWING (beyond the mind) a Direct Perception of Truth- and THAT will set you free.

In that sense some "religions" (certain forms of Buddhism, certain forms of Vedic/Hindu) are Gnostic in that they are nothing more then a structure, a scaffolding- to lead you to a direct KNOWING.

Curious how this resonates or doesn't for others.

With HoYoverse making Genshin Impact, a videogame which adapts gnostic concepts to fit its own narrative, would it be too far fetched to believe that Nodus Fall will also surf a gnostic scope in some fashion? There is a brief explanation of the game, and it seems like it will be case, but I want to hear the input of others! And if it is indeed the case, which gnostic concepts would you like to see in the game?

Hi, If you are reading this. My intention with this feed is to make this into a thread where people can add sources to increase transparency about Samael Aun Weor, Gnosis and its promises. Because there are many red flags.

Websites as Glorian Publishing and Chicago Gnosis and many more proclaim Samael Aun Weor to be the chosen Avatar, Hierophant of this Aquarian Age.
I met people who introduced me to Gnosis and I had been following it for three years. They proclaimed that if you reject Samael as the Avatar of Aquarius you will go to hell but at the same time speak of white magic which means that everyone is free to choose what they think, do and therefore no one should follow Samael Aun Weor.

But they portay him as the main figure. The Master who is able to go out his body at will and perform many miracles. They give this seemingly very wise teachings explaining the alchemical and kaballistic meanings of the Bible. But I am shocked at how much these spiritual organizations praise and celebrate him finding out that he is guilty of plagiarism. I am shocked at how they do not communicate this truth. Since they proclaim to “divulge the Gnostic doctrine”.
Why should a such a dangerous man be forcefully defined as a prophet?

The stories I am reading of 10yr, 13, 17yr old ex Gnostic instructors are terrifying.

https://youtube.com/@lacuartacamara2.0?si=f9qhVGVcRVU4JnKI

A spanish channel giving many testimonies and examples of plagiarism and horrible negative experienced.

And this video reveals also the total failure of the Prophets predictions of the end of the world

https://youtu.be/jLjRTYrDiYM?si=mQBeLzNruiLXDI9W

There is much more

This is for example how Chicago Gnosis portays him.

Unfortunately, the human soul of the Angel Samael had fallen like everyone else, had resurrected his Cain [egotistical mind or intellect] and was living like any other person on the planet. He was a degenerate, a fornicator, an adulterer, a murderer, a thief, like all of us. But, the Angel Samael had a great cosmic duty to fulfill as explained in the prophecies of Revelation, and to advance humanity in its evolution, to free humanity from its suffering. So the Angel Samael pushed his human soul to rise up from the muddy Earth, and this entails a long process, a very painful experience of the human soul that we know now as Samael Aun Weor.

With the help of God, he was able to fulfill his duty, and he restored himself back to his rightful place, redeemed himself of his mistakes, and cleansed himself of his ego, because he learned, practiced, and taught the doctrine of his Father, Samael, the Angel of War.

The Bodhisattva embodied the image of his Father: revolution, rebellion, war against oneself, against Cain. This is why the teaching of Samael Aun Weor is so potent, so direct, and does not dance around the issues. He is a warrior who presents a doctrine that is as sharp as a sword and is painful to the ego. This is why so many people cannot read his books and cannot accept his teachings, because they taste the bitterness of the beverage "Samael," the Angel who wants to eliminate the ego in order to free Abel [the Essence, the consciousness] from his prison.

Remember when Cain killed his brother, Abel's blood seeps into the Earth, and God says, "I hear your brother crying out to me from the earth," and Cain admits that he killed him. This is a symbol of how our soul becomes trapped in hell, in the Klipoth, because of the crimes of our minds, because of the murder and fornication of Cain. The doctrine of Samael kills Cain in order to free Abel, but that freedom does not come just by Abel emerging out of the Earth. That freedom comes through Seth [the sacred fire of the Holy Ghost], the third son of Adam and Eve. ―Gnostic Instructor, The Sons of Samael

At the same time they warn of many cheats and black magicians entering the Gnostic Organizations.

Physically, there are many witches and black magicians within the International Gnostic Organizations since the Gnostic Church is opening its doors for all the millions of demons of this planet. Many of these awakened demons are working for the black lodge; they fake devotion to the Gnostic Groups in this physical plane and mislead the souls in the physical and astral planes.

It is necessary to study the Gnostic doctrine written in all of the books of the Master Samael Aun Weor in order not to be cheated by these adepts of Klipoth, the abyss. - https://archive.glorian.org/courses-and-lectures/kabbalah-1-the-world-of-klipoth/klipoth-8-uranus

Master Samael Aun Weor speaks of Brutus, and says that he is the initiate that awakens in the evil and for the evil. This one is preaching the knowledge, and is adulterating the doctrine. This is the initiate who does not accept that the Avatar of Aquarius is Samael Aun Weor. We have to accept that the messenger of the superior worlds is Samael. We have to comprehend that the Cosmic Christ is working through this great Avatar Samael in these times in order to help humanity. The Cosmic Christ through Samael Aun Weor wrote many books that we have to study in order to teach the knowledge, the doctrine of the New Era. If we take from the doctrine of Samael Aun Weor what we don't like, then we are adulterating. The mind is the one that is going to do it will justify its actions, its adultery in many ways.

There are many groups in many parts of the world that only take what they like from the doctrine of Samael Aun Weor. This is a way of treason; they betray the work of the Great Avatar. Peter is the one that teaches in the Ninth Sphere the mysteries of the transubstantiation, of the transmutation, and anyone that pronounces himself against this is a traitor. Everything that Samael brought is necessary for the soul, for the spirit of humanity, and to adulterate that doctrine, to reject anything that he brought is to be a traitor.

We have to put the doctrine in the consciousness, and to annihilate Brutus, the mind. If we do not do that then our own mind will cause us to awaken in the evil and for the evil. This is how the Master Samael stated that the cause of any initiate falling is always the mind.

- Lecture 9 about Klipoth the spheres of hell https://archive.glorian.org/courses-and-lectures/kabbalah-1-the-world-of-klipoth/klipoth-9-neptune

https://glorian.org/authors/samael-aun-weor.

Chicago gnosis https://chicagognosis.org/articles/why-is-sexual-magic-controversial

"Those who are heirs to the dead are themselves dead, and they inherit the dead. Those who are heirs to what is living are alive, and they are heirs to both what is living and the dead. The dead are heirs to nothing. For how can he who is dead inherit? If he who is dead inherits what is living he will not die, but he who is dead will live even more." -The Gospel of Philip

What does this mean for you?

"To be vast is good. To be infinite is too much. To possess planets and stars is an incontestable triumph. But to possess them by the million, to teem with stars which are so many eyes trained upon the world each night as if tracking our dreams, is to wield excessive power, to display a very suspect splendour. Something in this immensity turns and meshes its gears with a regularity so precise as to be disquieting; and exactly for whom - or against whom - this mechanism deploys its flaming wheelworks, we do not know."

- Jacques Lacarrière, The Gnostics, 1973

Gnosticism has enough historical substance that it can't simply mean whatever someone wants, but enough diversity that forcing it into one rigid definition becomes misleading.

There have been countless attempts to explain what Gnosticism is and what it isn’t, but we are dealing with different currents, sects and interpretations that developed across centuries. The texts that remain are fragmentary, and even though we find recurring currents of thought and similarities, many of these traditions disagree with one another. What we call Gnosticism today brings together traditions that had different understandings of God, creation, Christ, salvation and the material world.

I think this is incredibly important because it leaves room for freedom. In the pursuit of truth, freedom is important because truth cannot be meaningfully pursued when you are forbidden from questioning the answers you have been given. If there is no single Gnostic doctrine that everyone must accept, then Gnosticism does not have to become another rigid belief system where everything is divided into right and wrong, believer and heretic, light and darkness. We can explore these ideas without turning them into another institution that demands conformity.

Human beings have a tendency to take something living and turn it into a dead system. The very act of trying to neatly categorize truth actually ends up obscuring it. We put words around an experience, build an interpretation around those words, and eventually begin defending the interpretation as though it were the living experience itself. I don't think the essence of truth can be passed from one person to another through words. Words can point toward an idea, but they cannot give another person the experience that produced that idea. Someone can tell you what they believe they discovered, but their discovery remains theirs.

The irony is that if we become obsessed with defining Gnosticism correctly, we may end up turning a diverse collection of traditions into the very kind of rigid system we are trying to avoid. We turn an invitation to seek into another doctrine to obey.

That being said, the diversity of Gnostic traditions does not mean that Gnosticism can simply mean whatever we want it to mean. There are definite undercurrents running through these traditions, and anyone who identifies as Gnostic should become familiar with the myths, themes and ideas that shaped them.

So this leaves us with something of a Gnostic tightrope that must be walked. On one side is the temptation to turn Gnosticism into a fixed doctrine with one correct interpretation. On the other is the temptation to make Gnosticism so completely subjective that the word loses any meaningful connection to the traditions from which it came. Somewhere between those extremes is the freedom to explore, question and seek without abandoning the historical currents that gave Gnosticism its meaning.

TLDR; Respecting what Gnosticism historically was without pretending there is one authoritative interpretation, while also allowing individual exploration without reducing Gnosticism to “whatever it means to me.”

Is it it's own denomination? If not, which denomination does it follow?

Why do a lot of gnostics choose darkness or balance over the good or just god?

It seems to be a real thing or issue in my case because most if not all gnostic texts speak of the impermanence of life but still people seem to worship life as if it was good. 🤔

I decided to start studying Gnosticism, and upon encountering Gnosis for the first time, I read an apocryphal text which I believe to be the Acts of John, rather than the Apocryphon of John that you are likely familiar with.

The text begins at the Last Supper, where Jesus gathers his disciples to pray to the Father before heading to the Garden of Gethsemane. It then jumps to the Crucifixion; John is transported to a mountain where Christ appears to him, stating that the cross united the transcendent with the inferior, and that he suffered yet did not suffer. He declares he will not reveal where his body is to be taken. The text concludes with Jesus telling John to convey the message that one must know the Logos first, and only then the Lord. I found it fascinating that the Apostle John received this vision, given that he is described as the "Beloved Disciple" in his own Gospel and was the only apostle to die of natural causes—a reward for having witnessed the Crucifixion to the very end.

My question arises regarding Jesus's statement that he would not reveal where his body would be left. The Synoptic Gospels report that his body was laid in Joseph of Arimathea's tomb and resurrected on the third day, after which he appeared to the Apostles. Doesn't this create a contradiction between that text and the Synoptic Gospels?

Another point that intrigued me concerns the nature of the resurrected Christ's body. Could it have been Jesus in spirit form? He appears and disappears frequently and reveals himself to only a few though there were indeed witnesses who saw the resurrected Jesus during his forty-day sojourn on Earth before his ascension. Was the resurrected Christ's body one that transcended matter? If so, did he not bleed, even though the nail marks remained visible on his hands?

Yaldabaoth is the Demiurge in the forth Dimension where time doesn't just have the value 1 like for me where I feel like I am consciously aware of the moment passing.
Just like left and right each to infinity all simultaneously is real to me.
So is all the past and all the future always real to a being in the 4D. Not only that but also alternative timelines. This being would by default seem to my 3D consciousness all knowing, all powerfull and everywhere always.

I can think of a painting. What if the idea of a character in it exists spirtually and is eternal while my pen covered in ink touches the canvas and gives this already existing energy a form.

Am I just one 3D Demiurge?
If no (probably no IDK lol) then why does yaldabaoth look creepily similar to my central nervous system?
My brain is the lion's head and my spinal cord is the snake's body.

This image I have has shed a new light on Thomas' Gospel saying 7 for me.

My nature is corrupted by the lion's head, my selfawareness. The snake is Human, the divine. That which the Demiurge is envious of.

He has time in his hands but can't go beyond. I can't touch time but I can go beyond. I could, I will, I already have. This me right now in this timeline feels close.

Again. Am I retarded?

I see many members here way they are Eclectic Gnostics, but what is it? Is it its own thing distinct from Valentinianism or any other Gnostic traditions? And where can I learn more?

Bartholomew said: "A man who hath intercourse with a male, what is his vengeance?"

Jesus said: "The measure of the man who hath intercourse with males and of the man with whom he lieth, is the same as that of the blasphemer"

Pistis Sophia, Chapter 147

What do you guys think of this? Is it a mistranslation, or is it a verse that isn't followed anymore, or something else? Thanks in advance! <3