What never understood was how anyone could not see this just from reading the old testament itself. The demiurge of the OT is a psychopath

This completely explains what happened to me in 1988. I was totally agnostic when I had a near-death experience and a divine encounter.  I was never raised in a church - which has turned out to be the biggest blessing of my life.  Of course, when I started to share this encounter with others, they told me I had to go into a church building which I did and I tried to drink that Kool-Aid for over 30 years and just couldn’t.  This.!  this is why I couldn’t drink the religious Kool-Aid.  Thank you!

Im so grateful this channel has genuine credentialed people (not), providing food for the soul.
Dont be fooled people.

I remembered. Thanks a lot.❤❤❤

Wow, this video is packed with high-quality information. Just subscribed. Please continue to make these videos with a real human face and a real human voice.👍🏼

After attending different disciplines of Christian churches for over 50 years, do I now know that what I was looking for was here inside me all along. I have only been practicing Gnosticism for 9 months now.

This is one of your best videos i have watched! Good work

I remembered 🫶🏼

I am remembering

I remembered.

I remembered

I remembered ❤

I said that prayer for a long time then I stopped.... now I just say creator source, most high source.
I dont pray either,
I resonate!
Blessed Be

I remember!

Wow I totally agree and love this outlook!
I say when doing the sign of the cross-in the name all “mothers and fathers”, “sons and daughters and all of the holy spirits”, Amen.

I remember

1. The self-refuting epistemology problem
The system claims ultimate reality is unnameable, unknowable, beyond all categories — yet the very texts proceed to name it, categorize its emanations in precise numbers, and describe its inner workings in exhaustive detail. If the Absolute is genuinely beyond concepts, on what grounds can anyone claim reliable knowledge of its internal structure, its "desire," or its reasons for emanating anything at all? The moment you describe the ineffable, you've already contradicted the premise that it's ineffable.

2. Why does a perfect, self-sufficient source need or want anything to exist at all?
Bythos is described as complete, lacking nothing, needing nothing. But emanation implies some kind of movement, expression, or desire for self-knowledge. If he truly lacks nothing, what is the actual motive force behind the first emanation? "Overflowing goodness" is offered as an answer, but that itself presupposes a kind of need or incompleteness that the system explicitly denies him having — the explanation quietly imports the very deficiency it claims doesn't exist.

3. The infinite regress of "who judges the judges"
Gnosis is what frees a soul from archontic control by granting true self-knowledge. But how does any soul — itself formed by ignorant, limited archons, using cognitive faculties they built — verify that what it takes for gnosis is actually true insight and not just a different, subtler illusion? The system offers no independent standard external to itself by which a trapped mind could ever confirm it has actually reached truth rather than a more convincing delusion.

4. Cosmic scale versus the anthropocentric plot
The elaborate rescue narrative — Sophia's fall, the archons, Adam, the light-spark — is staged entirely around human beings on one planet. If the Pleroma and its drama are the true metaphysical foundation of reality, why does the entire cosmic crisis hinge on a single species on a single world, rather than being a feature of the structure of being as such, applicable everywhere matter exists?

5. The problem of an evil/ignorant creator who nonetheless enables real moral progress
Yaldabaoth is ignorant and flawed, yet the very cosmos he builds turns out to be the exact mechanism through which souls can achieve gnosis, moral growth, and eventual return — suffering, embodiment, and struggle are what make awakening meaningful at all. This raises the question: is the "flawed" creation actually flawed, or is it functionally indistinguishable from a deliberately designed training ground? If the outcome is optimal for soul-making, the claim that its architect was blind and mistaken becomes hard to defend on its own terms — the story needs him to be a failure, but the plot only works if his failure produces exactly the right conditions for redemption.

This video, presented by the channel Gnostic Talk, explores the Gnostic perspective on the traditional Christian prayer, The Lord's Prayer (or "Our Father"). The host, Daniel, argues that the architecture of this prayer reinforces a structure of separation, dependence, and submission to a lower cosmic deity rather than connecting the individual to the highest divine source.

Key Themes and Arguments:
The Architecture of Petition: Daniel explains that addressing a "Father in Heaven" sets up a vertical hierarchy (0:28-2:40). From a Gnostic viewpoint, this directs focus outward and upward toward the Demiurge—a flawed, secondary creator—instead of inward toward the true divine spark (18:50-19:20).
The Demiurge vs. The Monad: The video distinguishes between the Demiurge (the creator of the material world who is often jealous and demanding of worship) and the Monad (the ultimate, ineffable source of light and consciousness that requires no prayer or external service) (3:30-7:30).
The Divine Spark (Numa): A central Gnostic teaching presented is that humans are not merely dust, but carriers of the numa—a fragment of the original divine light trapped in matter (9:05-9:50).
Nosis (Recognition): The alternative to traditional prayer is Nosis (direct, experiential knowing). The goal is not to petition a distant god, but to recognize and awaken the divine presence already existing within the self (26:00-27:15).
Institutional Suppression: The video suggests that the historical suppression of Gnostic texts—such as those found in the Nag Hammadi Library—was driven by the desire of institutional churches to maintain authority, as a spirituality based on individual "interior awakening" makes hierarchical gatekeeping unnecessary (14:15-15:10, 34:00-36:15).
Conclusion:
Instead of "Our Father," the host suggests shifting attention away from external petition and toward a state of internal recognition of one's own divine nature. He emphasizes that this is not about learning new dogma, but about clearing the static to recognize the light that has always been present (43:00-44:48).

Maybe consider the explanation of our father according to Edgar Cayce. Our father implies we're all siblings of what is in the all (understood heaven as ether), the name of which is completion, perfection equals hallowed. By letting the all come to us and giving up will to the all we flow freely so no obstructions. As in the ether it flows on earth. Bread is everything we need, we allow it to be provided. By forgiving and accepting forgiveness we are set free to monad. With the attained power to roll let us plant fruitful ways. In understanding the implication may we strengthen our faith and keep on praying and this talk rings obsolete to me.

When are you going to reconcile your Gnostic talk with the Anunnaki talk?