Many Gnostic works were in use by the Christians until the end of the second century when these became suppressed by Irenaeus. The Nag Hammadi documents may all have been an authentic collection of what Christianity had been before Ireneus' revolution. After he became a Bishop, Iraneus' first action was to set the Pope straight and it is written that the Pope took his advice.

Clement, Didymos and Origen, the primal Christians fathers, knew of documents such as the Exegesis of the Soul, a purely Gnostic document, as traces of it's content are found in their teachings. The soul, being both male and female, is predominately female. When the soul leaves her natural home, it is said that she plays the harlot searching for lover after lover. Rather than this being a harlot of today's connotations, this is the Soul going from one body to the next. Birth, life and death. Body after body.

The Soul and the spirit were One while they were with the Father and will become One when it is again joined with the Christ Spirit. Once the soul is One again, she will no longer desire to prostitute herself. The reunion of the soul in Christ is the return of Adam and Eve into One. The reunion of the Soul and Christ is the resurrection of knowledge.

In Clement's first letter, he states that Noah preached to the people to turn and walk in the sight of the Lord, and those that heard were saved. It does not say however if this was done before they were all killed in the great Deluge in which only Noah and his immediate family survived, or afterwards when there was no one left because of the drowning.

Humility is possibly thought so that no one is to rise above the flesh to reign over the minions of the physical universe and then especially Yaldabaot, but stupidity such as the above goes beyond modest reasoning. To explain away such statements takes great imagination. The other thought here is that a great many of the early Church fathers used 1 Clement as scripture, and things like this were what they taught their congregations.

Some of the contemporaries of the developing Christian and Gnostic Churches said that the intellectual Church of the Gnostics was not for the masses and the Christian Church was not for the intellectual. Clement lived about 90 C.E. yet, what he really taught may or may not be what the religious leaders of today would have us believe.

We can still study the letters of Clement and they are possibly depicting Clement. The originals are of course lost, but if what is extant today are near the originals, we get a good interpretation of Clement. He would not have been fed to the lions in today's world, that is unless we would call psychiatrists lions.

Another interesting early father is Barnabas. The letter of Barnabas was also written to indoctrinate the laity in the correct Gnosis. He was one of the fathers of the dead man Christians, however this dead man cult did not come about yet.

The dead man cult was the cult of Irenaeus. Earlier, I called him the Antichrist. I would now also like to state that if an Archon ever lived on Earth who had the imprisonment of Mans Soul as his prime object in life, it was Irenaeus.

Irenaeus was perhaps the greatest influential character of the dead man cult. He fought and falsified Gnostic teachings to validate martyrdom and promote his own interpretation of the scriptures. To the Gnostics, the martyrs were zealous unenlightened fanatics while the Gnostics were those who promoted the teaching of the Soul. The dead man cult believed the gospel was the truth and the Gnostics believed the Gospel was a way to the truth.

"Many are called but few are chosen." The many were the dead man cult and the few were the Gnostics. I may as well use this phrase and call it mine, the Christians did. When mentioned by Socrates in 400 B.C.E., the phrase had an entirely different meaning, but it is a good one used from long before Socrates as he makes clear.

The Gospel of John was said to be Gnostic. The Gnostics said we are living in a state of unconsciousness. Cast aside the ignorance like sleep and awaken.

Darkness vanishes from the Light, and ignorance vanishes in front of the Light of Christ were Gnostic sayings.

The kingdom is transformed consciousness. Mark 9:1 states: "And he said unto them, Verily I say unto you, That there be some of them that stand here which shall not taste of death, till they have seen the kingdom of God come with power."

If Christianity holds these scriptures to be correct, they lie. This states that some of these people are not to experience death of the body before they are resurrected. The Christian Christ has still not come back and countless Christians have tasted death. How can they explain this without using silly excuses.

On the other hand, the Gnostics had to receive Gnosis while they were still alive in the body. All Gnostics would see the kingdom of God before they tasted death. No Christian has yet seen this kingdom and none will unless they understand what Jesus really said.

Mark 14:62 states: "And Jesus said, I am: and ye shall see the Son of man sitting on the right hand of power, and coming in the clouds of heaven."

When you achieved Gnosism you were no longer a Christian but a Christ. Luke 17:21states: "Neither shall they say, Lo here! Or, lo there! For behold, the kingdom of God is within you." This is exactly as spoken by the Gnostic.

Irenaeus did not know much about the Gnostics. In his refutation of the Gnostics, he stated among other things that those who held that Jesus was only preaching for about a year were heretics. As proof, Irenaeus sites John 8:56-57 which states that how could Jesus, who is not yet fifty years old, have seen Abraham ? Irenaeus states this is improper. If Jesus was not yet forty, it would have stated How could you who is not yet forty years old have seen Abraham? This to him is proof, and the same type of "proof" is used throughout the entire stupid "Against Heresies." Irenaeus asserts Jesus was alive until the time of Trajan. Trajan's reign commenced 98 C.E. which would have made Jesus over a hundred years old.

Since he was a Bishop of the Christian Church, his reporting of facts can be seen to reflect the accuracy with which he reports on the Gnostics whom he does not know. He is only successful when it comes to smearing them with false accusations and lies.

Irenaeus proves some things are only to be grasped by the mind of his God such as why the river Nile rises, where birds go when they migrate, why do the oceans ebb and rise. Such things as lightning, thunder, the gathering of clouds, the formation of rain and the bursting forth of wind. He states that things like these can only be grasped by a superior mind, the mind of God.

Then he goes on to 1 Enoch and talks of Man's limited knowledge of the storehouses of snow hail and other similar things. Then he brings up the waxing and waning of the moon and indicates the truth about all these things can only be known by God.

You might say it is unfair to use these examples in refuting Irenaeus, but he knows more about the age of Jesus and is closer to the truth about Man's ability to understand these physical phenomenon than he is in regards to the Gnostic material he supposedly refutes.

One more thing must be mentioned and that is the fact that those who state only the mind of God is able to grasp certain things are themselves judging the abilities of God. How do they understand God better than those who read the scriptures with an analytical view? The answer is they do not! The mother who evaluates the child will embellish the facts where the person who has no familial ties may have an objective look. The excuses and justifications by which the Church embellish their God is anything but objective. It is deceptive, not enlightening.

Luke 14:26 states: "If any man come to me, and hate not his father and mother, and wife, and children, and brethren, and sisters, yea, and his own life also, he can not be my disciple." This commandment has been used in many ways by the Christians and some will be relieved to know it is Gnostic because it does not show the love and compassion the Christians erroneously claim as theirs.

All this states is that unless one despises his material Soul, he can not follow Jesus. Within the Pleroma, there are no brothers and sisters; these come about from the artificial Soul. If he does not hate his own life means that unless he hates the life provided for him within the physical universe, he can not leave it for the life of another dimension.

John 17 is a vision that there is an inter-penetrating union of Souls where all who have become one with Christ share in his perfect union with the father. Gnosticism was not only falsified by Irenaeus, who did it around 185 C.E. but also by Hippolytus around 230 and Epipanius about 375 and no one knows how many others.

The apostle Saint Peter, first in succession to the Popes, supposedly founded the Church in Rome, but this idea is at best tenuous since no evidence of him having been to Rome exist prior to the second century, when teachers such as Irenaeus would have desired that it was so.

Irenaeus stated emphatically that the doctrine he was preaching was the correct one because it had been written by the apostles. This is proof that Irenaeus was not only a crook as far as when it came to the falsification of the Gnostic Gospels, but that he was also a blatant liar who had no regard for the facts.

There is no way possible he did not know that the apostles did not write any of the gospels. Furthermore, there is abundant evidence that he wrote some himself. He also falsified parts of the existing gospels himself in order to combat the influence of the Gnostics.

Tertullean, Irenaeus' prodigee who later broke with the dead man cult, suggested that Barnabas wrote the letter of Paul to the Hebrews. It was well known at the time that Paul could not possibly have written it. That it was written by Barnabas is unlikely. The most prolific writer of all was Irenaeus. But if Tertullean knew this, so did Irenaeus, which proves he was a liar and this is only one of a myriad of inconsistencies regarding Irenaeus. The letter to the Hebrews would not have been written by Irenaeus. The most likely author was Irenaeus' teacher Polykarp.

The Gospel of John, written late in the 1st century contains abundant Greek philosophy as well as Gnosticism. John had a distinct source for his seven miracles: 1) water to wine; 2) healing of a son; 3) healing of the paralyzed; 4) feeds the multitude; 5) walks on water; 6) cures the blind; 7) the raising of the stinking Lazarus from the dead.

Many feel that the distinct source for these miracles were none other than Irenaeus. Other falsifications of John to aid in the battle with the Gnostic were for example, 5:25-28.

Acts is written by the same author as wrote Luke. The name "Acts" is a name that was added at the end of the second century, and it was not all that was added.

2 Thessalonians was an addition by the Bishops, possibly jointly added to the canon. Thessalonians depends on Colossians, but both are later falsifications. They come from the pen of the developing Church and are inspired by the desire of how others wish things were. Romans 16 is also a treasonous chapter written at a date far after St. Paul to aid later teachers in adjusting the data to the mind and Paul's 2nd letter to the Corinthians from 6:14 to 7:1, is a later insertion.

Paul's letter to the Ephesians is not written by Paul either, and the authenticity is very doubtful when it comes to the Colossians. Both these are now regarded as written later in order to combat the Gnostics. Philippians is a jumble of questionable origin and questionable intent. 1 and 2 Timothy and the letter to Titus did not even exist until the third century.

They felt that these falsifications were all justified, and the most difficult part is not the things which are known to have been falsifications for they can all be dispelled as irrelevant, being intended to mislead and betray. This was justified by saying they were intended to clarify.

What is most difficult is what remains. How much of it is authentic? And how much has had slight alterations in order to adjust the data to the minds of the later leaders? Look at John 3:16 and compare verse 15. John 3:15, "For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life." John 3:16 is a repeat of verse 15 with a qualifier inserted before the statement to illustrate the philosophical and theological theories of those who came after. This insertion was made by those whose vested interest it was to portray God as having made some sort of sacrifice. The Gnostic material in John could not be ignored by the later Christians in the second and third centuries after Christ, and this is but one of the innumerable illustrations of how they modified the material to suit their own needs.

Since it is basically agreed that all this material had some sort of source, the original material would be the short version in verse 15. The clarifier in verse 16 is an addition to expound the views of those Christians who came later.

Paul was definitely more Gnostic than the views of him held by the current Church. 1 Cor. 2:6 states: "Howbeit we speak wisdom among them that are perfect: yet not the wisdom of this world, nor of the princes of this world that come to naught."

1 Cor. 3:2,3 tells me I should perhaps not reveal the truth either, for as Paul states: "I have fed you with milk and not with meat: for hitherto ye were not able to bear it, neither yet now are ye able. For ye are yet carnal..."

Jesus never claimed to be the messiah, which also verifies Gnostic claims. According to the Gnostics, the self and the divine are identical. The living Jesus of the Gnostic scriptures speaks of delusion and enlightenment, not sin and repentance which was a major theme carried over from the Israelite religion to the cult of the dead man.

Such anti-Gnostic writers as Irenaeus, Hippolytus and Epiphanous distorted and or paraphrased Gnostic writings in order to put them in the worst possible light. Irenaeus declared there was no salvation outside his Church. In other words, Irenaeus proclaimed himself to be God.

The Church situation depicted in the pastoral letters is not one which reflects the time of Paul, but rather one which existed at the time of Irenaeus in the second century, full of bigotry full of various heresies. Paul's letter to the Hebrews may be the first of the non- authentic Pauline letters. While these Pauline letters are not authentic they formed the basis of the judging of so-called heresies in the Church. This just illustrates that the earliest Christians judged heretics and liars by letters which themselves were both forgeries and Heresies.

The biggest stupidity is the fact that the original Christians based their faith not on the immortality of the soul but on the resurrection of the body.

In his arguments against the Gnostics, Irenaeus has obviously read the Apochryphon of John. He goes on to state what it says in his "Against Heresies" (1:29). Today's theologians state Irenaeus must have read a different manuscript than the one which we have today thanks to the discoveries at Nag Hammadi because of the ignorant coloring Irenaeus has done of the manuscript. A much more likely explanation is that he misunderstood the manuscript.

He was incapable of comprehending and separating the spiritual from the material. Yet far more likely, he just blatantly lied about the content. He calls the Gnostic liars. I think the liar is Irenaeus. The way in which he twists the works of the Gnostics is beyond mere criticism and pointing out possible erroneous thoughts. Against Heresies is a heretical work made to deceive and fool.

Clement supposedly lived 30-100 C.E. He was supposedly at Philippi with St. Paul in 57 C.E. This epistle was held in extremely high regard by the early Church.

In the first chapter, he talks of the Christians sobriety which is of the Gnostics. He reprimand the Corinthians for acting in a manner not becoming a Christ and walking after their lusts by which death entered the world. This also seems Gnostic. Clement, instead of telling them they become Christians, states they became Christ (chapter 3).

While Clement quotes the "Septuagint" version of the OT, the text repeatedly varies with that of the authorized Bible. Incorrect are sayings allegedly by Moses which are not in the scriptures. He uses the sowing of grain as proof that resurrection takes place. He tells the followers to fall down and beseech the Lord by tears. This is not Gnostic.

Clement translates Isa. 26:20. The people are to hide themselves until the lord's fury has passed them by. In the Bible, it says, "until the indignation be overpast." "May God who seeth all things and is the ruler of all spirits and Lord over all flesh" ia another tractate of Clement estimated to have been written about 97 C.E. Nothing written by Clement indicates any substance.

Here is a brief look at some of the material which exist from various sources of the early Christian era.

The Epistle of Mathetes to Diognetius was written about 130 C.E. and is an anonymous Epistle. Both Clement of Rome and Apollos have been suggested as the authors. The person writing this calls the Jewish religion a superstition. Here, it is made obvious that the Jews are still celebrating the Canaanite new moon festivals.

They pass their days on Earth but are citizens of Heaven. Here too we have a Gnostic statement. The Christians profess that the Soul dwells in the body yet is not of the body. They dwell in the world yet are not of the world The flesh hates the Soul and wages war against it.

These are definitely Gnostic sentiments. "The Soul is imprisoned in the body." Christians are confined in the world as in a prison, yet they are the preservers of the world. The immortal Soul dwells in a mortal tabernacle and christians dwell as sojourners in corruptible bodies. Violence has no place in the character of God. This is proof this God is not the God of the OT and here we have a Gnostic philosophy.

The Epistle Of Polykarp to the Philippians is assumed authentic by today's Church. Polykarp was supposedly an anti Gnostic fighter. Also stated in the Encyclopaedia Britannica, Polykarp may himself have influenced or personally written some of the letters traditionally assigned to Paul. 1 & 2 Timothy and the letter to Titus and Hebrews were possibly written by Polykarp.

Polykarp is the first to quote passages from Matthew, Luke and Acts. Also the letters of St. Peter and St. John. Reading his epistle is like reading the above mentioned scriptures which the E.B. states show influence by Polykarp, indicating further the possibly the writer of these scriptures has been found.

The Christians today state that while Irenaeus was wrong in stating that the Ministry of Jesus lasted for ten years, and Jesus lived to be an old man, he was absolutely right in his rendition of the heretic Gnostics. Against Heresies was written between 182-188 C.E.

Irenaeus states that the primal urge of the Gnostics gave forth his seed into the womb of "Idea." This is absurd as can be seen in the Apochryphon of John. Irenaeus states a fable about how thirty aeons were produced according to their erroneous system. His interpretation is at best erroneous and more likely a blatant lie. He names the companion of Sophia, Theletos which is contrary to all Gnostic ideas and beliefs. Irenaeus then proceed to call Sophia the father. Sophia is Greek and means wisdom! On the other hand, wisdom is feminine!

Moreover, Irenaeus states the seas and fresh waters are, according to the Gnostics, from the tears of Sophia. He goes on to suggest that since waters are salt as well as fresh, the waters come from her tears and her sweat. The Gnostic material here referred to is to him false, yet it is his rendition of the Gnostic material which is false. Such material has never been found in any Gnostic scriptures.

Irenaeus continues by stating the Gnostics do not even show reverence for the meat sacrificed to idols but will freely eat of it. He states that the mother Achemoth shall pass into the Pleroma when all her seed are perfected, accompanied by those men who are spiritual. This is another lie. All Men are free to pass into the pleroma whenever they desire, and are, as a matter of fact, a part of the Pleroma. He states the Demiurge shall pass into the middle region with animal men which is another lie. The demiurge is also of the pleroma and will go where he desires when he acquire Gnosis. Then he states all material men shall go into corruption which is another lie because the Gnostics state that the material men will eventually also become spiritual.

Irenaeus goes on to state the system of the Gnostics falls apart because the Ogdoad was created before the Christ. What utter stupidity! The Ogdoad created was not an Ogdoad of personages but an Ogdoad of sentient characteristics.

Irenaeus states Jesus ascended into heaven in the flesh. Irenaeus goes on to state that there was another being in existence before the monad began any creations which is also false. Then he goes on to rename the Monad a Cucumber and his coexistence (which was not) a melon. Irenaeus states that women are bidden to prophesy by the Gnostics and then prophesy falsely. He states that Man is in subjugation to God and thus can only prophesy when ordered to do so by God and when and where God so desires. He neglects to mention the fact that all Gnostics are above the God to whom Irenaeus is subjugated.

According to the Gnostics, Irenaeus said that the person who descended had in him the Father and the Son. It is also wrong as the Gnostics stated that he who descended was as the Father or Source. He says he consisted of thirty elements which is another lie.

According to Irenaeus, Isaiah 1:3 says: "But Israel hath not known me, and my people have understood me." Also in Daniel, Irenaeus states "Go thy way quickly, Daniel, for these sayings are closed up until those who have understanding do understand them, and those who are white be made white." Here, the Church suggests this is an interpolation by the Christian heretics. Luke 12:50, "And I have another baptism to be baptized with, and I hasten towards it." This text it is suggested was thus corrupted by the heretics (see also Mark 10:38). They declare also that marriage and generation are from Satan (1 Tim. 4:3). In chapter 29, Irenaeus is describing the Apochryphon of John.

It is obvious Irenaeus did not understand what was really said. He sees the light as a physical manifestation and not spiritual. In the first book, which immediately precedes this, exposing "...knowledge falsely so called" (1 Tim. 6:20). Irenaeus claims he proved there is only the God he believes in, the creator and there could not be anything above or below him. This is an utter lie, and only indicates the empty mind that proved such fallacious facts.

Irenaeus proceeds in a garbled fashion to attempt to prove the only God is his. He there explains how his God is the Gnostic God since his God is the superior God, so the Gnostic God must be his God. He goes on to state how their God has to have a beginning and an end and thus is an inferior God never apparently for one second realizing the argument is only applicable to his God, for only the God of the physical can have a beginning and an end.

What is most abundantly clear is the fact Irenaeus had no inkling as to a non time/space dimension which the Gnostics explained and Irenaeus failed to comprehend.

In his book 2, chapter 2 it is said to be a homily on Hebrews. He then quotes Psalm 33:9, "He spake, and they were made, he commanded and they were created." Irenaeus obviously did not know Sumerian mythology. Eph. 4:6 he quotes as, "There is one God who is above all, and through all things, and in us all." This is Gnostic. Different from the Bible.

Irenaeus goes on to state he has thus proved that there is only his one God, and refers to the Gnostics as those persons who do not speak a word of sense while in fact, Irenaeus does not speak a word of sense and has proved nothing. Irenaeus states that as soon as a conception was formed in the mind of God, conception came about. For once he is right. He just does not state whether he is talking about the Egyptian God Re who according to Egyptian legends did this, or one of the Sumerian Gods or the Canaanite God El or the God of the Hebrews, Yawwu.

"...ten thousand times ten thousand stood beside him, and many thousands of thousands ministered unto him..." Irenaeus quotes Dan.7:10 which agrees neither with the Hebrew or the Greek text. But it agrees with the manuscripts from Ugarit and so maybe Irenaeus had a more original version of Canaanite doctrine at hand.

Irenaeus speaks of the things in this world being as shadows of those things in the immortal sphere stating if they are shadows then the pleroma of the Gnostic's is also material.

With his limited mental abilities, Irenaeus is incapable of grasping the fact that a shadow is not real. The real thing is not material and casts no shadow. The shadow of the real thing is an imitation and thus, the physical universe is an imitation of the spiritual universe.

Irenaeus proclaims his God created everything out of nothing and not from preexisting matter. This may make sense to Irenaeus, yet no one else. The Gnostics stated where all matter came from and also defined the origin of time.

If Irenaeus is correct in his assertions, then by his own definitions and his own proof that the God or Monad of the Gnostic is not the God they claim he is, then neither is the God of Irenaeus what He claims. In other words, the God of Irenaeus is nothing. Just like the Gnostic father then has no witness to his existence, neither does the God of Irenaeus.

Irenaeus goes on to state that he has proved Sophia could not have created anything without her male cohort. If this were true, then neither could the God of Irenaeus have created anything without a female cohort. A spiritual creation is not a physical creation.

He then goes on to state that as such, silence and logos can not possibly exist in harmony as silence is the opposite of logos. Logos is not a blabbering of disconnected words and unending sentences which use a paragraph to state a simple phrase as Irenaeus frequently does. Logos is but a mental feat without the noise of the spoken word.

Irenaeus states that the senses came about because of nous (knowledge) and thus that the Gnostic statement that from the rest of the characteristics of Man such as forethought etc., all made up the essence which produced knowledge, is false. He states knowledge came about before experience. So experience can not be as stated and that when you think about something you know it which proves the Gnostics are wrong. (Thus when a doctor contemplates a cure for aids, he already knows the cure according to Irenaeus and his great wisdom.)

Irenaeus keeps harping on the consideration that the Gnostics did not take time into consideration and space was not allotted for. The Gnostics implicitly stated the original creation did not take place within the dimension of time-space.

Irenaeus states Valentinus got his system from the heathens (in other words Valentinus is here not a heathen?) which confirms the Gnostic statement that their Gnosis has long been known and Jesus was but one of their teachers.

Then he goes on to state that the Gnostic beliefs have been woven together from many ancient beliefs which is the same as the Gnostic's would say.

Irenaeus also states Paul spoke of these same Gnostics (1 Tim. 6:20). 1 Timothydoes speak of the Gnostics, but it was not written by Paul. Irenaeus lies from beginning to end when he states these Gnostics bring forth nothing but lies from beginning to end. He goes on to state Sophia (wisdom) could not have committed the error which the Gnostics state which is absurd of Irenaeus. Does not wisdom come from error?

Irenaeus as many other ancient leaders held that souls had a definite form (1 Tess. 5:23). Irenaeus held that the Heretics were those who believed Jesus preached for only 12 months after his baptism. Irenaeus tells us that the true Christians know Jesus was more than fifty years old when he died and that he was not thirty years old when he was baptized. Irenaeus quotes Isa. 61:2, "To proclaim the acceptable year of the lord, and the day of retribution." He says the Gnostics know neither the acceptable year of the lord nor the day of retribution, yet Irenaeus does not know what the Bible states.

In Proving that things are false by the Gnostics he falsifies the scriptures at will. In Luke 8:51, he leaves John out among the disciples who went in to the sufferer. A more proper question would be how could Irenaeus have so little reverence for the Biblical writings?

Irenaeus then states that since the Gnostics state that righteous behavior by these Souls who inhabit the bodies is able to save the Souls, it would therefore also save the bodies. This proves to Irenaeus that the bodies are also saved because these righteous acts are performed while in the bodies.

Irenaeus states that the demiurge was after all he who created the virtues. This is also contrary to the Gnostics. He created the imperfect desires and cravings.

Irenaeus tells them that when Paul ascended to heaven there were still four heavens he had not seen according to the Gnostic's. There were more than that and in the Gnostic manuscripts from Nag Hammadi, these he also ascended to (2 Cor. 12:2,3,4).

One of the proofs Irenaeus uses is that the Church in his day was still raising the dead who then proceed to live for years among them. If this was the truth, why is today's Church not doing the same? The fact is the "Church" has never been able to raise the dead and this is another blatant lie by Irenaeus.

Irenaeus proves that Souls had no prior existence to the bodies which they now inhabit because they have no prior recollection of these lives. He obviously ignores what the Gnostics stated about the subject.

Then Irenaeus goes on to state that this philosophy was first taught by Plato. Here again he indicates his own lack of knowledge as it was taught in the Greek world as early as Pythagoras who had learned this from the Egyptians. Then Irenaeus goes on in his feeble manner to prove how Plato was wrong. While he states that these heretics all hold that the body is the cause of forgetfulness and oblivion, he totally misses the point. Or does he? He seems incredibly stupid in his attempts to discredit the Gnostics whose manuscripts we now have many of, but there are many indications he was not really that imbecile and he willfully falsified a better teaching in order to subvert Man and in that case, he is himself an Archon, an evil being intent on promulgating lies and corruption.

Irenaeus states the Lord taught them that while the Souls had a beginning, they continue past death in the same form as the body had which they had become accustomed to. (In other words when the bodies die, we are all ghosts until the second coming: give me a break!) Even the christian who commented in one place of the book, the "Ante-Nicene Fathers," shows how Irenaeus is utterly mistaken and indicates he knows absolutely no Hebrew and his quotations are in error.

Irenaeus states implicitly that the apostles wrote the books of the New Testament themselves, and anyone who denies this point are themselves blasphemers of the true faith and Heretics.

Since no one in the Church today believes it was possible for any of the disciples to have written any of the New Testament books, I guess according to his definition the entire Church today is heretical and it truly is by his opinion. What is striking here is the fact that it would have been impossible for Irenaeus to have been so mistaken as he wrote "Against Heresies" while many books of the New Testament were still being composed.

Irenaeus then, to prove the succession of the Church he is a member of and to prove it is the infallible Church, proceeds to name the leaders. The first is Linus who is mentioned by Paul in the epistles to Timothy (2 Tim. 4:21).

This may have proved something to Irenaeus but as 2 Timothy is a forgery it proves absolutely nothing today and it indicates Irenaeus used forged documents which he or others had written in order to justify his claims.

After Linus came Anacletus who lived during the life of Peter. And then came Clement, another imbecile. He uses the letter of Clement to indicate Clement believed as he does but this cannot be done. The letter of Clement was not available to others at the time and no authentic letter exist today. After Clement came Evaristus and then Alexander. He ruled from about 105-115. He supposedly introduced holy water into the Christian canon and E.B. indicates he may have made additions to the liturgy. Then came Sixtus and after him Telephorus whom Irenaeus states was gloriously martyred and the E.B. does not have listed. Then Hyginus, the organizer of the hierarchy of the Church. Then came Pius a Gnostic fighter. Then Anicetus who battled the Gnostics and then Soter who also fought the Gnostic's and finally the pope of Irenaeus, Eleutherius.

Eleutherius was definitely advised by this same Irenaeus on how to run the Church, and it is noted that Eleutherius relented. The common denominator of all these people is that no authentic material exist from any one of them from before the time of Irenaeus which could indicate that what Irenaeus claims as the true teaching was their teaching. Why is there no authentic literature left? Ask Irenaeus. He states that they thus have the proofs which is another lie. To prove his point, Irenaeus again misquotes the Psalms.

It is obvious that Irenaeus is not aware of the Canaanite connection in the Old Testament the way he quotes the Psalms and the traditions of Baal and El. He interprets the Dragon Yammu coming in Psalm 50:4 with a fire blazing before him and the tempest round about him as the coming of Jesus.

Then he states there is no other God than he who openly proclaimed to Moses "I AM THAT I AM" (Exo. 3:14), indicating the fact Irenaeus is not either conversant with Egyptian mythology as the God who here appears to Moses is the Egyptian God Amon-Re. Then he goes on to indicate that whenever he talks of something, I AM he (the God) is conferring the same message (Isa. 43:10).

Then Irenaeus goes on with the well known example still given constantly today by those who read and read but never learn. In 1 Kings 18:36-46, Elijah gets his God to light the offering table, and as the other Canaanite Priests cannot get Baal to do the same it means Baal is in the underworld. No one reads the end of the chapter which from verse 43-46 indicate the coming of the rain which means Baal is alive again. The lack of ability to read is confounding. This entire paragraph or ten verses out of the Bible indicate that the God worshipped by Elijah is a subordinate God and not the opposite as claimed by today's Church.

Irenaeus quotes Isaiah, "And the holy lord remembered his dead Israel, who had slept in the land of sepulture; and He came down to preach his salvation that he might save them." What happened here? Did they forget to amend Isaiah to include this verse written by Irenaeus? This is nowhere to be found within the OT and thus Irenaeus again uses false scriptures to prove his points.

Isaiah 29:13 states: "...this people honor me with their lips, but their heart is far from me: howbeit in vein do they worship me, teaching the doctrines and commandments of men." According to a translation by Irenaeus which to him indicate the Hebrews followed laws of their own, he later says these laws were given by God because of the hardness of their hearts. John 15:15 indicates Jesus got his information about his God from a secondary source, and it was not a personal relationship.

The sacrifice to God is an afflicted hearth: a sweet savor to god is a heart glorifying him who formed it. In any of today's scriptures, this does not indicate falsification but it does follow the same evil designs we find in Psalm 51:17, "The sacrifices of God are a broken spirit: a broken and contrite hearth, O God, thou wilt not despise."

Irenaeus quotes Isa. 30:1 as: "Ye have taken counsel, but not of me; and made covenants not by my spirit." Matt. 5:8, "Blessed are the pure at hearth for they shall see God." Exo. 33:20, "No man shall see God and live."

Irenaeus states that God could not have made Man perfect from the beginning because created things have to be inferior to that which creates. The word of God to Irenaeus was that which became the physical apparition of the body of Jesus. Created by God according to Irenaeus, thus Jesus would also be an inferior creation by his own logic.

Irenaeus attempts to negate the fact that 1 Cor. 15:50 states that flesh and blood shall not inherit the kingdom of God. Here he states that flesh without the spirit of God is dead and thus dead, can not inherit this kingdom. The explanation itself is stupid and like all other refutations, they are devoid of substance in an attempt to confuse the reader and does not show anything logically.

Irenaeus states that unless the flesh was to be saved, the word (Jesus) would not have taken upon himself flesh. This is really ridiculous. If he had no flesh he could not have communicated with anyone in the three dimensional universe. Irenaeus states that it is the blood of Mans Souls that the Lord will require (Gen. 9:5,6).

By Irenaeus's own arguments, it becomes clear that the garden of Eden story where Man was allowed to eat the fruit of every tree, it was meant that he was to read and hear of everything which the God had commanded, but the forbidden fruit was that which was written by those possessing Gnosis.

The Christian God is depicted in 2 Cor. 4:4. "In whom the God of this world hath blinded the minds of them which believe not, lest the light of the gospel of Christ, the image of God should shine unto them."

In the second volume of "Ante-Nicene," the Shepherd of Hermes is called Pastor of Hermes. The date given for composition is 160 C.E. It is said to have been the most popular Christian writing of the second, third and fourth centuries. In fact, it is the most boring of all uninspired Christian manuscripts.

Tatian's Address to the Greeks used by the Christians even though Tatian was the founder or a great adherent of a heretical sect called Encratites. Tatian was a pupil of Justin Martyr. He lived 110-172 C.E. Tatian compares the Christian account of God with that of the Greek and argues that since the Christian version is as good, it is as valid. He does however state that you cannot compare the Christian God with those that wallow in matter and mud. Tatian states the Exodus took place under the Egyptian Pharaoh Ahmoses. Tatian later declared that flesh was impure and sex for enjoyment was heathen. He had views similar to Valentinus. He is also criticized for calling the eating of all flesh an abomination.

Theophilus of Antioch was regarded as a saint by the Christian Church. He attempted to create a theology by interpreting the OT in relation to contemporary rhetoric and eclectic philosophy. Theophilus influenced Irenaeus, Tertullean and Novatian but was later forgotten. He lived 115-168 or 181 C.E. (E.B.)

Theophilus to Autolycus explains that the eyes of the Soul must be purged before God can be seen. He states those who see with the eyes of the flesh and listen with physical ears only hear earthly things.

God, he says, is seen by those who sees with the eyes of the Soul and hear with the heart after these have been opened. The eyes become like cataract by sins and evil deeds. When there is rust on a mirror, one does not see plainly and thus he can not see God. As a burnished mirror, the pure Soul sees God. All things were made by him of things that were not. In this respect, he received some real Gnostic information.

Then Theophilus goes on about the great works of God which show how great he is such as how he makes the constellations move around the sky and the fountains of his rivers, the dew, the shower and the rains. How he makes the morning star rise just before dawn to herald in the new day. Also, God's treasures and formed chambers of the south wind, snows, hail storms and darkness and how the lord holds back the power of the lightning so it doesn't burn up all the Earth, and if thunder had all it's power, it would overthrow all the works of the Earth (1 Enoch).

This indicates Enoch was extremely well known at that time in history. Next is the idea that God will raise the flesh immortal with the soul. There is also the idea that since the God made Man once, he can make him again.

When he talks of resurrection, he proves it by stating that grain which is sown and then rots and is resurrected, and he also talks of other ancient Gods who have risen after the dead, as proof that Man to will rise again.

Book 1: Chapter 13 states: "Hear further, O man, of the work of resurrection going on in yourself, even though you are unaware of it. For perhaps you have sometimes fallen sick, and lost flesh, and strength, and beauty; but when you received again from God mercy and healing, you picked up again in flesh and appearance, and recovered also your strength. And as you do not know where your flesh went away and disappeared to, so neither do you know whence it grew, or whence it came again. But you will say, `From meats and drinks changed into blood.'" Quite so; but this too, is the work of God, who thus operates, and not of any other.

Book 2: Some argue that the spirit which pervades all things is God. "But Plato and those of his school acknowledge indeed that God is not created, and the father and maker of all things; But then they maintain that matter as well as God is not created, and aver that it is coeval with God." In another version of Gen. 1:1, it was the word (Logos) who created God as the first principle.

Theophilus states the reason God created the plants on the fourth day before the heavenly bodies was so that everyone might know that these plants were not created by these heavenly bodies. He calls the wandering lights those men who have wandered and do not follow God (Planets) and the bright stars which do not change their position he calls imitations of the steadfast prophets. He also states that the sun is a type of God and the moon is a type of Man. The sun is always full and the moon vexes and vanes.

Book 2: Chapter 22 says that it was the poets and writers of myths who talked of sons of gods begotten from intercourse with women. How does he explain 1 Enoch and Gen. 6:1-4?

Book 3 gives a unique, uninteresting chronology of Christianity.

Athenagoras was a Greek Platonist converted to Christianity answering to the criminal charges leveled at Christians that they were Atheists who ate children at banquets and performed incest. He rejects the Platonic notion that the body is the prison of the Soul. 177 C.E. (E.B.)

The treatise of Athenagoras states that he who created can also surely raise the dead. The argument that Man is composed of both body and soul is employed most admirably, yet it is futile. A lack of understanding is indicated and the desirability of the rise in the same flesh is as always nil.

Clement of Alexandria (150-211 or 215 C.E.) lived at the same time as Irenaeus. Clement was in Alexandria while Irenaeus was in Lyons. Today's church revere both these people and call them saints, they take what they like from Clement and like the fact Irenaeus refuted the heretics. (E.B.)

Do they look at the material by these two? Irenaeus resoundingly refuted the message by Clement of Alexandria along with every one else's. Exhortation to the Heathen... He hits on Heathens other than Gnostics. Clement indicates Plato saw some truths.

The Instructor....The Christ by Clement is also identified as the Greek Logos.

The Stromata: The Sophists are by Clement defined as Greek seekers of wisdom. Chapter 13: "He who is conversant with all kinds of wisdom, will be pre-eminently a Gnostic." "Abundance of the knowledge of wisdom will give life to him who is of it." And, "For wisdom is better than precious stones, and no precious thing is worth it."

Clement used the antiquity of the tales of the Bible to stress the philosophies were older than that of the Greek not realizing the philosophies therein are all forgeries of Sumerian, Egyptian, Babylonian and most of all Canaanite legends. Clement did not know the Sumerians as he credits the Egyptians with the twelve month calendar. His history of inventions and arts are very limited and corrupt.

In chapter 17, Clement defines the statement in John 10:8, "All who came before me were thieves and robbers" to mean that the truths that were divulged before Christ were done so because an angel who held some of the truth had been divulging this to the Barbarians, and yet the Jewish prophets were not thieves because they had been sent and were inspired by the Lord.

There are indications that the works of Plato were falsified by the later Christians. These are found in The Stromata by Clement where he quotes material from Plato which does not exist. In the Stromata Clement also writes that the Exodus took place during the reign of Ahmoses, King of Egypt, thus confirming what I have stated all along that the Exodus was the expulsion of the Hyksos.

Chenephres is the Egyptian king Moses told the Israelites had to leave. Clement seems to be unaware of the fact that if Moses left during the reign of Ahmoses, he should have told Ahmoses about his leaving and not this Hyksos King.

A millennium after the Hyksos were expelled from Egypt, the Israelites borrowed the Egyptian Pharaoh as a hero in their own theological system and made this Egyptian the author of the first five books of the Bible. He refers to "He who Is" as the God of Moses not knowing this is the Egyptian God Amon-Re. But since Moses in reality was Ahmoses, Amon-Re was most assuredly his God.

From Abraham to David are fourteen generation (Matt. 1:17). From David to the Babylonian exile are fourteen generations and from the Babylonian exile until Jesus are fourteen generations. Clement states Jesus preached only a year which would have made the religion of Clement one of the Heresies opposed so adamantly by Irenaeus. They lived about the same time in about the same area. Their divergent opinions but demonstrate the divergent opinions within Christianity. According to Clement, there was 585 years from Moses to David. This would put Moses right in the middle of the expulsion of the Hyksos from Egypt by the Egyptian Pharaoh known as Ahmoses. (Ahmoses is just another way of writing Moses.) He also quotes scriptures which do not exist today.

This is supposedly a refutation of the Alexandrian Gnostics, called a pestilent outgrowth of pseudo-Platonism.

Clement insists the Greeks got their knowledge through Moses which is utterly ridiculous. He quote the poet Epicarmus, "Mind sees, mind hears; all besides is deaf and blind." As pertaining to scripture, what was wrong with the books of Clement? If this is scripture no Israelite or other Christian ever heard of it. However, it is a great poetic statement!

To denounce fear is to assail the law and the God of Clement. In Book 2 chapter 8 of the Stromata, Clement states that when they learned on the excellence that is the pleroma, they conspired against Man. This is not a Gnostic way, but more lying in the tradition of the Archons. He states they could not have known of the Pleroma. How could an individual make such a statement? Those who speak of something by necessity knows, more of it than those who do not.

Clement renounces the Gnostics for rejecting the epistles to Timothy. So does everyone today who knows anything about the NT. Timothy is a forgery (see E.B.).

Chapter 18 is called "The Mosaic law the fountain of all ethics, and the Source from which the Greeks drew theirs." Such a title speaks clearly of the awareness of the author and need no more amplification. Clement uses the Gnostic teacher Valentinus and his writings and philosophies to validate his beliefs and while so doing, validates the Gnostic teachings of Valentinus.

Book 6, "The sixth and also the seventh Miscellany of Gnostic notes, in accordance with true philosophy, having delineated as well as possible the ethical argument conveyed in them, and having exhibited what the Gnostic is in his life, proceed to show the philosophers that he is by no means impious, as they suppose, but that he alone is truly pious.

Clement in chapter 9 goes on to state that, during his life, Jesus ate only for the sake of appearance because his holy body did not need food or water for sustenance. Were this true, it would have undermined the Christian idea of flesh and body. What is wrong with the beliefs today is we all look at what we desire to see. It is awfully difficult to look at anything which invalidates our theories.

Chapter 12, "Human nature possesses an adaptation for perfection; the Gnostic alone attains it." That Clement validates many Gnostic philosophies and tenets is unmistakable. If he was a Gnostic himself, he would have been a Christian Gnostic who was unaware of the impact of true Gnosticism. The Writings of Clement where he quotes Biblical passages which do not conform with the Bible are amended in the text (P.503)

Book 7 Chapter 1, "It is now time to show the Greeks that the Gnostic alone is truly pious;" Clement calls himself and his Church Gnostic! Clement the Gnostic speaks thus. "For `To bring themselves into captivity,' and to slay themselves, putting to death `The old man, who is through lusts corrupt,' and raising the new man from death, `from the old conversation," by abandoning the passions, and becoming free of sin, both the gospel and the apostle enjoin." This is undeniably Gnostic philosophy which does not have any place among today's Christian philosophies.

Chapter 12, "The true Gnostic is beneficent, continent, and despises worldly things. He does not `despise his brother,' who, according to the divine law, is of the same father and mother. But we must as much as possible subject the soul to varied preparatory exercise, that it may become susceptible to the reception of knowledge. Do you not see how wax is softened and copper purified, in order to receive the stamp applied to it? Just as death is the separation of the soul from the body, so is knowledge as it were the rational death urging the spirit away, and separating it from the passions, and leading it on to the life of well doing, that it may then say with confidence to God, "I live as thou wishest.'"

The Ante-Nicene Fathers Volume V. Hippolytus (Saint) 170-235 C.E. The refutation of all heresies (not quite) and the motives for undertaking the refutation. "We must not overlook any fantasy devised by those denominated philosophers of the Greeks. ...We have likewise, on a former occasion, expounded the doctrines of these briefly, not illustrating them with any degree of minuteness, but refuting them in coarse digest; not having considered it requisite to bring to light their secret doctrines, in order that, when we have explained their tenets by enigmas, they, becoming ashamed ... But since I perceive that they have not been abashed by our forbearance, and have made no account of how God is long suffering, though blasphemed by them, in order that from shame they may repent ..."

Hippolytus desired to refute all heresies. Not just the local Gnostics, but the local Greek philosophies also. He does this by stating the theories of these various schools of learning in relatively short chapters. What he states supposedly shows how ridiculous their ideas are. I will include a few. Hippolytus states the Greeks should have been ashamed of their theories because of the earlier refutations done by the Christians, but were not. From these examples you can see how ashamed the Greeks should have been.

Chapter 1: "Thales ... This person said that some such thing as water (hydrogen) is the generative principle of the universe, and its end; for that out of this, solidified and again dissolved, all things consist, and all things are supported on it ..." Thales was born about 624 B.C.E. How could he have understood the importance of hydrogen? Where did he get his information from? This is not a rambling by a philosophical idiot like Hippolytus would like to paint him but basically a correct statement.

Chapter 2: Pythagoras ... This philosopher likewise said that the Soul is immortal, and subsists in successive bodies....

Chapter 3: Empedocles ... This philosopher maintained the transmutation of all Souls into any description of animal ...

Chapter 4: Heraclites ... he also advanced statements almost in concert with Empedocles, saying that the originating principle of all things is discord and friendship, and that the Deity is a fire endued with intelligence, and that all things are borne one upon another, and never are at a standstill ...

Chapter 5: Anaximander ... This man said that the originating principle of existing things is a certain constitution of the infinite, out of which the heavens are generated, and the worlds therein; and that this principle is eternal and undecaying, comprising all the worlds. And he speaks of time as something of limited generation, and subsistence, and destruction. ... But moreover, he asserted that there is an eternal motion, by the agency of which it happens that the heavens are generated; but that the earth is poised aloft, upheld by nothing, continuing on account of its equal distance from all (heavenly bodies) ...
(gravity) ... And that man was, originally, similar to a different animal, that is, a fish (610 B.C.E.)

The above may have been the epitome of stupidity to Hippolytus, but it makes modern man cringe at the knowledge that this material written by Hippolytus was used by later Christians as the excuse when they burned the material of such people as Anaximander wrote.

Chapter 6: Anaximenes affirmed that the originating principle is infinite air, out of which are generated all things existing, those which have existed, and those that will be, as well as Gods and divinities, and that the rest arise from the offspring of this. But that there is such a species of air, when it is most even, which is imperceptible to vision, but capable of being manifested by cold and heat, and moisture and motion, and that it is continually in motion (expanding) for that whatsoever things undergo alteration, do not change if there is no motion. ... That the stars do not emit heat on account of the length of distance; and the winds are produced when the condensed air, becoming rarified, is borne on; and that when collected and thickened still further, clouds are generated, and thus a change made into water ... And that a rainbow is produced by reason of the rays of the sun falling on the collected air. And that an earthquake takes place when the earth is altered into a larger by heat or cold. These indeed, then, were the opinions of Anaximenes. This flourished about the first year of the LVIII Olympiad (556 B.C.E.).

These may have been stupid philosophies to Hippolytus and the rest of the Christians. It was on account of such refutations as these that the later Christians found excuses to destroy all the material by such greats as Aneximenes. It is by now easy for most to see who was really stupid. That stupidity is what has governed man now for nearly 1,460 years and it is far too long.

Chapter 7: Anaxagoras comes after this (thinker?). "This person affirmed the originating principle of the universe to be mind and matter; mind being the efficient cause, whereas matter that which was being formed." For all things coming into existence simultaneously, mind supervening introduced order. ... And that the Nile is inundated in summer, by reason of the waters carried down into it from the snows in Ethiopia. ... And that beneath the stars are sun and moon, and certain invisible bodies that are carried along with us; and that we have no perception of the heat of the stars, both on account of their being so far away, and on account of their distance from the earth; ... And that the moon, being lower than the sun, is nearer us. ... And that the moon has no light of its own, but from the sun. ... And that the moon is eclipsed when the earth is interposed, ... And that the sun is eclipsed when at the beginning of the month, the moon is interposed. This philosopher flourished in the first year of the LXXXVIII Olympiad (428 B.C.E.).

Anaxagoras was another thinker who had something to state. Look at the correct scientific statements made above. This may have been ridiculous statements to the Christians, and such things as these philosophies were what they considered to be the evils of the world. The teachings of Hippolytus are the real evil ones which now govern the world.

Chapter 11: Demokritus (361 B.C.E.) ... conferring with many gymnosophists among the Indians, and priests in Egypt, and with astrologers and magi in Babylon. Now he makes statements similar with Leucippus concerning elements, viz., plenitude and vacuum, denominating plenitude entity, and vacuum nonentity; and this he asserted, since existing things are continually moved in a vacuum. And he maintained worlds to be infinite, and varying in bulk; and that in some there is neither sun nor moon, while in others that they are larger than with us, and with others more numerous. And that intervals between worlds are unequal; and that in one quarter of space (worlds) are more numerous, and in another less so; and that some of them increase in bulk, but that others attain their full size, while others dwindle away; and in one quarter they are coming into existence, whilst in another they are failing; and that they are destroyed by clashing one with another. And that some worlds are destitute of animals and plants, and every species of moisture. ... And that neither the planets nor these fixed stars possess an equal elevation. And that the world flourishes, until no longer it can receive anything from without. This (philosopher) turned all things into ridicule, as if all the concerns of humanity were deserving of laughter.

How can modern Man read such statements by this great fighter of the so-called heretics without it making his blood boil to know the Christians destroyed such teachings and such knowledge?

According to the Church, Hippolytus as all other Saints were divinely inspired. That was why they so correctly refuted all erroneous data.

Chapter 13: One Ecphantus ... affirmed that it is not possible to attain true knowledge. ... And that the earth in the middle of the cosmical system is moved round its own center (axis) towards the east.

We sure were lucky to have people such as Hippolytus and the rest of our Christian forefathers who burned and destroyed the idiotic heresies such as these here mentioned!

The reason these philosophies had to be wrong was because Hippolytus and the Church knew the astronomical information in 1 Enoch was the one given by God. Since it was different, the Greek thinkers had to be wrong and thus heretics.

After Hippolytus is thus finished ridiculing these absurd ideas, he turns his attention to Socrates and Plato because of their treatment of moral philosophy.

Later, he refers to the Gnostics as Naaseni. He mentions, "The Gospel according to the Egyptians" and "The Gospel according to Thomas." Now this book was written thirty years after these documents were retrieved in Egypt, yet they are suggesting it could be the same document. Further, they are oblivious to the content. The Naaseni/Gnostics allegedly follow the teachings of Homer. Homer's philosophies are from 800-900 B.C.E. and these Gnostics use Homer as one of their Prophets.

Naas he got from the theory of the Gnostics about the God of the OT which the Gnostics say were evil. Since they believe then also that the God of the Christians is evil, the document is here attempting to rile them saying they are the believers in the dragon. His refutation of the Gnostics, like those of Irenaeus, can at best be called a lack of understanding but points in the direction of an outright lie.

The true loss to all of Mankind due to the fact the Christian Church came about may never be realized.

Hippolytus defines the theologies of Valentinus as those of Plato and Pythagoras. And these got their Theologies from the ancient Egyptians. The student of ancient philosophy may be well advised in learning how Hippolytus interpreted these Greek philosophers, and it may be well understood how reliable his refutation of the Gnostics are by the reliability of his judgment of these great Greeks.

Proof to Hippolytus that Valentinus used the Pythagoric system was his use of the Monad as the single source from which all else emanated. Such an argument is then equally applicable to everyone else who uses a doctrine where one God or source is behind all creation. Hippolytus accurately states that these Gnostics theories hold that the Monad is not subject to time or the conditions of time yet, he like his predecessor Irenaeus, have no idea what this entails.

When it comes to Sophia, there is also a lot of misunderstanding. While Hippolytus accuse the Gnostics of plagiarizing the documents of the ancient Greeks and using their philosophies, he is the one who falsifies the content of their documents in order to place them in the worst light possible.

He states Sophia was formed outside the pleroma which none of the Gnostic documents state. Her creation was ejected from the Pleroma and Sophia was after the completion of the attributes of Man to rectify her mistake. He claims Sophia was outside the Pleroma in search of Christ and states Christ had given her form. Hippolytus states Sophia had great fear she would perish outside the Pleroma and here he is confusing Yaldabaot with Sophia.

Using the Paraphrase of Shem, Hippolytus states that the Pleroma sent "the Fruit" which discovered Sophia and rectified her passion. As seen, the fruit would have been Dardakeas and it was Yaldabaot he rectified. He states the creator acted from fear.

The creator is Yaldabaot and not Sophia. He also fails to understand the significance of the one immortal Soul which we all are that have been granted a physical Soul which we all are supposed to identify with.

Hippolytus seem to think there is a Jerusalem above in which Sophia lives. He blames Sophia for the creation of the demiurge and this is true also of the Gnostics. Thus, the Gnostics find no fault in Man for his shortcomings whereas the God of Hippolytus blames Man for his shortcomings.

Hippolytus describes the material Man was formed, according to the Gnostics, devilish and evil. This is also a misrepresentation as the Gnostics who stated the physical with its lusts and desires was capable of having evil effects upon the spiritual.

When Hippolytus later quotes Plato, the commentators in the Ante-Nicene fathers are noticing some great differences between Plato and what Hippolytus states about Plato. They do not for a moment seem to consider the same is the case when Hippolytus quotes the "heretics."

It is impossible to rectify the damage done to man and mans philosophical and ethical well being by the Christian Church. This in itself is no excuse to punish the religious leaders of today. Today's religious leaders have been victimized as badly as anyone else. We must now rectify the damage and abandon the evil teachings and all things will fall into place.

 Chapter 22