>>611561
From what I see the ones that are tagged that are actual Gnostic books so in that case you *could* read them, but they're still heretical forgeries based on/retconning actual divinely inspired Scripture. The general theme with Gnostic writings goes like this usually -
>textual forgeries based on actual biblical scripture, no older than 1st century at best, 2nd and 3rd century usually
>uses actual biblical figures
>these said biblical figures reveal a revelation of the universe and it's machinations
>these revelations and underlying morals/ethics are antithetical to actual scripture mostly, and they retcon actual Scripture (good example of this is the idea of the OT God being a malevolent demiurge, which we know is false considering Christ revealed himself to be YHWH)
The most important thing to the Gnostics was knowledge (gnosis), but they didn't differentiate themselves from actual Christians despite having radically different theology and texts making them a subversive and poisonous force to early Christianity.
This is one of the points I took note of that give me confidence in the actual biblical canon, if it was so insignificant and wrong like some people say then why does everything try to rewrite and retcon it of all texts? Why not give the same treatment to Hindu texts, Zoroaster texts, Buddhist texts, hell even the Quran doesn't get this treatment!
Gnosticism does this, Freemasons do this, New Age shit does this, Alchemy does this, Goetia does this, so many heresies and occultist beliefs stem from this presupposition that the Bible is a false book but they still have to rely on it's basis and characters to form their beliefs.
It's almost as if there's some kind of force out there trying to deceive people and make them think that hell is an ice house and all knowledge is truth! It's almost as if the Bible was right all along!