Gnostic Teachings - Blog Posts

𝒟𝒜ℛ𝒦 𝒮ℐ𝒟ℰ 𝒪ℱ 𝒟ℰ𝒱𝒜 𝒩𝒜𝒦𝒮ℋ𝒜𝒯ℛ𝒜𝒮? 𝒫𝓉.2

Heyyy, if u saw the first post I made about Kaikeyi and deva nakshatras—this is the part I did about Judas yet chose to not include as I believed it not as strong of an argument for what I was trying to convey. Anyway, here it is:

Mind you, Judas, who was a disciple of Christ, eventually betrayed him, and that led to the event of the Crucifixion and so on. This event, for known reasons, was also a very spiritual event that, in a way, needed to happen.

“In all, these two figures, who have by the way been “demonized” in many instances in today’s world, were also catalyzed and played key roles in major spiritual tasks executed in this world according to scriptures.”

Now stay with me as I move into Judas’s case:

2 - 𝒥𝓊𝒹𝒶𝓈

So Judas, the ‘betrayer,’ although I was not able to find helpful historically-specific things that would help determine a birth time or nakshatras, I was reminded of this:

(Maybe tap on the images to view in more depth)—

Essentially, I was reminded of a theory that the disciples had correlations to the astrological signs. I for one found this both interesting and very much possibly containing some truth to it, as references to the Zodiac are “esoterically” all throughout the Bible.

Anyway, considering the above, Judas (prior to being replaced by another disciple) was associated with without debate (considering some of the disciples were assigned signs interchangeably in the above images) the sign of Pisces.

So I figured looking into the nakshatras that Pisces rules. These nakshatras are Purva Bhadrapada, Uttara Bhadrapada, and Revati.

Now, just as Kaikeyi, given her typical portrayal, was given another “retelling” or insight for her situation, Judas too has one of his own.

Though slightly less personal, shorter, and more ancient than Kaikeyi’s.

What I speak of is the Gospel of Judas, where Christ is conveyed speaking with Judas on a rather “higher-esteem” or “enlightened” take concerning his role in the things he was to do, giving another perspective to Judas’s being. Sort of similar to Patel and Kaikeyii (ALTHOUGH the Gospel of Judas is a scripture of sorts and the book Kaikeyii is fictional—again—don’t come for meee).

So, back to nakshatras, I have to admit, I could not easily see how Judas might have fit under a Deva nakshatra of Pisces. Rather, I think he would have embodied Purva Bhadrapada as a sun sign and Ashlesha as a moon sign. Which both are admittedly rakshasa in nature. Some of Ashlesha’s symbols are a serpent and male cat (I also saw somewhere that Ashlesha can mean “the embracer” or “a tight embrace,” which also reminded me of how Judas embraced Christ and kissed him before “betraying” him 👀).

Not to mention, the animal of Purva Bhadrapada is a male lion, and Judas’ name in its initial form would have been “Judas” or something of the sort. This goes back to the biblical tribe of Judah, which carries heavy lion connotations (Christ being the “Lion of Judah” or “Lion of God,” “God’s praise”), all of which essentially tie thematically to lions and even the Leo zodiac sign. This lion symbolism seems to resonate well with Judas’ role and the larger themes surrounding him.

Plus, Purva Bhadrapada has Jupiter as its ruler (which relates to Christ, being a teacher or guru) and has symbols of the sword, the two front legs of a funeral cot, and a man with two faces. These themes too seemed to stick out to me in relation to Judas’s life, role, and how he related to Christ—

So in a nutshell, although I couldn’t necessarily find supporting evidence of Judas inherently being of deva nakshatras (I mean, cuz he like ancient-), for what I did “figure out,” I found it interesting that he was so closely associated with divine presences such as Christ (who I personally believe represents or coincides with Revati of Pisces). Judas is the rakshasa representation of Pisces whereas Christ, who was his supposed master, is the deva or divine representation of Pisces.

Either way, Judas was demonized—even though taking things from the point of view of divine guidance, perspective, and control, his role technically should not have been condemned. Especially taking into account Isaiah 45:7, “I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things.”

Anyway, his case seems to be less of a strong argument for what I’m trying to prove, nevertheless, my “point,” if you will, from my initial post still remains.

thanks for reading luvss 🙈🧚🏼‍♀️💕