JR29: Eucharist: The Temple Sacrifice

A: One thing I've noticed over and over in my studies is the idyllic portrait that's been painted of the apostle Paul. "Paul was such a good man." "Paul was such a brave missionary." "Paul teaches us how to be imitators of Christ." "Paul was a selfless servant of God." "Paul was a man I can relate to." "Jesus is my saviour, but Paul is my hero. I want to be like Paul when I grow up." I wonder sometimes if the Christians who are saying these things have ever read what Paul's letters actually say. Paul's own letters -- Romans, First & Second Corinthians, Galatians, Philippians, First Thessalonians, Philemon, and probably Colossians -- reveal clearly that Paul was every bit as interested in "pagan" occult magic and mysticism as the "pagans" were at this time. This wasn't a "modern" or "progressive" religious movement at all.

“His disciples said to him: Show us the place you are, for it is essential for us to seek it. He responded: He who has ears, let him hear. There is light within a man of light, and it lights up all the world. If it does not shine, it is dark” (Gospel of Thomas 24). This saying can be understood as a central thesis statement in guiding your understanding of Jesus’ original teachings. Among those who believe in dualistic traditions about light versus dark that include good versus evil, purity versus sin, and mind versus body, a quick glance at Thomas 24 suggests that Jesus is talking about the light of divine knowledge and salvation. But only those who haven’t been paying attention to Jesus’ teachings on love, forgiveness, and healing could conclude that, for Jesus, the inner light sought by the disciples is gnosis (occult understanding, illumination, pure wisdom). For Jesus, the highest state of human experience was not gnosis but Divine Love — how to feel it, how to share it, how to be healed by it. You can choose to accept a life of relationship with God, in which case you’ll begin to live a life of wholeness, expansiveness, empathy, and healing -- entering the Kingdom that can’t be “seen” but can be “heard,” or, more properly, emotionally sensed. Or you can choose to block God’s love and forgiveness in your life by allowing ancient occult rituals and beliefs to get in the way of your daily relationship with God -- that is, choosing Paul’s movable Temple with its occult feast of body and blood). The photo shows a marble head and torso of Dionysos, God of Wine, Roman copy after a Praxitelean work of the 4th century BCE, on display at the Royal Ontario Museum. Photo credit JAT 2017.

J: In the first century of the Roman Empire, the idea of gods and goddesses and cult rituals and visions and prophecies and sacrifices and divine fools and chosen oracles and sacred pools and sacred temples and sacred stones and sacred forests was -- by far -- the dominant understanding of humanity's relationship with the divine. This way of thinking has become foreign to the modern mind. But it was the context in which I was teaching. It was also the context in which Paul was teaching. In my time as a teacher and healer, I was not only trying to undermine the authority of the Jerusalem Temple -- I was also trying to lessen the authority of occult magic in people's minds. I was trying to say that visions and prophecies and sacrifices get in the way of people's relationship with God. I wanted to make the experience of faith consistent with the experience of the human senses and the natural world. Some would call it a form of natural theology.  

A: If this is what you were trying to do, it doesn't come across well in the New Testament. 

J: No. It can only be seen clearly in the Gospel of Mark. There's also an indication of it in the Gospel of Thomas and in the parts of the Letter of James I myself wrote. The Kingdom parables that Matthew and Luke cut and pasted from earlier written sources also give an indication of my lack of support for ritual, magic, prophecy, and the like. The images I used in my teaching parables were all very practical, very normal. You won't find any mystical flying chariots in my teachings.  

A: Or any trips to the third heaven (2 Corinthians 12:2). On the other hand, there are lots of references to healing miracles in Mark, and many people today would want to lump healing stories into the same category as other first century superstitions. 

J: Well, the honest truth is that healing miracles do take place, and always have, because healing miracles aren't a form of magic. They're a form of science. Healing miracles, when they take place, are the result of conscious choices made by God or by God's healing angels. At a scientific level, God is collapsing probability wave functions and shifting quantum energies by means of non-locality (quantum entanglement) to effect changes at the macroscopic level. In other words, if God decides to give you a "miracle healing" -- and only God is in charge of this decision -- then God uses perfectly acceptable scientific tools to bring about the healing. This is just a more sophisticated form of what today's medical researchers are doing with targeted therapies and surgeries performed with computer-aided magnification. Really, it's just goofy to claim that healing miracles aren't scientifically possible. Just because the human mind can't grasp the scientific principles God uses doesn't mean those principles don't exist. Modern science gives people more grounds for believing in healing miracles, not fewer.  

A: What does a human being have to "do" in order to receive one of these healing miracles? What sort of religious observance will lead to a healing miracle? 

J: What I was trying to get at 2,000 years ago was the idea that occult magic gets in the way of the relationship between each person and God. It's the relationship that's central to the healing process. It's the choices that people make around their relationships -- all their relationships, not just their relationship with God -- that affect the functioning of the body's built-in healing abilities. Human DNA comes with some pretty amazing built-in "healing subroutines." If those subroutines are functioning properly, the body can bounce back quite quickly from all sorts of injuries and illnesses. I'm not saying there won't be scars, and I'm not saying there won't be psychological and emotional adjustments. Human beings can't escape occasional illness or eventual death. (Though to listen to Paul, you might think you can.) On the other hand, you can make the most of your DNA package. You can make the most of your human biology. You can work with God rather than against God towards a state of healing.  

A: I continue to be amazed that Paul's silence on the question of healing and healing miracles doesn't bother today's orthodox Christians.  

J: The author of Luke-Acts did a brilliant job of making it seem that Paul's spiritual concerns were the same as my spiritual concerns. Acts makes it seem that Paul cared about healing the disadvantaged in society. Paul's own words say otherwise. 

A: In 1 Corinthians 11:23-30, we see Paul instituting the Eucharist. In his own words, Paul says he received a revelation from the Lord in which you supposedly commanded your faithful followers to eat bread in remembrance of you and to drink the cup which is "the new covenant in [his] blood." How do your respond to that?  

J: The same way I respond to all Temple sacrifices: they gotta go.  

A: You're implying that Paul's Eucharist is a Temple sacrifice? 

J: I'm saying it right out loud. I'm saying that Rabbiniic Judaism freed itself from the horror of Temple sacrifices more than 1,900 years ago, and now it's time for Christianity to follow suit. Paul's mystical Eucharist is nothing more than an extension of Paul's Temple theology. First he tells people that if they have blind faith in Christ, the Temple will come to them. Then he institutes a classic Temple sacrifice -- in this case the sacred Messianic bread and wine of the Essenes (1QS 6 and 1QSa). This would have made perfect sense to a first century audience steeped in occult magic -- you go to a Temple to offer a sacrifice. Logically, however, you can't take an external sacrifice to the Temple of the Spirit if the Temple is already inside of you. So to keep the Temple clean and make it habitable for the Spirit (so that the Spirit can come in and bring you lots of special spiritual goodies) you have to ingest the sacrifice. You have to drink holy blood and eat holy flesh because nothing else in the corrupt material world is powerful enough to purify your inner Temple.  

A: But this inner Temple isn't really "you." It's something that originated outside of you -- something that God gives and God can take away. It's like a surgical implant, a pacemaker or a stent or a pin in a broken hip. Right?  

J: Exactly. It's a Gnostic idea. An occult idea. Paul's Eucharist is a pagan ritual. A cult ritual. A vampiric ritual. It has nothing to with "remembrance" and everything to do with occult power over evil forces. The very idea of drinking blood would have offended and horrified mainstream Jews, including me and my followers. Even John the Baptist doesn't speak of the Eucharist in his gospel. Paul's Eucharist crossed a big line. 

 A: And I suppose Mark confronted this very issue in his gospel? 

J: Oh yes. Most definitely. 

 A: Good. Then I'm looking forward to hearing your thoughts on that topic.

JR22: Why You Need To Know Yourself (Mystical Commentary on Saying 67)

A: Can you please explain as simply as possible WHY it matters that each person has a unique soul blueprint and WHY it's important for each person on a spiritual journey to uncover the specific details of his or her own unique blueprint?
 
J: Let's use an imaginary person as an example to make this simpler. I'm going to call this imaginary person Jane Tamaguchi.
 
A: Okay.
 
J: Like all human beings, Jane is a soul. She doesn't have a soul. She is a soul. She's an angel -- a child of God. Like all angels, she was born as a soul long before she decided to incarnate as a human being. Soul energy isn't visible in the third dimension -- the dimension that human beings live in during their temporary lives as incarnated souls -- but soul energy can be felt in the third dimension.
 
A: Can you give some examples of "feelable" soul energy? (I think I just invented a new word.)

J: Yes. When you feel a deep sense of connection with another person, that's soul energy. When you feel empathy for other creatures, that's soul energy. When you feel committed, romantic, monogamous love, that's soul energy. When you give or receive forgiveness, that's soul energy. When you're willing to trust in a loving and compassionate God, that's soul energy.
 
A: Those are all emotions. Positive emotions. Uplifting emotions.

Thomas 67: “One who knows everything else but who does not know himself knows nothing.” (Translation by Stevan Davies.Photo credit JAT 2015.)

J: Yes. All souls are intensely emotional in a positive, uplifting, creative, intuitive, loving way.
 
A: So much for Christian angelology, which says angels have no emotions of their own and are simply instruments of God's work and God's will.
 
J: Yes. That's another Christian doctrine that should go the way of the 8-track recording system.
 
A: But angels also have minds, as you've said previously. They have minds plus emotional hearts.
 
J: Yes. Christians have long believed -- based largely on theories of the soul put forward by Plato, Aristotle, Tertullian, Augustine, and others -- that the soul itself consists of a single indivisible substance. Arguments raged as to the exact nature of this substance. But the basic idea was that the soul was made of just one thing because -- as the theory went -- the soul couldn't really be a soul if it could be "divided" into two or more substances. It should go without saying that this is a ridiculous supposition. There are no analogies anywhere in nature or in the quantum world for a complex lifeform made of a single element such as pure hydrogen or pure gold. All lifeforms, whether they exist in the third dimension or in higher dimensions, are extremely complex. A soul is a quantum being whose "biology" is far more complex than that of any 3D creature -- which is pretty much what you'd expect for children of God who were born in the fourth dimension, and who will spend most of their eternal existence in parts of the "implicate order" that can't be seen or measured by human beings in the third dimension.
 
A: So people just have to take it on trust? On blind faith?
 
J: I wouldn't say that. Individuals who want to take the time to do intensive research into quantum physics and quantum biology will soon discover that the universe being studied by today's scientists is extremely complex. This isn't the cosmology of Plato or Thomas Aquinas. It's breathtakingly complicated and interconnected. There's plenty of room in there for a modern doctrine of the soul that doesn't in any way violate the laws of quantum biology.
 
A: Okay. So tell me about Jane. Who is she as a soul?
 
J: Jane is a female angel, and for the purposes of this discussion she's heterosexual.
 
A: I know what this means for human beings. But what does this mean for angels?
 
J: It means exactly what it sounds like. All angels are one of two sexes: male or female. Just as with human beings. There are no "in-between" sexes or alien sexes. All angels are either male (the same sex as God the Father) or female (the same sex as God the Mother). This is pretty much what you'd expect by looking at life on Planet Earth.
 
A: Some creatures on Earth are able to reproduce without a sexual partner. Komodo Dragons, for instance.
 
J: There are different modes of reproduction for creatures that live on Planet Earth. Reproduction is part of the 3D biological package. It isn't part of the 4D soul package. We'll come back to that at a later time.
 
A: But sexual orientation is part of the 4D soul package. Why is sexual orientation necessary for angels?
 
J: Because each angel has a soulmate. One true eternal love partner. A divine spouse. The one partner in all of Creation who's a perfect match in every way, including intimate, private ways. Each angel in God's Creation is paired with his or her perfect eternal partner. For many angelic couples, the perfect partner is of the same sex. Ain't nothin' wrong with that.
 
A: So God the Father and God the Mother are not a same-sex couple themselves, but it's okay with God if their children choose a same-sex partner to share eternity with.
 
J: Yes. God's children are not carbon copies of their divine parents. God's children come in every size and shape and colour imaginable. Yet every soul couple is blissfully happy, blissfully complete. This is what God the Mother and God the Father want for their children -- bliss. Everybody's different. Yet everybody's happy. It's the perfect divine family when you think about it.
 
A: So Jane has a specific sex -- female -- and a specific sexual orientation -- heterosexual. What else does she have?
 
J: She has a soul body. Her soul body has a unique size and shape that's perfect for her. Her soul body probably doesn't look too much like her current human body, but that's okay. She's very happy with the soul body she has.
 
A: What else?
 
J: She has a soul mind. As a soul, she's pure consciousness -- by that I mean she has full awareness at all times of her own thoughts and her own feelings and her own choices and her own needs and wishes. Part of her unique mind lies in the way she thinks, the way she learns, the way she remembers, the way she expresses herself. These attributes lie within the soul mind. Jane doesn't "know" everything. Nor does she want to. She has certain interests that are hard-wired at the very core of her consciousness, and these are the things she learns fastest and remembers best.
 
A: Can you give an example of what Jane might be interested in as a soul, as an angel?
 
J: Okay. Let's say for argument's sake that Jane is a gifted musician.
 
A: There are some angels who are more musically gifted than other angels?
 
J: All angels enjoy music to some extent. But not all angels want to spend most of the day in classes devoted to advanced musical performance and interpretation skills. As with all things in Creation, it's a continuum. All angels appreciate music. But some angels want to devote most of their time to it. Which means they can't be devoting their time to other interests, other skills. There's only so much time in a day, even for an angel.
 
A: What other interests does our imaginary Jane possess as a soul?
 
J: Jane likes to be around a lot of other angels. She gets very lonely if she can't hear other angels singing. She's happiest when she's with a big group of noisy, laughing angels.
 
A: Are there any angels who are more quiet in temperament, who wouldn't feel comfortable in large groups?
 
J: Yes, lots. And that's okay, too. These angels are quiet, but not in any way unfriendly or unloving. They just need more quiet than other angels do. Nothing wrong with that.
 
A: Let's give Jane a third unique attribute. What would you suggest.
 
J: She doesn't like the colour red.
 
A: Huh? 
 
J: All angels appreciate the fact that everything in Creation is beautiful and deserving of respect. So Jane respects the colour red, and she's happy for her friends who love all things red. But angels have their own taste, their own "likes" and "dislikes." And Jane herself is under no divine obligation to like red. It happens that she doesn't. God the Mother and God the Father respect the fact that Jane just doesn't happen to like red. On the other hand, she can't get enough black. She's crazy for black.
 
A (grinning): I know a certain male angel who happens to love black! And a particular shade of charcoal grey.
 
J: Yeah, I do like those colours. Can't deny it.
 
A: Okay. So we have our angel Jane, who's passionate about music, loves to be around large groups of people, isn't fond of the colour red, but likes black. Jane decided a while back to incarnate as a human being on Planet Earth (her choice), and right now she's 35 years old, is working as a nurse, is taking night school courses so she can apply to law school, and lives with a female partner who has painted the bedroom red. Tell me about Jane's current brain health.
 
J: All the things we talked about -- Jane's true soul interests -- are hardwired into her human DNA. That's the junk DNA that geneticists are puzzled by. Her soul's blueprint is hardwired into her brain and central nervous system. Her brain stem, cerebellum, hypothalamus, thalamus, basal ganglia, and glial cells contain coding that's unique to her, unique to her true soul personality. If Jane were to make conscious choices that "matched" or "lined up with" her core blueprint, her biological brain would function smoothly. It would function the way it's supposed to. Her mood would remain stable. Her thinking would be logical and coherent. Her memory would be pretty good, especially around music and musical interpretation! She would have excellent social functioning. All in all, she'd be pretty happy, healthy, and well adjusted.
 
A: Okay. But right now Jane isn't making conscious choices that "line up with" her own soul's core identity. She's working as a nurse, not as a musician. She's around lots of people, which is good, but the people aren't singing. She's in a lesbian love relationship. And every night she has to go to sleep in a room that isn't healing or calming for her as a soul. What's happening inside her brain at this point?
 
J: There's a software conflict. On the one hand, the so-called "primitive" parts of Jane's brain are saying "I want to craft music, I want to find a loving male partner, I want to be around the colour black." Meanwhile, Jane's forcing the outer cortical layers of her brain to make different choices -- choices that seem logical to her peers or to her family, perhaps, but which make no sense to her core self.
 
A: So how's Jane doing?
 
J: Her brain is pretty messed up. There are competing signals from the different regions of her brain and central nervous system. The signals contradict each other. By now she's feeling confused and upset with her life, and she doesn't why. Things seem okay on the outside. But on the inside she's not happy. She may be having trouble with headaches or poor sleep or depression or one of the many other signs of imbalance that can emerge via human biology.
 
A: A lot of these medical issues would begin to clear up if Jane were to seek professional counselling and appropriate medical care to help her uncover the choices she's making that aren't working for her.
 
J: Yes. Jane has been making choices based on other people's priorities rather than her own core priorities -- the priorities of her soul. Over the long term, her poor choices have begun to affect her health and her happiness.
 
A: Can she force herself to "be" a nurse and "be" a lawyer if her soul isn't wired for healing or for case analysis?
 
J: No. This is what I meant when I said the soul isn't malleable in the way that clay is malleable. Jane can only be who she is. If she tries to be somebody she's not -- if she tries to be a lesbian nurse-lawyer who wears red power suits -- her biological brain will begin to sustain serious damage from the continuous push-and-pull of her internal "software conflict." She'll literally fry her own brain from the inside out.
 
A: Okay. That's pretty clear. Be yourself -- be the person God knows you to be -- so your brain and body will function the way God intended.
 
J: Simple in fact. Simple in reality. But not always easy to implement.
 
A: At least it gives people a starting place on the journey. At least it helps them understand where they're going and WHY. It helps so much to understand WHY.
 
J: Insight is one hell of an amazing miracle.

JR21: Saying 67 in the Gospel of Thomas

A: Okay. Here's another pretty big question for you. Stevan Davies translates Saying 67 of the Gospel of Thomas as "Jesus said: One who knows everything else but who does not know himself knows nothing." Was this saying central to your teachings? Was it an important theme for you?
 
J: Yes. I tried very hard to express this idea. I tried to express it in many different ways.
 
A: Similar ideas have been taught by many spiritual leaders over the centuries. In fact, it's almost a spiritual cliche. It's so easy to say, "One who knows everything else but who does not know himself knows nothing." But what exactly does it mean?
 
J: It means you have to know who you actually are as a soul -- "the core you" that's left after you strip away all the false, damaging prejudices and religious doctrines and abusive teachings of your family and culture. It means you have to love, honour, and respect the person you are when you remove all the weeds from the garden of your biological brain. It means you have to trust that when you pull out all the weeds, there's still going to be something left in there. You have to trust that when you pull out all the weeds, you won't be left with a barren patch of lifeless dirt. Instead you'll be able to see the flowers of your soul -- the lilies of the field -- for the first time.

"Happy are those who make the Lord their trust, who do not turn to the proud, to those who go astray after false gods. You have multiplied, O Lord my God, your wondrous deeds and your thoughts toward us; none can compare with you. Were I to proclaim and tell of them, they would be more than can be counted. Sacrifice and offering you do not desire, but you have given me an open ear. Burnt offering and sin offering you have not required. Then I said, 'Here I am; in the scroll of the book it is written of me. I delight to do your will, O God; your law is within my heart'" (Psalm 40:4-8). Photo credit JAT 2014.

 

 

 

A: I take it you're not too fond of the image of Creation in Genesis 2:7: the Lord God forming Adam from dust and then breathing the breath of life into his nostrils so he'd become a living being.
 
J: I don't like the Christian interpretation of this verse. The Bible has many references to human beings as dirt or clay or potters' vessels. Clay is nothing more than a kind of dirt that can be shaped, moulded according to the creator's will. The message that's repeated again and again is that human beings are malleable in the way that wet clay is malleable. Wet clay starts out as a lump. It can be turned into any shape imaginable (as long as the laws of physics and chemistry aren't broken). You can make a plate. You can make a bowl. You can make a large urn. You can make a small storage container. A complex sculpture. A string of beads. Clay is like that. You can make whatever you want. Many people -- pious Pauline Christians especially -- believe that God intends human beings to be like clay. They believe that each person is basically a lump of malleable clay. Based on this belief, they assume that God can reshape each individual in any way God chooses. It's the idea of neuroplasticity taken to absurd extremes: "I can be anything God wants me to be if only I try hard enough to surrender to God's will!!!" How often have you heard a sanctimonious preacher say that?
 
A: It's a popular Christian idea.
 
J: It was a popular idea with many Essene and Hellenistic philosophers in my time, too. It's an idea that makes it very easy for religious leaders to blame people in their flock for "not trying hard enough." It makes it very easy to accuse regular people of being "weak". To accuse them of falling short of true faith. To make them feel guilty for "letting God down." To point fingers at them and say they're filled with sin. These teachings are spiritually abusive.
 
A: You're talking about the bread & butter of fundamentalist and evangelical Christians.
 
J: And fundamentalists of other faiths, too.
 
A: You're saying, then, that the doctrine of malleable clay is factually incorrect. That Genesis 2:7 is wrong in its portrayal of human beings.
 
J: I'm saying the Second Creation story (Genesis 2-3) has been completely misread. In fact, both Creation stories in Genesis have been misunderstood. Obviously (without apologies to any Creationists who might read this) there is no literal truth to Genesis 1 or Genesis 2-3. On top of that, the metaphorical truth doesn't say what Christians believe it says. Human beings are not malleable lumps of clay. They can't be shaped by God or by anyone else into something they're not. You can't force a woman to become a man (though some people would like to try). You can't force a gay man to become straight (though some Christians would like them to try). You can't force a musician to become an engineer (though sadly many parents have tried. And tried and tried and tried.) God the Mother and God the Father don't make souls this way. Souls aren't malleable. Each soul has a unique identity, a unique blueprint, a unique set of talents and traits and strengths and absences of strengths. Souls are like snowflakes -- no two are alike. You can't take what God the Mother and God the Father made and "fix it." You can't turn a bowl into a plate. You can't turn a sculpture into a wind chime. You are who you are. It's true that you may not know who you are. It's true that you may not know whether you're a bowl or a plate or a sculpture or a wind chime. But your soul knows. And God knows. Between you -- between you and God -- you can uncover your own true soul identity.
 
A: I like the garden metaphor better. I'd rather discover what kind of "flower" I am. I'm not sure I really want to "see" myself as a set of dishes in the kitchen cupboard.
 
J: I hear ya. Nature metaphors are much more natural, much more helpful. That's why I used so many images from nature in my teachings. There's a natural resonance, a natural harmony between the images of nature and the soul's own language. The soul "gets" nature imagery. The soul doesn't mind being likened to trees or flowers or fruits. Or the totems of Indigenous North American tradition. It helps human beings to have a nature metaphor of their own soul. An image to help them "see" themselves as God sees them.
 
A: If I were a tree, what kind of tree do you think I'd be? (Not that I'm saying I'm literally a tree . . .)
 
J: You'd be a yew. A tough, gnarly yew. That reminds me a lot of you.
 
A: Yeah? Okay, well that makes sense to me. I even really like yews. Always have. Nobody's gonna believe this when I say this, but to me, you're most definitely a magnolia. A big, showy magnolia. And damn but you wear it well! Of course, if the shrivelled up hearts of the pious Pauline Christians had their way, you'd be a bleeding, suffering, miserable, ugly thorn bush.
 
J: What? No burning bush? No branch of Jesse? No grafted grapevine? No olive tree? I think I'd make a particularly fine Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil. Don't you?
 
A: You're such a cynic.

JR16: Riddles in the Gospel of Thomas

A: This morning I was looking through my somewhat dusty copy of The Gospel of Thomas*. In the notes by translator Stevan Davies, I found this statement about the 113 original sayings: "The correct interpretation of the sayings is not the final goal but the means to the goal, the discovery of the Kingdom of Heaven. Thomas's Gospel is an exercise book, a list of riddles for decoding. The secret lies not in the final answers but in the effort to find the answers (page 2)." How would you respond to that? 

“Jesus said: The Kingdom of the Father is like a merchant with goods to sell who found a pearl. The merchant was thoughtful. He sold the merchandise and bought himself the pearl [Gospel of Thomas 76A].” Jesus’ sayings about pearls are difficult for us to understand today because pearls are fairly common and inexpensive. In Jesus’ time, however, pearls were exceedingly rare and couldn’t be faked or counterfeited by clever human beings. Finding a pearl in the Mediterranean was no easy task, either, as most shells brought up through the risky diving process contained no pearls at all. So to randomly find a miraculous pearl was a sign of God’s blessing and truth, a far more valuable gift than the usual man-made goods. From a theological perspective, the merchant decides to set aside his “earthly treasures” and buy into God’s economy, where the benefits are sure and lasting and unrivalled in their beauty. It’s also important to note the merchant makes his choice voluntarily. No one forces him into it. (Shown here is a 17th century pomander made of gold, enamel, and pearls. It's on display at the Victoria and Albert Museum, London, UK. Photo credit JAT 2023.)

J: Well, the way these sayings have come down to modern readers certainly makes them seem like a list of riddles for initiates to decode. There's no doubt that most Christians today are confused by the sayings found in the Gospel of Thomas. Many earnest attempts have been made to interpret the sayings. The problem for today's commentators is that they -- the commentators -- lack context. They don't understand the context in which I spoke the sayings, or the context in which John the Baptist wrote down the sayings. Most Christian commentators are also desperately trying to make the Gospel of Thomas fit comfortably within the traditional orthodox Christian framework. Since the traditional orthodox Western framework is based on the teachings of Paul, rather than on my teachings, it's a tall order to try to force the Gospel of Thomas into an orthodox understanding of God.  

A: Yes. I know what you mean. People seem to want to read the Kingdom of Heaven sayings in a traditional eschatological way. They want the Kingdom to be about a future time, a future place. They want the Kingdom to be the special heaven that's close to God, the place where God's specially chosen people will end up on Judgment Day.  

J: An idea that's very old, in fact. And not restricted to orthodox Christianity, either. The Essenes of my day believed deeply in both eschatology and apocalyptic visions of the future End of Days. 

A: How widespread were those Essene ideas?  

J: The people I was teaching seemed to know a lot about the Essene prophecies for the coming End Times. Of course, that's not surprising, since John the Baptist was part of our teaching circle.  

A: You say that John the Baptist wrote down the sayings found in the Gospel of Thomas. Yet biblical scholars have remarked on the fact that there's no congruence between the Gospel of Thomas and the Gospel of John. The sayings found in Thomas appear frequently in the Gospels of Mark, Matthew, and Luke. But not in John. If John wrote down the sayings collected in the Gospel of Thomas, why don't any of those sayings appear in his later writings? 

J: As I mentioned a few days ago, John and I had a complicated relationship spread over several years. When I first sought out John, I was the student and he was the teacher.  

A: Even though he was only 18 at the time? 

J: Lifespans were much shorter then for most people. It wasn't unusual for young adults to take on great responsibilities. If they waited too long to get on with life, they might be dead. So yes -- there were teachers who were quite young. What mattered in John's case was his education, his mastery of the material. It was clear he was highly trained in Jewish religious texts. Who was going to argue with a guy who had memorized big scrolls like Isaiah and could recite them verse by verse?  

A: How old were you when you first met John?  

J: I was older. About twenty-three, twenty-four. By that time I'd been married, divorced, had lost my daughter to illness, and had spent about a year at a Hellenistic "medical school." I was so old in heart and spirit that I felt about 50. I was also half bald by then. Probably from all the family stress I was under.  

A: I can see how it would have been appealing to sit under a tree and talk about God with other like-minded people.  

J: Yes. I was an emotional wreck. And, like so many other people whose lives have been torn apart by tragedy, I needed answers. That's why, when I heard about John's amazing new teachings, I sought him out.  

A: What was your initial impression of him? 

J: He had this serene, otherworldly quality about him, as if he was above all the turmoil and tragedy of the world around him. When you asked him a question about current life, current realities, he always answered with a religious verse. He was so confident that all the answers could be found in the holy texts. 

A: What did he look like?  

J: He was a big man. Very tall, very robust in stature. I'd use the word "hearty." Hearty as in big, friendly, strong, salt of the earth. Not polished. Not sophisticated. Homespun and down to earth. I thought he was wonderfully natural in comparison to the elegant Hellenistic Jews I'd grown up with.  

A: Again, I can see the appeal.  

J: His voice was a rich baritone. He'd been trained in the arts of speaking and rhetoric, that was for sure. He understood cadence, rhyme, repetition -- all the tricks of persuasive speech. He was always throwing in bits and pieces of wisdom -- small, apt phrases and wisdom sayings. It made him sound very wise. Until I started to notice he had no original thoughts of his own. He could recite ancient wisdom sayings, but he couldn't process new ideas, new insights. That was part of the mental illness that was slowly simmering on the back burner of his mind.  

A: He kept saying the same things over and over.  

J: Yes. Also, he couldn't seem to learn from his own mistakes. Or from the mistakes of others. That was his narcissism. His narcissism got in the way of his ability to admit he'd made mistakes. 

A: Eventually you overtook him in the role of teacher in your group. Is that right? 

J: The group started to fracture. He had his own loyal followers, who insisted he was still the leader, the long-prophesied Jewish Messiah. Some of the group began to listen to some of the new things I was saying about God. I was actually saying something new about God. John was not. People split down the lines of "belief in tradition" versus "belief in change." Those who believed in change payed less and less attention to John. He hated that.  

A: Describe his reaction to your teachings and in particular to your healing ministry. 

J: When I first started doing some teaching, John didn't mind. He believed at first that I was mimicking his own wisdom, that I was "copying" him. I was tentative at first. I stuck to fairly traditional teaching methods, such as short wisdom sayings. I created some new sayings -- nothing too radical at first -- and John liked these. He wrote them down when they appealed to him.  

A: Did he claim these sayings as his own?  

J: He was having trouble separating his own thoughts and feelings from other people's thoughts and feelings. There was a blurring of boundaries. When he heard me speaking these things, he believed I was somehow transmitting his own thoughts. Broadcasting them. This is a typical symptom of schizophrenia, although these days people with delusions more often believe the TV or radio or Internet are broadcasting their thoughts.  

A: So he identified with those sayings?  

J: Yes. If you pay careful attention to the tone of the Thomasine sayings, you'll see that he picked all the sayings that are vague and somewhat cliched.  

A: Like traditional wisdom sayings that were widespread in the Ancient Near East.  

J: Yes. He picked the short, pithy phrases that resonated with his early training, his early education. Phrases that sound wonderful at first, but say nothing specific. No names, no dates, no places. Lots of metaphors. More poetry than anything. Feelings without facts. Sort of . . . dissociated. Otherworldly. Detached. Serene. But not very helpful when you have difficult questions you want answers for.  

A: There's a marked lack of context in the sayings from the Gospel of Thomas. They could have been written almost anywhere by anyone. There's a quality of "timelessness" to the book. And I don't mean that in a good way. I mean the tone is kind of spacey, kind of "out of it." Not fully engaged with reality or with life. 

J: That's how John came across. It was a sign of his major mental illness, and shouldn't be mistaken by others as wisdom. No one who's suffering from schizophrenia should be placed on a religious pedestal and labelled "wise." People suffering from schizophrenia need firm, compassionate care, not reinforcement of their delusions. 

A: Mental illness was not understood 2,000 years ago. 

J: Well, as with all things, that depended on the person. Not all people then believed that psychotic behaviour was a sign of demon possession, just as not all people believed that physical infirmities were a sign of divine judgment from God. Cultural ideas about mental illness usually dictate how a mentally ill person is treated by the majority. But there's always a minority who understand mental illness to be just that -- an illness. You can't blame everything on cultural ideas. Just because the majority of people in my culture believed in demon possession was no excuse for them to go with the "status quo" on these illnesses. There was plenty of solid science, solid scientific research at the time. In fact, there was more interest in solid scientific research then than there would be in Europe for many years. So I have no sympathy for the attempts made by Christian theologians to excuse the cruel treatment of the mentally ill that appears in the Bible. It wasn't acceptable then, and it isn't acceptable now. The author of Mark tries to make that point very clear. 

A: You know what's weird? I remember that when I first looked at the sayings in the Gospel of Thomas -- some years before I set out on my path of becoming a mystic -- I felt very stupid because I couldn't make hide nor hair of the wisdom that seemed to be hidden in the sayings. They felt like riddles I couldn't solve. Just as Stevan Davies says in his notes.  

J: And now?  

A: Now most of the sayings make perfect sense to me -- but only because I fully understand the religious and social and medical context in which they were spoken. You know, there's actually some pretty good stuff in there if you know what to look for.  

J: Thank you.  

A: Hey. No worries. You can spend the next umpteen years fleshing out those sayings and explaining in more detail what you meant way-back-when.  

J: I look forward to it.

 

* Stevan Davies, Translator. The Gospel of Thomas. Boston & London: Shambhala, 2004.

JR6: John and the Gospel of Thomas

A: I had a letter from a reader in the U.S. who's curious about the Gospel of Thomas, so I thought we could switch gears a bit and talk about the manuscript known as the Gospel of Thomas.

Papyrus fragment: Gospel of Jesus' Wife (sourced from Wikimedia Commons, author unknown). This fragment is not from the Nag Hammadi collection, but is a good example of an early Christian text written in Coptic on papyrus. This fragment has itself been the source of much recent controversy.

J: Okay. Where do you want to start?

A: Well, for readers who aren't familiar with it, maybe we could start with some background.

J: I happen to know you already have a book on your desk with the relevant facts, so perhaps you'd like to talk about the history of it.

A (referring to textbook): The discovery of the Gospel of Thomas was one of those serendipitous finds, so extraordinary that you'd expect to see it in an Indiana Jones movie. But the history isn't disputed. Late in 1945, two Egyptian men discovered a large sealed pottery jar hidden beneath a large boulder near the village of Nag Hammadi in southern Egypt. They smashed the jar and found 13 leather-bound volumes inside, which were later sold. These volumes, which date from the mid-4th century CE and contain more than 50 texts, soon attracted the attention of scholars. The collection is called the Nag Hammadi library, and it's proven to be a goldmine for scholars of early church doctrine. The texts are considered to be Gnostic Christian rather than orthodox Christian, and some scholars have suggested the texts were hidden to protect them from a wave of persecution against Gnostics. The most famous of the books is the collection of Jesus's sayings -- your sayings -- called the Gospel of Thomas. There's disagreement among scholars as to whether the Gospel of Thomas should be considered a Gnostic text. Some believe it should instead be considered a text originating in a different but very early school of Christianity -- not quite Gnostic but not orthodox, either. Anyway, it's unique because it doesn't follow the narrative format of the four gospels we know from the Bible. Instead, it's a collection of sayings. Some of those sayings have sparked renewed mystical and creative interest in Jesus' original teachings. The movie Stigmata is an example of that interest.

J: And don't forget all those Da Vinci Code type books.

A: Those, too. You don't want to be learning your history from these books and films, but it's fun to sit down with a cup of hot tea and an entertaining novel on a cold snowy day.

J: Like today.

A: Yes. That's quite the storm out there today. A storm front all the way from Texas to Nova Scotia. I hope my boss calls to say we're closed today. Then maybe I could do a little reading. Catch up on the Gospel of Thomas -- which, to be honest, I haven't looked at in about two years. Last time I read it, I hadn't figured out the Gospel of Mark. But I think it's time to revisit the sayings in the Gospel of Thomas and try to figure out how they relate to Mark. All I really know at this point is what you've told in the past about the authorship of the Gospel of Thomas.

J: You mean the fact that the apostle John wrote the Gospel of Thomas.

A: It's so confusing. Who wrote the Gospel of Mark? Oh, that would be Matthew. But not the Matthew who wrote the Gospel of Matthew, because that author would be Paul's disciple Barnabas. And don't forget that Luke and Acts weren't written by a physician named Luke. And the newly discovered Gospel of Thomas wasn't written by Thomas, but was actually written by John. It's enough to give a person a headache.

J: It's interesting, isn't it, that John's name is actually on his other writings -- the Gospel of John, the letters of John, and Revelation.

A: Yes. How is it that John's name got preserved in so many places, and Paul's name got preserved in so many places, and your name didn't get preserved on any writings at all? We have texts we call "Pauline," and we have texts we call "Johannine," but we don't have any "Yeshuan" texts. In fact, we don't even have an adjective in English that corresponds to the name Jesus, so I have to use an adjective based on the Aramaic form of your name, Yeshua. Yet I know you did a lot of writing. So what happened? What happened to your name? And what happened to your writings?

J: Long story. It's complicated. It makes more sense if you understand the cast of characters, the people I actually lived with and worked with. It makes more sense if you understand the personal motivations for each person involved.

A: Including your own motivation.

J. Yes. Mine, too.

A: Okay. Let's start with your motivation, then. Can you describe briefly the core of your motivation?

J: To bring healing to disadvantaged children so they didn't have to go through what my daughter had to go through.

A: Oh.

J: Theologians have been pontificating for centuries about who I was and what I was trying to do. But nobody's taken the time or trouble to ask me. They all want me to be a reflection of themselves -- somebody who's more interested in how many angels can fit on the head of a pin than somebody who's interested in the core questions about humanity. Life and love. Healing. But after my daughter died, I couldn't have cared less about the Covenant or the Law. The Covenant did nothing to help my daughter. In fact, I'd say the Covenant was partly to blame for her death. After you've had a child die -- a child you care deeply about -- your life changes. It's no great mystery. I embarked on a journey of spiritual questioning and spiritual agony because I felt I owed it to my beloved child. It's as simple as that.

A: I understand.

J: Yes, because you've gone through the same thing. Nobody but a bereaved parent can completely understand. To lose a beloved child is to have your heart ripped out. Except that you don't lose your heart. If you accept the grief and you accept the loss, you end up finding your heart. It bleeds a lot, but it's there.

A: Many of the theologians who've written about you over the centuries have been neither parents nor bereaved parents.

J: Augustine of Hippo was a bereaved parent. This didn't help him find his heart, unfortunately.

A: Perhaps he was in denial. It's not uncommon for bereaved parents to withdraw completely from their emotions because it's too painful. They retreat into logic and end up focussing on the "mind" and "reason" so they don't have to feel anything anymore.

J: Exactly. Unfortunately, the orthodox Church is riddled with the immature "victim" psychology that comes with being emotionally crippled, with abandoning healthy, mature relationships with each other and with God.

A: Explain what you mean by "emotionally crippled."

J: I mean men and women who are emotionally immature, emotionally stunted, emotionally dissociated. Adults who don't have the courage of their own hearts and souls. It's hard work to deal with grief. And love. And Pauline Christians aren't good at it because they haven't been taught how. Whenever I hear the phrase "one body in Christ," I think of a zombie -- a lifeless corpse walking around with no heart and no capacity for empathy or deep compassion. There's lots and lots of talk in the Church about free will and reason and blind faith, but if you look closely, you'll see there's little talk about emotional maturity or emotional healing or faith based on empathy rather than on pure logic. That's why the Church doesn't teach people about forgiveness. Forgiveness is part of a messy package that includes love and grief and pain. Forgiveness is very hard work at an emotional and spiritual and psychological level. It has no appeal for people who are emotionally immature.

A: People like Paul.

J: And people like John the Baptist.

A: Hey -- that's a non sequitur.

J: Not when you know that John the Baptist and John the Evangelist were one and the same person.

A: I take it that reports of his death were greatly exaggerated?

J: There are always wars and rumours of wars. Always deaths and rumours of deaths. Sometimes the one prevents the other.


Update on August 9, 2015: (1) Photo of the Gospel of Jesus' Wife was added.

(2) For an interesting commentary on the Gospel of Thomas, please see the article called "The Gospel of Thomas: Jesus Said What?" by Simon Gathercole in the July/August 2015 Biblical Archaeology Review.  In this article, Dr. Gathercole talks about the history of the Gospel of Thomas's discovery, discusses theories for its date, and reviews some the Gospel's major theological themes.

On the question of whether the Gospel of Thomas can be understood as a Gnostic work, he says this:

"Nevertheless, it has always been something of an embarrassment for the "Gnostic" view of Thomas that there is no talk of an evil demiurge, a creation that is intrinsically evil, or of other familiar themes such as "aeons" (a technical term for the divine realms in the heavens).  Properly Gnostic gospels such as the Gospel of Judas and the Nag Hammadi Gospel of the Egyptians, have very complicated accounts of how multitudes of deities and aeons come into existence from a demonic power before the birth of the world.  There is nothing of this in Thomas, though."