JR63: Jesus Redux: The Forward

The first will be last, and the last will be first.

On the island of Mykonos. Photo credit JAT 2001.

Sorry. Couldn't resist a biblical pun there. If you're visiting this blog for the first time, this page -- the final page in a lengthy conversation between Jesus and me -- will be the first thing you'll see. So it only makes sense for us to write this "afterword" as if it were a "forward."

If you've been following this blog as we've been writing it (we have readers in Canada, the U.S., Singapore, Germany, and few other places), you've probably figured out that we've been writing a book bit by bit. And now we've come to the end of this particular body of thought.

There's a great deal more that can be said about the topics we've introduced here, topics such as the nature of the soul, the nature of the soul-body connection, the need for healing, the need to recognize and treat major mental illness (especially as it relates to religious prophecy), and the need for the church to be honest about its doctrines if it wants to find its way back to a full relationship with God the Mother and God the Father in the third millennium. But there's only so much the human brain can absorb at one time. There's enough here to make anyone's head hurt (at least in the beginning).

Our chief goal has always been to spark discussion and encourage people to think for themselves. So if you feel from time to time that we could have given more background information or more references or more detailed explanations, you've probably stumbled into one of many spots in the book where we've intentionally given you the benefit of the doubt. We assume you're a rational, capable, tenacious person capable of doing some independent research. There has to be room in a book like this for you to find your own courage and trust. There has to room for you to build your own relationship with God.

This book can be used in a straightforward academic manner (which is why we're now going back and adding labels so it's easier for you to find the topics that interest you). But it can also be used in an intuitive manner. I highly recommend this approach if you're interested in slowly developing the intuitive circuitry of your own brain. 

In walking the Spiral Path, there's always the easy way and the hard way. Several years ago, when I was beginning my own journey, I did everything the hard way. I believed (because I allowed myself to be browbeaten by various gurus) that you can only learn to tap into your natural intuition or "spiritual quotient," as I've called it elsewhere, by using ancient divining tools such as tarot cards or lectio divina. If you've ever tried to read a tarot spread, you know there's a lot of wiggle room in the interpretation. And you're never quite sure . . .

On the other hand, you can take a book like this, and ask God to guide you to the page you most need to understand (a centering exercise first would help with this), and then let your hand click on the mouse while you're sort of looking at the archive of posts, but not looking too, too closely at the archive of posts. If you look too closely at the list, you'll get in the way of your own intuitive process and start second-guessing yourself. So just let the mouse hover somewhere over the archive list, then look away and click before you have too much time to think about it.

It's no big deal, really. You're just letting yourself be open to the idea that God knows what you understand least, and what will help you most today. It's quite possible you'll end up clicking on the same link several days in a row. If this happens, just accept God's wisdom. I learned long ago never to argue with God when the book opens up again and again to the same section.

Most of all, don't expect the journey to be linear. It's not gonna be. Love isn't linear. Love lurches along with its own extraordinary surprises and puzzling patterns, but it always gets you there in the end. God's love is the bedrock of everything you are. That's why, as Jesus and I love to say to our divine parents . . .

Mother and Father God, you both totally rock! We dedicate this book to you!

Love Jesus and Jen

Jesus as the author sees him

JR53: Saying 22 in the Gospel of Thomas

A: At the beginning of Stevan Davies's translation of the Gospel of Thomas, there's a Foreword written by Andrew Harvey. Harvey says this about the Gospel of Thomas: "If all the Gospel of Thomas did was relentlessly and sublimely champion the path to our transfiguration and point out its necessity, it would be one of the most important of all religious writings -- but it does even more. In saying 22, the Gospel of Thomas gives us a brilliantly concise and precise 'map' of the various stages of transformation that have be unfolded in the seeker for the 'secret' to be real in her being and active though [sic?] all her powers. Like saying 13, saying 22 has no precedent in the synoptic gospels and is, I believe, the single most important document of the spiritual life that Jesus has left us (pages xxi-xxii)."
 
Harvey then plunges into 5 pages of rapture on the ectastic meaning of Saying 22. None of which I agree with, of course. And none of which you're likely to agree with, either, if experience is any guide. But I thought maybe you and I could have a go at it.
 
J: By all means.
 
A: Okay. Here's the translation of Saying 22 as Stevan Davies's writes it:

"Jesus saw infants being suckled. He said to his disciples: These infants taking milk are like those who enter the Kingdom. His disciples asked him: If we are infants will we enter the Kingdom? Jesus responded: When you make the two into one, and when you make the inside like the outside and the outside like the inside, and the upper like the lower and the lower like the upper, and thus make the male and the female the same, so that the male isn't male and the female isn't female. When you make an eye to replace an eye, and a hand to replace a hand, and a foot to replace a foot, and an image to replace an image, then you will enter the Kingdom (page xxii and 25-27)."

Harvey's interpretation of this saying speaks of an "alchemical fusion" and a "Sacred Androgyne" who "'reigns' over reality" with actual "powers that can alter natural law" because he or she has entered a transformative state of "mystical union," where "the powers available to the human being willing to undertake the full rigor of the Jesus-transformation are limitless."

I'm not making this up, though I wish I were.

J: And there I was, talking about a little ol' mustard seed . . . . It's a terrific example of the danger of using "wisdom sayings" as a teaching tool. People have a tendency to hear whatever they want to hear in a simple saying. Parables are much harder to distort. Eventually I caught on to the essential problem that's created when you choose to speak indirectly to spare other people's feelings. When you use poetry instead of blunt prose, it's much easier for other people to twist your meaning intentionally. You can see the same understanding in the Gospel of Mark. Mark is blunt. He doesn't waste time on cliches and "wisdom words." He goes straight for the truth, and leaves no wiggle room for gnostic-type interpretations.

“The disciples said to Jesus: ‘Tell us what the Kingdom of Heaven is like.’ He replied: ‘It is like a mustard seed, the smallest of all. However, when it falls into worked ground, it sends out a large stem, and it becomes a shelter for the birds of heaven'” (Gospel of Thomas 20). Mustard Seeds by David Turner 2005, licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution Share Alike 3.0 Unported license.

 
A: Harvey seems to have found a whole lot of wiggle room in Saying 22.
 
J: I must admit that Harvey's "revelation" of the Sacred Androgyne makes me feel sick to my stomach.
 
A: Why?
 
J: Because it denies the very reality of male and female. It denies the reality that God the Father is male and God the Mother is female. It denies the reality that everything in Creation is built on the cherished differences between male and female. Being male isn't better than being female. And being female isn't better than being male. But they're not the same. Neither are they yin-and-yang. They're not two halves of the same coin. They're not mirror images of each other. They're not a fusion -- they're not a Oneness -- like a bowl of pure water. God the Mother and God the Father are like a bowl of minestrone soup. You can see all the big chunks of differentness floating around in there, and that's okay, because that's what gives the mixture its taste, its wonder, its passion.
 
God the Mother and God the Father aren't the same substance with opposite polarities. No way. They have individual temperaments and unique characteristics. In some ways, they're quite alike. In other ways, they're quite different from each other. Just as you'd expect in two fully functioning, mature beings. That's why it's a relationship. They work things out together so both of them are happy at the same time. It's not that hard to imagine, really. They have a sacred marriage, a marriage in which they constantly strive to lift each other up, support each other, forge common goals together, build things together, and most importantly, raise a family together. They look out for each other. They laugh together. They're intimately bound to each other in all ways. But they're still a bowl of minestrone soup. With nary a Sacred Androgyne in sight.
 
A: Okay. So if you weren't talking about "oneness" or "alchemical fusion" or the "Sacred Androgyne" in Saying 22, what were you talking about?
 
J: Well, I was talking about the mystery and wonder that can be found in a simple seed. I was talking -- as I often was -- about how to understand our relationship with God by simply looking at and listening to God's ongoing voice in the world of nature.
 
A: Oh. Are we talking about tree-hugging?
 
J: You could put it that way.
 
A: David Suzuki would love you for saying that.
 
J: I was a nature mystic, to be sure. Endogenous mystics are nature mystics. They see the image of God -- and more importantly the stories of God -- in God's own language, which is the world of Creation. The world outside the city gates has so much to say about balance and time and beginnings and endings! The world outside the city gates is a library. It's literally a library that teaches souls about cycles and physics and interconnectedness and chemistry and complexity and order and chaos all wrapped up together in a tapestry of Divine Love.
 
A: What you're saying seems like a pretty modern, liberal sort of understanding. Were you able to articulate it this way 2,000 years ago?
 
J: Not to be unkind to modern, liberal thinkers, but when was the last time a philosopher of science sat down with a mustard seed and reflected on the intrinsic meaning of it? When was the last time you heard what a humble fresh bean can teach you about the spiritual journey of all human beings?
 
A: I see your point. People in our society don't usually take the time to sit down and "smell the roses."
 
J: Geneticists and biologists and related researchers can print out all their research on the genome of a kidney bean, and can even modify this genetic code in a lab, but to a mystic the kidney bean holds more than pure science.
 
A: So we've switched from mustard seeds to kidney beans as a metaphor?
 
J: Kidney beans are bigger and easier to see without magnifying lenses, and a lot of people have begun their scientific inquiries by growing beans in a primary school classroom. So yes -- let's switch to beans.
 
A: I remember being fascinated by fresh beans and peas when I was young. If you split the bean with your thumbnail, and you didn't damage it too much when you split it, you could see the tiny little stem and leaf inside at one end, just waiting to sprout. If you planted a whole, unsplit bean in a small glass-walled container, you could watch the whole process of growth -- the bean splitting open on its own, roots starting to grow from one end, the stem and leaf popping up, the two halves of the bean gradually shrinking as their nutrients were converted into stem and root growth. Somehow the bean knew what to do. It just kept growing out of the simplest things -- dirt, sunlight, water.
 
J: The bean is a lot like the human brain. If you plant it whole in fertile ground and provide the right nutrients, it grows into a thing of wholeness and balance and wonder and mystery. On the other hand, if you try to split it open, or extract the tiny stem hidden inside, or plant it on rocks instead of good soil, or fail to give it sunshine and water, it won't thrive. It may not even root at all. You can't force the bean to grow where it isn't designed to grow. You can't force it to grow once you've forcibly split it open. You can't force it to grow on barren rock. The bean has to be whole when you plant it. The outside skin has to be intact. The different parts inside the skin have to be intact. The bean has different parts, but it needs all those different parts in order to be whole -- in order to create something new. The bean isn't a single substance. But it is holistic. It's a self-contained mini-marvel that teaches through example about cycles and physics and interconnectedness and chemistry and complexity and order and chaos. It appears simple, but in fact it's remarkably complex. Creation is like that -- it appears simple, but in fact it's remarkably complex.
 
A: Why, then, were you talking about "male and female" in Saying 22? Why did you seem to be talking about merging or fusion of male and female into an androgynous state? Or a Platonic state of mystical union?
 
J: It goes to the question of context. I was talking to people who, as a natural part of their intellectual framework, were always trying to put dualistic labels on everything in Creation. Everyday items were assigned labels of "good or evil," "pure or impure," "male or female," "living or dead." It had got to the point where a regular person might say, "I won't use that cooking pan because it has female energy, and female energy isn't pure."
 
A: I'm not sure that kind of paranoid, dualistic, magical thinking has really died out, to be honest.
 
J: There are certainly peoples and cultures who still embrace this kind of magical thinking. You get all kinds of destructive either-or belief systems. You get people saying that right-handed people and right-handed objects are favoured by God, whereas left-handed people are cursed. It's crazy talk. It's not balanced. It's not holistic. It's not trusting of God's goodness.
 
A: And you were left-handed.
 
J: Yep. My mother tried to beat it out of me, but I was a leftie till the day I died. When I was a child, I was taught to be ashamed of my left-handedness. Eventually I came to understand that I was who I was. The hand I used as an adult to hold my writing stylus was the same hand I'd been born with -- my left hand. But on my journey of healing, redemption, and forgiveness, I came to view my hand quite differently than I had in my youth. Was it a "new hand"? No. Was it a new perception of my hand. Yes. Absolutely yes.
 
A: You stopped putting judgmental labels on your eyes and your hands and your feet and your understanding of what it means to be made in the image of God.
 
J: One of the first steps in knowing what it feels like to walk in the Kingdom of the Heavens is to consider yourself "a whole bean."
 
A: Aren't there kidney beans in minestrone soup? How did we get back to the minestrone soup metaphor?
 
J: A little mustard seed in the soup pan never hurts either.
 

JR49: Third Step: Invite Our Mother to the Table

A: Last time we spoke, the idea of the "scandal of particularity" sort of popped onto the page. I've been thinking about it for the past few days, and I'd like to return to that idea if it's okay with you. 

J: Fine by me.  

A: You said -- and I quote -- "There IS a 'scandal of particularity,' but it applies to God the Mother and God the Father, not to me." Can you elaborate on this?  

J: Orthodox Western Christianity -- the religious structure built on the teachings of Paul and Paul's orthodox successors -- has worked very hard in the last few centuries to "reposition" me, Jesus son of Joseph, in the marketplace of world opinion. Many critics of Christianity have pointed out how damaging and abusive it is to claim that God "became" one particular man in one particular place at one particular point in time. No end of systemic abuse has been voluntarily created by Church representatives because of this claim. Claims about me have been used to justify maltreatment of women and children, unrepentant selling of human beings, violence against Jews, and attacks on the "inferiority" of all other religious traditions. 

Christians who think that I, Jesus, am happy about their claims should check out the current song by Christina Perri called "Jar of Hearts."* "Jar of Hearts" is a song about a person who has finally figured out how abusive her former partner is. "Who do you think you are?" she asks with no holds barred, "running' 'round leaving scars, collecting your jar of hearts, and tearing love apart." This song reflects quite accurately how I feel about "Mother Church." I want no part of the traditional teachings about Jesus the Saviour. If they want to keep their Saviour, they'll have to find a new candidate, because this particular angel has resigned. Quit. Left the building. I'm tired of being their whipping boy.  

A: Not quite the answer I was expecting.  

J: People think that angels have no feelings. Well, I have plenty of feelings about the way the Church has abused me and those I love. I forgive individual church leaders -- those who have perpetrated great harm in the name of God and Jesus -- but I feel the pain intensely. Forgiveness isn't the same thing as sweeping great harms under the carpet. Forgiveness is first and foremost a state of honesty -- honesty about the intent and the injury inflicted by the intent. The intent of the Church's teachings about me (Jesus) and about sin, separation from God, sacraments, and salvation is selfish and narcissistic. These teachings promote physiological addiction disorders. They harm lives. They harm relationships. They harm the understanding of humanity's role in Creation. I do not respect these teachings, and I do not support the right of the Church to teach abusive spirituality to desperate people. Abuse is abuse. Western society as a whole no longer supports or condones spousal abuse or child abuse or corporate abuse. Yet Western society continues to condone spiritual abuse. This must stop.  

A: Many Christians have noticed the problem of abuse in the Church and have decided to walk away from the Church. They don't see how it can be fixed.  

J: People want and need to be in relationship with God. They need faith in their lives. Unfortunately, the Church has taken terrible advantage of this need. 

A: I haven't seen much willingness among Christians I know to ask tough questions about Church doctrine. They're trying to change the window dressings while the basement foundation is full of rot. No wonder people are leaving the mainstream churches in droves! At least in Canada they are. Can't comment on the experience in other countries.  

J: In Canada there's a widespread ethos of inclusiveness, access to public health services and public schooling, government accountability, gender equality, and prevention of child abuse, but individual Canadians aren't seeing their day-to-day ethos reflected in the core teachings of the orthodox Church.  

A: Because it's not there. The words are there, but not the underlying ethos.  

J: No. The ethos isn't there. The Church can talk till it's blue in the face about the importance of service work and mission, but regular people can still sense there's "something wrong with the picture." They can sense there's rot in the foundations. And they don't want to be a part of that. Some of them decide to leave the church. Others stay and do their best to try to fix it from within. But there's mass confusion. And people are starving -- literally starving -- for a faith experience that makes sense to them at the deepest possible level of the heart.  

“A woman in the crowd said to him: Blessed is the womb that bore you and the breasts that fed you. He said to her: Blessed are they who have heard the word of the Father and have truly kept it. For there will be days when you will say, ‘Blessed is the womb that has not conceived and the breasts that have not given milk'” (Gospel of Thomas 79 a-b). The Gospel of Thomas follows a minority voice in Judaism that speaks of women in a positive light and shows them as being equal to men in God’s community (rather than inferior knock-offs). This particular saying in Thomas goes even further and talks about God the Mother as one who shouldn’t be understood in terms of ordinary human motherhood. As Co-Creator of everything in the universe, our blessed Divine Mother is beyond our simple conceptions of what it means to be a mother. When compared to Hellenistic cult images of the Divine Mother (for example, the multi-breasted Artemis figure from Ephesus), it’s easy to see why Jesus faced an uphill battle in changing people’s perception of God. Photo credit JAT 2025.

 

A: For 2,000 years now we've been saddled with a religion that absolutely insists in no uncertain terms how ludicrous it is to even consider the remote possibility that possibly -- just possibly -- God might not be a "he" but might instead be a "he and a she." It's okay, of course, for us to bust our brains on the question of the Trinity and all the other "mysteries" that go with traditional Christianity. But it's not okay for us to suppose that God is two people united forever in divine marriage with each other.** 

J: Such a portrayal of God brings with it all sorts of implications the Church doesn't want to deal with. For one thing, they'd have to explain how and why they "kidnapped" our Divine Mother, why they eradicated her from the message. They'd have to explain -- at least in the Roman Catholic Church -- why they allowed a cult to flourish around the fictional character of Mary, Mother of God. 

A: You did have a mother. And her name was Miriam.  

J: Yes. But she was no more the Mother of God than I was God incarnate. She was a normal human mother. That's it.  

A: Two flesh and blood people -- you and your human mother -- who've been turned into myths, lies, and symbols. 

J: Meanwhile, there's a very real and very particular Mother in Creation. God the Mother. This is the scandal of particularity I was referring to -- the scandal of God the Mother and God the Father being two particular, definable, real, knowable people. Real people who have existed and continue to exist in real time and real space and real history. Real people who refuse to be moulded by the grandiose lies made by assorted religious mystics over the centuries. Real people who belong to each other -- not to their children -- in marital love. Real people who are our PARENTS. Real people who get hurt when their dysfunctional human children try to cross the boundaries of safety and trust between parents and children by engaging in occult practices -- especially occult sexual practices.  

A: Mystics have often described their "union with God" as a mystical marriage, with God as the bridegroom and the mystic or the church as the bride.  

J: Yeah. And for the record, that's another doctrine that's gotta go. It's highly dysfunctional and abusive for children to want to have sex with their own parents. This should go without saying. But for too long the Church has condoned mystical practices that lead in this direction. 

A: Who can forget Bernini's sculpture of St. Teresa of Avila with her mouth agape and her toes curled in orgasmic ecstasy?  

J: Here's a thought. Maybe we should butt out of the personal relationship between God the Mother and God the Father -- their private life -- and get on with the important job of being their children. For starters, human beings of faith could be nice to our Mother for a change. You know, talk to her. Include her. Invite her to the table of faith. Look to her for guidance and inspiration. Say thank you to her. Look her in the eye and say, "Thank you for loving me."  

A: It's amazing how effective the Church's strategy has been. They've managed to put blinders on people's eyes so they literally can't see God the Mother. She's the Invisible Woman in Western theology. She's standing right in front of us, waving her arms and jumping up and down, and people of faith still don't see her.  

J: If that isn't gender abuse, I don't know what is. 

 

* "Jar of Hearts" was written by Drew C. Lawrence, Christina J. Perri, and Barrett N. Yeretsian. 

** See also http://jesusredux.blogspot.com/2011/02/divine-love-story.html and http://concinnatechristianity.blogspot.com/2010/11/how-my-experience-as-chemist-has.html

JR48: Second Step in Healing the Church: Restore the Mystery of Divine Love

A: I was rearranging a couple of my bookshelves yesterday -- actually, I was tidying up because my parents are coming over -- and I felt drawn to set aside a book I picked up last fall in the remaindered book section at Chapters. It's The Complete Idiot's Guide to Christian Mysteries by Ron Benrey (New York: Alpha-Penguin, 2008). It's not a bad little book. And it sure beats trying to wade through Jaroslav Pelikan's massive 5 volume history of church doctrine.  

Anyway, Benrey's book is divided into 4 parts and a total of 24 chapters. Part 1 is called "The Christian Mindbenders." The 6 mysteries included in Part I are "the mystery of the incarnation," "the mystery of the trinity," "the mystery of Jesus' dual natures," "the mystery of Jesus' resurrection," "the mystery of the atonement," and "the mystery of the last things." A few days ago, you said there's not enough mystery in the church.* Yet Bender has filled a whole book with Christian mysteries of various sorts -- most of which you've trashed in your discussions with me. So I'm wondering if we can return to the question of mystery in the church today. How do you envision the role of mystery in healing the church?  

J: First, it's important for church leaders to accept that people want and need mystery. If you strip away the mystery, all you really have is a secular service club devoted to charitable causes. That's not faith. Faith and mystery go hand in hand. 

“Jesus said: Images are visible to people, but the love within them is hidden in the image of the Father’s love. He will be revealed but his image is hidden by his love” (Gospel of Thomas 83). Standard translations of this saying use the word “light” where I’ve used the word “love.” But for Jesus, Divine Love — rather than hidden knowledge — was the great light that shines upon us all. There was no word in Greek, Hebrew, or Aramaic that adequately captured this concept of love, so he sometimes used the Greek word φως (phos) to try to capture the intensity and sense of life in God’s love. Strange as it may sound, mystery, and love are always associated with a sense of movement, beauty, grace, and transformation. St. Margaret's Church, London, UK. Photo credit JAT 2023.

 

A: Why?  

J: Because faith -- as opposed to piety or fear of God -- is about relationship with God. And as soon as you start talking about relationships, you start entering the realm of mystery. 

A: That feeling of awe about somebody else's gifts and gaffes -- their amazing courage, their brilliant insights, their hilarious mistakes.  

J: Perhaps the greatest mystery of all is consciousness -- what it means to be a person. This mystery extends to the origins of our divine Mother and Father. God the Mother and God the Father are distinct consciousnesses -- two distinct people -- with vastly different talents and abilities, yet they share their journey together in the deepest love and trust and gratitude. What they create together is so much bigger than what either could create alone. There's an immense sense of wonder on the part of all angels at the richness and kindness and patience that's infused in everything our Mother and Father create together. The creations themselves are cause for much appreciation and emulation. But it's not the creations themselves (stars, moons, planets) that convey to us -- their angelic children -- the deepest sense of divine mystery. It's the love itself. The deepest mystery -- the startling mystery, the core mystery, the infinite puzzle -- is the mystery of divine love. And this is a mystery based on relationship.  

A: Some Christian theologians like to talk about the "scandal of particularity." In Christian terms, it's related to the doctrine of the incarnation -- the idea that God entered one particular, limited existence. Namely you. It's interesting that what you're describing as the mystery of divine love sounds nothing like the Christian doctrine of the incarnation, yet it sounds an awful lot like the scandal of particularity -- though not at first. You have to ponder the feeling for a while to notice the connection . . . which reminds me that I've noticed over the years that some of the doctrines Christians cling to so desperately contain an echo or a hint of something true. The doctrines have become all twisted around and knotted so we can't see the original truth anymore. But at the same time we don't want to let them go because we sense there's something important there.  

J: You've really nailed that. There IS a "scandal of particularity," but it applies to God the Mother and God the Father, not to me.  

A: I've been hanging around with you for too long.  

J: The same thing applies to the idea of the Christ archetype. I was not -- and am not --THE Christ. The original Christ archetype is held by God the Mother and God the Father TOGETHER. I seek to emulate their courage, their love, their devotion as an angel, as a child of God, and in so far as I choose to emulate their example, I am a "small-c" christ. But when angels think of Christ, we think of our divine parents. We think of God. It's a term of affection. And gratitude. It's a positive epithet. But Paul and his successors took this term of affection and turned it into a word that means power and control and hierarchy. They mutated and subverted the meaning of everything that God the Mother and God the Father stand for together as the Christ.  

Sure, there really is a Christ. And sure, regular Christians don't want to let go of the idea that there's a Christ. But they're pinning the tail on the wrong donkey. I'm not the Christ. I'm a child of Christ -- as, indeed, are all souls in Creation.  

A: When we started talking about the "scandal of particularity" a few minutes ago, I got my butt off my chair and retrieved another book -- this one called Constructive Theology: A Contemporary Approach to Classical Themes, edited by Serene Jones and Paul Lakeland (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2005). In it there's an article called "God With Us in the Dust" by Karen Baker-Fletcher (pages 188-190). Baker-Fletcher says this:  

"What, then, is the difference between Jesus and other humans? It is not that we are like Jesus in the suffering we humans endure. It is the other way around; Jesus is like us, relates to us, identifies with us, having experienced the violent consequences of human sin. Jesus is like us because Jesus has been sinned against. He therefore can identify with human suffering. Jesus is like us because Jesus also feasts and rejoices with us. But we are not Christs [emphasis added]. Jesus does not sin but is sinned against. Jesus is unlike us because he is the Christ, the anointed one, one with God. God alone in Christ can promise restoration, redemption, salvation. As human beings we may participate in this activity, but we do not initiate it (page 189)." How do you respond to these thoughts?  

J: Well, she's managed rather neatly to allude to the Christian mysteries of the incarnation, the trinity, Jesus' dual natures, Jesus' resurrection, the atonement, and the last things all in one paragraph. She gets points for brevity. But she gets no points for understanding my ministry or my true relationship with God.  

A: You've said in the past that all human beings have the potential to live as Christs-in-human-form.  

J: Yes. It's a question of living your human life in imitation of Christ -- not as Paul taught the nature of Christ, but as I and others have taught the nature of Christ. Since God the Mother and God the Father are THE Christ, it's a pretty good bet that if you live your life in imitation of their love -- their courage, their devotion, their gratitude, their trust -- you're going to be "in the zone."  

A: In the Christ Zone, as you've called it before.  

J: Yes. I've called it the Christ Zone for a modern audience but 2,000 years ago I called it . . .  

A: The Kingdom of the Heavens.  

J: Same thing, different name. It's not the name that matters, after all. It's the intent. Paul's intent -- his choice of ground on which to sow the seeds of human potential -- was barren and rocky because he didn't actually want people to understand their potential to initiate the activities of healing, forgiveness, and redemption. He wanted them to feel helpless and hopeless about themselves so they would turn first and foremost to church leaders (such as himself) for authority and guidance.  

A: And you?  

J: I wanted people to feel helpful and hopeful about themselves so they would turn to God the Mother and God the Father for direct guidance.  

A: How very Protestant of you. 

* http://jesusredux.blogspot.com/2011/06/first-step-in-healing-church-rescue.html

JR 43: The Case for "Mark Versus Paul"

A: Today, I'm shifting back into academic mode on the question of what Jesus actually taught 2,000 years ago -- as opposed to what the Church says he taught. 

I've had an inquiry about my academic arguments on the "Mark versus Paul" question -- that is, on my thesis that Mark wrote his gospel as a direct rebuttal of Paul's First Corinthians. To present this argument in its entirety would fill at least one big fat Zondervan text (as if Zondervan's editors would publish such a thesis!) so all I can do at this stage is present a brief list of comparisons between the two texts. I'm aware that in order to build a case for each "talking point" in a complete academic format -- a format that would be acceptable to a peer-reviewed journal -- would require many months of research for each point and a long research paper for each. The work would go faster, however, if others were willing to help. If you're interested in helping with this project, please contact me. 

I'm going to present some of the major contrasts I see between First Corinthians and the Gospel of Mark. I'll assume for this purpose that the extant copies of these two books represent with a fair degree of accuracy the original texts as they were written by Paul and Mark respectively, with the exception of Mark 16:9-20 (the very ending of Mark), which is generally believed to be a later addition.  

If you want to see which researchers I rely on, please refer to the post called "The Author's Research Bibliography" (http://jesusredux.blogspot.com/2011/03/authors-bibliography.html).  

Study of the Gospel of Thomas, which has strong links to the Q Source and the Synoptic Gospels, makes it easier to see what Jesus was actually saying and how Jesus’ teachings differed radically from Paul’s teachings. Ceiling mosaic in the original Queen’s Park entrance of the Royal Ontario Museum, Toronto. Photo credit JAT 2017.

I use more than one form of biblical criticism -- more than one analytical tool -- in this comparison. I tend to start with traditional methods -- socio-historical criticism, source criticism, form criticism, and redaction criticism -- and then I cross-reference these arguments with recent scientific insights from quantum theory, neurophysiology, psychotherapy, archaeology, and recent historical findings. I also use my own personal mystical faculties, but I won't apologize for this, since insights derived from mystical conversations are only a starting point, not an ending point. Other researchers get "aha" moments and call them intuition, or divine revelation, or just plain ol' personal brilliance. Me, I'm being honest about where I get my starting point for this discussion. After that, it's up to me to use logical human tools to make my case. 

Fortunately for me, what Jesus and my angels pointed out to me leads to an extremely strong case. To the best of my knowledge, there are no biblical scholars currently publishing on this topic. So this is original research you're reading. You'll probably wonder straight away how I -- an obscure blogger from Canada who has no PhD and no publishing record of note -- could see evidence of a book-to-book biblical feud that nobody else has seen. To this I must reply that the feud has been obvious "to those who have eyes and those who have ears" (Mark 8:18) since these two texts began to circulate simultaneously in the latter part of the 1st century CE. Christians have always been called to decide whether they choose Paul's teachings or Jesus' teachings (even if they haven't been able to articulate the choice in scholarly terms). However, it's only now that Christians are getting round to being honest about this fact. 

If Mark had simply written about entirely different themes than Paul did, there would be no point in trying to show that Mark wrote his gospel as a rebuttal of Paul's First Corinthians. But Mark didn't write about different themes than Paul did. He wrote about exactly the same topics and inverted them. He also chose his words as carefully as Paul did. He never uses Paul's favourite word: nomos (Greek for law, authority, unbreakable tradition). Nor does Mark use the words charis (grace) or elpis (hope). The words nomos, charis, and elpis are part of the vocabulary of apocalyptic thought. And Mark is trying to show, contrary to Paul's claims about Jesus, that Jesus himself rejected apocalyptic thought.  

Mark never uses the words nomos, charis, and elpis. But for a man who never uses these words, he talks about them a lot in his book. He talks about what it means for a person of faith to be in full relationship with God the Mother and God the Father.  

Here is a point form list of some of the direct comparisons. I reserve the right to edit, modify, add to, and clarify this list whenever additional information comes to light in future. If information is suggested to me by other writers, I will so note the contribution(s).  

Concerns of Form:  

1. Viewpoint Character In Paul: The viewpoint character is Paul himself. In Mark: The viewpoint character is Jesus; the author (Mark) is not present; reference to "a certain young man" in Mark 14:51 may indicate an eyewitness to whom Mark later spoke about events surrounding Jesus' arrest.  

2. Narrator's Voice In Paul: The narrator speaks in first person (Paul himself). In Mark: Third person narration. 

3. Literary Genre In Paul: Written as a letter; uses rhetoric, exhortation. In Mark: Written as a biographical narrative interspersed with parables, sayings, and teaching actions (i.e. teaching chreia).  

4: The Narrative Hook: "The Hero's Journey" In Paul: The hero Paul recounts highlights of his long and arduous journey to save the Gentiles; the focus is on important urban centres; the hero's personal journey is a metaphor for the path of spiritual ascent (i.e. the vertical path that leads to salvation and eventual bodily resurrection). In Mark: The hero Jesus takes many small trips around a small freshwater lake; the focus is on unimportant outlying communities; the hero's journey is horizontal, not vertical; the path is not straight; bad things happen on high hills; good things happen near boats and water.  

Theological and Social Concerns:  

5. Relationship to the Jerusalem Temple: In Paul: The physical Temple has been replaced by Jesus and "believers" (1 Cor 3:9-17; 6:19-20); the Temple is now purely mystical; it is more important than ever. (Note: the actual physical Herodian Temple was still standing in Jerusalem at the time Paul wrote his letter and Mark wrote his rebuttal). In Mark: The physical Temple exists and is the centre of corruption in Palestine (Mark 11:12-24;12:35-44; 15:38). 

6. Relationship to the city of Jerusalem: In Paul: Jerusalem is still favoured as shown by the collection for the Jerusalem church (1 Cor 16:1-4). In Mark: Jesus spends little time in Jerusalem; healing miracles all take place outside the city; Jesus' friends live outside the city; Jerusalem is the place where genuine faith withers away (Mark 11).  

7. Healing Miracles: In Paul: No mention of healing miracles. In Mark: Several healing miracles take place; the theme of healing is introduced early on and repeated until Jesus reaches Jerusalem.  

8. People With Disabilities: In Paul: No special mention of individuals with physical or mental illnesses or disabilities or special needs. In Mark: Those deemed "impure" according to Jewish custom and law are healed, touched, spoken to in violation of purity laws.  

9. The Kingdom of God: In Paul: The Kingdom is a reality outside the self; it depends on power (1 Cor 4:20; 15:24-28; 15:50). In Mark: There is no simple explanation of the Kingdom, but empathy is central to it (Mark 10:13-31; 12:28-34).  

10. Relationship of Body to Soul: In Paul: Influenced by Platonic dualism.; the flesh is corrupt (1 Cor 3:1-4; 7:8-9; 9:24-27; 15:42-49). Souls are in peril without belief in Christ. In Mark: Holistic attitude toward the body; non-Platonic and non-Covenantal; flesh is not impure or corrupt; right relationship with God involves caring for the body. Souls live as angels in the afterlife (Mark 12:24-27)  

11: Forgiveness: In Paul: No mention of forgiveness. In Mark: The theme of forgiveness is introduced early on (Mark 2:1-12); both God and humans can forgive (Mark 11:25).  

12: The Definition of Human Virtue: In Paul: "Foolishness" (morias) and unquestioning faith are the highest expressions of right belief (1 Cor 1:10 - 2:5); obedience, fellowship, holiness, "strong consciousness," and the proper exercise of freedom are emphasized. In Mark: Courage (ischys) and a questioning faith are the highest expressions of right belief (Mark 8:11-21); egalitarianism, service, forgiveness, and insight (suneseos) are emphasized.

JR42: Harold Camping's Failed Apocalyptic Prophecy . . . Like, There's a Surprise

A: Well, it's May 23, and the world didn't end two days ago as prophesied by Harold Camping and his multi-million dollar non-profit apocalyptic Christian media ministry. The 200 million people who were supposed to be taken up into heaven in the Rapture are still here. Slightly impoverished after giving their money to Camping, but still here. All is well with the universe.  

J: People are easily parted from their assets once they've lost their common sense.  

A: I read the Globe and Mail on-line. Usually when I check an article there are a few dozen readers' comments -- 40 or 50 posts at most. Yesterday, by 2:50 p.m., there were 1,052 comments attached to an article by Garance Burke (Associated Press) called "Believers confused as Judgment Day doesn't come." I didn't read the comments. But I thought it was interesting that a failed prophecy from a retired civil engineer in a different country would attract so much attention. 

J: People have very strong opinions about religion and religious leaders. 

A: Can't argue with you there. So let's talk about angels instead -- souls who are not currently incarnated as human beings on Planet Earth. How do you and other angels feel about apocalyptic prophesies? 

J (chuckling): Isn't this a holiday in Canada? Wouldn't you rather be outside barbequing or something?  

A: It started raining again a few minutes ago. There's been a lot of rain and cool weather this spring. All the more reason to sit down and do some typing.  

J: Well, it'll come as no surprise to you that angels are fully aware of the kinds of things that are being said about us by religious leaders in various parts of the world. You could say we have our own clipping service.

Most people have been conditioned to believe that apocalyptic prophecy is a rare and sacred gift granted by God. Few people realize that from the point of view of God's angels, all claims from apocalyptic human prophets look like temples -- temples to the glory of narcissistic humans. Nothing good comes from prophecies about the End Times, and your angels know it. They see the fear, contempt, and justification of hatred that pour into every aspect of your life if you buy into these unloving lies about God. This is one temple where your angels will always let you fall flat on your face. Shown in this photo are remnants of the temple pediment found during excavations of the Roman Baths at Bath, England (because all good Remnants must come to an end). Photo credit JAT 2023.

A: A man like Harold Camping is giving God bad press -- telling people that God is so narcissistic and selfish that "he" enthusiastically plays Russian Roulette with his own children. Do angels care about this bad press? Does God? 

J: Would you be happy if the people who claim to know you went around town saying you're a controlling, manipulative, obsessive compulsive, right wing, politically conservative, Medicare-hating, gun-loving bigot who hates gays, people of colour, and women?  

A: No. I'd know they were lying, and I'd forgive them. But I'd still be hurt.  

J: Same with angels. Every day in every culture these lies about God are being preached. Angels not only feel hurt on behalf of God the Mother and God the Father, but they feel hurt on behalf of the souls who speak these lies while they're struggling with human brain dysfunction. You can be very sure that Harold Camping's own guardian angels are now very relieved to have the whole thing over with and the lie of his prophecy revealed for what it is -- not just among his own followers, but among all those who heard about it on the daily news.

A: Camping's angels aren't upset that he's been embarrassed in front of millions of people?  

J: Far from it. They know he's hurt a lot of people with his narcissistic predictions. At the same time, they know that his harmful choices emerged from his dysfunctional human brain -- not from his true self, not from his soul. They forgive him, but they also have to do the right thing by him and by others. They have to allow people to see the consequences of these kinds of abusive choices. If they protect Camping from the consequences of his own choices, and if they protect his followers from their own arrogance and stupidity, how will it be possible for human beings to learn not to make these kinds of choices? Tough Love is an angel's expression of courage, trust, and faith in the ability of human beings to live their human lives in loving ways. Divine ways. Ways that don't prey on other people's vulnerabilities. 

A: Ooooooohhh. I can just hear the response from readers. What you're saying about Tough Love sounds perilously close to the idea of divine punishment -- an idea that many liberal and progressive Christians reject as incompatible with the idea of a loving and forgiving God. 

J: I can't help it if some individuals want to reject the possibility of Tough Love from God and God's angels. Usually the people who are most keen to reject this belief are the ones who are most interested in NOT having to learn from their own mistakes. 

 A: The narcissists. 

J: Religious narcissists -- and there are plenty of those -- employ a number of psychological defences to try to shift responsibility for their own mistakes onto other people or onto other time frames. Religious doctrines such as Original Sin, Satan, Judgment Day, and the Rapture make it possible for the narcissists to stop blaming themselves for their own choices. They can shift the blame onto "conditions" that are outside their control. "Conditions" that make it easy for them to shrug their shoulders and say -- with Godfather-like equanimity -- "Hey, we can't help being who we are. One day God will make us answer for our crimes, but not today. Today we have a 'Get Out of Jail Free' card and we plan to use it. Because we can. So screw you."  

Really, I mean, come on. Do people think God can't hear that? Of course God can hear that. God forgives them when they say it, which is exactly what you'd expect from a loving and forgiving God. But forgiving somebody means you have faith in their true potential, their truest and most loving nature. Forgiving somebody means you don't walk away from them when they're in distress. Forgiving somebody means you do your best to help them better understand the choices they're making. This usually means you have to let them experience consequences for their choices. That's how they begin to recognize the harm caused by their abusive choices. Every loving parent knows this. 

A: Loving parents also know you have to "choose your battles." You can't harangue your child about every little mistake, or he stops listening. You have to save your authoritative tone for the times when it really matters. 

J: Guardian angels are no different. Their job is to help guide their human "foster children," if you will, in the direction of greater compassion, greater balance, greater common sense. They have complete discretion and free will in carrying out this task. Sometimes they decide to help soften the consequences of a really poor human choice. Sometimes they decide to let the consequences build into one mega-consequence that hurts like hell. This is the reality. God has free will and angels have free will. Therefore, God and God's angels are free to create consequences or not as they see fit. They aren't bound by religious contract laws. Neither are they bound by laws of cause and effect. God is a heck of a lot smarter than the Law of Cause and Effect would suggest.  

“His disciples questioned him: Should we fast? In what way should we pray? Should we give to charity? From which foods should we abstain? Jesus responded: Do not lie. If there is something that you hate, do not do it, for everything is revealed beneath heaven. Nothing hidden will fail to be displayed. Nothing covered will remain undisclosed (Gospel of Thomas 6).” This life-size Roman bronze hand is covered in sacred symbols — well, sacred to occult believers, anyway. It dates from 200-400 CE and was found at Caglia, Umbria, in Central Italy. It’s on display at the Royal Ontario Museum. Photo credit JAT 2017.

A: I don't think religious narcissists actually want God to be smarter. 

J: True. Then again, that's what narcissism is all about. It's about human beings whose brains are so dysfunctional -- whether from head injury, toxic substances, stress hormones, malnutrition, sleep deprivation, lack of social and emotional supports, abusive upbringing, or lack of education -- that they start trying to cope by inventing inner myths about their own wonderfulness and superiority and breathtaking talent. There's no room within the myth for somebody else who's smarter or faster or stronger. Even if that somebody else is God.  

Of course, this is why religious narcissists rely so heavily on the theme of humility. A person of humility -- as opposed to a person of humbleness -- can see in a logical and practical way that it isn't very smart to go around proclaiming to be as smart as God, if not smarter. That's no way to recruit followers who'll willingly give you money and tell you how wonderful you are. So you don the sackcloth of humility, and you tell everyone who'll listen that you're just an empty vessel waiting to be filled by Spirit, by God's inspired Word. That's how the world acquires its apocalyptic prophets.  

A: So it's layers upon layers. A myth of personal superiority that has to be cloaked in another myth -- the myth of humility. Then, when this isn't enough to get you the reverence you crave, you add other layers, other myths, each more convoluted than the last to explain why you deserve to be treated as "special."  

J: This is what happens when people aren't honest with themselves about their own abilities, their own intentions, and their own unhealed anger. The lies build and build on top of each other. After a while the lies can take on an entire imaginary life of their own. Such is the case with orthodox Western Christianity. Its official doctrines are largely a body of lies. Only when individual Christians choose to help their neighbours in love rather than piety do they walk the path of genuine spirituality and faith. These are the times when their guardian angels smile.

JR37: Mother's Day

A: Today is Mother's Day -- a very special day, and a nice time to talk about motherhood.

J: Happy Mother's Day to you.

A: Thanks. I celebrated yesterday with my son and my sister and niece. My son brought me a pot of white mums and a very funny card. He rolled into the driveway on his new-to-him 2008 Kawasaki bike, took off his backpack, and extracted the carefully wrapped mums, which didn't look too happy (between you and me) about having been transported by motorcycle on a cool spring day, but I grinned and took them inside and put them on the warm windowsill, where they're starting to perk up.

J: You're always very mushy when you talk about your son.

Landscape by Jamie MacDonald (c) 2015.When children are raised according to the four steps of the Peace Sequence – education, mentorship, personal responsibility, and finally peace – they’re able to tap into the unique soul talents wired into their DNA.

 
A (sighing): Yes. Most of the time. There's the odd day here and there where I have to do the Mom-being-stern thing, but I couldn't be prouder of him. He's being "who he is" in a good way, and that's all I can ask. I love being a mom.

J: Tell me more about that.

A: When he was born (in 1984), I was terrified. I didn't know anything about babies. I was a bookworm, an egghead, and I'd never even changed a diaper before he was born. But I was determined to be a good mom, a stay-at-home mom by choice. I had the most wonderful book that gave me answers to all my practical questions. I can't remember the title, but the author was Penelope Leach. Best book ever on parenting, in my view.

J: What about your own mom. Did you ask her for advice?

A: Sometimes. But she lived 3 hours away in a different city, and she was focussed on establishing her new career as an artist. My mother-in-law lived very close by, and she was keen to be helpful without being interfering, so she tried hard not to say anything critical to my face. She was a big believer in the Dr. Spock method of raising children, and she thought I should be putting my son in a big perambulator on the front porch every morning to get fresh air and sunshine. That's what she'd done with her two boys. When I refused to buy an old fashioned pram, she found a used one that she kept at her house for times when she was babysitting. She seemed okay with that as a compromise.

J: You had an unusual idea about child rearing. Tell me about that.

A: In her book, Penelope Leach emphasized the idea of teaching your baby about boundary issues and personal space. She said you should put baby in his own crib when it was time for napping and sleeping, and you should always be consistent about this. No sleeping in mom and dad's bed, she said. On the other hand, cribs were to be used only for sleeping, she said. Once nap time or sleep time was over, baby should be fully included in all family activities -- not parked in the crib to keep him out of mom's way while she was busy with household chores. This idea made a lot of sense to me at an intuitive level. It felt right to me. From the very beginning, I got into the habit of carting my son everywhere in my left arm while I did chores with my right hand. My left arm got very strong.

J: Why did you do that?

A: He seemed to have terrible separation anxiety. Each time I tried to put him in a baby seat, his little face turned beet red and he howled in outrage. In retrospect, I can see that I was making him feel unimportant and un-included. And you know what? He was right. He was telling me I wasn't trying hard enough to be in full relationship with him. On the other hand, he didn't give me a hard time about going into his crib for naps and bedtime because he quickly associated his crib with being warm and cozy and sleepy. Both my mother and mother-in-law told me I would spoil him if I didn't put in a baby seat while I was doing chores, but they were both wrong. Until he learned to walk (at about 11 months), he needed to be "up" where I could talk to him "person-to-person," where he could see what was going on, where he could learn by watching and "participating." He's always been a fearless learner.

J: You and he are very close.

A: We're close in a respectful way. We give each other space, but when we talk on the phone or get together for coffee or whatever, we listen to each other in an honest way. We try to listen to what's important to each other. Our relationship has evolved into a mature adult friendship.

J: Many young adults would have no idea what you mean by that.

A: I have several acquaintances my age who don't seem to like their adult children let alone love them. The relationships are deeply strained, and there's a lot of mistrust. There's also a recent trend in journalism for women to come out of the closet and admit they don't like being mothers and never have. It may be true that for many women motherhood has felt more like a curse than a blessing, but it's not universally true. Some women, such as myself, can't believe how lucky they are to have had the privilege of guiding and mentoring a soul on the journey towards maturity.

J: Without being overly enmeshed.

A: Yes. I think many women fall into the trap of enmeshment -- of being too involved and too protective and too fearful of mistakes (their own and their children's). You have to give a child some room to make mistakes. Then you have to help them learn how to handle their own mistakes. It's what mature parents do.

J: Just like our own divine parents -- God the Mother and God the Father.

A: I have no sympathy at all for the idea that we shouldn't use "parenting" metaphors about God in church anymore because we might offend some of the church members who've had abusive human parents. I totally get the reality that many human beings have never known what true parental love is because their own caregivers were such jerks. But the fact that some parents (or foster parents) are abusive doesn't mean that all parents are abusive. You can't stop talking about meaningful parenting just because somebody out there might have a panic attack. The person having the panic attack needs to receive appropriate medical care, of course. Meanwhile, the discussion about parenting has to continue so mistakes can be uncovered and changes can be made for the benefit of the wider community -- and for individual children.

J: You mentioned the Mother's Day card your son got you. What was funny about it?

A: It's a card that's really honest. On the front it reads, "Mom, I thought about you today while playing with my food . . . after spoiling my appetite with cookies . . . before leaving my stuff on the floor . . . to go blindly follow my friends in whatever they were doing." Then you open up the card and it says, "God, I love being a grown-up." And this is hilarious, because my son is 27 years old and he does still pig out on cookies before dinner (if they're homemade) and he does leave his stuff all over the floor of his apartment (unless he has guests coming over), and he's been this way his whole life. This is who he is, and he's never going to change, and you know what? That's okay, because he understands how to love and respect other people, and he knows how to take responsibility for his own choices, and that's more important than finding some cookie crumbs on the floor.

J: So he's not perfect? He makes mistakes?

A: Yeah, he's not perfect and he makes mistakes and I really like him anyway. He's doing the best he can. That's why I'm so happy to be a mom today and always. [Thanks, hon! Your Mom, ;) ) ].

JR35: Father of Lights, Mother of Breath

A: Saying 56 of the Gospel of Thomas is somewhat puzzling. Stevan Davies translates it as "Jesus said: Whoever has known the world has found a corpse; whoever has found that corpse, the world is not worthy of him." Davies suggests that this saying relates to the two Creation stories in Genesis. He says, "it seems that the animating principle of the world is the Kingdom within it that remains undiscovered by most people. They do not realize that for them the world is a corpse; when they discover that it is, they simultaneously discover the Kingdom that can animate it" (page 61). Davies's interpretation doesn't feel right to me. What were you trying to get at here?

“Every generous act of giving, with every perfect gift, is from above, coming down from the Father of lights, with whom there is no variation or shadow due to change. In fulfillment of his own purpose he gave us birth by the Word of Truth, so that we would become a kind of first fruits of his creatures” (James 1:17-18). Photo credit JAT 2014.

 
J: Davies's thesis that the Kingdom is an animating principle within a person and within the world outside each person is central to his interpretations of the Thomasine sayings. He's entitled to his own theories, but I don't have to agree with them.

A: So you don't agree.

J: No. Davies's interpretation -- for all that he tries to cast it in the light of Wisdom teachings instead of Gnostic teachings -- is still Gnostic. In other words, it's an occult interpretation. Occult interpretations of the world rely heavily on dualistic thinking -- everything is reduced to pairs of opposites such as "good versus evil" or "light versus darkness."

A: "Alive versus dead."

J: Yes. As soon as a person starts talking about "dead things" being animated -- literally, being brought to life -- by outside forces, then you're moving in the direction of dualistic, occult thought. What scholars call Christian Gnosticisms are really just a form of immaturity. Emotional and intellectual immaturity. Nothing in Creation can be reduced to the kind of simplistic "either-or" religious formula that's being offered in Davies's interpretation. Life just isn't like that.

A: So you don't agree that "alive versus dead" is a legitimate pair, a legitimate starting point for discussion about the nature of life?

J: You have to understand the religious context in which I lived. People had some very strange ideas about birth, life, illness, and death -- everyone did, regardless of their religion. Jews were no different. We had tons of restrictions and limitations and taboos around natural life processes. Especially around death. Taboos around some other things had loosened up when Jewish lands fell under the sway of Hellenistic thought and then Roman thought. But the taboos around death hadn't diminished. People were very frightened of dead bodies. Only certain people were allowed to touch them. No one could be buried inside the city walls. The list went on and on.

A: That doesn't sound much different from today.

J: One of religion's most important jobs is to help people deal in mature and compassionate ways with death. Few religions manage to accomplish this task with any grace or decorum. One of the few modern religions that brings death into the community in a living, natural way is Rabbinic Judaism. Christianity could learn a thing or two from Judaism on this score. However, the approach to death seen in today's synagogue was not the approach to death I grew up with. Rabbinic Judaism didn't exist in the first half of the 1st century CE. Judaism was a mess. We had so many competing philosophies and so many competing rituals that regular people were hopelessly confused.

A: Dare I say that you added to that confusion?

J: You can say that. It's true. But Judaism had some good things going for it. Even though I had studied the works of Hellenistic philosophers, looking for nuggets of spiritual wisdom, I came back in the end to the best that Judaism had to offer. In my view, the best ideas of Judaism topped everything the other religions were offering.

A: Can you give some examples?

J: The most obvious one is the image of God in the Hebrew texts. There was the strange idea in Judaism -- uncommon, though not unprecedented in the history of religion -- that there was really just one God, not a whole pantheon of gods. Of course, I didn't agree with the Platonic idea that God was a single undifferentiated "He." This idea had slowly made its way into Jewish thought, and by the 1st century CE it was widely accepted by many Jews. But not all Jews saw God as 100% male. A thinking person couldn't make sense of the natural world if it was seen solely as a "male domain." There had to be a feminine principle in there somewhere -- a feminine principle that was equal to the male principle and in full partnership with the male principle. My personal experiences as a mystic clinched that theory beyond all doubt. Once I had seen and felt the reality of God the Mother and God the Father in my own heart, I had no doubt about who God really is. God is Father and Mother together -- Abba and Ruah. Father of Lights, Mother of Breath. That's what I called them.

A: You refer to the Father of Lights in the Letter of James (James 1:17-18). You also say there that the Father of Lights gave birth to us "by the word of truth." What did you mean by this?

J: "The word of truth" -- logo aletheias in the Greek, which is not the same as Sophia (Wisdom) -- is a name I sometimes used for God the Mother. I was trying to make it clear that God the Father doesn't give birth to us by himself. It isn't a weird form of parthenogenesis (virgin birth). It's the most natural form of creation imaginable.

A: Two partners coming together in light and in truth and fulfilling our creation because they want to.

J: This image of God was considered heretical to both pious Jews and pious Gentiles. There were countless images of the Divine in many different religions. The only image of the Divine that wasn't being preached was the one I was preaching -- the God Who Is Two. One God, many children. One God, many souls. One God, many Kingdoms. This image of God as God really is did have -- and still has -- the power to free so many people from the suffering caused by prejudice and hierarchy and male dominance! This image has the power to open up the gates of meaningful relationship with God. Everything you see in the world around you makes so much more sense when you allow yourself to make room for the "crazy, heretical notion" that God is Two -- not One, and not Three. All the most meaningful experiences of life as a human -- the experiences of love, of redemption, of healing, of trust -- they all rely on relationship. On two people -- at a minimum -- coming together in mutual aid and comfort. As the song says, "one is the loneliest number". On the other hand, two is the number of change, growth, creation, balance, and divine love. The world of science and nature constantly reinforces this one simple message: it's all about Two, not One.

A: It seems very strange to me that when an individual adamantly holds to the idea that God is One, his or her thinking becomes less holistic and more dualistic -- more based on black-and-white pairs of opposites. When pious religious followers commit themselves wholly to the idea that God is One, it's like a cartoon thought bubble pops up and fills itself up with all sorts of nasty, judgmental words. Words so nasty they could singe the hair off your head. You wouldn't think the idea of God-as-One could lead to so much hatred and prejudice and racial discrimination. But we have plenty of history to prove it. I've been watching the Kennedy mini-series on the History Channel, and of course they examine the racial rioting in the U.S. South in the early 1960's. I simply can't understand or relate to that kind of vicious hatred.

J: Well, we had plenty of that kind of vicious hatred in my time. Jews against other Jews. Rich against poor. Chosen people against damned people. Blah, blah, blah. No end to the bigotry. No end to the narcissism.

A: I see you're equating bigotry with narcissism.

J: Sure. Bigotry can only grow in a garden that's growing the weeds of narcissism and bullying. Narcissism is a psychologically dysfunctional state where an individual's brain becomes addictively dependent on the myth that he or she is "special," "better than others," and entitled to better treatment than other people. Like any addict, the status addict has to receive regular fixes. To maintain a stance of bigotry towards another person on the basis of skin colour is simply proof of addiction -- addiction to status. The choice to hate somebody on the basis of race or skin colour has the same biological effect on the brain as an addiction to cocaine. Bigotry is a form of "using." It has no place in the life of a person of faith.

A: Bigotry is another form of dualistic thinking -- "us versus them."

J: It's also a clear indication of immaturity in an individual. A mature individual is able to process ambiguity, change, complexity, and "shades of grey." A mature individual is capable -- even as a frail human being -- of perceiving and appreciating the vast scope of Creation and the awe-inspiring, humbling interconnections that exist among all forms of life, both here and elsewhere in Creation. A mature individual doesn't ask "what God can do for you," but instead asks "what you can do for God."

A: That statement would be considered blasphemous by the "piety and pity" crew that insists we're all full of sin and unworthy before God.

J: Well, I rejected the "piety and pity" parade, as you can tell from everything I've been trying to say on this site.

A: I'll just call you the "trust and twofulness" guy instead.