JR61: Sixth Step in Healing the Church: Be Honest About the Bible

A: I've been reflecting for the past few days on the suffering inflicted by Anders Breivik on everybody everywhere who's capable of loving their God and loving their neighbours as themselves.

Several news reports have referred to a 1,500 page manifesto that Breivik posted on the Internet shortly before the Norway attacks. Apparently Breivik copied a number of sections almost word from word from the writings of several well-known far-right ideologues. (Which just goes to show, once again, that psychopaths are very good at "cutting and pasting" other people's ideas, but not capable of coming up with original insights of their own.) Breivik's manifesto has been compared to the writings of Ted Kaczynski, the U.S. Unabomber. But when I look at excerpts from Breivik's diary and manifesto, and compare his actions to his beliefs, I don't see a modern day European political movement. I see a very old ideological movement, one that fills up many pages in the Bible. I see the Book of Jeremiah. I see the Book of Revelation. I see the Book of Numbers.

J: These are all biblical books that give permission to psychopaths to carry out "Just Wars."

A: I've noticed in news reports about Breivik that he readily admits he carried out the Oslo bombing and the camp shootings, but he says he didn't break the law in doing so because he's at war with the Norway government.

J: Inside our man Breivik's head, it all makes perfect sense. Of course, the reason it makes sense to him is that he's only using certain parts of his biological brain. He's not using the parts of his brain that deal with empathy or relationship or common sense or compassionate humour or trust or creativity. If he were using those parts, he wouldn't be capable of planning such a cold, ruthless, legalistic act of violence against others.

A: On the other hand, interviews with some of the camp survivors suggest these young people embody all the best of human potential -- empathy and relationship and trust and so on. There was a really good article in Saturday's Toronto Star: "Norway Tragedy: Inside the nightmare on Utoya" by Michelle Shephard (Toronto Star, Saturday, July 30, 2011). One 20 year old woman, Karoline Bank, is quoted as saying, "Yes, he took many people away from us, and every life lost is a tragedy. But we have gotten so much stronger over this. There's not much more to say."

J: Couldn't have said it better myself.

A: People of faith will wonder why God allowed this to happen.

J: People of faith have to stop listening to people of religious humility. People of faith -- by that I mean people who want to be in relationship with God now, TODAY, not at some vague time of future judgment -- have to start being more honest, more realistic, about the motivations that drove the authors of many revered religious texts. They have to stop wearing rose-coloured lenses when they read the Bible. They have to stop making excuses for the psychopaths who wrote so many parts of the Old and New Testaments. They have to stop making excuses for the parts of the Bible that were clearly written by those suffering from major mental illness.

A: Like the Book of Revelation.

Christian theologians have long been desperate to endorse the violent imagery of the Book of Revelation as a central justification for orthodox Christian teachings about the End Times. But from the point of view of God's angels, the prophetic visions recorded in Revelation feel like a psychopathic attack on God and also on the soul who lived as Jesus, an attack no different in intent than Anders Breivik's systematic rampage against campers trapped on a small island. Like Breivik, who disguised himself as a police officer so he could ensnare more victims, the prophet who penned Revelation pretended to be a faithful follower of Jesus as he took direct aim at Jesus' teachings about a loving and forgiving God. Shown here are the head and wings of a large 9th century BCE Assyrian human-headed bull found in the North-West palace at Nimrud (on display at the British Museum). Photo credit JAT 2023.

 
J: This is an issue of trust. People have to decide for themselves whether they're going to trust what John says about humanity's relationship with God, or whether they're going to trust their own hearts, their own heads, and their own experiences about humanity's relationship with God. Would a loving and forgiving God put a gun in Anders Breivik's hands and tell him to go out and shoot people to "ensure that the warriors fighting for the preservation of European Christendom [will] prevail"?*

A: God didn't stop him, though.

J: Really? You're sure about that? Because from where I'm standing, God did a great deal to stop him.

A: Sixty-nine people at the camp are dead, plus several more at the site of the Oslo bombing. They're dead and they're not coming back.

J: No, they're not coming back. And their families and friends will grieve because they -- the human survivors -- have loving hearts. Their grief is unavoidable and is a measure of their wholeness. Yet one day their family and friends will cross to the Other Side, as all creatures of Planet Earth must do, and they'll be reunited with their loved ones. So from God's point of view, the relationships haven't ceased. The relationships still exist, despite the death of the physical body, because love never dies. The form of the relationships has changed, but not the substance. The substance is real. The love can't be taken away from any of these souls. Love continues beyond anything the physical body knows. Love is greater than anything the physical body knows. Love is the great mystery. It's what guides God the Mother and God the Father in their decisions about when people are coming Home. But make no mistake -- everyone eventually dies. God has never promised otherwise. This is the natural order of the universe.

A: You wouldn't know it to listen to an apocalyptic prophet who promises bodily resurrection of the dead.

J: It's a funny thing about psychopaths. A psychopath has a distinctive pattern to his logic and choices and behaviours, and one of the most distinctive features of psychopathy is the peculiar attitude towards death. They're unable to trust anyone, of course -- since trust is closely related to empathy and love and forgiveness -- and this means they're completely unable to trust in the idea that physical death is a natural, loving part of the soul's relationship with God. Death without future punishment isn't logical to a psychopath, just as life with present forgiveness isn't logical to him. He's incapable of feeling love, so he's unable to conceive of a loving death. He's also incapable of believing that God is smarter than he is, so he'll spend a great deal of time and energy looking for "escape clauses" in the contract laws about death in the Abrahamic religions. If the clauses he wants aren't there, he'll claim to be a divinely-inspired prophet and add them himself. Egyptian attitudes towards death in the pre-Hellenistic period epitomize the psychopath's fear of death.

A: You're saying a psychopath's attitude towards death isn't unique to a specific religion or culture, but is instead universal because it's biological. You're saying that "escape clauses" come out the same way in different cultures because all human beings share the same basic DNA.

J (nodding): A psychopath is, by definition, a person who is cut off from the input of his own brain's Soul Circuitry. This "cutting off" may have resulted, in rare circumstances, from a head injury or infection or poisoning or oxygen deprivation. But the vast majority of psychopaths are "self made." High functioning psychopaths such as Anders Breivik are individuals who've turned themselves into psychopaths one bad choice at a time. This is why psychopathy doesn't usually emerge in full-fledged form until adolescence. It takes a long time for a person to consciously undo the healthy connections God builds into the human brain.

A: It's still amazing to me that human beings have that kind of control over the wiring of their own brains. But history bears out the truth of what you're saying.

J: You'll probably be shocked to learn, then, that within the annals of religious history there have been select groups who've intentionally incorporated the blueprint for "how to build a psychopath" into their religious doctrines.

A: You mean . . . these groups wanted to create psychopaths? On purpose?

J: It can be very useful, from a utilitarian point of view, to have a man like Anders Breivik on your side if you're trying to acquire wealth, power, status, and "immortality."

A: This immortality thing . . . this need to leave behind a human legacy of power and status for future generations to admire and imitate -- is this a normal state of mind for a person who feels whole and healed and humble? Because it seems awfully narcissistic to me.

J: It's normal and natural for a soul-in-human-form to want to create and build and improve the quality of life for his or her community. Persons-of-soul -- angels -- have a strong sense of purpose and mission and service. So you expect to see a community of Whole Brain Thinkers busily at work devising new ways to dig wells for clean water or improving ways to eliminate toxins from the environment or building new schools and medical clinics in underserved areas. Human beings are at their best when they come together in teams to bring healing to others in the face of suffering.

A: Healing instead of revenge.

J: A large number of people around the world have responded to the Norway tragedy by offering their hope, faith, and love instead of judgment, piety, and revenge. Some have found, for the first time in their lives, the courage of their own faith. The courage of their own trust in God. The courage of their own trust in each other.

A: That's a powerful insight, to know you have the courage to choose hope, faith, and love.

"Jesus said: One person cannot ride two horses at once, nor stretch two bows; nor can a servant serve two masters, as he will respect one and despise the other. No one drinks vintage wine and immediately wants to drink fresh wine; fresh wine is not put into old wineskins because they might burst. Vintage wine is not put into new wineskins because it might be spoiled” (Gospel of Thomas 47a-d). You can choose the path of redemption or you can choose the path of revenge. Pick one because you can’t have both. Photo credit JAT 2014.

J: To find that courage is to know redemption. I send my love to all who are open to the wondrous idea that humans -- not just God -- are filled to overflowing in their own souls with divine courage and trust and gratitude and devotion.

This courage is yours. It's not God's. It's not your neighbour's. It's not your parents'. It's not your priest's. It's yours. It's part of who you are as a soul.

Claim it and live it. Be the person God knows you really are. Don't be a bully and coward like Anders Breivik, who hasn't the courage to love. (Though I forgive him.) Be open to a loving relationship with God, no matter what your religious background. Your neighbour is loved by God as much as you are. All your neighbours.

No other truth is acceptable.


* On July 24, 2011, The Globe and Mail published a Reuter's article, "Excerpts from Norway attacker's diary." An entry from June 11, 2011 said, "I prayed for the first time in a very long time today. I explained to God that unless he wanted the Marxist-Islamic alliance and the certain Islamic takeover of Europe to completely annihilate European Christendom within the next hundred years he must ensure that the warriors fighting for the preservation of European Christendom prevail."

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.

JR36: Saying 56 in the Gospel of Thomas

A: When we wrote last time ("Father of Lights, Mother of Breath"), I ran out of time, and we didn't get a chance to return to the question of Saying 56 in the Gospel of Thomas. I was hoping we could continue that discussion. (For the record, Stevan Davies translates Saying 56 as "Jesus said: Whoever has known the world has found a corpse; whoever has found that corpse, the world is not worthy of him.)

J: I can't help noticing the irony of a person who's "alive" having a discussion with a person who's "dead" about the question of "alive versus dead."  

A (rolling eyes): Very funny. I prefer to call you "molecularly challenged."  

J: Hey -- I left some bones behind when I died. Traces of them are sitting in a stone ossuary in a warehouse owned by the Israel Antiquities Authority. Kinda reminds me of the final scene of Raiders of the Lost Ark.  

A: The IAA can have them. I somehow doubt you're going to be needing them again.  

J: Well, you know, there are still people on the planet today who believe in the concept of bodily resurrection on the Day of Judgment. According to that way of thinking, I might actually need to retrieve my bones so I'll be complete on the final day of judgment.  

A: Hey! You're not supposed to have any bones. According to Luke, you ascended bodily into heaven -- at least once, maybe twice! (Luke 24:51 and Acts 1:1-11). Prophets who are "beamed up" aren't supposed to leave body parts behind. That's the whole idea.  

J: Nobody gets out of a human life "alive." At some point, the biological body reaches its built-in limits, and the soul returns to God in soul form. There's no ascension. Never has been, never will be. Luke is lying.  

A: Maybe Luke just didn't understand the science of death. Maybe he was doing his best to explain something he didn't understand. 

J (shaking his head): Luke was lying. On purpose. If Luke had been sincere and well-meaning -- if misguided -- he would have to stuck to one story about my ascension. But one man -- the man we're calling Luke -- wrote two scrolls together to tell one continuous story. He wrote the Gospel of Luke and the Acts of the Apostles as a two-part story. The Gospel finishes in Bethany, the hometown of Lazarus (who was the subject of a miraculous healing), and the last thing we hear is about is the disciples. Apparently, they obediently returned to Jerusalem to continually pray. 

A: Yeah, like that was gonna happen. 

A major problem for the spread of Pauline Christianity among Jews and Gentiles was the Eucharistic ritual instituted by Paul. A lot of people didn't like the idea of ritualistically eating the flesh and drinking the blood of a divine being. So one of Luke's jobs, when he wrote the two-part Gospel of Luke and Acts of the Apostles, was to soften the impact of it for newcomers, while preserving Paul's occult meaning for those who were "in the know." What you see at the end of Luke's Gospel and the beginning of Acts is a slyly written (and entirely fictitious) account of twelve men who are "chosen" for the special privilege of receiving the Cloak of Glory from the Holy Spirit after they've properly prepared themselves for 40 days in the presence of the mystical body of Christ. They eat from the mystical body in order to purify themselves for the coming baptism of fire on Pentecost. Then, on the appointed day, the twelve (well, thirteen, if you count Paul's later baptism of fire) suddenly receive the intense fire of Glory that Luke says was promised to the twelve by God through Jesus. After that, nobody is allowed to challenge the authority of the apostles. Please note that if you're having trouble following this narrative in its established biblical form, there's a good reason for that: the secret knowledge wasn't meant to be easily understood by everyone. Interestingly, though, the themes of this secret knowledge have been found in other religious traditions, too. For instance, in this photo of the Tantric Buddhist deity Acala, "the Immovable One," he is braced by the fiery tongues of phoenix flame -- much like the fire delivered to the apostles at Pentecost. Who doesn't like a really good bonfire when Divine Power is the prize? This wooden sculpture is on display at the British Museum. Photo credit JAT 2023.

 J: Meanwhile, when you open up the book of Acts, which picks up where Luke leaves off, you get a completely different story from the same author. In Acts, he claims that after my suffering I spent 40 days with my chosen apostles in Jerusalem, and then was lifted up by a cloud from the Mount of Olives (which is just to the east of Jerusalem's city walls). The Mount of Olives is closer to Jerusalem than Bethany, the "authentic" site of my so-called Easter ascension in the Gospel. Luke also adds two mysterious men in white robes to the Acts version of the story. These two sound suspiciously like the two men in dazzling clothes who appear in Luke's account of the tomb scene (Luke 24:4). Luke is playing fast and loose with the details -- an easy mistake for fiction writers to make. 

A: Well, as you and I have discussed, Luke was trying very hard to sew together the Gospel of Mark and the letters of Paul. Mark puts a lot of focus on the Mount of Olives -- a place that was most definitely not Mount Zion, not the site of the sacred Temple. Luke probably needed a way to explain away Mark's focus on the non-sacred, non-pure, non-holy Mount of Olives. 

J: You wanna bet the Mount of Olives was non-pure! It was littered with tombs. Religious law dictated that no one could be buried within a residence or within the city walls, so it was the custom to bury people in the hills outside the city walls. To get from the city gates of Jerusalem to the top of the Mount of Olives, you had to pass by a number of tombs and mausoleums. If you got too close to death, though, you were considered ritually impure, and you had to go through a cleansing and purification process once you got back to the city -- especially during a big religious festival. Mark's Jewish audience would have understood this. They would have wondered, when they read Mark, why there was no concern about contamination. They would have wondered why the Mount of Olives became the site of important events when the purified Temple precincts were so close by. It would have defied their expectations about death and purity and piety.  

A: This was easier to understand when the Temple was still standing.  

J: Yes. It would have made a lot of sense in the context of Herod's humongous Temple complex. It started to make less sense, though, after the Romans destroyed the Temple in 70 CE.  

A: A fact that Luke took advantage of.  

J: Yes.  

A: Mark doesn't include the saying from the Gospel of Thomas about corpses (saying 56), but Mark's portrayal of you shows a man whose least important concern is ritual purity -- not what you'd expect at all from a pious Jew, in contrast to Matthew's claim about you (Matthew 5:17: "Do not think that I have come to abolish the law or the prophets; I have come not to abolish but to fulfill. For truly I tell you, until heaven and earth pass away, not one letter, not one stroke of a letter, will pass from the law until all is accomplished.")  

J: Matthew says this, but Mark says the opposite.  

A: Not in so many words, but by showing your ongoing choices and actions. 

J: Later Christian interpreters wanted to believe that God had given me special powers over demons and sin and death, and this is how they understood Mark's account of my ministry. But this isn't what I taught. I didn't have the same assumptions about life and death that most of my peers had. It's not that I had special powers over life and death -- it's simply that I wasn't afraid of life or death. I wasn't afraid to "live" and I wasn't afraid to "die." I wasn't afraid to embrace difficult emotions. I wasn't afraid to trust God. Maybe to some of the people around me it seemed that I had special powers, but I didn't. All I had was maturity -- the courage to accept the things I couldn't change, the courage to accept the things I could change, and the wisdom to know the difference.  

A: The Serenity Prayer.  

“My friends, whenever you face trials of any kind, consider it nothing but joy, because you know that the testing of your faith produces endurance; and let endurance have its full effect, so that you may be mature and complete, lacking in nothing” (James 1:2-4). Photo credit JAT 2017.

J: Yes. It seemed to me that Creation is much more like a rainbow than like night-versus-day. It seemed to me that the world I lived in was not "evil" and "corrupt," as many occult philosophers had said. (Including the Jewish sect of Essenes.) Yes, there were corpses, it's true. People died. Other creatures died. Beautiful flowers died. But obviously death led to new life, and wasn't to be feared. Death wasn't the enemy. Fear of the self was the enemy. Fear of trusting God, fear of trusting emotions such as love and grief, were the obstacles between individuals and God. To get over those fears, you have to face your initial fears about death -- about "corpses." You have to begin to see the world -- Creation -- in a new, more positive way, and accept -- even love in a sad sort of way -- the corpses. You have to stop spending so much time worrying about your death, because it's gonna happen whether you like it or not, and no religious ritual can stop it. Accept that it's going to happen, then focus on what you're doing today. Focus on the Kingdom of today. Build the love, build the relationships, build the trust. Physical bodies come and go, but love really does live on.  

A: Some people might take that as an endorsement of hedonistic behaviours or suicidal behaviours, since, in your words, death isn't to be feared.  

J: There's a big difference between saying "death isn't to be feared" and saying "death is to be avidly pursued." If you avidly pursue death, it means you've chosen to avidly reject life -- the living of life to its fullest potential. Trusting in God means that you trust you're here on Earth for a reason, and you trust that when it's your time God will take you Home. What you do with the time in between depends on how you choose to view Creation. Is God's Creation a good creation, a place of rainbows where people can help each other heal? Or is God's Creation an evil "night" that prevents you from ever knowing the pure light of "day"? 

A: What about those who've chosen to view Creation as an evil place of suffering, and are now so full of pain and depression that they can't take it anymore? What happens to those who commit suicide?  

J: God the Mother and God the Father take them Home and heal them as they do all their children. There is no such thing as purgatory or hell for a person who commits suicide. On the other hand, our divine parents weep deeply when families, friends, and communities create the kind of pain and suffering that makes people want to kill themselves. There would be fewer tears for everyone if more human beings would take responsibility for the harmful choices they themselves make.  

A: And learn from those mistakes. 

J: Absolutely. It's not good enough to simply confess the mistake. It's important to confess the mistakes, but people also have to try to learn from their mistakes. They have to be willing to try to change. They have to let go of their stubbornness and their refusal to admit they're capable of change.  

A: Easier said than done.

JR26: Materialism, Pauline Thought, and the Kingdom

A: For the last couple of days, ever since you introduced the idea that Pauline Christianity has always been in some ways a Materialist religion, my head has been spinning, and I've been trying to figure out exactly what you mean. I can feel that it's right in the part of my self that's intuitive, but the rest of my head hasn't caught up to my intuition yet. So can we take it from the top?

"They asked him: When is the Kingdom coming?He replied: It is not coming in an easily observable manner. People will not be saying,’Look, it’s over here’ or ‘Look, it’s over there.’ Rather, the Kingdom of the Father is already spread out on the earth, and people aren’t aware of it” (Gospel of Thomas 113). Each autumn, this walnut tree yields its harvest to those among God’s creatures who need it most. They receive these gifts without any reliance on human prayers or covenants. There’s wonderful freedom in trusting God to do what God does best when you don’t take on the burden of believing you’re somehow responsible for maintaining the laws of Creation. Photo credit JAT 2014.

J: No problem.

A: How 'bout we start with some definitions? And by the way, I'd just like to comment once again on the fact that you're a true philosophy geek, you know that? Your face lights up like a Christmas tree every time you get to talk about a juicy philosophical dilemma. I can sure see how you ended up being a radical theologian in your time.

J: I was a much more successful philosopher than I was a carpenter. Honest to God, although I had to work as a tradesman to pay for my room and board, I'm pretty sure some of my handiwork could have ended up on "Galilean DIY Disaster."

A: Measure once, cut twice?

J: I'm not a natural when it comes to tools. I think like a designer, not like an engineer. I would flunk out of civil engineering, I'm sure of it. But redesigning the layout of a home so it supports a person's soul needs -- that I can do.

A: My father, the retired engineer and all-round handyman, would think you're a wuss. But you're so much like most of the other male physicians I know -- great with healing, great with academic study, not so good with the toolkit. (For the record, my ex is a physician, and we socialized with other people who were in medicine. So I know -- or rather, knew -- a lot of the male physicians around here.) Anyway, back to the philosophizing.

J: Okay. Well, the philosophy of Materialism is based on the theory that matter -- by that I mean baryonic matter -- is the only thing that exists. It's a WYSIWYG understanding of reality -- what you see is what you get. What you see is atoms and molecules and measurable substances and Newtonian laws. Therefore, according to this theory, all things in Nature -- including mind, thought, consciousness, even love -- can be explained solely by looking at the small little parts that make up the whole. It's the idea that macroscopic reality -- the daily reality that human beings live and work and breathe in -- is just a bigger version of the microscopic reality of atoms and molecules and gravitational forces, etc. Of course, as researchers in various scientific disciplines now know, there are huge gaps between the "macro" theories and the "micro" theories. At the subatomic or quantum level, the universe is a weird, weird place. At the other end of the scale -- the cosmological or grand universal scale -- the universe is also a weird, weird place. Only at the immediate level of reality, if I can call it that -- the level where human beings happen to live a fairly safe and predictable Newtonian kind of life -- only here is a Materialist philosophy even remotely justified.

A: How does Materialism understand God?

J: A person who embraces Materialist belief in the natural laws of "cause and effect" may or may not believe in the existence of God. Many, if not most, Materialists are atheists. Atheists, of course, believe that existence can be explained entirely on the basis of scientific research. No God is required. However, it's entirely possible to be a religious Materialist, a Materialist who believes in God. Deism is a good example of this.

A: Deism is a belief system that says there's a God, one God who created the universe, but that this God later stepped away from his Creation and doesn't participate in an active way in our lives or our suffering. God is the Great Clockmaker who made a perfect timepiece and now lets it run without interference. However, there's still an acceptance of the idea that God will reward virtue and punish vice in the afterlife. George Washington, Benjamin Franklin, and Thomas Jefferson were all Deists . . . Tell me again why Deism isn't the same as Pauline Christianity and Platonism?

J: It is Pauline/Platonic Christianity. Deism is what you get when you strip away later church doctrines about ritual and sacraments and prayer to saints (intercession) and belief in Marianism and belief in holy relics and belief in holy Crusade and belief in papal infallibility. Deism is Pauline thought in its purest form -- a belief in the inviolability and perfection of Divine Law. Divine Law that governs "cause and effect" in the material world.

A: But Paul goes on and on in Romans about the inherent peril of "the law," how knowledge of the law led him into sin.

J: Paul isn't attacking all Law. He's attacking the laws he no longer agrees with. Paul spends all his time in his letters talking about the "new and improved" Law -- the Law that he himself is teaching. The New Covenant. It's easy to forget that Covenant is Law -- nomos in the Greek. Nomos was a complex idea that included both human authority and divine authority. When Paul talks about the "new covenant," he's talking about a new version of Divine Law. A new version of the Law of Cause and Effect. "If you do this (believe in Christ), then according to the inviolable Law of Creation, you must receive this (salvation plus a reserved parking spot in Heaven)." It's a reductionist philosophy. Just as Materialism is a reductionist philosophy. Everything is reduced to a simple "cause and effect" formula.

A: Just as Wisdom teachings in the Ancient Near East were a "cause and effect" formula: if you obey the instructions on the "virtue lists" and disavow the behaviours on the "vice lists," God is required to reward you because the Law says so.

J: Paul, clever manipulator that he was, observed that there was a "niche market" of people who'd become disillusioned with the certainty of Wisdom teachings. Obviously there was something missing from the formula if slaves were still slaves and women were still being punished for being women. The Hellenistic cities of the Roman Empire were filled to bursting with resentful slaves and restless, intelligent women. Who better to target if you're planning to launch a new religious movement? Slaves with money and women with money. You don't need to slog through the trenches and carry out years and years of missionary work -- you just need to get yourself some patrons with deep pockets. Paul doesn't even deny his reliance on patrons.

A: One staggering fact that jumps out in the Gospel of Mark is the fact that you have no patron. Nor do you seem to want one. This would have shocked readers in 1st century CE Roman-held regions.

J: Part of my objective was to refuse to "play by the rules."

A: In the end, so many of these religious debates and religious conflicts boil down to "the rules" -- the law, the covenant, the nomos. But all these rules . . . they're external. They come from outside the inner self. They pretend to be objective. They pretend to be based on observable realities from nature. Yet enforcement of them relies on brute force, on rote memory, and on loyalty to patrons or other important religious/political leaders . . . at least I think that's right. Is that right?

J: Yes. The one thing Paul doesn't want is for people to know how to tap into their own inner wisdom, their own inner guidance. He doesn't want them to know how to hear God's quiet voice in the still, clear night. He doesn't want his "community of fellowship" to find actual freedom. He only wants them to believe they have freedom (exousia) through the proper use of conscience (suneidesis). He wants them to be willing slaves. Slaves who won't rock the boat of authority.

A: This is really sick, you know that?

J: Of course it is. There's a reason these teachings have spontaneously led to generation after generation of abuses -- abuses against the poor, the environment, against other Christians, not to mention countless non-Christians. Also abuses against God. These abuses are the "weeds" that have grown from the "seeds" that Paul intentionally planted.

A: Is this why Paul never mentions healing miracles in the letters he himself wrote?

J: Yes. Paul can't afford to have his community of hagiasmos and koinonia (holiness and fellowship) distracted by the idea that God is deeply committed to ongoing healing, communication, and relationship with all people through the Kingdom within. The Kingdom within, of course, is the core self -- the soul. The good soul. That's how God connects with all God's children -- through the good soul that everybody is. God can and does communicate by other means, too, but the one connection that can never be taken away is the soul connection. You can cut out somebody's eyes so they can't see any more signs (and, unfortunately, this has been done). You can cut out somebody's ears so they can't hear any more external messages. You can cut out somebody's tongue so they can no longer speak the prayers they long to sing aloud. All these abuses have been perpetrated "in the name of God" at one time or another. But nobody can cut out the connection to the soul. You'd have to carve out the entire brain and central nervous system of a person in order to fully quench the soul connection, the body-soul nexus. Obviously this would lead to death.

A: Hey! It's another thing to add to the Jesus' Seminar's pot for the question of "Why Jesus Pissed People Off So Much That He Got Himself Crucified."

J: Paul works very hard to ensure that his followers believe in a Kingdom that's on the outside -- "out there" in the Materialist world of cause and effect. "Out there" where they have no control over any of it themselves. Even more brilliant, Paul insists the Kingdom of God isn't here yet. It belongs to some maybe-not-so-distant Day of Judgment. So not only is the Kingdom a materialistic reality outside the self, but it hasn't even "arrived" yet [1 Corinthians 15]. This prompts regular people to be thinking about the future instead of the present. This encourages them to shift their focus, their attention, and even their relationships to the future. To the future "effects" of today's "causes." People are so busy worrying about the future that they can't hear God's voice today.

A: Therefore they can't hear the guidance they long for.

J: The guidance they want and need.

A: I like your version of the Kingdom teachings much better.

JR12: A Divine Love Story

A: You know, for the past two weeks I've been doing a lot of research on the Dead Sea Scrolls, and after wading through the English translations [Wise, Abegg, and Cook]* of the Essene's own teachings, I'm sick of them. Just sick of them.

Beauty. Photo credit JAT 2014.

 
J: Sick of the teachings? Or sick of the Essenes?
 
A: I'm sick of the teachings. And I'm pretty sure I wouldn't want to go to dinner with anybody who believes in these teachings, either. The writings are so . . . so self-centred and narcissistic. So full of themselves. So full of hot air. They don't say anything moderate or balanced about our relationship with God. They're full of cliches and bluster and prophecy and big long strings of fancy-sounding words. But where is the love? There's no love in them -- no kind, respectful, trusting, compassionate, inclusive love. It's just narcissistic bullshit. Did I say that already? I think I said that already.
 
J: Don't forget paranoid. The teachings are also very paranoid. 
 
A: Yeah. Enough with the evil Belial, for God's sake! Enough with the final battle where the pure and virtuous Essenes will lead the armies of Light to victory! Get a life, people.
 
J: Or Pauline Christianity.
 
A: Say what?
 
J: If they don't want to get a life, they could always get some serious, heavy-duty evangelical Christianity. Evangelical Christianity doesn't say much that the Essenes didn't say within their own brand of Community Rule.
 
A: Yeah, well, I'm not feeling the love from evangelical Christianity, either. Again, lots of narcissism, not so much trust in God. I can't believe what these people are saying about God! 
 
J: Which people? The Essenes or the Pauline Christians?
 
A: Both. I'm not seeing a lot of difference between them, as you've pointed out. This is not what you've taught me about God. I don't see any resemblance at all. I don't see any resemblance between your teachings and Paul's teachings, or your teachings and John's teachings. This is crazy! How did orthodox Christianity get so far from the truth?
 
J: I hate to sound like a broken record, but, again, it's the mental health issue. My teachings have no appeal for narcissists. Or psychopaths.
 
A: Because there's no "fuel" for status addiction. Narcissists and psychopaths suffer big-time from status addiction.
 
J (nodding): And as for people suffering from psychotic illnesses . . . they're not in a position to take full control of their thoughts and feelings. They can't. The illness interferes with their thinking and feeling processes. So they're filled with fear and paranoid thoughts even before you add the religious paranoia. They can also suffer from narcissism on top of those biologically confused thoughts and feelings, as John did. But the main point is they're not mentally or emotionally well, and their writings -- if they write about spiritual or religious topics -- always reflect their inner mental state. The writings of a person suffering from a psychotic illness sound psychotic. You have to step back from their writings and ask yourself . . . would an adult human being with a clean bill of health as far as the DSM-IV is concerned -- and taking into consideration the psychopathy that the DSM-IV writers left out for bizarre reasons -- would a non-paranoid, non-manic, non-depressed, non-psychotic, non-substance-addicted person write this? Is this writing the reflection of a person in a highly stressed mental state? Is this writing the reflection of a person who understands what compassionate love is? Is this writing the reflection of a person who understands what it means to trust in God's goodness? Because let's be honest -- a person who writes all the time about the devil or Belial or whatever you want to call this imaginary evil entity is showing that he or she does not trust in God's goodness. How can anybody say they trust wholly in God, then turn around and say God is too weak to prevent the existence of a devil? You can't have it both ways.
 
A: Orthodox Western Christianity says you can. And another thing --
 
J (starting to chuckle):
 
A: Yes, I'm on a rant this morning. I'm sick of the way these writers -- the Essenes and Paul especially -- talk about women. I'm sick of the way they've just gone ahead and eradicated the Divine Feminine from everything. I'm sick of their pompous warrior-king Messiahs and I'm sick of their divinely appointed male priests and I'm sick of their testerone-soaked jockeying for the best places at the table. Me, me, me. Look at me -- I'm special! That's all these people can talk about. For religious people who claim to be serving God humbly and piously, they sure spend a lot of time bragging about their own status and putting other people down. Have you read what the Essenes say about people with physical infirmities and imperfections [IQSa]? It's just plain cruel!
 
J: The difference between humbleness and humility. You and I have talked about that a lot.
 
A: It wasn't very humble of early teachers such as Second Isaiah or the redactors of Genesis to go ahead and do a hatchet job on God the Mother -- to just slice her out of the story of Creation. Even the Greeks, for all their crazy Homeric myths, had the sense to include strong female archetypes in their pantheon. Anybody with half a heart can see that Creation -- the world of beauty and wonder and mystery all around us -- is a Love Story. It's a testament to the love shared by God the Mother and God the Father for each other, a record of their journey of love, growth, commitment, struggle, and faith. It's a gigantic love story. That's what you've taught me. That's what I feel myself. It's a painful story, but a truthful one. Everything around us talks about the importance of relationship, the importance of balance. How can religious people look at the world and see a Judeo-Christian Covenant? How can they think "it's all about them"?
 
J: Narcissists always think it's all about them. It's how they view the world -- through a very small lens of "I." Me, myself, and I. It doesn't matter whether or not they're religious. The issue isn't one of spirituality or faith or God. It's simply a matter of biological brain health. Sadly -- broken record again -- it's about the human brain and how people use the brain God gives them.
 
A: I notice that God gave women brains, too. You'd think that would count for something in the grand religious scheme of things.
 
J: Not to mention the thorny reality that 75% of the human sex chromosomes are X chromosomes -- female chromosomes, not male. I'm thinkin' that's probably an important "Post-It Note" in the biologist's Book of Creation.
 
A: I'm so glad I was raised in a family where I was taught that men and women are equal in terms of their intellectual gifts and in terms of their right to be treated with dignity, respect, and equality. Thanks, Mom and Dad!
 
J: I'll second that. I wouldn't be able to talk to you this way if your human brain hadn't developed along the lines of dignity, respect, and equality. That's what the relationship between God the Mother and God the Father is all about -- dignity and respect as the basis of their mutual love and trust, despite their respective differences in temperament and talent and size. As above, so below. When human beings live according to the values and principles of their beloved Divine Parents, they can feel the love of God coming into their daily lives. When they reject those values, their biological brains become like big pots of quivering jello -- lots of colour, lots of movement, but not much substance. It's fun to eat, but 15 minutes later, you're hungry again.
 
A: They feel empty inside when they reject the core values of the soul.
 
J: Which is all very confusing when it's their time-honoured religious traditions that insist they reject their soul's own values. They're taught by their religious leaders to reject divine notions of equality amongst all life, to reject balance, to reject symbiotic relationships -- to reject all mutuality. Then they complain because they can't feel God's love. They complain they've been abandoned by God. It's a crock. It's not God who's abandoned them. It's they who have abandoned God. They usually don't realize that this is the cause of their feeling of inner emptiness. They think their religion is helping them fill the void. But unless they have an unusually mature, unusually intuitive religious leader, their church services are just making the inner bowl of jello bigger. There's no substance because there's a lack of will, a lack of courage, to teach the truth about God.
 
A: The truth that God is the God Who Is Two, not the God Who Is One. And not the God Who Is Three, if you're a Trinitarian.
 
J: It's a simple truth, seen everywhere in Creation. There's no relationship when it's only "me, myself, and I." Relationship MUST begin with two. It can involve more than two -- and, in fact, the angelic community of God's children is so large, so much bigger than two, that I can't give you a number that's meaningful to the human brain.
 
A: Bajillions?
 
J (smiling): Yes. bajillions of angels, both male and female. But no matter how many angels exist within God's family, it's still about relationship. It's still about people -- angels -- knowing each other, respecting each other's uniqueness, respecting each other's differences, working together in a symbiotic way to make a "whole" that's much larger than the component "parts." The sense of Oneness that people long for in their relationship with God isn't a sense of losing themselves in the infinite Mind of God. It's the sense of Oneness that comes from combining your strengths with the strengths of your brothers and sisters towards a common goal. It's not Oneness of identity. It's Oneness of Purpose. It's Oneness of Commitment. It's family. It's people with differences coming together to work as a Team to create something much bigger than each could create on his or her own. That's what Divine Love feels like.
 
A: Habitat For Humanity. It feels like the charity called Habitat For Humanity. Where groups of committed people volunteer their time and their skills to help build safe, affordable housing for families.
 
J: Exactly. It feels just like that. Everybody has different talents. Some are good with plumbing. Some are good with woodworking. Some are good with designing. But all the talents are needed, and no one talent is more important than another. Everybody's got a job to do, and everybody's job is important.
 
A: Especially the guy who makes the coffee. Ya gotta have your coffee breaks while you're busting your butt to get a job done.
 
J: Even angels take coffee breaks.


*  Wise, Michael, Martin Abegg Jr., and Edward Cook, trans.  The Dead Sea Scrolls: A New Translation.  New York: HarperCollins–HarperSanFrancisco, 2005.