WHAT MANNER OF MAN WAS HE ?

I discovered the following monogram (BY Mark Townsend) on my FaceBook page. It was "too good" to allow it to disappear (as most things on FB usually do). It is repeated here "with the Author's permission".

FYI: Mark is a Parish Priest (Open Episcopal Church)
at the Parish of St. Francis and Mother Earth, Diocese of The Midlands, Hereford, Herefordshire, UK


‎(from "Diary of a Heretic")

I’ve been doing a little more theological thinking about the cross. I've always found the cross of Jesus helpful. I still wear two of them. Of course I can't cope with the “his blood washes away my sins” stuff but, rather, I see it as a deep and powerful symbol of the cost of being true to one's own deepest inner call / vocation. For Jesus (the man not the God) it was impossible for him not to offer grace to those to whom religion and politics had given the finger. It was what he knew deep down to be the way, to welcome the un-welcomable, to love the un-loveable. That’s why I can’t buy the idea that Jesus was an Essene either. I mean, those guys were the strictest perfectionists in the area. They wouldn’t have even visited regular people, let alone allowed fallen woman to kiss their feet or touch lepers. They made the Pharisees look like liberals.

Jesus was doing something new. He even parted company with his own teacher / leader John the Baptizer and took the gift of grace into the towns and back alleys from the desert, saying things like “come to me all who thirst.”

And as he welcomed them (the ones at the edge and way outside the box) so he also put his own head on the block with regard to those who ran the boxed up system, those who’d created religious boxes for the “pure” and “worthy” and who held down the lid tightly by sitting down on top.

And as his popularity grew so he became more and more of a threat to the tight buttocked establishment. But even knowing this, he continued undeterred by the reality of what may happen. He died for the sake of love and compassion (not unlike dear Gandhi). His rebellion was simply that he chose to say, in the words of the latter day saint Jeffrey Lebowski (a definite Dude in his footsteps), “fuck it” to the high and mighty, and do his own thing man.

His was a gentle rebellion. No guns. No ultra-left wing terrorism. No holier than thou attacks. Just a simple refusal to be controlled from above and a brave and daring mingling with the messed and muddled up section of society, where he could lovingly give back some of the treasure that had been stolen by the big men who ran the show. Yet it cost him everything!

And I (as a pretty lame follower of this first century Dudely hero) now wear the image of his death with pride. Oh I hate what they (the new messengers of boxed up religion) did with it to be sure. But fuck it I’m going to wear it anyway, because I know what it means to me.

Keeping the Faith in Social Security

Today's post is a serious departure from the usual subject matter that I try to deal with here. This post is not about "God" per se... It is, however about living in the world in a righteous way... and not being a sucker, a sap, or a doormat. Today I want to talk about "Social Gospel" and the most important program that our government has ever established... one that addresses the corporal works of mercy, within the social fabric of government. Today I am speaking about Social Security... and about never letting anything "bad" happen to it. This is the promise. Social Security will be around 100 years from now... IF we don't let a bunch of greedy assholes "privatize" it. And why is there even "talk" about Social Security "being in trouble"? Because the Baby Boomers are starting to retire!. NEWS FLASH: Our elected representatives have known about "the bulge" that would be heading toward retirement years for...oh SIXTY-FIVE YEARS or so! Everybody in elected office has been "kicking the can down the road" with the attitude of let the guys who will be in office when the shit hits the fan sort it out". That's right... they ALL knew that there would be a "retirement bulge" starting around ...now...and lasting about 20 years or so...before population trends would "go back to normal" (whatever that means). And NOBODY (well, ALMOST nobody... but I have to credit Clinton for trying to "save Social Security First" with the big surplus he had amassed, but George W. Bush had "other ideas" and gave it away to his rich friends INSTEAD of using it to shore up Social Security). So...now that SIXTY-FIVE YEARS of seeing the problem coming...has been WASTED by "doing nothing to prepare for the coming bulge"... and NOW they want to queer the deal??? Bullshit! The "full faith and credit of the United States" stands behind the Social Security program...And we ARE NOT letting "Uncle" off the hook. Since all the politicians who saw it coming did nothing to address an EXTREMELY PREDICTABLE crunch, "Uncle" will just have to pay the retirees out of general revenues for the next 20 years, and stop spending our hard earned tax dollars on the Pentagon's latest wet dream.... OR they can raise the maximum income subject to SSI witholdings to $250,000.00 per year, and let the high earners in our society pull some weight for a change... and trust me, if they are earning 1/4 million per year, they CAN AFFORD IT. Bottom Line: Republican Quislings have been "spinning the yarn" that "Social Security wont 'be there' for our kids", and they keep repeating this LIE, hoping that we will fall for it, hoping that they can make OUR FEAR of a failure of the SSI fund panic us into allowing THEM to "privatize" (i.e. "steal") the fund. NO FRIGGIN' WAY! Social Security is THE LAW OF THE LAND, and it will BE THERE for our children's children's children if we INSIST UPON IT. For God's sake don't be frightened out of the most important social protection EVER in these United States... (and ditto with ObamaCare...its not perfect...yet...but it's only just begun. KEEP THE FAITH, GOOD PEOPLE... keep the faith.

"THE WAY": How Christianity Came To Be

The following is from one of my posts on FaceBook (at the Gospel of Thomas Association). I thought it might be of interest here, as well. If it is, I will update "here" when I "continue" there.

The earliest followers of Jesus, after his crucifixion, were called the "People of The Way".There were at least three distinct "streams of transmission" in the early days of what I will refer to as "the Jesus Movement". Two of these streams were quite similar" The Thomasine stream and the "Q" stream. A third stream was considerably different, and I will refer to it as the stream of the "Easter Event".

The stream which we now refer to as "Q" was probably identical with "The Way", and consisted of those followers of Jesus, most probably in Galilee, who preserved and attempted to emulate the teachings of Jesus relating to "the proper WAY to LIVE". Meanwhile, over in Syria, a parallel group of Jesus followers were doing much the same thing, and fortunately for us, they wrote down that which they wanted to teach and preserve.

It should be noted that BOTH of these groups were following the teachings OF Jesus. Neither of these groups dealt with (or considered important) his death. And neither of these groups professed any belief in his RESURRECTION. In case anyone missed the implication of what I have already claimed, the Q-stream represented "a single group" of Jesus people, living in (or coming from) "a single locale".

Now for that "third group": I am going to call them the Easter People", but we could just as easily refer to them as "the Petrine stream", as these were the people who believed in and proclaimed that "He Is Risen". These are the people who "couldn't let go" of their former mentor and leader, and who constructed a myth (not a bad word!) that would allow them to "make sense" of the events that they had just witnessed.

They had all expected to "have important roles" in the "coming Kingdom" that they thought Jesus had taught them about (the "coming" part was probably an apostolic invention...we Thomasines "know" that Jesus was speaking about something that was "right before our eyes" although we did not see!). These followers, principally centered about (I believe) Peter, NEEDED to have a way to understand how Jesus' teachings were true yet he was crucified. I have no idea whether they absconded with the body, or whether Jesus had simply passed out and had been "taken for dead", only to revive, run away with M.M. to France, etc. etc. It doesn't matter.

What matters is that the Easter People created a kerygma, a christology that transformed the "man" Jesus" into "the son of God" (as a Divine Person)... and then these Easter people met up with the Q Community. (to be continued).

Start Seeing Everything As God.

(With sincere thanks to Raj Ayyar for posting this on FB)

Start seeing everything as God. But keep it a secret!
Become awestruck and nourished, listening to a nightingale singing in a beautiful foreign tongue, while God nests invisibly on its tongue.

Hafiz, when a dog runs up to you and wags its ecstatic tail,
you lean down and whisper in its ear,

'Beloved, I am so glad you are happy to see ...me.
Beloved, I am so glad You have come.'

--Hafiz.

Gnosis is the Same for Everyone

Repeated here without change or alteration from:
This Way; The Dharma of Gnosis
( http://dharmagnosis.wordpress.com/ )




Gnosis is the Same for Everyone

May 27, 2010 in A Thing

There’s a massive misunderstanding about gnosis going around– a conception exists which says that “gnosis is different for everyone,” that everyone’s experience of gnosis is different and that gnosis is a malleable state, devoid of ontological substance. This is Relativist Gnosis, and it’s incorrect.

The experience of gnosis is the same for everyone who has it. Gnosis is Objective Truth. It is a cultivated experience derived from the inbreaking of the Pleroma, or True Reality, into the World of Forms, or Illusion. As an experience of Truth, it is the exact same experience for everyone. If the experience were relative, it wouldn’t be Truth, and if it wasn’t Truth, it couldn’t be gnosis.

Now, here’s the rub: objectivity appears as subjectivity when filtered through the lens of existence in the World of Forms. Our experiences of gnosis must be identical. However, as we are trapped in this World of Limitations, our ability to describe this experience must also be limited. These descriptions are what makes gnosis seem subjective, or different from person to person. “Everyone has his or her own gnosis” is false. The correct statement should be, “everyone has his or her own description of gnosis.” It’s a subtle distinction, but very important.

There is the Experiencer (the Spiritual Seed– Humanity) which is trapped within the World of Forms. Then, there is the Experienced– Truth, or The Father, or The Limitless Light or what have you. Gnosis is the intersection of the two, a combination of the Logos, or Word, and Sophia, or Wisdom, and Epiphany, or Awakening (see “The Way“). Now, the Gospel of Philip says that, “Truth did not come into the world naked, but it came in types and images.” The only possible way Truth can be expressed in the World, by itself or by others, is in “types and images”– imperfect copies of itself. However, it also says (emph. mine) that “….Truth brought names into existence in the world for our sakes, because it is not possible to learn it (truth) without these names. Truth is one single thing; it is many things and for our sakes to teach about this one thing in love through many things.” As gnosis is the perception of this “one single thing,” I believe that gnosis requires the “many things” described above — Logos, Sophia, Awakening– to truly be Gnosis. And, these “many things” may take different external forms, but internally, the connection between the Experiencer and the Experienced *must* be identical for anyone who has the experience.

So, the worldly information that contains and expresses gnosis may have some variation, but the experience underneath this containment and expression is the same. The textual evidence may be different– On the Origin of the World versus The Gospel of Truth, say — but the experiences of gnosis underlying these texts is identical. A drop of wine is different than a chalice full, but both are still 80% water, 13% ethanol and 7% other stuff.

We might describe what happened to us during an epiphanic event. We may create myths or participate in rituals designed as an attempt to communicate this indescribable Knowledge. The Knowledge itself, however, exists behind the epiphany, the rituals and the myths, and if it is not the same for each of us, we have nothing that binds us to the Truth.

A dog, a cat, a mouse, a cow and a donkey, all starving, comiserated together in a stable during a time of famine. The dog said, “Our problem is that we have no meat to eat.” The cat shook his head, and answered, “foolish dog. Obviously we suffer due to a lack of fish.” “You are both incorrect,” said the mouse, “as cheese is the solution to our misery.” “Not cheese, but grass, would make us happiest,” mooed the cow. “Stupid animals,” thought the donkey. “None of them realize that we would all be better off with piles and piles of delicious oats.”

The Serpent Bites Its Tail: Tabula Lunarium

The Serpent Bites Its Tail: Tabula Lunarium

What’s Up with the Gospel of Thomas?

This article is borrowed "shamelessly and wholesale" from:  Biblical Archaeology Review (BAR 36:01, Jan/Feb 2010 )

What’s Up with the Gospel of Thomas?

By Dr. April D. DeConick

New manuscript discoveries continually expand our knowledge of what was actually going on in antiquity. The accommodation of this new knowledge can sometimes require us to create new histories. Yet as a Biblical scholar, I am constantly faced with the fact that our old academic models die hard. Why? Because there is a general resistance to changing previous understandings of the Bible based on the discovery of “new” nonbiblical manuscripts. For one thing, the religious view that the Bible is old, trustworthy and sacred has become a cultural icon in our society. Second, not only are believers invested in maintaining traditional faith, but scholars are invested in maintaining their previous academic opinions.

I have noticed that new manuscript discoveries are often labeled in a way that diminishes their importance, both in religious communities and in the academy. Scholars determine that these manuscripts “post-date” the Bible, allowing them to be tabled. They are called “Gnostic,” by which these scholars mean that they were written by “heretics” who corrupted the scripture and were purged from the Church because they refused to worship the creator god YHWH and instead turned to pay homage to the “one god” who they believed existed beyond the universe.^a They are thought of as “forgeries,” a legal term that identifies their authors as criminals who falsely assumed apostolic identities. What this might mean for 2 Thessalonians, Colossians or Ephesians (all claiming Paul’s authorship but likely not written by Paul) rarely crosses our minds, because Biblical letters can’t be forgeries. They are either “anonymous” or “pseudonymous.”

Largely because of this resistance, it can take scholars decades to figure out what a manuscript means and put in place a new model that makes sense of the new evidence. It can take even longer for this new model to become common knowledge, distributed outside the academy.

A case in point is the Gospel of Thomas. It was one of more than 50 texts that were discovered in 1945 by Bedouin in the Egyptian desert and came to be known as the Nag Hammadi codices.^b Unlike the canonical gospels, it does not contain a narrative of Jesus’ life and ministry but rather is a collection of Jesus’ sayings, some of which are also recorded in the canonical gospels. It was immediately labeled Gnostic, late, secondary, Biblically dependent and inauthentic. Just as old models die hard, so, too, do first impressions last; today, if you open up almost any general book on the Gospel of Thomas, you will see that this is how it is still described. Yet during the intervening 50 years since it was first published, we have worked very hard to understand this text. We struggled with the Gnostic label for a long time until we realized that the Gnostics weren’t a single group and that the Gospel of Thomas represents none of the various types that did exist (Sethian, Valentinian or any other Gnostic Christian community) because it lacks references to distinctive Gnostic mythologies, including the hallmark feature that the God of worship is not the creator god YHWH, but a god beyond our universe.

If it isn’t Gnostic, then how do we explain the fact that the text has an esoteric orientation, is pro-celibacy, demands that the faithful remain unmarried, and favors a view of the end of the world as “realized” (as many Gnostic texts do)? The Kingdom and the New World are not events of the future, but have already come without anyone noticing.¹ So the disciples ask Jesus, “When will the dead rest, and when will the new world come?” Jesus replies, “What you look for has come, but you have not perceived it” (Thomas 51).² As in the Gospel of John, Jesus has already cast the fires of judgment upon the world.³ Jesus demands that his followers seek visions of God before their deaths in order to have immortality, saying, “Gaze upon the Living One while you are alive, in case you die and (then) seek to see him, and you will not be able to see (him)” (Thomas 59).

Believers will not see Jesus coming with the clouds, as was taught by other Christians. Rather, he would appear to those who remake themselves as children—unafraid and shameless:

His disciples said, “When will you appear to us? When will we see you?” Jesus said, “When you strip naked without shame, take your garments, put them under your feet like little children, and trample on them. Then [you will see] the Son of the Living One and you will not be afraid” (Thomas 37).

This teaching invokes the Genesis story in which Adam was viewed as a child before the Fall. In the Gospel of Thomas, to return to the garden as a primordial Adam meant that you had to renounce your body and embrace celibacy. The ideal state necessary for visions of Jesus is a retooled state of the individual, not of the cosmos.

The type of religiosity found in the Gospel of Thomas is not all that unusual. You can find references to it in Biblical and non-biblical literature. It is nothing more than an early Christian expression of mysticism that developed out of an earlier, apocalyptically oriented Christianity that wished for the immediate end of the world. When the end didn’t happen, the Christians were forced to rethink and rewrite their cherished apocalyptic teachings.

Texts like Luke-Acts (Acts 1: 6-8) show us that some Christians chose to delay the end indefinitely by creating a lengthy period of the church and its ministry before the end would be able to come. Other texts like Matthew’s gospel 924:36) rationalized that the end would come, but not even the Son knows when. Still others like John and Thomas collapsed the end into the present, so that the old world ended with the end of Jesus’ life, and the new world began with the church, which was now experiencing all the promises of the kingdom. In the case of the Gospel of Thomas, the Christians were trying to live as they thought they would at the end of time—like the angels in heaven. So they gave up marriage and sex and believed that their bodies were already being transformed into the glorified spiritual bodies of the resurrection. Intimacy with God, visions of Jesus, equal status with angels, the new world, life-beyond-death were already theirs.

We can even locate this mystical form of Christianity historically. It is a form that developed in eastern Syria in the late first and early second centuries, a form of Christianity that was an heir to early Jewish mystical traditions and a precursor to later Eastern Orthodoxy. I think that Thomas’ “place” in early Christianity was misidentified originally not because it represents a type of Christianity unfamiliar to the canonical tradition or deviant from it. The Gospel of Thomas was wrongly identified at first because Western theological interests controlled its interpretation within a Western Christian framework that could not explain its unfamiliar, mystical structure. Yet we now know—in part from manuscript discoveries like the Nag Hammadi collection—that there was a multiplicity of groups, beliefs and traditions in the diverse early Christian communities. Scholars who misunderstood the Gospel of Thomas mislabeled it as Gnostic in order to lump it together with other traditions they thought to be strange, heretical and late.

Old models die hard, but die they must.

Author’s Note: This column is based on Dr. April DeConick's research: Seek to See Him (Leiden: Brill, 1996); Recovering the Original Gospel of Thomas (New York: T&T Clark, 2005); “The Gospel of Thomas,” Expository Times 118 (2007), pp. 469–479; “Mysticism and the Gospel of Thomas,” in Jörg Frey, Enno Edzard Popkes and Jens Schröter, eds., Das Thomasevangelium (Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 2008), pp. 206–221.