posted March 07, 2009 10:16 PM         

quote:

---

"can't get behind the christian church, i mean a guy on a cross, that's a helluva logo. no wonder they're losing their audience!!" ...keith richards

---

posted March 10, 2009 02:49 AM           

I don't know what "sun on GC" means.

What I had in mind when I posted was Keith's apearance. On the outside he's hideous. And yet, looking past that, he was the most worthy Stone. Likewise, Christians are meant to look beyond the admittedly horrific physical event of a man dying on a cross and perceive the grandeur and beauty of what occured on a spiritual plane.

posted March 10, 2009 11:13 PM         

that is why i guess they say beauty is in the eye of the beholder...i have always marvelled at people who talk about what a "wreck" he is, and even now i have a hard time seeing the wrinkles etc. the guy has more life in his eyes than any 10 people in the room...and even when he's shambolling along more grace than your average cat. but you should see our composite and synastry!! haha...i'm a guitar player you see, heard him first and have been listening ever since!

but what i like best about him (after the genius of his playing) was that he recognized the buddha in muddy waters (40 years ago)and appears to be well on his way to buddhahood himself.

mick - well, he grows on you. i like him now he's a senior...

posted March 22, 2009 12:47 PM         

but none of this has much to do with fundamentalist christianity except that all the above would be damned if it were up to FCs!!

posted March 22, 2009 06:52 PM           

I think you're on to something with that woman not handling it as well theory. Maybe says something about the inherent spiritual state of woman in general. Besides any physical explanation, of course

posted April 15, 2009 07:44 AM           

And the worst part of it is that the fundamentalists
give Christianity a bad name and ruin it for the rest of us.

Some people think of Christianity, or Christian symbolism,
and their knee-jerk reaction is to see it as fundamentalism.

It's really just their own fear-based narrow-mindedness,
but one can certainly understand where it comes from,
and why it is so hard for them to get beyond.

I just posted a couple of threads that express
a much more enlightened form of Christianity,
if anyone is interested in putting a focus on that,
rather than just bringing it back to this bull all the time.

posted April 15, 2009 09:12 AM         

Theological

The first formulation of American fundamentalist beliefs
can be traced to the Niagara Bible Conference (1878–1897) and, in 1910,
to the General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church
which distilled these into what became known as
the "five fundamentals":

* Inerrancy of the Scriptures
* The virgin birth and the deity of Jesus (Isaiah 7:14)
* The doctrine of substitutionary atonement by God's grace and through human faith (Hebrews 9)
* The bodily resurrection of Jesus (Matthew 28)
* The authenticity of Christ's miracles (or, alternatively, his pre-millennial second coming)

posted April 15, 2009 09:30 AM         

quote:

---

"can't get behind the christian church, i mean a guy on a cross, that's a helluva logo. no wonder they're losing their audience!!" ...keith richards

---

posted April 15, 2009 10:12 AM           

quote:

---

it does make me sad that the fear causes so many to throw the baby out with the bathwater. the monotheistic religions receive the brunt of it, of course. i wish more people were knowledgable about the esoteric streams within these religions - islamic sufis, judaic kabbalists. even christianity has an underground stream. interestingly, i've found that the more time spent exploring the church of john , so to speak, the better you understand the seemingly unexplainable 'laws' of the church of peter. you too?

---

Certainly. Well said.

But that spiritual depth is essential
to a proper understanding of the letter.

It is remarkable to me that so many are
ignorant of the deeper, esoteric streams
within their own traditions, and, so,
give the impression that none exist.

And, in a pragmatic sense, at least, for them,
these deeper streams really have ceased to exist,
and the shell of Peter's church really is robbed
of the pearl which it ought to protect and contain.

posted April 15, 2009 10:31 AM           

The crucifix, for example, is a powerful symbol,
infinitely rich in the deepest spiritual significance,
for those who are inspired to contemplate it arightly.

The symbol is, admittedly, not of a fuzzy bunny,
or a chickadee delivering pink and purple easter eggs.
It is a symbol which reflects the true movement of Spirit,
which is not a movement "out of darkness and into the light",
but, rather, a movement of light, carried into the darkness.

The crucifix is the symbol par excellence of sacrificial love;
of love in its highest, most compassionate and devoted sense.

"Greater love hath no man than this,
that a man lay down his life for his friends."
~ John 15:13

posted April 15, 2009 01:20 PM           

It's remarkable to me too. And sometimes I want to grab people by the shoulders and shake them and shove a little Rosicrucianism down their throats, yk? Then I think, how silly! It's not called an underground stream for nothing. A hidden, occult understanding just isn't for everyone ... and rightfully so. I suspect Peter's Church intended to protect those who weren't yet ready/interested for a more esoteric understanding. As part of the process, we now question too much for that sort of blind obediance. And so maybe it's time for the underground stream to make its way above ground. Maybe.

But that spiritual depth is essential
to a proper understanding of the letter.

For me, this brings to mind the historical Jesus and the transcendent Christ of the other thread. Is it more profitable to approach the 'law' first, then come to an understanding of the Spirit of Law? Or safer to explore first the Spirit, then apply what we've learned to the 'letter'? Presently, I think the latter. Likewise, is there a greater wisdom in allowing Christ to lead us to a more detailed knowledge of Jesus, than it is expecting an historical Jesus to bring us to Christ? Generally speaking of course. This is one of my issues with the Jesuits.

...and the shell of Peter's church really is robbed
of the pearl which it ought to protect and contain.

beautiful thought!

posted April 15, 2009 01:20 PM           

I'm aware of your unpleasant introduction to Christianity. I'm aware, but I wouldn't claim to understand it - I was sent to a small, temperate Episcopalian country church and I was raised by two extremely intellectually oriented parents. Never, ever was I introduced to the 'fire and brimstone' school of thought you endured. So, you see, my intention with this post isn't to very arrogantly and foolishly attempt to persaude you of anything. I know that we walk different paths. This is only to express my own prespective - a result of my own research, contemplation, and gifts from those much wiser then myself.

What was secret shall be made manifest

we could see a hundred shades of meaning here and only begin to plummet the depths...but focusing on one aspect ...

"what was secret" might be taken as reference to a multitude of ancient initiation trials and Son God myths - the Judaic trial of Jonah, Mithraic rituals, the cults of Adonis and Orpheus, the Eleusinian Mysteries, the rites of Osiris and Isis, the death of the god Baldur, etc. All of these pre-Christian rites and rituals were kept secret. The true meanings behind the myths were kept secret. The story outlined in the Gospels is in accordance with these myths and rituals. The difference being that with Jesus these myths and rituals were made manifest for all to see. What had previously been seen only through spiritual vision - the Essene visions of the Teacher of Righteousness, for instance - was now allowed to take place in the material world.
We use the terms 'flesh' and 'body' interchangeably, but the early Christians knew better. Working with an understanding of the difference, the seemingly hopeless contradiction between, say, the Islamic assertation that 'He didn't die' and the Christian insistance that he did, makes perfect sense. The average Christian and Muslim might come to blows over this, but, as I've yet to find a serious disagreement between Sufi Muslims and Grail Christians, I trust Prophet Mohammad and John the Beloved understood one another perfectly.

What would Christ most vigorously condemn if He were to appear in our midst today? Most probably what the majority of people today call "Christian". . . ~ Steiner

posted April 15, 2009 04:14 PM           

that piece of perfection bears repeating

posted April 15, 2009 05:20 PM         

quote:

---

Lexx

I'm aware of your unpleasant introduction to Christianity. I'm aware, but I wouldn't claim to understand it

---

quote:

---

- I was sent to a small, temperate Episcopalian country church and I was raised by two extremely intellectually oriented parents. Never, ever was I introduced to the 'fire and brimstone' school of thought you endured. So, you see, my intention with this post isn't to very arrogantly and foolishly attempt to persaude you of anything. I know that we walk different paths. This is only to express my own prespective - a result of my own research, contemplation, and gifts from those much wiser then myself.

---

quote:

---

What was secret shall be made manifest

---

I probably should stop posting on these matters because it serves no worthy purpose
at this time...except....
Maybe food for thought...even if folks only nibble or spit it out.
I keep hearing the same religion based arguments over and over...
And the "players" from the past not depicted correctly....many are even "missing".
I was hoping others had information that rang true.
Oh well, maybe someday.

posted April 15, 2009 05:49 PM           

quote:

---

As part of the process, we now question too much for that sort of blind obediance. And so maybe it's time for the underground stream to make its way above ground. Maybe.

---

People have always been "ready".
And martyrs have always been made.
Just because it is difficult doesnt mean
we should not try to communicate the truth.

quote:

---

Is it more profitable to approach the 'law' first, then come to an understanding of the Spirit of Law? Or safer to explore first the Spirit, then apply what we've learned to the 'letter'?

---

I do not follow you.
How can you have one w/o the other?
It's like serving two masters.

If the sermon is profitable,
it will outline a path between
the Letter and the Spirit.

One w/o the other is not the Gospel.

Or are you talking about mandatory observances?

In which case, this is never profitable,
for it is the very corruption of the Law.

quote:

---

is there a greater wisdom in allowing Christ to lead us to a more detailed knowledge of Jesus, than it is expecting an historical Jesus to bring us to Christ?

---

Christ without Jesus is,
for most, an abstraction.

And Jesus without Christ
is the triumph of the ego.

But the image of Jesus' weakness
allied to the grace of the Christ
completes the full picture that is
"God, in the world but not of it".

The humanity of Jesus
makes possible a conception
of the divine grace of Christ;
while the divine grace of Christ
makes possible an understanding
of the humanity of Jesus (and all flesh).

posted April 15, 2009 05:57 PM           

~ (Introduction) Meditations on the Tarot: A Journey Into Christian Hermeticism

Puzzle

Someone who keeps aloof from suffering is not a lover.

I choose your love above all else.

As for wealth, if that comes, or goes, so be it.

Wealth and love inhabit separate worlds.

But as long as you live here inside me, I cannot say that I am suffering.

posted April 15, 2009 06:36 PM         

quote:

---

Elaine Pagels
"The Jesus of the Gospel of Thomas"
Program #3608
First broadcast November 22, 1992
Biography
Scholar and religious historian, Dr. Elaine Pagels, is Professor of Religion at Princeton University. Educated at Stanford and Harvard, Elaine has done extensive research on the early Christians and has written widely on the subject. In 1979, Dr. Pagels won the National Book Critics "Circle Award" for her book, The Gnostic Gospels. [Biographical information is correct as of the broadcast date noted above.]

"The Jesus of the Gospel of Thomas"
What I want to share with you is my excitement about an extraordinary archaeological discovery that currently is transforming our understanding of early Christianity and its mysterious founder. The discovery occurred unexpectedly in December of 1945 (the same year that the Dead Sea Scrolls were discovered in the desert caves of Qumran, in Israel). An Arab peasant, Muhammad Ali al-Samman, digging for fertilizer under a cliff near the town of Naj Hammadi in Upper Egypt, struck something underground. There, to his astonishment, he unearthed a large earthenware jar, about six feet high.

Inside he found thirteen ancient papyrus volumes, bound in tooled gazelle leather. Muhammad Ali could not read his own language, Arabic, much less the peculiar script of these texts. But he took them home and dumped them on the ground near the stove. Later, his mother admitted that she threw some of the papyrus into the fire for kindling while she was baking bread.

A few weeks later, Muhammad Ali and his brothers, having killed the man who had killed their father in a blood feud, were indicted for murder. Fearing that the police investigating the murder would search his house, find the ancient books, and charge him not only with murder but with illegal possession of antiquities, Muhammad Ali asked a local Coptic priest to keep them for him. While Muhammad Ali and his brothers served six months in prison, a village teacher took one of the books to sell on the black market for antiquities in Cairo.

There, a French historian, Jean Doresse, saw the text and recognized the language as Coptic -- the language of Egypt nearly 2,000 years ago. Doresse realized that one of the texts was a Coptic translation from Greek -- the original language of the New Testament. Further, he identified the opening lines with fragments of a Greek Gospel of Thomas, discovered in Egypt not long before.

The Gospel opens with the words, "These are the secret words which the Living Jesus spoke, and which the twin, Judas Thomas, wrote down." Those who first read the text were amazed: Did Jesus have a twin brother, as this text implies? Could it be an authentic record of Jesus' sayings? According to its title, it contained the Gospel According to Thomas. Yet unlike the gospels of the New Testament, this text identified itself as a secret gospel. This gospel contains many sayings that parallel those in the New Testament; yet others were strikingly different, -- sayings as strange and compelling as Zen koans.

Jesus said, "If you bring forth what is within you, what you bring forth will save you. If you do not bring forth what is within you, what you do not bring forth will destroy you."

Muhammad Ali later admitted that some of the texts were lost -- burned up or thrown away. But what remains is astonishing: some fifty-two texts from the early centuries of the Christian era, including a collection of Christian gospels previously unknown, except by title, including the Gospel to the Egyptians, the Gospel of Truth, and the Gospel of Philip, along with the Gospel of Thomas. Although scholars sharply debate their dating, Professor Helmut Koester of Harvard University, along with many others, believes that the Gospel of Thomas contains a collection of sayings that predates the gospels of the New Testament. This newly discovered gospel, in fact, resembles the kind of source that the authors of Matthew and Luke used to compose their own gospels.

Why were the texts buried, and why have they remained virtually unknown for nearly 2,000 years? They were buried, apparently, around 370 A.D., after the Archbishop of Alexandria sent out an order to Christians all over Egypt banning such books as "heresy" and demanding their destruction.

Yet we know that the collection of books we call the "New Testament" -- with its four gospels -- was formed as late as 200 A.D. And the church fathers tell us that before that time, many more gospels circulated throughout Christian communities scattered from Asia Minor to Greece, Rome, Gaul, Spain, and Africa. But by the late second century, bishops who called themselves "orthodox" rejected all but four of these gospels and denounced all the rest as "an abyss of madness, and blasphemy against Christ."

Yet, those who circulated and revered these other gospels did not think of themselves as heretics, but as Christians who had received, in addition to Christ's public preaching, other, secret teaching which, they say, he reserved only for a select few. The New Testament gospel of Mark, indeed, indicates that Jesus taught certain things in public, and others in private, to his disciples alone: "To you is given to know the mystery of the kingdom of God, but to those outside all things are in parables, so that seeing, they may not perceive, and hearing, they may not understand."

The Gospel of Thomas and other writings discovered at Naj Hammadi claim to offer such secret teaching. Those who receive it are called gnostics, literally, "those who know," from the Greek word gnosis, usually translated "knowledge" -- but perhaps better translated "insight," since it connotes an intuitive type of knowledge -- knowledge which communicates wisdom, or spiritual enlightenment.

I first encountered these texts as a graduate student at Harvard, where I had gone to study the history of Christianity. I was amazed to find out that my professors had file folders full of ancient Christians gospels of which I had never heard. I wanted to know, how do these newly discovered texts compare with the gospels of the New Testament?

They differ, in fact, in many ways: Yet of all the remarkable differences between the New Testament gospels and those discovered at Naj Hammadi, I find most striking the different view they offer of Jesus himself -- and of his message.

According to the gospels of the New Testament -- let us take, for example, the one that most scholars agree is the earliest, the gospel of Mark -- Jesus first appears and proclaims, "The good news of the kingdom of God." (Mark 1:15) What is that "good news"?

According to Mark, Jesus announced that "The time is at hand; the kingdom of God is drawing near." As Mark describes it, Jesus declared that the end of time is at hand; the world is about to undergo cataclysmic transformation. Jesus predicted war, strife, conflict, and suffering, in Chapter 13, followed by a world-shattering event -- the coming of the kingdom of God. According to Mark 9:1, Jesus expected that event to happen during the life of his own disciples. He said to Peter and James and John, "There are some of you standing here who shall not taste death until you see the kingdom of God come with power."

The gnostic Gospel of Thomas, on the contrary, says something very different. Here the "kingdom of God" is not an event expected to happen in history, nor is it a "place." In fact, the author of Thomas seems to almost ridicule such ideas as if they were naive.

According to the Gospel of Thomas, Jesus said, "If those who lead you say to you, 'Look, the kingdom is in the sky,' then the birds of the sky will precede you. If they say to you, 'It is in the sea,' then the fish will precede you."

The Gospel of Thomas, instead says that the kingdom of God represents a kind of state of self-discovery. Jesus goes on to say, "Rather, the kingdom is inside of you, and it is outside of you. When you come to know yourself, then you will become known, and you will realize that it is you who are the children of the living Father." But the disciples, mistaking that "kingdom" for a future event, just as they do in the Gospel of Mark persist in naive questioning. They ask, "When will the kingdom come?"

Jesus said: "It will not come by waiting for it. It will not be a matter of saying 'Here it is,' or 'There it is.' Rather, the kingdom of the Father is spread out on the earth already, and people do not see it."

According to the Gospel of Thomas, then, the "kingdom of God" seems to symbolize a state of transformed consciousness. One enters that "kingdom" when one comes to know oneself. For the secret of gnosis is that when one comes to know oneself, at the deepest level, simultaneously one comes to know God as the source of one's being.

If we ask, then, "Who is Jesus?" the Gospel of Thomas gives a quite different answer from the gospels of the New Testament. Mark, for example, depicts Jesus as an utterly unique being -- the Messiah, God's anointed king. As Mark tells it, it was Peter who discovered the secret of Jesus' identity. You may remember the words in Mark 8 which read like this: "And Jesus went on with his disciples to the villages of Cesarea Philippi; and on the way he asked his disciples, 'Who do people say that I am?' And they said, 'John the Baptist; and others said, Elijah; and others, one of the prophets.' And he asked them, 'but who do you say that I am?' Peter answered him, 'You are the Messiah.'"

Matthew tells the same story and adds that Jesus blessed Peter for the accuracy of this recognition and says, "Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah, flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my Father in heaven." But the Gospel of Thomas tells the same story rather differently: "Jesus said to his disciples, 'Compare Me to someone, and tell Me whom I am like.' Simon Peter said to him, 'You are like a righteous messenger.' Matthew said to him, 'You are like a wise philosopher.' Thomas said to him, 'Master, my mouth is wholly incapable of saying whom You are like.'"

Here the author of the Gospel of Thomas is interpreting, for Greek-speaking readers, Matthew's portrait of Jesus as rabbinic teacher ("wise philosopher"), and Peter's confession of Jesus as Messiah ("righteous messenger"). Jesus does not deny either title or either role, at least in relation to Matthew or Peter. But in the Gospel of Thomas they -- and their answers -- represent a lesser level of understanding.

Thomas, who recognizes that he cannot assign any specific role to Jesus transcends, at that moment, the relation of disciple to master. At this moment of recognition, Jesus says that Thomas has become like Himself: "I am not your Master, for you have drunk, and become drunk from the bubbling stream I measured out...Whoever drinks from my mouth will become as I am, and I myself will become that person, and things that are hidden will be revealed to him."

The New Testament gospel of John, like Mark, emphasizes Jesus' uniqueness even more strongly than does Mark. According to John, Jesus is not a human being at all; rather, he is the divine and eternal Word of God, God's "only begotten son," who descends to earth in human form, to rescue the human race from eternal damnation. You probably remember the words John 3:16: "God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believes in him should not perish, but have eternal life....Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe in him is condemned already, because he has not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God."

Now, if we recall the saying we noted before from the Gospel of Thomas, we can see that Thomas offers a quite different message. Far from regarding himself as the "only begotten" son of God, Jesus here says to his disciples, "when you come to know yourselves" (and discover the divine within you) "then you will recognize that it is you who are the children of the living Father" -- just like Jesus!

The gnostic Gospel of Truth, also discovered at Naj Hammadi, says something similar. It says, "You are the children of inner-knowledge...Say, then, from the heart that you are the perfect day, and in you dwells the light that does not fail." Another of these texts, the Gospel of Philip, makes the same point more succinctly: "Don't seek to become a Christian, but a Christ."

This, I suggest, is the symbolic meaning of attributing the Gospel of Thomas to Jesus' "twin brother." I don't think the statement was meant to be taken literally, as if Jesus actually had a twin brother. I think it is meant to say, in effect, that "You, the reader, are the twin brother of Christ," when you recognize the divine within you, then you come to see, as Thomas does, in this gospel, that you and Jesus are at a deep level, so to speak, identical twins.

Now, a person who seeks to "become not a Christian, but a Christ" no longer looks to Jesus, as orthodox believers do, as the source of all truth. So, while the Jesus of the Gospel of John declares, "I am the door; whoever enters through me shall be saved," the gnostic teacher Silvanus points through Christ toward one's self in a different direction: "Knock upon yourself as upon a door, and walk upon yourself as on a straight road. For if you walk upon that road, it

is impossible for you to go astray...Open the door for yourself, that you may know what is....Whatever you open for yourself, you will open."

Or, to take one more example: according to John, when Thomas says to Jesus, "We do not know where you are going; how can we know the way?" Jesus replies, "I am the way, the truth, and the life; no one comes to the Father, except through me."

Yet according to the gnostic Dialogue of the Savior, when the disciples ask Jesus the same question ("What is the place to which we shall go?") he directs each disciple toward his or her own way: "The way which you find, go that way. The place which you reach, stand there!" Or to take another example, in the Gospels of Matthew and Luke, the disciples say, "How should we fast? How should we give alms? How should we pray?" Jesus, in the Gospels of Matthew and Luke gives answers to those questions. He says, "When you pray, say, 'Our Father who art in heaven.' When you give alms say this, 'Don't do it the way the hypocrites do.' When you fast, 'wash your face.'" In other words, in those gospels, he answers all the questions.

But in the Gospel of Thomas when the disciples ask the same questions, What shall we eat; How shall we give alms; How shall we pray, he says simply, "Do not tell lies and do not do what you hate, for all things are known before your Father in heaven." In other words, He throws the disciples back on their own resources and says that they must find their own way and discover for themselves what the truth is.

What does it mean that we have found such an unexpected collection of Gospels? The question is too large to answer here. I believe that we owe the survival of Christianity as we know it to the early Christian leaders who chose the gospels we find in the New Testament, but the gospels discovered at Naj Hammadi give us some fascinating glimpses of what was lost in the process, some alternate visions of Jesus and his message.

Interview with Elaine Pagels
Interviewed by David Hardin

David Hardin: Elaine, to what extent do these gospels conflict with what we already believe or do they enhance? How do you feel about that?

Elaine Pagels: Well, at first people thought that because they had been denounced by the bishops as heresy that they were antithetical. In fact, they overlap in many ways. There is much of the Gospel of Thomas that is absolutely identical with parts of Matthew and Luke, sayings that you see in Matthew and Luke that are the same, word for word. That is why many people think it may be either a source of those gospels or have used the same source that those authors used.

Hardin: So, they are not challenging; they are enhancing.

Pagels: Well, the people who loved these gospels certainly thought it was a secret gospel, that is, they thought the others were Jesus' public teaching but this is what he taught secretly.

Hardin: It has been swell having you with us. Thanks.

Pagels: Thank you. I really enjoyed it.

---

quote:

---

Christ
O.E. crist, from L. Christus, from Gk. khristos "the anointed" (translation of Heb. mashiah, see messiah), from khriein "to rub, anoint," title given to Jesus of Nazareth. The L. term drove out O.E. hæland "healer" as the preferred descriptive term for Jesus. A title, treated as a proper name in O.E., but not regularly capitalized until 17c. Pronunciation with long -i- is result of Ir. missionary work in England, 7c.-8c. The Ch- form, regular since c.1500, was rare before.

---