Lovely thoughts.

[Guest guest]

What lovely thoughts. Pls keep it up.

 

wrote:

 

, SophiasHeaven@a... wrote:

>

> In a message dated 1/18/2005 8:56:56 AM Mountain Standard Time,

> ammasmon@s... writes:

>

> > God is teaching them, patiently and slowly, without a doubt,

using

> > the tools of Unconditional Love and Witnessing, and who knows

how

> > many other tools. Anyway (from God's perspective of

timelessness),

> > why the hurry in teaching? We (limited in time and space) minds

> > would like see everyone "taught" within our lifetimes of 50-100

> > years, but God's lifetime is billions of years, really speaking

> > infinite time.

>

> This I agree with. Yet God is not always patient and kind. God

can be

> ruthless. Even Jesus, who everybody likes to make into a sugary

piece of cake,

> says things like "nation will rise against nation" and "i come

not to bring

> peace but a sword."

 

The ruthlessness is only seemingly so. we experience it as such

because of the duality we are in. In Oneness, all actions will be

perceived as nothing but love. (this is not my experience yet, but I

beileve by it).

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Search presents - Jib Jab's 'Second Term'

 

 

[Guest guest]

If all actions are the same, and the sword is love, then why not

support murdering and stealing? Why not have everyone spitting and

shitting on everybody else? Call it love, and that's what it is?

These are genuine questions, if not somewhat impatiently "spat"

here Where does Jesus say that about the sword? I know he cursed

a fig tree and caused it to wither, so he had a bad temper attack,

but that temper wasn't love. It was just bad temper. It's ridiculous

to consider the tree blessed to be withered by the Master.

 

Mary Ann

 

, Satyen Rao <satyenrao>

wrote:

>

> What lovely thoughts. Pls keep it up.

>

> wrote:

>

> , SophiasHeaven@a... wrote:

> >

> > In a message dated 1/18/2005 8:56:56 AM Mountain Standard Time,

> > ammasmon@s... writes:

> >

> > > God is teaching them, patiently and slowly, without a doubt,

> using

> > > the tools of Unconditional Love and Witnessing, and who knows

> how

> > > many other tools. Anyway (from God's perspective of

> timelessness),

> > > why the hurry in teaching? We (limited in time and space)

minds

> > > would like see everyone "taught" within our lifetimes of 50-

100

> > > years, but God's lifetime is billions of years, really

speaking

> > > infinite time.

> >

> > This I agree with. Yet God is not always patient and kind. God

> can be

> > ruthless. Even Jesus, who everybody likes to make into a sugary

> piece of cake,

> > says things like "nation will rise against nation" and "i come

> not to bring

> > peace but a sword."

>

> The ruthlessness is only seemingly so. we experience it as such

> because of the duality we are in. In Oneness, all actions will be

> perceived as nothing but love. (this is not my experience yet, but

I

> beileve by it).

>

Links

>

>

>

>

 

>

> Search presents - Jib Jab's 'Second Term'

>

>

[Guest guest]

Off-topic, but....

 

The fig tree story can be read as a parable, in which case it may not

have involved a physical tree at all.

 

The fig tree represents the Nation of Israel; Jesus condemns empty,

showy, ceremonial religious displays as "bearing no fruit [of love]."

As a parable, the story's meaning parallels that of story of Jesus'

clearing of the temple.

 

Scroll down to 21:19 for commentary:

http://www.christiancommunitychurch.us/clevelandcommentary/Mat21.html

 

, "Mary Ann"

<buttercookie61> wrote:

>

> [....] I know he [Jesus] cursed

> a fig tree and caused it to wither, [....]

[Guest guest]

Hi Msbauju:

 

Off-topic, but interesting! I think you're definitely right that the

story of Jesus and the fig tree is a parable, and not a reference to

an actual assault on an actual fig tree.

 

The parable is recounted in three separate Gospels (Matthew, Mark

and Luke). Luke's account (the historically oldest version) actually

begins "then he told them a parable." Matthew and Mark begin their

versions by saying, "Jesus did." This appears to be a typical

instance of early Christians melding Jesus's teachings into the oral

traditions of his deeds -- an extremely common occurance as

historical/ textual/ academic commentaries like "The Oxford

Companion to the Bible" will attest.

 

See, the compilers of the Gospels were working with several sources,

including an oral (or possibly written; the elusive document known

as "Q") tradition of "Jesus sayings," along with those oral

traditions about his life and deeds. Even commentators who are

fervent Christian believers (Martin Luther among them) concede that

the sayings and actions in the Gospels sometimes appear in incorrect

chronological order, or even completely out of context.

 

So in Mark and Matthew, we find the story about the fig tree blended

into the story of Jesus entering Jerusalem and running out the money

changers. In Luke (again, the closest thing we have to the source

document), the two stories are kept separate.

 

The compilers of Mark (like msbauju) apparently noted that the fig

tree symbol is usually used in referencing the spiritual health of

Israel. That made the parable a natural match with the money-changer

story, which reflects Jesus's rejection of the Jewish establishment.

So -- hey, presto! -- they put the two stories together: Jesus spoke

of a tree which bore no physical no fruit, then visited a city which

bore no spiritual fruit. The Matthew compilers copied Mark, whereas

Luke (coming first) did not.

 

So the fig tree story is a parable -- and when Jesus uses a parable,

the attentive reader always knows there's a lesson in there

somewhere. Since the story is used here to bracket the account of

Jesus's trip into Jerusalem, it seems pretty clear that he is

referring to Israel as the fig tree that bore no fruit.

 

DB

[Guest guest]

I need to find my source for the fig tree incident. It may have been

The Hidden Gospel, which garnered much derisive feedback when I

posted from it before The way the story was rendered where I read

it was that Jesus was hungry, turned to a fig tree off-season that

had no fruit and cursed and withered it, no parable meaning

attached. I'll look at the links you provided, but I like the

version I read I'd rather catch Jesus in an off-moment; makes him

more human.

 

Mary Ann

 

, "Devi Bhakta"

<devi_bhakta> wrote:

>

> Hi Msbauju:

>

> Off-topic, but interesting! I think you're definitely right that

the

> story of Jesus and the fig tree is a parable, and not a reference

to

> an actual assault on an actual fig tree.

>

> The parable is recounted in three separate Gospels (Matthew, Mark

> and Luke). Luke's account (the historically oldest version)

actually

> begins "then he told them a parable." Matthew and Mark begin their

> versions by saying, "Jesus did." This appears to be a typical

> instance of early Christians melding Jesus's teachings into the

oral

> traditions of his deeds -- an extremely common occurance as

> historical/ textual/ academic commentaries like "The Oxford

> Companion to the Bible" will attest.

>

> See, the compilers of the Gospels were working with several

sources,

> including an oral (or possibly written; the elusive document known

> as "Q") tradition of "Jesus sayings," along with those oral

> traditions about his life and deeds. Even commentators who are

> fervent Christian believers (Martin Luther among them) concede

that

> the sayings and actions in the Gospels sometimes appear in

incorrect

> chronological order, or even completely out of context.

>

> So in Mark and Matthew, we find the story about the fig tree

blended

> into the story of Jesus entering Jerusalem and running out the

money

> changers. In Luke (again, the closest thing we have to the source

> document), the two stories are kept separate.

>

> The compilers of Mark (like msbauju) apparently noted that the fig

> tree symbol is usually used in referencing the spiritual health of

> Israel. That made the parable a natural match with the money-

changer

> story, which reflects Jesus's rejection of the Jewish

establishment.

> So -- hey, presto! -- they put the two stories together: Jesus

spoke

> of a tree which bore no physical no fruit, then visited a city

which

> bore no spiritual fruit. The Matthew compilers copied Mark,

whereas

> Luke (coming first) did not.

>

> So the fig tree story is a parable -- and when Jesus uses a

parable,

> the attentive reader always knows there's a lesson in there

> somewhere. Since the story is used here to bracket the account of

> Jesus's trip into Jerusalem, it seems pretty clear that he is

> referring to Israel as the fig tree that bore no fruit.

>

> DB

[Guest guest]

Thanks for the link; I clicked and read the political

interpretations of this passage. Again with the Bible there is

that "literal" issue, whether something is a symbol or just itself.

Kind of like with dreams I will check my source again, as I said.

A literal interpretation is given no credence by the source at your

link, and others online. I'd be interested to hear from Pamele

Brooks on this issue...

 

"And on the morrow, when they had come out of Bethany, he [Jesus]

hungered. And seeing a fig tree afar off having leaves, he came, if

perhaps he might find anything thereon: and when he came to it, he

found nothing but leaves; for it was not the season of figs. And he

answered and said unto it, `No man [will] eat fruit from you from

now on – for ever.' And his disciples heard it . . .And as they

passed by in the morning, they saw the fig tree withered away from

the roots. And Peter calling to remembrance said unto him, `Rabbi,

behold, the fig tree that you cursed is withered away'" (Mk. 11:12-

14; 20-21).

 

 

, "Devi Bhakta"

<devi_bhakta> wrote:

>

> Hi Msbauju:

>

> Off-topic, but interesting! I think you're definitely right that

the

> story of Jesus and the fig tree is a parable, and not a reference

to

> an actual assault on an actual fig tree.

>

> The parable is recounted in three separate Gospels (Matthew, Mark

> and Luke). Luke's account (the historically oldest version)

actually

> begins "then he told them a parable." Matthew and Mark begin their

> versions by saying, "Jesus did." This appears to be a typical

> instance of early Christians melding Jesus's teachings into the

oral

> traditions of his deeds -- an extremely common occurance as

> historical/ textual/ academic commentaries like "The Oxford

> Companion to the Bible" will attest.

>

> See, the compilers of the Gospels were working with several

sources,

> including an oral (or possibly written; the elusive document known

> as "Q") tradition of "Jesus sayings," along with those oral

> traditions about his life and deeds. Even commentators who are

> fervent Christian believers (Martin Luther among them) concede

that

> the sayings and actions in the Gospels sometimes appear in

incorrect

> chronological order, or even completely out of context.

>

> So in Mark and Matthew, we find the story about the fig tree

blended

> into the story of Jesus entering Jerusalem and running out the

money

> changers. In Luke (again, the closest thing we have to the source

> document), the two stories are kept separate.

>

> The compilers of Mark (like msbauju) apparently noted that the fig

> tree symbol is usually used in referencing the spiritual health of

> Israel. That made the parable a natural match with the money-

changer

> story, which reflects Jesus's rejection of the Jewish

establishment.

> So -- hey, presto! -- they put the two stories together: Jesus

spoke

> of a tree which bore no physical no fruit, then visited a city

which

> bore no spiritual fruit. The Matthew compilers copied Mark,

whereas

> Luke (coming first) did not.

>

> So the fig tree story is a parable -- and when Jesus uses a

parable,

> the attentive reader always knows there's a lesson in there

> somewhere. Since the story is used here to bracket the account of

> Jesus's trip into Jerusalem, it seems pretty clear that he is

> referring to Israel as the fig tree that bore no fruit.

>

> DB

[Guest guest]

Hi Mary Ann:

 

Here's some more grist for the mill: Luke's telling of the story,

which is the earliest known version ...

 

Then he [Jesus] told this parable: "A man had a fig tree, planted in

his vineyard, and he went to look for fruit on it, but did not find

any. So he said to the man who took care of the vineyard, 'For three

years now I've been coming to look for fruit on this fig tree and

haven't found any. Cut it down! Why should it use up the soil?'

 

"'Sir,' the man replied, 'leave it alone for one more year, and I'll

dig around it and fertilize it. If it bears fruit next year, fine!

If not, then cut it down.'"

 

- Luke 13:6-9 (New International Version)

[Guest guest]

In that case, let's try this quote (Matthew 11:18-19):

 

For John [The Baptist] came neither eating nor drinking, and they

say, 'He has a demon'; the Son of man [Jesus] came eating and

drinking, and they say, 'Behold, a glutton and a drunkard, a friend

of tax collectors and sinners!'

 

And it's almost on topic--or at least related to past discussions :-)

 

, "Mary Ann"

<buttercookie61> wrote:

>

> [....] I'd rather catch Jesus in an off-moment; makes him

> more human. [....]

[Guest guest]

Hm. Well, the teller refers to it as a parable, but did Jesus

himself say it was a parable? When is a cigar just a cigar? Sorry, I

know I'm being goofy, but only because I obviously have no leg to

stand on in the face of these esteemed albeit online sources

 

, "Devi Bhakta"

<devi_bhakta> wrote:

>

> Hi Mary Ann:

>

> Here's some more grist for the mill: Luke's telling of the story,

> which is the earliest known version ...

>

> Then he [Jesus] told this parable: "A man had a fig tree, planted

in

> his vineyard, and he went to look for fruit on it, but did not

find

> any. So he said to the man who took care of the vineyard, 'For

three

> years now I've been coming to look for fruit on this fig tree and

> haven't found any. Cut it down! Why should it use up the soil?'

>

> "'Sir,' the man replied, 'leave it alone for one more year, and

I'll

> dig around it and fertilize it. If it bears fruit next year, fine!

> If not, then cut it down.'"

>

> - Luke 13:6-9 (New International Version)

[Guest guest]

Namaste:

 

Is there A N Y way to link this back to the Goddess? I've had it up to my ears

with the

Abramic tradition this week.

 

Blessings,

 

prainbow

 

 

, "Mary Ann" <buttercookie61> wrote:

>

> Hm. Well, the teller refers to it as a parable, but did Jesus

> himself say it was a parable? When is a cigar just a cigar? Sorry, I

> know I'm being goofy, but only because I obviously have no leg to

> stand on in the face of these esteemed albeit online sources

>

> , "Devi Bhakta"

> <devi_bhakta> wrote:

> >

> > Hi Mary Ann:

> >

> > Here's some more grist for the mill: Luke's telling of the story,

> > which is the earliest known version ...

> >

> > Then he [Jesus] told this parable: "A man had a fig tree, planted

> in

> > his vineyard, and he went to look for fruit on it, but did not

> find

> > any. So he said to the man who took care of the vineyard, 'For

> three

> > years now I've been coming to look for fruit on this fig tree and

> > haven't found any. Cut it down! Why should it use up the soil?'

> >

> > "'Sir,' the man replied, 'leave it alone for one more year, and

> I'll

> > dig around it and fertilize it. If it bears fruit next year, fine!

> > If not, then cut it down.'"

> >

> > - Luke 13:6-9 (New International Version)

[Guest guest]

*lol* Sorry prainbow, you are 100% correct on that. I'll not dip in

any further; it's not my field anyway. For what it's worth, my

interest in the topic is the authentic Jesus tradition, to the extent

that it can be unraveled at this point, which is more than one might

expect.

 

Once you get past modern Christianity -- what Elaine Pagels

calls "the religion *about* Jesus" (virgin birth, exclusivity

doctrine, son of God [the term he actually applies to himself is "Son

of Man" or "Son of the People"]; etc) and start looking at what he

actually (or apparently actually) said -- i.e. the religion *of*

Jesus -- what comes through is a lot of the same stuff you find in

the Hindu and Buddhist traditions.

 

This material is no "off the Web" speculation, but honest-to-goodness

scholarship from the Oxford Companion and -- even moreso -- the work

of esteemed Biblical scholars such as John Dominic Crossan. (In fact,

there is also fairly established Hindu lore placing Jesus in India

during that long gap in New Testament accounts between his early teen

years, and his reappearance at age 31 or so. There are other

traditions placing him in India *after* the crucifiction, which this

tradition says he escaped alive.)

 

Anyway, some of the best discussions of the guru/disciple

relationship I've ever seen can be found in Jesus's teachings. Many

Hindu Gurus -- from Vivekananda to Amritananda -- freely quote him in

their various teachings. For some people raised in the more

restrictive interpretations of mainstream Abrahamic traditions, it

can be mind-opening and a useful bridge to Eastern thought.

 

DB

 

, "prainbow61" <paulie-

rainbow@u...> wrote:

>

> Namaste:

>

> Is there A N Y way to link this back to the Goddess? I've had it

up to my ears with the

> Abramic tradition this week.

>

> Blessings,

>

> prainbow

[Guest guest]

Good points DB One of the reasons I love Ammachi so much is that

she is Hindu, yet non-denominational, inclusive of Jesus, as well as

other religions, translating bhajans into Hebrew and many other

languages.

 

Prainbow, the yoga book I mentioned in response to your query on

bhakti yoga might help you expand your views a bit

 

, "Devi Bhakta"

<devi_bhakta> wrote:

>

> *lol* Sorry prainbow, you are 100% correct on that. I'll not dip

in

> any further; it's not my field anyway. For what it's worth, my

> interest in the topic is the authentic Jesus tradition, to the

extent

> that it can be unraveled at this point, which is more than one

might

> expect.

>

> Once you get past modern Christianity -- what Elaine Pagels

> calls "the religion *about* Jesus" (virgin birth, exclusivity

> doctrine, son of God [the term he actually applies to himself

is "Son

> of Man" or "Son of the People"]; etc) and start looking at what he

> actually (or apparently actually) said -- i.e. the religion *of*

> Jesus -- what comes through is a lot of the same stuff you find in

> the Hindu and Buddhist traditions.

>

> This material is no "off the Web" speculation, but honest-to-

goodness

> scholarship from the Oxford Companion and -- even moreso -- the

work

> of esteemed Biblical scholars such as John Dominic Crossan. (In

fact,

> there is also fairly established Hindu lore placing Jesus in India

> during that long gap in New Testament accounts between his early

teen

> years, and his reappearance at age 31 or so. There are other

> traditions placing him in India *after* the crucifiction, which

this

> tradition says he escaped alive.)

>

> Anyway, some of the best discussions of the guru/disciple

> relationship I've ever seen can be found in Jesus's teachings.

Many

> Hindu Gurus -- from Vivekananda to Amritananda -- freely quote him

in

> their various teachings. For some people raised in the more

> restrictive interpretations of mainstream Abrahamic traditions, it

> can be mind-opening and a useful bridge to Eastern thought.

>

> DB

>

> , "prainbow61" <paulie-

> rainbow@u...> wrote:

> >

> > Namaste:

> >

> > Is there A N Y way to link this back to the Goddess? I've had

it

> up to my ears with the

> > Abramic tradition this week.

> >

> > Blessings,

> >

> > prainbow

[Guest guest]

, "prainbow61" <paulie-

rainbow@u...> wrote:

> Is there A N Y way to link this back to the Goddess? [....]

 

Good question.

Now you've got me thinking, Paulie.

 

I have a whole wall filled with lovely images of God in feminine form-

-all from the (relatively conservative) Catholic tradition. I have

images from other traditions as well, but more Christian images than

anything else, probably because I know the artists.

 

And yet a search of the (religiously liberal) Jesus Seminar website

turns up almost nothing related to the divine feminine. Hmmmm. Is

the Christian tradition of the divine feminine only a feature of the

Catholic tradition? I've never investigated the textual/scriptural

sources for the (Christian) images I have--I actually *don't* know

anything about the basis for these images. Perhaps I'll go chase

references this weekend.

 

As an aside, for those interested in John Dominic Crossan and his

colleagues (i.e. the "Jesus Seminar" scholars), here are some links

to essays; BeliefNet has them grouped under "Revisionist":

 

http://www.beliefnet.com/features/searchforjesus/books.asp

 

And here is the Jesus Seminar homepage:

http://virtualreligion.net/forum/

 

And now we'll get back on topic!

[Guest guest]

I want to thank those who have been posting on this thread because I

feel this IS on topic for Shakti Sadhana; it is for me, even if

others are not appreciative of how that can be possible.

 

Re female divinity in the west: I have always felt that Catholicism

most closely resembles the Hindu religion in that Catholicism has

female saints and martyrs.

 

Mary Ann

 

, "msbauju" <msbauju>

wrote:

>

> , "prainbow61" <paulie-

> rainbow@u...> wrote:

>

> > Is there A N Y way to link this back to the Goddess? [....]

>

> Good question.

> Now you've got me thinking, Paulie.

>

> I have a whole wall filled with lovely images of God in feminine

form-

> -all from the (relatively conservative) Catholic tradition. I

have

> images from other traditions as well, but more Christian images

than

> anything else, probably because I know the artists.

>

> And yet a search of the (religiously liberal) Jesus Seminar

website

> turns up almost nothing related to the divine feminine. Hmmmm. Is

> the Christian tradition of the divine feminine only a feature of

the

> Catholic tradition? I've never investigated the

textual/scriptural

> sources for the (Christian) images I have--I actually *don't* know

> anything about the basis for these images. Perhaps I'll go chase

> references this weekend.

>

> As an aside, for those interested in John Dominic Crossan and his

> colleagues (i.e. the "Jesus Seminar" scholars), here are some

links

> to essays; BeliefNet has them grouped under "Revisionist":

>

> http://www.beliefnet.com/features/searchforjesus/books.asp

>

> And here is the Jesus Seminar homepage:

> http://virtualreligion.net/forum/

>

> And now we'll get back on topic!

[Guest guest]

*** Catholicism most closely resembles the Hindu religion in that

Catholicism has female saints and martyrs. ***

 

That is true, you know. I was once told by a distinguished, dyed-in-

the-wool, convent-schooled Irish Catholic woman of about 70 years

that she understood Hinduism's many-in-One vision of the Divine as

being a pretty much direct counterpart to popular Roman

Catholicism's saints and martyrs and whatnot; and its pilgrimage

sites as well. While she stuck with the Catholic path because it is

what she knew best, she found Hinduism to be simply grand.

 

Roman Catholicism also resembles Hindu Tantra in its use of

repetitive physical ritual, mantra (short formulaic prayers), japa

(multiple repetitions of those formulas), the sonic significance of

a set liturgical language (Latin rather than Sanskrit), mudra

(prescribed performance of kneeling, standing, sitting, making sign

of cross, etc.), ashes as prasad (Lent), meditational dhyana (the

Sacred Heart, King of Kings, Crucifixion, Virgin Mother, etc);

physical substances as symbolic of spiritual properties (bread and

wine, candles, etc); use of dhoop (incense); one could go on and on.

 

There must be some connection between the forms somewhere back in

the mists of history, ... BUT it must be observed that the

Exclusivity Doctrine and essential materiality (resurrection in the

early body; one life cycle followed by eternal reward or punishment,

etc) of all the mainstream Christian sects definitively separates

them from the Hindu traditions.

 

A Tantric Hindu tradition like Shaktism -- because it is not really

compromised by any one, restrictively enforced image of the divine --

has the advantage of preserving all of these elements as integral

parts of an uninterrupted, initiatory tradition that encompasses all

aspects of life and death and the Universe. Catholicism, while

preserving elements of such a tradition -- is hamstrung by its own

doctrinal rigidity; at least as far as its quasi-Tantric elements

are concerned. The pieces are used to strong effect indeed, but not

the strongest possible effect, because they are divorced from their

holistic roots.

 

That's not to say Shaktism is without a certainly amount of

doctrinal rigidity -- every somewhat organized religious tradition,

be it Hindu, Catholic, whatever -- has some basic tenets, which you

either accept or reject. These provide the conceptual framework

within which the more subtle spiritual techniques are performed --

guru and shishya must have at least some common ground in terms of

imagery, theology, and basic worldview if the transfer of knowledge

is to be effective.

 

DB

[Guest guest]

Hi Mary Ann:

 

*** Hm. Well, the teller refers to it as a parable, but did Jesus

himself say it was a parable? ***

 

I explained the situation as best I could in message 14971. Three

gospels tell the tale, the earliest one as a parable, the second as

an act of Jesus, and the third basically repeating the second. You

now know as much as the scholars, textually. The rest is a matter of

interpretation.

 

*** I obviously have no leg to stand on in the face of these

esteemed albeit online sources ***

 

The source of the version I offered is nothing so exotic; it's the

Gospel of Luke, Ch. 13:6-9. Check it out in any old copy of the

bible.

 

DB

[Guest guest]

>And yet a search of the (religiously liberal) Jesus Seminar website

>turns up almost nothing related to the divine feminine.

 

That is a very good point. I haven't seen the site, but the books of

Crossan, Mack and others involved show the same silence. It remains a

taboo. Jane Schaberg makes the same point about these scholars in her

magisterial Resurrection of Mary Magdalene.

 

--

Max Dashu

Suppressed Histories Archives

Global Women's History

http://www.suppressedhistories.net

 

 

[Guest guest]

Hi Max:

 

You're right that Crossan (I'm more familiar with his work than that

of Mack) is silent on the divine feminine; but I wonder how much of

this is due to a scholarly disinterest in Goddess studies, and how

much is due to the fact that there simply isn't much there to find.

 

There seems to be abundant evidence pointing to Jesus's preference

of Mary Magdalene as chief disciple, and it seems quite possible

that they were married. There is also intriguing evidence that the

historical Jesus's teachings included a Shiva/Shakti-like vision of

Divinity:

 

"When you make the two one, and when you make the inner as the outer

and the outer as the inner and the above as the below, and when you

make the male and female into a single one, so that the male will

not be male and the female not be female .... then you shall enter

the Kingdom." - Jesus of Nazareth, Gospel of Thomas, Logion 22

 

Have you read "Jesus and the Lost Goddess: The Secret Teachings of

the Original Christians" by Timothy Frere and Peter Gandy? A good

friend recommended it to me some time ago. I looked at the Amazon

reviews and found a passionate split of love-hate reactions to it --

almost always the sign of a worthwhile read. This book delves deep

into territories hinted at in Baring and Cashford's "Myth of the

Goddess" -- i.e. the entire Jesus mythos as a retelling of ancient,

prototypical God/Goddess stories.

 

All of this is fine and very interesting. But I wonder if Crossan

and the rest see it as a series of dead-end tangents that do little

to illuminate the central teachings of Jesus. It seems that, like the

Buddha, Ramakrishna, Vivekananda and so many other great spiritual

teachers, Jesus was not particularly hung up on distinctions on

gender, class, caste, social rank, wealth, etc. He seems to have

been primarily interested in distinctions of spiritual development.

But that doesn't take his teachings so far outside the Abrahamic

traditions that they suddenly become Goddess- or woman-friendly.

 

If we attempt to selectively highlight certain sayings or historical

theories to create the *impression* that Jesus did teach some kind

of Goddess spirituality, we are distorting his words as much as the

Early Church fathers did in the other direction. At best, I think

Jesus's point (which allowed the Mary cult and various cults of

female saints to blossom and flourish alongside their male

counterparts) is that spirituality is gender-irrelevant.

 

That's my impression anyway ...

 

DB

 

, Max Dashu <maxdashu@l...>

wrote:

> >And yet a search of the (religiously liberal) Jesus Seminar

website

> >turns up almost nothing related to the divine feminine.

>

> That is a very good point. I haven't seen the site, but the books

of

> Crossan, Mack and others involved show the same silence. It

remains a

> taboo. Jane Schaberg makes the same point about these scholars in

her

> magisterial Resurrection of Mary Magdalene.

>

> --

> Max Dashu

> Suppressed Histories Archives

> Global Women's History

> http://www.suppressedhistories.net

>

>

[Guest guest]

Namaste,

 

And yet this presumes an historical Jesus, which I find unconvincing.

 

Blessings,

 

prainbow

 

 

 

 

, "Devi Bhakta" <devi_bhakta> wrote:

>

> Hi Max:

>

> You're right that Crossan (I'm more familiar with his work than that

> of Mack) is silent on the divine feminine; but I wonder how much of

> this is due to a scholarly disinterest in Goddess studies, and how

> much is due to the fact that there simply isn't much there to find.

>

> There seems to be abundant evidence pointing to Jesus's preference

> of Mary Magdalene as chief disciple, and it seems quite possible

> that they were married. There is also intriguing evidence that the

> historical Jesus's teachings included a Shiva/Shakti-like vision of

> Divinity:

>

> "When you make the two one, and when you make the inner as the outer

> and the outer as the inner and the above as the below, and when you

> make the male and female into a single one, so that the male will

> not be male and the female not be female .... then you shall enter

> the Kingdom." - Jesus of Nazareth, Gospel of Thomas, Logion 22

>

> Have you read "Jesus and the Lost Goddess: The Secret Teachings of

> the Original Christians" by Timothy Frere and Peter Gandy? A good

> friend recommended it to me some time ago. I looked at the Amazon

> reviews and found a passionate split of love-hate reactions to it --

> almost always the sign of a worthwhile read. This book delves deep

> into territories hinted at in Baring and Cashford's "Myth of the

> Goddess" -- i.e. the entire Jesus mythos as a retelling of ancient,

> prototypical God/Goddess stories.

>

> All of this is fine and very interesting. But I wonder if Crossan

> and the rest see it as a series of dead-end tangents that do little

> to illuminate the central teachings of Jesus. It seems that, like the

> Buddha, Ramakrishna, Vivekananda and so many other great spiritual

> teachers, Jesus was not particularly hung up on distinctions on

> gender, class, caste, social rank, wealth, etc. He seems to have

> been primarily interested in distinctions of spiritual development.

> But that doesn't take his teachings so far outside the Abrahamic

> traditions that they suddenly become Goddess- or woman-friendly.

>

> If we attempt to selectively highlight certain sayings or historical

> theories to create the *impression* that Jesus did teach some kind

> of Goddess spirituality, we are distorting his words as much as the

> Early Church fathers did in the other direction. At best, I think

> Jesus's point (which allowed the Mary cult and various cults of

> female saints to blossom and flourish alongside their male

> counterparts) is that spirituality is gender-irrelevant.

>

> That's my impression anyway ...

>

> DB

>

> , Max Dashu <maxdashu@l...>

> wrote:

> > >And yet a search of the (religiously liberal) Jesus Seminar

> website

> > >turns up almost nothing related to the divine feminine.

> >

> > That is a very good point. I haven't seen the site, but the books

> of

> > Crossan, Mack and others involved show the same silence. It

> remains a

> > taboo. Jane Schaberg makes the same point about these scholars in

> her

> > magisterial Resurrection of Mary Magdalene.

> >

> > --

> > Max Dashu

> > Suppressed Histories Archives

> > Global Women's History

> > http://www.suppressedhistories.net

> >

> >

[Guest guest]

, "Devi Bhakta"

<devi_bhakta> wrote:

>

> [...] Crossan [....] is silent on the divine feminine;

> but I wonder how much of

> this is due to a scholarly disinterest in Goddess studies, and how

> much is due to the fact that there simply isn't much there to find.

 

As far as interest or disinterest goes, who knows.

But I think the latter may definitely be the case--there just isn't

much there to find.

>

> [....] There is also intriguing evidence that the

> historical Jesus's teachings included a Shiva/Shakti-like

> vision of Divinity:

>

> "When you make the two one, and when you make the inner as the outer

> and the outer as the inner and the above as the below, and when you

> make the male and female into a single one, so that the male will

> not be male and the female not be female .... then you shall enter

> the Kingdom." - Jesus of Nazareth, Gospel of Thomas, Logion 22

 

The male/female part seems almost an incidental part of a rather odd

list in the passage, as I read it:

 

http://www.sacred-texts.com/chr/thomas.htm

 

Jesus said to them, "When you make the two one, and when you

make the inside like the outside and the outside like the inside,

and the above like the below, and when you make the male and the

female one and the same, so that the male not be male nor the

female female; and when you fashion eyes in the place of an eye,

and a hand in place of a hand, and a foot in place of a foot, and

a likeness in place of a likeness; then will you enter [the

Kingdom]."

 

But your interpretation is interesting--and more so than my bland

confusion--so I'm certainly not contradicting you.

> [....] But I wonder if Crossan

> and the rest see it as a series of dead-end tangents that do little

> to illuminate the central teachings of Jesus.

 

My best guess is that the Christian tradition of the divine feminine,

such as it is, isn't based (in a literal or textual sense) on

statements in the gospels. And so it's just not on Crossan's radar

screen.

> Jesus was not particularly hung up on distinctions on

> gender, class, caste, social rank, wealth, etc.

 

Or he *was* hung up on rejecting those distinctions, and the purity

codes based on the distinctions. I guess which way one looks at it

depends on how, and to what extent, one thinks Jesus was attempting

reform of the Jewish system.

 

Well, anyway, I think I've pretty much satisfied myself as to where

the divine feminine fits in (or doesn't fit in) in Christian

tradition.

 

Thank you (and Max, MAV, and Paulie) for an interesting discussion.

[Guest guest]

I have not heard/read the point of view of anyone who denies the

historical / corporeal existence of Jesus before. I realize this

isn't the forum for that kind of depth (unless you feel you want to

offer something), but I'd be interested if you have a link to some

material you rely on re that perspective.

 

MAV

 

, "prainbow61" <paulie-

rainbow@u...> wrote:

>

> Namaste,

>

> And yet this presumes an historical Jesus, which I find

unconvincing.

>

> Blessings,

>

> prainbow

>

>

>

>

> , "Devi Bhakta"

<devi_bhakta> wrote:

> >

> > Hi Max:

> >

> > You're right that Crossan (I'm more familiar with his work than

that

> > of Mack) is silent on the divine feminine; but I wonder how much

of

> > this is due to a scholarly disinterest in Goddess studies, and

how

> > much is due to the fact that there simply isn't much there to

find.

> >

> > There seems to be abundant evidence pointing to Jesus's

preference

> > of Mary Magdalene as chief disciple, and it seems quite possible

> > that they were married. There is also intriguing evidence that

the

> > historical Jesus's teachings included a Shiva/Shakti-like vision

of

> > Divinity:

> >

> > "When you make the two one, and when you make the inner as the

outer

> > and the outer as the inner and the above as the below, and when

you

> > make the male and female into a single one, so that the male will

> > not be male and the female not be female .... then you shall

enter

> > the Kingdom." - Jesus of Nazareth, Gospel of Thomas, Logion 22

> >

> > Have you read "Jesus and the Lost Goddess: The Secret Teachings

of

> > the Original Christians" by Timothy Frere and Peter Gandy? A good

> > friend recommended it to me some time ago. I looked at the Amazon

> > reviews and found a passionate split of love-hate reactions to

it --

> > almost always the sign of a worthwhile read. This book delves

deep

> > into territories hinted at in Baring and Cashford's "Myth of the

> > Goddess" -- i.e. the entire Jesus mythos as a retelling of

ancient,

> > prototypical God/Goddess stories.

> >

> > All of this is fine and very interesting. But I wonder if

Crossan

> > and the rest see it as a series of dead-end tangents that do

little

> > to illuminate the central teachings of Jesus. It seems that,

like the

> > Buddha, Ramakrishna, Vivekananda and so many other great

spiritual

> > teachers, Jesus was not particularly hung up on distinctions on

> > gender, class, caste, social rank, wealth, etc. He seems to have

> > been primarily interested in distinctions of spiritual

development.

> > But that doesn't take his teachings so far outside the Abrahamic

> > traditions that they suddenly become Goddess- or woman-friendly.

> >

> > If we attempt to selectively highlight certain sayings or

historical

> > theories to create the *impression* that Jesus did teach some

kind

> > of Goddess spirituality, we are distorting his words as much as

the

> > Early Church fathers did in the other direction. At best, I think

> > Jesus's point (which allowed the Mary cult and various cults of

> > female saints to blossom and flourish alongside their male

> > counterparts) is that spirituality is gender-irrelevant.

> >

> > That's my impression anyway ...

> >

> > DB

> >

> > , Max Dashu <maxdashu@l...>

> > wrote:

> > > >And yet a search of the (religiously liberal) Jesus Seminar

> > website

> > > >turns up almost nothing related to the divine feminine.

> > >

> > > That is a very good point. I haven't seen the site, but the

books

> > of

> > > Crossan, Mack and others involved show the same silence. It

> > remains a

> > > taboo. Jane Schaberg makes the same point about these scholars

in

> > her

> > > magisterial Resurrection of Mary Magdalene.

> > >

> > > --

> > > Max Dashu

> > > Suppressed Histories Archives

> > > Global Women's History

> > > http://www.suppressedhistories.net

> > >

> > >

[Guest guest]

it is lovely, bravo ! bravo!

cella

[Guest guest]

Hi prainbow ...

 

Oh, I can't even begin to argue the whole "Was there an historical

Jesus?" debate, other than to say that the simple, organic

explanations are more likely than the winding, convuluted ones.

 

I am neither Christian nor pagan; I am simply Shakta, which may well

be a license to ignore me altogether on this subject. So be it. But

I think there is definitely a voice there, a very coherent message

and tone that makes me quite sure that a single historical figure is

there, behind all of the sound and fury. I speak not as a "true

believer," not as an academic critic, but simply as an attentive,

sensitive reader: It is really very easy to feel the violent shifts

of tone; interposed texts in a different voice ... then suddenly

that distinct voice returns. It's like when you listen to "Prince

Igor," you can feel the shifts from Borodin's incomplete original

score to the passages by Rimsky-Korsakov's and his students, which

were added to ready it for publication and performance. It's a

distinct voice, albeit trying to sing the same tune. Sometimes you

feel it in Shakespeare's plays too; a dissonant voice intrudes for a

moment, and you're like, "Who the hell was that?" Then Shakespeare

returns.

 

Much of the new testament is, I agree, a compilation, a pastiche

covering many historical periods and many writers with various axes

to grind and agendas to advance. And it reads that way, too. I am

not interested in the epistles or the revelations. I am simple

interested in scraps of original tradition that are preserved in the

four gospels.

 

I understand that virgin births, crucifixions and resurrections were

all in the mythological air in those days. I am aware of the

scholarship that can trace them, one by one, back to tribal, pre-

Christian, and pagan traditions. I know that the early Church

fathers consciously cobbled the "Christianity" together using

elements of classical philosophy, pagan ritual, Greek mystery

religion (probably the source of the Tantric parallels I mentioned

the other day), and all kind of other mismatched sources. The

resulting Jesus was,as you suggest, most certainly a fictional

character. (The fictionalization continues, of course: George W

Bush's Evangelical Jesus is Pro-American, Conservative, Anti-

Homosexual, Pro-Gun, Anti-Abortion, Pro-Business, and resolutely

Republican.)

 

But all you have to do is read the Sermon on the Mount and a few of

the parables, and you know there's a real, single, human voice back

there. An intelligent, compassionate, enlightened voice as real as

Buddha or Ramakrishna or any great spiritual teacher. Who was it? A

preternaturally intelligent, spiritually gifted reform rabbi, circa

4 AD, named Yeshua, probably illegitimate, scoffed at as an uppity

carpenter-turned-preacher in his hometown, and a thorn in the side

of the Roman occupiers, the Jewish priesthood, and the various

underground rebel movements that tried to put his crowd-wowing

oratory to work for them? Who knows? My gut tells me, probably yeah.

 

Any huge mass (and the early Church quickly expanded to became the

world's first inconceivably vast and powerful multinational

corporation) needs an organizing principle, a center of gravity if

you will. It cannot appear out of thin air. It cannot be entirely

knit together from miscellaneous bits. Maybe 99% of the edifice that

became "Christianity" was begged, borrowed and stolen from a million

diverse sources -- that much can be (and has been) well documented.

 

But it's the gravitational pull of that one powerful voice at the

center that held it all together -- like the pulsing, hyperdense

neutron star at the center of a black hole, which creates a massive,

all-devouring warp in time-space (essentially what the Chirch

became, no?), and is then swallowed up by it. Even though the

physical substance of the star disappears in the new entity its

existence made possible, the massive gravity field remains as

eternal proof that it was once there.

 

Anyway, that's the way it seems to me.

 

DB

 

 

, "prainbow61" <paulie-

rainbow@u...> wrote:

>

> Namaste,

>

> And yet this presumes an historical Jesus, which I find

unconvincing.

>

> Blessings,

>

> prainbow

[Guest guest]

lol ! -- i haven't checked this mailbox in a few days and now i pop my head

in here and this is the box where i get the messages delivered

and my box is filled up with "Lovely thought" and more "Lovely thoughts" and

I didn't even need to know what it was about it just made me smile and really

it made me Grin. And now here's this about Jesus and parables and it's just

too much I'm going back to the light pleasant feeling I got by seeing "Lovely

thoughts" and how it made me chuckle cuz it sure is a change from a thread

from a while back i opened up to find a box full of one day messages about

drinking urine and eating shit...

lol ;-) what a Switch!

 

peace,

cathie

In a message dated 2/16/2005 3:26:34 PM Mountain Standard Time,

devi_bhakta writes:

> Hi Mary Ann:

>

> *** Hm. Well, the teller refers to it as a parable, but did Jesus

> himself say it was a parable? ***

>

 

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

BTW I wanted to mention that the fig tree story does NOT appear in

Neil Douglas-Klotz' The Hidden Gospel; I am not sure where I read a

literal interpretation of that passage. However, I do prefer the

first version of the story from Luke (I think DB said, the one where

it is recommended to give the tree some fertilizer and time and room

to grow and develop).

 

In The Hidden Gospel, Klotz uses translations of Aramaic to broaden

the meanings of commonly known sayings of Jesus. The author says

that he hopes his work inspires creativity and life-affirming

thoughts and deeds. I feel it affirms the female/feminine, though I

don't recall whether he discusses that aspect specifically. I think

he touches upon it at least.

 

MAV

 

 

, "msbauju" <msbauju>

wrote:

>

> , "Devi Bhakta"

> <devi_bhakta> wrote:

> >

> > [...] Crossan [....] is silent on the divine feminine;

> > but I wonder how much of

> > this is due to a scholarly disinterest in Goddess studies, and

how

> > much is due to the fact that there simply isn't much there to

find.

>

> As far as interest or disinterest goes, who knows.

> But I think the latter may definitely be the case--there just

isn't

> much there to find.

> >

> > [....] There is also intriguing evidence that the

> > historical Jesus's teachings included a Shiva/Shakti-like

> > vision of Divinity:

> >

> > "When you make the two one, and when you make the inner as the

outer

> > and the outer as the inner and the above as the below, and when

you

> > make the male and female into a single one, so that the male will

> > not be male and the female not be female .... then you shall

enter

> > the Kingdom." - Jesus of Nazareth, Gospel of Thomas, Logion 22

>

> The male/female part seems almost an incidental part of a rather

odd

> list in the passage, as I read it:

>

> http://www.sacred-texts.com/chr/thomas.htm

>

> Jesus said to them, "When you make the two one, and when you

> make the inside like the outside and the outside like the inside,

> and the above like the below, and when you make the male and the

> female one and the same, so that the male not be male nor the

> female female; and when you fashion eyes in the place of an eye,

> and a hand in place of a hand, and a foot in place of a foot, and

> a likeness in place of a likeness; then will you enter [the

> Kingdom]."

>

> But your interpretation is interesting--and more so than my bland

> confusion--so I'm certainly not contradicting you.

>

> > [....] But I wonder if Crossan

> > and the rest see it as a series of dead-end tangents that do

little

> > to illuminate the central teachings of Jesus.

>

> My best guess is that the Christian tradition of the divine

feminine,

> such as it is, isn't based (in a literal or textual sense) on

> statements in the gospels. And so it's just not on Crossan's

radar

> screen.

>

> > Jesus was not particularly hung up on distinctions on

> > gender, class, caste, social rank, wealth, etc.

>

> Or he *was* hung up on rejecting those distinctions, and the

purity

> codes based on the distinctions. I guess which way one looks at

it

> depends on how, and to what extent, one thinks Jesus was

attempting

> reform of the Jewish system.

>

> Well, anyway, I think I've pretty much satisfied myself as to

where

> the divine feminine fits in (or doesn't fit in) in Christian

> tradition.

>

> Thank you (and Max, MAV, and Paulie) for an interesting discussion.