Bro. Hex

Welcome, fellow Gnostic! Thanks for introducing yourself. Hex

Since you are talking NON-PROFIT, there are really only two choices for corporation-like structure: (1) Regular Corporation (2) LLC LLC is the hands-down favorite for minimizing paperwork and associated costs. (IMHO)

Philip is much harder to understand, and isn't enumerated the way Thomas is, for ease of reference. Still, whenever he has something to say (that I am able to understand), he has an interesting and unusual way of putting things. So I like to dust off my copy every once-in-a-while and give Philip some air-time ;>)

Excellent "demonstration" friend. In the following quotation, when you read about "the Resurrection", think "The Kingdom", for that is what Philip is talking about (imho). "Those who say they will die first and then rise are in error. If they do not first receive the resurrection while they live, when they die they will receive nothing." The Gospel of Philip

Or putz?

Then BUY a hairdryer (call it an "itch eliminator", if you like!) You are not called "Electric Wiccan" for nuttin', right?

But I LIKE being Goyem, and I don't want anybody cutting on ME!

I have a bit of time on my hands at work, so I will now answer this question as best I can: Something specific indeed. Something reality shattering. I will use a very appropriate word that you used recently, Cool, in a slightly different context: Immanent. Here is what Thomas has to say, which is very important to me, and to my understanding of "the Kingdom": (113) His disciples said to him, "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 upon the earth, and men do not see it." Logion 113, Gospel of Thomas The Father's Kingdom is "right here, right now", and all it takes to enter is to "see correctly", to understand that "the kingdom" is something that we participate in, make happen, while we live, otherwise we do not participate in it at all. Gospel of Philip says something very similar which I will look up later, but the gist is, you do not have to wait until you die to enter the kingdom, and if you do wait until you die, you shall not enter. If you do enter into the Father's kingdom while you live, it will not matter to you what, if anything, happens to follow this life, you will already have entered the promised land. But to enter, you must see correctly, understand correctly, BE correctly. It really is very similar to the notion that one must be "born again".

First, an aside: 9 Jesus said, Look, the sower went out, took a handful (of seeds), and scattered (them). Some fell on the road, and the birds came and gathered them. Others fell on rock, and they didn't take root in the soil and didn't produce heads of grain. Others fell on thorns, and they choked the seeds and worms ate them. And others fell on good soil, and it produced a good crop: it yielded sixty per measure and one hundred twenty per measure. (Gospel of Thomas Logion 9) Next, one of the many things that Thomas tells us "about the kingdom": 3 Jesus said, "If your leaders say to you, 'Look, the (Father's) 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. Rather, the (Father's) kingdom is within you and it is outside you. When you know yourselves, then you will be known, and you will understand that you are children of the living Father. But if you do not know yourselves, then you live in poverty, and you are the poverty." Gospel of Thomas, Logion 3) I realize I haven't yet given MY answer to your kingdom question, Cool, but I am late for work, so I will come back to this topic a bit later. Cheers, Hex

Remember that this is a PERSONAL reflection=analysis-understanding on/of the text, and represents only one man's view: In 4:3 thru 4:9 we have an example of Jesus' words which I consider to be very authentic, and which ends with a "classic" Jesus line "He who has ears, let him hear". The remainder of Mark 4 I consider to be both problematic and conflicted: First problem: In4:10 Jesus says "the secret of the kingdom of God has been given to you,but to those on the outside everything is said in parables". Jesus states that the secret has already been revealed to the twelve "in plain English" (so to speak). And that the parables are "for outsiders". "The twelve" have no need of parables pointing toward the truth...they are "already in the know"...and then he proceeds to explain the parables to them as if they were "totally in the dark". But the most important problem that I see in the text-thus-far comes in 4:12 where Jesus says "otherwise they might turn and be forgiven"...as if that were "a bad thing". I consider that phrase a likely candidate for "a late addition" to the text, and probably not Jesus' words at all. Actually IMHO Jesus' true words ended at "Let them hear", and all that follows in Mark 4 are later additions and story-telling, written for the benefit of a congregation so that they might understand the parable. Not a lie, but rather a literary device. Next we see Jesus' explanation itself: This last portion, the explanation, as I said earlier, I consider to be a literary device; a teaching device...an explanation crafted by "the community of Mark" so that the folks in the congregation who did not "get" the parable could be treated to the scene of "those dumb apostles" who were just thick-as-a-brick" so much so that "Jesus had to spell-it-out for them...like so" , and thereby allowing the preacher to explain the symbolism to his congregants without it appearing that "he was talking down to them". A teaching device...not a lie...but not the true words of Jesus, either. This also applies in my opinion to the part (verse 13) where Jesus supposedly says "this is the most important parable...you have to get this one or how else will you get the others?". Another teaching device by the preacher, designed to stress the importance of looking for symbolic meaning behind the apparently simple words of Jesus. In my opinion this parable, while an important one, has no bearing on our understanding of Jesus' other parables.

I think I can clear that up. (and then please can we move back to discussing Liberal Christianity, everyone?). Just as you it wouldn't be accurate to point to Pete or to me to demonstrate "What Christians believe", it isn't accurate to point to a Messianic Jew to demonstrate that "Jews believe in the Afterlife" Sure, you could point to Pete or to me to demonstrate that some Christians don't believe that Jesus was divine. But we are hardly representative of "What most Christians believe". Likewise, to demonstrate that "Jews believe in the Afterlife", it is not "good science" to point toward a very small sub-set of Jewish faith (Messianic Jews) to demonstrate that "Jews believe in an afterlife". Some Jews (who many, many Jews don't even wish to acknowledge as being of "the same faith")believe in an Afterlife. Some Christians (who many, many Christians don't even wish to acknowledge as being of "the same faith") don't believe in the Resurrection. Ultra-liberal Christians should not be used as an example of "What Christians believe". Messianic Jews should not be used as an example of "what Jews believe". I think that Pete's original statement... that "unlike Christians or Muslims, Jews (most Jews) do not believe in an Afterlife"...that statement is essentially accurate. I hope this clears up the "Jewish Question" (bad pun intended). Can we now please return to a discussion of Liberal Christianity???

Excellent Post, Dan!!!

You are right, Rev Rainbow, we do care about each other here, and I must confess that I am the one who is principally responsible for all of the confusion over the issue of Jewishness vs. Judaism by conflating the two into one.

Nice post, Michael! And as we all know, wishy-washy and heat don't go together. If you want wishy-washy you have to reach for a SLUSHY...or a SNOW CONE... Mmmmmmmmm sounds good in this HEAT!

I think this would be an excellent juncture to perhaps either start a NEW THREAD called: What do Jews Believe about "The Afterlife"?, or perhaps a thread under Sacred Texts to discuss What is the meaning of The Book of Daniel, 12:1-3? THEN we could all go back to discussing Liberal Christianity here. Otherwise, I think I am going to have to start a thread called Liberal Christianity-3

I cannot answer for the Jewish people. And I cannot accept "one man's answer", no matter how learned that one man might be. I can only say that I have never met a Jew who believed in an afterlife, and I have worked with, socialized with, and been acquainted with many Jews over the last 40+ years. I have broken bread with Jews, gotten shnockered with Jews, and I have attended Jewish funerals. Not once has any belief in an afterlife been expressed...and yes, the subject has "come up"many times Have you ever met a Jew who believed in an afterlife? ˓

If you are trying to get at "what did the author intend to communicate?" I think we would need for a Jew to answer that question for us. I don't think that we Gentiles have an appropriate frame-of-reference.

I think you misunderstand, Dan, if you conclude that most Liberal Christians don't believe that Jesus died for the remission of sin. I don't think we can conclude "one way or the other" on that issue. I think that a "head count" might yield a 50-50 split as to what an average population of Liberal Christians actually believe on this issue. More importantly (from my perspective) is that a Liberal Christian would not feel obliged to profess such a belief. Interestingly, with regard to these two essential tenets of the faith, Neither of these were taught by Jesus. Neither, therefore, have any bearing on whether one tries to live their life in accord with the teachings and example of Jesus.

7/12 Reformed 1/6 Hasidic, 1/6 Orthodox 1/12 Secular That would be pretty average...in NYC. (In truth, I think I may have BADLY underestimated the Secular! )

Interesting points, Tsukino. I had not considered this viewpoint. Thanks for this alternative perspective!

I don't think that Daniel disproves Pete's point. Sure, you can find some support for the idea of an afterlife and the idea of eternal punishment within Jewish Scripture. But you have to go looking for it. Ask the average Jew on the street "is there an afterlife?" and you will get "no" for an answer. Ask the average Jew "is there such a place as heaven or hell? and again, you will hear "no". Ask the average Christian or the average Muslim these same questions, and you will hear a resounding "yes". This Scripture in Daniel is to be understood as the exception that proves the rule. I think Pete's point is quite sound.

In my opinion, a very important bridge indeed.

Oh please, can I answer this one? I know that I am not supposed to (because Pete is right; only you can truly answer this), But I sense that you are really asking "am I all alone in this perspective?" Let's see, you don't believe Jesus had to die for our sins. I don't believe that Jesus DID die for our sins. You don't believe in the virgin birth. Me neither. You say there is no hell? Me too. No devil? Ditto. (I don't believe that he rose from the dead, either, even though I readily acknowledge that "resurrection" is a wonderful mythic theme... but you didn't ask that one!) If I understand you correctly, you believe that "the Christ Spirit" was visited upon "the man Jesus", and this was "the most recent such "incarnation" (that we are aware of). That's pretty much how I see the matter too. Of course, for me this isn't dogma, it's just my way of talking about something truly incomprehensible. So, are you a Liberal Christian, Michael? Do you try to live your life in accord with the teachings and example of Jesus? I think you do. That makes you a Christian. and the stuff we have just here discussed makes you a Liberal Christian. Now about those fire flies...

Yes, I would agree with that completely. I would like to add (in reference to your other post) that I see God as both transcendental and immanent. However, I am speaking only for myself, and can't say whether or not this would be true for Liberal Christians in general.

Super website... Thanks, Pete!