Jehovah Unmasked, Audacious Heretic Females, etc.

Here’s the link to Jehovah Unmasked: The True Identity of the Bible-God Revealed.  Such an eye-opener: describes the Key of Gnosis that Jesus came to give us, solves the Problem of Evil, shows the role of women in the early church as priests and bishops, Magdalene as Yeshua’s spouse and teaching partner, Sophia in the Old Testament, is a primer on REAL gnosticism, not that world-loathing flesh-hating gnosticism you have read about.  

Jehovah Unmasked’s main premise is that the nasty, vengeful people-killing god in the Old Testament, “Jehovah” is not the loving God-the-Father Jesus came from. He is really Satan and/or the Demiurge especially when he sends “lying spirits of God to deceive the people” thru his prophets, and so forth.  Half the time the Old Testament god is really Satan or Ialdobaoth, not the benevolent non-violent God who is All-Mother Sophia’s other half. Jesus himself told us this world is ruled by the Prince of Darkness and remember that’s why Satan had the “authority” to test Jesus and try to break him down — because Jesus had come to Satan’s turf to try to rescue (“save”) us. More about the good god and bad god all confused with one another at the link above. (Yes, it IS dualism, but it’s a good read and I like it, so there).

A verse the author quotes about everything making sense when we realize which I like:
“I am now at Home, spiritually, though I remain a pilgrim and a stranger in this world.” (Hebrews 11:13)

The author points out the fact that so many Westerners leave Christianity for reconstructed pagan religions, Eastern religions like Buddhism, Zen or Meditation / Vedanta from India.  He says:  “There is no reason to jettison your culture and embrace foreign religions to find spiritual Reality.  Gnostic Christianity is the inward, esoteric, mystical spirituality that so many Westerners are seeking in Far Eastern religions.  You can find spiritual Reality in the midst of Christianity.”

Here is a short excerpt from the chapter entitled, GOD THE MOTHER

The Gnostic Christians took both God the Mother and God the Father into their hearts, and knew the fullness of Health or “Soteria,” and so should you. Translating “Soteria” as “salvation” usually obscures the real meaning, which is Health.  See Strong’s Greek Lexicon #4991.  “For the Jerusalem Above is free, and She is our Mother.”  Galations 4:26.  

Its quite plain these “church fathers” were full of themselves and … had real power and used it to suppress all feminine descriptions of the Divine as well as to suppress women in general.  … This quote from the so-called “father of the Latin Church,” Tertullian (155-230 A.D.), serves as an example:  “These heretical females! How uppity they are! Lacking any modesty they’re audacious enough to heal the sick, debate, catechize, exorcize and possibly even baptize!” (From “On Prescription Against Heretics“) 

There is a lot of info in this book like that and all so nicely presented, easy to read, I flew thru the book and I am a very busy woman. Hah. Jehovah Unmasked is only $15.24 at Amazon here and you can read inside the book.  The Table of Contents with its chapter titles is interesting in itself.   

…Just call me one of those audacious heretic females.  Sheesh.


Skull, Red Egg, Chakras and Magdalene

Scott Hutton over at the GoddessChristians forum last week posted these interesting observations about the red egg, skull and Magdalene.
I read – whether in his forum or one of his books I can’t say – a most fecund
sharing of Tau Malachi, to wit:

The red egg and the skull that are so often associated with the Magdalene?
Without interfering with the other attributes out there, he suggests: the red
egg points to the first chakra, where in most of us lies the sleeping kundalini
princess will awaken; the skull points one not to death but to the seventh
chakra, where dwells the Awakener. The mystic marriage of these two occurs, of
course, in the fourth chakra, the sacred bridal chamber where the two combine.

I merely share the jotting. I have little to say about it, except to note the
thinking on it leads one to some sublime perceptions indeed. As I’ve been
wearing the Magdalene mysteries medal for some weeks, I am often reminded of
these symbols. Synchronistically, to my immediate right at my computer keyboard
for several years has been a crystal skull (full of rainbows) and a blood red
egg shaped naga eye crystal from Thailand. For at least two years I’ve been
wondering what on earth they’re doing there, and why did it seem so in
appropriate to move them.

Early this week, reading Tau Malachi’s words, I understood.

I tell you, if we just give it half a chance, life can be grand.

All be well,


* * * * * * * * *
Katia here:  I have been contemplating this chakra connection to the symbols of the egg and skull. The Sacred Marriage and the Bridal Chamber sacrament of Gnosticism are so intriguing. The Gospel of Philip is a good place to see the Gnostic sacraments explained.  Explained is too strong a word… the sacraments are pointed to, hinted at, and in some cases symbolically explained in the Gospel of Philip.  The Bridal Chamber is the ultimate Sacrament in Gnosticism and I sure wish I fully understood it… <grin>  
I like the idea of the marriage of mind and body, head and heart.
The skull representing Awakening and the Awakener is very satisfying.  Not sure about the red egg and sexuality… gotta think about that one.  Hee hee.

Feminism, Gnosticism & Roman Church Teach Body is Bad. Also Montsegur, Ides of March, & More

Here is my 25 minute Sunday talk on everything from Montsegur Eve to the Ides of March, Cleopatra and Julius Caesar in a sacred marriage to our topic, How Gnosticism influenced Feminism and the Roman Church into believing the body and the material world — and therefore sex — are bad, corrupt, dirty. 

Click here to listen (27 minutes)

Come back to this page when you’re done listening and then play the video below for our closing hymn, Ave Maria No Morro sung by Andrea Bocelli, the blind tenor of Tuscany with beautiful art slides of Mother Mary, our Christian Goddess.

And here’s an ethereal sounding Ave Maria No Morro sung by Klaus Meine of the rock band, Scorpions. 

Thanks to Margaret Starbird , Joan Norton and Jennifer Reif for the material for this “sermon” which includes a brief guided meditation from Joan and Margaret’s brand new book, 14 Steps to Awaken the Sacred Feminine: Women in the Circle of Mary Magdalene.

Mysteries of the Bridechamber thoughts by Margaret Starbird

Mary Magdalene and Jesus depicted as married by an artist in 1910 in a Dervaig, Scotland church
Mary Magdalene and Jesus depicted as married. Stained glass window of a Dervaig, Scotland church, circa 1908

I endorsed this book [Mysteries of the Bridechamber: The Initiation of Jesus and the Temple of Solomon ] for ITI when it was published last year. I thought the book was remarkable in many ways– but I was sad that Victoria LePage couldn’t fully embrace Mary Magdalene as “true Bride”—In my view, she missed a golden opportunity to celebrate the “Sacred Marriage” at the heart of the Gospels. 

Apparently that “leap of faith” is too difficult for many people — We’ve all been taught to honor the “spiritual” as “high” and the “physical” as “low”–not understanding that they are ONE/ warp and woof of the same tapestry of Life.

I believe we were all “brainwashed ” by the early Gnostic Christians “denial” of the “divinity” of the physical body / flesh as “counterpart” and “consecrated vessel” of the “Spirit.” As my friend Mary Beben so succinctly states, “Spirit fell in love with Matter and united with Her to create the “Cosmos”—it’s a bit like “wave and particle” theory… the “unseen” is “ONE” with the visible. The word for mother in Sanskrit is “matr”–the root of “material,” “mater” (mother), “matrix” et alia….

This is the ultimate “integration of opposites” which we celebrate at the core of the “Sacred Union” in all mythologies…and at the heart of the Christian story.

It is the real meaning of the “nativity” of Jesus, “the Divine became Flesh”— the doctrine of “incarnation.” The sad thing is that we all were taught that the “Divine” became flesh ONLY in Jesus (a one-time event). We fail to grasp that Jesus came to show us that the “Divine” takes flesh in each of us… that We are called to be the incarnation of “Godde.” So our “earthen vessels” (our bodies, fearfully and wonderfully made!) are consecrated containers– 

I believe that one of the reasons that Mary Magdalene carries a “precious box of perfumed ointment” is to remind us of the “sacred container” for which she is the “personification”—model of our own physical “union” of flesh and divinity….

So I wish Victoria LePage could have made that last “leap” –to embrace the “incarnation” of “God in us” (Emmanuel!)….to include Mary Magdalene as “Bride” and “Divine Counterpart.”

The Dervaig window at the “Church of Mary” shows Jesus with a halo, his Bride without a halo. The artist was showing that Mary was “human”– Jesus was Divine. But, in fact, She, too was “Divine”–the “incarnation” of the “Feminine Face of God”—THIS is the doctrine I feel needs so desperately to be corrected in our time….

love and blessings,


To read the discussions that ensued after this post, please visit our GoddessChristians forum starting with Message 20898.

Jesus’ Mystery Teachings require eagerness for Oneness

In my morning devotions I came across this gem in one of my favorite little books (with a big title!), Christian Zen, the Essential Teachings of Jesus Christ: The Secret Sayings of Jesus as Related in the Gospel of Thomas:

Jesus said, “I will disclose my mysteries to those who are worthy of my mysteries.” – Gospel of Thomas verse 62


To understand and live in advaita [absolute Oneness] requires a certain ripeness or maturity. Again, Jesus exhorts his followers to keep the teaching esoteric, and to share it only with those who are ready and eager for it.

* * * * *

The commentary is by the compiler of the book, Robert Powell, a cool Sophianic author whose work I enjoy.

Since we run an online Mystery School and Interfaith Seminary that teaches esoteric mysteries, the above quote really speaks to our mission.  An ‘eagerness’ for the mysteries and for Oneness should be observed before the mysteries are imparted.  Staff members take note, please! <laugh> 

Headed out the door here soon for our weekly Eckhart Tolle teachings gathering.  Tolle imparts a Zen quality to Christianity too…  Put Jesus, Zen, Gnosticism and Tolle’s teachings all together with Magdalene and the sacred union (Oneness), and wow, what more is there? <grin>

If you click on the little book Christian Zen you can read several pages inside. Each page is a different saying from Gospel of Thomas with the Zen interpretation under it — a complete nugget all on its own.  See which page in the Look Inside feature comes up for you.


Is God Beyond Gender? The taboo Judeo-Christian Goddess in YHVH

Rabbi unveils a secret of God

By Gary Stern, The Journal News

 The tradition-bound Western image of a he-man, masculine God may already be thousands of years out of date, says a Westchester rabbi who believes he has unlocked the secret to God’s name and androgynous nature.

 Rabbi Mark Sameth contends in a soon-to-be-published article that the four-letter Hebrew name for God – held by Jewish tradition to be unpronounceable since the year 70 – should actually be read in reverse. When the four letters are flipped, he says, the new name makes the sounds of the Hebrew words for “he” and “she.”

 God thus becomes a dual-gendered deity, bringing together all the male and female energy in the universe, the yin and the yang that have divided the sexes from Adam and Eve to Homer and Marge.

 “This is the kind of God I believe in, the kind of God that makes sense to me, in a language that speaks very, very deeply to human aspirations and striving,” Sameth said.

 “How could God be male and not female?”

 Sameth, 54, the spiritual leader of Pleasantville Community Synagogue, first hit on his theory more than a decade ago when he was a rabbinical student.  Since then, he has quietly pieced together clues and supporting evidence from the Hebrew Bible or Old Testament and the vast body of rabbinic literature.

 His article “Who is He? He is She: The Secret Four-Letter Name of God” will appear in the summer issue of the CCAR Journal, published by the Central Conference of American Rabbis, an association of Reform rabbis.

 Sameth’s theory is not as outlandish as it might seem to the uninitiated.

For one thing, Jewish mystical traditions have long found levels of meaning in the Hebrew Bible beyond those that come from a literal or metaphorical reading. For another, there is a deep tradition in Jewish prayer and thinking, particularly among the so-called mystics, of seeking to reconcile the male and female elements in the universe.

 Sameth’s article includes this: “What the mystics called ‘the secret of one’ is the inner unification of the sometimes competing, sometimes complementing masculine and feminine energies that reside within each of us, regardless whether we are male or female.”

 The notion that God is what Sameth calls a “hermaphroditic deity” could energize the growing movement in many religious traditions to present God in gender-neutral terms, particularly in Scripture.

Rabbi Lawrence Kushner, a revered scholar among liberal Jews who has written extensively on Jewish mysticism and spirituality, called Sameth’s article “delicious, thought-provoking and wise.” Kushner is among a small group of scholars and friends with whom Sameth has shared his article in recent weeks.

“I think most people assume the God of the Hebrew Bible is masculine, but Mark, through some sound and clever research, suggests that God may have always been androgynous, ” Kushner said. “This can affect the way we consider holiness and the divine, and invites us to reconsider our own gender identities, which is kind of a bombshell.”

 The Hebrew name of God that is known as the Tetragrammaton – the four letters Yud-Hay-Vov-Hay – appears 6,823 times in the Hebrew Bible. Since early Hebrew script included no vowels, the pronunciation of the name was known by those who heard it.

 According to Sameth’s footnotes, the name was said only by priests after the destruction of the First Temple in 586 BCE. After the destruction of the Second Temple in 70 CE, the name was no longer said and the pronunciation lost.

 Jewish tradition has long held that the name was too sacred to articulate.

Jews have generally used Adonai, “the Lord,” in place of the Tetragrammaton.

Various Christian groups have pronounced the name as “Yahweh” or “Jehovah.”

Sameth has no intention of speaking the “reversed” name of God that he has uncovered, preferring to focus on its meaning.

“I still won’t pronounce it, intentionally, as God’s name,” he said. “I’m not suggesting that anyone pronounce the name.”

Sameth became fascinated with Jewish mysticism while a rabbinical student in Jerusalem during the early 1990s. He studied with Moshe Idel, a pre-eminent scholar on mysticism, and learned how medieval Spanish Kabbalists and others uncovered mystical meanings from the Torah that had been shrouded in patterns of words and letters.

Once back in New York, at Hebrew Union College-Jewish Institute of Religion, the Reform seminary, Sameth was studying the biblical story of the prophet Nathan reprimanding King David for murder, which becomes a turning point for David. Sameth realized that the Hebrew forms of both names, Nathan and David, are palindromes, words with spellings that can be reversed.

It was, as they say, a revelation.

“It’s about reversibility, ” Sameth said. “King David is changing the direction of his life, and the two key characters, their names are palindromes.

What are the chances of that?”

A new zeal for biblical reversibility led Sameth to flip the four Hebrew letters of the unpronounceable Tetragrammaton. [YHVH becomes HVHY] In his head, he heard the Hebrew words hu and hi. That’s “he/she” in English.

And he felt connected to a long line of Jewish mystics who have mused about the male and female coming together.

“I really believed that I had found something significant, ” Sameth said.

“Then I did 10 years of study to see if I could find support for it.”

Much of his article consists of weaving together clues and examples from Jewish Scripture and wisdom that offer historical context for his thesis. For example, Sameth contends that the Zohar – a medieval, mystical Torah commentary – was referring to God’s dual-gender “when it suggested that the sin of Adam was that he ruined the marriage between the feminine and masculine halves of God by divorcing himself from the feminine.”

He also writes: “We realize now that the secret was almost revealed by the 13th-century Torah commentator Rabbeinu Bachya, who makes note of every four-word cluster in the Torah whose rashei teivot, or initial letters, spell out the Tetragrammaton in reverse.”

Rabbi Jonathan Stein, editor of the CCAR Journal, was on vacation and not available for comment.

Sameth has been the only rabbi at the decade-old Pleasantville Community Synagogue, a self-described “trans-denominational” congregation that includes elements of Reform, Conservative and Reconstructionist Judaism. Congregants come from many backgrounds and communities to the synagogue, which has become known for hearty singing and dancing during services.

Talking recently about his years of study to grasp the meaning of God’s name, Sameth had to stop, swallow hard and take a breath when describing what it’s like to receive sparks of insight from the great Jewish thinkers of long ago.

“It is a form of transcendence to be connected in that way,” he said.

Sameth doesn’t believe that he has stumbled on a previously unknown understanding of God’s name, but that he has been able to connect the dots in a fresh way.

Those who find meaning in his work, he said, may encounter a different understanding of God that is comforting to feminists and those on many spiritual journeys. They may also read the Torah differently.

“If this interpretation is correct, it says that the Torah is a mystical or esoteric text,” he said. “The mystics have been saying all these years that the text conceals more than it reveals. It is structured with different levels of meaning and reveals itself over time. We’re talking about one tradition that goes all the way back.”

Katherine Kurs, a religion scholar who teaches at New School University and is an associate minister at West-Park (Presbyterian) Church in Manhattan, said that the image of God presented by Sameth will have great appeal to many people who are searching for spiritual meaning.

“Mark’s unveiling is part of a mystic lineage that presents a prismatic experience of God, that says there are ways of experiencing God that contain and explode categories simultaneously, ” said Kurs, who has known Sameth since they studied together almost 20 years ago. “This God is not a male or even a female but a male-female or female-male, a God that holds tension and paradox, a full-spectrum bandwidth God.”

Sameth has shared his image of a dual-gendered God with the seventh- and eighth-graders he teaches at his synagogue. He said they’ve been very receptive, which isn’t surprising because they are growing up in a post-modern age.

“As post-moderns, we’ve been conditioned to a different relationship with language,” he said. “That’s why there is all this interest now in Jewish mysticism.”

He wonders how, 2,000 years from now, people will understand the final chapter of “Ulysses,” which includes no punctuation.

Will they try to add punctuation, believing that it’s been lost? Or will they grasp that James Joyce knew what he was doing?

“Joyce was playing with language, using language to play with the medium,” Sameth said. “And the Torah isn’t just about Noah taking the animals, twosies by twosies. If that’s what the Torah was all about, how could it have captivated Western civilization for 3,000 years? There had to be more.”


— In, Rachel wrote:

> The only problem with the article is that G-d has never been seen as male in Judaism; calling G-d “He” is convention. There is no neutral gender word in Hebrew. G-d is neither (not both but neither) male or female in the Jewish religion; having no physical attributes or even emotions as we understand it. When it talks about humans being created in G-d’s image it means spiritually. G-d has always been spoken of in the feminine as well as masculine, for example as a mother or father, as a master or mistress (when we are referred to as bondsmen or bondswomen).

> I don’t understand a Rabbi who hasn’t learned that. It is a bit odd to me.

Katia writes:  Seems to me the very fact there is no gender neutral word in ancient Hebrew, the original language of theology, basically proves there was no gender neutral God in Judaism.

GLENN KING responded to Rachel by posting the following to the DivineMother forum.

Rachael, I am certain that you are right in stating that the formal theology of Judaism states that God is beyond all aspects of gender. That is also the position of Catholicism, Eastern Orthodoxy, and liberal Protestantism. My problem is that I doubt that few people in their hearts of hearts really believe this. I also suspect that few Jews historically have believed it either.

      First let me explain a few things. It is certain that the biblical God is not a male in the same physical way that a human man is or as Greek god such as Zeus. The god of the Israelites did not relate to other gods and to human women as did the Greek gods. Clearly the bible discourages that point of view.

       However after stating that, it is clear that in most respects the biblical writers saw Yahweh is in a deep way as male. “He” is Lord and King and never lady and Queen. G-d has mostly “male” roles of ruler, judge, warrior, etc. It is true that sometimes this male aspect slips and in few places he is seen as like a female eagle, or a woman in labor. But in general the male images hold.

       There is other evidence of this. G-d is often called Elohim in the bible. My understanding is that Elohim is the masculine plural of Eloah which  can quite properly be translated as “goddess.” Yet the verbs associated with this are always masculine and singular. My point is that the biblical writers had a multiple of opportunities to dispel the idea that G-d is some how intrinsically wrapped up with maleness. Yet the writers repeatedly do not do this. Thus I would argue that the idea that the biblically male language of G-d in the bible is purely conventional is incorrect. On the contrary the male language of god in the Bible betrays the very strong patriarchal culture of Israel which believed that if god has to be imaged as personal then G-d has to be male even if not conventionally so.

      I would also suggest, whatever the rabbis’ point of view, that they were not the authors of the biblical text. The understanding of the rabbis, most of them wrote and commented on the Torah after the time of Jesus, is not necessarily the view of earlier pre biblical Israel i.e. of the period 1300 BCE to about 600 BCE. It seems that monotheism only fully triumphed in Judah after the exile. Thus the understanding of the majority of Israel’s people and of her elites were not doubt quite different than that of the latter rabbis.  It is also obvious that the latter Cabbalist Medieval writers had a different point of view. To a large degree their theology was that the High Holy One, the King, had lost his connection with his Shekinah i.e. Queen or daughter who was in exile with Israel. The Shekinah, the Sabbath Queen, etc were all seen as basically female. I am of course aware that latter day theologians and philosophers have argued that all of this Kabalistic language was all merely metaphoric not to be taken literally. To defend this language I am sure that even the Kabbalists themselves stated that it was all just metaphor. The problem is why use all of this metaphor if it just confuses the issue. Why talk as if there is in fact a female and male presence of God if God is only a singular, sexless “spiritual” (what ever that means) being.

      My real suspicion is of course that these people did have a radically different vision of G-d  which was not compatible with Rabbinic orthodoxy. Thus what they did is cover it up with their talk of allegory and metaphor. It would not be very pleasant to be exiled even from the exiles.

       I think of course that the same thing has happened within Christianity in relationship with Mary. Official Catholic and Orthodox theology claim that Mary’s role as Queen of Heaven, Co mediatrix and of her power and Glory are all just borrowed powers from Jesus to whom all real power and glory resides. Thus all of Mary’s power and glory  is simply at bottom not real.

The problem with this is why in fact would God even permit this. If this is all there is to Mary, then Protestantism makes all the sense in the world. Of course again I think that all of this talk is subterfuge to hide the real fact that psychologically and really Catholics love and adore Mary in ways very similar to how the old Pagans used to worship Isis, Inanna and other goddesses. The point of this being that official doctrines of religions often hide as much as they reveal. Often they hid radical realities rather that admitting the radical truth of the real situation.  –Glenn

* * * * * * * * * * * * * *

Ricardo from our local Meetup wrote:

This documentary talks about this topic in a very interesting way:

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * *


Glenn King writes:

Rachael, I am certain that you are right in stating that the formal theology of Judaism states that God is beyond all aspects of gender. That is also the position of Catholicism, Eastern Orthodoxy, and liberal Protestantism. My problem is that I doubt that few people in their hearts of hearts really believe this. I also suspect that few Jews historically have believed it either.

* * * * * * * * *

BURL responds: 

I think to take gender out of the Godhead is to deny our relationship to the greater whole.  When I see the Sun’s rays entering my cells and feel them unfold their potential by absorbing those rays, then I tend to see my cells as acting in a female role and the sun in a male.  In other words, gender is reflective of cosmic process.

Another piece is that if you read other myths and scriptures from throughout the world, no other culture is shy about describing that which is before manifestation (i.e., the Unmanifest) in the Feminine.  The Feminine is the container of potential, be that potential be in the form of a seed in the ground, an egg in a mammal or bird, or as hidden knowledge in the depths of our minds.

* * * * * * * *

>>First let me explain a few things. It is certain that the biblical God is not a male in the same physical way that a human man is or as Greek god such as Zeus.

Genesis 1:27 reads: “God created humanity is “his” image, male and female created he them.” However after stating that, it is clear that in most respects the biblical writers saw Yahweh is in a deep way as male. “He” is Lord and King and never lady and Queen. G-d has mostly “male” roles of ruler, judge, warrior, etc. It is true that sometimes this male aspect slips and in few places he is seen as like a female eagle, or a woman in labor. But in general the male images hold.

* * * * * * * *

This change could also be seen as a holographic tidal wave on this planet.  … all one movement of one tidal wave that will eventually rescind and calm down (will we become extinct in the process, or transform? is the question).  Your work, my work, the work of the people in this group is to be the beginning of this transformation.  So is the work of the locavores or local food movements and so on.  While you may not see the relationship of these two movements (and many others), I do.  They are one wave that hopefully will gain momentum (according to Sophia’s desires which operate much like the moon on the water (and our bodies) to replace these dark ages.


> Thus I would argue that the idea that the biblically male language of G-d in the
> bible is purely conventional is incorrect. On the contrary the male language
> of god in the Bible betrays the very strong patriarchal culture of Israel
> which believed that if god has to be imaged as personal then G-d has to be male
> even if not conventionally so.

Looking at this holographically, I would also say that seeing God as purely male reflected a shift towards more externalized thinking.  We have wars because we are more interested in conquering and controlling them over there then we are about developing our inner potential.  This is what Sophia is, in my opinion.  she is the infinite inner world of all creatures and contains all potentials that unfold according the interactions of Her son and husband, Eros, or Creative Desire.  Or as Hermes said (I’m paraphrasing), “Sophia is the container of potential and Eros initiates that unfolding.” Hence, in sexual reproduction, the egg exists as a potential person that unfolds as a body upon the union with sperm.  Or, in the Stanza’s of Dyzan “Darkness (female) radiates Light and Light drops one solitary ray into the Mother’s depths.  The eternal egg thrills and divides…”  And, wa-la here we are having this conversation.

> It is also obvious that the latter Cabbalist Medieval writers had a different point

> of view. To a large degree their theology was that the High Holy One, the

> King, had lost his connection with his Shekinah i.e. Queen or daughter who was in

> exile with Israel.


When you get down to it, the Holy One entails the knowledge of unity in diversity.  The mystical aspect of the people existing when the U.S. came to be knew this in their “E Pluribus Unim,” IN UNITY DIVERSITY.  There is unity in diversity and diversity in unity.  As the chaos theorists now realize, this is one Planet that operates as a single organism.  We, in other words, are cells in the Planet and are not the Kings or Queens of it.  Due to our arrogance and our “growth without end” mentality, we have become cancerous cells..this is what cancer is, growth gone wild.

* * * * * * * * *

The Shekinah, the Sabbath Queen, etc were all seen as

> basically female. I am of course aware that latter day theologians and

> philosophers have argued that all of this Kabalistic language was all merely metaphoric

> not to be taken literally.

Ah!  Merely metaphoric!  Metaphor according to Burl and Gregory Baetson IS the language of the universe.  Metaphor is the language that connects.  If we look at the external orientation of our modern day, we can see the male externalized genitals.  We are more interested in invading other countries and controlling the population (politicians, scientists, etc) then we are our inner world.  Yet, it is in our inner world that a new world can unfold.  It is only by tapping into the Feminine that we can create a peaceful planet.

Hence, one of Sophia’s names is Salem, Shalom or Jerusalem meaning peace.  Giving birth to Sophia (i.e., the Daughter), we give birth to peace on Earth.

* * * * * * *

To defend this language I am sure that even the

> Kabbalists themselves stated that it was all just metaphor. The problem is why use

> all of this metaphor if it just confuses the issue.

* * * * * * * *

Metaphor is holographic.  Understanding one, you understand the all. Gregory Baetson says that metaphor is Nature’s language. I can figure every one of our individualized and creative paths through the Wizard of Oz.  The Wizard of Oz is metaphor.  One person argued with me about Baum’s story being political.  “Well, I said, that’s true too.”

Now, how could I say that?  Easy, in my holographic universe, the political interpretation of this man was one with my spiritual [interpretation].  The sun’s rays shining through a prism breaks down into a multitude of colors.  Each interpretation is one strand of color existing in one ray of Light emanating from the Womb of Sophia.  (Baum states that the story just erupted into his consciousness.  Need I say more about Sophia’s hand being there?)  We are all Dorothy in Oz (manifestation) seeking Kansas (Heaven or the land of non-duality as reflected in the flat greyness).

>         I think of course that the same thing has happened within

> Christianity in relationship with Mary. Official Catholic and Orthodox theology claim

> that Mary’s role as Queen of Heaven, Co mediatrix and of her power and Glory are

> all just borrowed powers from Jesus to whom all real power and glory resides.

> Thus all of Mary’s power and glory   is simply at bottom not real.


Another slant on this is that Mary, Marie, means Ocean (marine, marina, etc).  When the Spirit moved over the face of the Deep in Genesis, the Holy Spirit came upon Marie in the New Testament. Hence, the Light of the world was born, the Word.  Again, this happens beyond time and space, in infinity, and as such is as much a possibility for each one of us as it is for some externalized woman living during the Roman times.  “Of what use Gabriel your message to Marie / unless you deliver that same message to me,” a mystic once said.

* * * * * * * * *

> The problem with this is why in fact would God even permit this. If this is all there is to Mary, then Protestantism makes all the sense in the world. Of course again I think that all of this talk is subterfuge to hide the real fact

> that psychologically and really Catholics love and adore Mary in ways very > similar to how the old Pagans used to worship Isis, Inanna and other goddesses.

Ya just can’t kill your love for your Mother.


> The point of this being that official doctrines of religions often hide as much

> as they reveal. Often they hid radical realities rather that admitting the 

> radical truth of the real situation.

 — Glenn


Or, is it that we don’t understand the language in our literal, empirical, results oriented, society.  Doctrines are living documents.  The Bible, the Rig Veda, the Tao Te Ching, the Upanishads, etc are all living, interactive beings.  There words are seminal in unfolding potential within you.  They are not to be taken literally, for to take them that way would be to kill them.  Rather, one should dance with all religious writings and in hearing other interpretations, one should dance with those also.  As the Three Musketeers stated, “Its all for one and one for all.”  In the diversity of interpretations is the mirror of the Holy One….Sophia who is male and female in Her divine essence.  Her kiss is Her Son, Eros.  Every time He visits me, I create an article, a book, or an insight.  What is unmanifest becomes manifest in me when I am in His arms.  And who is His arms if not Her extension?

–Burl Hall, author of Sophia’s Web

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *


I would go further and note that this claim of a genderless God only arises when one is discussing the Goddess. As long as the pronouns remain masculine, no one makes this argument. It is just another way of keeping the Goddess from being discussed. Their argument can be boiled down to this: If God is genderless, there is no point in discussing the sacred feminine because it either doesn’t exist or is included in the masculine references.

This is the same argument made against using genderless titles (ie flight attendant, chairperson) back when the second wave of feminism began to demand that women’s titles be the equal of men’s. The argument that the male title actually includes the female was quite popular with those who wanted to resist feminine empowerment. This argument went so far as to claim that the laws didn’t need to be changed to include women because the words “man” and “men” actually included women — this despite the exact opposite argument had been made to deny any rights to women for centuries.

In “The Goddess vs. The Alphabet,” Leonard Schlain argues that the Hebrew ban on images was a direct attempt to erase the Goddess. The Goddess religions that preceded patriarchal monotheism made liberal use of images, especially sculpture. When we understand this, the God of Moses banning all “graven images” takes on a new context.


We can even argue that the concept a genderless God arose from the need to eliminate the Goddess. The Goddess worshippers were too powerful to [get rid of] all at once, therefore they began to indoctrinate the masses with the idea that God has no gender. This would have developed over decades or centuries until no one remembered that the “genderless” God (expressed as male) was needed to eliminate the feminine Goddess.


The people that claim God is genderless are disturbed when I use exclusively feminine pronouns and references when speaking of deity.  If God is genderless, then my use of these sacred feminine words shouldn’t matter. It is obvious they do, thus it is obvious that despite their claim God is genderless, they are accustomed to thinking of God as masculine and are not comfortable with thinking of God as feminine.

But in my world, this argument about how the Hebrews and rabbis think of God is moot. I was raised Christian where God is very definitely male. The RCC made official pronouncements to this effect just recently, going so far as to denounce and deny all marriages whose marriage rites contained gender-neutral language. The Sistine Chapel is very clear: the image of God is powerfully male. I wasn’t raised RCC but their images bleed over into all Christian religions. No traditional Christian would make the argument that God is genderless nor do they easily accept the idea of the sacred feminine, even in the abstract. Even those who claim God is genderless do not easily accept having the sacred feminine being plainly addressed or represented alongside their easy acceptance of the sacred masculine address or representation (ie using God and Goddess equally or displaying both images in equal prominence). This is why they engage in their genderless God rhetoric. Discussion of the Goddess or any version of the sacred feminine makes them uneasy, therefore I should not feel free to use it.

As long as we’re willing to engage in their argument — that God is genderless therefore we don’t need to use any sacred feminine references, we are reacting on the defensive and allowing their definition of deity to be the primary definition of deity. If indeed their God is genderless, my use of the sacred feminine in any of Her variations should not bother them. As long as they argue otherwise, it is an indication that their genderless claims are denied by their passionate need to keep me from referring to the sacred feminine.

When they no longer care, then I would believe their God is indeed genderless.

I don’t really care what the ancients believed or how they thought of God. I prefer to claim the sacred feminine alongside the sacred masculine, therefore their preferences are meaningless to me.

Lore continues:

At 11:36 8/24/08, Burl wrote:

>I think to take gender out of the Godhead is to deny our

>relationship to the greater whole.

It is not by accident that we yearn to identify with the sacred feminine. It is the completion we need to have a healthy relationship with all of life and the universe. Gender is indeed reflective of the cosmic process, as you noted. It is so integral that it is represented in every species, even those that are androgynous. As a species, we cannot imagine life without either gender. Even our material items are referred to as gendered (ie a ship is “she”). Trying to make a monotheistic deity one gender or genderless defies this deep natural instinct and creates imbalance in our thought processes.

It also creates a masculinized world that devalues and fears anything associated with the feminine while worshipping anything associated with the masculine. This worship of all things masculine is what allows our society to glorifies the mass extinction of others (including other species) via war, genocide, rape of the earth, etc.

Since creativity is viewed as feminine, it too is feared and devalued. We cannot make progress without creativity, yet men who display prowess in overtly creative endeavors (ie an artist) are ridiculed as “feminine” and shunned.

There is no way to have a balanced society that strictly worships a monotheistic deity that is either one gender or genderless. It is an abnormal and deformed way of viewing the universe and our world experience. Like all things that are deformed, this abnormal belief cannot create the balance and acceptance of Self, Earth and Universe that we desperately need.


* * * * * * * * * * *

Katia wrote later:

I really like the new theory by Rabbi Sameth about YHVH being reversed to say He/She.   He/She makes alot of sense for the Divine’s name, and the major names of God in our very Bibles literally mean just that.   Elohim means “God and Goddess” and Yahweh/Yahovah/YHVH is a combination of the God Yah and Goddess Havah (Havah is Hebrew for “Eve”, and means Mother of All). 

The Tetragrammaton name of the Divine, written YHVH, has the added benefit of meaning God/Goddess no matter which way you look at it — front to back or back to front.   No matter how you flip it, there is Goddess-and-God simultaneously.

In Her Sacramental Presence

Poet Wynn Manners is at it again.  Wow.

In Her Sacramental Presence

We are Living Temples
of Her Sacramental Presence.

What of this Silence — like
a shrine about us, within us?

Goddess introduced the Silence.

Silence is Her Gift to us —
that we commune with Her
& are enabled to know Her most deeply.

In Her Womb of Silence,
what music of the heart
sings our being *alive*?

How about the puissance of initiative?
From whence does it come, at the deepest level?

*Feel* Her *stirring* within —
setting free the creative flow.

What of consolation? Sophia is Who has consoled us
most in our intensest need, depression & desperation —

Her Voice whispering thru the Silences, Her Presence
a lifeline into a divinely compassionate rest & healing,
Her Spirit permeating thru every cell of our body.

“Joy Eternal!” sing the eternal voices
of the angels, themselves,
hymning praises to their Divine Mother.

When awesome things are forever sung
from human heart & woman tongue,

Her Presence is recognized as a beacon
that has shone-forth for all time:
no longer concealed, Wisdom’s Grace:
luminously revealed…

She is Everlasting Beauty…
& joyful are our communions in Her.

She is the Divine Consciousness Who exudes all being.

Sophia is a weaver & She weaves our heartbeats

together as a symphony *inside* Her own Cosmic Heart!

~~wynn manners

In the Dark Places of Wisdom, Sophia Removed from Western Mysteries

Our good friend author Margaret Starbird writes:

A “must read twice” book I love is “In the Dark Places of Wisdom” by Peter Kingsley— about the way the “Sophia” was written out of Greek culture by Plato and his disciples—in favor of rational thinking. I consider this a very important contribution to the dialog about “what happened?” I think Jesus came to reclaim the connection with the

“Sophia” (embodied in Mary Magdalene in the Christian story) but the early Church fathers were so “Logos” oriented, they scuttled the original vessel (the “hieros gamos” implied in the Gospels which honored the contributions of women….

I’t’s time to reclaim the Beloveds in the Garden and the partnership of heaven and earth that it implies–


peace and well-being,


Author of “The Woman with the Alabaster Jar”

Margaret also wrote:

While I love many books of Bible, one of my favorite passages in Scripture is the “Song of Songs”–(aka the Song of Solomon)–derived from ancient liturgical poetry honoring the “hieros gamos” union of Isis and Osiris, and another is Sirach 24, about “Wisdom”–“like a mist I covered the earth”


So I just ordered myself a copy of In the Dark Places of Wisdom

Jesus “just” a myth or historical? –OR BOTH?

Mystery School member Faith writes:

One author that I have read and gained a lot of insight from is the late Alvin Boyd Kuhn. I imagine that you have read some of his works, too. What he revealed about the Christ being “the fire of Divine Intelligence” distributed among all of humanity, I believe is true. He explained that all of the myths of antiquity are depictions of the descent (incarnation), evolution in matter (Mother), and ascent (resurrection) of the Christ (the Sun of God) in us, as us. This being the meaning of the Gospel stories, I wonder whether or not Jesus and the Apostles were actually historical people. I understand that “the living Jesus” of the Gospel of Thomas was the Cosmic Christ, not a particular human being.

Katia answers:

Hi Faith! Good thought-provoking questions. You have hit upon the historicity of Jesus argument long debated by theologians and historians since the writing of the New Testament. In the past 200 years the Myth vs. Historical Jesus debate has raged with new fervor. It’s fascinating.

I abscribe to the JRR Tolkein (Lord of the Rings author) and CS Lewis (Chronicles of Narnia) viewpoint. CS Lewis was struggling with the Jesus myth thinking it was all symbolic, archetypal, etc. and therefore he couldn’t believe it was “real”. His best friend Tolkein told him something very profound. Yes, said he, Jesus is a myth and the fulfilment of myth. An archetype bearer. But Jesus’ story is a myth that also happens to be true…historical. In other words, BOTH are true! This is why the debaters can’t solve this issue, because they are both right.

It’s like an onion. Each layer is “real” separately but they are part of a whole truth. The whole onion. Dream interpretation can be that way, too. Dreaming your brakes went out and you can’t stop your car can mean you should literally check your brakes — this could be your intuition warning you of a physical danger. AND it can mean that you are a bit out of control in your waking life and need to figurately “put the brakes on” regarding some issue or situation in life. We would ask the dreamer, how are you going too fast, how do you need to slow down and get control, get safe? So both interpretations can be true simultaneously. Like God can be real in the spiritual realm as well as the physical realm if She chooses. It’s cool! Goddess came as Mother Mary — Mary was an archetype-bearer of Sophia or God-the-Mother. And Magdalene and Yeshua also bore archetypes. They “actualized” the male and female wise-teacher god/goddess Krishna, Buddha archetypes or entities.

>Faith wrote:

>The ancient Gnostics deplored those who believed the gospels as literal history.

Katia writes:

I have always read that there were 200 or more Gnostic sects and they were about 50-50 on the historicity argument. In other words, some Gnostics believed and taught he had come in the flesh — perhaps they had great grandmothers who had been healed by him or heard one of his famous sermons, etc. The Mandeans are a Gnostic sect still alive today in Iraq and they believe firmly in the historicity of Jesus. They think he stole the messiah-ship from John the Baptist, but they believe they were all historical characters! I have studied Valentinian and Sophian Gnosticism and enjoy it very much. Valentinus certainly believed Jesus was historical. But the Sophians seem to have clergy who believe one way or the other depending on personal preference. They need to merge the opposites — do the Zen on it(!) and realize that BOTH are true. Yes he was a Sun-god myth and Dying-resurrecting God and yes Christianity is/was a cool solar “cult”. But. He also got himself a body and walked around this earth awhile, just like Buddha and Aristotle did. Wisemen who lived centuries before Jesus — and made their mark on earth even bigger a mark than Jesus some could argue! — yet they are never thought to be un-historical, or myth-only.

>Faith wrote:

>These ideas have me feeling uncertain concerning the ideas concerning Jesus and Mary Magdalene implied in the lessons and suggested readings at the Esoteric Mystery School.

Katia writes:

You are not the first member who has brought up this discussion with me. Our Catechumen Lessons, most of them, are quite old. We’ve been using them for years with a bit of overhaul here and there, but I am wondering if I need to address the myth vs. historical debate — that BOTH are “true” — right from the start. What do you think? Where specifically do you think in the Catechumen lessons maybe we are emphasizing too much of the historical Jesus and not reminding folks of his mythical cosmical (is that a word?!) function/fulfillment? I mean, what was it — besides the fact we recommend members read Holy Blood Holy Grail (HBHG) — that got you feeling uncertain, as you put it?

>Faith wrote:

>As symbols of elements of our Being they inspire us to lovely virtues and ideals, and faith in our inner powers. But if the stories are regarded as historical, I can easily see how the ideas in the book, Holy Blood, Holy Grail, developed among literalist people over the centuries. A bloodline of Jesus misses the whole point of Gnostic teachings, which is the Inner Christ nature which is being brought to birth within us as children of the Father-Mother.

Katia writes:

Oh so true about HBHG making people go LOOPY when they think of the literalism of it. Margaret Starbird herself says the bloodline thing is a huge distraction, a big red herring that makes people miss the point just as you say. She says believing/realizing Jesus was a lover and a co-parent in the physical realm is enough. We don’t also have to believe his descendants are alive today. Too much ego gets in there — and too much insanity. I get emails ALL the time from people thinking they are one of them.

If only that bloodline hype hadn’t mired us in the physical so much after some decades of being “only” in the spiritual / mythical realm. Hah. Margaret told me once that the bloodline nonsense really muddies the waters and I believe it can be a stumbling block big-time. So you are definitely on to something, yet I still “confess that Jesus Christ came in the flesh,” as the test of spirits tests for….

Funny and lucky how we can believe in both. It’s so very Zen…

I think much of this Jesus-was-just-a-cool-myth is an understandable backlash against obnoxious churchianity insisting one BELIEVE in Jesus, “ACCEPT” him, believe, believe, BELIEVE in him! Ugh. Many free-thinking people are put off by this extreme mind manipulation. Believe like me or you will DIE. Uh, no thanks we say. Knowing instinctively that their lopsided Jesus never did exist, we then kinda throw the baby out with the bathwater and say well, I guess he never was an historical person at all! These goof-ball fanatics have sure scared me away from being down-to-earth about this.

There are so many cool Zen masters that everyone knows by name. And dozens of inspiring wandering rabbis, teachers, mystical rabbis. There are Buddhist sages and Hindu sages galore who lived at the time of Jesus and before that nobody doubts whether they existed or not. It’s because those sages aren’t being singled out and shoved down our throats, aren’t being used as a weapon. Even King Arthur is said to have existed although they know there were several characters whose stories may have been compiled to make his myth. The King Arthur myth is mythology, but he still probably was based on a real live man. Some say even Osiris was perhaps a real Pharoah way back in Egypt’s distant pre-historical origins. The Gods and Goddesses of the Northern Europeans may have been real people, or used real people just after we emerged from the last Ice Age.

Jesus gets the most attention because he has taken the most abuse! Manipulative control-freaks have hijacked his story, name and his teachings for such a long time. They are really turning a lot of us off. Fact is, Jesus was a liberator, a Zen-master sage dude whose true message and teachings have been all but lost. I think we can find the real teachings there under the layers of churchianity, and I think what he taught is very inner, very esoteric, at least semi-gnostic, and completely alternative to the extroverted “mundane” un-mystical mainstream.

Ya gotta have Faith, like your magikal name. <grin> Yet you also gotta resist insulting your free will, not to mention your intelligence!, by this oppressive mainstream beast best called by the name “Churchianity”.


Kazantzakis & Last Temptation of Christ

My Gnostic calendar says this for today: Birthday of Nikos Kazantzakis, Writer & Mystic 1883-1957, “My entire soul is a cry, and all my work is a commentary on that cry.”

He’s the guy, you may recall, who wrote the oh-so-controversial Last Temptation of Christ.

Found this online:

Magdalene jumped up and paced back and forth between the fire and the door.

Her mind had grown furious.God is the great enemy, she was thinking; yes, God. He never fails to intrude; he is evil, jealous; he won’t let a person be happy. She stopped behind the door and cocked her ear. The heavens were bellowing. A whirlwind had arisen and the pomegranates in the yard knocked against one another and were ready to break.

–from The Last Temptation of Christ

The Greek novelist, poet, and thinker Nikos Kazantzakis, b. Crete, 1883, d. Oct. 26, 1957, spent half his life living in Germany, the USSR, and France. He also traveled widely throughout Europe, Japan, and Communist China. Influenced early by Nietzsche and Bergson, he owed a debt to Marxism and Buddhism as well as to Christianity and attempted to synthesize these apparently disparate worldviews. His career started out more philosophical and pedagogical than literary. He came to the fore as a poet only in 1938 with his vast philosophical epic The Odyssey: A Modern Sequel (Eng. trans., 1958), which takes up the hero’s story where Homer leaves off.

Even more successful were his novels, which he did not begin writing until after his 60th year. His first, Zorba the Greek (1946; Eng. trans., 1952; film, 1965), is the most popular. In it Kazantzakis embodies Bergsonian ideas of the elan vital in the exuberant figure of Zorba.

His other novels are perhaps deeper, if less exuberant. Freedom and Death (1953; Eng. trans., 1956) deals with the concept of liberty, told through the story of a dour resistance fighter in the Cretan struggle for independence from the Turks. The Greek Passion (1954; Eng. trans., 1954) is a reenactment of Christ’s passion, set in a Greek village. Kazantzakis also wrote the novels The Last Temptation of Christ (1955; Eng. trans. 1960; film 1988) and God’s Pauper: Saint Francis of Assisi (1956; Eng. trans., 1962); a large number of plays; and an autobiography, Report to Greco (1961; Eng. trans., 1965).

P. A. Mackridge

Text Copyright © 1993 Grolier Incorporated
Retrieved from

* * * * * * * * * * *
So the fella who wrote Last Temptation of Christ (LTOC) was born on Crete, he is literally a Cretan, not figuratively, hee hee. He lived as a subject of the old Ottomon Empire until he was 35 or so and never wrote a novel until he was 60! Wow. Influenced by Marxism. Yikes. And Nietzsche…

Understandable that modern Gnostics revere him as a one of their own.

All the furor over LTOC when the movie came out was understandable, but you gotta admit it was deep, and it was thought provoking. I was in my young 20s when I saw it and though disappointed when he didn’t stay with Magdalene and ended up sleeping with other women in the New Testament (seemingly every woman mentioned therein!), I still found the entire concept of a last temptation while hanging on the cross as plausible, meaningful, and yes, fascinating. That such battles, such inner jihads, can take place in our minds / dreams / altered states, is pretty awesome. I was a bit deflated when the movie ended with Jesus’ fatherhood and loverhood relegated to “just a tempation,” a “bad decision,” but still I get the point. I was glad for the ride. Titillating as the subject matter of Jesus having sex is, the point of a god/dess-sent Messenger having free will until the very end, grappling with the mundane life vs. divine mission choice gives much to think about. Too bad N.K. didn’t somehow show Jesus gloriously managing to both embrace the body and the mundane life and deliver his all-awakening message. Now that would’ve been something to sink one’s teeth into. LTOC was published in 1955, so take that all you critics who say the idea of Jesus’ marriage and co-parenting with Magdalene didn’t come about until the 1980 non-fiction book, Holy Blood, Holy Grail.

Magdalene’s thoughts in the book excerpt above, “God is evil,” speak to the Gnostic suspicion / conviction that the True God isn’t ruling this planet, rather a Usurper is. He (call him Demiurgos or Ialdobaoth or Satan) interfered at the very beginning, messed up the Petrie dishes during our Creation, and this place is flawed, flawed, FLAWED. Time to repair the world, tikkun olam in Kabbalah, and wake up to the stark reality just like Neo has to in the first Matrix movie. Evil overlords are at work here. The Gnostic myth of Creation explains a lot, especially the Problem of Evil, as we have been discussing at length over on the GoddessChristians forum.