Quantum Physics is something I can hardly spell, let alone want to learn more about.
But the little exposure I have received so far makes me believe its part of a “New Age” revival. And may have possibly been prophesied about more than two millenniums ago.
Next time that you are in a book store, ask to see the “Gospel according to Mary Magdalene.” (see mary) Damn if she ain’t referring to Quantum Physics. And no wonder Peter gets pissed. “Why would Jesus reveal this to you, and not to us?” Peter asks, with me paraphrasing his words. He also noted — correctly in that day and age of male chauvinism and domination — that none of the Jews in Jerusalem would accept this kind of presentation from a mere woman. (His indication, not mine!)
Peter asks the rest of the apostles: Would Jesus prefer her (Mary) over us?
The passage is very small. Most of the book is commentaries, along with an author’s view of what the writings purport to say. You don’t have to be a Christian or even believe in any or all the Bible, whether according to King James or the Vatican, to appreciate the text .
But see if Jesus is not talking about some “New Age” stuff right out of our 20th century (21st century?) physics teachings. Perhaps Mary was given this info 2,000 years ago and someone in the early Church could not comprehend it, and therefore, banned it, as “heresy.”
Nah, that would be too far-fetched to believe of the beginnings of Christianity.
Quantum Physics offered for Christ’s Sake
My favorite verse in the Gospel of Mary is:
“All natures, all formed things, all creatures exist in and with one another and will again be resolved into their own roots, because the nature of matter is dissolved into the roots of its nature alone.”
This is Taoist, Buddhist and alchemical. It is a teaching that transcends religious traditions. It suggests that we must be fully ourselves in order to get beyond our limitations.It is a treasure to have a Gospel informed by the mystical feminine.
It may very well be *quantum physics*! “*all . . . [things] . . . exist in and with one another”* My limited reading on the subject suggests it was *2,000* years ahead of its time!
Loved the irony of your last sentence!
When I was in the Christian faith, I did all kinds of reading and research about the early church and about what became doctrinal and what didn’t, and it’s a sad but all-too-human story of power and control. Even more startling, for an indoctrinated believer, is how much of the Jesus story we received was shaped decades and centuries after Jesus and largely based on the need to codify doctrine, not a genuine historical account. I think the simple Galilean would be amazed as what the church made him into over time.
I believe I’ve run across “The Gospel According to Mary Magdalene” at some point, maybe even recently, but I’ll take another look, even though I’m working in another vineyard now, so to speak. I’m interested as a historian, if not a believer. Elaine Pagels in her groundbreaking “The Gnostic Gospels” has a lot to say about all of this, as you and Nancy probably know.
I would add, however, that according to the best Bible scholarship I’ve read, there are a lot of Gnostic and other apocryphal documents that were from strands of thought far, far, FAR away from what a simple, itinerant, millennial orthodox Jew preacher named Jesus thought or believed.
You just don’t get the real Jesus unless you get what an orthodox Jew at that time in history believed and expected. From my own studies, I am highly dubious of the idea that Jesus would have been espousing ideas that are clearly Greek metaphysics, Zoroastrianism, or Gnostic ideas from mystery religions in the region.
Jesus was first and foremost, an orthodox Jew. He wasn’t a metaphysician, the (much later) gospel of John’s vision of him notwithstanding. The radicalism of his kingdom is not otherworldly at all; the kingdom of God is to be wrought on earth in terms of justice for the poor, the weak, and the oppressed. In Mark, the earliest gospel, we see this Jewish preacher and reformer most clearly (and in Mark, he never calls himself the Son of God, btw), but even in Mark, the re-visioning and repurposing of Jesus has begun.
Whew, got a bit long-winded. Guess I still care about these things, even if from outside the “fold.” ☺
I don’t know a DAMN about quantum (or any other kind of) physics–how do they relate to the G. of M.? But I do know the Gospel (what’s left of it–I’d do anything to see the rest!).
You’ll find many instances in the non-canonical gospels of Peter attacking Mary in one way or another. There’s also a lot on the subject in my blog (again, I didn’t do tags for the earlier posts, so just search under “Peter” if you’re interested…take it or leave it, as they say!
Lucy, you got a lot of ‘splainin’ to do (about quantum physics)…
P.S. I don’t think ANYTHING would be too “far-fetched to believe of the beginnings of Christianity”!! 🙂
PS to Nancy:
Your blog is a wonder of love and light! I am definitely adding it to my newsreader subscriptions. You have a wonderful ministry through this truth-telling and honesty, and I know you are helping even those who now see the light as pain. Keep up the good work. (Btw, your current re-post is just beautiful, and so right on!)
Again, thank you so much, Steve! I hope that you’re right about my words helping others…if so, I’ll have even more joy than I already have!
Now I’m REALLY curious about your blog, and your understanding of the Gospels (canonical and not) as opposed to what Yeshua was actually like, what guided him, and what he hoped to accomplish in the short time he had. There’s so much that, up until about a year ago, I always took for granted and/or never gave much thought, but now I’m seeing things through a different set of eyes, it seems, and I’m continually amazed (sometimes in a good way, and other times not so good…). And I agree that some of the so-called “Gnostic” texts are just as far off the mark. I do believe that “Mary” has some elements of truth in it, though–I just wish there were more of it.
See you around!