090125

 

Another night of nightmares. Dream hack too.

Saint Mungo morning!
No in-person Mass because of Labor day schedule impossibility


Quantum physics & religion
Literally weeping over the sudden realization that "chaos" is given meaning & purpose by being SEEN.
GOD SAID THAT'S WHAT MY NAME REALLY MEANS.

Also WHY have MULTIPLE PEOPLE associated me with the color GOLD????
My heart is always red, but maybe our "lack of yellow" ALSO has to do with THE CORES????
That adds a FASCINATING extra depth to JULIE because it MAKES SENSE, if PINK is associated with BOTH RED & VIOLET



------‐--------------------------------------------------------------------------

https://israelbiblecenter.com/

The Hebrew month of Elul has already begun—the final month of the biblical year, rich with meaning and preparation.
Elul is the season of teshuvah, “return.” It is a time to turn back to God, to mend relationships, and to search our hearts in the quiet before the shofar sounds on Rosh Hashanah... the biblical New Year... it carries a spiritual weight: reflection, repentance, and renewal in the presence of God.
The ancient sages described Elul with a beautiful image: “the King is in the field.” It is a picture of God stepping out of His royal palace, walking among His people, and welcoming anyone who wishes to draw near."

"The forty days from the start of Elul to Yom Kippur are traditionally understood to correspond to the forty days Moses spent on Mount Sinai after Israel’s sin with the Golden Calf. These were days of pleading, repentance, and ultimately, mercy, when God revealed Himself as “compassionate and gracious… abounding in steadfast love and faithfulness.” (Exodus 34:6)"

"David’s cry in Psalm 27, traditionally read throughout Elul, captures the heart of the season: “One thing I have asked of the LORD, that will I seek after: that I may dwell in the house of the LORD all the days of my life…” Elul can also remind us of our own call: “Repent, for the kingdom of heaven is at hand". The “return” of teshuvah is not just turning away from sin, but also turning toward the One who redeems."

"[As] A Season of Preparation, Elul invites us to slow down, examine our hearts, and realign our lives with God’s Ways. It is a reminder that repentance is not punishment, but privilege, an open door to restoration, given by a God who draws near."

Questions for Reflection:
• What in my life needs to “return” to God?
• Who do I need to reconcile with before this new season begins?
• How can I prepare my heart to hear the shofar as a personal call to awaken?

"This sacred season continues until the Jewish New Year begins on September 22. It is a time to return to the Bible, to rediscover its message, and to step into the Hebrew world that shaped it."

------‐--------------------------------------------------------------------------

https://theclassicjournal.uga.edu/index.php/2024/04/18/masculine-women-gender-the-soul-and-controversy-in-the-passion-of-perpetua-and-felicity/

"Saint Perpetua, who allegedly wrote a large portion of her own narrative, reports that she was made into a man (“et facta sum masculus”) in one of her dreams in order to defeat the devil in combat, but many have made the claim that the transformation was not physical... the appearance of this transformation is controversial because Perpetua transmutes sex, uses masculinity as a tool, and still retains pride in her true sex in a way that subverts an Early Christian understanding of gender."

"Women have been masculine since the delineation between masculinity and femininity was drawn. ...in Roman and Early Christian texts, women are both praised and scorned for "being masculine" or for pushing back against what is expected of their gender.
Ideas around gender and sex were different during this period than they are today because the two were viewed as virtually the same and usually treated as fixed. Despite this, masculine women appear throughout Christian history and literature, and they obtain their masculinity in different ways. Sometimes masculinity is given as a reward for piety, and sometimes it is given as a punishment. In a few rare instances, women take masculinity for themselves and use it as a tool, but this is not always looked upon favorably."

⭐⭐⭐⭐⭐⭐‼️‼️‼️‼️‼️‼️ "...Perpetua presents many masculine behaviors, culminating in her transformation into a man in a dream she has where she fights the devil... there is no reason to believe that Perpetua’s transformation is metaphorical; rather it provides an antithesis to Augustine’s notion that gender is untransmutable. Although her body in the real world remains female, Perpetua makes a point to highlight that her dream self’s body is able to become male, going against Early Christian ideas of gender. Unlike other, acceptable masculine women, Perpetua is controversial because she assumes masculinity for herself without relinquishing her feminine identity, instead subversively combining the two in an attempt to retain agency and achieve salvation through martyrdom."
(THIS IS DESCRIBING ME, TOO. YOU ALL KNOW THIS. PERPETUA PRAY FOR ME SIS)

Although in general, the early Church encouraged women to be feminine and men to be masculine, there are a couple of examples of women who garner praise for their masculinity.

The Gnostic Gospel of Thomas... whether it reflects an overall belief that some women could be masculine in a holy way, or whether it reflects specifically Gnostic beliefs is a fair point to call into question... The Apostle Peter insists that Mary is not welcome among the Apostles because she is a woman.Jesus steps in, but he does so in a way that shows he is not defending women, but specifically defending Mary Magdalene. He says, “Behold, I myself shall lead her so as to make her male, that she too may become a living spirit like you males. For every woman who makes herself male will enter the kingdom of heaven.” Jesus does not say that Mary is welcome among the Apostles regardless of her gender; rather, he designates her as male, allowing her to become something different, and arguably something better, than a woman. He gives masculinity not only as a gift of companionship, but one of salvation. Because Mary Magdalene is made male, she is welcome to “enter the kingdom of heavens.” Mary does not seek masculinity; instead, Jesus gives it to her."

"In the Act of Philip, one of the Apocryphal Acts of the Apostles, Philip and his sister Mariamne face the issue of Mariamne’s gender, as it prevents her from traveling with her brother. In order for her to do so, she must “remove her feminine clothing and character.” Jesus observes this and shows his approval, saying, “I know that you are good and manly in soul and blessed among women… the masculine and manly thinking is in you." He forms an intentional connection between her masculinity and her being “blessed among women.” Like Mary Magdalene, Mariamne appears better, even more holy, than other women because of her masculinity. Also, like Mary Magdalene, it is Jesus’s approval that allows Mariamne to become holy. Her masculinity is not subversive, but divinely approved. She becomes masculine in order to aid her brother on his Apostolic mission, not for her own gain. Jesus’s acknowledgement of her masculine soul stands out because it reflects later rhetoric perpetuated by St. Augustine, who fixates on the connection between gender and the soul. Neither Mary Magdalene nor Mariamne garnered controversy for their masculine transformations because they were either constructed or approved by Jesus, who in addition to being the son of God, was a man."

"There are other examples of women becoming masculine that appear in martyrdoms, although this masculinization is often presented through torture. In these cases, masculinity appears as a punishment, and these women’s suffering is revered. The most famous of these cases is that of St. Agatha... In her martyrdom, Agatha, when she refuses the advances of a powerful man, is arrested and charged as a Christian. As part of her torture, her breasts are violently cut off. In response to this, she says, “Art thou not ashamed to cut off that which thou thyself hast sucked? But I have a breast sound in my soul, with which I shall at any rate feed my understanding.” Agatha does not seek masculinity, nor does she welcome it. ...this [is presented] as a form of suffering. This line also draws another connection between gender and the soul. Even after her breasts are cut off from her physical body, she retains them, and her femininity, in her soul.
Later in the martyrdom, Agatha has her breasts restored as a reward for her piety. After an unnamed Apostle visits her, she prays. Following this, “she looked at her breast, and the breast that had been cut off was restored through Christ.” Throughout this martyrdom, Agatha’s gender presentation is outside of her control. Her femininity is taken from her, and then returned. Masculinity is a tool for her suffering. In this way, she contrasts the biblical women mentioned previously who receive masculinity as a reward. Because masculinity is linked to suffering, this is what Agatha is known for. She regularly appears in depictions with her breasts severed from her body, not with them restored. The Church has decided that the removal of Agatha’s breasts, which makes her masculine, also makes her more holy. Again, the figures that hold power in this martyrdom are not Agatha, but men, both the torturer and the Apostle who restores her femininity."

"The trope of breast removal is not abnormal... “breast torture… is a way of confronting their problematic female corporeality and making it a means, rather than an obstacle, to holiness.” Through this lens, there is another clear connection between Agatha and Mary Magdalene and Mariamne. Being a woman is a problem that must be resolved through masculinization, whether that is found through a reward or a punishment."


"There is one polarizing case of a female martyr that takes and uses masculinity as a tool for her own gain, rather than having it handed to her... Perpetua, in a dream, transforms into a man to fight the devil, and she is victorious. However, whether Perpetua actually becomes male or simply becomes masculine has inspired debate since the time of Augustine. In this dream, Perpetua looks down at herself and writes “Et facta sum masculus.” ...Perpetua clearly states, “and I was made male,” without any room for confusion... Perpetua’s transformation into a man is controversial and dangerous because... It is something she decides for herself and something that allows her to become victorious.

"...Augustine... places a heavy emphasis on the difference between body and soul in regard to gender... the soul is able to transcend gender, but the body is not. He... argues that while Perpetua was sleeping, her body remained female, but her soul was able to become masculine to defeat the devil, who was in the guise of another man... arguing that it makes sense that only Perpetua’s soul had become masculine. This is a much easier concept to grasp, as the soul is identified with purity and the body is not."

"Augustine... says, “What, after all, could be more glorious than these women, whom men can more easily admire than imitate?” His question first draws a line between female martyrs and an apparently male targeted audience. Then, it draws an important distinction between admiration and imitation. Men can admire female martyrs and their actions, but they are not generally able, or are not encouraged, to imitate them. By placing this statement in a sermon on Perpetua, an easy connection can be formed between the mention of imitation and Perpetua’s transformation into a man. Augustine warns against one sex imitating the other. Later in this sermon, Augustine discusses the issue of the sex of the body versus the soul. He says, “…to the inner self they are found to be neither male nor female; so that, even as regards the femininity of the body, the sex of the flesh is concealed by the virtue of the mind, and one is reluctant to think about a condition in their members that never showed in their deeds.” Again, referring primarily to Perpetua, he repeats the argument that the soul is able to transcend sex in order to overcome what he sees as an inherently weaker body... a reminder to the audience that the body is unable to go against sex, unlike the soul."

"Augustine continues to place an emphasis on the difference between body and soul by repeatedly highlighting the weakness of the female body and the strength of the soul... he praises female martyrs for what he views as abnormal strength, saying “A more splendid crown… is owed to those of the weaker sex… when their feminine frailty has not been undone under such enormous pressure.” He connects bravery and piety with masculinity, appearing surprised that women could exemplify these traits. This "backhanded compliment" is not necessarily meant to just praise these women for their bravery, but to remind the audience that what they did was abnormal for their sex... Augustine is not subtle about his views on women’s physical and moral strength, and how extraordinary he finds Perpetua and Felicity. He even states that “these women [died] faithfully like men… it was a greater miracle for women, in their weakness, to overcome the ancient enemy.” Again and again, Augustine makes the claim that women are inherently weak, and this is why their martyrdoms are more notable. This misogynistic belief feeds into his distaste for Perpetua’s transformation, as she takes strength for herself in a very physical way, rather than just adopting a purer, and therefore masculine, soul."

"St. Jerome... writes in a letter to a young woman about people who present outside of their assigned genders. He writes on masculine women... He claims that these women are ashamed of the sex they were born as and compares them to eunuchs. In the next section of this letter, Jerome goes on to talk about those he perceives as men adopting feminine appearances. He talks about them “wearing their hair long like women,” which among other things he lists is a “[token] of the devil.” Jerome’s stance... on contemporary examples of people that transgress the gender binary, [is clear:] women are feminine, and men are masculine, and anyone who goes against this is [morally] wrong."

"Jerome continues to talk about these masculine women and offers a description of them. He says they cut their hair and wear a cilicium, a piece of men’s clothing often made of goat hair."
(BTW... "Cilicious clothing, or a cilice, is a garment made of rough haircloth, often from goats or camels, worn for asceticism and penance... its adoption as a hair shirt became a prominent symbol of bodily mortification and a spiritual aid against temptation in early Christianity." THIS IS NOT A BAD THING!!!)

"Given the long tradition of holy women becoming masculine, it makes sense that Perpetua would adopt this trope for herself, yet by the time of Augustine and Jerome, this had become somewhat unacceptable. At some point in the mid-fourth century between 325 and 381, there was a Council held at Gangra that formally addressed this problem and banned ascetic women from presenting themselves masculinely in the way Jerome describes: by cutting their hair and wearing men’s clothing. [Nevertheless,] ascetic women continued to present masculinely as a “sign of female piety well into the ninth century... several women are now known to have lived their entire religious lives as monks, with their assigned gender only being discovered after death."
(I have dreamed about doing that myself so many times.)

"The biggest question with Perpetua’s transformation is whether she actually becomes a man in body, or if she just becomes masculine. Williams argues that because Perpetua in her narrative continues to use feminine language to refer to herself after the alleged transformation, this means that she did not physically become male. Alternatively, her use of this language simply reflects that she still views herself as a woman and is not ashamed of her femininity. Again, there is nothing to suggest that Perpetua’s statement of “et facta sum masculus” is not meant to be taken literally."

"In this scene, there are only two instances where she uses feminine language to describe herself. The first is in her fight with the Egyptian man... feminine language is used to distinctly juxtapose her with her enemy. If he, the Egyptian, wins, he will kill her, but if she wins, she will accept the branch of victory. Perpetua uses "he versus she" intentionally as a way to show that her victory is rooted in her womanhood. She may be in a male body, but she is still a woman and is able to defeat the devil... Perpetua, by becoming a man, agrees with the belief that the female body is inherently weaker than the male, and that is why she must change to become victorious. However, Perpetua does NOT abandon her womanhood, even AS she becomes masculine... her assuredness in her femininity is powerful...
The second instance where Perpetua describes herself using feminine language is after she is victorious. She writes, “And he kissed me and said to me, "Daughter, peace be with you."" The referee, a stand in for God, kisses her and calls her daughter... this [seems to be] a sure sign that Perpetua is still inhabiting a female body in order for this referee to view her, and call her, this. However... the referee is meant to represent God, who is famously omnipotent... Perpetua transforms into a man; defeats the devil, who is disguised as an Egyptian; and God, Who is disguised as a referee, says, “Daughter, peace be with you.” The constant contrast between Perpetua’s masculine form and her feminine identity presents an opposite argument to Augustine’s. Here, her body becomes masculine, while her soul, which is visible to herself AND to God, stays female. This is controversial because it makes the claim that physical sex is transmutable and that a female soul has strength. Not only does Perpetua demonstrate that she is capable of overcoming evil, but she shows that she has divine approval. God looks at her in her male body and both praises her and calls her daughter. This scene is meant to show the power of the female soul, something that Augustine finds incompatible with his view of gender."
(I am honestly in tears over all this. God this is EXACTLY what MY soul NEEDS to hear. Thank You.)


"Although her transformation in the fourth dream is the most extreme, there are other instances in the Passion that show Perpetua going against what is expected of her gender in a subversive way...
In Perpetua’s first dream, she sees her fellow future-martyr Saturus at the top of a ladder that is lined with weapons. At the foot of the ladder is a serpent, who, as Saturus warns, will hurt her if she is not careful. Instead, Perpetua uses the serpent as a tool to climb the ladder and enter Heaven. She writes, “And from under the ladder itself, as if fearing me, he slowly stuck out his head. And as if I were stepping on the first step, I stepped on his head and climbed up." Here, Perpetua references Eve and proves herself above the sin that is ascribed to her gender by using the serpent for her own advantage, rather than falling victim to it. ...Augustine speaks of this scene favorably, saying “Thus the head of the ancient serpent, which had been the ruin of woman as she fell, was made into a step for woman as she ascended.” She ascends into a garden, mirroring the one that Eve was banished from.
This scene also has another heavily gendered interpretation when the serpent is taken as a phallic symbol. From this perspective, Perpetua uses masculinity as a tool to lift herself into Heaven. This is very similar to her final transformation, where she uses a masculine body to defeat the devil."

Although many of Perpetua’s interactions with her father show her taking on a more masculine role, these culminate in his reluctant acceptance of her chosen martyrdom and his placement of a new title on her head. She writes, “He said these things as if he were a father, kissing my hands out of his compassion, and throwing himself at my feet and weeping, he no longer called me daughter but mistress." This scene shows him kissing her hands, falling at her feet, and weeping, none of which are particularly masculine actions. He gives up his control over her, succumbing to the reality that she has chosen a new, heavenly father. The most notable part of this scene is that he goes from calling her daughter [filiam] to lady [dominam]... “turning the normal gender-hierarchy upside down and [Perpetua] gaining the position of dominance.” By calling her domina, Perpetua’s father admits that he has no control over her and admits to her independence, going against the rules of a traditional father-daughter relationship. Yet, in allowing her this more dominant, and therefore masculine, role, he still refers to her as a lady. This pushes back against both familial and gender hierarchies, as Perpetua can assume a role of power while still proudly keeping her feminine identity."

"In literature, gender is not always a perfect "hierarchical binary", as some women are presented as better than others. [There is the] classical idea of women who "other themselves", which often coincide with a more masculine identity... women that want to step outside of the confines of their gender, although not in an entirely subversive way... these women seek superiority over other women by becoming closer to men. This is not to say that these women "become masculine" in a physical sense, but that they adopt a more dominant role through this move up the hierarchy... “‘…these writers [namely Plutarch and Paul] sought to redefine masculine virtue to accommodate virtuous women in a way that did not threaten the patriarchal matrix of domination.’” This mirrors the gender divergence of biblical women like Mary Magdalene and Mariamne who became masculine in opposition to their femininity. This is [seen in the (heretical!) Gnostic story of] Mary Magdalene who Jesus designated as male not only so that she might join the Apostles, but so that she might also enter the Kingdom of Heaven. In these cases, the women are deemed "better than female" because of their masculinity, and are therefore forced to give up some aspect of their female identity."

"Perpetua is different from other, more acceptable, masculine women because while she uses masculinity as a tool for her own gain, she takes it for herself and is not ashamed of her womanhood. [Notably,] Perpetua dies as a woman, with details that point inarguably to her femininity... When Perpetua and her fellow martyrs enter the amphitheater to meet their death, Perpetua boldly meets the eyes of the crowd. The editor writes, “Perpetua followed, with a radiant countenance and placid gait, as the matron of Christ, as the delicate one of God, captivating the sight of all with the vigor of her eyes.” ...many have called this “coded as masculine.” This behavior is not socially acceptable, and the dominance she expresses through this action is certainly not expected or encouraged in women. The language used here conveys the tension in this scene and the power Perpetua feels through this action. She pushes back against the gazes of all in the crowd with her own, daring them to truly look at her. By returning their gaze, Perpetua forces the crowd not only to recognize her as a PERSON, rather than a spectacle, but also as a WOMAN. The titles attributed to Perpetua in this scene also show that the editor finds this action admirable, regardless, or perhaps because of how controversial and subversive it is. They call her a bride of Christ [matrona Christi] and the beloved of God [Dei delicata], two titles which designate her as holy but also highlight her femininity. She is feminine and loved by God despite her subversive, masculine behavior. Again and again, God gives His divine approval to Perpetua because of her masculinity, BUT He does so in a way that recognizes that she IS a WOMAN. In this martyrdom, God is not asking Perpetua to abandon her female identity... Rather, He praises her for clinging to her femininity while using masculinity as a pious tool."

"Despite her more masculine behavior, Perpetua has a deep connection with her womanhood that she maintains even in the face of death. When Perpetua and Felicity first enter the amphitheater, they are wearing nothing but nets, so that the audience is able to see that they are young women. They are then taken away and dressed in more modest robes before being sent back into the amphitheater. At this point, Perpetua appears to be very aware of her body. The editor writes, “And when she sat down, she pulled the tunic, torn from the side, back to the covering of her thigh, more mindful of shame than of pain." She puts her modesty before her pain in an attempt to maintain control over her body. She then “searched for a needle and pinned up her scattered hair; for it was not fitting for a martyr to suffer with scattered hair, lest she should appear to be lamenting in her own glory."  Both the covering of her body and the pinning up of her hair are behaviors expected of her gender that she clings to as she seeks agency. Perpetua finds enough power in her identity as a woman that, as she approaches her final martyrdom, she wishes to present herself as such. Unlike other women who attempt to move up the gender hierarchy by positioning themselves as something other than female, Perpetua’s identity is deeply rooted in her assigned gender. She uses masculinity and masculine behaviors in order to achieve what she wants: martyrdom; yet, IN her martyrdom she maintains her identity as a woman.
The inclusion of these two juxtaposing scenes—Perpetua staring down the audience and then covering up her body for the sake of modesty—shows that the editor is aware of Perpetua’s complicated character and chooses to stay true to it... Clearly, the editor finds Perpetua to be an inspirational, holy figure... Gender fluidity among holy women was not a new phenomenon... To her contemporaries, Perpetua presents a somewhat typical example of both a masculine holy woman and the classical literary trope of a woman moving up the gender hierarchy by becoming something other than female. It is only in the context of the mid-fourth century to the early fifth century when the Church began to crack down on gender nonconformity among holy women that Perpetua’s narrative presents a problem."

SUMMARY =
"There are a few instances where it is deemed acceptable, and in some cases even holy, for women to become masculine... masculinity can be given as a gift from a man– in both of [the heretical Gnostic] cases, given by Jesus. Both Mariamne and Mary Magdalene in particular become something other and notably better than female. Here, being female is something to be ashamed of, and in order to reach their true holy potential, both women must relinquish their female identities. Masculinity can also be given as a punishment, as in the martyrdom of Agatha. In this narrative, a man cuts off her breasts as a form of torture, thereby masculinizing her physically, and she is later praised for her suffering. In all three of these cases, masculinity is not seen as subversive, nor is it something that these women seek. It is forced upon them, whether that is through reward or punishment. Perpetua, however, pushes this trope "too far" by taking masculinity for herself. She uses it as a tool to achieve salvation THROUGH martyrdom. In the most controversial example of this, she transforms into a man in her dream. The scene is so contentious that people have been arguing for centuries on whether she actually became male in a physical sense because it represents a complete subversion of Early Christian ideas of gender, exhibited by Augustine’s words on gender and the soul.
Although there is nothing to suggest nuance in this scene, St. Augustine argues that only her soul becomes male, while her body remains female. This is because if the soul becomes male but the body remains female, this maintains an impenetrable, innate physical distinction between the sexes while both acknowledging that the soul is beyond this, and that masculinity is inherently and divinely superior to femininity. However, if the soul remains female while the body becomes male, it dissolves all of this. It says that sex is transmutable, and that a female soul can be both victorious and holy. By insisting that Perpetua’s body remains female and only her soul becomes masculine, Augustine hopes to quell any suggestion that there is strength in womanhood; he asserts that the female sex is weaker and less pure than the male; he refuses to acknowledge that a woman might use the rules presented in cases such as Mary Magdalene for her own [spiritual] gain; and he casts shame on the idea that a woman might find power in her own femininity. Perpetua ultimately does physically transform into a man in her dream, but this is so controversial because in spite of this, she remains proudly female."


------‐--------------------------------------------------------------------------

https://www.franciscanmedia.org/st-anthony-messenger/acting-on-the-beatitudes/

"How rich is my prayer life? Can it be improved? In what ways can I deepen my love for God?"


"...What does it mean to have a blessed life?... For many people, blessing is synonymous with good fortune and that God is the reason for our happiness. On one level, it’s wonderful to see people with thankful hearts giving credit to God. On another level, it’s a bit unsettling to see Jesus’ words so ignored... Jesus offers the beatitudes (literally, “the blessings”), and they couldn’t be further from our modern usage of the word. Rather than list "desirable states of happiness", Jesus says that those who are truly blessed are the poor, those who mourn, the meek, those who hunger and thirst, the merciful, the pure of heart, the peacemakers, and even those who are persecuted... Our experiences of affliction are meaningful in themselves, not only because they lead us to greater union with God in the future but also because they offer us joy in the present moment, as we experience a taste of the kingdom of heaven and our salvation is brought to fulfillment.
As Christians, we do not simply endure these conditions to receive something later; these conditions offer us the very grace of God that makes our lives blessed in the here and now. I believe that this can be seen in three ways: greater dependence on God, empathy for others, and focus on what matters most."


"God... wants to be seen as the miracle worker, the One Who created everything in existence and holds everything in the palm of His Hand. He wants to be relied on more than anything else and receive all the credit for being God. 
When we seemingly have all we need... it can be easy to believe that we’re successful because of our own actions. If we’re the authors of our own destiny, what is the need for prayer? What is the need for giving thanks? What is the need for God? How foolish we are in those moments. 
Conversely, it is in times of great need—when we’ve lost our job, when we’re short on rent, when we find ourselves abandoned and alone—that we realize how little control we actually have in life and how much we rely on God’s help. While poverty is by no means a guarantee for faith, there is no doubt that [faith] can flourish among the materially poor; they have faith, not despite their poverty, but precisely because of it. There’s no greater blessing than being content with what you have and living without worry because you know that God will always provide."

"I’d invite you to pause for a moment and ask yourself: Do you pray as if your life depends on it? In other words, is your prayer fueled by desperation and outright dependence on God? The world considers an independent, comfortable life to be a blessing, but it doesn’t compare to the ultimate blessing of surrendering completely to God and trusting that he will take care of it all."


"When I was in high school, my faith wasn’t strong. I believed, but I didn’t really understand. A major breakthrough came for me sitting in adoration my freshman year, somewhat distracted, thinking about my girlfriend. I thought about how much I loved her, how I would do anything for her no matter what happened, and how amazingly reassuring it felt to know that this feeling was reciprocated. Then it clicked. This is how God feels about me.
No matter what I do or what I need, God will always be there for me, wanting nothing more than for me to be around. It was my experience of vulnerability and self-sacrifice with this girl that helped me feel the presence of God in my life. 
And then two days later she abruptly broke up with me. Plot twist! I share this story simply to say that I know what it’s like to have your heart pierced and to feel like your world is crashing down around you. When I encounter a student who has just gone through a breakup, I will not for a second think to say, “Well, another one will come along,” or “Oh, you’ll get over it.” More than some intellectual exercise, I can feel what they feel. 
When I ask myself why Jesus considers afflictions like mourning and persecution to be signs of blessing, I always turn to the line attributed to St. Oscar Romero: “There are certain things in life that can only be seen through eyes that have cried.” While I think any person of goodwill can intellectually understand another’s pain, there is something to actually experiencing pain yourself that opens your eyes to the pain of others around you. You don’t just see with your eyes; you feel with your heart. And in doing so, do we not grow closer with one another? When you are able to mourn with others and feel their pain, it’s nearly impossible to remain detached. Our common experience binds us. It creates a brotherhood and sisterhood of concern, the recognition that we are not random ships passing in the night but people with a deep connection, responsible for others’ well-being."

"While I would never advocate for more tragedy in our lives, I think we could all use a little more heartbreak, particularly over our enemies. So often we are fueled by resentment and indignation toward those who cause pain and division in this world. But what if we could recognize our “enemies” as both perpetrators and victims? What if we could see them as wounded individuals, trapped in the cycles of sin and pain, causing harm because that’s what they’ve received? Imagine how different our world would be if we were able to feel empathy and even a sense of communion and mutual responsibility toward those who do evil. 
This is the way Jesus acted, and it is what we must imitate. On the cross, he spoke of the people that condemned and crucified him, “Father, forgive them, they know not what they do.” His heart was not filled with rage; it broke for them. He loved them because he understood what they had been through."

"I’d invite you to pause again and ask yourself: Have you ever experienced tragedy that ended up helping you love others more? In other words, has a moment of personal pain opened your eyes to the pain of others in a way that you can never see them the same way again? The world considers happiness and bliss to be a blessing, but it doesn’t compare to the ultimate blessing of developing a deep sense of love and responsibility for the body of Christ, including even our enemies."


"A few years ago, I worked at a refugee camp in Mexico where men and women could get a meal, medical attention, and a place to sleep for the night. One day, I met a man who was on this 1,000-mile trek for the third time. He told me what he had been through, the dangers of extortion and violence, and how he feared for his life as he traveled through Mexico on his way to Texas. 
In my ignorance, I asked him why he did it. The danger didn’t seem something worth risking. He simply responded, “What choice do I have?” It turns out that, as a child, this man had been brought to the United States, where he lived for 20 years. He had a wife and two young girls waiting for him. When he asked, “What choice do I have?” he meant that he would rather die than not do everything he could to return to them. It’s what he desired more than anything else, what made life worth living, and what he was willing to die for to achieve. 
This is the sort of hunger that Jesus desires. This is the sort of single-minded devotion, pure motivation, and focused attitude that the kingdom requires. The Gospel is not something we do in our spare time or something we give up on when the going gets tough. It’s the sort of thing we’d rather die for than abandon."

"As strange as it sounds, I don’t believe our world has much desire left in it. Despite its insatiable appetite for creature comforts, giving in to seemingly every impulse of the day, I don’t believe the world knows much about actual desire. I’m talking about the desire that fuels us to a future goal, focuses our attention away from temptations and distractions, and remains steadfast when things get difficult. In other words, it’s the ability to want something so much that you’re willing to make any sacrifice to achieve it. 
When Jesus speaks of being hungry, having a pure heart, and the willingness to endure persecution, this is what he’s referring to. Not that he wants us to suffer, but that he wants our desire for the Gospel to be so great that we are willing and able to endure suffering in this world. He wants people who are so focused on him and the joy of the kingdom he offers that riches, acclaim, comfort, and earthly happiness are not tempting in the least.
They’re distractions, immediate gratifications that do not last. Because Christians desire what cannot be fulfilled by this world, going without the pleasures of this world does not bother us one bit."

"I’d invite you to pause one last time and ask yourself: What do you desire so much that you are willing to give up absolutely everything to obtain it, even your life? The world considers remaining on this earth for as long as possible in order to obtain as much as possible the mark of blessing, but it doesn’t compare to the ultimate blessing of living every moment with eyes fixed on the kingdom, knowing where we’re going and how we’re going to get there."


"So, what does it mean to be blessed? For our world, it means being comfortable in the here and now, having what we want without much difficulty or pain. It’s enjoyable, and I have no doubt that God wants us to taste the fruits of goodness from time to time. The problem, as the beatitudes point out, is not so much in the comforts themselves, but in what they do to us. When we are comfortable by earthly standards, it is all too easy to remain comfortable with the standard of earth. We like this world and we do not want to leave it, which means defending what we have, seeing others as threats to our comfort, and taking any means necessary to maintain it. Talk about gaining the whole world and losing your soul. 
As Christians, the beauty of the beatitudes is that they remind us that this world is not our home. What we have in this life does not define our worth, nor does it represent anything that is lasting. The reason that Jesus says that those who are truly blessed are those who suffer (poverty, mourning, and the like) is not because he wants us to suffer; it’s because he wants us to realize that nothing in this world can ever fully satisfy. Only he can. And so, even though suffering may appear at first to be without benefit, if it helps us depend more on God, grow in empathy, and focus us on what really matters, how can it be anything but a blessing?"


------‐--------------------------------------------------------------------------

https://www.wilgafney.com/2023/08/13/saving-joseph-and-all-the-other-queer-kids/

"Jesus saves Peter when Peter’s faith is not enough to save himself. God saves. Jesus saves. Jesus saves because he is the love of God, [made incarnate] in woman-born flesh, the flesh of the Ever Blessed Virgin Mary... It is that love of God that gives birth to the mercy of God and saves us from ourselves and the evil we do, or have had done to us."

"Sometimes the focus on salvation means we focus on the end of the story without considering the journey. We who are saved by the love of God poured into the womb of the Blessed Virgin and God’s love poured out on the bloody cross... we are on a journey. Sometimes, even with the certain hope of salvation, and resurrection, and reunification with all our loved ones and the saints of God, we are on a journey that is [inevitably] painful and perilous [even] between moments of delight and seasons of joy."

"“Jesus saves.” Those are powerful and comforting words. But they can also be twisted into a trite expression and become an excuse for not dealing with the very real struggle and pain we all experience on our journey, walking the way of love in a wicked and broken world doing its best to break us too. [You] need more than “Jesus saves” on a t-shirt when your journey is taking you places you don’t want to go and subjecting you to trauma you did not choose... [and yet even then, you are still part of both Christ and His Church;] you are not on your journey alone; we are all in this life together."

"...Israel, formerly Jacob, loved Joseph more than any of his other children... Israel had eleven sons and some unknown number of daughters... All of them knowing their father loved little Joseph more than he would ever love any of them. It seems Israel learned nothing from having his love manipulated by his father-in-law. Or, perhaps he learned all the wrong lessons...
...That one boy was treated as treasure [by his father]. As a result, his [other] children’s hunger for their father’s love was a hunger that could never be satisfied. The brothers turned mean and bitter and dangerous. The sisters– Dinah and whoever else was hidden in the text without a name– were ignored by their father in the story that never once speaks of a father’s love for a daughter; yet, they show up to comfort their father in his inconsolable grief over the son he loved more than them..."

"Like many who stand out in some visible way, like trans children and queer folk, Joseph was the victim of bullying, bullying that was not child’s play. Bullying is dangerous. Bullying can be lethal. Bullying can take and destroy lives– whether it is queer kids taking their own lives or others taking the lives of queer and trans folk because they think they shouldn’t exist, shouldn’t have joy or shouldn’t dance... Joseph’s brothers planned to kill him. Someone made the suggestion and eight full grown men agreed. Only one dissented.  
Joseph was where they did not want him to be, where they did not think he belonged... However, a person does not have to be a prince or a perfect child for them to be be worthy of the life God gave them... [every unjustly hated & killed person] was and is the beloved of God and worthy of salvation in God's eyes. And no one has the right to take their life away or­ hold them in bondage."

"These are men, not boys. But they carry the unhealed hurts of childhood into their adulthood. And the hurt, harm and havoc they will wreak will bear the failure of their adult responsibility to manage their own pain without making it someone else’s. Their acts will not be childish pranks; they will be crimes: assault, kidnapping, trafficking, conspiracy to commit murder. This is not a children’s Bible story; we do great harm minimizing this domestic, family violence."

"[In cases of extreme suffering,] platitudes about "the love of God," or "the saving power of God", or "the power of God's Name" are simply not enough. It’s not enough for a child or teen who has been brutalized by someone in their family. It’s not enough for a girl child who has been sold to traffickers by her mother. It’s not enough for abused children watching one of their parents look away from the signs of their abuse. It is not enough to say, “Jesus saves” and [merely] point to miracles of scripture... But rather, we are called to be Reuben and to be better than Reuben. We are not called to "walk out on the water" to save someone else, but we ARE called to risk floundering in the treacherous depths of family feuds, broken relationships, cultural biases, and assumptions, to save the vulnerable from those who would harm them or tell them that their bondage is their salvation."
(The distinction = "walking on water" is NOT our job because we aren't God; the very attempt to do something so miraculous on our own power is insultingly proud and arrogant, a "Savior complex" attitude that ignores the REAL Savior.
BUT to "risk floundering" implies that we are actually in PETER'S position??? The risk is WALKING TOWARDS JESUS. Only THEN are we able to "save the vulnerable," because JESUS holds us up as we BOTH meet them in the water??? And when our faith falters, we AREN'T ALONE. Any works of "salvation" we do are ONLY possible when CHRIST is working THROUGH and WITH us.)

"As the spiritual sung by my enslaved ancestors says, Joseph is "a motherless child", a long way from home. In my sanctified imagination, I see him in his terror crying for his mama like so many black men murdered by the police, like Jesus on His cross. His father is far away, and his brothers have become his would-be murderers and traffickers. He has no one but God and God is slow-walking his liberation. We need to be honest about that because many of us share that experience with Joseph; God is slow-walking us to our freedom from a traumatic circumstance we did not choose."

"It is incredibly dangerous that enslavement is set up as being salvific and beneficial in this story. That lie was fed to my ancestors for 400 years. Then it was Christians peddling christofascist white supremacist mendacious theological rationales for enslaving Africans "for our benefit and civilization"... the lie of “beneficial skills acquired during enslavement”. There is no benefit to enslavement, not baptism, not survival skills, not adoption of western cultural norms and attire, nothing... [And yet, many claim] that Joseph’s experience of slavery "wasn’t so bad". After all, he was eventually sold to the Pharaoh! And his dreams– [a gift that] his brothers blamed for their hatred [and near murder] of him– [ultimately] brought him to prominence, promotion, and elevation. Today, some might say that Joseph learned “beneficial skills” while he was enslaved and in prison. People have been romanticizing, misrepresenting and normalizing slavery for a long time while denying or minimalizing its horrors. As is common for most trafficked and enslaved persons, Joseph was sexually assaulted. He escaped the intended conclusion of the assault but he would not escape the trauma. [Although not explicitly stated,] that would have followed him for the rest of his life, and he lived in a culture in which that would’ve been shameful for a man to acknowledge. Unfortunately that shame endures in our culture as well."

⭐⭐⭐⭐⭐⭐⭐‼️‼️‼️‼️‼️‼️‼️ "Joseph would be “saved.” But to be "saved" means not simply to be delivered from death or danger; it means to be made WHOLE, and to be RESTORED, and to be HEALED. When we tell of the "saving power of God", of the "salvation offered in the Name of Jesus"... do we talk about saving a person’s mind and heart and spirit ALONG with saving their soul?"


On this day that we also commemorate the Blessed Virgin, she offers us a model of the salvation that requires the saying “yes” to God even when the question doesn’t make sense in the world as we know it. Salvation is modeled by Mary the Mother of God and indeed, the entirety of the Hebrew Scriptures where it is not about individuals in isolation, the personal salvation of so many evangelicals and protestants. Indeed, the pinnacle of the Joseph story is that he is, in spite of and not because of, the horrific means, in place to save his people in a time of famine. But Joseph’s view of salvation was still too narrow. He identified with his enslaver so much that he took the Egyptian people for everything they had when they were hungry to enrich his master and he, he set up the very system of slavery that would be turned against and imprison his own people in the Exodus stories to follow.

The holy Virgin offers her body and eventually the life of her child to save the whole world from the hate and hurt capitalized on by systems of oppression and domination to enslave the world to fear and fear of death. Yet in the face of death from stoning as an unwed pregnant mother, the Virgin says yes to a salvation that is bigger than her, bigger than she can see, know or understand. Because of her yes we are no longer imprisoned by the systems that enslave, traffic and murder people like Joseph and O’Shae Sibley. We can do more than Ruben did. We can take the words, “Jesus saves” and make them flesh with our lives and let God use us to save somebody else. Amen."

------‐--------------------------------------------------------------------------

https://www.centerforfaith.com/blog/was-joseph-trans-an-exercise-in-gender-stereotypes

"...several biblical characters... were, in her words, “gender variant”—a phrase she uses... to suggest that “male and female were not the only two realities”. [In her opinion,] not only is Joseph “gender variant” (not fully male or female) because he wore a “girly garment gladly”, but Jacob too “was definitely gender variant ... given his preference for "women’s work" and for spending his days among the women of his tribe”. And Deborah was not “strictly male or female” since she was “settling disputes, speaking on God’s behalf, leading an army”—things that “were all strictly "men’s work"”. Aside from confusing the concepts of sex and gender, I appreciate how [this] shows that various biblical characters didn’t fit the masculine and feminine stereotypes of the day. However, I’m nervous about the ontological implications of her claims. In trying to push back against stereotypes, [she] ends up affirming them. Phrases like “women’s work” and “girly garment” supports the cultural stereotypes of what it means to be a man or a woman. Again, “gender variant” [as it is used here] means not entirely male or female, so [by this assumption,] if a male acts in less-than-masculine ways, then this shows they’re not entirely male. But if Jacob chooses to do “women’s work”, does this mean he’s not fully male? Do we have to question whether Deborah was fully female since she was capable of “setting disputes”?"

"...The Jewish and Greco-Roman cultures of biblical times were saturated with expectations about how women and men should act... Men were expected to be hairy-chested, sexually charged, domineering men. And real men were military men. Joining the military and becoming a soldier “was the only way many Roman males could lay claim to being a man”. Any male who cried in public, showed affection (not just lust) toward women, abstained from sex outside of marriage, or honored lower-class people—the poor, the marginalized, and children—was not considered a real masculine man. A “real man,” according to the culture, would never have washed another man’s feet.
Enter Jesus."

"Jesus... overturned social views about masculinity and femininity. In addition to his “masculine” table-flipping, Jesus also wept over Jerusalem and longed to “gather your children together, as a hen gathers her chicks under her wings”. He also let others slap him in the face and smack him on the head, and he rarely stood up for his personal rights. Jesus comes to us as one who “challenges cultural notions of masculinity. He washes feet, touches sick people, shows compassion to sinful women, loves children, and more.” Jesus, in other words, supplies us with a countercultural view of masculinity. This DOESN’T ’t mean that “male and female” are only two of many options. It shows, rather, that being male and female is much more expansive than what our culture wants to allow. And when we say that biblical characters—or people today—who don’t conform to stereotypes "aren’t fully male or female", we essentially validate the very stereotypes we think we’re critiquing.
Let Joseph wear his fabulous coat with gladness without questioning his gender. Because cultural assumptions about masculinity do not determine whether you are a man."

------‐--------------------------------------------------------------------------

https://library.biblicalarchaeology.org/article/the-favored-one/

"And Mary said, “Here I am, the Lord’s slave before him. I pray that all you have told me comes true.”"

"While Joseph is away, Jesus is born. At that moment, Joseph has a vision of time stopping: Rolling clouds pause, birds are suspended in midair, Joseph himself stops mid-stride; all of nature takes notice of the birth. The vision equates Jesus’ birth to his death, which is marked by darkness and earthquake."

"Joseph soon finds a midwife and they return to Mary. As they approach, a dark cloud withdraws from the cave; from inside emanates a light so intense “that their eyes could not bear to look... And a little later, that light receded until an infant became visible; he took the breast of his mother Mary”. The midwife, who would typically aid in the birth and nurse the child, has nothing to do. Her uselessness simply emphasizes Mary’s exceptional qualifications as a mother. Recognizing that she has witnessed a miracle, the midwife pronounces the central confession of the gospel: “A virgin has given birth!""

"...Salome swears, “I will never believe that a virgin has given birth”... She screams: “I’ll be damned because of my transgression and my disbelief; I have put the living God on trial. Look! My hand is disappearing! It’s being consumed by flames”. She is healed, however, when she reaches out to touch the infant Jesus. Salome, like Joseph and the high priest before her, is converted from doubt to belief."

"When Herod orders the massacre of the innocents, it is not Joseph who leads the family to safety. Indeed, Joseph is not mentioned again in the Infancy Gospel. Mary must save Jesus herself: “When Mary heard that the infants were being killed, she was frightened and took her child, wrapped him in strips of cloth, and put him in a feeding trough used by cattle”. Mary’s actions are borrowed from Luke 2:7, but here they appear in a completely different context, one that emphasizes Mary’s courage."

"In encomia, the narration of the subject’s virtuous deeds is followed by a comparison of the subject’s actions with the virtuous actions of others. Here, the text turns to Elizabeth and her husband, Zechariah, the parents of John the Baptist, who also respond with courage to the threat to their son posed by Herod. The Infancy Gospel underlines Mary’s bravery by placing the equally brave acts of Elizabeth and Zechariah immediately after hers."

"Pulcheria’s claim that she herself was the Theotokos was, however, the greatest factor in encouraging the veneration of Mary within the church. For the people, an empress could only claim the identity of a creature greater than herself, and that could only be a divine being, not a humble maid of first-century Palestine. If Pulcheria claimed she was Mary, then Mary must be divine and worthy of great devotion."


------‐--------------------------------------------------------------------------

https://www.earlychristianwritings.com/text/gospelnazoreans.html


"...the early church fathers regarded anything the Hebrew wrote as "heresies" and called many of the Jews "gnostics"; however, it is quite clear from the writings of Shaul (Paul), from Yahshua himself, and from the apostolic letters (called the "general epistles", the ones written in Hebrew and were disputed by the church fathers) that "gnosticism" was a prevalent religious concept in both Judaism and the Primitive Congregation of Yahshua. These "gnostics" (any first century Jew writing in the Hebrew language about the concept of "good and evil") were considered heretical. The reason for this is that the latter "church" (from 70 C.E. onward) was steeped in Babylonian mysticism due to so many of its members being former pagans who promulgated the "savior god" or the "man-god" of the Babylonian and Egyptian pantheons."

"the man who had the withered hand is described as a mason who begged for help in the following words: "I was a mason, earning a living with my hands; I beg you, Jesus, restore my health to me, so that I need not beg for my food in shame.""

"Matthew 12:40: "For as Jonas was three days and three nights in the whale's belly; so shall the Son of man be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth."
To Matt. 12:40b cf. Gospel of the Nazaraeans: The Jewish Gospel does not have: three days and three nights.
Commentary: The alteration of this verse is quite significant, for it alters what Yahshua said. He, apparently, had said that the only sign given to the people would be the "sign of Jonah" -- that is, Jonah was sent to declare YHVH's judgment against the people of Nineveh if they did not repent. Likewise, Yahshua was sent to declare YHVH's judgment against the people of Israel, yet they would not repent. Thus, the verse probably read: "For as Jonas was in the whale's belly, so shall the Son of Man be in the heart of the earth". Of course, Yahshua was comparing himself and his situation to Jonah's in every sense. The "heart of the earth" and the "whale's belly" were known to have represented "Leviathan", or figuratively, the "grave" and "death", because it is also associated with the word "yam", the "sea", or the "abyss". The Encyclopedia of Jewish Symbols states: "these sea-monsters have many names: "Tannim" (dragon); "rahav" (expanse) and "yam" (se", but the most common name is Leviathan, known in Jewish legend as the King of the Sea". In the book of Revelation, Leviathan is called Abaddon, the King of "destruction" (or corruption), who comes up from the abyss or "Sea"; Abaddon is the "beast of the sea", that "old serpent" whose abode is an "expanse" (the grave)."

"To Matt. 18:21-22 (Luke 17:3-4) cf. Gospel of the Nazaraeans (in Jerome, Against Pelagius, III.2)--He says, "If your brother has sinned by a word, and repented, receive him seven times a day." Simon, his disciple, said to him, "Seven times a day?" The Lord answered, "Yes, I tell you, as much as seventy times seven times! For in the prophets also, after they were anointed by the Holy Spirit, a word of sin [sinful speech?] was found."
Commentary: Sinning by a "word" simply implies that any man might sin in his speech; thus, if he realizes his error and turns from it (i.e. learns from his mistake), then he should be received by his brothers as many times as is necessary. This is called "regeneration", a honing process by which one learns the path to YHVH... Even the prophets were not free of sin even though they were the "oracles" of Elohim."


To Matt. 19:16-24 cf. Gospel of the Nazaraeans (in Origen, Commentary on Matt. 15:14 in the Latin version) The second of the rich men said to him, "Teacher, what good thing can I do and live?" He said to him "Sir, fulfil the law and the prophets." He answered, "I have." Jesus said, "Go, sell all that you have and distribute to the poor; and come, follow me." But the rich man began to scratch his head, for it did not please him. And the Lord said to him, "How can you say, "I have fulfilled the law and the prophets," when it is writtten in the law: "You shall love your neighbor as yourself;" and lo, many of your brothers, sons of Abraham, are covered with filth, dying of hunger, and your house is full of many good things, none of which goes out to them?" 


"To Matt. 25:22ff. Cf. Gospel of the Nazaraeans (in Eusebius, Theophany on Matt. 25:14f.)--... turns the threat not against the man who had hid [the talent], but against him who had lived dissolutely-- for it told of three servants: one who wasted his master's possessions with harlots and flute-girls, one who multiplied his gains, and one who hid the talent; and accordingly, one was accepted, one was only rebuked, and one was shut up in prison."


"Just prior to a Jewish execution, the accused is asked to confess (not his crime, but his sin) so that he might be forgiven by Yahvah and be allowed to enter the World Without End... "it is usual for those about to be put to death to confess. For whoever confesses has a share in the world to come". The reason given for this is that Joshua asked Achan to confess his transgression before the congregation put him to death. Yahshua did not confess as they wantd him to; instead, he prayed that the Father (Yahvah) might forgive them for their sin. The second thing about this Scripture in the Hebrew that we must note is that the word "cross" did not exist during the first century in the Hebrew language. Therefore, the Jews who wrote that original Hebrew gospel would not have used the Greek word "stauros" - stake or pole - but the word 'ets - "tree" (it is always translated in the apostles, and Peter, in particular, as xulon -- living tree, or "green tree"). The Jewish people had to adapt another word in order to come up with the modern Hebrew word tslav for "cross"."

"To Matt. 27:51 cf. Gospel of the Nazaraeans (in Jerome, Letter 120 to Hedibia and Commentary on Matthew 27:51): In the Gospel that is written in Hebrew letters we read, not that the curtain of the temple was torn, but that the astonishingly large lintel of the temple collapsed.
Commentary: Again, here is a notation by Jerome that this gospel was written in Hebrew. The "lintel" to which Jerome is here referring was not a lintel over the Sanctuary House of the Temple. It was the lintel over the inner Nicanor Gate, and it was this lintel (held in place by a 60-foot high wall around the Sanctuary) from which hung the first veil. The Holy Place of the Temple was inside the Sanctuary area, not exclusively in the House. It was restricted to all Israelites (per Josephus) by this 60-foot high wall; thus, no one might be able to see into the Court of the Priests nor the altar area. The wall carving at Dura Europa of the Temple clearly shows this Nicanor Gate with its veil hanging in place, and behind we see the smoke from the altar and the blue veil hanging over the Holy of Holies."

Matthew 27:65: "Pilate said unto them, Ye [i.e. the Sanhedrin of the Temple have their own police force or "watch"] have a watch: go your way, make it as sure as ye can."
To Matt. 27:65 cf. Gospel of the Nazaraeans, as recorded in a marginal note of some mss: The Jewish Gospel has: And he delivered armed men to them, that they might sit opposite the cave and guard it day and night.
Commentary: Note something here: there were never Roman centurians who guarded the Tomb of Yahshua -- there were only Temple police guards present at the tomb. Thus this is the reason they reported to Caiaphas the events of that morning. Roman guards would never have fallen asleep on the job, lest they be put to death; neither would they have reported to Caiaphas who would have had no control over them... Pilate clearly told the Sanhedrin to send its own men, and it did."

------‐--------------------------------------------------------------------------


https://dtbm.org/jonah/

"Our Lord God Almighty is such a God of Mercy and Grace! Out of the countless lives that have crossed the pages of time we find two small dots, blips on the radar screen of eternity. Seemingly insignificant to all but God. A great storm that swirled around that nameless boat somewhere in the Mediterranean eight centuries before Christ. By all counts it should have swamped that boat and sent the nameless mariners to the black depth of the sea to await judgment day... But this black night a light breaks forth. Amazingly, these sinking sailors do not perish. They rather are miraculously rescued from harm by the Master of ocean and earth and skies. Of all things, sleeping in the dark, creaking hold is an evangelist. Shaken awake by the terrified captain, questioned by shouted words over the fury of the storm, he speaks..."

"...highlighting the phrase about Jonah “paying the fare"... Jonah did not get to where he was going, since he was thrown overboard, and that he obviously did not get a refund on his ticket. So he paid the full fare and did not get to the end of his journey... “It is always that way. When you run away from the Lord you never get to where you are going, and you always pay your own fare. On the other hand, when you go the Lord’s way, you always get to where you are going, and he pays the fare.”

"It is almost humorous that, in spite of his persistence in disobeying the Lord  and the breach of  divine fellowship that must have produced, Jonah gave a powerful testimony. Though Jonah’s actions are wrong, his heart can’t hide the Word of God for long, it just comes out. And in all His power God will speak to them...the Scriptures are God speaking. When you share them, the Voice of God is unleashed. The Bible is the unsheathed sword of the Spirit.  So he said to them, “I am a Hebrew; and I fear the LORD, the God of heaven, who made the sea and the dry land.”  NINE WORDS that strike harder than the gale howling about them. It penetrates deeper than the cold sea spraying their faces and stinging their eyes. For you see, the Word can penetrate the very soul of mankind... Was it he had been a preacher too long? Was the habit of speaking about the Lord just with him? ...“In addition to acknowledging himself a Hebrew, [Jonah] gave a witness then and there for his Lord.  He may have been endeavoring to resign his commission, but he could not change his heart, which remained that of a true prophet.  So he pointed these mariners to the only Lord God... Logically, he might have been able to tell just the bare facts and let it go at that. Verse 10 says that he rehearsed his story, culminating in his running away.  But Jonah could not stop at that point, it seems.  So even in his state of disobedience and in the trauma of the moment, Jonah told of his background and indicated that he was a servant of the Creator and covenant-keeping God..."


"The great God of the Hebrews,  and not a weak god,  was pursuing this boat and its hapless mariners for the sake of Jonah. And how they were terrified!  “What have you done?” they asked. “What should we do to you to make the sea calm down for us?” was their next question... It is too bad that Jonah did not learn as much from the questions the sailors asked him as they had from his testimony, or he would not have answered their questions as he did. The sailors had asked, “What have you done?” This was a rebuke.  If Jonah had answered properly, it would have led to his repentance.  There was no answer but the full confession of sin.'

“Suppose yourself in Jonah’s place, and hear the question put to you– to you, a man of God, by heathen men. Because when we flee he Lord it hurts everything – our God, our testimony and our life for Him."

"Why hast thou done this?"
Did your God provoke you to flee from him? Did he deal so hardly and unkindly with you that you had no altemative but flight? 
Were you tired of your God? 
Had you found him out as no more worthy of your trust and obedience? 
Had you got to the end of all the duty that you owed to him-or of all the protection and support that he could afford to you?
[Why didn’t you listen to him?] Produce your strong reasons. 
Has God been a wilderness to you? 
Have you found a better friend? 
Have you found a worthier portion? 
Have you found a sweeter employment than meditation in his word and calling on his name?
Have you found him unfaithful to his promise?  
Have you discovered that he discourages his people? 
Will you say that the more you have known him, the less you have thought of him?  It looks like it, O backslider.  It looks like it, if you  can remember days when you loved him more, and served him better than now.
If Jonah had been able to think dearly along these lines, he would have acknowledged that nothing God had done or could ever do could deserve his disobedience, and he might have repented."


"What happens? The same incredible result that 5 words spoken later by the same prophet would have on Ninevah. The mariners are gloriously converted! Look at them. They fear the storm, they fear the words of Jonah more, but when they meet God it's all over. They approach Him the way they were supposed to, by sacrifice and made vows only after they saw who He truly was, the Lord God,  Creator of all! Meet the LORD. The God who saves whom He will. The God who storms as He wills. The God who chooses whom He wills. The God who knows all, sees all and is everywhere, makes Himself known to these pagans He has desired to save. The Lord is His name. Jonah presents us with an inescapable God, The Lord of Heaven and Earth who gets Jonah’s attention by weather, fear and pain. He is an incredible God is involved in the details of life. He uses anything to bring about the perfections of His will. Most notably in this book He speaks through  waves, whales, weeds, worms and winds."

"So the mission for Jonah began. He intersects with the first blip on he radar screen and scores an unwilling, direct hit. But the next task before Jonah was as big as they come. Of all the spots on the globe, God wanted Ninevah. Ninevah was wicked, a city was steeped in paganism, deeply into demonic, occult powers. Jonah had no advance teams, no tracts, no prayer meetings to prepare the people for the coming of the evangelist.  No media, no newspapers, no explanation of what was going to take place. Ninevah was Ancient, founded among  the first of all cities. It was Huge, perhaps the largest city of the old world... For one man to arrive all alone with a message from an unknown God against such a city was ludicrous in the extreme.  What could one man do?  Who would listen?  Where were the armies that could break down such walls or storm such garrisons?  The men of Nineveh would ridicule the strange Jewish prophet... And when God finally has the ear and will of His prophet, the message is remarkably brief. The message Jonah preached in 3:4 has 8 words in English and only 5 in Hebrew: “Forty days from now Nineveh will be destroyed!”"


"The Scriptures trace the elements of a God-sent revival.
First, there must be a faithful preaching and hearing of the Word of God.
Then, this preaching must produce faith in God.
Thirdly, the actions that follow saving faith begin to be seen... When people in any time believe in God and He transforms them they show it. Abel offered, Enoch walked, Noah built.
And finally, there will be a turning from specific sins."

"Recall that Jonah was asked to go to Nineveh but in disobedience to God went to Tarshish from the presence of the Lord.  The prophet was so angry at God’s will that he preferred to drown in the Mediterranean Sea rather than go back to preach to the Ninevites.  He knew that God might bring repentance to that city and then use the Ninevftes to punish Israel.  Jonah could not bring himself to preach to these heathen.  God, he thought, belonged to the Jews not these pagans."

"Think of the disadvantages this city had during this evangelistic campaign.  The preacher had no burden, in fact he hated the people to whom he was called. He went hoping that they wouldn’t believe his message.  
...There was no interesting Introduction to this sermon; nor did he have an illustration in the conclusion. He told them simply, Yet forty days and Nineveh will be overthrown”...his message was only one of judgment — there was no grace, no love, no mercy. [Yet] Jonah’s message was conditional; that is, IF the people would repent, the threatened calamity would not come. [And against all odds,] the city was so responsive that it experienced one of the greatest revivals In history... In fact, [their king] Issued a proclamation that all people, even the animals, should repent!  This is surely the most unlikely revival In all of history."

"There are three accounts of repentance in this chapter.  First of all, Jonah repented, then Nineveh repented, and then God “repented.’ Of course God knew all along that Nineveh would respond to Jonah’s message.  The text simply means that God did not do what had been [conditionally] promised because the city turned to Him.
In 3:10 is God repenting? ...What happened? First, the city that God said He would destroy ceased to exist because of repentance. Secondly, when it reappeared later it WAS destroyed. Third, the word for repenting in Hebrew is nacham and it speaks of an internal suffering that needs consolation. When did God suffer? Not at Ninevah. No it was at a hill called Calvary when He who knew no sin became sin for us, suffered, bled and died!"

"Why would anyone get angry at God ? Of all people, Jonah was such an unlikely candidate. But he did. Some reasons he did that we should avoid:
First, he disagreed with God’s will.
Then he forgot the past mercies of God.
Finally, he was terribly short on his understanding of God. God is always greater, bigger, vaster and grander  than our loftiest thoughts. Jonah was angry when he couldn’t fit the Lord in his box.
When we get angry at God  we often make the same serious mistakes Jonah made. What were they?
He QUIT. He MADE A PRIVATE RETREAT. He BECAME A SPECTATOR. 

"The book ends with a question, a question that has no written answer.  This is not a mistake.  It ends on a question in order that each one who reads it might ask himself or herself the same question: Is God not right?  Is He not great for showing mercy?

The lessons of this book are many.  There are lessons that concern Jonah himself.  He is a type of practically everything: a type of Christ (who was buried but who rose again), a type of Israel, a type of all believers (for we all run away from God at times and need to be disciplined).  
There are lessons that concern Nineveh and the true meaning of repentance.  There are lessons relating to the doctrine of God’s sovereignty over men and nature. But greater than all these lessons is the lesson of the greatness of the mercy of God.  How great is God’s mercy? ...The real measure of the wideness of the mercy of God is that of the outstretched arms of the Lord Jesus Christ as He hung on the cross to die for our salvation.  THAT is the wideness of God’s mercy.  THAT is the measure of the length to which the love of God will go. How can we, who have known that mercy and benefited from it, be less than merciful to others?  How can we do less than love them and carry the gospel to them with all the strength at our disposal? 


This is a great irony.  We remember that Jonah was running from God because he did not want God to save the heathen in Nineveh.  But the first great event in the story was the conversion of the heathen sailors, who were in many respects just like the pagans of Nineveh.  And Jonah was not there to see it! This carries us farther in the lessons of this book about God’s sovereignty.  What God is going to do, He will do... those whom He saves will never perish, neither will anyone pluck them out of Christ’s hand (John 10:28).  But notice, God can do this through the obedience of His children, as He does later with Nineveh through Jonah, in which case they share in the blessing.  Or He can do it through His chidren’s disobedience, as here, in which case they miss the blessing.  Either way, God blesses those whom He will bless.  But the one case involves happiness for His people while the other involves misery.  
Which will it be in your case?  Will you resist Him?  Will you refuse His Great Commission?  Or will you obey Him in this and in all matters? "

"Perhaps you are not yet a Christian.  If not, then learn from God’s grace to the sailors.  You have not yet perished in your godless state because God, who made the sea around you and the dry land on which you walk, preserves you.  Do not remain indifferent to Him.  Turn to Him.  Approach Him on the basis of the perfect sacrifice for sin made once by His own Son, Jesus Christ, and follow Him throughout your days."

"LESSONS TO BE LEARNED
JONAH: “SEVEN BAD HABITS THAT CAN REALLY MESS UP YOUR LIFE” One of the more unusual characters in the Scriptures is this fellow Jonah. He had some bad habits. Every time he gave in to those bad habits he got in trouble. He was without a doubt a man of God, but with some areas God was working on. Aren’t all of us like that? Let’s look at his seven bad habits and try to avoid them in our lives.
IT IS ALWAYS A BAD HABIT WHEN :
1.      WE FORGET THAT GOD IS IN CONTROL OF EVERY DETAIL OF OUR LIFE. 
2.      WE  FORGET THAT GOD OFTEN USES UNUSUAL CIRCUMSTANCES TO SHAPE OUR LIVES.
3.      WE FORGET THAT GOD ALWAYS KNOWS MORE THAN WE DO.
Like: Moses and Pharaoh’s house, Joseph in prison, Daniel as POW. Remember, God may not want you to have that job, girlfriend, car, etc. 
4.      WE FORGET THAT GOD IS ALWAYS, BY HIS CHANGELESS NATURE, FAR KINDER, LONG-SUFFERING AND MERCIFUL THAN YOU ARE.  
5.      WE  FORGET THAT GOD IS THE ONE WHO GIVES THOSE GOOD AND PERFECT GIFTS WHICH ARE THE UNEXPECTED COMFORTS OF LIFE. 
6.      WE FORGET THAT GOD CAN TAKE ANYTHING IN YOUR LIFE AWAY WHENEVER HE WILLS TO.  
7.      WE FORGET THAT GOD ONLY REFINES OUR LIVES, TO PURIFY US INTO BETTER LOVE AND SERVICE FOR HIM."

------‐--------------------------------------------------------------------------

https://www.ebsco.com/research-starters/religion-and-philosophy/gnosticism

"The gnostics were a group of different Christian sects who believed in a common idea: that there was not one divine god, but rather two opposing supreme beings. The gnostics considered the physical world to be evil and chaotic and believed its creator god—the Jewish God of the Old Testament—was an inferior or “lesser” deity known as the demiurge. The true God was spiritual, remote, and beyond human understanding."
(It's literally logically impossible to have TWO "Supreme beings".)

"The Ophites were a second-century religious sect that believed in many of the core gnostic philosophies. They believed the demiurge was named Jaldabaoth, or “son of chaos,” and it was he who created the physical world. Jaldabaoth was the god who forbid Adam and Eve to eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil in the biblical Garden of Eden. The Ophites believed that the serpent that tempted Eve to eat the fruit from the tree was trying to impart the secret knowledge of God to humanity, but was prevented from doing so by Jaldabaoth. As a result, the Ophites revered the serpent as a benefactor of humanity who tried to give humans knowledge of the divine."
(This is LUDICROUS because the fruit was SPECIFICALLY the "knowledge of good AND EVIL"!!! So the serpent here in this claim is ASSOCIATING DIVINITY WITH EVIL. THAT'S OBVIOUSLY SATANIC.)

"Gnostics  believe that Christ was an emissary of a higher, remote divine entity who imparted esoteric knowledge (gnosis) necessary for the redemption of the human spirit. The movement is characterized by its dualistic worldview, where the material body is seen as flawed and the spirit as divine... The Ophites also believed Jesus was a human born to a virgin mother, but received the divine essence known as Christ later in life. Because Christ was in opposition to Jaldabaoth, the latter orchestrated Jesus’s crucifixion and death. However, after Jesus was resurrected from the dead, he received the hidden spiritual knowledge of the higher God, and taught that knowledge to his followers."
(THAT LITERALLY MAKES NO SENSE & DIRECTLY CONTRADICTS THE GOSPELS)

------‐--------------------------------------------------------------------------


https://quantumtorah.com/and-there-was-evening-and-there-was-morning-quantum-mechanics-in-genesis/


Evening is called erev because dusk is a mixture of light and darkness. The concept of mixture is central to understanding the deeper implications of “erev” in the creation narrative. The notion of mixing – erev – is related to the state of chaos when things are not in their places but are mixed up... Just as erev signifies a state where distinctions between objects blur, superposition represents a condition where distinctions between states blur. Thus, the Schrödinger cat can be in a mixed state of being dead and alive at the same time.
Conversely, the Hebrew word “boker” (בקר), morning, stems from the root בקר (B-Q-R), which means “distinguishing,” “inquiring,” and “discriminating.” Morning is called “boker” because the dawn of light dispels darkness, allowing for clarity and differentiation. The Talmud (Berakhot 9b) discusses that the time to recite the Shema in the morning is when one can distinguish between blue (techelet) and white threads—a metaphor for the onset of discernible reality. This perfectly aligns with the quantum mechanical concept of measurement.
The notion of morning – boker – is related to the state of order when boundaries are clearly delineated, and things are in well-defined places. 

In quantum mechanics, measurement fundamentally transforms a quantum system. When we observe or measure a quantum particle, such as an electron or a proton, its wave function—the mathematical description encompassing all possible states—collapses into a single, definite state. A blurry state of superposition is clarified. The act of measurement reveals new information about the state of the system. This process mirrors the transition from evening to morning: just as evening (erev) represents a time when different objects are blurry and indistinct, the morning (boker) shines a light on these objects and brings clarity and distinction. The morning light reveals information about objects—their shape, color, identity—which suddenly emerge from the darkness just as measurement reveals information about a specific quantum state—the position of the particle or its spin—from the murky state of superposition.[3] The collapse of the wave function restores order, assigning definitive values to the observed physical properties and revealing information, parallel to the transition from erev to boker.

...so does the biblical pattern of erev and boker mirror this quantum dance. In the evening (erev), when darkness reigns, we lose the ability to pinpoint exact locations and states—much like the quantum particle in a blurry state of superposition or the mysterious figure vanishing between streetlights. But with the coming of the morning (boker), as light floods the scene, indefinite possibilities collapse into concrete realities. The morning light reveals not just the presence of objects but their definite positions and properties—just as measurement reveals an electron’s specific orbital state. This daily cycle of creation—from the mixed, uncertain states of erev to the defined, manifested reality of boker—reflects the very process [of] the fundamental quantum nature of our universe, where matter moves from superposition to definition, from probability to reality, from darkness to light.

This linguistic parallel suggests a novel interpretation of the creation narrative: each day of creation proceeded in two phases:
1. An evening (erev) phase where matter existed in a state of quantum superposition—multiple possibilities coexisting in a mixed state; and
2. A morning (boker) phase where these possibilities collapse into definite, manifested forms through divine speech or observation.


The fundamental duality established at creation—the separation between Creator and creation[12]—manifests itself in the primordial contrasts of darkness versus light and erev (evening) versus boker (morning). This cosmic duality finds a striking parallel in wave-particle duality, where matter exhibits contradictory wave-like and particle-like characteristics..
Yet these apparent opposites are not truly contradictory but complementary. The biblical text emphasizes this unity: “And there was evening and there was morning, day one.” Unlike the subsequent days, which are numbered as “second,” “third,” etc., the first day is referred to as “one.” The Hebrew word for “one” (echad) here suggests not merely a number but a fundamental unity—evening and morning combining to form a complete whole... Just as we need both wave and particle descriptions to fully understand quantum phenomena, the full nature of creation emerges only through the complementary aspects of erev and boker.
This parallel reveals an even deeper truth about the nature of reality. While G-d represents absolute unity, devoid of any duality or corporeality, our limited human understanding necessarily introduces apparent dualities when describing the Divine. Although Judaism holds as axiomatic that G-d is one, it also maintains that G-d is perfect and lacks nothing. This creates an apparent paradox: any attribute we ascribe to G-d cannot be limiting. When we say G-d is infinite, He is not limited by His infinitude, and thus [He does not also possess] the potential for finitude. G-d is... unrestricted by any restrictions.
This paradox extends even to existence itself. To say something “exists” in our world implies the possibility of non-existence. As Maimonides argued, G-d’s existence is necessary—He cannot not exist."

Yet this very necessity would seem to be a limitation. In the language of quantum mechanics, we might say that from our limited perspective, G-d exists in a superposition of existence and non-existence, though this apparent duality exists only in our perception, not in G‑d’s essence.
According to Midrash Tanchuma, the purpose of creation was that G‑d desired a dwelling place in the lowest of the worlds... This suggests that our physical world must reflect all Divine attributes, including this paradox of existence and non-existence. Thus, the biblical contrasts of light (ohr) versus darkness (ḥosheḥ), day (yom) versus night (lailah), morning (boker) versus evening (erev)—all this fundamental dichotomy. In our limited world, which cannot sustain paradoxes, these opposites must be separated, as the Torah states.
This cosmic pattern finds its echo in quantum mechanics: particles in their collapsed state reflect existence, while their wavefunctions in superposition reflect a kind of non-existence or potential existence... the wavefunction represents not physical reality but pure mathematical abstraction— what we might call a “protophysical” state. Only when measurement collapses the wave function does the potential become actual, mirroring the transition from Divine potential to physical manifestation.


"In his commentary on Genesis 1:1 and 1:14, Rashi suggests that all elements of creation were brought into existence at once in a general sense during the initial act of creation. For instance, regarding the luminaries (sun, moon, and stars), he explains that they were "created" on the first day but were assigned their specific functions and positions on the fourth day.
...in the beginning, G‑d created all things in a general, potential state. This initial act of creation brought forth a primordial matter or substance... from which all specific, differentiated forms would later emerge... an initial, simple, undifferentiated substance that G‑d subsequently shaped into the ordered universe... the subsequent days of creation involved the formation and differentiation of this initial, undifferentiated matter into the concrete entities we recognize in the world... the process of differentiating and perfecting this substance into specific forms and beings... all elements of creation were created simultaneously in a potential state and then revealed in their final forms over the six days... The world was created in a state of undifferentiation, like a seed that contains all the potential for growth… Then, the Holy One, blessed be He, began to differentiate and separate the elements, creating the world as we know it... That is why we call G‑d “kadosh,” that is, “separated.”"


"...a key distinction between the growth of distinction in ‘boker’ as the ambient light increases in intensity, thus illuminating the world as it is available to us through sight, and the retraction of distinction (or the growth of the blurring of boundaries) as the ambient light diminishes and illumination of the world is withdrawn. The key issue is the relative presence or absence of light...

"...Tohu may be recognized as the quantum substratum or ‘Implicate Order,’ and Vohu as the manifest or physical world that is sensed through the physical senses that comprise the human ‘interface’ with reality, thus detecting and composing our physical ‘actuality’ or ‘Explicate Order’ as it is revealed to us."

------‐--------------------------------------------------------------------------

https://www.openhorizons.org/wholeness-and-the-implicate-order-five-ideas-from-david-bohm.html

"The "implicate order"... describes a deeper, more fundamental level of reality where everything is intrinsically connected and "enfolded" into a total, unbroken wholeness. This deeper, interconnected reality unfolds into the "explicate order," which is the more familiar, separated world of objects and events that we perceive. The implicate order suggests that the universe is not made of isolated parts but is a unified, flowing process, and it can be accessed through consciousness, with the whole containing the essence of all its parts."

"A sense of the implicate order invites us to recognize the whole is contained in each part... each part of the hologram contains the whole object. A sense of the implicate order also invites us to recognize that each part manifests a still larger and undivided whole from which all things emerge: the "holomovement"... the whole of existence, including inanimate matter, living organisms, and ‘mind,’ arises in a single ground, in which these are all enfolded, or contained implicitly..."
(I feel this is all literally talking about God)


"...the quantum theory indicates the need to take the implicate order as fundamental. In other words, the essential order of movement is not that of an object translating itself from one place to another, but rather, it is a folding and unfolding, in which the object is continually being created again, in a form generally similar to what it was, though different in detail. The explicate order of movement of the object is thus not independent, substantial, and self-existent. We suggest instead that it is an appearance, abstracted from the implicate order, on which it depends and from which it derives its whole form and set of characteristic relationships."


"The totality of all such possibilities, known and unknown, I shall call the holomovement. The holomovement is to be understood as necessarily and essentially undivided. Since it has no divisions, there can be no explicit way to describe or specify it. It can be known only implicitly, through particular manifestations (such as light, sound, electrons, etc.). Such manifestations have a certain relative autonomy, i.e., self-rule, in their order of movement, and this permits them to be studied in themselves, at least up to a point. But ultimately this autonomy is limited, because the fundamental order is holonomy, i.e., the law of the whole... all matter is to be understood as a relatively autonomous and constant set of forms, built on and carried by the universal and indivisible flux of the holomovement. Such material forms have a certain subsistence, in the sense that under appropriate conditions they can continue with a certain limited possibility for stable existence. However, they are not to be regarded as substances, which would be completely stable, permanent and not dependent on something deeper for their continued existence. So the flux of the holomovement, with its implicate order, is the primary reality, while the explicate order of relatively constant material forms is secondary."


"...we have to come to a new general world view, or metaphysics, in which the implicate order is primary, while the explicate order is secondary or derivative. In developing such a view, we cannot stop with the attempt to understand matter alone through the implicate order. For we ourselves, along with electrons, protons, rocks, planets, galaxies, etc. are only relatively stable forms in the holomovement. It is necessary, moreover, to include not only our bodies, with their brains and nervous systems, but also our thoughts, feelings, urges, will and desire, which are inseparable from the functions of these brains and nervous systems. If the ultimate ground of all matter is in the implicate order, as contained in the holomovement, it thus seems inevitable that what has generally been called ‘mind’ must also have the same ultimate ground."

"when we look into the depths of the clear sky, what we actually see is an unspecifiable total ground of movement, from which objects emerge. Particular ideas or thoughts coming to the mind may similarly be perceived as being like particular objects that arise from an unspecifiable ground of deeper movement. What we call ‘mind’ may be this deeper ground of movement, but if we think of the particular thoughts as the basic reality, we miss this.
Such a way of looking at everything fits in rather well with our general experience. Thus, while any statement may give an explicit expression to our thoughts and feelings, the meaning or significance of this statement is in a vast and unspecifiable implicit background of response. Unless we share most of this implicit background, the explicit statement will communicate little or nothing. So one may propose that, also in the mind, the explicate order arises out of the implicate, and that the basic movement is one in which the content of each of these continually passes into the other. What all this means is that the flux of the holomovement is the implicate source of all forms, both physical and mental."

"Inanimate matter is characterized by a relatively autonomous mechanical order of behaviour (i.e., a dominant tendency to recurrence, repetition, relatively fixed and stable patterns of movement, etc.). This order is inherited mainly from the past. On the other hand, what is essential to mind is the possibility of a fresh creative act of intelligent perception, which can assimilate knowledge from the past, but which is not dominated by this knowledge. Of course, inanimate matter has certain creative possibilities also, but these evolve relatively slowly. And while mind too can function mechanically and repetitively, this is not its essential quality. Mind, which is deeply creative and new in its essential mode of operation, cannot then be explained in terms of any mechanical abstraction of the properties of inanimate matter. Rather, it is being proposed here that its operation originates in implicate depths of the holomovement beyond those needed for understanding the ordinary mechanical qualities of matter.
It is clear that, in this view, living organisms are to be regarded as particular manifestations of what is ultimately enfolded in the inward depths of the holomovement. We are suggesting here that a living organism has a more direct contact with what is thus enfolded in the holomovement than does inanimate matter. When such an organism dies, this relatively direct contact ceases to operate, so that the body of the organism reverts back to the more mechanical order of inanimate matter. So, in a certain sense, we could say that the energy of life more typically reveals the innermost order of the holomovement than does inanimate matter. For this reason, one can appropriately call the holomovement the life energy, which is the ground that ultimately creates and sustains all matter and all mind, as two relatively autonomous and independent streams that may move in parallel.
This view does not deny the importance of the mechanical abstraction of the structure of the living organism. But it denies that the abstraction of mechanism comprehends the ultimate ground of life, and indeed it denies also that such an abstraction comprehends the ultimate ground of inanimate matter. Nor are we saying (e.g., with Descartes) that mind and matter are to be considered as two "independently existent" substances. Rather, the universal life energy IS  what operates in the role that has generally been attributed to the one self-existent substance, which is the implicate ground of every form that comes to explicate manifestation."

A key point introduced by the notion of implicate order is that it is not possible in general for all such modes to be explicate together. Rather (as indicated by the fact that different quantum mechanical ‘observables’ cannot generally be defined simultaneously), when one mode is explicate, others will have to be implicate.



"Wholeness is always in process. This is true of personal wholeness, community wholeness, planetary wholeness, and holistic thinking. No form of wholeness is fixed or settled, static or stagnant. And no form is permanent. Even the divine whole, even God, is a whole "in process"... [yet,] with the exception of divine wholeness, wholeness is unstable. It can come and then pass away. And even in its unstable forms, wholeness comes by degree. A person, a community, a planet can be whole in some ways, but not in others.  And a whole can be relatively whole, but not completely whole. For human beings, complete wholeness will have to wait for heaven, whether it be a beatific vision or an everlasting communion..."

"...wholeness is the satisfying intensity that is felt by a concrescing subject in a moment of concresence (the coalescence or growing together of parts originally separate) as that subject weaves together influences from the past actual world into a gestalt, a whole.  Wholeness is a moment of beauty."

"What is important in human life is to recognize that different beings have and enjoy different kinds of wholeness.  Bacteria and living cells, plants and animals, infants and adults - all aim toward and enjoy some kind of wholeness.  The need in our time is to think holistically in ways that incline our hearts and minds toward a recognition and appreciation of the many kinds of wholeness. David Bohm offers one kind of holistic thinking by encouraging us to think of the order of the universe itself as a journey toward and in wholeness."

------‐--------------------------------------------------------------------------
------‐--------------------------------------------------------------------------


Save us, God of all things,
    strike all the nations with terror;
raise your hand against foreign nations,
    that they may see the greatness of your might.
Our sufferings proved your holiness to them;
    let their downfall prove your glory to us.
Let them know, as we ourselves know,
    that there is no other God but you.


QUANTUM THOUGHTS ON THIS???
To make known to his people their salvation
    through forgiveness of all their sins,
the loving-kindness of the heart of our God
    who visits us like the dawn from on high.
He will give light to those in darkness,
    those who dwell in the shadow of death,
    and guide us into the way of peace.

AND ALSO THIS=
Lord God and Maker of all things,
Creation is upheld by you.
While all must change and know decay,
You are unchanging, always new.


"Jesus finds and reads out this passage from Isaiah on the coming of the Spirit, fulfilled at that moment. They expostulate, thinking they know him too well: he is too ordinary for them. The peace is shattered. Jesus proceeds to shatter it further by proclaiming that if they do not want him he will follow the example of the old prophets Elijah and Elisha by bringing happiness and healing to those beyond the borders of the Land of Israel... It is a dramatic scene, sharp and wounding. Jesus pulls no punches... He leaves no doubt that he has come to the poor and oppressed, and that he will find them, as did the prophets who preceded him, outside the Chosen People."

------‐--------------------------------------------------------------------------




------‐--------------------------------------------------------------------------

https://evolve.reconstructingjudaism.org/josephs-womb-gender-complexity-in-the-story-of-joseph/

"There have been times that I have felt self-conscious about reading so much into Joseph. I have felt a fear that I was projecting as a means of locating myself in our ancient texts, and that that was not a legitimate project. But as Rabbi Shefa Gold says, Torah is not about somebody else. I am not projecting myself onto Joseph any more than someone who argues that there is nothing queer about Joseph at all. And while seeing myself reflected in a text feels satisfying and useful and healing, I am not doing this in a vacuum. Joseph invites it, and has been inviting it forever..."

"The rabbis are clearly troubled by Joseph’s chaste beauty, but inasmuch as he is a sacred hero, they fear articulating their doubts too directly…. His beauty and innocence strike the rabbis as unnatural and effeminate…."

"In pursuing this question, I surveyed the use of the root r-kh-m in Tanakh, where it appears 133 times. Of these, only 5 instances refer to the physical wombs of identified women: Leah, Rachel, Hanah (twice), and the women of Avimelekh’s household.
Another 28 times it is used as a very close metaphor to mean birth itself, the moment of birth, fertility or the offspring or firstborn of the womb (as in peter rekhem).
Eventually – in 78 occurrences – the root comes to indicate a divine quality of compassion or mercy. Around half of those are in the prophetic books, promising God’s mercy or threatening to withhold it; the other half are in Psalms, beseeching it.
Far fewer – 14 times – are the instances where r-kh-m describes a human quality of compassion. Of those, nine are not individual humans but abstracted human collectives such as nations (e.g. Isaiah 13:18 – “[the Medes] shall show no mercy to children…”). Five instances reveal the human quality of compassion, or arguably the divine quality of compassion expressed through individual humans.
In the Book of Genesis itself, the root r-kh-m only appears six times. Three of these are physical wombs of identified women: Leah, Rachel and the women of Avimelekh’s household. The remaining three occurrences are all connected to Joseph....
The dominant, normative meaning of rakhamim as God’s quality of compassion does not clearly occur in Genesis at all. Instead, there are physical wombs and three puzzling occurrences connected to Joseph."

"... in the evolution of our religious use of the term rakhamim, we have created a broad semantic distance between the quality of divine love and the quality of having a womb or giving birth from a womb. It seems possible that as the Jewish God-concept became more entrenchedly male in antiquity, religious reformers found it important to create greater symbolic distance between “womb” and “compassion.” In other words, as God wandered further from the feminine, so did God’s womb-like, maternal qualities. When, in post-biblical literature, the quality of rakhamim became a human attribute and not only a divine one, the word was returned to humanity with the rekhem expunged from it. So much so that in our day, pointing out the “womb” association of rakhamim feels like a hidush – a creative association and feminist reclaiming, rather than a self-evident etymological connection and clearly intended association.
The loss of the intrinsic feminine in this word is a sore loss. It would not be unreasonable to translate rakhamim – wherever we see it in text, commentary, or liturgy! – as “motherlove” or something else that can capture the actual wombiness at the root of the word, something our ancient Israelite ancestors would have instinctively understood and felt.
Once we see the wombiness in rakhamim, and with our awareness of how limited the distribution of the root r-kh-m is in the Book of Genesis, we can bear witness to Joseph’s maternal ache when he sees Benjamin. This – in a passage in which their mother is remembered and referenced, and in which Joseph calls his brother “my son” – is not a stretch. Joseph didn’t “feel compassion.” His womb ached! – whether or not he physically had one."

"...whether or not Joseph had a physical womb, his feelings toward his younger brother were definitionally maternal. He, in that moment, stepped into the shoes of his dead mother, Rachel, embodying her and giving voice to her anguish. The writer of the story in I Kings draws that connection explicitly. Joseph exhibits qualities of motherhood. We have already learned that he had an arguably feminine beauty, and that as a teen he wore a garment customary for daughters of kings... is Torah acknowledging that Joseph embodies something we might experience as a feminine energy, or even a feminine physicality, giving us instances of how, even while withholding any discussion of why?"

"...might this be a prayer for wholeness? Maybe Jacob’s blundering and backfiring attempt to accommodate Joseph’s unusual gender as a child by giving him the ketonet pasim is now getting its tikkun, its correction. Jacob belatedly blesses Joseph in the name of Shadai, the breast-nurturing deity (and referencing t’hom, the primordial deep) that Joseph might at last find fulfillment and freedom in the body he was given; that Joseph may at last rest easy in “his” womanhood, or in his more-than-just-manhood."

"What seems to be indicated here is something physical with a social and perhaps legal consequence. In one traditional birthing posture in the ancient Near East, a laboring mother would lean back and brace against the body of another woman, perhaps an elder, while the midwife is positioned to catch the baby.
A woman unable to have children from her own body could (if she had the financial means or social status) arrange a kind of adoption or surrogacy. She would ritually enact this by taking the position behind the birthing mother during the birth. Scholar Robert Alter says, “This gesture serves as a ritual either of adoption or of legitimation,” referring to the social and legal significance of this posture.[18] The child would be considered hers, or under her protection, or in some way incorporated within her legacy. In the few instances Tanakh gives us, there is a power or status disparity between the adoptive mother and the birth mother; we see it with Rachel and Bilhah, and also in the case of Sarah and Hagar, although the “knees” idiom is not used in that case. Even in cases where there was not an adoption or surrogacy, the birth position would nonetheless have involved someone – a midwife or mother or elder woman of the tribe – poised behind the birth mother...
...the posture of circumcision is in itself an echo of the ancient birth posture. The sandak, often a grandfather, takes the position of the elder woman in the birthing room. The baby, on the sandak’s knees, is in the place of the birth mother. The mohel takes the spot of the midwife."

"While the use of the b-r-kh root to mean “blessing” is widespread in Tanakh, the use of it to specifically mean “knees” – outside of references to bending the knee in reverence – is remarkably limited... Most of the references are connected to birth...
Besides the instances of Joseph and Rachel already noted, there are only 4 other noteworthy occurrences. In Job’s grand lament, he wonders why he was born; why there were knees to push him from the womb (Job 3:12). At Isaiah 66:12, as part of a lengthy prophecy built on birth and infancy metaphors, there is a promise that the people will again suckle on the wealth of nations and be dandled on knees. In Judges 16:19, Samson, whose own birth had been miraculous, falls asleep with his head on Delilah’s knees, while she cuts his hair. And in II Kings 4:20, the Shunnamite woman’s son, whose birth had been prophesied (or maybe brought about) by Elisha, collapses across her knees and dies, in a posture not coincidentally reminiscent of a Christian Pietá – the dead offspring stretched across the once-unwilling womb that had miraculously birthed him, symbolizing unjust tragedy and presaging an imminent resurrection."
Significantly, all these instances of birkayim – “knees” – are references to the knees of women, with the (possible) exception of Joseph...
So, the question at hand is whether a text stating that babies were born on Joseph’s knees indicates that Joseph is, socially at least, a woman, or gendered in a way that makes their presence in the birth chamber permissible."
"As for Joseph’s great-grandchildren being born on his knees: the peshat (plain meaning) of the verse seems to be that Joseph is in fact in the birthing chamber, bracing the laboring mother. If this is so, it suggests that late in life Joseph has come to be a kind of matriarch figure – an elder of the clan who is welcome in the birthing chamber, perhaps again taking the place that would have been Rachel’s...."

"...She shares a midrash that on that journey to Canaan with Jacob’s body, the caravan passed by the pit into which Joseph had, as a youth, been cast by his brothers. Rabbi Diane drashes about the necessity of returning to the places of our trauma in order for healing to happen... our hearts open to the pain we all carry. My eyes are on the words of Torah. Then they are closed as blessing begins to pour out, that we might all be seen in our complexity. That all of our bones, our substance, our selves, should be lifted up. No part of us less worthy. Every bit of us tzelem Elohim – the image of the Divine. There is nothing else.
I feel my tears welling up. I hear weeping all around me – weeping at the death of Joseph, or weeping from grief at realizing that there are parts of ourselves that we had considered beneath blessing.
Silence falls. We sit, stunned, as one does after attending a death. One participant begins chanting a healing prayer, and we sing for Joseph’s healing and for our own. We have all been called to be here in this moment. To witness. To bless. To cry. To heal. Our prayers pour into Torah, back to Joseph. And we feel blessing pouring forward back to us... “Be strong, be strong, let us strengthen each other"... we look at each other again – aglow, open, knowing."

------‐--------------------------------------------------------------------------

https://quantumtorah.com/the-conflict-between-joseph-and-his-brothers-a-gender-theory/

According to Kabbalists, when Isaac was born, he received the female half of his soul. Having a female soul in the male body is why he could not get married. According to Kabbalists, G‑d had to orchestrate the Akeida—the Binding of Isaac—to swap Isaac’s soul. 

Maybe Jacob, blinded by his love for Joseph, did not pay any attention to Joseph’s femininity. But it surely did not escape his brothers, who found it very troubling. As prophets, they knew that Joseph was supposed to personify... the masculine principle in godliness... the pure and undiluted essence of masculinity. Joseph, as a youth, fell far short of his spiritual archetype he was destined to personify. Perhaps, his brothers did not hate Joseph, but they hated Joseph’s femininity that held him back from achieving his destiny.
It could be that the brothers knew that a similar situation once already took place in their family, when their grandfather, Isaac, received the female aspect of his soul at birth and required the Akeida to restore his masculinity. Conceivably, they decided that a similar procedure was needed to restore the masculinity of Joseph. Maybe this is why they decided to throw Joseph into the empty pit... Maybe this is why the first thing the brothers did when they saw Joseph was to strip off his feminine coat before casting him into the pit... The brothers’ intention appears to be to strip Joseph from his feminine personality, thereby enabling him to achieve his destiny of personifying the [divine masculine ideal]."

------‐--------------------------------------------------------------------------

"According to the midrash, when Leah became pregnant for the seventh time, she originally conceived a male child. She prophetically knew, however, that Jacob was destined to have twelve tribes. Jacob already sired six sons from her and four sons from the concubines... Leah was concerned that if she had another son, Rachel would have only one son— fewer than even concubines! Wishing to spare her sister from embarrassment, she prayed that the child is born female... G‑d answered her prayer, and the gender of the fetus was changed to female in utero. As a result, Dinah was born... [but] the midrash does not say that Leah prayed that Rachel gives birth to a male—Leah only prayed that she gives birth this time to a female. How did this affect Rachel’s fetus?
From the point of view of quantum mechanics, we can imagine a conceptual Hilbert space where the gender of a fetus is its quantum-mechanical state that has binary values—male or female. In quantum mechanics, such a space is called a spin space. According to the rules of quantum mechanics, until observed, the fetus is in a superposition of both states—male and female.
It is logical to assume that the two fetuses—one carried by Leah and the other carried by Rachel—were entangled, that is, both fetuses represented one integral system. There are two main reasons for this. First, both fetuses shared the same father. Second, their mothers, who were sisters, were entangled. Moreover, Leah specifically entangled her unborn child with Rachel’s when she prayed about the gender of her child only to spare Rachel from shame (if she were to give birth to a girl). Thus, these two fetuses (future siblings) were entangled (this is not meant literally, but metaphorically).
...consider two entangled electrons. Each electron has a spin, which is in a superposition of states spin-up and spin-down. If we were to collapse the wave function of the first electron and find its spin in a state, say, spin-up, the wave function of the second electron collapses automatically and instantaneously, and the second electron assumes the opposition state of spin-down.
On a conceptual level, this is exactly what the midrash describes. Leah prayed that she gives birth to a girl, and her prayer was answered. She did not pray for a change of gender in Rachel’s fetus– this happened automatically. As soon as the gender of Leah’s fetus was changed to female, the gender of Rachel’s fetus was changed to male. The midrash provides us here with a beautiful metaphor of quantum superposition and quantum entanglement."

"The Gemara answers that during the first forty days, it is possible to pray for the gender of the child. Only after forty days, it is a prayer in vain. Now we... can reconcile this Gemara with modern embryology... "The chromosomal makeup of the fertilized egg: XX or XY is not the only factor determining the embryo’s gender. The successful expression of the SRY gene located on the short arm of the Y chromosome is another crucial factor. In fact, it takes approximately forty days from the time of conception for male gender to become irreversibly determined and about eighty days for female gender to be determined"... With her prayer, [God, in] Leah, could have epigenetically suppressed the SRY gene expression affecting the gender formation of her fetus. And, because her fetus was entangled, as it were, with the fetus carried by Rachel, the gender of that fetus changes as well. As a result, Leah gave birth to Dinah and Rachel to Joseph. Presumably, on a spiritual level, this gender-swapping engendered the swapping of the souls as well. Joseph and Dinah, therefore, were not only siblings but "soulmates.""

"Based on the midrash and the above analysis, it follows that Joseph was initially conceived as a girl and changed to a boy in utero. No wonder that, as a child, Joseph displayed feminine tendencies (e.g., touching up his eyes). It took some tough love of his brothers to make a man out of him."

"There appears to be a parallel between the stories of Isaac and Rebecca... and Joseph and Dina... Whereas Isaac marries his soulmate, Rebecca, Joseph ultimately marries His soulmate’s (Dina’s) daughter, Asenath. And just as Isaac’s marriage to Rebecca was not possible, but for the Akeida, so too, the marriage between Joseph and Asenath was not possible but for his brothers selling him to Egypt."

------‐--------------------------------------------------------------------------

https://quantumtorah.com/akeida-in-parallel-universes/

In one universe (our universe), Abraham did not kill Isaac, because the angel stopped him. Abraham offered a ram instead. How do we know that? The Torah tells us so—this is the plain meaning of the text. This version requires no further proof.
In another universe, Isaac dies. At least for a moment. How do we know that? Kabbalah teaches that, just as every magnet has two poles, north and south, every soul has two aspects, male and female, as it is written, “male and female created He them” (Gen. 1:27). When it is time for the soul to descend into this world, the male half of the soul is usually born in a boy, and the female part of the soul is usually born in a girl. The two parts of the souls seek each other to reunite, which happens when a boy marries the girl who is his soulmate. However, for various reasons, “mistakes” happen and the male half of the soul can be incarnated in a girl, and the female half of the soul in a boy.
According to Kabbala, this is what happened in the case of Isaac. When Isaac was born, he received the feminine aspect of his soul... this is why he could not get married. His future wife, Rebecca, could not be born, because her soul was the feminine aspect of Isaac’s soul, which was trapped in Isaac’s body. According to Kabbalists, G‑d had to orchestrate the Akeida—the Binding of Isaac—just to swap Isaac’s soul with its male counterpart. Just as with an organ transplant, the surgeon must put the patient to sleep while transplanting the organ that saves the patient’s life, and so too G‑d had put Isaac to “sleep,” as it were, to perform a soul transplant. Kabbalists tell us that it was a double transplant—when Isaac expired for a moment and released his soul, G‑d replaced it with the male aspect of his soul. At the same time, the female aspect of Isaac’s soul that was released from him got incarnated in his future wife, Rebecca, who was born at that time, as the Torah informs us immediately after the story of Akeida, “And Bethuel begot Rebekah” (Genesis 22:23). The standard interpretation is that Abraham did not ultimately slaughter Isaac, but Isaac did not know this and accepted his fate, and his soul left him before Abraham had a chance to slaughter him. Be that as it may, in that universe, Isaac died, even if for a moment, and was revived again. At the very least, Isaac went through a near-death experience."

"In yet another universe, Abraham went through with sacrificing Isaac. Not only was Isaac indeed slaughtered, but he was also burned as a burnt offering. How do we know that? Mishna states that on public fast days, it was customary to place some ashes in the Ark as a reminder of the “ashes of Isaac.” The classical biblical commentator Ibn Ezra, in his commentary on Genesis 22:19, cites the opinion that Abraham did slaughter Isaac, who was later resurrected from the dead. The midrash says that Isaac’s ashes lay in front of G‑d... the Talmud interprets this opinion allegorically. Rabbi Elazar ben Pedat teaches that even though Isaac didn’t die, scripture treats him as if he died, and as if his ashes were piled onto the altar. The Talmud notes that the Jews who returned from Babylon to build the second temple knew where to place the altar because they saw the ashes of Isaac piled up just in the right spot."

"We need to remember, however, that in Torah, there is only one physical reality. All other many worlds and parallel universes exist in the spiritual domain."

------‐--------------------------------------------------------------------------


https://quantumtorah.com/the-akeida-the-binding-of-isaac/


The Book of Proverbs describes the Torah thus: “Its ways are ways of pleasantness and all of its paths are peace”. Human sacrifices are utterly incompatible with Judaism... Judaism is a religion of life. ‘Choose life,’ says the Bible. Indeed, Moses instructs the Children of Israel: "I have set before thee life and death, the blessing and the curse; therefore choose life, that thou mayest live, thou and thy seed.""

"since Abraham’s discovery of monotheism at the age of forty, Abraham devoted his life to preaching the idea of one G‑d as well as Divine ethics, which first and foremost demands kindness to others. Indeed, Abraham was the embodiment of kindness. Abraham preached to his pagan neighbors the morality of monotheism, which values life above all and forbids all forms of human sacrifice."

""The ethical expression of what Abraham did is that he meant to murder Isaac, the religious expression is that he meant to sacrifice Isaac—but precisely in this contradiction is the anxiety that can make a person sleepless, and yet, without this anxiety Abraham is not who he is." Kierkegaard questions this teleological suspension of ethical norms. He calls Abraham the knight of faith, who is willing to relinquish all his earthly possessions and everything he loves for G‑d, by making a qualitative leap—the leap of faith."


"Abraham’s father, Terach, was an idol maker... Abraham (at that time named Abram) worshipped various gods during his spiritual journey before he discovered the One G‑d, Creator of heaven and earth. He rejected all other deities he had worshipped one by one on intellectual or ethical grounds, because he realized that worshipping them did not make sense. For example, Abraham worshiped the sun until he questioned a deity that can disappear at night. Thus, he rejected the sun as a deity. Abraham also worshipped the moon, until he questioned how a god could die and reappear every month, as the moon waxes and wanes? Thus, he also rejected the moon as a deity. And so on. It is safe to assume that Abraham rejected some deities popular in his culture because of their cruelty, as expressed in human sacrifices in general and, in particular, the pagan practice of sacrificing children.
The question arises, why didn’t Abraham reject G‑d when he demanded that he sacrifice his only son? When G‑d revealed to Abraham that He was going to destroy the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah, Abraham pleaded with G‑d to save their inhabitants even if only ten righteous people are found there. Why didn’t Abraham plead with G‑d to save his son, too? Why did Abraham not question G‑d as he had questioned every other deity he had previously worshipped? Why did not Abraham not do what he had done so many times before—namely, realize his "mistake" and move on, in search of another, "kinder" G‑d?
...Chasidic thought views the Binding of Isaac as a display of how our forefather Abraham transcended the rational, rising above the limitations of human intellect. However, the question remains, Why didn’t Abraham "rise above his intellect" on all previous occasions when the deity he worshipped at the time did not make logical sense to him? Why only here, for the first time, did Abraham set aside his intellectual doubt and healthy skepticism to transcend reason?
In Jewish literature, our forefathers Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob are called “chariots.” Perhaps here lies a hint to the answer to these questions. A chariot (merkavah) carries its rider from point A to point B. In a broader sense, it is a vehicle to carry out the rider’s will. That is why the prophet Ezekiel’s vision... depicts a chariot made of various heavenly beings driven by the “likeness of a man.” In this vision, angels carry out the will of G‑d. Angels have no will of their own; they exist only to do G‑d’s bidding. Similarly, a chariot has no purpose but to carry its rider wherever the rider’s will takes it. This is why the patriarchs Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob are called chariots. In their selfless devotion to G‑d, our forefathers set aside their will to carry out the will of G‑d. Abraham was the first patriarch, and he was the first to become a chariot of G‑d.
Taking poetic license and borrowing the language of quantum mechanics, we might say metaphorically that, upon meeting G‑d, Abraham became “entangled” with G‑d.
When two quantum-mechanical objects (say, two electrons) become entangled, they are no longer independent of each other—they become one unit described by a single wave function. Suppose we were to collapse the wave function of the first particle and find its spin pointing in one direction. In that case, the wave function of the other particle collapses automatically, and that other particle has no choice but to assume the opposite direction of spin. The other particle becomes like a shadow or mirror image of the first particle, reflecting its every move. Similarly, by becoming “entangled” with G‑d, Abraham became like a shadow of G‑d— he had no choice but to carry out G‑d’s will.
One might object that, in quantum mechanics, the entanglement of two objects is symmetrical, whereas there is no symmetry in our metaphor. However, the Psalmist calls G‑d his shadow: “The Lord is thy shadow” (Psalms 121:5). What we do down here elicits a reciprocal reaction on high. Moreover, the sages taught that what the righteous person (tzadik) decrees, G‑d fulfills. Thus, at least to some extent, the relationship appears to be somewhat symmetrical.
The patriarch Abraham became entangled with G‑d; that is, he became G‑d’s chariot. That is why, when G‑d commanded Abraham to sacrifice his son Isaac, Abraham did not question G‑d but hurried to carry out G‑d’s will, as the chariot must. Being entangled with G‑d, Abraham could not—so to speak—choose otherwise. G‑d’s command was no longer a subject of questioning or skeptical deliberations. Abraham simply had to do G‑d’s bidding."

"One might ask, But WHY did G‑d have to ask Abraham to sacrifice his son in the first place? What was the point of it? Because Abraham was the first chariot in history to subjugate his will to the Will of G‑d, his descendants had to be taught this lesson most vividly and memorably. Of course, G‑d did not intend for Abraham to sacrifice his son, as is evident at the end of the story, when the angel stops Abraham at the last moment. All this drama was needed to impress upon the descendants of Abraham what it means to be a chariot of G‑d, to be truly entangled with G‑d.
We may also ask why didn’t Abraham get entangled with all those deities that he had previously worshipped. The answer is, of course, that there are no other gods; there is only one G‑d. All those gods were figments of Abraham’s imagination, and no one can get entangled with a figment of one’s imagination. Only when Abraham finally discovered the real G‑d did he immediately become entangled with Him and thus became the first chariot, the first knight of faith."

------‐--------------------------------------------------------------------------

https://quantumtorah.com/entangled-twins/

"Entanglement is [when] two particles born out of one reaction (or two particles that interacted through a collision) remain connected, no matter how distant from each other. A change in the status of one particle instantaneously causes a change in the status of the other particle...
Entanglement is often associated with a certain symmetry and corresponding conservation laws. For example, the law of conservation of angular momentum requires that the spin (the quantum-mechanical analog of the angular momentum) of two entangled particles always point in the opposite directions. This means that, if two entangled particles have their spin in a state of superposition of Up (↑) and Down (↓), and we collapse the wavefunction of one of these particles thereby fixing its spin, say, in the Down (↓) direction, the wavefunction of the other twin-particle is immediately collapsed as well, fixing the spin in the opposite, Up (↑), direction. The entangled particles act as twins that instantaneously react to changes in each other’s mood. One difference between entangled particles and twins is that entangled particles do not look like each other, as do identical twins. In fact, they are often a mirror (i.e., opposite) image of each other—the consequence of the underlying symmetry.
The Torah portion Toldot is all about one set of biological twins who, like our entangled particles, were complete opposites... Esau and Jacob. The twins share many characteristics of entangled quantum-mechanical objects. The entanglement of the twins is hinted at by the Torah in the later verse: "[Jacob] emerged, and his hand was grasping Esau’s heel." Twins, as the entangled particles, remain connected! Their oppositeness is further emphasized as they grow up...
There is an apparent symmetry — as twins, they can be swapped with no change to the sum — there would still be two sons born to Rebecca, one Jacob and another Esau, one righteous and one evil. It is this symmetry that allows Jacob later to actually play out this swapping by pretending he was Esau to obtain his father’s blessing.
There are conservation laws at play here as well. For example, Esau sells his birthright to Jacob. He can’t just gift it to Jacob, he must receive a compensation for his birthright to obey the conservation law. As a result of the transaction, Esau loses his birthright and Jacob gains it— the symmetry is preserved!

"As another example, after Isaac blesses Jacob, who was pretending to be Esau, and the real Esau belatedly demands his blessing, Isaac tells him: "Your brother came with cunning and took your blessing." And here comes an astonishing manifestation of true entanglement. Just as with the entangled particles, if one has the spin Up (↑) the other must assume the spin Down (↓), or vice versa, so here too, Isaac tells his son, Esau:
"Behold, I made him a master over you… and you shall serve your brother, and it will be, when you grieve, that you will break his yoke off your neck."
If the fortune of Jacob is up (↑), he is a master over Esau, and the fortune of his brother, Esau, is down (↓). But if Jacob misbehaves and loses his merit to have the blessing, the fortune of Esau CAN turn up (↑), thereby making Jacob subservient to him and bringing his fortune down (↓). We have seen this played out in Jewish history time and again."

This story ends with a puzzling statement of Rebecca who tells Jacob: "Behold, your brother Esau regrets [his relationship] to you [and wishes] to kill you…Why should I be bereft of both of you on one day?" This is hard to understand. If Esau were to kill Jacob, Rebecca would lose only one son, as she would still have Esau. Why would she be “bereft of both”? We can easily understand it from the point of view of quantum mechanics. One particle can destroy another particle, with which it is entangled only if it is its anti-particle, say, electron and positron. The collision of a particle and anti-particle causes the annihilation of both particles. Indeed, evil Esau was an “anti-particle” of righteous Jacob. Thinking about Esau’s murderous plans to kill Jacob, was Rebecca worried about “the thrust of two-widows” with both twins simultaneously killing each other?"

Symmetry plays a vitally important role in physics in general and in quantum mechanics in particular. However, symmetry breaking is even more important in quantum field theory and the Standard Model. In a particular type of symmetry breaking, called spontaneous symmetry breaking, the underlying laws remain invariant (i.e., unchanged) under symmetry transformation, but the resulting system is asymmetrical. It is spontaneous symmetry breaking that is responsible for the Higgs mechanism and Higgs Boson, the so-called “G‑d Particle,” that endows particles with mass. In the Torah portion Toldot, we have an example of such spontaneous symmetry breaking.
The Haftorah (weekly reading of the Prophets) connected to this Torah portion begins with the following paragraph:
"I loved you, said the Lord, and you said, “How have You loved us?” Was not Esau a brother to Jacob? says the Lord. And I loved Jacob. And I hated Esau… (Malachi I, 2-3)"
This is a beautiful example of spontaneous symmetry breaking. The underlying laws of family relations are symmetrical — “Was not Esau a brother to Jacob?” Yet, at the end, G‑d “spontaneously” chooses Jacob, breaking the symmetry.
This concept plays out explicitly on Purim. Haman, who wanted to destroy the Jewish people, dared not attack them directly — he knew full well that the G‑d of the Hebrews, Almighty G‑d, would protect them. He devised an ingenious plan of reaching the spiritual level where Jacob and Esau were brothers and "there was no difference for G‑d between Jews and Gentiles", or so he thought. “Was not Esau a brother to Jacob?” He devised a kind of symmetrical dice (in Hebrew, “pur” — hence Purim) that he used to cast to determine the month and day of the attack. He relied on symmetry to reach a level where he would be unopposed by G‑d.
Apparently, Haman did not study quantum field theory. He knew nothing about symmetry breaking — “And I loved Jacob. And I hated Esau” — that was his mistake that ultimately caused his downfall. The moral of this story: it pays to study physics!

------‐--------------------------------------------------------------------------

https://quantumtorah.com/steering-isaacs-blessing/

Jacob and Esau were “entangled” as twin brothers.Just as two entangled particles in quantum mechanics represent a single system described by a single wave function, twin brothers are also a single system called “twins.” ...they share a symmetry, such that the brothers are “interchangeable”—if we were to swap them, the sum total would be the same. As mentioned, this symmetry allows Jacob to present himself instead of his brother, Esau.

Rebecca felt justified in masterminding the ruse as carrying out G‑d’s will... moreover, intuitively sensing that two brothers were “entangled,” she did not see anything wrong with substituting one twin brother for another, knowing that, as an entangled pair, they would both get the father’s blessing. However, the one receiving the blessing would be put ahead of the other—which was her objective in carrying out G‑d’s will."

"What was Jacob’s fear? He knew his father was blind. He expected that when he brought food to his father, Isaac would see a son but know not which son (which was indeed what happened). Thus, in the blurry vision of Isaac, that unidentified son would be, as it were, in a superposition of two “states”—Esau and Jacob. Jacob feared that, if his father touched him and thus recognized him, his father would “collapse the wave function” (which occurs whenever any measurement or observation is made), collapsing the state of superposition into a single state. Isaac would realize that it was Jacob who stood in front of him. And that, Jacob feared, might elicit the opposite of a blessing.
We can also understand in the same vein Jacob’s answer to his father’s query, “Who art thou, my son?” And Jacob said unto his father: “I am Esau thy first-born.” As Rashi explains, Jacob makes two statements here: one—“I am” and the second—“Esau thy first-born.” Because Jacob views himself as a part of the whole—the entangled twins—he tells his father that he was there not only on his behalf (“I am”) but also on behalf of his brother (“Esau thy first-born”).

However, as Jacob expected, Isaac wanted to touch him. Rebecca’s trick of covering Jacob’s hand with goat skins worked, and Isaac did not recognize Jacob. But Isaac intuitively sensed the presence of both sons in the room, as he said:

The voice is the voice of Jacob, but the hands are the hands of Esau. (Genesis 27:22)

Thus, Isaac acknowledged the “entanglement” of the twin brothers. As Rebecca expected, Isaac put the son in front of him above his brother. However, instead of Esau, it was now Jacob who was put in the leadership position.

We can now also understand the dialogue between Isaac and Esau, when Isaac realizes the ruse but reaffirms his blessing to Jacob all the same: “Yea, and he shall be blessed.” Isaac may have intuitively realized that, by touching Jacob, he had “collapsed” the wave function (as Jacob expected), as it were. There was no going back. Once he appointed Jacob as the head of the family, it could not be undone—one cannot un-collapse the wave function.

As we see, the logic of quantum mechanics sheds new light on this biblical narrative, not only explaining difficult verses, but also Rashi’s commentary.

Does this mean that Isaac, Rebecca, and Jacob knew about the superposition of states, entanglement, or the collapse of the wave function? Of course not. These terms were not in their vocabulary, and the formalism of quantum mechanics would not be developed for more than three thousand years. Besides, we use these terms metaphorically in any event. However, it may mean that they intuitively followed the Torah’s inner logic, which is compatible and structurally parallel with the logic of quantum mechanics.

——————

Endnotes:

[1] Rashi, of course, is not stating his own opinion—he is quoting the explanation offered by Midrash Tanhuma. Generally, such moral equivocation, falls under the rubric of “mental reservation”—an ethical doctrine in moral theology and ethics that recognizes the “lie of necessity.” A 14th century biblical commentator Rabbi Aharon ibn Alrabi, links this Rashi explicitly to this doctrine, although he goes on to reject it as a satisfactory justification of Jacob’s act. Well-known biblical examples of the mental reservation include Abraham’s introduction of his wife Sarah (or Sarai) as his “sister” in Egypt (Genesis 12:11–13) and later to Abimelech (Genesis 20:12)—Sarah was indeed his half-sister (or a niece). Similarly, Isaac introduced his wife, Rebecca, as his sister to Abimelech as well (Genesis 26:7)—Rebecca was indeed his cousin (which in some languages is called “sister”). Mentalis restrictio presented particular challenges to Christian theologians for whom a lie was deemed intrinsically evil and never allowed. However, under certain circumstances, telling a lie is the only way to overt harm or to keep one’s duty. The validity of such equivocations was admitted by all moral theologians. In Judaism, this is less of a problem, because Rabbis see an example of G‑d Himself telling an untruth to avoid embarrassing Abraham when He asked, “Wherefore did Sarah laugh, saying: Shall I of a surety bear a child, who am old?”, when, in fact, she said that “my lord (that is, Abraham) being old also (Genesis 18:12–13). Rashi (based on Genesis Rabbah 48:18) learn from this episode that, sometimes, to avoid embarrassing a person or to avoid creating a domestic conflict between husband and wife, a lie can be meritorious. (See also Yevamot 65b; Vayikra Rabba 9:9.) Jacob’s answer to his father would be classified as a “wide mental reservation,” in which case the equivocation comes from the ambiguity of the words themselves. The Maharal points out a textual basis for the Rashi’s interpretation, in that Jacob says anochi (a rare form of “I”) rather than the ordinary ani (colloquial “I,” which Eisav, in fact, later uses when he identifies himself), based on Hebrew grammar. I would like to propose a different explanation also based on the use of the unusual anochi instead of the usual ani. The word anochi is spelled alef-nun-chof-yud. If we switch the last two letters—alef-nun-yud-chof—it spells the words ani k’. Ani stands for the usual “I,” and the prefix “k,” called in Hebrew grammar, chof hadimiyan, is a prefix signifying an approximate equivalence and usually translated as “something like…” Thus, by saying anochi, Jacob hinted to Isaac that he was not really his firstborn Esau, but only “something like” Esau—ani k’Eisav—in other words, Esau’s impersonator. This allowed Jacob to obey his mother’s order while being truthful with his father. This is a vivid example of “wide mental reservation.”

[2] In this context, we use the quantum-mechanical term, “entangled,” metaphorically. However, it is possible to construct a conceptual Hilbert space where twin brothers would be described by a single wave function and, therefore, entangled in the literal sense.



------‐--------------------------------------------------------------------------


To be a Mother is to suffer;
To travail in the dark,
stretched and torn,
exposed in half-naked humiliation,
subjected to indignities
for the sake of new life.

To be a Mother is to say,
“This is my body, broken for you,”
And, in the next instant, in response to the created’s primal hunger,
“This is my body, take and eat.”

To be a Mother is to self-empty,
To neither slumber nor sleep,
so attuned You are to cries in the night—
Offering the comfort of Yourself,
and assurances of “I’m here.”

To be a Mother is to weep
over the fighting and exclusions and wounds
your children inflict on one another;
To long for reconciliation and brotherly love
and—when all is said and done—
To gather all parties, the offender and the offended,
into the folds of your embrace
and to whisper in their ears
that they are Beloved.

To be a mother is to be vulnerable—
To be misunderstood,
Railed against,
Blamed
For the heartaches of the bewildered children
who don’t know where else to cast
the angst they feel
over their own existence
in this perplexing universe

To be a mother is to hoist onto your hips those on whom your image is imprinted,
bearing the burden of their weight,
rejoicing in their returned affection,
delighting in their wonder,
bleeding in the presence of their pain.

To be a mother is to be accused of sentimentality one moment,
And injustice the next.
To be the Receiver of endless demands,
Absorber of perpetual complaints,
Reckoner of bottomless needs.

To be a mother is to be an artist;
A keeper of memories past,
Weaver of stories untold,
Visionary of lives looming ahead.

To be a mother is to be the first voice listened to,
And the first disregarded;
To be a Mender of broken creations,
And Comforter of the distraught children
whose hands wrought them.

To be a mother is to be a Touchstone
and the Source,
Bestower of names,
Influencer of identities;
Life giver,
Life shaper,
Empath,
Healer,
and
Original Love.

-Allison Woodard