Sermon 4—Philip 3

Sermon 4—Philip 3 –Verses 15-22

Last week our review of The Gospel of Philip ended with the exhortation that names can be deceiving. From this we inferred that it is not possible to COGNIZE the Truth without names, and yet it is not possible to EXPERIENCE the Truth with them. Words occupy a kind of Limbo position in the cosmography—we can’t live with them, but we can’t think without them. Thus, words must be thought of as an aspect of the Christ Consciousness in this way: they are MEDIATORS between the False and the True. With words, the answer to every True/False question is: Both.

Today’s section continues in the same vein, this time dealing with the NAME of Jesus. As we have seen, the entirety of the Gospel of Philip, so far, has been concerned with distinguishing between two hierarchical levels of spiritual consciousness—a lower and a higher level. We are encouraged to discern the difference between the proselyte and the Hebrew, the slave and the Son, the perishable and the imperishable. An extension of that thought, Verse 15 begins with a discussion of the Bread of Heaven and the distinction between spiritual food and material food.

“15. Before Christ came, there was no bread of Heaven. It was like in paradise at the time of Adam: there were many trees — food for animals, but no wheat — food for man. Man used to feed like animals. 

But when a Christ — Perfect Man — comes, He brings the bread from Heaven so that people may eat human food.

  

People without the true knowledge about their predestination and the Path, live a life quite comparable to the life of animals. God, through a Christ, gives them spiritual food appropriate to humans.” 

Notice the special (specialized?) use of the word “Human”. We have previously pointed out that the author of Philip uses the word “Human” to designate Spiritual beings as opposed the Animal beings—beings whose consciousness has embraced the Truth, as opposed to those beings whose minds labor in ignorance. In one translation the expression “human food” is translated as “the food of Men.” We recall the mention of blood sacrifices, and how the sprinkling of animal blood is ineffectual compared to the blood sacrifice of Jesus. The opposition of carnal vs. spiritual entities is the underlying cantus firmus of this entire section. 

Now, it cannot be denied that the author of Philip is politically conscious; he is not simply doling out advice in the abstract, he is very aware of the negative impact of the Roman mind set on the newly born Christians, and he wants to warn them away from the terrestrial temptations of the spiritually ignorant. 

Furthermore, he wants to place the blame for this ignorance on the Roman establishment—and for good reason: not only because the Roman, at his worst was a picture of excess and carnal debauchery, but because everybody loves a scapegoat, and this conscious attack on the pagan Roman values gave the new church a tangible, recognizable cause, and someone to feel superior to—and someone to blame. Thus, from the very first verse concerning proselytes, there is an undertone of criticism of the Romans at large. Moreover, in verse 13 we read:

“13. The earthly rulers wanted to deceive people,

since they understood that people have the same origin

with the really worthy. They took good names and gave

these names to bad things in order to deceive people and

bind them to the bad in this way.”

Thus, political propaganda is named as the villain who perverts the language of the people in order to “bind them to the bad in this way.” We cannot help but suspect that part of this propaganda is associated with the plethora of polytheistic gods who populate the religion of Rome. As Philip continues his attack on the Roman mind set, we now read in Verse 16:

“16. The earthly rulers thought that what they did they did by their own power and will. But in reality the Holy Spirit in secret accomplished all that through them — accomplished as He considered appropriate. They also sow everywhere the true knowledge, which existed since the beginning. And many people see it while it is being sown, but only a few of them recall about it by the time of the harvest.”

This verse is vibrant with mystical significance, because it hints at one of the great spiritual mysteries. Mystery is the stepping stone to Wonder, and Wonder is the stepping stone to Gratitude, and Gratitude is the most sacred of all emotions. Now, mind you, the slogan, “The Lord works in mysterious ways,” always sort of irritated me, because it is what people always say when God doesn’t do what they thought He should do. Still, I have often said that no terrible thing has ever happened to me that did not carry a positive end in its wake. The upshot is that even though people act in seemingly negative ways, the secret outcome is a positive; furthermore, sometimes this outcome is so secret the positive is not even visible. On this note, the commentator, Vladimir Antonov, writes:

“The Holy Spirit directs the acts of people when necessary, but people usually are not aware of this. He, among other things, creates — through vicious people — difficulties in the form of temptations and enticements (such as false doctrines) for other embodied people. This is done for the sake of their intellectual development. After all, they are sent here to learn, and not just to live. The meaning of our lives on the Earth consists in our self-development, which must go in three main directions: intellectual, ethical, and psycho-energetical. And our Teacher is God. Diligent students, after graduating from this School, are invited by the Father, if they are worthy of this, to His Abode to merge there with Him forever. But remedial students remain forever “repeaters”, become slaves of this world. The time of the “harvest” is the end of the world: the School is closed, the worthy students move to the Abode of God-the-Father, enriching Him with Themselves; the lot of the rest is the outer darkness: destruction, death of the souls. … A special comment has to be made concerning the use of the pronoun They with regard to the Holy Spirit in this fragment. This is not an error: the Holy Spirit is indeed an aggregate of former humans who attained in their development the right to be in the Highest eons.” 

There are two thoughts in this commentary which deserve elaboration; the first is:

“He, among other things, creates — through vicious people — difficulties in the form of temptations and enticements (such as false doctrines) for other embodied people. This is done for the sake of their intellectual development. After all, they are sent here to learn, and not just to live. The meaning of our lives on the Earth consists in our self-development, which must go in three main directions: intellectual, ethical, and psycho-energetical.”

In my life there have been many villains whose actions toward me were vicious and destructive; to hate such a person is easy, but to realize that this person is the bearer of a benevolent gift from God which, though hidden at first, reveals itself over time as being more than adequate compensation for the destructive act. For instance, we all remember the member of the Copper River School Board who got it in her head that I was a bad person, and worked to have me fired; and we all remember that the settlement I got from them, when I sued for wrongful termination, not only paid for one son’s year at an expensive college, and another son’s two years at UAA, but freed me to get the much better job I now have in Anchorage. It is now a knee-jerk reflex to look for the silver lining behind every terrible thing that happens to me—the armor of God is strong and safe.

The other enticing thought from above is: 

“And many people see it while it is being sown, but only a few of them recall about it by the time of the harvest.” 

This sentence is particularly enticing in its mysterious connotations. I have always wondered about the relationship of “dream state” to what we call the “conscious state”; in sleep we seem to disappear from existence, and yet there is some motor still running in the background that is fully conscious. Why do we not remember events that take place in this state? How can our holistic consciousness be so divided that there are aspects of self which are completely invisible to us? What is the purpose of this invisibility?

In my favorite Christmas movie, The Bishop’s Wife, one of the plot elements explores this idea, in terms of angelic intervention in the affairs of men. In the movie, the angel tells us that once he has performed his service for the humans entrusted to his care, the humans retain no memory that an angel has visited them. Did the shepherds on the hillside, after it was all over, even remember seeing angels singing bright hosannahs in the sky, while time stood still in Bethlehem? It just goes to show that the “mysterious ways” in which the Lord works are mysterious for a reason, albeit a reason which may be invisible to us on this  plane of consciousness.

I have had some thoughts on the subject of pre-destination and free will. Invisibility is one of the problems of Human Spirituality—we experience so much more than we can understand. We feel but we cannot see. Sometimes it seems like we are in a play that has already been written; and then we realize we are changing the play with each line we speak. I have previously suggested that the basic templates for our Earthly careers are originated outside time, and yet the details of execution have been mapped out in time, since time began. What is it that the soul pre-destines itself to, for each life? What’s the plan for what we are we going to do? It can’t be about which fork we are going to use at Aunt Deirdre’s wedding, it has to be something more general, more sweeping in its inclusion. Perhaps the core of pre-destination is INTENTION: the intention dictates the essence of the plan, the vision of a life, while the actual working out of the material mechanisms is subject to the whim of the elected manifestation; each act realizing specificities out of the endless variety of possibilities available to us on the physical plane. Thus, our Earthly careers are comprised of technical variations on a motto theme of supernatural knowledge.

At this point, Philip takes an abrupt turn in a different direction. Remember that many critics insist that the Gospel of Philip is a sort of random collection of Valentinian sayings, and this change in subject at verse 17 supports that idea. I suppose an artificial connection might be drawn between any two or three separate things, so that some kind of inner structure may be appropriately invented. Moreover, as a catechesis, it makes perfect sense to change subjects, just as the Apostle’s Creed speaks of a number of unrelated beliefs in an order that is not particularly organic. To further complicate things, there are a couple of remarks in this section that are perceived by Antonov as JOKES.

Verse 17 is actually pretty funny, but, in order for you to get it, I have to explain the joke before I tell it: Antonov’s is as follows:

“In Greek, in which the Gospel was written, the Holy Spirit is of feminine gender. This is the reason for the irony of Philip in the beginning of the fragment.”

Thus, the gag is, “How can a female beget in another female?” Here is the verse:

  

“17. Some said that Mary conceived by the Holy Spirit.

They are in error. They do not understand what they say.

When did a woman ever conceive by a woman?

Mary at the same time is the immaculacy, which was

not defiled by violence.”

This section, in no uncertain terms, not only poo-poos the idea of the immaculate conception, but ridicules it, with that crack about, “how can a female (Virgin Mary) conceive by a female (Holy Spirit)?” This ridicule is not surprising, in a way; indeed, the polytheistic religions that existed side by side with the new Christianity—I refer to the many gods of the Egyptian, the Syrian, the Babylonian, even the Buddhist religions—are fraught with immaculate conception myths; myths which must have been  just as difficult to believe in 100 A.C.E. as they are now. It might be shocking for some to see one of the basic dogmatic beliefs of Christianity, the Virgin Birth, so belied by this author, and we almost don’t want to believe it is so written; but it must not be overlooked that, in a work so permeated by descriptions of the Divine Mysteries, one of the basic Christian Miracles is denied. Is this a “both” True/False answer?

In the Isenburg commentary he says this:

 “(Do you mean Jesus did not come straight down from heaven in Mary but had a human father?)

The second sentence, again, identifies the Holy Spirit as feminine as well as denying the virgin birth in the first.  The third sentence blows the Roman cover story that Mary the mother of Jesus was a placeholder or substitute for Sophia-Wisdom-the Holy Spirit.  “Virgin whom no power defiled refers to the Sophia Mythos. 

(Christ has everything in Himself, whether man…)”

Further comment on this subject comes from Facts Behind Faith by Sid Jeffries:

“The Holy Spirit is Sophia, Wisdom: Consort of God; and the Logos, the Aquarian Spirit of Truth for the New Age: One Spirit, Many Names. The whole subject of the Holy Spirit in the Bible is as interesting as it is complex. Yet typically simple at heart. There is one Spirit with many names. Generally this is recognised by biblical commentators. Yet there is also some disputed confusion we shall try to dispel at the end: Christ vying with the Dove as the spirit of Wisdom, the logos.

To properly present a portrait of the Holy Spirit it is important to trace its evolution through the Old Testament. This involves the rather conventional heresy of identifying the transformation of the Old Testament ‘goddess,’ Sophia, Wisdom, into the New Testament Holy Spirit.

This is a conventional heresy because this identity between the two has been recognised over many centuries but it is not officially acknowledged by the churches. It is interesting to note why.

The Spirit Becomes Sophia, Female Partner of Jehovah:
The earliest Books of the Bible present a prominent role for the Spirit of God, the Spirit of Jehovah, which is the creative power in the Genesis Creation story. This Spirit is also the spirit of prophecy which inspires the prophets but can also inspire ordinary people, just like the Holy Spirit. Both roles of the Spirit of God are later recognised in the personification of Sophia, Wisdom, in the Wisdom Books, towards the end of the Old Testament period. Sophia is recognised as the female partner of Jehovah with her ‘throne of glory’ in ‘the holy heavens.’”

Recall that two weeks ago I read, in my intro to Philip, this paragraph:

“It must be remembered that Jesus brought a new perspective to World Religion. A not insignificant contribution was the way He integrated the Hebrew concept of the Father God into the polytheistic concept of the Mother God. As we have seen, many of the religions of the surrounding regions relied heavily on polytheism, with abounding plethoras of Gods associated with every human activity imaginable, from coronations, to marriage, to dish-washing and fish-gutting. To these religions, the Mother God was a central figure in the pagan cosmography. Thus, Jesus took the Jewish idea of a Father God one step further, by claiming Sonship. We must read the joke in Philip where the idea of a virgin impregnated by a virgin is made fun of. It is not a trivial issue to confront. One aspect of the Father God is that He has a PERSONALITY—a focus in the Christ Consciousness—a spiritual modality that cannot be mistaken for any quality other than MALE.”

So what (WHO) is this Male Father God, and how is His manifestation in the Christ Consciousness different from the Mother Spirit, this “Female Partner of Jehovah”? 

What I find at least as interesting a question as any other, concerning the Virgin Birth is that, once again, we are forced to confront a pair of opposing entities—a male Father God, and the Holy Spirit, ostensibly a Female God. This certainly lends a certain rational sense to the idea of Virgin Birth, but it also puts us right back in the nitty-gritty of carnal life by having to admit the PRACTICAL impossibility of the Virgin Birth. This is another logical quandary created by doctrinal statements which only make sense outside of time and space.

By this, I mean: I still believe in the Virgin Birth even though this scholar of the time does not. But my disagreement on this point does not render invalid all the other opinions of this author(s) which I find correct, profound, and meaningful. Indeed, I take almost every scripture with more than a grain of salt, and refuse to be pinned down on any but a very few dogmatic principles. Like I say to the Creationists who say the world is 6,000 years old and not billions of years old as science teaches us: “Why can’t it be both?”

Going on with Philip:

“She is a great temptation to Hebrews, both to those

who preach and to those who listen to their preaching.

Her immaculacy, which was not defiled by violence, is

pure. But the mighty of this world defiled themselves

(through their fantasies).

And the Lord (Jesus Christ) would not have said, “My

Father Who is in Heaven,” if He had not had another father. He would have said simply: “My father”.

This last bit sounds a bit like quibbling: “if he only had one father he would have not said “Father in heaven, so there!”” The more argumentative you are the less seriously I take you. Nevertheless, this paragraph restates a key concept emphasized in the Gospel of Philip: the notion that the Son bears a blood relationship to the Father, and therefore has only ONE FATHER IN HEAVEN. He may have a father on Earth, too, but that relationship is weak compared to the ETHERIC BLOOD relationship he experiences with the Father.

Going on with the Father idea, Philip leads us a merry chase over some dogmatic principles:

“18. The Lord said to the disciples, “Enter the House of

the Father. But do not take anything in the House of the

Father, nor carry anything out.”

Commentary:

“The last phrase of Jesus is a joke, because in “the House of the Father” — in the highest eon — there are no material objects that can be carried out as from the house of an earthly father. But to enter the Abode of the Heavenly Father and to settle there forever is the

Goal of the evolution of every person.”

Going on with Philip:

“19. Jesus is a human name. Christ is a title. For this

reason the name Jesus is not found in other languages; He

was just named Jesus.

Christ in Syriac is Messiah; Christ is a Greek word.

Other languages also have this word — according to their

spelling.

The Nazarene means “The One Who came from the

Truth.”

Commentary:

“Christ, Messiah, Avatar — all these are just different expressions of the same phenomenon in different languages. Jesus Christ was one, but there were many Christs throughout the entire history of mankind. Jesus was the only and the first Christ for those people with whom He communicated directly during His earthly life.”

I was so happy to read that last bit: “Christ is not the last name of Jesus”, because this has been a pet peeve of mine for many years, this misuse of the word “Christ”. You will recall the story of the young assistant pastor who, at an interview for a church choir leader position, earnestly asked me, “WHOOOOO do you think CHRIST IZZZZZZS??? I couldn’t answer without giving him a Bible lesson, so I just said, “That’s very personal,” and left it at that. I did not get the job.

That last sentence, “Jesus was the only and the first Christ for those people with whom He communicated directly during His earthly life,” is a little murky in meaning: we easily buy, “Jesus was the only and the first Christ”, but why add, “for those people with whom He communicated directly”? I believe I either don’t understand this comment, or I disapprove of the way the commentator lumps Jesus Christ together with whole menagerie of other historical Christs; no doubt the Christ Consciousness has been available to some over the tens of thousands of centuries that man has walked the Earth, but we have said many times, and have read ample material from Rudolf Steiner in support of the idea, that Jesus Christ was the one and only Big Guy in the Cosmic Administration. He suffered in ransom for all, canceled the stain of original sin, and acts as a mediator between the Heavenly Man and the Earthly Man. I believe that part of this commentator’s error lies in a lack of appreciation of the true  blood relationships that constitute Jesus’ Earthly Family.

Going on:

“20. Christ has everything in Himself: both human and

angelic, and even more mysterious, and the Father.

I love this sentence so much because it (once again, for Philip) plots out a cosmic hierarchy, in this declension: human, angelic, the Father. So far, the principle in the Gospel of Philip that has impressed me most is that there are a vast number of levels of existence—this is implied in practically every sentence—every sentence stimulates our imaginations and leads us to the frontier of the Cloud of Unknowing; we get a real sense of eternity from these ponderings.

Commentary:

“In the Gospel of John, there is a statement of Jesus where He compared Himself with a vine: its trunk is above the surface of the Earth, and its root comes from the Abode of God-the-Father. Since He, as a Consciousness, is present everywhere, He can veraciously tell people about the highest eons and represent God-the-Father to them in the material world.”

The idea of consciousness present everywhere has been of interest to me lately. Let me digress. Many years ago I was in meditation, and I suddenly knew everything that everybody in Pullman Washington was thinking. It was an inkling, an impression, and, of course, I can’t remember anything now—but I swear to you, the experience was real, and for an instant I was perceptive of a grand corporate consciousness. Now, mind you, I have a similar experience every time I conduct a group—I go into a trance and can see into everybody’s minds, and can tell what they are going to do—but this experience was several quantum leaps in advance of this normal psychic event. Furthermore, it is to this single instantaneous experience that I have a glimmer of understanding about how Jesus can be in contact with the whole of the Human Race, ALL AT ONCE. I’m sure this has to do with TIME. Experiences OUTSIDE TIME are available to all those who are susceptible and have the desire.

Back to Philip:

“21. They who say that the Lord died first and then

rose up are in error, for He rose up first and then died (by

the body). The one who has attained the Resurrection will not die. For God lives and will be living always.”

You will notice that there are lots of word games in this gospel; plays on words, jokes, and now this little logical brain twister: Jesus rose up first and then died. The gag is simply WHEN FIRST IS. Since Jesus was born of spirit first, He could not die except in His incarnated body. I find the distinction here to be of trivial significance, nevertheless, it simply means that Philip will leave no rational stone unturned to make his point.

Antonov’s commentary expands the idea thus:

“The true Resurrection is the Resurrection in the highest eons, and not in the world of matter. Jesus attained this a long time ago and came to the Earth as a Part of God-the-Father.

The One Who has traversed the Path up to Mergence with God-the-Father — attains the true immortality and after the death of the body rises in the eon of the Father in Mergence with Him.

But Jesus “rose” for embodied people in this world as well, by materializing His new body every time. He could do this by His Divine Power.”

Back to Philip:

“22. One never hides a thing of great value in a large

vessel, but very often countless treasures are placed into

a vessel worth an assarion. [An assarion is a Roman coin, bronze or copper worth about a farthing (one tenth of a drachma—in other words, not very much.] One never hides a thing of great value in a large vessel, but very often countless treasures are placed into a vessel worth an assarion.... It is the same with the soul. Being a precious thing, it is placed in a contemptible body.”

I love how this passage denigrates the body as a worthless thing. The metaphor is the kind of image that would appear in a parable. The metaphor encourages us to fix our attention on the imperishable soul rather than the pitifully worthless sheath wrapped around it.

Antonov’s commentary:

“Atheists as well as most of those who call themselves

Christians believe that man is a body.

But in reality man is a soul, a consciousness. And the body is just a temporal container, in which man has to go through the next stage of studying in the School in the material world.

Incarnate states of people are usually much shorter parts

of their lives as compared to non-incarnate states.

However, the development of man can take place only in the incarnate state. It is for this reason that incarnations are necessary, it is for this reason that God creates material worlds.”

This is one of the great mysteries: why are incarnations necessary? Antonov here states the conventional new age position that multiple incarnations of the soul are an established fact, and that each incarnation offers the soul opportunities for development unavailable to it in the spiritual state. Now, this concept is nowhere specifically stated in this gospel nor any other that I know of, and yet the argument appeals to an intuitive understanding of how the universe works. Other new age authors would add that each person has a different life goal that is to be accomplished in his current incarnation, so no broadly summarized generalization is possible. Nevertheless, Antonov spins out his explication with another metaphor—the idea of the body as a “factory”:

“The point is that the body is a “factory” for transformation of energy. In the body, the energy extracted, first of all, from ordinary food can become the energy of the consciousness, of the soul. It is thanks to this that the process of qualitative and quantitative growth of the consciousness can take place.”

He says, “It is thanks to this that the process of qualitative and quantitative growth of the consciousness can take place.” He doesn’t say why or how this energy transformation takes place, and he doesn’t say how the physical food is transformed into spiritual food, but if we go deeper into his logic we might eventually stumble onto an essentially truthful answer. At this point the ability of Faith to accept irrational premises must be our fallback position.

Recently, in meditation, I was given a metaphor that helped me understand why “the development of man can take place only in the incarnate state.” I had always thought of the carnal life and the afterlife as separate things—first one then the other; but if we think of the carnal life as an appendage of the spiritual life, a permanent imprint on the face of the Cosmic host, then a transcendental relationship between death and life may be perceived. As such, we can see that the experiences in the body do not simply disappear when we pass on to the higher planes, but they continue to resonate in the mind and memory of God. 

It was explained to me that life on Earth is kind of like the slow repetitious process of practicing on a musical instrument—a process which is tedious and essentially meaningless for its own sake, but which is necessary to prepare us for the performance onstage. Without the physicalization of technical practice, the soul would not be free to express itself through the physical; furthermore without this physicalization the soul would not be able to experience the ecstasy of musical expression which is purely spiritual. Hence, Terrestrial Life=Practice, Heavenly Life=Performance. These are comfortable thoughts, which work to validate Earthly existence, and which affirm the spiritual resonance of everything we DO on this plane.

Recall our previous discussion of the term “pleroma”:

“It is interesting how many different ways “pleroma”, the totality of divine powers, is translated. These four translations of Colossians 2:9 all translate pleroma as “fullness”, and 3 out of 4 of them include the word “body”:

In the King James 21st Century it says:

“For in Him dwelleth all the fullness of the Godhead bodily.”

The Amplified Bible gives practically a textbook definition of pleroma:

“For in Him all the fullness of Deity (the Godhead) dwells in bodily form [completely expressing the divine essence of God]. ‘

The Common English Bible simplifies it to:

“All the fullness of deity lives in Christ’s body.”

The Contemporary English Version simplifies it even more:

“God lives fully in Christ.”

All this talk of the fullness of God in the physical makes me take this verse more seriously:

1st Corinthians 6:19:

“Don't you realize that your body is the temple of the Holy Spirit, who lives in you and was given to you by God? You do not belong to yourself.”

Many so-called “ascetic” philosophies disparage the body, attribute to the body no significance compared to the spirit; in these verses we are encouraged to think of the body as an legitimate extension on spirit, and somehow on an equal level as spirit. These thoughts must give us pause, those of us who eat too much, sit around too much, smoke too much, etc.

One of my favorite lines from the poetry of Wallace Stevens occurs at the end of “Peter Quince at the Clavier”. This poem is about the rape of Susanna by the elders as told in the book of Daniel. The poem ends thus:

                              

“Beauty is momentary in the mind— 

The fitful tracing of a portal; 

But in the flesh it is immortal. 

The body dies; the body's beauty lives. 

So evenings die, in their green going, 

A wave, interminably flowing. 

So gardens die, their meek breath scenting 

The cowl of winter, done repenting. 

So maidens die, to the auroral 

Celebration of a maiden's choral. 

Susanna's music touched the bawdy strings 

Of those white elders; but, escaping, 

Left only Death's ironic scraping. 

Now, in its immortality, it plays 

On the clear viol of her memory, 

And makes a constant sacrament of praise.”

I have to admit that I have not adequately understood these lines until now—the paradox of the “immortal flesh” struck me as a poetical construction designed generate a feeling of wonder in the audience, and that was all I got out of it. Immortal flesh seemed a contradiction in terms. Now I see that Stevens was cherishing the REALITY of the immortal spirit incarnated in the sympathetically immortal flesh—thus, timeless memory makes all being immortal.

With that thought we will close. Next week we will continue with the pondering of Philip on the flesh-to-spirit paradox. Let us pray.

Jesus, thank you for bringing us wholeness in mind body and spirit. You and only you can work this magic, and we stand in awe as you pull rabbit after rabbit out of the hat. Amen.

Sermon 5-- Philip 4

Sermon 5-- Philip 4—Verse 23-29

Last week we finished on a climax concerning the immortality of the flesh with these words:

“In Antonov’s commentary he says, referring to the soul development that takes place on the Earth plane, by way of carnal experience: 

“It is thanks to this that the process of qualitative and quantitative growth of the consciousness can take place.” 

He doesn’t say why or how this energy transformation takes place, and he doesn’t say how the physical food is transformed into spiritual food, and this is a problem for those of us who would like a straight rational answer to doctrinal questions. Nevertheless, if we go deeper into his logic, we might eventually stumble onto an essentially truthful answer, if only an answer that raises new questions. Meanwhile, at this point, the ability of Faith to accept irrational premises must be our fallback position.

Recently, in meditation, I was given a metaphor that helped me get closer to an understanding of why “the development of man can take place only in the incarnate state.” I have always thought of carnal life and the afterlife as separate things—first one then the other; but if we think of the carnal life as an appendage of the spiritual life, a permanent imprint on the face of the Cosmic host, then a transcendental relationship between death and life may be perceived. As such, we can see that the experiences in the body do not simply disappear when we pass on to the higher planes, but they continue to resonate in the Mind and Memory of God. 

It was explained to me the activities of Earthly life are kind of like the slow repetitious process of practicing on a musical instrument—a mechanical process which is tedious and essentially meaningless for its own sake, but which is necessary to prepare us for the performance onstage. Without the physicalization of technical practice, spirit would have no channel to express itself through the physical; that is to say, without this physicalization, the body would have no channel through which it could access the ecstasy of musical expression which is purely spiritual. Hence, Terrestrial Life=Practice, Heavenly Life=Performance. These are comfortable thoughts, which work to validate Earthly existence, and which affirm the spiritual resonance of everything we DO on this plane.”

The next section of Philip develops the idea of flesh vs spirit; here we encounter more subtle word play, a pun in fact, where the word “naked” is given both a material and a spiritual meaning:

“23. There are people who are afraid of rising naked.

This is because they want to rise in the flesh. Yet they do

not understand that those who wear the flesh are naked

(in front of spirits and God). But those who undress themselves (of the flesh) in order to become naked (i.e. “naked” souls) — they are not naked anymore.

Neither flesh nor blood can enter the Abode of God.

So, what is that which will not enter? It is that which

is on us. And what is that which will enter? It is that which belongs to Jesus and to His Blood.

Therefore, He said, “They who will not eat My Flesh

and drink My Blood will not have the (true) life in them”.

“What is His Flesh? — Logos. And His Blood is the Holy Spirit. The one who has received These has true food, drink, and clothing. And I cannot agree if someone says that This Flesh will not rise.

So, people got confused. If you say that the Flesh will not rise, then tell me, so that I may honor you as a reasonable person, what will rise?”

This guy’s sarcasm kills me: “then tell me, so that I may honor you as a reasonable person”!? It’s like, “I dare you to justify your position about what will rise and what will remain.” The author intensifies his dare with this threat:

“You better say that the Spirit is this Flesh and the

Light is this Flesh. And Logos is also this Flesh. So, all

what you mentioned is this Flesh. And one must rise in

this very Flesh, since everything is in It.”

Commentary:

“In this fragment, Philip uses a “play on words”, which is typical of this Gospel, as a means for stimulating the reader’s thinking.

Philip begins this fragment with scoffing at the fear of rising naked: the shame of nakedness of the body is not an objectively significant ethical law, but just a moral norm of certain groups of people embodied on the Earth. There are no such “norms of behavior” in the highest eons.”

Here, Antonov again departs from the text and inserts new age concepts which are not properly included in the gospel itself, but which might possibly be inferred from any number of external new age sources. As we have mentioned previously, if there is anything to be learned from the Gospel of Philip it is that there are many levels of consciousness in existence. 

[Sidebar: I just mentioned above that:

“I have always thought of the carnal life and the afterlife as separate things—first one then the other; but if we think of the carnal life as an appendage of the spiritual life, a permanent imprint on the face of the Cosmic host, then a transcendental relationship between death and life may be perceived. As such, we can see that the experiences in the body do not simply disappear when we pass on to the higher planes, but they continue to resonate in the Mind and Memory of God.”

Hence, this idea of resonance in the Mind and Memory of God, necessarily references the outside-time quality of predestination. Obviously the Mind and Memory of God are timeless, and yet there is a sequential parameter to both mind and memory that implies a multi-layered structure, i.e. an outside-Time and an inside-Time quality, some kind of physical/non-physical dimension that flows back and forth between Time and Eternity. Predestination must exist, in essence, outside time, and, in expression, inside Time. Moreover, the notion that, “all what you mentioned is this Flesh. And one must rise in this very Flesh, since everything is in It,” refers to the idea that “Pleroma”, the Fullness of God, includes the Flesh.

Now, one of the conventional Christian objections to the idea of reincarnation is that Jesus never told us we get to try again—to Jesus the time to enter the abode of the Father is NOW, in this life, and no other time; perhaps the reason for this is that carnal identity is included in the Fullness of God—the Grace given by the Mediator cancels all Karmic debts which might require another incarnation to get things right.]

The next section of the Antonov commentary explores the character of the so-called “Pleroma”, the state of all-being in its fullness. It suggests that all consciousness is fluid and expresses itself in both individual identities and corporate identities. Again, this is not unlike the C.S. Lewis idea that we have referred to many times, that becoming more absorbed by God means becoming more ourselves.

Here is the Antonov commentary:

“Individual Consciousnesses in the Abode of the Creator abide in the mutually dissolved, merged state, forming a Whole. However, they can separate again as Individualities with the purpose of performing a specific task in the Creation. Spirits retain their separateness, as well as the appearance and tendencies, habitual for them in the last incarnation. But they also can transform into lumps of energy or assume for a time someone else’s appearance when they converse with incarnate people.

God and spirits hear not only the words which we say but also our thoughts, even the most “secret” ones.

They also see everything existing in the world of matter, in all detail. Not only clothes, under which we hide our bodies, but even the intestines of our bodies are absolutely open to the sight of any non-incarnate being.”

Here Antonov mentions again the idea of “secret”, or you might possibly say, “forgotten” knowledge—knowledge that is apprehended by spiritual intelligence, but which is invisible to the carnal consciousness.

“But embodied people usually do not know about this, do not notice, and even if they knew and noticed, they would not have a chance to hide their nakedness. We are naked before the whole Ocean of non-incarnate universal Consciousness and before many individual consciousnesses. We are visible to all. They examine us, admiring or compassionating, respecting or making fun, loving or hating, despising, foretasting our future suffering… But we do not know this, and even if we knew — anyway we do not have any place where to go, where to hide…

… Then Philip proceeds with discussing that which Jesus allegorically called His Flesh and Blood.

Jesus-“Vine”, for incarnating in a body, “stretched” a part of Himself--Consciousness from the eon of God-the-Father — to the world of matter. And He explained to the disciples that the Path to God-the-Father consists for them in transformation of

themselves into similar “Vines”, but they have to grow in the direction opposite as compared to Jesus: not from God-the-Father — to the matter, but from the matter — to God-the-Father.”

The source for this reference is John 15:1-9:

“15 I am the true vine, and my Father is the husbandman.

² Every branch in me that beareth not fruit he taketh away: and every branch that beareth fruit, he purgeth it, that it may bring forth more fruit.

³ Now ye are clean through the word which I have spoken unto you.

⁴ Abide in me, and I in you. As the branch cannot bear fruit of itself, except it abide in the vine; no more can ye, except ye abide in me.

⁵ I am the vine, ye are the branches: He that abideth in me, and I in him, the same bringeth forth much fruit: for without me ye can do nothing.

⁶ If a man abide not in me, he is cast forth as a branch, and is withered; and men gather them, and cast them into the fire, and they are burned.

⁷ If ye abide in me, and my words abide in you, ye shall ask what ye will, and it shall be done unto you.

⁸ Herein is my Father glorified, that ye bear much fruit; so shall ye be my disciples.

⁹ As the Father hath loved me, so have I loved you: continue ye in my love.”

It gets to be slightly irritating how Antonov keeps interpolating material from other sources into his so-called commentary on the Gospel of Philip, in this case the Gospel of John; however, the metaphor of the “vine” totally works for me as an aid to imagining how Jesus’ consciousness can connect all of us to Him and to each other. Thus, in considering the many forms and, you might say, CONCENTRATIONS of consciousness, (I have sometimes said RESOLUTIONS of consciousness), included in the all-encompassing Pleroma, the “vine” as an aspect of the Christ Consciousness, may once again be observed to be an instrument of MEDIATION.

Back to Antonov:

“The one who grows by the “roots” to the Abode of God-the-Father and merges there with Him in the embrace of Love— becomes a Christ with time.

In order to traverse this Path, one has to “eat” that “food” which is provided to people from the eons of the Holy Spirit and God-the-Father. This is the “food” of the Divine knowledge. And “Logos” (i.e. “Speaking One”) is the One Who brings this knowledge.

The one who gets born in the highest eons during the life in a material body and who grows one’s own Divine “Flesh” in these eons is a true follower of Christ, a true Christian to become a Christ. After the death of the body, such a person truly rises, attains immortality, and for sure will not die even at the end of the world.”

In verse 24, Philip develops the metaphor of the clothed and the naked:

“24. In this world, people mark themselves in the society by their garments. But in the Kingdom of Heaven, the garments of the chosen are on Those Who robed themselves in the Flow and Fire, on Those Who purified Themselves.”

I was happy to read the statement, “In this world, people mark themselves in the society by their garments.” True then as now. As Frank Zappa said, “Everybody in this room is wearing a uniform, and don’t kid yourself.” I have often wondered how could we dress and NOT wear a uniform? Then, NOT wearing a uniform becomes wearing a uniform. I guess going naked is the only way.

Antonov’s Commentary pursues the idea of layers of consciousness, meaning physical clothing as opposed to heavenly clothing. He talks about the multidimensional creation, and the refinement of consciousness, which takes place in the Bridal Chamber, through these multi-dimensional layers,:

“The Flow is motion of the Consciousness of the Holy Spirit. One’s entering in it is similar to submersion in a cosmic river of Living Divine Consciousness. Different variations of this meditation are called Latihan and Pranava. This represents the real baptism in the Holy Spirit. As we see, it is not similar at all to what is understood as baptism in various sects.

The Holy Spirit pervades all layers of the multidimensional Creation. A Manifestation of the Holy Spirit above the Earth’s surface can be associated with a Flow. His Manifestation inside the planet is designated by Philip as Light. Another Manifestation of Him is Fire. And the Perfect Light is God-the-Father in

His Abode — in the Bridal Chamber.

Baptism, performed sequentially in each of these layers, provides the next stages of purification and refinement of the consciousness of a spiritual warrior.”

Back to Philip:

“25. Usually obvious things are cognized through the obvious, and secret things — through the secret. But in some cases, the secret is symbolized through images of the obvious. Thus come the image of water in the Flow and the image of fire at the blessing (of God-the-Father).”

As you know, the subject of language and its role in conveying the truth and veiling the truth, is a constant preoccupation with me, so it will be no surprise that I cherish this last paragraph. It begins with this precious statement, “Usually obvious things are cognized through the obvious.” We often hear that “less is more”; this is certainly true sometimes, but it is a lot more often true that, “less is less and more is more. The author(s) of Philip certainly agree with me. However, the operative word in this paragraph, for me, is “SYMBOLIZED”—

“the secret is symbolized through images of the obvious”.

Can you guess the next word to come out of my mouth? PARABLE. Parables are always images of the obvious symbolized through verbal structures capable of inspiring the imagination to enter the Cloud of Unknowing. If only we could remember in our arguments over doctrinal details that all these words we vomit out of our mouths are SYMBOLS for realities which cannot be verbalized!

Without committing to any one verbal “TRUTH”, Jesus, guides our minds along wholesome paths and makes our words romp over a joyous playground of pictures of the invisible.

Isenburg translates the foregoing in this way:

“It is necessary to rise in this flesh, since everything exists in it. In this world, those who put on garments are better than the garments. In the Kingdom of Heaven, the garments are better than those that put them on. It is through water and fire that the whole place is purified - the visible by the visible, the hidden by the hidden. There are some things hidden through those visible. There is water in water, there is fire in chrism.”  

Again, the clever logical maneuver that Antonov and Wisenburg agree on: “There are some things hidden through those visible.” Okay then. Still, one section in this verse that is significantly different from the Antonov translation. To remind you, the Antonov translation went like this:

“But in the Kingdom of Heaven, the garments of the chosen are on Those Who robed themselves in the Flow and Fire, on Those Who purified Themselves.”

 The Wisenburg translation went like this:

“In this world, those who put on garments are better than the garments. In the Kingdom of Heaven, the garments are better than those that put them on.” 

The Antonov version is more colorful, more mystical, but the Wisenburg version is somehow more LITERAL. Either way, we have here another of the paradoxical expressions in which the author(s) of Philip take delight; it once again refers to the hierarchy that exists in the cosmographic structure, and suggests that it is the Heavenly context that elevates the proselyte to the level of a Son. In Heaven the garments are better than those who put them on because THEY ARE IN HEAVEN! Those who put them on are proselytes until they become Sons. At THAT point they become superior to their garments, because all are naked in spirit.

Another term (used here for the first time) is the “chrism”. A brief dictionary definition is:

“A mixture of oil and balsam, consecrated and used for anointing at baptism and in other rites of Catholic, Orthodox, and Anglican Churches.”

A Wikipedia article begins thus:

“The English chrism derives from Koine Greek via Latin and Old French. In Greek, khrîsma (χρῖσμα) was originally the verbal noun ("(the act of) anointing," "unction") of χρίειν ("anoint").”

It is not crystal clear what is meant by, “There is water in water, there is fire in chrism,” but I think we can safely say that the sense in which the “chrism” is used here refers to the “ACT of anointing”, not the actual mixture of oil and balsam; thus, “there is fire in the ACT of anointing.” This sentence clearly attributes a transcendental quality to the interaction of spirit and flesh—the ACT of anointing gives the ointment itself supernatural power. This is not unrelated to the Catholic idea that, in the Rite of Communion, the wafer and the wine are magically transmuted into the actual body and blood of Jesus. When we began our survey of The Gospel of Philip we were told that one of the main themes of the book was to be the Holy ritual. This is surely an example of that.

Another expression attributing divine resonance to a ritual is hinted at in the following comment:

"Flesh and blood shall not inherit the kingdom of God" (1 Colossians 15:50). What is this which will not inherit? This which is on us. But what is this, too, which will inherit? It is that which belongs to Jesus and his blood. Because of this he said "He who shall not eat my flesh and drink my blood has not life in him." (John 6:53). What is it? His flesh is the word, and his blood is the Holy Spirit. He who has received these has food and he has drink and clothing.”

Once again we encounter paradox: in one place the spirit is said to reside in the flesh, and here it quotes Paul as saying, "Flesh and blood shall not inherit the kingdom of God." Then it turns around and says it is JESUS’ flesh and blood that provides spiritual food. The only thing that is clear about this catechism is that there exists a transcendental relationship between the flesh and spirit—in the “pleroma”, the fullness of God, there is spirit everywhere.

The next section of The Gospel of Philip dwells on the divine authority of Jesus. On the subject of varying levels of spiritual consciousness, the first sentence talks about the varying degrees to which the divinity of Jesus may be appreciated by the people. Remember that in previous Philip messages we have distinguished between proselyte and Son, perishable and imperishable, winter and summer, parable and Truth, etc.; this section begins by pointing out that not everybody is able to appreciate the ESSENCE of Jesus, but that He is still able to reach everybody’s heart to some degree or other. 

“26. Jesus conquered the hearts of people without revealing His Essence. To everyone He revealed Himself as much as they could comprehend. He did this so: to the great He appeared as great, to the small He appeared as small, to angels — as an angel, and to people — as a man. At the same time, His Divinity was hidden from all. Some, seeing Him, thought that they saw a person equal to them.

But when He revealed Himself to His disciples in the

whole glory on the mountain — at that moment He was not small but truly Great. But before this, He made His disciples great, so that they could see His Greatness. On that day, thanking the Father, He said: “O He, Who united His Perfection and Light with the Holy Spirit, unite us also with the images of angels!”

[Sidebar: It is interesting how Jesus appears in different degrees of reality to those of differing degrees of perceptive capacity, all at the same time. This is, of course, the essence of the parable concept: the parable reveals to its audience the quality of Truth which they are capable of apprehending; thus, a lower level audience can appreciate just so much, while a more highly evolved audience can penetrate to the core of His essence—but first that audience must be elevated to a level capable of comprehending His essence. Thus, 

“He made His disciples great, so that they could see His Greatness.”

This has been a recurrent theme so far in Philip, and it is very gratifying to me, because I have pondered the question of different consciousness levels repeatedly not only in my meditations on spiritual issues, but also on aesthetic issues. The question of writing music that can be appreciated by audiences of varying levels of education and sensitivity has been a constant consideration for me as a creative artist.

Also, the concept of democracy—the idea that all men are created equal-- bears on this question, because, as we know, all men are NOT created equal; the equality of Man is an idealized expression with no basis in practical reality; but, at the same time, all men need to be treated as equals, as they are all derived from the same creative impulse of God the Father. Thus, although the ESSENCE of Jesus may not be visible to the spiritually blind, still, the ESSENCE of the human being is somehow submerged in the core of humanity, hidden but active and alive; and it is this essential core that ultimately binds all humanity together by a single etheric blood relationship.]

The Antonov commentary follows; notice it makes reference to the idea of the AGE of souls, declaring first: that the age of the soul may be very different from the age of the body, thus making different levels of understanding accessible to souls of different ages; secondly, there is an implicit understanding that this idea of different soul ages is based on the principle of reincarnation—in other words, a soul ages through the process of multiple rebirths onto the terrestrial plane. 

I have not completely made up my mind vis a vis the question of reincarnation—I have an intuitive feeling that reincarnation must be a reality, but I also admit the true nature of the spirit, as it appears wedded to the flesh, is much too complicated for me to adequately defend the idea--there are just too many other ways that many psychic phenomena could be explained. Reincarnation is one of these ideas that makes perfect sense to the mind, but which may wind up being a total illusion—like a magic trick that looks like one thing and turns out to be something else entirely. This is one of those things that requires me to keep an open mind, while accepting the fact that many people of Jesus’ day firmly believed in it—the author(s) of The Gospel of Philip certainly did, and Antonov certainly does. Antonov’s commentary begins with an explication of the forgoing quotation of Jesus: 

“O He, Who united His Perfection and Light with the Holy Spirit, unite us also with the images of angels!”

Antonov’s comment:

“In this saying of Jesus, there is a “play on words”. Its meaning is: “Do so that the disciples, at last, become looking like angels!” Behind these words of Jesus there is a regret that even some of His closest disciples could not comprehend Him.

One of the peculiarities of people’s development is that souls, incarnated by God in human bodies, have a very different age, which does not correlate with the age of the body. This determines, first of all, the ability to comprehend information of different levels of complexity (and to a much lesser degree it depends on the age of the body, the nature of upbringing, education, and so on). Souls become mature during many incarnations, about this Jesus, as well as His Apostles, told.

A wise teacher provides help to people taking into account the peculiarities of their age and their abilities to comprehend. A teacher should not give to the students information which is too complex and beyond their comprehending abilities.

The spiritual Path is like a stairway consisting of many steps. And it is necessary to help disciples to get on the step which is next for them, and not to suggest to them to jump through a flight of steps.”

[Sidebar: I vastly appreciate this thought: 

“A wise teacher provides help to people taking into account the peculiarities of their age and their abilities to comprehend. A teacher should not give to the students information which is too complex and beyond their comprehending abilities.” 

This not only applies to the formal relationship of teacher to student, but must equally apply to any form of communication between people on any subject whatever, but especially subjects of a spiritual nature. As we have said many times, many inhuman atrocities have been performed by people convinced that the words they speak are the ultimate truth, and anybody who disagrees is, at best, mistaken, and, at worst, the Anti-Christ. People, who claim a copyright on the TRUTH, tend to be passionately committed to the TRUTH as it is expressed on their own personal level of understanding; the quality of someone else’s TRUTH may sound very different to them, merely by virtue of its elevation relative to their personal TRUTH. The implication is that, “If your TRUTH is expressed in different terms from MY TRUTH, you must be wrong.” This dangerous conclusion has sent many innocent people to the torch; countless millions have been executed because of the idea that, “MY TRUTH is better than YOUR TRUTH.” Therefore, we must never assume that whatever conclusions we may have arrived at about ANYTHING, are written in cosmic stone—the tablet of TRUTH is a constantly evolving document that speaks to all levels of understanding at once, without excluding anybody’s claim to it no matter how partial or even irrational.

Going on with Philip:

“27. Do not neglect the Lamb, for without Him one

cannot see the Gate. And no one will be able to come to the King remaining “naked”. The sacrificial Lamb is Jesus Who went to His cross death in order that the knowledge, left by Him, save people from hell.”

Antonov’s comment:

“The second phrase of this fragment is a continuation of the idea from fragment 23. The “naked” ones are those who show off on the surface of the Earth in material bodies identifying themselves with the bodies and thinking that what they do in secret from other embodied people will be a secret for all. But in fact, they are in full view of all spirits and God. In fact, they are laughable as if they stay naked among other embodied   people and do not notice their nudity.

But one cannot visit the King in a body, thinking about oneself as of the body. One can go to the King only by not identifying oneself with the body, only by having achieved the real freedom from it through meditative training. Indeed, the stages of meditative practices (meditation is work on the development of the consciousness) allow one to receive the true baptism and not the “toylike” one, allow one to be born and become mature in new eons.”

Isenburg’s comment on this passage elaborates on its metaphoric implications:

“The terms ‘angel’ and ‘lamb’ are used to refer to the higher self.  We, the earthly ‘images’ should unite with our higher selves as our true expression if we want to go on farther “into the king”.  We cannot do it if we are “naked” of our soul or ‘wedding garment’ in Roman Christian terminology.”

Going on with Philip:

“28. The Man of Heaven has many more Sons than an

earthly man. If the sons of Adam are many, although they die, how much more are the Sons of the Perfect Man, Those Who do not die and are begotten again and again!”

[Sidebar: This is a very interesting passage, as it reprises several concepts that have previously been presented; included in this short paragraph is the idea of different spiritual levels, the idea that Sons beget Sons, and there is another sideways reference to reincarnation (“Those Who do not die . . . are begotten again and again.”).]

Antonov’s comment:

“The Perfect Man is Christ. His Teachings — at the cost of His cross death and the work of His Apostles — remained on the Earth and continue to beget new and new spiritual Children, Who achieve Immortality in the Abode of God-the-Father.”

The next sections goes back to the very first verse of the book:

“A Hebrew makes another Hebrew, and such a person is called "proselyte". But a proselyte does not make another proselyte.” 

The way spiritual knowledge is transferred from one person to another seems to be of primary importance to the author(s) of Philip; this is a dogmatic principle appropriate to a catechesis, and, as such, depends very much on the LANGUAGE in which the dogmatic principle is expressed. The following paragraph makes a clever distinction between SON and BROTHER.

“29. The Father created a Son, but a Son cannot create

a son. Because the One Who was born in that way (by the Father) cannot beget. A Son makes brothers for Himself, not sons.”

I find this section confusing in the same way I find the opening of the book confusing. The Father creates Sons, but the Son who is now one with the Father cannot make Sons? And if he can make brothers, are they not then also Sons? Perhaps the Son is a Son of Earth and therefore the Brother is a creature of Earth, but still connected by spiritual sympathy? Something like this is implied in the Antonov comment:

“The earthly reproduction is not attractive to a Son of God. Therefore, He begets not earthly children, but spiritual ones — brothers and sisters.”

The passage goes on to reflect on certain community rituals, namely the KISS. The KISS is represented as a means by which Perfection may be bestowed on a man; the Earthly kiss is therefore a symbolic re-enactment of the spiritual baptism that came through feeding on the Word of God. As a Christian ritual, then, it is no surprise that Judas chose to identify Jesus to the Romans by means of A KISS:

“31. There are those who feed from a mouth if the

word of God comes from it. If one feeds like this — one

can become Perfect.

The Perfect can be conceived by a kiss and be born

thus. For this reason, we also kiss one another to become

conceived from the grace which is in each one of us.”

Antonov’s comment expands on the KISS as a symbol of divine love:

“A Perfect Teacher feeds disciples with the word of God from the mouth. And this can bring them to the Perfection. Having been prepared by previous incarnations, psychogenetically mature disciples can be awaked to further advancement by Love of the Teacher. And then they can be born in the

highest eons.

The emotions of tender love help disciples in their spiritual work, supporting, inspiring, and imbuing them with power.”

So, the list of Divine Sacraments mentioned in this section of Philip include, Communion, Chrism, and the Kiss. All this is to direct our attention the idea that physicality becomes imbued with spiritual power not by virtue of the physical components of the rituals themselves, but by virtue of the spiritual power of the intention to merge in transcendental union with the Father. All this takes place in the “Bridal Chamber”.

Next week we begin our discussion with the subject of Jesus’ relationship to Mary Magdalene.

Let us pray: Jesus, the layers of reality, out of which the totality of the universe is composed, constitute a puzzle we will never understand. But we know that the wonder which these contemplations inspire in us must eventually lead to an understanding totally apprehended by the Divine Intelligence made available to us through You. Amen.