Thomas' Gospel.

[MANICHAEAN]

Just over 120 years ago fragmentary papyri, some of it written in Greek were discovered in an ancient rubbish dump at Oxyrhynchus in Egypt containing several sayings attributed to Jesus. Then in 1947 there was another similar find at Nag Hammadi in Palestine. Part of this was a tractate entitled "The Gospel According to Thomas" also containing Jesus' sayings.

It must be remembered that at the time they were written there was no fixed church authority, and thus they are a fascination in the development of primitive Christianity.

Three aspects I would like to look at:

1. There had been a school of thought that behind Matthew's and Luke's revision of the Gospel of Mark stood a collection of sayings known as the Synoptic Sayings. Were these the material previously undiscovered?

2. There were religious ideas largely originating in the Jewish physical & social settings of the 1st & 2nd Century AD that there was within the human body an existing Divine spark trapped but which could be released by an identification with wisdom, ( the sayings?) This development of Gnostic ideas was thus contemporaneous with the writing of the New Testament. However this belief held that the kingdom of heaven is already here and not a future event. By the end of the 2nd Century to the 4th Century there was a reaction by the proto-orthodox church and this belief was condemned as heresy.

3. Was this the voice of Jesus without the intermediary of the institutional church and orthodox theologians?

[YesNo]

I remember trying to read this a few years ago, but I don't recall understanding it. I feel the need to read a commentary on such texts to understand them, with the risk that the commentary may be biased.

[MANICHAEAN]

If you can put up with my commentaries YesNo I will try and work through them bit by bit.
Best wishes
M.

[YesNo]

Here's a commentary with varied translations of the 114 sayings in the Gospel of Thomas: http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/thomas/ as another reference point. I should be able to put up with your commentaries, Manichaean. Which saying are we considering first?

[MANICHAEAN]

Thanks for the link YesNo.

Let's start with the Coptic Prologue.

" These are the secret sayings that the living Jesus spoke, and Judas who is also called Thomas recorded."

The first thing that strikes me is that the fact that these sayings are "secret" adds some specificity to what was at the time a common means of education i.e recording oral instances. It was as if there was a distinction in potential comprehension to be drawn between the common masses and those of a deeper ability to interpret, ( the disciples?)

The fact also that they are just "sayings" implies a value judgement interpretation. And then, ( unlike in a crossword for example) there is no magical button to push, or page to turn to get a definitive answer. It begs the question; does one's personal interpretation coincide with a belief I have that each of us is chosen to serve in different ways?

I can also understand better in the historical context the claims of heresy from the threat this posed to an emerging orthodox church body gradually asserting itself.

Finally, the term "living Jesus" is fascinating, as if to say this is not the imparting of "eternal" knowledge, but of "present" knowledge.

[YesNo]

Getting a definitive answer does seem to have something magical about it. I assume such answers would have to work like a machine in some way.

In the link I cited I would this interesting about the word "sayings": "From the time of Herodotus on logion meant 'oracle', 'a saying derived from a deity'." That reminds me of a text derived from a muse.

[MANICHAEAN]

Ah, but a muse need not be a deity. Yeat's muses derived a lot of his creative inspiration from feminine mortals.

A woman's beauty is like a white
Frail bird, like a white sea-bird alone
At daybreak after a stormy night
Between two furrows upon the ploughed land.
A sudden storm, and it was thrown
Between dark furrows upon the ploughed land.
How many centuries spent
The sedentary soul
In toils of measurement
Beyond eagle or mole,
Beyond hearing or seeing,
Or Archimedes' guess,
To raise into being
That loveliness.

[YesNo]

Today, we see muses as humans inspiring us or we see them as something inside us. If we believe that we are isolated individuals, like Cartesian points, whose minds are products of individual brains, then that must be how we see ourselves and a muse, but I think that's an illusion (or delusion). I find it entertaining as an exercise to claim that muses are real and outside our brains, like angels or deities. Then I ask myself how far do I believe that?

[MANICHAEAN]

Coptic Saying 1.

"And he said, "Whoever discovers the interpretation of these sayings will not taste death.""

The first question immediately arises, "who" said; Jesus, Thomas or persons passing the saying down?

Or is it deliberate; to encourage thinking on the possibility of immortality?

Even though just starting on this Gospel, it not only opens questions, but the questions themselves open up further questions. Some can be judged worthy of unfairness, or addressing the criteria of objectives i.e

1. From the Prologue there is an implication that the common people are not capable of this type of investigative thinking. Are they then unable / excluded from gaining life after death?

2. The option of not tasting death is death. Is this mortal conclusion a bad thing in itself, or is the whole process of this saying of an incentive nature?

[YesNo]

Here is the part from the other commentary: http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/thomas/gospelthomas1.html

I assumed the "he" was Jesus, but I guess that might not be the case.

Good question about those who don't understand--will they taste death? However, the passage doesn't say that there are no other paths, only that this path of understanding is a true path leading to the goal of not tasting death.

I don't understand how "the option of not tasting death is death". The passage might be there as an incentive to the reader to continue reading because something will be gained in the process of understanding.

[MANICHAEAN]

Coptic Saying 2.

Jesus says, "Those who seek should not stop seeking until they find. When they find they will be disturbed. When they are disturbed, they will rule, and when they rule, they will rest."

First impression. The link between those that seek and the interpretative process.

Then there are some unusual connections incorporated in: seeking, finding, being disturbed, ruling and resting.

The two extremes, "seeking" and "resting" seem logical. The intermediate ones seem strange. "Finding" becomes unsettling like discovering an unpleasant truth. Do the answers attained show an illusion under which one has lived before?

But then it appears that if the seeker does not weaken, then he becomes empowered to "rule," whatever that means.

Some possible interpretations are:

1. When you learn your true place in the scheme of things, you will have a degree of control over your reality by virtue of understanding its true nature.

2. To become both lord and servant of yourself. By overcoming a duality in your nature, you will as it were, "reign."

[YesNo]

Here is the commentary link to saying 2: http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/thomas/gospelthomas2.html

I am also puzzled by the transition. The troubled is alternatively translated as astonished which I suppose might feel troubling.

[MANICHAEAN]

It's very much like translations anywhere. Only if you are fully accomplished in the language the piece was originally written in will you get the full meaning and nuances.

[YesNo]

That's where commentaries help even in what other people think the words might me. There are five stages going on here ("seeking, finding, being disturbed, ruling and resting") and four transitions between them in a linear fashion. I am trying to fit that with my own experience in some way.

[MANICHAEAN]

Coptic Saying 3.

Jesus says, " If your leaders say to you, 'Look, the Father's imperial rule is in the sky,' then the bird's of the sky will precede you. If they say that it is under the earth, then the fish of the sea will precede you. And the Father's imperial rule is inside you and outside you. You who know yourselves will find this. And when you know yourselves, you will understand that you are children of the living Father. But if you do not know yourselves, you live in poverty, and are poverty."

Impressions?

Firstly that members seeking do not need guidance. It appears that they are fully empowered. In fact it states that leaders can be wrong in their directions.

It places the responsibility on individuals to seek a kind of self-knowledge which will reveal their adoption by God.

The knowledge itself becomes the wealth and its lack becomes poverty.

I was particularly moved by the words, " children of the living Father."

[YesNo]

Here's the commentary for saying 3: http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/thomas/gospelthomas3.html

I agree with your impressions.

If one looks for the imperial rule in the sky or in the sea then it is outside us and we aren't there yet. Instead of that, the saying claims not only is it outside us, but it is also inside. If it is also inside, then we are already "children of the living Father". We are already there. We just need to realize that so our perspectives on reality (the imperial rule) are not impoverished.

[Pompey Bum]

Just over 120 years ago fragmentary papyri, some of it written in Greek were discovered in an ancient rubbish dump at Oxyrhynchus in Egypt containing several sayings attributed to Jesus. Then in 1947 there was another similar find at Nag Hammadi in Palestine. Part of this was a tractate entitled "The Gospel According to Thomas" also containing Jesus' sayings.

It must be remembered that at the time they were written there was no fixed church authority, and thus they are a fascination in the development of primitive Christianity.


Three aspects I would like to look at:

1. There had been a school of thought that behind Matthew's and Luke's revision of the Gospel of Mark stood a collection of sayings known as the Synoptic Sayings. Were these the material previously undiscovered?

Hey, MANICHAEAN! Great to see you again. :)

A couple pedantic points first. Nag Hammadi is also in Egypt, not Palestine. You are right that the first copy found of the Thomas material was written in Greek--the language of the eastern Roman Empire and the entire New Testament. The less fragmented Nag Hammadi text is in Coptic (you didn't say otherwise--I'm just pointing it out). So while more complete, it is also a local translation of an existing (presumably Greek) text. The Nag Hammadi codices were intentionally buried in the 4th century. So one of the first questions about the relation of the Gospel of Thomas to the synoptic sayings is the date of its first composition. Another (if one takes it to be a collection of sayings recorded from the words of the historical Jesus) involves the language that Jesus used when he taught. Is the Oxyrhynchus text itself a translation INTO Greek? And most importantly (as far as I'm concerned): were translations accompanied by theologically driven redactions? Are these the authentic sayings of Jesus from or are they a quasi-gnostic spin on the actual sayings of Jesus? Interested groups are quick to claim a consensus on these points, but in fact there is none. The good man draws his own conclusions.

Religious conservatives--those for whom anything smelling of gnosticism is post-synoptic invention-- usually date the material to the late 2nd or even 3rd century. No, they will tell you, this is not the hypothetical sayings source from which you say the synoptic Gospels were extrapolated. Rather those nasty gnostics extracted the sayings from the existing Gospels and perverted them for their own heretical purposes.

The radical view (when I went to school--it is more or less the liberal academic view now) is that the Gospel of Thomas is much earlier. It was not seen as the original synoptic sayings source but as (probably) a mildly gnosticized redaction of that source. The sayings cannot be taken at face value (that is, not as the verbatim teachings of the historical Jesus) but they are as close to that as we have for now. They are to be analyzed cautiously. There is also the matter of sayings and stories from Thomas that do not appear in the synoptic Gospels. If they were not added later (as most religious conservatives insist), then they may be authentic teachings of Jesus that were passed over/censored by the authors of the synoptic Gospels. As such they may cast new light on who Jesus's was before the churches got ahold of him.


2. There were religious ideas largely originating in the Jewish physical & social settings of the 1st & 2nd Century AD that there was within the human body an existing Divine spark trapped but which could be released by an identification with wisdom, ( the sayings?) This development of Gnostic ideas was thus contemporaneous with the writing of the New Testament. However this belief held that the kingdom of heaven is already here and not a future event. By the end of the 2nd Century to the 4th Century there was a reaction by the proto-orthodox church and this belief was condemned as heresy.

Unfortunately you are technically correct to capitalize Gnostic. Historically it makes more sense to think in terms of gnostic trends over various theologies. The mildly gnostic Gospel of Thomas is categorically different from the wild and wacky Sethian gnosticism of The Hypostasis of the Archons or the Apocryphon of James. And both are a world away from the Valentinian gnosticism of the Gospel of Truth. With that caveat, I think you are correct to describe the gnosticism of the Gospel of Thomas as "originating in the Jewish physical & social settings of the 1st & 2nd Century AD". But conservative Christians will quickly tell you that Sethian gnosticism is Hellenizing not Jewish (and they'd be right--in fact much of it is strongly anti-Jewish). Gnostic studies are complicated but fun. I wish you much joy in the pursuit. But take my advice: small g (and damn the predictive spelling).

By the way, idea that the Kingdom of God is already here is called a realized eschatology. Is it still considered heretical? I take no notice of such things.


3. Was this the voice of Jesus without the intermediary of the institutional church and orthodox theologians?

See above.

Great talking to you again, old horse! I don't post on LitNet much, but I'll drop by from time to time to see if you've responded. Until then, as they say at Boston University, be you! :)

[MANICHAEAN]

Hello Old Chap

Nice to hear from you again and for your ever informative response. I stumbled upon this subject purely by chance and found it interesting to say the least. At one stage I was a bit put off by the skepticism of another book I was reading; " Pagans and Christians" by Robin Lane Fox.

He writes of "overachievers" who multiplied texts which supported their own practice: where no authority existed, they invented texts and ascribed them to authors who never wrote them.

He speaks of the narrative fictions that tend to name no author in the "Acts of Thomas" or the "Acts of Peter," whereas bogus letters of discipline and revelation tend to claim a false authorship in the "Apocalypse of Peter" or the "Teaching of the Apostles."

And yet, what if?

For that reason I will continue to read, even if only to examine the perspective and to reflect upon the content of whoever originated the thinking involved.

Take care & best wishes.
M.

( I'm back from Vietnam now, in semi-retirement mode, so I get a chance to immerse myself in my books.)

[Pompey Bum]

At one stage I was a bit put off by the skepticism of another book I was reading; " Pagans and Christians" by Robin Lane Fox.

He writes of "overachievers" who multiplied texts which supported their own practice: where no authority existed, they invented texts and ascribed them to authors who never wrote them.

He speaks of the narrative fictions that tend to name no author in the "Acts of Thomas" or the "Acts of Peter," whereas bogus letters of discipline and revelation tend to claim a false authorship in the "Apocalypse of Peter"

Sooner or later one just shrugs and accepts that ascribing writings to authoritative religious figures was accepted practice in antiquity (and not just in the West). The names of the the Canonical Evangelists are all ascriptions and many of the Pauline Epistles were never written by Paul. The historical Paul has an extremely quirky style of Greek and an idiosyncratic theology. Confusing him with author of Ephesians or Colossians is like seeing a Jackson Pollock and saying, "Ah yes, Leonardo!"-- it's that obvious. That doesn't mean the theology of the Pseudo-Pauline authors (and other attributed writers) doesn't deserve to be considered as part of the Christian experience. The real problem (in my opinion) comes from putting one's faith in a literary artifact--the Biblical text as we have it--rather than the God of love and justice it seeks to understand. Biblical literalism requires chronic denial about attributed authors and (much worse) an artificial concordance between what were always really differing perspectives over time. This has resulted in a kind of Frankenstein version of the Bible (in my opinion an idol) that has fueled Christian intolerance and provided atheistic apologists with a smorgasbord of low hanging fruit. But I digress.

I haven't read Fox, but I can see from your examples that he is cherry picking his overachievers. I translated the Acts of Peter as a long ago Latin student (I think the Greek text is lost). I remember that Simon Magus was terrorizing the city of Rome by flying through the air. It was like a Batman movie. That sort of folklore/fiction does not begin to approach the historical or religious significance of Gospel of Thomas. Thomas may suggest something new about the original Jesus community--not just by what it says but by what it is. Formally (I mean in terms of form criticism), collections of aphorisms lend themselves to meditation for wisdom/enlightenment rather than ritual and liturgy. In other words, instead of having an authoritative church figure lead a community in ritual (and ultimately tell one what to believe), the disciple considers or meditates on a saying (which may itself be a paradox--somewhat like a Zen riddle) until its meaning is apprehended through an unmediated connection with the one who posed it. I think you touch on this when you say:


The fact also that they are just "sayings" implies a value judgement interpretation. And then, ( unlike in a crossword for example) there is no magical button to push, or page to turn to get a definitive answer. It begs the question; does one's personal interpretation coincide with a belief I have that each of us is chosen to serve in different ways?

Understanding the paradoxical or riddle-like nature of some of the sayings may make them less obscure to us. You mention this one:

"Those who seek should not stop seeking until they find. When they find they will be disturbed. When they are disturbed, they will rule, and when they rule, they will rest."

Paradox: one expects seeking to be an active process and finding to provide some satisfaction (or at least a rest from seeking); but here those who seek are not satisfied but disturbed.

My interpretation: those who meditate/seek must continue to the point of enlightenment/self-apprehension. This will not come as a moment of satisfaction but profound disquiet. Why? Because apprehending one's true (spiritual) being necessarily means facing the poverty/corruption of material existence and understanding that one has been that poverty. Or as the Gospel of Thomas says elsewhere, one perceives that one lives in a corpse.

Paradox: one expects ruling to be mastery resulting from victory; but here it is the result of disquiet and leads to rest.

My interpretation: for the author of the Gospel of Thomas, ruling is the victory that comes on awaking to one's true, spiritual, and immortal nature. (The image may be associated with the martyr's crown, an early Christian metaphor for immortality). Immortality is seen as a state of profound peace, passivity, and rest. Or perhaps the teaching is that martyrdom will come, but persecutors can only take your body--not your being. The enlightened know that they are not tasting death. (Perhaps).

Now this may be a lost teaching of Jesus. On the other hand, it may be the redactor of the Gospel of Thomas' spin on something Jesus once taught. What is more important to me is the possibility (in terms of the original sayings source) that the historical Jesus was a kind of Jewish wisdom teacher; that his sayings may be extracted from the contexts and explanatory stories the Gospel writers and their sources gave them--and that they may be sources of unexpected wisdom in themselves. The Kingdom of God is like a mustard seed (found in all three synoptics plus Thomas) is usually interpreted to mean that big things have small beginnings, but it sounds like a paradox riddle to me. Be as wise as serpents and as innocent as doves. Let the dead bury the dead. Where the corpse is, there the eagles will gather. You get the idea.

The 800-pound gorilla in the room in this discussion (or the pink elephant or whatever it's supposed to be) is Apocalypticism. Despite what generations of clergy have told their flocks, Jesus Gospel message was not: be good so you can go to Heaven (or else). It was emphatically: the Kingdom of God is at hand. Since Schweitzer (and even before), this has been taken by mainstream Christians to mean that Jesus was an Apocalyptic prophet--and perhaps he was. But the possibility of Jesus as a wisdom teacher at least opens the door to an alternative view.

As you know, Jesus was crucified by the Roman authority while he was still young. Persecution of his followers came quickly. In the beginning, this was local and sporadic, but it was also shocking and cruel. The reeling Jesus movement was faced with the unthinkable prospect of a just God who was leading them to slaughter. Like Jewish martyrs before them, their solution was Apocalyptic literature. Those who persecute now will be justly punished--soon. Those who suffer now will be justly rewarded--soon. The Revelation of John arose alongside the Canonical Gospels. Some Gospel sources provided Jesus himself with apocalyptic words and warnings. The historical Paul wrote in the context of an imminent Armageddon. The Kingdom of God was surely at hand.

But was it only an Apocalypse in hindsight? Was the historical Jesus' Kingdom of God a Salvation now through enlightenment to one's true (and immortal) being? Was his message that The Kingdom of God was there now for those who would take it? That it was not coming but already at hand.

I don't know. I'm open to the idea, but historically there's a lot against it. First-century Palestine was rife with Apocalypticism. The Dead Sea Scrolls community believed the imminent Jewish rebellion against Rome would precipitate an Apocalyptic conflict between supernatural forces of good and evil (the war came but not the Apocalypse). Jesus' mentor John was likely a pre-war Apocalypticist. Given his times, Jesus could hardly have avoided the issue.

So where does that leave us? I don't know. Was there a synoptic sayings source? I think there was. Does that mean Jesus was a kind of wisdom teacher? Very possibly. Was he also an Apocalypticist? Quite probably. So maybe the question is how to resolve those two poles in Jesus' teaching. Perhaps that is the final paradox riddle. It is worth a little meditation in any case.

[MANICHAEAN]

Coptic Saying 4.

Jesus says, " A person old in days won't hesitate to ask a little child seven days old about the place of life, and that person will live. For many of the first will be last, and the last first and will become one and the same."

Many echoes here of the "orthodox" gospels: "Lest you become like a child" / the first last and the last first. Which begs the question as to whether these in fact were the actual words of the historical Jesus, or borrowed from the "orthodox" gospels and a different author's spin inserted?

If the former, then an extra dimension seems to be introduced. Standard doctrine as I understand it; is that in order to enter heaven, there is a need to attain aspects of childhood, namely; innocence and unspoilt simplicity.

In this saying there are inversions, namely; the preference of elders over youth and the priority of first over last. Social priorities are reversed and elders seek the advice of youth regards the locus of life. This in turn seems to state that it is the elder that receives life through the young child. One cannot help but reflect about doting grandparents given a new spring in their step by association with their grandchildren.

Then the inversion goes one step further in the attainment of a "unity," almost a collapsing of opposites and a state of non-distinction.

Thus the theme of "unity" functions as an indicator of the meaning of the search; the overcoming of opposites and the unity of a self that fulfills.

[YesNo]

Here is the commentary I am also reading: http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/thomas/gospelthomas4.html

Someone mentioned in that link that the child of seven days was still uncircumcised which occurred on the eighth day. Also some mentioned that the child was viewed as asexual at least in desires and this was the state of unity that also comes from sexual union.

[Pompey Bum]

Coptic Saying 4.

Jesus says, " A person old in days won't hesitate to ask a little child seven days old about the place of life, and that person will live. For many of the first will be last, and the last first and will become one and the same."

Many echoes here of the "orthodox" gospels: "Lest you become like a child" / the first last and the last first. Which begs the question as to whether these in fact were the actual words of the historical Jesus, or borrowed from the "orthodox" gospels and a different author's spin inserted?

Yes, strong echoes indeed--but in peculiar juxtaposition. Before getting into that, I'll address the issue of the authenticity of the Thomas sayings (by which I mean whether they are likely to have originated with the historical Jesus). The claim by some conservative Christians that the Thomas sayings were lifted from the Synoptics and placed into gnosticizing contexts doesn't the sayings themselves were authentic teachings of Jesus. Their argument can only claim that the redactors of the Gospel of Thomas began with the Synoptic Gospels and not the Synoptic Sayings Source and other early materials. But that would not necessarily mean that the Thomas document was identical with the hypothetical sayings source (the Q source) that Matthew and Luke used. My opinion is that Thomas was a somewhat gnosticized redaction of Q, and that its sayings (as opposed to its contextual spin) have a rather good claim to authenticity. And even the contexts into which Thomas places the sayings may reflect more of the historical Jesus than the Synoptic Gospels that were eventually canonized by Orthodoxy. One can't really know. So as usual the good man has to make his own way.


If the former, then an extra dimension seems to be introduced. Standard doctrine as I understand it; is that in order to enter heaven, there is a need to attain aspects of childhood, namely; innocence and unspoilt simplicity.

In this saying there are inversions, namely; the preference of elders over youth and the priority of first over last. Social priorities are reversed and elders seek the advice of youth regards the locus of life. This in turn seems to state that it is the elder that receives life through the young child. One cannot help but reflect about doting grandparents given a new spring in their step by association with their grandchildren.

Yes, the saying abounds with inversion/paradox--as one would expect from a collection of wisdom aphorisms. What is peculiar here (at least to one familiar with the Canonical Gospels) is the equation of the youth-age paradox with the first-last inversion. The former (as you point out) resonates theologically with Matthew 19:14 (and its synoptic parallels): "Suffer the little children to come unto me, and forbid them not, for such is the Kingdom of Heaven" This seems to approach the Thomas saying's intention: innocence not worldly experience is the way of God.

But a kind of theological whiplash sets in when the teaching is equated with: "For many of the first will be last, and the last first..."; a teaching that bears an obvious relationship with Matthew 20:16 (and its parallels): "But many who are first will be last; and the last, first." The synoptic versions of this saying has long been red meat to Liberation Theologians (like the current Pope) who see the Parousia as a kind of socio-economic revolution--with an implied blessing to contemporary/worldly socialist policies. But the discovery of the Thomas saying raises the possibility that its original context was significantly different. On the other hand, the redactor of Thomas may be introducing the new context--neither view is definitive.

From the viewpoint of the Thomas saying, the first-last inversion is only a little puzzling. It could be a temporal reference: the first born (the worldly elder) is less than the last born (the innocent newborn); or it could refer to presumed social worth; or perhaps it implied both a once. These interpretation is not at all inconsistent with the overall theology of meekness evident in much of the Canonical Gospels. The problem with Liberation Theology's interpretation is that it merely creates a new class of oppressors. Replacing injustice with injustice is inconsistent with the workings of a just God. But I editorialize.


Then the inversion goes one step further in the attainment of a "unity," almost a collapsing of opposites and a state of non-distinction.

Thus the theme of "unity" functions as an indicator of the meaning of the search; the overcoming of opposites and the unity of a self that fulfills.

Maybe. But I would caution against turning the paradox's resolution (as you say, the unity) into a Yin-Yang of innocence and experience. The saying is clear that Salvation requires the worldly to submit to innocence. I'm not saying you were implying otherwise--only pointing out what I see as a potential misinterpretation of the saying.

By the way, your image of the besotted grandfather is wonderful. A wise man knows the enormity of innocence when he rocks it in his arms.

[MANICHAEAN]

Thank you both for the feedback.

Ah yes, there is an innocence when you hold them as a baby. But, my grandson now is 11 and is more interested in karate sparring with Grandad!!!!!

[Pompey Bum]

Ah yes, there is an innocence when you hold them as a baby. But, my grandson now is 11 and is more interested in karate sparring with Grandad!!!!!

He is only attempting to make worldliness submit to innocence. :)

Bring on the next saying! These are fun!

[MANICHAEAN]

If I might glide off temporarily for a moment into a related slip road; I was interested to see if Gibbon in "The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire" had any take on the Thomas Gospel.

With his soaring prose and healthy scepticism, he is in the section of "The Rise of Christianity" straight away into the comment, " The scanty and suspicious materials of ecclesiastical history seldom enable us to dispel the dark cloud that hangs over the first age of the church."

Although he does not address Thomas directly, there is this interesting extract which I think puts into perspective the state of flux inherent in the early Christian thinking and development.

" It has been remarked with more ingenuity than truth that the virgin purity of the church was never violated by schism or heresy before the reign of Trajan or Hadrian, about one hundred years after the death of Christ. We may observe with much more propriety, that, during that period, the disciples of the Messiah were indulged in a freer latitude both of faith and practice than has ever been allowed in succeeding ages. As the terms of communion were insensibly narrowed, and the spiritual authority of the prevailing party was exercised, with increasing severity, many of its most respectable adherents, who were called upon to renounce, were provoked to assert their private opinions, to pursue the consequences of their mistaken principles, and openly to erect the standard of rebellion against the unity of the church. The Gnostics were distinguished as the most polite, the most learned, and the most wealthy of the Christian name; and that general appellation, which expressed a superiority of knowledge, was either assumed by their own pride, or ironically bestowed by the envy of their adversaries. The Gnostics blended with the faith of Christ many sublime but obscure tenets, which they derived from oriental philosophy, and even from the religion of Zoroaster, concerning the eternity of matter, the existence of two principles, and the mysterious hierarchy of the invisible world. As soon as they launched out into that vast abyss, they delivered themselves to the guidance of a disordered imagination; and as their paths of error are various and infinite, the Gnostics were imperceptibly divided into more than fifty particular sects, of whom the most celebrated appear to have been the Basilidians, the Valentinians, and the Marcionites."

[YesNo]

With the eternity of matter and "two principles", whatever they are, they appear to be dualists. It is good to keep that in mind in case something like that comes up in the later sayings.

[Pompey Bum]

No, Gibbon wouldn't have known about the Gospel of Thomas. The Decline and Fall was published in 1776. The first Greek version of the Thomas material wasnt discovered until the 19th century and the Nag Hammadi codices were not found until 1945 (and not published for decades after that). Given the dearth of heterodox texts in the 18th century, Gibbon's ideas about gnosticism (which are out date now) are mostly forgivable. Gibbon believes that orthodox Christianity was more tolerant of other views in the century after the Crucifixion than later. Most scholars today would say that orthodoxy per se did not exist during that period (and would not fully for centuries). Gibbon sees gnosticism rebellion against what he takes as orthodoxy's tightening of the ropes on heterodoxy. He is probably gets this idea (mainly) from Irenaeus of Lyons, a remarkable man who had his own reasons for disliking gnosticizing Christians. He mocked them savagely in his 2nd-century book, The Refutation and Overthrow of the Knowledge [gnosis] Falsely So Called. Irenaeus' views were adopted by later) orthodox Christians. Centuries after his death, he was cherry picked as an example of Christian orthodoxy there from the start. Gibbon may have been a skeptic (please pardon my American spelling), but he did not see through that example of ingenuity over truth. Consequently he gives the forces of proto-orthodoxy (if they can even be thought of as such in Irenaeus' time) a central authority they did possess. Irenaeus had no power to suppress or persecute gnosticizing Christians. (He was lucky to be alive himself after what Marcus Aurelius had done to the Lyons Christian commnity). And if there was no tightening of orthodox reins in the 2nd century, then gnosticism could not have arisen as a reaction to it.

Another mistake Gibbon makes is to assume that gnostikoi was either a boastful or sarcastic term; that is, either gnostic Christians were calling themselves "the knowledgable people" or (proto-) orthodox Christians were calling the gnostics "the so-called smarty pantses" (or--sarcastically--"the geniuses"). The term is more likely to refer to the kind of enlightenment experience the Thomas community sought--which was central to other gnosticizing movements (such as neo-Platonism) as well. Gnostics were those who had received special spiritual knowledge (gnosis) about the nature of being. Gibbon's assumption is funnier, though. :)

[MANICHAEAN]

Coptic Saying 5.

Jesus says, "Know what is in front of your face, and what is hidden from you will be disclosed to you. For there is nothing hidden that won't become exposed, and nothing buried that won't be raised."

I presume that this saying is limited to spiritual, as opposed to everyday matters, but I may be wrong. Seeking results in knowledge which precedes or equates with revelation of the invisible and the hidden. Thus we seem to have both apparent and revealed realities.

Once again, there is exclusion. For those that do not personally seek, the hidden things will not be made manifest. Do we have a social / intellectual divide, with whatever the canon of ones religious faith being interpreted for you by the prevailing priesthood? The more you get into this, the more one can understand the tensions among the various early Christian, ( semi Jewish?) sects. It is also disturbing on an individual level. Most of those I have met in my somewhat extensive travels around the world are born into a religion. Their parents introduced them to it and they remain comfortable, or even dogmatic in practicing it, despite occasional doubts on various aspects. Other instances are apparent where individuals have changed their religion through such factors as marriage, conversion or to have even given it up altogether. But with these sayings it brings to mind a repeat of the mantra so prevalent in any university education, namely, " Question everything."

Finally I note that of the three parts of this particular saying, the rhythm of linking common words moves from seeking and discovering into the specific discourse of burial and resurrection. The dead body made invisible by burial will become visible at the resurrection. Knowledge, revelation and resurrection thus evolve into becoming mirrors of one another in a narrative created by their combination.

[YesNo]

Here is the commentary I am following: http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/thomas/gospelthomas5.html

It looks like there are two versions of this saying, a Coptic and a Greek version, with the Greek version containing the resurrection idea and the Coptic that doesn't and it is unclear which is the original. One commentator mentioned that what would be revealed are the meanings of the parables.

[Pompey Bum]

Coptic Saying 5.

Jesus says, "Know what is in front of your face, and what is hidden from you will be disclosed to you. For there is nothing hidden that won't become exposed, and nothing buried that won't be raised."

This is a puzzling passage that is open to several interpretations. It doesn't help that at least two sayings appear to have been conflated into a single teaching. That suggests (at least to me) that it represents the work of a gnosticizing redactor. The sayings may have originated with Jesus, but they have been arranged to fit a theological context that may or may not have been his. That, of course, is also the situation with the Canonical Gospels. But the meaning in this passage from Thomas is somewhat ambiguous.

"For there is nothing hidden that won't become exposed, and nothing buried that won't be raised." parallels Mark 4:22; Matthew 10:26; and Luke 8:17. The Gospel of Matthew sets its version with several other less than self-explanatory sayings purportedly given as instructions to apostles spreading Jesus' message in Israel. But Mark and Luke use it as part of the parable of the lamp ("Who puts a lamp under a bushel?"--that one), a lesson often associated with Jesus' social teaching. I think of the parable as Apocalyptic, though it is possible the original was both social and Apocalyptic: the faithful remnant may look downtrodden now, but the kingdom of God will change that--because why would God hide his light away? All will be revealed in time.

The Thomas redactor seems to be trying to square the saying he has inherited with his community's hermetic assumptions (that is, that the truth is not known to all). He does this by placing it in the context of separate saying: "Know what is in front of your face, and what is hidden from you will be disclosed to you." I take this to mean: if you do things our way, nothing will be hidden from you (but otherwise it will be)--thus extricating his theology from the problem the original saying created for it.

Before looking at the saying's strange ending, we should try to understand what the Thomas Gospel means by "Know what is in front of your face...".


I presume that this saying is limited to spiritual, as opposed to everyday matters, but I may be wrong. Seeking results in knowledge which precedes or equates with revelation of the invisible and the hidden. Thus we seem to have both apparent and revealed realities.

I don't think a gnostic Christian would look at it exactly that way. Gnosticism is dualistic. The (pure) spirit is good and the material is as bad as it gets. For a gnostic dualist, the apparent world (including the human body) is not reality but only transient corruption. The only way it can lead to revealed reality/enlightenment is when one apprehends it for the dangerous illusion it is. That is why when you understand your apparent self (vs. your spiritual self), you become troubled; you understand that (without enlightenment) you live in poverty and you are that poverty--that you live in a corpse.

So this saying is not at all like that magnificent moment in the Synoptics when Jesus teaches from nature: "Behold the lilies of the field: they neither toil nor spin; yet even Solomon in all his glory was not arrayed like one of these." The Jesus of the Gospel of Thomas might have said: Do not be deceived; true beauty is incorruptible.

Which brings us to the odd ending of this passage. Not only is there nothing hidden that will not be disclosed (to the enlightened), there is "nothing buried that won't be raised." (with the obvious implication that the dead, too, will be raised from their graves. This is a mistake. It reflects either a problem with the ancient manuscripts (Greek and Coptic) or the tricks of a theologically motivated Christian translator. To a Christian gnostic, the idea of physical resurrection (potentially even Jesus') was somewhere between meaningless and disgusting. You are correct that these beliefs were also part of intra-Jewish sectarian tensions. After the failed revolt against Rome, the historical record of these becomes less clear. But Christian gnostics definitely didn't want their bodies back.

Still, there is a gnostic interpretation of this part of the saying that once again squares the circle. That which is buried, rather than a corpse, could be the spiritual self, itself buried in the corpse of the material self. This will be raised from its corporeal grave for those who come to recognize reality through gnostic enlightenment.

Admittedly these sayings are difficult. This I think approximates what they would have meant to a 1st century Christian gnostic. But as you had the integrity to admit in your critique: I could be wrong.

[MANICHAEAN]

Coptic Saying 6.

His disciples ask him and say, "How should we fast? How should we pray? How should we give charity? What diet should we observe? Jesus says, "Don't lie and don't do what you hate, because all things are apparent before truth. After all, there is nothing hidden that won't be exposed."

This does not cohere. Specific questions are asked and the response is only tenuously connected.
1. Moralistic imperative not to lie, or do what one hates, ( knows to be wrong?)
2. Repeat of a previous saying i.e work it out yourself.

Is this deliberate, to force the seeker to think? If so, then there is the big probability that there is no definitive answer overall, only an individual one. But then perhaps this is the message. You are, each of you, intelligent enough to morally choose yourself on how to behave on specific issues. It's a bit like that saying about the priesthood, namely " Many are called but few are chosen," but which still leaves room for different types of priesthood and service, according to ones abilities and personality.

Thus you do not have to starve in a horsehair shirt, on your knees in a cold cloister to be good. The saying neither recommends, nor rejects such observances.
Internal performance takes precedence over external performance. It also seems almost to go against the orthodox saying, " Judge not, lest you be judged?"

Or am I reading too much into it here i.e act according to your conscience, listen for any divine guidance within yourself, but be prepared for a final judgement. It brings to mind that quote from Churchill, " I am quite prepared to meet my Maker. Whether my Maker is prepared to meet me is another matter."

[Pompey Bum]

The repetition of the previous saying is not really a problem. The redactor likely placed them together to show various implications of the same saying. I don't see an inherent non sequitur between "How should we fast? How should we pray? How should we give charity? What diet should we observe?" and "Don't lie and don't do what you hate"; or between that and "...all things are apparent before truth. After all, there is nothing hidden that won't be exposed" I take the meaning to be something like:

Do not play the hypocrite in these matters with sanctimonious acts of pietism and prayers that do not reflect your heart. God knows your heart, and nothing can or will be concealed.

I don't think it is quite "you are, each of you, intelligent enough to morally choose yourself on how to behave on specific issues." We have already seen that the Gospel of Thomas is more exclusive in its beliefs than that. It's more like: pietistic gestures will get you nowhere because God knows the truth. All this begs the historically important question of who (in Thomas' view) IS playing the hypocrite. In other words: whose pietism is the text cautioning the disciple against?

If the Gospel of Thomas is indeed a 1st-century document, then it is likely criticizing proto-othodox groups (such as the authors of the Didache) who were adding fasts, dietary rules, and liturgical prayer to their religious observations. Thomas may even be reflecting an original teaching of Jesus. The Synoptics sometimes portray Jesus as being at odds with the Jewish pietism of his day. He heals the sick and defends his disciples for gathering grain on the Sabbath, for example. There is also Matthew 6:1, which instructs:

"And when you pray, you are not to be as the hypocrites; for they love to stand and pray in the synagogues and on the street corners, in order to be seen by men."

These theological tendencies place the historical Jesus within in a long-established Hebrew Prophetic tradition valuing an individual's conscience before God over pietistic displays (it is not--as too many Christians pretend--a refutation of Judaism by Jesus). The presence of an apparently similar tendency in Thomas certainly raises questions. It is, of course, possible that the Thomas redactor and the historical Jesus both favored the anti-pietistic Prophetic tradition. This strikes me as probable, but it is impossible to tell given the surviving data.

[MANICHAEAN]

Coptic Saying 7.

"Blessed is the lion that the human will eat, so that the lion will become human. And damned is the human that the lion will eat."

The principle underlying this saying seems to relate to identity and to transformation; and the playful language hides the complexity of the relationship of eating and such transformation. There exists a convention of a hierarchy of existence in the world, of which animals and man are part. The saying would warn that humans cannot assume an unchallenged and stable place in that hierarchy.

A number of other points can be viewed as follows:

1. Why a lion, and what does it represent?
Traditionally a lion would represent; power, domination, kingship. By eating a lion, ( albeit unknown in any culinary dish I have come across), does one acquire these attributes? You are what you eat?
Or on the other hand, the lion is to be feared. Eat your fears, or your fears i.e the lion, will eat you.
Likewise, is the lion in this case a representation of evil? Consume or be consumed? This would tie in with the need to tame bestial natures, so desired in ascetic Gnostic circles at the time.

2. Relationship with the other Gospels.
Ones that come to mind include;
(A) Peter 5.8 " Your adversary the devil prowls around like a roaring lion, seeking someone to devour." This mirrors one of the points above.
(B) John's Gospel where Jesus talks about his disciples eating him and drinking his blood, as in the receiving of Holy Communion through bread & wine. Is the lion therefore in this case a representation of Jesus?
(C) Perhaps an obscure comment on martyrdom, ( Ignatuis of Antioch?), though in this particular case it would be difficult to determine who came out the winner.

I will finish with an acute, tangential, hopefully received light hearted reference to Churchill, who when addressing the troops in North Africa during the Second World War spoke the words;
" I speak to you today from this famous amphitheater in Carthage, where once the air was rent by the screams of Christian virgins as they were devoured by the Roman lions. I am on reflection, not a lion, but then I am certainly not a virgin."

[Pompey Bum]

This is a difficult one. The lion is probably a symbol of worldly power--something the Thomas community seems to have especially shunned. My hunch is that the sense of this saying is that it is okay to bring worldly seculars (lions) into the fold (as if the community were "eating" them) as long as they change their ways and adopt the community's standards (become human). In other words, they can and should be converted. But woe to the community member who goes over to their ways; so be cautious in any missionary activities. But that's just a guess.

[YesNo]

Here is some commentary: http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/thomas/gospelthomas7.html

Based on that, it seems that the lion represents passions. For the human to consume the lion elevates the passions. If the opposite occurs, the human being is dehumanized.

[MANICHAEAN]

The Gnostics seem to me to be of an ascetic disposition; thus perhaps their concept of passions would be different from mine. But then this seems to be the whole framework meaning of these sayings; that each person can rightly undertake his / her own interpretation.

The right answers? Wait until Judgement Day and all will be revealed, or act according to your own conscience and moral standards?

[Pompey Bum]

The Gnostics seem to me to be of an ascetic disposition; thus perhaps their concept of passions would be different from mine.

Asceticism and dualism are typical of gnostic groups. The Passions were seen as individual demons in some Nag Hammadi texts. Since the Enlightenment there has been a tendency in the West to think of passion as the opposite of reason. The Thomas community probably saw it as the opposite of meditative tranquility. Passion was also a function of the body and so in conflict with their asceticism. But it's all interconnected with a rejection of the Greco-Roman power structure of the day (whose elites also demons in many texts), which is why the lion as worldly power/bodily passion could work. But as usual with the Gospel of Thomas (as it was intended, really), it's hard to know for sure.


But then this seems to be the whole framework meaning of these sayings; that each person can rightly undertake his / her own interpretation.

I'm not sure about that. Rightly undertaking to interpret a saying does not mean that (per the Thomas community) all interpretations are right. Remember those whom the lion eats are damned.

[MANICHAEAN]

Coptic Saying 24.

"There is a light within a person and it shines on the whole world. If it does not shine, it is dark."

This saying is normally interpreted as linking the concept of illumination to that of missionary witness. It appears from this saying that the light does not come from the world, or from outside, to the person, but from within the person to the world. This is very much in line with the Gnostic conception of the "luminous man."

There is both a recurring theme of the orientation and valuation of inner light, ( seen previously), and an apparent high regard for the human being.

What I find interesting is that a distinction is drawn in this saying, whereby the missionary motivation does not come from either command, ( as in Matthew 28. 16-20), or even in other somewhat dramatic revelations. E.g. Paul in the Galatians 1. 11-12

"But I certify you, brethren, that the gospel which was preached of me is not after man. For I neither received it of man, neither was I taught of it, but by the revelation of Jesus Christ."

But rather the motivation comes from the light existing within the person.

Finally, those that do not exhibit the capacity for light, or interpretation receive a negative appraisal; which is presumably where on a number of occasions many of the disciples frequently found themselves.

[YesNo]

Here are the commentaries I've also been looking at: http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/thomas/gospelthomas24.html

I see this as affirming the existence of a "light" within us that has an effect on the whole world. We may or may not be aware of it, but non-awareness does not make it dark. Becoming aware of this light would be the spiritual journey the disciples want to pursue.

[MANICHAEAN]

Yes, I agree; they do tend to be a bit heavy handed on those that choose not to seek, or are unable to perceive.

[Pompey Bum]

There are least five Canonical parallels to this Thomas saying. One is Matthew 5:14-16 (in the context of the Sermon on the Mount):

"You are the light of the world. A city that is set on an hill cannot be hid. Neither do men light a candle, and put it under a bushel, but on a candlestick; and it gives light to all that are in the house. Let your light so shine before men, that they may see your good works, and glorify your Father which is in heaven."

The other four are from The Gospel of John, which developed separately from the synoptic sayings source, (although its author was probably aware of the existence of one or more of the synoptic Gospels). There is John 8:12:

"Then spoke Jesus again to them, saying, I am the light of the world: he that follows me shall not walk in darkness, but shall have the light of life."

John 9:5 (Jesus speaking): "As long as I am in the world, I am the light of the world."

And John 12: 35-36 (in the context of Jesus predicting his Crucifixion):

"Then Jesus said to them, Yet a little while is the light with you. Walk while you have the light, lest darkness come on you: for he that walks in darkness knows not where he goes. While you have light, believe in the light, that you may be the children of light."

The theme of light is central to John, and further references could be found. Note especially the famous beginning of John's Gospel (John 1:1-5):

"In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was in the beginning with God; all things were made through him, and without him was not anything made that was made. In him was life, and the life was the light of men. The light shines in the darkness, and the darkness has not overcome it."

If the earlier date for Thomas is correct, it is not impossible that that the Thomas community was responding to John's assertion about Jesus himself being the light (as opposed to the light being in those who understand the teachings of Jesus). Of course, it's equally possible that John was responding against the the Thomas community's beliefs by asserting that Jesus himself was the light, and that a personal with one's Savior was necessary for salvation.

Whichever was the case (and of course, it could have been both), the Thomas version of the saying seems indebted to Matthew's: "You are the light of the world." But theologically there are critical differences. By placing the saying in the Sermon on the Mount, Matthew is making its audience the multitude below, that is, the people of Israel. What is at issue in Matthew's version of the saying is the redemption of Israel. Hebrew Prophets in the Babylonian exile had foretold a future Israel that would hold sway among other nations and was described as a kind of paradise on earth. That hadn't happened at all, but Jesus' message (per Matthew) was that it was going to become a reality after all. Those who listened to him needed to understand that they had been chosen by God as a light to the nations in the Peaceable Kingdom to come. Israel needed to emerge from the dangerous obscurity in which it presently found itself. The city on the hill (Mt. Zion, from which the New Israel would emanate) could not but shine forth. Regardless of what Jesus' vision had been, that was how the author of Matthew had seen things.

But the Thomas community had looked at it differently than Matthew or John. For Thomas, the light that "shines on the whole world" is "within a person." It does not come from Mt Zion or from a personal relationship with Jesus except insofar as Jesus' mind can be internalized by meditation on his sayings. And as we have seen from the start with this gospel, it is only the one who "discovers the interpretation of these sayings" who "will not taste death." This is Thomas' sotorology. For those to whom "the light does not shine, it is dark." Just as John required rebirth into Jesus Salvation, Thomas required enlightenment Into his mind. Neither was an all embracing, all-tolerant position. But at least John's version of Salvation was open to any who sought it.

[MANICHAEAN]

Saying 26.

Jesus said, "You see the sliver in your friend's eye, but you don't see the timber in your own eye. When you remove the timber out of your own eye, then you will see well enough to remove the sliver from your friend's eye."

This saying seems to apply only to a community of Coptic brothers and relates to their exclusive social interaction; whereby one must deal with ones own failings before assisting others, ( Judge not, lest ye be judged.)

In comparison; in Matthew 7: 3,5 and Luke: 6: 41-42 the application is not so terse and would apply universally.

One needs also to pick up in the saying, that one does not have to be perfect or pure to engage with others. Working on your own deficiencies "prepares" you to assist others. This strikes me as so sensible and pragmatic; and like so many of these sayings puts the initial responsibility on the individual to engage. Unfortunately, over the years I have seen so much of a blinkered approach to various religions, that this comes across as quite refreshing.

In this saying there is no measuring up to an externally imposed ideal; but individuals working on themselves, among others doing similar, in a process of mutual transformation.

[YesNo]

I like your idea of "mutual transformation" as the message of this saying. Also that one does not have to be perfect to engage with others.

[Pompey Bum]

This is an easy one since it is virtually the same saying placed by Matthew in the Sermon on the Mount and by Luke in the Sermon on the Plain. I am not sure why you think Matthew uses if less exclusively than Thomas does. But since it occurs in both Matthew and Luke, it is recognizable as a likely saying of the historical Jesus, so its original intent may have been much broader (and arguably universal). It seems to me to take a stand against self-righteousness and the pietistic badgering of others, and to propose a model by which human beings (to take the saying universally) support one another with a mind to their own shortcomings. All that remains to be said is that it is advice seldom followed.

[MANICHAEAN]

Coptic Saying 27.

Jesus says, " If you do not fast from the world, you will not find God's domain. If you do not observe the sabbath day as a sabbath day, you will not see the Father."

Immediately there comes to notice, a distinction between dietary fasting and what is termed "a fast from the world." You may recall in Coptic Saying 6 when the question of dietary fasting, (along with other ascetic / pious practices), came up, that there was no specific answer on the part of Jesus. They were neither rejected, nor advocated. Instead we seem to have implied the need to expose the internal moral dynamic on an individual basis.

It is also becoming increasingly apparent that there is no set pattern of a topical arrangement in these sayings; such that the perceived meanings emerge as much from "in between" the sayings, as from within them.

The question arises in this particular saying as to what is "a fast from the world." On the face of it there is a limited application to observing the Sabbath, but I'm presuming the extent is much wider and relating to general lifestyle. Once again, the criteria seems to be on an individual basis. What might be applicable to Job, might be extreme to many in the modern world. However emphasis is still laid on regulating ones intake of the world in order to find God's domain. For gentlemen of a certain age, it is certainly refreshing sometimes to retreat from the world of; tweets, junk food, rapping musicians and consumer based appetites, to submerge oneself in the simple rest and reflection implied in the meaning behind the Sabbath.

Finally I cannot help but discern a certain subversive stance in these sayings inducing a distinctive stance towards the world and reality.

I never got to wishing all my fellow Lit Netters a Merry Christmas, but allow me a mitigating wish to you all for a fruitful and enjoyable 2018.

Best wishes
M.

[YesNo]

Here's the commentary I'm also reading: http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/thomas/gospelthomas27.html

Some of the comments in the link I provided suggested the part about the sabbath meant that every day should be viewed as the sabbath. This would go with the part about fasting from the world better as I see it. I also don't know what it means to fast from the world.

Merry Christmas and Happy New Year!

[MANICHAEAN]

Coptic Saying 28.

Jesus says, "I took my stand in the midst of the world, and I appeared to them in flesh. I found them all drunk, and I did not find any of them thirsty. My soul aches for the children of humanity, because they are blind in their hearts and do not see."

This attributed saying by Jesus reveals, (unlike in other sayings) a lot about himself and how He sees His mission, ( a divine figure who has entered the world to lead others.)

The main points that I get out of this saying are:

1. The need and decision to appear to the world, bodily, ( in the flesh.) If one believes in the concept of the Trinity, this process / linkage in itself is something to get ones head around.
2. The mode of entry into the world, "took my stand," which implies an element of keeping His distance, (a solid presence.)
3. The metaphor of "drunk" ( those that have over indulged in their engagement in the world.)
4. The metaphor of "thirsty," ( those that did not yearn for the true meaning of life.)
5. Both seem to cause Jesus to feel a mixture of disappointment and a need for action. The drunken and satiated world ought not to be left to its own devices. Thus though disappointed, He does not reject the world.

[YesNo]

Drunk and so not thirsty is a good description of those who are not interested in hearing what he has to say.

Here is the commentary I am also reading: http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/thomas/gospelthomas28.html

This seems more like the Greek rather than the Coptic version. The Coptic version also had "and they do not see that they came empty into the world, (and) empty they seek to leave the world again". This emptiness (even though drunk) seems relevant.

[Pompey Bum]

I never got to wishing all my fellow Lit Netters a Merry Christmas, but allow me a mitigating wish to you all for a fruitful and enjoyable 2018.

Yes, a belated merry Christmas and happy new year. We'll take a cup o' kindness yet. :)


If you do not fast from the world, you will not find God's domain. If you do not observe the sabbath day as a sabbath day, you will not see the Father."

On the surface this is just more Thomas asceticism. Fasting from the world means not participating in the sin of the world, which is a difficult thing to do outside of an ascetic community. There may be an inherent criticism of early Christian groups who were advocating fast days and other restrictive dietary practices. The Thomas Gospel's response is no, you need to abstain form the way of the world rather than make little pietistic gestures. If some version of this saying came from the historical Jesus, it was probably aimed at pietistic Jewish practices of the day with the implication that more a personal devotion was called for. The subversive quality you note in the Thomas version was surely aimed at the Greco-Roman world at large.

[Pompey Bum]

Jesus says, "I took my stand in the midst of the world, and I appeared to them in flesh. I found them all drunk, and I did not find any of them thirsty. My soul aches for the children of humanity, because they are blind in their hearts and do not see."

Yes, "in flesh" is quite a concession from the Thomas community. It's a reason, I suppose, to regard its members as not quite radical gnostics but merely gnosticizing Christians (although we are still centuries before Trinitarianism). You are right that it is an unusually personal/autobiographical saying for Thomas. I don't have much else to say about it. I find it quite moving.

[MANICHAEAN]

Coptic Saying 29:

Jesus says: "If the flesh was produced for the sake of the spirit, it is a miracle. But if the spirit was produced for the sake of the body, it is a miracle of a miracle. But for myself I marvel at that because this great wealth has dwelt in this poverty."

An interesting piece, that, (as in Coptic Saying 3) draws attention to poverty; not a poverty in a lack of material riches, but of a spiritual dimension.

I have however difficulty in the authenticity of this being a "Jesus saying." More likely a spin put on it by a writer of Gnostic leanings. My reasons are as follows:

Firstly, it has all the hallmarks of asceticism, so prevalent in the Thomas Gospel. Not that such sentiments are not expressed elsewhere in early Christian literature; (Gal 5:16. "This I say then, Walk in the Spirit, and ye shall not fulfil the lust of the flesh.") However, an historical Jesus who seemed to mix willingly with others of many social classes; including those perceived as unclean; and one who partook of many a glass of wine and a good meal, is at odds with this saying.

Secondly, in the whole debate as to whether the soul enhances the body, or vice versa, how can Jesus express the characteristic of amazement on this issue when presumably He knew the answer?

What is apparent in this period, and which lingered for quite some time in history, is this general debasement of the body vis a vis the soul by the Church. A far cry from the pre-Christian Roman religion, where unofficial mystery cults sprang up, and where individuals would come into contact with the divine through a state of trance, often leading to all sorts of excesses.

On a personal basis; if there is an excess of superiority of the soul over the body, is this any reason to denigrate halcyon days when, "Bliss it was that very dawn to be alive," ( and fit!!!!)
Tempora mutantur, et nos mutamur in illis.

[YesNo]

Here is commentary I am also reading: http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/thomas/gospelthomas29.html

It is possible that both possibilities are rejected by Jesus--both flesh produced for the sake of the spirit or spirit produced for the sake of flesh. This could lead to a third possibility that there is no flesh. It is how spirit at another level appears to us. It needs redemption as well because it is also spirit. That would explain why Jesus is surprised by both miracles.

[MANICHAEAN]

Tell me more please, as what you have raised is a complete new dimension.

Are we talking about a scenario in which all of mortal life is an illusion.

It certainly is hard to grasp as I find the bodily senses remarkably acute. One assumes having a mortal existence, and striving for a greater spiritual understanding.

Also following your logic, there is a fourth alternative, namely no soul.

What was Hobbs phrase re life being " nasty, brutal and short?"

[YesNo]

It is unlikely that there would be no soul, because we can experience our awareness implying we are conscious. If we weren't conscious the possibility of no soul would make sense, but then we wouldn't be able to know that.

What I am describing would be philosophical idealism. George Berkeley would be one representative of that view who created a Christian perspective on it. I don't know much about gnosticism nor this text, so I might be projecting my own beliefs onto the text. In this view we do experience bodily senses, but it is many levels of conscious reality involved to make that experience possible, ours being one of them. There is no "unconscious" objective reality. It is all mind. Creation from nothing makes sense because after creation there is still no unconscious thing.

[MANICHAEAN]

Coptic Saying 30.

Jesus says, "Where there are three, they are without God, and where there is only one, I say, I am with that one. Lift up the stone and you will find me there. Split a piece of wood, and I am there."

The main point that comes to mind with this saying is it's contrast with Matthew 18. 20 where we get "For where two or three are gathered in my name, I am there among them." We are back with that familiar Thomas theme, that stipulates the need for solitary, as the basis for the seeking of the truth. It does not deny community association with like minded seekers, but rather empowers the individual as the basis for enlightened living. Thus it would appear from the saying that, loose association, even in the name of God, does not lead to revelation.

Polytheistic thinking comes to the fore, where one mans search for the truth is as valid as the next mans.

The reference to lifted stone and split wood reinforces this point of view, in that you do not have to seek God in a church or community collaboration.

[YesNo]

This one is puzzling, but your interpretation makes sense. The other versions puzzle me as well: http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/thomas/gospelthomas30.html

[MANICHAEAN]

Coptic Saying 31.

Jesus said, "No prophet is accepted in his own village; no physician heals those who know him."

This saying seems to not only underscore the isolationism described in the previous saying, but in addition indicates that even if the seekers wanted to be recognised in their familiar communities they could not be. Is the implication that they are too familiar to their community to be effective i.e. Those who come to understand the sayings become a different breed of person?

Can objectivity be limited to strangers when dealing with this?

It seems a bit like a pep talk / instruction to the disciples, giving them the downside on what they are letting themselves in for.

Perhaps also Jesus was acknowledging the likely itinerancy of the early, active followers?

[YesNo]

It may be that the people who know the prophet have already developed earlier prejudices which make it difficult for them to accept anything new from the prophet.

[YesNo]

It occurred to me this morning why a prophet is not accepted in his own village. In his own village the people the prophet knows want to convince the prophet of their truths. They are not so much trying to get truth from the prophet. So they don't listen to the prophet because they have themselves something to say that they want to communicate. But when they do listen to someone who is not available to talk back to, they can only listen and then pass on what they have heard to someone else.

It is like the difference between talking to one's spouse or friend and reading a book or watching a YouTube video. When one reads the book one can only listen or put the book down. One cannot easily talk back to express one's own vision to a book. When one tries to tell one's spouse or friend what was in the book, the spouse or friend is not just a listener. They are also speakers and expect to be listened to. And they will have an opinion that is at least slightly different even if they agree for the most part. Those differences magnify if what they are talking about is important to them.

[MANICHAEAN]

Well noted YesNo.

Mind you, there have been times in my profession, when speaking to a large gathering, that I feel " For Gods sake give me some feedback, even if negative. Don't just sit there." I'm a great believer that there is no such thing as a negative virtue with regard to self-expression.

[MANICHAEAN]

Coptic Saying 32.

Jesus says, "A city built on top of a high hill and fortified can neither fall nor be hidden."

Two immediate characteristics come out of this saying:
1. The fact that it is built on an elevated site suggests perhaps a social, political, and religious superiority to other cities in addition to its strategic advantage over opponents.
2. The need for fortification suggests that this city has enemies who wish to attack it.

We begin thus to see a correlation between the individual isolation and solitude required to understand these sayings, with the combined public status of being placed in a high and visible place through the seekers understanding and knowledge.

[YesNo]

It seems like it could fall, but it might be safer than most.

[MANICHAEAN]

Another point worth noting YesNo is a lack of expansion in the saying regards going to heaven if it did fall. More of a morale booster to the troops.

Definite general themes gradually emerge from these sayings, but it's difficult pinning a lot down when they are so short, and perhaps in no real order.

[YesNo]

Perhaps it's good one can't pin them down too much. No matter how detailed we are it is still our understanding that is important.

[MANICHAEAN]

Coptic Saying 33:

Jesus says, "What you hear in one of your ears, proclaim."

The very fragmentary nature of this saying, leaves me with a number of problems.

I can understand the saying pointing towards the public nature of the teaching i.e that the nature of these sayings and their interpretation requires that the seekers who understand them make public the knowledge gained.

But then, in the readings up to now there has been this emphasis on individual interpretation. There appears now to be a contradiction between an individual value judgement interpretation and then proclaiming it to the masses as a definitive truth.

Perhaps though the audience are like minded seekers who are being offered a point of view to assist them?

The reference to "one ear" was interesting; as if the message was furtively whispered and not to be overheard? An "inner ear" might be another possibility?

Finally there is an element of dark humour; at a time when we have the term "fake news," and social media channels allegedly profiling our hopes, fears & aspirations to influence how we think and respond.

[YesNo]

The one ear seems strange to me as well. Perhaps it is an inner ear as you suggest. Maybe the proclaiming involves taking what one has heard seriously enough to tell others about it.

[MANICHAEAN]

Coptic Saying 36.

Jesus says, " Don't fret, from morning to evening nor from evening to morning about your food - what you're going to eat, or about your clothing, what you are going to wear. You're much better than the lilies, which don't card and never spin. As for you when you have no garment, what are you going to put on? Who could add to your life span? That same one will give you your garment."

The first observation is that this is telling the followers of Jesus not to worry about food or clothing, but rather depend upon the hospitality which God provides. Your time on earth is limited so do not lay undue importance on material things. It reminds me of Buddhist monks receiving alms & food donations in South East Asia, or even Hindu fakirs of an earlier period.

There is almost an appreciation of nakedness being no big deal. Not exactly what the fashion world would like to hear.

The interesting bit lies in the reference to "garments." Is there some evocative meaning here? Perhaps inherent in the coarse plainness of a monks habit, the baptismal garment of a new child, or even the bridal clothing for the wedding night?

[little-self]

[QUOTE=MANICHAEAN;1349784]Coptic Saying 32.

Jesus says, "A city built on top of a high hill and fortified can neither fall nor be hidden."

One who has mastered his senses, i.e., who has complete control over his senses (fortified himself with self-discipline) is truly enlightened one--- top on a hill/attained to wisdom. His life is his message (example)-thus visible to all!lov&regards

[YesNo]

We worry hoping things will happen in the few ways we expect it to because we don't see or are afraid of the other ways in which it could happen just as well. We might as well not fret.

[little-self]

Dear M, Your contributions are invaluable. God bless u.lov&regards.ls

[MANICHAEAN]

Coptic Saying 37.

His disciples say to him, "When will you be revealed to us, and when shall we see you?" He says, "When you strip without being ashamed, and you will not be afraid."

This reference to garments, (or the negation of them) follows on from Coptic Saying 36. There strikes me as a strange, almost ironic, twist in he narrative. In Coptic Saying 36 we have this directive of not to worry about earthly things, ( food, clothing) as God will provide. Then in Coptic Saying 37 we have the disciples asking a legitimate question, "When will we see you?". To which Jesus sidesteps to focus not on "when," but "what" you will see. The interpretation would appear to be: do not be ashamed to be naked, as that is only the exterior appearance. If Man is made in God's image, then what is inside a man's character is more important. Clothes do not maketh the man. So much for the moral relevance of the fashion industry!

Finally, I'm not sure how all this ties in with Adam and Eve's early nakedness, original sin et al. Comments would be welcomed.

[MANICHAEAN]

Coptic Saying 37.

His disciples say to him, "When will you be revealed to us, and when shall we see you?" He says, "When you strip without being ashamed, and you will not be afraid."

This reference to garments, (or the negation of them) follows on from Coptic Saying 36. There strikes me as a strange, almost ironic, twist in he narrative. In Coptic Saying 36 we have this directive of not to worry about earthly things, ( food, clothing) as God will provide. Then in Coptic Saying 37 we have the disciples asking a legitimate question, "When will we see you?". To which Jesus sidesteps to focus not on "when," but "what" you will see. The interpretation would appear to be: do not be ashamed to be naked, as that is only the exterior appearance. If Man is made in God's image, then what is inside a man's character is more important. Clothes do not maketh the man. So much for the moral relevance of the fashion industry!

Finally, I'm not sure how all this ties in with Adam and Eve's early nakedness, original sin et al. Comments would be welcomed.

[Pompey Bum]

Well, it's certainly an allusion to the Eden story. Stripping is probably a reference to the flesh, which clothes the soul and which is left behind at death. So the answer to the question is: I will be revealed at death to those who are ready (unafraid, ect.) to lay down their bodies and so regain Eden.

[MANICHAEAN]

Thanks Pompey. A step further: the flesh clothing the soul.

[cacian]

Coptic Saying 37.

His disciples say to him, "When will you be revealed to us, and when shall we see you?" He says, "When you strip without being ashamed, and you will not be afraid."

This reference to garments, (or the negation of them) follows on from Coptic Saying 36. There strikes me as a strange, almost ironic, twist in he narrative. In Coptic Saying 36 we have this directive of not to worry about earthly things, ( food, clothing) as God will provide. Then in Coptic Saying 37 we have the disciples asking a legitimate question, "When will we see you?". To which Jesus sidesteps to focus not on "when," but "what" you will see. The interpretation would appear to be: do not be ashamed to be naked, as that is only the exterior appearance. If Man is made in God's image, then what is inside a man's character is more important. Clothes do not maketh the man. So much for the moral relevance of the fashion industry!

Finally, I'm not sure how all this ties in with Adam and Eve's early nakedness, original sin et al. Comments would be welcomed.

what?? do you really believe all this??
I don't get it sorry.

[MANICHAEAN]

It was one of the original series of writings that the early emerging Church chose to reject. Correct me if I am wrong here Pompey.

I did not say I believed it Cacian. I do however find the narrative interesting and have chosen to both read and comment on it.

Then of course there is always the big "If." What if these were genuine records of what the historical Jesus said and taught.

Best wishes
M.

[MANICHAEAN]

A gremlin keeps double booking my posts!!!

[Whifflingpin]

"It was one of the original series of writings that the early emerging Church chose to reject."

"Chose to reject" may be too strong a phrase. "Chose not to include as essential" would be more accurate. They may have considered it wrong or simply as unimportant or of dubious provenance. Along with most books, therefore, anyone can read it for pleasure or interest, and even learn from it, but nothing in it can be taken as being the teaching of the Church.

The first words of the prologue, as you have already quoted, "These are the secret sayings that the living Jesus spoke," might have been enough on their own to show the book as invalid, or at least irrelevant to Christians. The Jesus of the early church did not deal in secret or hidden sayings but in a message that was open to all who chose to listen. The first chosen disciples were workmen, not mystics or self-selected as Elect. Jesus' parables are attempts to simplify, not mystify. In the longer term, there is a valid ongoing question within the Church as to whether salvation is through what one does or what one believes or what God chooses for reasons entirely of His own: salvation, whether by works, faith or grace, is equally open to all. If salvation depended on being able to unravel some cryptic messages then it would irrelevant to all but a tiny proportion of mortals.

It is fun, seeking for the hidden meanings of things, and more worthwhile than doing the crossword. Any book, however, which implies that union with God is only available to those who study and unlock its secret sayings is not a book of Good News, but a recipe for despair.

[Pompey Bum]

what?? do you really believe all this??
I don't get it sorry.

We are just commenting on a mysterious text that was either written shortly before the Gospels or shortly afterwards. It shows some remarkable similarities to material in the Gospels but also important differences--especially in interpretation. We are not using the text to justify or promulgate our beliefs--just to understand them in their greater historical context.

Was their something in particular that startled you?

[Pompey Bum]

It was one of the original series of writings that the early emerging Church chose to reject. Correct me if I am wrong here Pompey.

It was an early document that, as Whifflingpin indicated, was not included in orthodox Christian Scripture. But it's not quite as simple as that. Thomas is a gnosticizing text--it shows a marked tendency towards a strongly dualistic theological position called Gnosticism. Eventually, Gnosticism did come to be rejected by orthodox Christianity--it became a heresy.

[cacian]

We are just commenting on a mysterious text that was either written shortly before the Gospels or shortly afterwards. It shows some remarkable similarities to material in the Gospels but also important differences--especially in interpretation. We are not using the text to justify or promulgate our beliefs--just to understand them in their greater historical context.

Was their something in particular that startled you?

Hi there Pompey Bum apologies for my abruptness I did not mean to talk like that.:)
I think the whole debate about nakedness just does not sit right with me. The idea that clothes are less important is more then silly.

[Pompey Bum]

The first words of the prologue, as you have already quoted, "These are the secret sayings that the living Jesus spoke," might have been enough on their own to show the book as invalid, or at least irrelevant to Christians. The Jesus of the early church did not deal in secret or hidden sayings but in a message that was open to all who chose to listen. The first chosen disciples were workmen, not mystics or self-selected as Elect. Jesus' parables are attempts to simplify, not mystify. In the longer term, there is a valid ongoing question within the Church as to whether salvation is through what one does or what one believes or what God chooses for reasons entirely of His own: salvation, whether by works, faith or grace, is equally open to all. If salvation depended on being able to unravel some cryptic messages then it would irrelevant to all but a tiny proportion of mortals.

This is a valid point as far as it goes. An esoteric teaching could suggest that the Christian message is not open to all, although it could also mean that there are degrees of discernment among those already saved--something many orthodox Christians would accept. But the question may not even apply here, since we are dealing with an anonymous claim about a text that seems to have been reworked by a gnosticizing editor. The unredacted text (if it pre-dated the Synoptics) may have reflected the influence of Jewish wisdom tradition in the historical Jesus' teachings--these teachings being poured into the mold of canonical orthodoxy over time. This idea of Jesus as a wisdom teacher (among other things) is not especially radical. His Biblical sayings are also things to be puzzled out. Why is the Kingdom of God like a mustard seed? What does it mean to be wise as serpents and innocent as doves? Or for the dead to bury the dead? These conundrums do not imply salvation only for the knowing few.

The conservative/traditional view is that the sayings in Thomas were merely extracted from the Gospels, reworked in a gnosticizing context, and presented as an esoteric teaching by an early (and not particularly orthodox) sect. Of course, it is also possible that Thomas and the some of the Gospels shared a sayings source. I think we need to remain critically detached from the passions potentially generated by these conflicting views. Neither challenges the simple message of Salvation through Jesus Christ.

[Pompey Bum]

Hi there Pompey Bum apologies for my abruptness I did not mean to talk like that.:)
I think the whole debate about nakedness just does not sit right with me. The idea that clothes are less important is more then silly.

Oh, don't worry about it. Your viewpoint is always valued. That saying was only using the idea of clothes in a symbolic sense. It probably meant the flesh, which it claimed was only a kind of garment for the soul (in other words, not who you really are). The group that used this text had a low opinion of the body. They thought it was a kind of poverty that the soul needed to learn to reject. That is why the saying talks about stripping. But it isn't really talking about clothes.

[Whifflingpin]

"conundrums do not imply salvation only for the knowing few."

True enough, and there are many reasons why historical sayings might have been obscure to their original hearers and even more so to us. But my point was not that there are obscure comments in the work, rather that, from the outset, the thing was intended to be obscure. That may have been only the view expressed by the editor, and may not have been the intention of the original collector(s) of Jesus' wisdom teachings. However, in the form that we have it, this work (unlike canonical Christian narratives that also include the wisdom teaching) is presented as being esoteric or elitist, which is not consistent with the idea that salvation is equally available to all. That, I think, would be sufficient reason for the fathers of the Church not to admit it to the canon, regardless of whether or not the sayings themselves had been altered to present a view that came to be reckoned as unorthodox.

From his name alone, I suspect that Manichaean tends towards a dualist belief, and I too find a form of dualism to be the simplest reconciliation of the fact of evil with the concept of a benevolent God. However, I would not consider the text under scrutiny to offer any clue as to what Jesus thought on that subject, simply because the unredacted text, however and wherever it was collected, was probably reworked (a polite term for deliberately corrupted) by a gnostic editor. If we call this unknown "Thomas the Gnostic," there is no reason to reject this work from the canon of Gnostic scriptures, quite the contrary. We should remain aware that (given that Gnosticism and Christianity are two separate religions) it is a Gnostic document rather than a Christian one.

[Pompey Bum]

True enough, and there are many reasons why historical sayings might have been obscure to their original hearers and even more so to us.

Thank you for your thoughts, which I know to be wise and faithful. It seems to me that the sayings of the historical Jesus were intended to stimulate moral growth among his followers. In the first several centuries after the Crucifixion, they were used in various ways by early Christian groups laying claim to his moral authority. What became Christian orthodoxy rose slowly and was not generally recognized as such until the 4th century. So it not historically accurate for us to say that proto-Orthodox figures like Irenaeus of Lyons (for example) belonged to the Christian religion while gnosticizing groups like the Gospel of Thomas community belonged to the Gnostic religion. That sort of division becomes meaningful eventually (although speaking of a gnostic religion would still be more accurate than the Gnostic religion) but it not at such an early date. What we can say is that what came to be orthodox soteriology is less elite than Thomas'. You make this argument and I fully agree (in fact, I pointed it out a few pages back when we were discussing the Gospel of John). I believe, however that Jesus' wisdom sayings are well worth considering in their own right; and we can easily abstract these from their later contexts in Thomas and the canonical Gospels. It's never too late to grow from what Jesus actually said to us.


From his name alone, I suspect that Manichaean tends towards a dualist belief, and I too find a form of dualism to be the simplest reconciliation of the fact of evil with the concept of a benevolent God.

I'll let M. speak for himself. All I know is that, like me, he was raised in the faith but managed to find God anyways. :) (I'm being glib and probably impious--it was God, of course, who found me). I too am a duelist. Shall we say pistols at dawn?


However, I would not consider the text under scrutiny to offer any clue as to what Jesus thought on that subject, simply because the unredacted text, however and wherever it was collected, was probably reworked (a polite term for deliberately corrupted) by a gnostic editor.

There is a misunderstanding here. The unredacted document is hypothetical--whatever sayings source the editor of the Gospel of Thomas actually redacted. What you seem to be describing is an alternate view in which the Gospel of Thomas was produced by extracting Jesus' sayings from the Canonical Gospels and interpreting the sayings in a gnosticizing context (as you say, corrupting them). That is also hypothetical. It was once widely taught but has fallen from academic favor. The Gospel of Thomas is usually thought of as a bit older now (but that is just an informed opinion). Thank you again for your response. I'll consider our differences. So let's hold off on the pistols for now. :)

[Whifflingpin]

"What you seem to be describing is an alternate view in which the Gospel of Thomas was produced by extracting Jesus' sayings from the Canonical Gospels and interpreting the sayings in a gnosticizing context."

"However or wherever" indicates that I have no view on the path or date by which any sayings of Jesus come to be in the Gospel of Thomas, or on when the Gospel of Thomas crystallised into its present form. I suspect that attempts to determine whether it crystallised before or after St Mark's Gospel are driven more by religio-political concerns than neutral literary analysis. Since the gospels date from at least forty years after the crucifixion they all depend heavily on second-hand material whether held in memory or on parchment. The exact date on which any of them could be described as defined is a question of great interest but little importance, (certainly not important enough for pistols let alone any higher stakes.) Each of the evangelists selected and interpreted the material as best suited his purpose, so I was over harsh in using the term "deliberately corrupted."

[Pompey Bum]

Well, it would be awfully hard to deliberately corrupt something (or merely to interpret it to suit one's theological aganda) before it was actually written. :) This was the question about which I cautioned scholarly detachment. Ancient historians learn to live with ambiguity. Theologians deal in absolute truths. Both propositions require some patience.

[MANICHAEAN]

Coptic Saying 38.

Jesus says, "Ofter you have desired to hear these sayings of mine, and you have no one else from whom to hear them. And there will come days when you will seek me and you will not find me."

In the context of this saying, it displays both a desire on the part of the seekers who look for understanding and the pivotal role that Jesus plays in providing this understanding.

Is it a disillusionment with traditional Jewish teaching, or more I guess a frowned upon attempt at an expansion of thinking on the earlier creed? Perhaps you also have to consider if this was an earlier form of Hellenism containing a governing idea of a spontaneity of consciousness, as opposed to Hebraism with its strictness of conscience.

Either way it seems that a conclusion arising from this saying is that as seekers come to understand the sayings, there will no longer be the need for a Jesus in human form, because they will no longer be dependent upon these sayings.

Finally, I cannot help but have noted and appreciated, ( apart from pistols at dawn,) the lively and interesting discussions upon last weeks Saying and would like to comment as follows:

1. Thanks for that insight W into whether salvation can be by work, faith or grace. It helps me recognise more clearly in the individuals I have come across in my lifetime, some of the main characteristics of these three components. Not that I think one is motivated in this less religious age on the concept of "salvation."
2. There seems to be some questioning as to whether I am dualistic in my religious beliefs, or even a Gnostic as such! I've never really asked myself where I formally stand. I was raised in the Roman Catholic faith and am comfortable in it. However I am prepared to question many aspects. Hence perhaps my interest in (a) Any phenomenon which can be explained by two opposing principles, and (b) The feasible idea that humans are divine souls trapped in the ordinary physical or material world.

As Joseph Addison once noted, "Thus I live in the world, rather as a spectator of mankind, than as one of the species."

[MANICHAEAN]

Coptic Saying 39.

Jesus says, "The Pharisees and the scholars have taken the keys of knowledge; they themselves have hidden them. Neither have they entered, nor have they allowed those who want to enter, to do so. As for you, be as sly as snakes and as simple as doves."

This saying seems to stereotype the characteristics of the "Pharisees and scholars." A bit surprised no mention of "hypocrites," so prevalent in Matthew.

But still a bad press holding the keys to a knowledge they have not understood themselves, nor enabled others to acquire it.

There is also an irony in the advice to keep a low profile in spiritual seeking; ( mild and non confrontational like a dove, and stealthy like a snake.) The figure of Jesus seems not to have followed his own advice in this instance.

[Pompey Bum]

Coptic Saying 38.

Jesus says, "Ofter you have desired to hear these sayings of mine, and you have no one else from whom to hear them. And there will come days when you will seek me and you will not find me."

In the context of this saying, it displays both a desire on the part of the seekers who look for understanding and the pivotal role that Jesus plays in providing this understanding.

Is it a disillusionment with traditional Jewish teaching, or more I guess a frowned upon attempt at an expansion of thinking on the earlier creed? Perhaps you also have to consider if this was an earlier form of Hellenism containing a governing idea of a spontaneity of consciousness, as opposed to Hebraism with its strictness of conscience.

Either way it seems that a conclusion arising from this saying is that as seekers come to understand the sayings, there will no longer be the need for a Jesus in human form, because they will no longer be dependent upon these sayings.

Finally, I cannot help but have noted and appreciated, ( apart from pistols at dawn,) the lively and interesting discussions upon last weeks Saying and would like to comment as follows:

1. Thanks for that insight W into whether salvation can be by work, faith or grace. It helps me recognise more clearly in the individuals I have come across in my lifetime, some of the main characteristics of these three components. Not that I think one is motivated in this less religious age on the concept of "salvation."
2. There seems to be some questioning as to whether I am dualistic in my religious beliefs, or even a Gnostic as such! I've never really asked myself where I formally stand. I was raised in the Roman Catholic faith and am comfortable in it. However I am prepared to question many aspects. Hence perhaps my interest in (a) Any phenomenon which can be explained by two opposing principles, and (b) The feasible idea that humans are divine souls trapped in the ordinary physical or material world.

As Joseph Addison once noted, "Thus I live in the world, rather as a spectator of mankind, than as one of the species."

The saying has parallels in John (7:33; 7:34; 7:36; 13:33), where it foreshadows the Crucifixion. A similar saying is used twice in Luke, once (5:35) in a generally similar way and once (17:22) in what seems to be an Apocalyptic context. I can't see how either context would lend itself to what Thomas is trying to do. Perhaps it is simply an exhortation to internalize the wisdom of the sayings.

[Pompey Bum]

Coptic Saying 39.

Jesus says, "The Pharisees and the scholars have taken the keys of knowledge; they themselves have hidden them. Neither have they entered, nor have they allowed those who want to enter, to do so. As for you, be as sly as snakes and as simple as doves."

This saying seems to stereotype the characteristics of the "Pharisees and scholars." A bit surprised no mention of "hypocrites," so prevalent in Matthew.

But still a bad press holding the keys to a knowledge they have not understood themselves, nor enabled others to acquire it.

There is also an irony in the advice to keep a low profile in spiritual seeking; ( mild and non confrontational like a dove, and stealthy like a snake.) The figure of Jesus seems not to have followed his own advice in this instance.

This is a parallel with Jesus' famous Commission of the Twelve in Matthew 10:16: Behold, I am sending you out as sheep in the midst of wolves, so be wise as serpents and innocent as doves. On the surface, Thomas is using the saying in a similar way, although his notion of wolves may be different. Scholars and Pharisees would have been two kinds of Jewish authorities at the time. These figures are being criticized for not following a wisdom tradition as the Thomas community does (they will not help you and they will mislead others). It's not clear, though, that this advice is being given to missionaries as is in Matthew 10:16. The metaphor of sly serpents is striking since snakes were sometimes associated with gnostic traditions. But the overall meaning of the saying seems similar to the version in Matthew: be ready to outwit the wolves without becoming a wolf yourself. For the record, Matthew 10:16 is an important saying to me--something of a life verse, I suppose.

[MANICHAEAN]

We now move onto the Coptic version of the Gospel of Thomas, which consists of 114 sayings and were discovered hidden in jars in the desert near Nag Hammadi.

Additional dimensions to this find are that this is only part, ( or in this case, the Second Tractate) bound into the second codex ( or book.) This codex in fact seems to bear witness to a comprehensive diversity of interests, of those producing this work.

The full codex contains the following:
1. The Apocryphon of John (Tractate 1), a revelation dialogue between the Saviour and the disciples about the creation, human condition and the salvation of humanity.
2. The Gospel According to Philip (Tractate 3), a collection of short discursive treatments of primarily Valentinian Christian sacramental theology.
3. The Hypostasis of the Archons (Tractate 4), a revelation dialogue that interprets the first six chapters of Genesis.
4. A Treatise Without Title on the Origin of the World (Tractate 5), an exploration of the nature of the cosmos, the nature of humanity, and the end of both.
5. The Expository Treatise on the Soul (Tractate 6), a narrative describing the fate of the soul in the world.
6. The Book of Thomas the Contender Writing to the Perfect (Tractate 7), a revelation dialogue between Jesus and his twin brother Thomas.

Current judgement seems to be that this collection into one codex does not necessarily indicate that they were considered to be similar or related. What is agreed is that this Coptic version presents the most complete extant text of the Gospel of Thomas.

[MANICHAEAN]

The Coptic Version of the Gospel of Thomas.
Tractate 2.
Saying 3.

Jesus said, "If your leaders say to you, "Look the (Father's) imperial rule is in the sky," then the bird's of the sky will precede you. If they say to you, "It is in the sea, then the fish will precede you. Rather the (Father's) imperial rule is inside you and outside you. When you know yourselves, then you will be known, and you will understand that you are children of the living Father. But if you do not know yourselves, then you live in poverty, and you are the poverty."

My first impression is that this early Christian writing problematizes leadership. The narrative already invests the reader with a kind of full authority to find the community's interpretation of the sayings. Now there appears a seemingly new empowerment, (perhaps even at variance with the community's understanding.)

True leadership directs the seeker inward to a new understanding of self, and outward to a new understanding of the world in which God's imperial rule is manifest.

This very much seems to reflect what was an ongoing debate among early Christians about authority and power. (an apocalyptic rule of God / the church community itself / personal value judgement ?)

The self-knowledge aspect reflects the connection to the Father, not as an external adoption by a distant heavenly entity, but as a Father who is present and vital.

It is certainly refreshing to see the thinking on poverty in a spiritual sense; especially in today's social climate where there is such an emphasis on material wealth, and an obscene gap between the haves and have nots.

[MANICHAEAN]

The Coptic Version of the Gospel of Thomas.

Saying 4.

Jesus said, "The person old in days won't hesitate to ask a little child seven days old about the place of life, and that person will live. For many of the first will be last, and will become a single one."

Out of the mouths of babes? Once a man, twice a child? The simplicity of situations and life as seen through the eye of a child? These immediately come to mind. It seems that children constitute a consistent sub-theme of a wide assortment of early Christian groups, perhaps with good reason.

This saying revolves around a reversal of conventional expectations: that children should be led by adults, children need guidance. It even goes that step further by an implication that an elder will indeed "live" as a result of being led by a child. The child leads towards life, not knowledge alone.

The beginning and the end will be inverted, the former will find themselves the latter, the older will become the younger: a unification of the polarities old and young, elder and child, first and last. Divergence, difference and distinction will ultimately meld into singularity, union, and solidarity.

[MANICHAEAN]

Saying 40.

“Jesus said, “A grapevine has been planted apart from the Father. Since it is not strong, it will be pulled up by its root and will perish.”

My first impression is that the grapevine could refer to at least two different phenomena:

1. The world at large. This would suggest a sort of dualism between creation under divine authority and creation by some other authority. It also seems to come across as rather exclusive; a problem so prevalent in different religions across generations.

2. Another religious community. Another sect whom the community finds unacceptable? Whoever the weak ones are, this saying condemns them to destruction as being weak and vulnerable. Not exactly Christian love and tolerance is it?

In a lot of the other sayings, one can discern links, or familiar grounds with the canonical gospels. This one to my mind has a blinkered approach, seeking credence by associating it as spoke by Jesus.

[MANICHAEAN]

The Gospel of Thomas.

[MANICHAEAN]

aaaaa

[jbob40919]

How about the Gospel according to St. Philip? Mary M. and Jesus appear to have a promising relationship.

[MANICHAEAN]

Then said Daniel to Melzar [the steward], whom the prince of the eunuchs had set over Daniel, Hananiah, Mishael, and Azariah: Prove thy servants, I beseech thee, ten days; and let them give us pulse to eat, and water to drink. Then let our countenances be looked upon before thee, and the countenance of the children that eat of the portion of the king's meat: and as thou seest, deal with thy servants. So he consented to them in this matter, and proved them ten days. And at the end of ten days their countenances appeared fairer and fatter in flesh than all the children which did eat the portion of the king's meat.—Daniel i., 11 to 17.

[MANICHAEAN]

Saying 46. (7.11.21.)

Jesus said, “From Adam to John the Baptist, among those born of women, no one is so much greater than John the Baptist that his eyes should not be averted. But I have said that whoever among you becomes a child will recognize the Father’s imperial rule and will become greater than John.”



This saying seems to update the hierarchy among human beings; separating as it does, the old dispensation and the new. John the Baptist was the apex of the old system, and includes those “born of women,” a description which emphasizes the natural birth of those religious figures. However, whereas this may very much have been the case with John and with the Prophets, it certainly did not apply to Adam.

The narrative on the averting of one's eyes suggests that this was the accepted posture or gesture of a less powerful person in the presence of divine or more powerful figures. Historically n many cultures this is very understandable and is invariably something taught in early age. Perhaps though an exception in incentive might have been taken in countries such as Japan & Korea, where the choice of not bowing, or averting one’s eyes, might have resulted in one’s head being chopped off by sword.

But returning to the main body of the text, the saying by Jesus regards the children displaces the old dispensation.

“Becoming a child” replaces the system inaugurated under the sign “born of woman.” It is a kind of rebirth that makes the old person someone new and better.

I was also struck by the fact that this saying, was not, (as in so many instances in the Gospel of Thomas), in contradiction to Canon Testament, which is bursting with so many references to children and their qualities. For example; Matthew 18:2-6.

“And calling to him a child, he put him in the midst of them and said, “Truly, I say to you, unless you turn and become like children, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven. Whoever humbles himself like this child is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven. “Whoever receives one such child in my name receives me, but whoever causes one of these little ones who believe in me to sin, it would be better for him to have a great millstone fastened around his neck and to be drowned in the depth of the sea.”

The main message seems to revolve around being “humble,” which one could interpret as being: respectful, obedient, almost even fatalistic by placing yourself in the hands of others, whether they be; a deity, parents, or those that deserve our respect.

[MANICHAEAN]

Saying 49.

“Jesus said, Blessed are those who are alone and chosen, for you will find the Father’s domain. For you have come from it, and you will return there again.”

This saying opens up a whole can of worms and one can understand that out of all the early Christian writings some were very much not in tune with the orthodox thinking of other Gaspels.



It marks the seekers of truth under two distinct headings: those who are alone and those who are chosen. And it pronounces the blessing only upon those who are both alone and chosen. So much for the universality of man and redemption!

Also note that those designated as “you” now understand themselves as having their origin in the Kingdom, and as having their goal to return to the Kingdom. Shades of reincarnation akin to Buddhist doctrine.

[MANICHAEAN]

I saw a link between the previous saying and a contribution I made nearly a year ago when I explored the saying in Genesis 6: “the sons of God and daughters of men”. It’s an Old Testament theme, where “the Nephilim” were seen as the offspring of sexual relationships between the sons of God and daughters of men.

There is much debate as to the identity of the “sons of God,” possibly fallen angels who mated with human females or possessed human males who then mated with human females. These unions that resulted in the offspring, “the Nephilim”, were described, somewhat strangely as “heroes of old, men of renown”. If as described in these latter glowing terms, there would appear to be a touch of Gnostics philosophy as in the Gospel of Thomas, incorporating a “spark of the divine” into sections of mankind?

If, however, we are talking of fallen angels, was the motivation one of attempting to pollute the human bloodline in order to prevent the coming of the Messiah. God had promised that the Messiah would one day crush the head of the serpent, Satan (Genesis 3:15). The fallen angels in Genesis 6 thus were possibly attempting to prevent this and make it impossible for a sinless “seed of the woman” to be born. What then followed, it could be argued, was that the Nephilim were one of the primary reasons for the great flood in Noah’s time. “The Lord saw how great man’s wickedness on the earth had become, and that every inclination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil all the time.

The Lord was grieved that he had made man on the earth, and his heart was filled with pain.” So, the Lord said, ‘I will wipe mankind, whom I have created, from the face of the earth—men and animals, and creatures that move along the ground, and birds of the air—for I am grieved that I have made them’”

What followed was the flood of the entire earth, killing everyone and everything other than: Noah, his family, and the animals on the ark. All else perished, including one would suppose the Nephilim. Or is there a twist in the tale; that it is possible that some traits of the Nephilim were passed on through the heredity of one of Noah’s daughters-in-law? What we must keep in mind is that originally the term “sons of God” denoted beings that were brought into existence by the creative act of God.

Such were the angels, and in the Old Testament the title refers to angels. Men are not “sons” until they are redeemed and born again in the New Testament sense. The angels in heaven do not marry, nor are given in marriage. But, the “sons of God” in Geneses 6:1-4 were no longer in heaven, having left their own place, and came seeking after an unapproved alliance with the daughters of men.

Finally, there is a school of thought that thinks in terms of modernist angels; spiritual placeholders, reminders that something has been lost, even if it is difficult to know exactly what this is. Unrealized manhood perhaps?

[Danik 2016]

Well, I never studied the Old Testament, I hardly read it, but one association your post suggests to me is with the Greek mythology, with their sons and daughters of gods and goddesses frequently mixing with the merely humans. Could there have been an influence?

[MANICHAEAN]

Very likely my friend. The themes from one culture to another can easily be picked up and incorporated.

[MANICHAEAN]

Saying 50.

Jesus said, “If they say to you. “Where have you come from?” say to them, “We have come from the light, from the place where the light came into being by itself, established and appeared in their image.” If they say to you, “Is it you?” say “We are its children, and we are the chosen of the living Father.” If they ask you. “What is the evidence of the Father in you?” say to them, “It is motion and rest.”

One might surmise that the faith expressed in the sayings was meeting a degree of both scepticism and perhaps even hostility. as it strove to establish itself in early Christianity. Thus, this saying was both a presentation and response to outsiders and not seekers.

There are to my mind three explanations regarding the main concept of “light” as written in the saying.

First, the light from which the seekers had come is a place where light created itself; a sort of primordial place where light preceded any other creation. One notes immediately that this is at variance with Genesis where God created light.

Second, in the saying, light established itself in that place; suggesting perhaps that the light permanently set at bay the darkness; as for light to be established it needs to stand in opposition to darkness.

Third, the light is projected into the image of the seekers.

In the final part of the saying “rest and motion” involves proof of the relationship of the elect with the Father. Motion correlates to the activity which the sayings promote; whilst the goal of such activity is rest, or the disengagement from vain activity in the world. Both motion and rest mark the seekers as those who have the Father within them.

The whole concept of light and darkness I find interesting. Does light in this context reflect wisdom, and darkness as evil?

In the established Church canon, we have John 9:5 during the miracle of healing the blind, with Jesus saying “When I am in the world, I am the light of the world.” Definitely a force for good.

There is also in theology something called “divine light”: an aspect of divine presence and specifically an ability of angels or even humans to express themselves communicatively through spiritual means, rather than through physical capacities.

[MANICHAEAN]

Saying 51.

His disciples said to him, “When will the rest for the dead take place, and when will the new world come?” He said to them, “What you are looking forward to has come, but you don’t know it.”



From this saying Jesus would appear to say to the disciples on the first question that they had missed the point, because the “rest” belongs not to the dead, but to those that have begun to interpret the sayings. (i.e., The rest is for the living, not the dead.)

Likewise in the second part this does not apply to future events.

I find it interesting that this saying emphasises the immediate and present state of fulfilment offered to the seekers in this Gospel, that life can be realized fully before death. So much for the concept of purgatory and worrying about the Final Judgement!!

It is also worthy to note that Jesus in this Gospel in presenting himself as living in the community underscores that the present moment, not the past and not even the future, has a greater value.

[NikolaiI]

Saying 49.

“Jesus said, Blessed are those who are alone and chosen, for you will find the Father’s domain. For you have come from it, and you will return there again.”

This saying opens up a whole can of worms and one can understand that out of all the early Christian writings some were very much not in tune with the orthodox thinking of other Gaspels.



It marks the seekers of truth under two distinct headings: those who are alone and those who are chosen. And it pronounces the blessing only upon those who are both alone and chosen. So much for the universality of man and redemption!

Also note that those designated as “you” now understand themselves as having their origin in the Kingdom, and as having their goal to return to the Kingdom. Shades of reincarnation akin to Buddhist doctrine.

No.

Why do you think blessing one means cursing others?

You are blessed, and so am I. Why would one being blessed mean that others are not?

Very faulty. But thank you very much for the posts.

[NikolaiI]

In any case, thanks (I guess)???? for posting this. I read the whole thing today. There's a few or quite a lot but certainly the only "Gnostic" I ever met was one of the cruelest and most vindictive people I ever met in my life. And -- verse 114 is insane, and quite clearly so, and also quite clearly out of place in the whole thing. but again, "Thanks."

[tailor STATELY]

Just strolling by...

"Also note that those designated as “you” now understand themselves as having their origin in the Kingdom, and as having their goal to return to the Kingdom. Shades of reincarnation akin to Buddhist doctrine."

I don't know about reincarnation, but a pre-mortal and post-mortal Kingdom is a tenet of my Christian faith :)

Ta ! (short for tarradiddle),
tailor

[MANICHAEAN]

Hi NikolaiI & tailor STATELY.



I must confess that it came as a surprise to actually get two responses in one day to this thread. For what seems like ages, many individuals had visited it on Lit Net Forums, but any input on their parts had been non-existent.

In the early days when I started the thread back in September 2017, the aim was to explore and give a personal commentary on one of the earliest writings in the development of Christianity.

Luckily in those days, giants walked the earth and the likes of Pompey Bum and others were there to guide and contribute. After that, it became more or less an exercise in self-indulgence into which I could dip from time to time.

Anyway, let me respond to the points you have raised.

NikolaiI please note that Saying 49 as I read it, seems to give a blessing to the “chosen,” but there is no mention of a “curse” on the rest. It does not follow logically that blessing one, means cursing others. It only goes so far as to make a distinction between two groups.

I personally agree, (leaving the Saying to one side,) that we are both blessed. If I understand the concept of Gnosticism correctly, they make reference to man possessing what they term “a divine spark.” The contradiction, (of which there are many in these writings), seems to be that only the seekers and finders obtain this. An implication perhaps, that it's implicit in all men, but only ignited in the seekers.

Like yourself, my own experience of cruelty in so called men of faith leaves one wary; and that includes a number of religions. At the current juncture, the sight of Putin attending an Easter service is to me repugnant; encompassing as he does the total repository of evil on a mortal scale, by his actions in Ukraine and elsewhere.

Saying 114. You are way ahead of me, but I did a quick check. It seems on the face of it like nonsense. But one of the things that I have had to learn in looking at these sayings is “What are they really trying to say, by mixing up specific beliefs with inappropriate examples?”

tailor STATELY

Yes, this saying seems very much akin to the concept of reincarnation in the Buddhist doctrine.

What do you mean by a pre & post mortal Kingdom? Is it a fixed entity, with mortal life as a brief interlude? If so, I can understand it.

Best wishes to you both for the weekend.

M.

[NikolaiI]

It is a hateful lie ;)

If you see 20 Buffalo, and one ostrich, obviously the ostrich is our of place.

I'm not interested in correcting you or helping or teaching you. ❤❤

Keep doing what you're doing.

[NikolaiI]

Of course I'm ahead of you. And of course I didn't read what you wrote. 2 things are all I will say:
There is a place for all liars in hell,
And a lying tongue hates those it crushes.
This "gospel" is pure B.S. obviously.
And hateful.

You can see the fruit and if you see a Gnostic, run. Or fight.

[NikolaiI]

(New thread.)

[MANICHAEAN]

Don't you just love a keyboard warrior?

[NikolaiI]

I love a Nihilist!!!!!!!!!!!!
What a piece of work!!!!!!!!!!!

"Jesus said, we'll make her a man, then she can go to heaven"

Abomination!
Psychosis!
Pure hell!
Get out of here! ❤

[tailor STATELY]

What do you mean by a pre & post mortal Kingdom? Is it a fixed entity, with mortal life as a brief interlude? If so, I can understand it.

As I believe - (bear with me this is just a thumbnail intro) first of all we on earth are all beings on a journey with a veil of forgetfulness of our pre-mortal existence: in our pre-mortal state we were intelligences of spirit without bodies dwelling with Heavenly Father who had a perfected body/war in Heaven on who should implement Heavenly Father's plan/we who chose to follow Heavenly Father's plan came to earth to receive bodies and experience life and learn/die - becoming spirits once more (our Savior becoming a perfected being with a body after His death to live with Heavenly Father)/await the Judgement/re-united with "our perfected bodies" after the Judgement/receive our Kingdom either unto immortality or Eternal Life (further progression): Here's a simplistic map of our progression... https://emp.byui.edu/AllredP/Plan%20of%20Salvation/Plan%20of%20salvation%20copy.jpg

The poet Wordsworth pondered pre-mortality in his famous "Ode: Intimations of Immortality from Recollections of Early Childhood" https://www.poetryfoundation.org/poems/45536/ode-intimations-of-immortality-from-recollections-of-early-childhood

Some explanation of our pre-mortality... https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/new-era/2015/02/what-we-know-about-premortal-life?lang=eng

Hope this helps a little. After 18 years in the gospel I'm still learning much :)

Ta ! (short for tarradiddle),
tailor

[MANICHAEAN]

Much obliged tailor.

Will read today.

M.

[MANICHAEAN]

Thanks tailor.

It was very interesting reading what you sent me yesterday. I'd never come across the subject of pre-mortal existence. Got me thinking about the whole concept of: consciousness, memory and awareness.

Best wishes.
M.

[NikolaiI]

There is no need to discuss that here.

[MANICHAEAN]

Run out of lamp posts have we?

[NikolaiI]

Wtf is your problem there bud?

You want to keep preaching that

She has to be come a man to go to heaven?

GtHo OF HERE.

[NikolaiI]

YOU BLANKETY BLANK.

Lol

Take your Nihilism and Incipient Reductionist Retardation elsewhere, fool.

[NikolaiI]

You think it's fun or beneficial to promote ideas that "Women have to become men to go to heaven?"

It's redundant.

Get out of here.

[MANICHAEAN]

Please try and focus old fruit.

The Queens English language has its nuances; however in the case of this thread, even a fleeting acquaintance with the lingo would discern that I am commenting on, ( not promoting) a Gnostic text.

[NikolaiI]

Every post you are promoting it. You know that. I know that God knows that. And the World knows that.

DON'T BE INSULTIJNG. AND DON'T BE HATEFUL.

You are promoting and posting the most hateful, the most insane B.S. I have ever seen in my life.

GET THEE GONE.

[NikolaiI]

Every post you are promoting it. You know that. I know that God knows that. And the World knows that.

DON'T BE INSULTING. AND DON'T BE HATEFUL.

You are promoting and posting the most hateful, the most insane B.S. I have ever seen in my life.

GET THEE GONE.

[MANICHAEAN]

I am very worried about you old fruit. I remember you at one time as quite a personable, erudite young man

But now you seem unable to read something and digest it. Symptoms of this are your recent hyper postings all over the place; rambling, incoherent and in my case confrontational.

Try and seek help.

[NikolaiI]

THIS IS PURE ****ING EVIL.

You mindless piece of trash. GTF OUT OF HERE.

(114) Simon Peter said to them: Let Mariham go out from among us, for women are not worthy of the life. Jesus said: Look, I will lead her that I may make her male, in order that she too may become a living spirit resembling you males. For every woman who makes herself male will enter into the kingdom of heaven.


ANYONE WHO BELIEVES SUCH **** IS ****ING INSANE. AND THEY DO. THEY ****ING REPEAT IT. GNOSTICS ARE PURE ****ING DEATH-EATERS. GET> THE> ****> OUT OF HERE WITH SUCH BULL****.

[NikolaiI]

THEY F*ING REPEAT THIS YOU F*ING PSYCHO. DON"T ****ING PRETEND THEY DON'T. DON'T F*ING BELIEVE SUCH PURE, SATANIC, HATEFUL, INSANE BULLSH*T IS OKAY, you PSYCHOTIC PIECE OF F*ING TRASH.

[NikolaiI]

"THE FAMILY" GNOSTIC CULT WE KNOW WHO THE F* YOU ARE.

COE.

WE KNOW (A) WTF YOU ARE PREACHING AND B) WHO THE F* IS ASSOCIATED WITH IT.

"Coe was the associate director of the Christian organization, The Fellowship. He worked closely with his mentor, Fellowship founder Abraham Vereide, and was considered Vereide's “understudy.” He took on a leadership role when Vereide died in 1969."

[NikolaiI]

THIS IS PURE ****ING EVIL.

You mindless piece of trash. GTF OUT OF HERE.

(114) Simon Peter said to them: Let Mariham go out from among us, for women are not worthy of the life. Jesus said: Look, I will lead her that I may make her male, in order that she too may become a living spirit resembling you males. For every woman who makes herself male will enter into the kingdom of heaven.



YOU KNOW WTF YOU ARE AND WTF YOU ARE PUSHING.

[MANICHAEAN]

Good to see old fruit that you are on the mend.

No scattergun posts in the last 24 hours.

There was an article the other day, (will try to get it for you) regarding how keyboard warriors in 86.47% of cases, felt inadequate in their communication skills, because they were not breast fed as a child. Pure nonsense of course, as like Lord Curzon, the Viceroy of India you are a very "superior person."

Your name has invariably come up in many of the most respected drawing rooms in Belgravia.

[NikolaiI]

You are a ****ing piece of TRASH you ****ing PSYCHO. You think it's fun to Gaslight people? You are LIterally saying "THERE'S NO LIFE FOR WOMEN"

YOU ARE A ****ING DEATH-EATER YOU ****ING PSYCHO. ****ING DIE.

[NikolaiI]

Pure f*cking hate
you pathetic f*cking death-ball
f*cking die you piece of disesase-ridden f*cking piece of troglodyte trash f*cking die.

[NikolaiI]

Complete F*cking psychotic piece of Trash. F*CKING die.

[NikolaiI]

GO F*CKING DIE,
you PSYCHOTIC PIECE OF TRASH
saying "WOMEN DO NOT DESERVE LIFE."
F*CKING DIE.

[MANICHAEAN]

I know you are trying hard to articulate coherently old fruit, but you really do need to work on your imprecations and commination's.

Might I suggest Thomas Carlyle's "The French Revolution" for vocabulary and Gibbon for an improvement in prose.

[NikolaiI]

Thomas Carlyle is a racist piece of SH*T and you know that. Piece of f*cking trash. you are PURE f*cking trash nothing but hate, nothing but racism.

[NikolaiI]

you are F*CKING Pathetic for preaching hate and racism and psychopathy. F*CK OFF

[NikolaiI]

Among Carlyle's lesser-known literary works is Occasional Discourse on the Nigger Question (1853) in which he laid out his racist opinions of Africans. He believed Africans were inferior to White Europeans, innately stupid and lazy.


You f*cking piece of Trash. You are worthless and hateful there is NOTHING you can ****ing say to deceive or confuse me in any slightest form you WORTHLESS F*CKING PIECE OF SH*T.

Name another, Mother F*cker.

[NikolaiI]

According to Carlyle, black people had no right to own land and should be forced ‘with beneficent whip’ to work for white people, who were ‘born wiser’, their superiority established by God.

so you are a NON-ENTITY, NON-F*CKING ALIVE, do you understand?

You are NOT A HUMAN BEING You f*cking psycho.

F*cking die. Who else the **** you got?

[NikolaiI]

Sorry to any and all ! <3 if this has caused pain but those who say

"Women do not deserve life"

and the hateful **** about African Americans and Black people across the world, have NO Place in our society and should _Not_ be given a voice to free-reign their hate.

Subtle and malevolent in some ways but to me? nah sorry but such trash cannot go unnoticed or uncorrected.

[MANICHAEAN]

Here you go again old fruit. I mention Carlyle regards vocabulary & you diverge off onto the racist agenda.

Try to focus.

[NikolaiI]

You are dead and pathetic -- Stop insulting. Stop posting on hate. You are pure hate. Stop it. F*ck off with your BULLSH*T. F*ck off with your H*ate.

According to Carlyle, black people had no right to own land and should be forced ‘with beneficent whip’ to work for white people, who were ‘born wiser’, their superiority established by God.

GO TO F*CKING HELL.

[NikolaiI]

I KNOW WHAT THE HELL HE STOOD FOR YOU AND SO DO F*CKING YOU YOU F*CKING PIECE OF DRIED UP, DEAD F*CKING BODY SH*T.

According to Carlyle, black people had no right to own land and should be forced ‘with beneficent whip’ to work for white people, who were ‘born wiser’, their superiority established by God.

F*CKING DIE.

[MANICHAEAN]

No hang ups on Gibbon I note.

There is hope for you yet old fruit.

[NikolaiI]

F*ck you you mother f<cking piece of psychotic sh*t.

Sexist, racist psychotic f*cking loser. F*cking die.

[MANICHAEAN]

My daughters in Mountain View might disagree with the racist comment.

[NikolaiI]

F*cking loser. Do you tell them this too:

"According to Carlyle, black people had no right to own land and should be forced ‘with beneficent whip’ to work for white people, who were ‘born wiser’, their superiority established by God."

[NikolaiI]

Piece of f*cking trash.

[MANICHAEAN]

Ye Yardie?

My daughters are Jamaican.

[NikolaiI]

do you read them Carlyle bedtime stories?

[NikolaiI]

Do you tell them this every night?

Do you tell them "Hitler was a nicey"?

According to Carlyle, black people had no right to own land and should be forced ‘with beneficent whip’ to work for white people, who were ‘born wiser’, their superiority established by God.

[NikolaiI]

F*ck you mother F*cker don't ever f*cking mention that name to me or anyone ever again.

[MANICHAEAN]

Me nah do that. Kass Kass me rass.

[NikolaiI]

Keep posting here, Manichean, as long as you feel "Women fo not deserve LIFE." Until you are finished with such a hateful view, sh*thead, I will be against you til you are gone.

Every post you make here is an affirmation of such a hateful and proof positive you believe and want to push it in the world.

Do not push hate, mother f*cker.

[MANICHAEAN]

Then dying, shall through long centuries wander as it were, a disconsolate ghost, on the wrong side of Styx and Lethe.

[NikolaiI]

You win, f*ck face. The world will always know you are a sexist piece of Trash.

[NikolaiI]

You've single-handedly patterned out about 600 people you life-sucking, bloodthirsty bombardment of hostility.

[MANICHAEAN]

The difference between reality and fiction?

Fiction has to make sense.

[NikolaiI]

You're a piece of sh*t and you know that. You're a psychotic, gaslighting, hatebag full of bullsh*t and f*cking hate. You think it's pleasant to say the sh*t on here, and you will "die on that hill"? You're f*cking insane. Are you going to quote Hitler at me next? F*cking hatebag, loser.

[MANICHAEAN]

Basically insecure due to a limited vocabulary and lack of a classical education.
Tends to be confrontational in some things, and looking for recognition in others.
Inability to digest what is being said to him.
Refer for treatment.

[NikolaiI]

You F*Cking piece of gaslighing SH*T. You are completely f*cking insane to say that "WOMEN DO NOT DESErVE LIFE." your subspecies WILL DIE eventually.
F*CK OFF.

[NikolaiI]

F*cking psychotic f*cking piece of sh*t.

You psycho f*cking insane f*cking loser. You are insane a f*cking dead body to say that "women do not deserve life"

f*cking die.

[NikolaiI]

Pathetic and F*cking insane dead body. Rot in f*cking hell and STOP F*CKING POSTING that "WOMEN DO NOT DEsERVE LIFE". F*cking die you f*cking death-eater.

[NikolaiI]

You are pathetic and f*cking insane to think that "Women do not deserve life" so STOP F*CKING POSTING IT AND F*CKING F*CK OFF AND DIE.

[NikolaiI]

WOMEN GIVE LIFE YOU F*CKING PSYCHO.

Are you that f*cking insane to say that "Women do not deserve life"?

F*CKING DIE.

[NikolaiI]

Pscyho f*cking piece of trash dead body. "Eternity is a long time, especially at the end."
waiting for PSCYHOS who f*cking post that "women do not deserve life" to die.

Well guess what, "THE FELLOWSHIP" is f*cking kaput.
Cultwatch : destroy.

[NikolaiI]

Here is a nice conversation:

"Women do not deserve life"

DEATH. EXPLOSION.

25 fully automatic rounds deafening roar, blasting and tearing through every organ, fiber and vein of the body of the one who said that.

Silence.

[NikolaiI]

If you post again you are only pushing yourself further down into the dust. Women DO in fact deserve life you F*CKING PSYCHO.

[NikolaiI]

Dumbass f*cking psycho piece of sh*t.

[MANICHAEAN]

The latest contribution from the keyboard warrior, "It's just my statement as Emperor of the World."

Napoleon complex?

[MANICHAEAN]

Saying 52.



“His disciples said to him, “Twenty-four prophets have spoken in Israel, and they all spoke of you.” He said to them, “You have disregarded the living one who is in your presence, and have spoken of the dead.”

Presumably the twenty-four prophets referred to are the entirety of the Hebrew Scriptures, all of which have pointed towards the coming Messiah?

Jesus in this saying however rejects this construction and replaces it with a discourse on the reality of “the living one in your presence.” I.e., a living voice of a living person, not to be identified with either an historical person, or an historical prophesy.

The interesting point I find is that Jesus does not specifically name himself as the one living in their presence. Perhaps that was an error on the part of the narrator? Or could it be interpreted as extended to all living mankind? The spark of the Divine within all of us?