ⲥⲁⲉⲓⲣ translates to 'colostrum' and 'butter' - neither of which are leavening agents.But it translates to yeast ... and that's what yeast does?
(1) Interlinear Nag Hamadi Coptic Thomas + Coptic Dictionary Onlinewhat translation are you using?
Not quite right, as soured milk can be used as a leavening agent.ⲥⲁⲉⲓⲣ translates to 'colostrum' and 'butter' - neither of which are leavening agents.
Follow the CD353 link and that will give a fuller explanation of a possible variation of the term, including 'leaven', which is why most translations of Thomas 96 use leaven."Scriptorium tag: N
1. (En) first milk (colostrum), butter
(Fr) premier lait (colostrum), crème, beurre
(De) Butter, Rahm
Bibliography: CD 353a?; CED 160?; KoptHWb 193, 539?; DELC 195?; ChLCS 46b?"
OK ... towards what end, though? Not one's own agency for its own sake, surely?Thomas #35+#21.b = #103 for a first-principles based imperative: Exercise one's own agency diligently.
Be self re-Agency-fied. Be not self de-agency-fied / self-incapacitated e.g. drunk
CONCEPTUAL Sovereignty IS Individual Agency: "But he hasn't got anything on," a little child said.And I still challenge the idea of Sovereignty as meaning individual agency. I
For virtuous cycles of improvement for all - rather than vicious cycles of impoverishment of allOK ... towards what end, though? Not one's own agency for its own sake, surely?
sounds more like pastry doughⲥⲁⲉⲓⲣ translates to 'colostrum' and 'butter' - neither of which are leavening agents.
It is scientifically impossible to make large loaves of bread from dough using these alone.
Buttermilk pancakesNot quite right, as soured milk can be used as a leavening agent.
Thus, proving to yourself - and to your fellow audience - your own CONCEPTUAL Sovereigntysounds more like pastry dough
Interesting. How so?Thus, proving to yourself - and to your fellow audience - your own CONCEPTUAL Sovereignty
In the Emperor's New Clothes:Interesting. How so?
You tried to explain above... connect the dots a bit more.
Have you ever considered, you might have got it all wrong?For the Breadmaking Parable:
Jesus: The sovereignty of the Father is likened to a woman who took a little colostrum and butter, hid it in dough, and made large loaves of it. He who has ears, let him hear!
TLW: Sounds more like pastry dough
Others in the audience: hmm, TLW is right - you won't get any rise from colostrum and/or butter alone - based on our experience.
[The science: CO2 is what causes the rise. To get C02, we will either need activated yeast OR soured milk (acidic) with baking soda (alkaline)]
Thus, the parable was a test - to elicit response / retort - doing so, i.e. responding with what you know - proves your own conceptual sovereignty - you are not ruled by what others tell you - not even by Jesus...
One person in the audience doing so - exercising his/her own Conceptual Sovereignty - helps others in the audience see & acknowledge their own Conceptual Sovereignty as well.
Have you ever considered, you might have got it all wrong?
Literal translations often have to be thought about in context.
Clearly, in this context it refers to soured milk product (as is butter or buttermilk, for example).
Formally, the Kingdom of Heaven is likened to the woman in Th and to the leaven in Lk and Mt. But in my opinion, it's neither like the woman nor like the leaven, but it is like a small quantity of people who really submit to God and goodness and grow from the substance of the world (the flour) but not the same, but transformed. The leaven may stand for the Holy Spirit, the force of God in us through our faith and His Word.Imagine if you were one of the bread-makers listening to the parable of the woman making bread and you heard:
The sovereignty of the Father is likened to a woman who took a little ⲥⲁⲉⲓⲣ, hid it in dough, and made large loaves of it. He who has ears, let him hear!
But you know ⲥⲁⲉⲓⲣ doesn't do that to dough! What would you do?
The child: But, he is naked!
The child - not ruled by the perception of the others - was conceptually, a sovereign
The adults - have been pre-programmed to the tune in to (be part of) the cult-ure
Very interesting.Thus, the parable was a test - to elicit response / retort - doing so, i.e. responding with what you know - proves your own conceptual sovereignty - you are not ruled by what others tell you - not even by Jesus...
One person in the audience doing so - exercising his/her own Conceptual Sovereignty - helps others in the audience see & acknowledge their own Conceptual Sovereignty as well.
@muhammad_isa beat me to this very point.
And if he will allow ...
Have you ever considered, with regard to your interpretation of 'conceptual sovereignty', you might have got it (the kingdom references) all wrong?![]()
My comment above referred specifically to the Breadmaking Parable and to all the other parables - in Thomas.From what you are saying, the things in the bible that seem wrong or difficult or something are meant to draw a reaction out of you, as you said, a test.
Thomas #35+#21.b = #103 for a first-principles based imperative: Exercise one's own agency diligently.
Be self re-Agency-fied. Be not self de-agency-fied / self-incapacitated e.g. drunk
35. IS said: No power has one to enter the house of the powerful and he take his arm unless he ties his hands then he will turn outward his house. [Note: tie up = preoccupy = distract = Look over there!]
21.b: Therefore I say: If the owner in the house knows that the thief is coming he will be on guard before the thief comes. The owner will not permit the thief to carve into his house, his Sovereignty to let the thief take his belongings.
And so then, YOU keep watch against the Beginning of the Kosmos (refers to #109 money lending with interest)
Gird of yours upon your loins with your great power so that will not the Robbers find ways to come towards you because the need that you foresee they will find it. Let a man knowing, wise, prudent be in your midst
103. Abliss is the man this who knows that in what part which the thieves about to come inward so that he will arise to muster his Sovereignty and he binds it upon his loins from the Beginning before they come inward
I would say not.Here are the criteria that I used to test the idea of 'conceptual sovereignty':
1) Does the dictionary support this meaning i.e.:
(i) in Coptic?
(ii) in Greek?
(iii) in Hebrew?
I have no idea what you mean by 'conceptual sovereignty'.My questions: Have you considered -
What if I am right?
Which would Mankind stand to gain - which would Mankind stand to lose :
Actualizing vs Not actualizing Our Conceptual Sovereignty?
Click on the words below for the links to the dictionary showing their meaning include 'Sovereignty'In Coptic, Greek and Hebrew, the term translates as 'kingdom'.
Consider synonyms then.Sovereign as a word does not really appear until the 13th/14th century.
I have no idea what you mean by 'conceptual sovereignty'.
In the Emperor's New Clothes:
The courtiers & the adults: How marvelous are the emperor's new clothes!
The child: But, he is naked!
The child - not ruled by the perception of the others - was conceptually, a sovereign
The adults - have been pre-programmed to the tune in to (be part of) the cult-ure
but with the help of the child's cry - see through their programming for the reality that themselves saw as well but were previously unable / unwilling to acknowledge.
For the Breadmaking Parable:
Jesus: The sovereignty of the Father is likened to a woman who took a little colostrum and butter, hid it in dough, and made large loaves of it. He who has ears, let him hear!
TLW: Sounds more like pastry dough
Others in the audience: hmm, TLW is right - you won't get any rise from colostrum and/or butter alone - based on our experience.
[The science: CO2 is what causes the rise. To get C02, we will either need activated yeast OR soured milk (acidic) with baking soda (alkaline)]
Thus, the parable was a test - to elicit response / retort - doing so, i.e. responding with what you know - proves your own conceptual sovereignty - you are not ruled by what others tell you - not even by Jesus...
One person in the audience doing so - exercising his/her own Conceptual Sovereignty - helps others in the audience see & acknowledge their own Conceptual Sovereignty as well.
The Text directly points to itBut 'conceptual sovereignty' is a semantic leap which I really do not think the text supports.
OK – they include sovereign, but in the sense of a kingdom, reign, or rule, "often used in the New Testament to describe the Kingdom of God or the Kingdom of Heaven." and "It encompasses the idea of royal authority, dominion, and the sphere of a king's rule."Click on the words below for the links to the dictionary showing their meaning include 'Sovereignty'
No, I didn't, it's simply that the tale is irrelevant to this discussion – and the moral of the story is not about 'conceptual sovereignty' ...Perhaps you missed this part:
(I assume you know the story of 'The Emperor's New Clothes' - if not please click this
Why not the sovereignty of God?The Text directly points to it
22. Did Jesus see some little ones they taking milk. Said he to his pupils ['i.e. pre-pupils' to be very precise]:
"These little ones who are taking milk they are like --- those who enter the Sovereignty."
Here we're on safe ground. There are canonical says that say much the same thing, ie; "This people honoureth me with their lips: but their heart is far from me" (Matthew 5:8, Mark 7:6) as well as the many references to the light within in the synoptics, and especially the Johannine texts, and of course Paul's exhortation in 1 Corinthians 13 "If I speak in the tongues of human beings and of the angels, but do not have love, I have become resounding brass and a clanging cymbal" (v1).Said IS to them:
"Whenever you make the two one [synthesize] and if you make the part inside like the part outside and the part outside like the part inside
[i.e. beliefs/mindset and actions/behavior in alignment with each other] and the part the sky like the part the ground ["Paradise" not some distant (time & space-wise), unreachable realm] ...
Here I think the language is more gnostic and not to do with superior/inferior.and so that if you will make the male with the female, one and the same (i.e. be impartial) in order that will not the male be "male" (i.e. be superior/elevated) and
the female be "female" (i.e. be inferior/relegated)
Well, again, these are your assumptions.Whenever you make:
- "eyes" (i.e. vision) in the place of an eye and
- a "hand" (i.e. grasp/take/carry) in the place of a hand and
- "feet" (i.e. footing/base) in the place of feet
ⲟⲩ- ϩⲓⲕⲱⲛ ⲉ- ⲡ- ⲙⲁ ⲛ- ⲟⲩ- ϩⲓⲕⲱⲛ ⲧⲟⲧⲉ ⲧⲉⲧⲛ- ⲛⲁ- ⲃⲱⲕ (ⲉϩⲟⲩⲛ) ⲉ- ⲧ- ⲙⲛⲧ- ⲣⲣⲟ
Well regarding the Scribes and Pharisees, I think Thomas got it wrong, as in the canonicals it's clear Jesus did not think they "have received the keys of knowledge" (#39) – rather that they were blind and deaf, and faith in Him was "the way, and the truth, and the life" (John 14:6). Here again we see a gnostic influence 'keys of knowledge', which Paul so robustly dismissed: "For the Jews require a sign and the Greeks seek after wisdom (sophia(/i)" (1 Corinthians 3:22)PLUS the Parables - in Thomas - ALL OF THEM - was the mean used by Jesus to muster the Conceptual Sovereignty of their audience
- "to destroy the House" #71 gatekeeper'd by the Pharisees and the Scribes #39.a,b, #102
... "to destroy the House" #71 gatekeeper'd by the Pharisees and the Scribes.