The Ambiguity of Early Christianity: How we misread Paul
- Thread starter Thomas
- Start date
ⲥⲁⲉⲓⲣ 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.
(1) Interlinear Nag Hamadi Coptic Thomas + Coptic Dictionary Online
e.g. Thomas Paterson Brown but corrected where necessary such as in the case of 'ⲥⲁⲉⲓⲣ' above.
(2) Thomas re-assembled - The evidence that Thomas needs to be read re-assembled are in Thomas #6, #14:
6. Did his pupils ask him and said to him:
You desire that we act to fast ? (referring to #60 & #27 that preceded the conversation) and what is the manner
that we be praying?
that we be giving alms? and
that we be observing regarding what and manner to eat?
Said IS: Do not tell lie and what ever you hate it, do not do (it)
For all of them will be uncovered under the sky
For there is nothing which is it hidden that it will reveal forth not and
There is nothing which is it covered that they will persist without - it - uncovering
14. Said IS to them:
If you act to fast you will give birth to yourselves sin and
if you pray they will act to condemn yourself and
if you give alms you will do an evil to your spirit and
if you go into a land so and so or you go, walk in the country
if they receive you, that which they will place it toward you, eat it
those weak in them do restore them
Also: 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
Thomas #3, #70, #41, #67, #5 form a Core of Jesus' message (there is another Core
- together they form the Twin Truths for Mankind)
3. If they say to you viz they who go before you [i.e. those that you choose to follow]
“Behold, the Sovereignty in the sky” then surely the birds will be first wrt you of Heaven
If they say to you : it in the sea, then surely the fishes will be first wrt you
Rather the Sovereignty, it of your inward part and it of your solutions & interpretations - that untie self (#35)
When ever you know you, then they will know you and
you will know that you are the children of the Father who lives
But on the other hand, if you will know yourselves not,
then surely that you are in a poverty -- and you are the poverty.
70. When ever you bring forth that one in you, this which you have it, it will secure you
If you do not bring forth that one in you, this which you have not it, it will kill you
[Meaning: if one does not unsheathe one's own agency, it will be to one's own detriment!]
41. He who has it, he will be have more and
He who that not has it, the little which he has will be taken from him
67. He who knows everything, if he is lacking self he is in want... GIVE! all of it !
[Meaning: Lay everything! <-- click to open link:
We are conceptually tied up - we have become iconized:
self-ossified on and self colonized by concepts
To be free, know thyself - We are Conceptual Sovereigns
Let us rise above man-made concepts and [Re]Conceptualize]
5. Know the one who is in the presence of your face and before you
the one which is "hidden" from you, will uncover forth to you
for there is no one who it will not reveal to
39.a The Pharisees [The Dogmatists] with the Scribes [The The Ossify-ers/The Obdurators] (~Luke 11:52)
did they take the keys of Knowledge -- did they hide them
did not they enter and they who desire to enter did not they place them
71. I will destroy this house, and no one will be able to build it
39.b But YOU on the other hand,
be sensible (mentally present) in the manner of the serpents,
and untainted (unstained) in the manner of the doves.
102. Woe to them the Pharisees
Because they resemble a dog that sleeps in the manger of some cattle
Because it eats not, nor does it permit the cattle to eat
Last edited:
Not quite right, as soured milk can be used as a leavening agent.
However, I looked into this, and yes, the entry indeed says 'colostrum' and 'butter'.
But, if you look a few lines down that page:
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.
+++
OK ... towards what end, though? Not one's own agency for its own sake, surely?
And I still challenge the idea of Sovereignty as meaning individual agency. I'd say the sovereignty belongs to the King – God – not the individual self.
The Shema Israel calls for individual agency focussed on the Divine Reality.
CONCEPTUAL Sovereignty IS Individual Agency: "But he hasn't got anything on," a little child said.
Consider this:
The Real Lesson from the Emperor’s New Clothes
What was the real issue that ultimately led to the LO$$E$
at the
top?Was it:
a. the
Ruler(s)?b. the
System?c. the
Paradigm?d. the
Bound: not realizing they are Conceptualizers?Answer: d.
Had the people realized their true selves
— Innovators & (In)validators of concepts & paradigms,
not limited, nor bound by the
paradigm,there wouldn't be a
system,nor would there be
rulers& thus, no LO$$ at the
topFor virtuous cycles of improvement for all - rather than vicious cycles of impoverishment of all
For Worgl 2.0: The Miracle of Worgl extended to infinity - Conceptual Sovereigns unbounded by the
paradigmThus the Real Good News
- Mankind are only SELF incapacitated through SELF subjugation to man-made concepts = idolizers of concepts
To be restored:
- to be delivered from this predicament
- to be unstuck from the cosmos i.e. the current conceptualization of the world
Mankind need only separate self from their wine -
Recognize themselves as Conceptual Sovereigns and to rise above their concepts
AND recognize that it is their divine duty to [Re]Conceptualize - For Paradise on Earth
But how?
This is the the second Core in Jesus' Good News
TheLightWithin
...through a glass, darkly
- Messages
- 2,315
- Reaction score
- 1,253
- Points
- 108
sounds more like pastry dough
TheLightWithin
...through a glass, darkly
- Messages
- 2,315
- Reaction score
- 1,253
- Points
- 108
Buttermilk pancakes
Thus, proving to yourself - and to your fellow audience - your own CONCEPTUAL Sovereignty
All the other parables - in Thomas - function in the same manner: #8, #20, #107,.... for the ordinary folks who are familiar with the reality vs the depiction in the parables
Together, the parables - in Thomas - serve to do precisely what Jesus said he set out to do:
71. I will destroy this house (that the dogmatists and the ossifyers hold the key to) and no one will be able to build it
Last edited:
TheLightWithin
...through a glass, darkly
- Messages
- 2,315
- Reaction score
- 1,253
- Points
- 108
Interesting. How so?
You tried to explain above... connect the dots a bit more.
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.
Last edited:
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).
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).
Not sure I understand your point - in the Coptic text, the word / 'product' : ⲟⲉⲓⲕ - translates to: 'bread', 'loaf'
'Whoever has ears, let him hear!' serves as a marker
i.e. Jesus telling the audience to pay close attention to what was said
and even alluding to: 'Let's see if there's anyone who can spot what's wrong with this story.'
@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?
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?
talib-al-kalim
Well-Known Member
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.
TheLightWithin
...through a glass, darkly
- Messages
- 2,315
- Reaction score
- 1,253
- Points
- 108
Very interesting.
This does remind me of something I remember reading once - or somebody told me -- I guess there's a theory that whenever there appears to be something in the bible that is wrong or really doesn't make sense, that it is there deliberately like a code or something. That may be thought to apply to other reveealed religions too I'm not sure.
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.
That reminds me of something else I heard once, but cannot remember fully, something along the lines of how the material in the bible and how you respond to it are a kind of test, maybe even paradoxical.
@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?
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?
2) Does the text provide context for this meaning i.e.:
(i) directly: Was this THE Message i.e. expounded on by Jesus - consistently - throughout the entire text?
(ii) indirectly: Do ALL the Parables - in Thomas - support the idea?
3) Does it qualify as 'Good News'? How/Why: What are the implications of actualizing 'conceptual sovereignty'?
4) How does it align with reality? Are we really conceptual sovereigns - do we [re]conceptualize? OR, not?
Having satisfied the above criteria, I think there is a robust case for it.
I re-submit the following link that was posted in my initial reply to this thread - please read it in case you missed it:
Mankind are Conceptual Sovereigns
The Good News for Mankind is about:
writingsonthewall.substack.com
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?
My comment above referred specifically to the Breadmaking Parable and to all the other parables - in Thomas.
Outside of Thomas, there is another set of issues:
If we compare the first principles - based imperative that is Thomas 35+21.b=103...
... with the Synoptics:
Mark: Mark 3:27 = Thomas #35, but inserted into Mark 3:3-30 - a hodge podge:
Similarly, hodge podge'd are:
Matthew 12:29, 24:43
and Luke 11:21, 12:39
Q: What happened to the first principled call for Self Re-Agency-fication?
Dis-assembled, de-contextualized and disappeared...
....in favor of self de-agency-fication?
I would say not.
In Coptic, Greek and Hebrew, the term translates as 'kingdom'.
Sovereign as a word does not really appear until the 13th/14th century.
But 'conceptual sovereignty' is a semantic leap which I really do not think the text supports.
I have no idea what you mean by 'conceptual sovereignty'.
Click on the words below for the links to the dictionary showing their meaning include 'Sovereignty'
Greek basiliea
Hebrew malkuth
Coptic ⲘⲚⲦⲈⲢⲞ = kinghood = reign, rule = Sovereignty
Consider synonyms then.
Perhaps you missed this part:
(I assume you know the story of 'The Emperor's New Clothes' - if not please click this link )
Re:
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."
Say they to him :
"Well then, surely if we become as little ones, we will go inwards to the Kingdom?" [i.e. The pre-pupils were stuck on the programmed meaning for ⲘⲚⲦⲈⲢⲞ, and ultimately did not override the programming.]
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] 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)
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
- a CONCEPT in the place of a form (ϨⲒⲔⲰⲚ) [i.e. when you conceptualize]
then you will be enter the Sovereignty"
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
The Audience were told to be present and clear minded for that purpose #39.c - before Jesus started them on the parables.
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."
In the Greek, Hebrew and Coptic, it does not refer to 'conceptual sovereignty' in the sense of free will or individual autonomy.
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' ...
Why not the sovereignty of God?
#22:
"Jesus saw some infants at the breast. He said to his disciples: These little ones at the breast are like those who enter into the kingdom. They said to him: If we then be children, shall we enter the kingdom?"
Coptic text (The true words of Thomas Interactive Coptic English gospel of Thomas):
ⲁ- ⲓⲥ ⲛⲁⲩ ⲉ- ϩⲟⲉⲓⲛⲉ ⲕⲟⲩⲓ ⲉ- -ⲟⲩ ϫⲓ ⲉⲣⲱⲧⲉ ⲡⲉϫⲉ- ⲛⲧⲟϥ ⲛⲁ⸗ ⲛⲉϥ ⲙⲁⲑⲏⲧⲏⲥ ϫⲉ-
did IS behold [dop] some(PL) little-person they take milk said he to his(PL) Disciple :
ⲛⲉⲓ- ⲕⲟⲩⲓ ⲉⲧ- ϫⲓ ⲉⲣⲱⲧⲉ ⲉ- -ⲟⲩ ⲧⲟⲛⲧⲛ+ ⲉ- ⲛⲉⲧ ⲃⲱⲕ (ⲉϩⲟⲩⲛ)+ ⲉ- ⲧ- ⲙⲛⲧ- ⲣⲣⲟ
these little-person who/which take milk they is-comparable to they-who going-inward to the(F) reign-of(F) king
ⲡⲉϫⲉ- -ⲟⲩ ⲛⲁ⸗ ⲛⲧⲟϥ ϫⲉ- ⲉⲓⲉ ⲁⲛⲟⲛ ⲉⲓⲣⲉ+ ⲛ- ⲕⲟⲩⲓ ⲧⲛ- ⲛⲁ- ⲃⲱⲕ (ⲉϩⲟⲩⲛ) ⲉ- ⲧ- ⲙⲛⲧ- ⲣⲣⲟ
said they to he : well-then we been-made [dop] little-person we will go-inward to the(F) reign-of(F) king
Point:
1: The Coptic term ⲙⲁⲑⲏⲧⲏⲥ here is translated as 'disciple' or 'follower' – why you change it to 'pupil' which carries a different and a narrower connotation.
2: Regarding your 'pre-pupils to be very precise', I think you've mistakenly read ⲙⲁⲑⲏⲧⲏⲥ as a different term – ⲙⲁⲑⲏⲧⲉⲩⲉ – which seems to carry the future sense of 'to be a disciple' or 'to make a disciple'?
3: Regarding 'sovereignty', the literal, 'those who ⲃⲱⲕ (ⲉϩⲟⲩⲛ) 'go into' or 'enter' the reign of the king', again, this does not seem to imply conceptual 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).
Here I think the language is more gnostic and not to do with superior/inferior.
Well, again, these are your assumptions.
ⲟⲩ- ϩⲓⲕⲱⲛ ⲉ- ⲡ- ⲙⲁ ⲛ- ⲟⲩ- ϩⲓⲕⲱⲛ ⲧⲟⲧⲉ ⲧⲉⲧⲛ- ⲛⲁ- ⲃⲱⲕ (ⲉϩⲟⲩⲛ) ⲉ- ⲧ- ⲙⲛⲧ- ⲣⲣⲟ
a(n) Image to the place of a(n) Image Then you(PL) will go-inward to the(F) reign-of(F) king
The same word used twice, and yet you offer two different meanings?
The Coptic derives from the Greek, εἰκών, 'icon' or 'eikon', which derives from the verb 'to portray', 'to liken', and generally means image, a figure, a portrait, a likeness, not a concept. And your use of 'form' is risky because the Greek philosophic term means the same thing as 'concept', or rather, Plato, for example, used the terms form – εἶδος (eîdos) – and ideas – ἰδέα (idea) interchangeably.
Here I can see the text alluding to settling the essence, the (interior invisible) ousia and the (external visible physical) form μορφή (morphḗ).
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)
A nice distinction between 'knowledge' (gnosis) and 'wisdom' (sophia), btw.
When it comes to 'gatekeeper' – I think Jesus had bigger and more powerful entities in mind than men – he who He addresses as 'the Prince of this World' according to the common English translations:
"(Jesus says) Now is the judgment on this cosmos; now shall the prince of this world (archon toutou kosmos) be cast out" (John 12:31).
"(Jesus says) I will no longer speak much with you, for the archon toutou kosmos is coming – and he has no hold in me" (John 14:30).
"(Jesus says) And of judgment: because the archon toutou kosmos is already judged" (John 16:11).
About which Paul says:
"And you, being dead in your trespasses and sins, in which you used to walk, in accord with the aion (age) of this kosmos, in accord with the archon of the power of the aer (air), of the spirit (pneuma) now operating in the sons of disobedience... " (Ephesians 2:1-2).
+++
Terms such as aion and archon were redolent in gnostic texts – the contemporaries of these texts lived in a world torn between opposing forces and spiritual hierarchies.
It seems to me that even where we can say 'the Gnostics' pursued a philosophy of self-realisation or self-actualisation, there were still hierarchies, not only among the angels and daemons, but among humanity – the pneumatics, the psychics and the hylics – so even a 1st-2nd century 'conceptual sovereignty' was under the aegis and personages of the physical, mental and spiritual realms.