Gospel of Thomas Saying 105
419 views
Skip to first unread message
gnostic ken
Nov 18, 2012, 7:53:07 AM11/18/12
to gnostic-r...@googlegroups.com
What does Saying 105 say and/or mean to you?
105 Jesus said, "Whoever knows the father and the mother will be
called the child of a whore."
................................
105) Jesus said, "He who knows the father and the mother will be
called the son of a harlot."
............................
105.)
He who knows
his father and his mother shall
be called a bastard.
.............................
105. Y'shua says: Whoever acknowledges father and mother, shall be
called the son of a harlot.
.............................
(105) Jesus says: "Whoever will come to know father and mother, he
will be called son of a whore."
gnostic ken
Nov 18, 2012, 7:57:02 AM11/18/12
to gnostic-r...@googlegroups.com
18 May 12, I said:
This is another saying almost no one wanted to comment on.
I suspect "will be called the son of a whore" was an idiom.
I think children of whores were outcasts without extended families under the protection of a patriarch. Those who followed the Christ within were spiritual outcasts without a religious family under the spiritual protection of a high priest or rabbi.
IMO.
Ken
I think children of whores were outcasts without extended families under the protection of a patriarch. Those who followed the Christ within were spiritual outcasts without a religious family under the spiritual protection of a high priest or rabbi.
IMO.
Ken
21 May 12, Clive said:
Hi Ken
I like your idiom,thanks, this saying makes more sense to me if understood that way.
Persecuted for the name of Christ, even these days we can become an outcast in our work place or atleast mocked by others for our faith by those who don't understand.
Clive
I like your idiom,thanks, this saying makes more sense to me if understood that way.
Persecuted for the name of Christ, even these days we can become an outcast in our work place or atleast mocked by others for our faith by those who don't understand.
Clive
gnostic ken
Dec 24, 2012, 2:33:28 PM12/24/12
to gnostic-r...@googlegroups.com
Sun Dec 23, 2012 1:05 pm, Oregon George said:
Unnamed companions ask Jesus to join them in prayer and in fasting. We know from GTh 14 that he sees no value in either practice, at least in the narrow sense of supplication and sacrifice. Accordingly, he asks, "What is the sin that I have committed"? The implication of that question is that an innocent man, a man without sin, has no need to pray or fast. Indeed, from the viewpoint of nonduality, a perspective which I believe is at the heart of this gospel, God created man as an extension of Himself, and like Himself, man is wholly innocent. It further maintains that separation between God and man is impossible, and that any evidence to the contrary is found in man's dream of guilt and fear. This dialogue suggests that Jesus woke up from this dream and came to understand that, as the antithesis of innocence, sin is also impossible. Thus, Jesus has no need for rituals of supplication or sacrifice to restore his pure and pristine relationship with God.
He then asks, "…in what way have I been won over?" I use here the literal translation of the Coptic expression that is more often rendered as "overcome" or "defeated." In the context of this saying, this seems to be referring to his core teachings or convictions. In what way, he asks, has his core teaching changed or been won over. In effect, he is saying that these people must not know him very well if they suggest he join them in a pointless exercise, in an effort to atone for sin, of which he is entirely innocent.
In the next line, Jesus illustrates metaphorically why prayer and fasting are unnecessary. The bridal chamber is a metaphor for the Kingdom, in which man, in a kind of consummation, unites in love with his source. Not a geographic place, it is found wherever man is willing to abandon his worldly idols and limitations and experience the union of man with God and His creation. When a man or a woman is willing to forgive completely all their resentments and thoughts of separation, then they find rest in the discovery that God is joined with them and always has been. If the intention of prayer and fasting is to ask for something one does not have, then in the asking, the Kingdom is denied. This is so because the Kingdom, the bridal chamber, is man's real abode from which he never leaves. He can ask for help to find the Kingdom, but in truth he already has it. To enter the bridal chamber is simply to come home to one's natural state.
Jesus is not the bridegroom alone. The bridegroom is anyone, including Jesus, who is willing to abandon nothing for everything. Then it reads, "But when the bridegroom leaves the bridal chamber, then let him fast and pray." Why would anyone want to abandon love, his very life in fact, to pray and fast for something more? Indeed he would not, and this is the point. For Jesus, this would be unthinkable. If others do the unthinkable, then let them fast and pray, if that is what they want to do.
I take the word, usually translated as "them" in the final line, to be a scribal error, or possibly an attempt to make Jesus the sole bridegroom, elevating him above all others. However, the sense of this sentence is more evident when "him" is restored, and the bridegroom then is properly seen as anyone.
Thank you.
George Duffy
Corvallis, OR
Unnamed companions ask Jesus to join them in prayer and in fasting. We know from GTh 14 that he sees no value in either practice, at least in the narrow sense of supplication and sacrifice. Accordingly, he asks, "What is the sin that I have committed"? The implication of that question is that an innocent man, a man without sin, has no need to pray or fast. Indeed, from the viewpoint of nonduality, a perspective which I believe is at the heart of this gospel, God created man as an extension of Himself, and like Himself, man is wholly innocent. It further maintains that separation between God and man is impossible, and that any evidence to the contrary is found in man's dream of guilt and fear. This dialogue suggests that Jesus woke up from this dream and came to understand that, as the antithesis of innocence, sin is also impossible. Thus, Jesus has no need for rituals of supplication or sacrifice to restore his pure and pristine relationship with God.
He then asks, "…in what way have I been won over?" I use here the literal translation of the Coptic expression that is more often rendered as "overcome" or "defeated." In the context of this saying, this seems to be referring to his core teachings or convictions. In what way, he asks, has his core teaching changed or been won over. In effect, he is saying that these people must not know him very well if they suggest he join them in a pointless exercise, in an effort to atone for sin, of which he is entirely innocent.
In the next line, Jesus illustrates metaphorically why prayer and fasting are unnecessary. The bridal chamber is a metaphor for the Kingdom, in which man, in a kind of consummation, unites in love with his source. Not a geographic place, it is found wherever man is willing to abandon his worldly idols and limitations and experience the union of man with God and His creation. When a man or a woman is willing to forgive completely all their resentments and thoughts of separation, then they find rest in the discovery that God is joined with them and always has been. If the intention of prayer and fasting is to ask for something one does not have, then in the asking, the Kingdom is denied. This is so because the Kingdom, the bridal chamber, is man's real abode from which he never leaves. He can ask for help to find the Kingdom, but in truth he already has it. To enter the bridal chamber is simply to come home to one's natural state.
Jesus is not the bridegroom alone. The bridegroom is anyone, including Jesus, who is willing to abandon nothing for everything. Then it reads, "But when the bridegroom leaves the bridal chamber, then let him fast and pray." Why would anyone want to abandon love, his very life in fact, to pray and fast for something more? Indeed he would not, and this is the point. For Jesus, this would be unthinkable. If others do the unthinkable, then let them fast and pray, if that is what they want to do.
I take the word, usually translated as "them" in the final line, to be a scribal error, or possibly an attempt to make Jesus the sole bridegroom, elevating him above all others. However, the sense of this sentence is more evident when "him" is restored, and the bridegroom then is properly seen as anyone.
Thank you.
George Duffy
Corvallis, OR
gnostic ken
Jan 7, 2013, 9:20:29 AM1/7/13
to gnostic-r...@googlegroups.com
Mon Dec 31, 2012 3:05 pm, George said:
Obviously, the subject of family in Thomas is pivotal. The relationship of man
to God is likened to that of a son to his father. In this sense, the word,
"father," appears in 20 sayings. In GTh 101, it reads, "my mother bore me, but
my true mother gave me life." Whether the divine is called a father or a
mother, it is clear that Jesus teaches in this gospel that man's ultimate
loyalty belongs to the divine parent, not to the physical parent. The divine
parent is the "true" parent, the real source of life, while the physical is a
brother or sister creature, but not the Source. Broadly speaking, the divine is
the realm of the Kingdom, while the body, and by implication the relationship of
bodies to each other, lies within the realm of the world.
The phrase, "knows the father and the mother" exists only here in this gospel.
In GTh 69, "know the father" clearly refers to God, whereas nowhere else but
here do we find "know the mother" or even "the mother." It seems to me that
this phrase must be referring to the father/mother God mentioned in GTh 101,
rather than to human parents. Why father/mother? The answer perhaps is that a
nondualist equivalent to earthly parents was needed in the context of this
saying. It expresses the idea that God is neither male nor female, having no
separation within His being, but encompassing all expressions of love.
Also in this gospel, the word, "know," when followed immediately by an attached
direct object, always suggests a profound knowing or revelation which precedes
something good or worthwhile. Knowing in this sense results in not tasting
death (GTH 18), being blessed (GTh 69), and being superior to the world (GTh 56,
80) and to John the Baptist (46). The problem with this saying, as it is
presented here, is that knowing the divine father/mother results not in
something positive, but in something negative. In this case, the one who
"knows" will be called a "son of a harlot." This does not fit the pattern
elsewhere in Thomas and therefore, it requires an explanation.
Various explanations have been offered. The most common one is that it refers
to the illegitimacy of Jesus himself. The third century theologian, Origen,
reported on a tradition that Jesus was the illegitimate child of Mary and a
Roman soldier named, "Panthera." However, as tempting as it is to read into
this saying an allusion to the man himself, there is no compelling reason to do
so. It appears more likely that this phrase, "son of a harlot," was used
metaphorically in a gospel that is conspicuously metaphorical.
In his book, "The Fifth Gospel," Stephen J. Patterson suggests another
possibility. In a footnote on this saying, he says, "As the text has been
transmitted, an original negation may have been left out, so that we can
understand the text as follows: "Whoever will not know father and mother…" If
we accept this possibility, then a negative cause results in a negative effect.
One who does not know the father/mother God will be called the son of a harlot.
One who does not know his true Source will, as a result, experience a feeling of
abandonment and illegitimacy. God will not reject him; it is his own ignorance
of God that is the problem. In the first century, babies of prostitutes were
often killed at birth and callously thrown away. In fact, throughout the Roman
world, infanticide was not an uncommon practice for dealing with unwanted
babies. This saying compares the fate of these unwanted children to the fate of
one who knows not his divine source. The one who knows his true father/mother
knows the fullness of life in the Kingdom. Outside of this knowledge, as
outside the vineyard (GTh 40), the inevitable experience is spiritual
illegitimacy and spiritual death.
to God is likened to that of a son to his father. In this sense, the word,
"father," appears in 20 sayings. In GTh 101, it reads, "my mother bore me, but
my true mother gave me life." Whether the divine is called a father or a
mother, it is clear that Jesus teaches in this gospel that man's ultimate
loyalty belongs to the divine parent, not to the physical parent. The divine
parent is the "true" parent, the real source of life, while the physical is a
brother or sister creature, but not the Source. Broadly speaking, the divine is
the realm of the Kingdom, while the body, and by implication the relationship of
bodies to each other, lies within the realm of the world.
The phrase, "knows the father and the mother" exists only here in this gospel.
In GTh 69, "know the father" clearly refers to God, whereas nowhere else but
here do we find "know the mother" or even "the mother." It seems to me that
this phrase must be referring to the father/mother God mentioned in GTh 101,
rather than to human parents. Why father/mother? The answer perhaps is that a
nondualist equivalent to earthly parents was needed in the context of this
saying. It expresses the idea that God is neither male nor female, having no
separation within His being, but encompassing all expressions of love.
Also in this gospel, the word, "know," when followed immediately by an attached
direct object, always suggests a profound knowing or revelation which precedes
something good or worthwhile. Knowing in this sense results in not tasting
death (GTH 18), being blessed (GTh 69), and being superior to the world (GTh 56,
80) and to John the Baptist (46). The problem with this saying, as it is
presented here, is that knowing the divine father/mother results not in
something positive, but in something negative. In this case, the one who
"knows" will be called a "son of a harlot." This does not fit the pattern
elsewhere in Thomas and therefore, it requires an explanation.
Various explanations have been offered. The most common one is that it refers
to the illegitimacy of Jesus himself. The third century theologian, Origen,
reported on a tradition that Jesus was the illegitimate child of Mary and a
Roman soldier named, "Panthera." However, as tempting as it is to read into
this saying an allusion to the man himself, there is no compelling reason to do
so. It appears more likely that this phrase, "son of a harlot," was used
metaphorically in a gospel that is conspicuously metaphorical.
In his book, "The Fifth Gospel," Stephen J. Patterson suggests another
possibility. In a footnote on this saying, he says, "As the text has been
transmitted, an original negation may have been left out, so that we can
understand the text as follows: "Whoever will not know father and mother…" If
we accept this possibility, then a negative cause results in a negative effect.
One who does not know the father/mother God will be called the son of a harlot.
One who does not know his true Source will, as a result, experience a feeling of
abandonment and illegitimacy. God will not reject him; it is his own ignorance
of God that is the problem. In the first century, babies of prostitutes were
often killed at birth and callously thrown away. In fact, throughout the Roman
world, infanticide was not an uncommon practice for dealing with unwanted
babies. This saying compares the fate of these unwanted children to the fate of
one who knows not his divine source. The one who knows his true father/mother
knows the fullness of life in the Kingdom. Outside of this knowledge, as
outside the vineyard (GTh 40), the inevitable experience is spiritual
illegitimacy and spiritual death.
Reply all
Reply to author
Forward
0 new messages