Gospel of Thomas Saying 106
212 views
Skip to first unread message
gnostic ken
Nov 18, 2012, 7:59:10 AM11/18/12
to gnostic-r...@googlegroups.com
What does Saying 106 say/mean to you?
106 Jesus said, "When you make the two into one, you will become children
of Adam, and when you say, 'Mountain, move from here!' it will move."
................................
106) Jesus said, "When you make the two one, you will become the sons of man, and when you say, 'Mountain, move away,' it will move away."
............................
106.)
When you make the two one, you will
become Sons of Man, and if you order the
mountain to move, it will move.
.............................
106. Y'shua says: When you make the two one, you shall become Sons of Mankind--
and when you say to the mountain: Be moved!, it shall be moved.
.............................
(106) Jesus says:
(1) "When you make the two into one, you will become sons of man.
(2) And when you say Mountain, move away, it will move away."
gnostic ken
Nov 18, 2012, 8:02:38 AM11/18/12
to gnostic-r...@googlegroups.com
20 May 12, Clive said:
Firstly let me say how I understand things.
I see three things, the Creator, the desires he sends me, and me.
I see the 2 into 1 as meaning me and the desire the creator has sent me for spiritual attainment.
When this desire becomes my whole life, me and this desire become as it were one.
Then we can say to other desires be gone and they will go.
Clive.
I see three things, the Creator, the desires he sends me, and me.
I see the 2 into 1 as meaning me and the desire the creator has sent me for spiritual attainment.
When this desire becomes my whole life, me and this desire become as it were one.
Then we can say to other desires be gone and they will go.
Clive.
21 May 12, I asked:
Hi Clive,
So the two into one, your will and the Creator's will as one?
Ken
So the two into one, your will and the Creator's will as one?
Ken
21 May 12, Clive answered:
Its not exactly as you say, but almost.
IMO -
Its human nature to be a receiver, theres nothing we can do about it.
Its Gods nature to be a giver, theres nothing he can do about it.
Gods wants to give spiritual attainment.
I want to receive spiritual attainment.
How to make these two opposite forces, Gods will to give and my will to receive, one, is the question.
I think the answer is, to only desire to receive attainment because the Creator wants to give it.
In other words, I'm only receiving this pleasure from the Creator because I know he wants to give it.
If I receive it for his sake and he gives it for my sake, then we have become one in intention, me acting for his pleasure and him acting for my pleasure.
Clive
IMO -
Its human nature to be a receiver, theres nothing we can do about it.
Its Gods nature to be a giver, theres nothing he can do about it.
Gods wants to give spiritual attainment.
I want to receive spiritual attainment.
How to make these two opposite forces, Gods will to give and my will to receive, one, is the question.
I think the answer is, to only desire to receive attainment because the Creator wants to give it.
In other words, I'm only receiving this pleasure from the Creator because I know he wants to give it.
If I receive it for his sake and he gives it for my sake, then we have become one in intention, me acting for his pleasure and him acting for my pleasure.
Clive
gnostic ken
Jan 9, 2013, 9:52:27 AM1/9/13
to gnostic-r...@googlegroups.com
Tue Jan 8, 2013 5:40 pm, Oregon George said:
106) Jesus said, "When you make the two one, you will become the sons of God,
and when you say, `Mountain, move away,' it will move away." (My restoration)
The theme of oneness, of making the two one, runs throughout this gospel in
various forms. If we look back to GTh 22b, the same expression of making "the
two one" is mentioned, but further explained by a number of examples. Among
these examples is this one:
"… and when you make the male and the female one and the same, so that the male
not be male nor the female female…"
Commentators have called this the integration of opposites and have used such
words as "merging," "subsuming," or "reconciliation" to describe this coming
together. However, none of these words go far enough to appreciate the idea
being presented here. If we take another example mentioned in this saying, and
extend it as the male/female polarity was extended, we have:
"… and when you make the inside like the outside and the outside like the
inside, (so that the inside not be inside nor the outside outside)…"
If we extend this idea in the same manner to all the polarities mentioned in GTh
22, we can begin to see that this coming together is not integration, not the
mixing of one thing with another, so that elements of each can be found in the
other. It is the utter abandonment of duality itself. To "make" this happen is
to see beyond the limits of duality to the oneness of the Kingdom. It is to
restore the creation to what it is in truth. It is to "come into being" as
spirit (see GTh 18 and 19). In this vision, polarities or differences of any
kind are seen to be illusions which the mind of man conjures up to hide within,
thrown up to shield itself from what it thinks is a punishing God.
And so in GTh 106, we have the same idea. Only now, as a result of realizing
the nonduality of existence, man discovers the power to move mountains. It
results from the same vision of oneness exemplified in GTh 22. To enter the
Kingdom is to realize that all of creation is spirit, and that outside of this
there is nothing, only the illusion of space and time…and mountains. The
mountain is really a metaphor for any limit, whether spatial or temporal, which
while man believes in it, delays his coming home to Oneness. The real miracle
is man's awakening to what is real.
I have restored "son of God" to this saying, in the place of "son of man." For
anyone except for Jesus to be called a "son of God," might well have been
unacceptable to a Christian scribe. The identification in the New Testament of
Jesus as the son of God, despite the reference in GTh 3b of "sons of the living
father," might have made such an exalted identification of ordinary mortals,
more than this scribe could accept. Therefore, I believe that "son of God' was
replaced in this saying with "son of man" at some point in its transmission.
Literally, "son of man" means son of Adam, and in the Old Testament it refers
merely to any human being. Though still a subject of scholarly debate, "son of
man" is believed to have been a messianic title for Jesus, based on the prophecy
in Daniel 7:13-14. In this saying, the expression is out of place and adds
nothing significantly to its meaning or force. To justify its use here, some
commentators have suggested that becoming a son of man means that such a person
becomes more truly human. However, not only does this identification appear
inadequate to move mountains, it conflicts with the use of the phrase in GTh 86,
where the "son of man has no place to lay his head and rest" (see my essay on
that saying). My own view is that it is unlikely that Jesus ever referred to
himself as the "son of man." At a later time, the emerging church applied that
title to Jesus to support their claim of his special status as the messiah.
Rather, I think that he referred to himself as a son of God, a designation that
applied to all other "sons [men and women] of the living father," as well. This
was not a title of specialness, but a claim that followed from his awareness
that nothing separates the created from the creator. Man is the son of God, not
the son of man. He is free of all limitations within the Kingdom of God.
Outside of this divine realm, he is nothing, a son of man in a kingdom of man in
which he seems to live in a seeming world.
Thank you.
George Duffy
Corvallis, OR
and when you say, `Mountain, move away,' it will move away." (My restoration)
The theme of oneness, of making the two one, runs throughout this gospel in
various forms. If we look back to GTh 22b, the same expression of making "the
two one" is mentioned, but further explained by a number of examples. Among
these examples is this one:
"… and when you make the male and the female one and the same, so that the male
not be male nor the female female…"
Commentators have called this the integration of opposites and have used such
words as "merging," "subsuming," or "reconciliation" to describe this coming
together. However, none of these words go far enough to appreciate the idea
being presented here. If we take another example mentioned in this saying, and
extend it as the male/female polarity was extended, we have:
"… and when you make the inside like the outside and the outside like the
inside, (so that the inside not be inside nor the outside outside)…"
If we extend this idea in the same manner to all the polarities mentioned in GTh
22, we can begin to see that this coming together is not integration, not the
mixing of one thing with another, so that elements of each can be found in the
other. It is the utter abandonment of duality itself. To "make" this happen is
to see beyond the limits of duality to the oneness of the Kingdom. It is to
restore the creation to what it is in truth. It is to "come into being" as
spirit (see GTh 18 and 19). In this vision, polarities or differences of any
kind are seen to be illusions which the mind of man conjures up to hide within,
thrown up to shield itself from what it thinks is a punishing God.
And so in GTh 106, we have the same idea. Only now, as a result of realizing
the nonduality of existence, man discovers the power to move mountains. It
results from the same vision of oneness exemplified in GTh 22. To enter the
Kingdom is to realize that all of creation is spirit, and that outside of this
there is nothing, only the illusion of space and time…and mountains. The
mountain is really a metaphor for any limit, whether spatial or temporal, which
while man believes in it, delays his coming home to Oneness. The real miracle
is man's awakening to what is real.
I have restored "son of God" to this saying, in the place of "son of man." For
anyone except for Jesus to be called a "son of God," might well have been
unacceptable to a Christian scribe. The identification in the New Testament of
Jesus as the son of God, despite the reference in GTh 3b of "sons of the living
father," might have made such an exalted identification of ordinary mortals,
more than this scribe could accept. Therefore, I believe that "son of God' was
replaced in this saying with "son of man" at some point in its transmission.
Literally, "son of man" means son of Adam, and in the Old Testament it refers
merely to any human being. Though still a subject of scholarly debate, "son of
man" is believed to have been a messianic title for Jesus, based on the prophecy
in Daniel 7:13-14. In this saying, the expression is out of place and adds
nothing significantly to its meaning or force. To justify its use here, some
commentators have suggested that becoming a son of man means that such a person
becomes more truly human. However, not only does this identification appear
inadequate to move mountains, it conflicts with the use of the phrase in GTh 86,
where the "son of man has no place to lay his head and rest" (see my essay on
that saying). My own view is that it is unlikely that Jesus ever referred to
himself as the "son of man." At a later time, the emerging church applied that
title to Jesus to support their claim of his special status as the messiah.
Rather, I think that he referred to himself as a son of God, a designation that
applied to all other "sons [men and women] of the living father," as well. This
was not a title of specialness, but a claim that followed from his awareness
that nothing separates the created from the creator. Man is the son of God, not
the son of man. He is free of all limitations within the Kingdom of God.
Outside of this divine realm, he is nothing, a son of man in a kingdom of man in
which he seems to live in a seeming world.
Thank you.
George Duffy
Corvallis, OR
Reply all
Reply to author
Forward
0 new messages