Gospel of Thomas Saying 17
7 views
Skip to first unread message
gnostic ken
Aug 27, 2012, 2:08:21 PM8/27/12
to gnost...@googlegroups.com
17 Jesus said,
"I will give you what no eye has seen, what no ear has heard,
what no hand has touched, what has not arisen in the human mind."
.......................
17 Jesus said,
"I shall give you what no eye has seen and what
no ear has heard and what no hand has touched
and what has never occurred to the human mind."
.......................
17 Jesus said:
I shall give you what no eye has seen,
No ear heard, no hand touched
nor any heart received.
........................
17 Y'shua says:
I shall give to you what eye has not seen and what ear has not heard
and what hand has not touched and what has not arisen in the mind of
mankind.
........................
17 Jesus says:
"I will give you what no eye has seen, and what no ear has heard,
and what no hand has touched, and what has not occurred to the human
mind."
............................
What does this saying - say / mean to you?
"I will give you what no eye has seen, what no ear has heard,
what no hand has touched, what has not arisen in the human mind."
.......................
17 Jesus said,
"I shall give you what no eye has seen and what
no ear has heard and what no hand has touched
and what has never occurred to the human mind."
.......................
17 Jesus said:
I shall give you what no eye has seen,
No ear heard, no hand touched
nor any heart received.
........................
17 Y'shua says:
I shall give to you what eye has not seen and what ear has not heard
and what hand has not touched and what has not arisen in the mind of
mankind.
........................
17 Jesus says:
"I will give you what no eye has seen, and what no ear has heard,
and what no hand has touched, and what has not occurred to the human
mind."
............................
What does this saying - say / mean to you?
gnostic ken
Aug 28, 2012, 4:49:53 PM8/28/12
to gnost...@googlegroups.com
Thu Oct 9, 2003 6:13 am, I said:
"there is nothing you can know
that isn't known,
nothing you can see
that isn't shown,
nowhere you can be,
but you can learn how to
be you in time"
--Dr. Winston O'Boogie
it's obvious to me all these things are about human reality..the
eye the ear the hand the mind. so he is referring to the intangible
imo. and all that intangible implies!..unbound by human limitation!
Not to be glib about it, but at essence this seems a traditional ( if not
exactly typical) elevation of the mystagogue over the initiate as well as a
putting forth of the core enticements for the initiate: "Here is what I bring to
the table, the gifts that I offer: in particular that which is beyond ordinary
human capacities. Is this what you seek?"
Interestingly some of the theologians and historians who participated in the The
Jesus Seminar voted this particular saying as original to the Synoptic Saying
Source Q..
Tom U.
That seems like a true miracle to me, if someone was able to give you that
much. I am guessing this is what he said to Thomas..
So far, I don't see Thomas as doubting. if this was indeed the apostle who
wrote this Gospel. I see him as beginning to understand at a deeper
level..maybe that is why he was questioning (or label as Doubting Thomas)...
Maybe because his beliefs were of a different level than the rest...?
Hugs,
Ann
Maybe we are all twins with Jesus since we all have the divine in us,
whether we recognize it or not.
This is the Christ, the Gnosis, speaking, not Jesus the man. It is
saying it will teach from the spirit side of reality things which
cannot be learned from the physical.
saying it will teach from the spirit side of reality things which
cannot be learned from the physical.
Aug 25, 2006 09:49 PDT, Gnostic Tom said:
I'm sure you have considered,
but it just came to mind reading your post here,
that what if all of the original teachings
of "Jesus Christ" were thought of as being from
the "unseen" kosmic teacher within us all?
This seems to apply to the way that the epistles
speak of "Jesus Christ" as well. Or it could
reference a docetic Christ.
=====================================
Thomas Ragland (Gnostic Tom)
"So little time, so much to unlearn."
=====================================
but it just came to mind reading your post here,
that what if all of the original teachings
of "Jesus Christ" were thought of as being from
the "unseen" kosmic teacher within us all?
This seems to apply to the way that the epistles
speak of "Jesus Christ" as well. Or it could
reference a docetic Christ.
=====================================
Thomas Ragland (Gnostic Tom)
"So little time, so much to unlearn."
=====================================
Aug 26, 2006 05:41 PDT, I replied:
Yeah, that is what I am trying to say when I say the
unseen Christ. I see this as the Christ within the man
Jesus speaking through the man Jesus. Jesus' unseen
Self speaking directly.
I see Jesus as being a mythical figure representing
every human. Thus the Christ is the small voice within
us all. IMO.
Ken
unseen Christ. I see this as the Christ within the man
Jesus speaking through the man Jesus. Jesus' unseen
Self speaking directly.
I see Jesus as being a mythical figure representing
every human. Thus the Christ is the small voice within
us all. IMO.
Ken
Wed Dec 12, 2007 5:34 pm, Ed said:
For me He is saying, " I will give you yourself ".
ed
ed
Thu Dec 13, 2007 6:25 am, Gnostic Tom said:
Definitely a Jewish thread, consider...
Deuteronomy 29:2-4. And Moses called unto all Israel,
and said unto them, Ye have seen all that the LORD did
before your eyes in the land of Egypt unto Pharaoh,
and unto all his servants, and unto all his land; The
great temptations which thine eyes have seen, the
signs, and those great miracles: Yet the LORD hath
not given you an heart to perceive, and eyes to see,
and ears to hear, unto this day.
Jeremiah 5:21 Hear now this, O foolish people, and
without understanding; which have eyes, and see not;
which have ears, and hear not:
Isaiah 64:3-4. When thou didst terrible things which
we looked not for, thou camest down, the mountains
flowed down at thy presence. For since the beginning
of the world men have not heard, nor perceived by the
ear, neither hath the eye seen, O God, beside thee,
what he hath prepared for him that waiteth for him.
G n o s t i c . T o m
Deuteronomy 29:2-4. And Moses called unto all Israel,
and said unto them, Ye have seen all that the LORD did
before your eyes in the land of Egypt unto Pharaoh,
and unto all his servants, and unto all his land; The
great temptations which thine eyes have seen, the
signs, and those great miracles: Yet the LORD hath
not given you an heart to perceive, and eyes to see,
and ears to hear, unto this day.
Jeremiah 5:21 Hear now this, O foolish people, and
without understanding; which have eyes, and see not;
which have ears, and hear not:
Isaiah 64:3-4. When thou didst terrible things which
we looked not for, thou camest down, the mountains
flowed down at thy presence. For since the beginning
of the world men have not heard, nor perceived by the
ear, neither hath the eye seen, O God, beside thee,
what he hath prepared for him that waiteth for him.
G n o s t i c . T o m
Thu Dec 13, 2007 6:13 pm, P3nn said:
Yeah, truth, gnosis, reality, ........... None arise in the mind but can be
grasped by it ;)
MP
p3nn
grasped by it ;)
MP
p3nn
Fri Dec 14, 2007 6:24 am, Gnostic Tom said:
"there is nothing you can know
that isn't known,
nothing you can see
that isn't shown,
nowhere you can be,
but you can learn how to
be you in time"
--Dr. Winston O'Boogie
| Thu Dec 13, 2007 10:39 pm, Itsallrozee said: |
eye the ear the hand the mind. so he is referring to the intangible
imo. and all that intangible implies!..unbound by human limitation!
Thu Dec 13, 2007 11:59 am, Buddhist Steve said:
What has no eye ever seen? The Seer. What has no ear ever heard?
The Hearer. What has no hand ever touched? The Toucher. What has
never arisen in the human mind? I think you see where I am going
with this. So'ham asmi!
-Steve
The Hearer. What has no hand ever touched? The Toucher. What has
never arisen in the human mind? I think you see where I am going
with this. So'ham asmi!
-Steve
| Fri Dec 14, 2007 1:11 pm, f8s42nutsum said: |
exactly typical) elevation of the mystagogue over the initiate as well as a
putting forth of the core enticements for the initiate: "Here is what I bring to
the table, the gifts that I offer: in particular that which is beyond ordinary
human capacities. Is this what you seek?"
Interestingly some of the theologians and historians who participated in the The
Jesus Seminar voted this particular saying as original to the Synoptic Saying
Source Q..
Tom U.
Mon Feb 2, 2009 12:19 pm, Buddhist Steve said In response to my first post above which I had reposted:
Hi Ken. I agree with you that it cannot be expressed
in a way that is intellectually conceivable, but I do
think that this logia is hinting at something else as
well. IMO, it is referring to non-duality, the inconceivable
Absolute Subjectivity-without-objectivity of the non-dual
traditions such as Zen and Advaita Vedanta. What is it that
no eye has ever seen? The One Eye/I. This is what the Zenrin
means when it says that it is like an Eye that sees, but cannot
see itself. IMO.
Steve
in a way that is intellectually conceivable, but I do
think that this logia is hinting at something else as
well. IMO, it is referring to non-duality, the inconceivable
Absolute Subjectivity-without-objectivity of the non-dual
traditions such as Zen and Advaita Vedanta. What is it that
no eye has ever seen? The One Eye/I. This is what the Zenrin
means when it says that it is like an Eye that sees, but cannot
see itself. IMO.
Steve
Mon Feb 2, 2009 6:39 pm, Hi Mate said:
Thomas is 'doubtng' because he does not believe Jesus has risen from the dead
and so Jesus has to make a physical appearance in a closed room and shame him by
showing his wounds, as far as I remember.
Unless we take this as a literal miracle or rationalise it that Jesus walked in
and they didn't notice, this is fiction. So maybe the heart of it is that Thomas
did not believe in a literal post-mortem Resurrection.
I worry about Thoms Dydimus (is he named also as Judas somewhere?) because it
means Twin. Whose twin? Surely only Jesus would be worth not saying who was the
other twin (same as I wonder if Barnabus - ie Bar Nabi, the Prophet's Son might
be the son of a historical Jesus)
Something else a bit odd. The Church of Kerala (South India) claims
evangelisation by Thomas. I think 'officially' this is poo-poohed but it is
extremely feasible since Goa had such a thriving trade with Roman Egypt that
they are looking for (or have found) a Temple to the Divine Augustus there that
was standing up to a thousand years ago or so. Divus Augustus would not
necessarily be out of place among Hindus.
Now, the Thomist Church (the term is unfortunately more often used of Thomas
Aquinus) belongs to the Oriental Orthodox which also includes the Copts,
Armenians and Syriac. In fact their liturgy was in Syriac-Aramaic and and they
get their clergy from the Syriac. Now we get into Christology from memory so I
may have the odd bit wrong. These churches were excluded from the Council of
Chalcedon because of some obscure point regarding the human-divine 'interface'.
It is something like the Council chose two natures in one person while they opt
for two natures of one person It's on the Web and I was looking it up a few days
ago. You can start here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assyrian_Church and pray
for divine guidance - you'll need it to find your way through the references!
and so Jesus has to make a physical appearance in a closed room and shame him by
showing his wounds, as far as I remember.
Unless we take this as a literal miracle or rationalise it that Jesus walked in
and they didn't notice, this is fiction. So maybe the heart of it is that Thomas
did not believe in a literal post-mortem Resurrection.
I worry about Thoms Dydimus (is he named also as Judas somewhere?) because it
means Twin. Whose twin? Surely only Jesus would be worth not saying who was the
other twin (same as I wonder if Barnabus - ie Bar Nabi, the Prophet's Son might
be the son of a historical Jesus)
Something else a bit odd. The Church of Kerala (South India) claims
evangelisation by Thomas. I think 'officially' this is poo-poohed but it is
extremely feasible since Goa had such a thriving trade with Roman Egypt that
they are looking for (or have found) a Temple to the Divine Augustus there that
was standing up to a thousand years ago or so. Divus Augustus would not
necessarily be out of place among Hindus.
Now, the Thomist Church (the term is unfortunately more often used of Thomas
Aquinus) belongs to the Oriental Orthodox which also includes the Copts,
Armenians and Syriac. In fact their liturgy was in Syriac-Aramaic and and they
get their clergy from the Syriac. Now we get into Christology from memory so I
may have the odd bit wrong. These churches were excluded from the Council of
Chalcedon because of some obscure point regarding the human-divine 'interface'.
It is something like the Council chose two natures in one person while they opt
for two natures of one person It's on the Web and I was looking it up a few days
ago. You can start here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assyrian_Church and pray
for divine guidance - you'll need it to find your way through the references!
| Mon Feb 2, 2009 1:18 pm, annokig said: |
much. I am guessing this is what he said to Thomas..
So far, I don't see Thomas as doubting. if this was indeed the apostle who
wrote this Gospel. I see him as beginning to understand at a deeper
level..maybe that is why he was questioning (or label as Doubting Thomas)...
Maybe because his beliefs were of a different level than the rest...?
Hugs,
Ann
Tue Feb 3, 2009 1:26 pm, Buddhist Steve said:
Hi Ann. IMO, there was no Jesus, there was no Thomas. The name,
Judas Didymus Thomas is symbolic. It means Judas the Twin. In
the Mystery Religions of antiquity, the title, "Twin" meant
one who was like the Mystery Godman, through an enlightenment
experience. The passages about "Doubting Thomas" in the Gospel
of John are, IMO, propaganda interpolations inserted into the
original text of John as a slam against the Gospel of Thomas.
Steve
Judas Didymus Thomas is symbolic. It means Judas the Twin. In
the Mystery Religions of antiquity, the title, "Twin" meant
one who was like the Mystery Godman, through an enlightenment
experience. The passages about "Doubting Thomas" in the Gospel
of John are, IMO, propaganda interpolations inserted into the
original text of John as a slam against the Gospel of Thomas.
Steve
Tue Feb 3, 2009 7:54 pm, annokig said:
So my guess was right, that 'Twin' implies twin of Jesus in some way. It
may be that some connection is implied with Judas Iscariot as well. I took
it as using names of real people in a mythic work - a sort of historical
novel using a few traditional legends as a core, like Arthur, so I
wondered if a literal Jesus-basis had a literal twin or somebody so like
him as to be nicknamed his twin. There's another sense of twin too though,
in the sense of Jekyll and Hyde, the positive and negative aspects.
It's striking how vague so many of these names are. If the writers were
intending 'history' (as understood at the time) they would know that
future generations would need more than 'Matthew' or 'Lazarus' to identify
historical individuals. So many that look like names actually mean
something (or might have done before mangling into Greek). Barnabus -
Bar-Nabi - the Prophet's Son - which Prophet might that be? Bartholomew -
Bar-Tholmey (don't know whose son and can't be bothered to look the word
up). Barabbas - Father's Son - very informative! But by tradition named
Jesus, so perhaps a key to any historical events that were used to hang
the myth on as 'Arthur' was used to hang the Grail on. Barnabus =
Barabbas?
may be that some connection is implied with Judas Iscariot as well. I took
it as using names of real people in a mythic work - a sort of historical
novel using a few traditional legends as a core, like Arthur, so I
wondered if a literal Jesus-basis had a literal twin or somebody so like
him as to be nicknamed his twin. There's another sense of twin too though,
in the sense of Jekyll and Hyde, the positive and negative aspects.
It's striking how vague so many of these names are. If the writers were
intending 'history' (as understood at the time) they would know that
future generations would need more than 'Matthew' or 'Lazarus' to identify
historical individuals. So many that look like names actually mean
something (or might have done before mangling into Greek). Barnabus -
Bar-Nabi - the Prophet's Son - which Prophet might that be? Bartholomew -
Bar-Tholmey (don't know whose son and can't be bothered to look the word
up). Barabbas - Father's Son - very informative! But by tradition named
Jesus, so perhaps a key to any historical events that were used to hang
the myth on as 'Arthur' was used to hang the Grail on. Barnabus =
Barabbas?
Tue Feb 3, 2009 9:42 pm, Buddhist Steve said:
You are very perceptive to bring in Judas Iscariot. According to
Timothy Freke and Peter Gandy, Judas the Twin is the lower self
who betrays the higher Self.
Steve
Timothy Freke and Peter Gandy, Judas the Twin is the lower self
who betrays the higher Self.
Steve
| Wed Feb 4, 2009 9:02 am, annokig said: |
whether we recognize it or not.
Wed Feb 4, 2009 1:04 pm, Buddhist Steve said:
BINGO! Now all you need to do, imo, is understand what the word,
"divine" means. Wonderful!
Steve
"divine" means. Wonderful!
Steve
Wed Feb 4, 2009 3:53 pm, Hi Mate said:
That can get very deep though because without Iscariot there is no
resurrection. What looks like betrayal is essential to the Plan? I don't
know what to make of that but the way I have always read it is yet another
case where the standard interpretation makes no sense. Even if we are
talking myth/parable here, it still requires an internal consistency.
Jesus announces that somebody will 'hand him over' (the real meaning of
Skariot), the Apostles all back out, Jesus says he will give dipped bread
the 'traitor', he gives it to Judas and tells him to hurry up, the
Apostles don't know what this is all about. HE'S JUST TOLD THEM!!!
The lower self is reluctant to undertake the task because it will lead to
its own permanent death? (Judas killed himself or was divinely executed)
I suspect the 'sop' is incorrectly redacted from something like choosing
the short straw - one piece of bread among many has been dipped. (I
remember at a private Catholic Mass that the priest bringing the
sacraments around dipped the wafer in the wine, did not give them
separately. That might be a modern hygienic thing of course)
Have perhaps two versions come together? One has the dipped bread, the
other added the 'this is my body' etc speech to essentially the same
event?
resurrection. What looks like betrayal is essential to the Plan? I don't
know what to make of that but the way I have always read it is yet another
case where the standard interpretation makes no sense. Even if we are
talking myth/parable here, it still requires an internal consistency.
Jesus announces that somebody will 'hand him over' (the real meaning of
Skariot), the Apostles all back out, Jesus says he will give dipped bread
the 'traitor', he gives it to Judas and tells him to hurry up, the
Apostles don't know what this is all about. HE'S JUST TOLD THEM!!!
The lower self is reluctant to undertake the task because it will lead to
its own permanent death? (Judas killed himself or was divinely executed)
I suspect the 'sop' is incorrectly redacted from something like choosing
the short straw - one piece of bread among many has been dipped. (I
remember at a private Catholic Mass that the priest bringing the
sacraments around dipped the wafer in the wine, did not give them
separately. That might be a modern hygienic thing of course)
Have perhaps two versions come together? One has the dipped bread, the
other added the 'this is my body' etc speech to essentially the same
event?
Thu Feb 5, 2009 1:43 pm, Buddhist Steve said:
Yes, I think that the lower ego, before enlightenment, is
very much afraid of what it sees as being it's impending "death".
Of course, this is only from the delusionary view-point of the ego.
This fear can get very dramatically weird. I, myself, went through
it.
Steve
very much afraid of what it sees as being it's impending "death".
Of course, this is only from the delusionary view-point of the ego.
This fear can get very dramatically weird. I, myself, went through
it.
Steve
Thu Feb 5, 2009 7:06 pm, Hi Mate said:
I am interested in these speculations but in honesty, it's probably better
not to follow them up because whatever may have been intended in the
original, what we have now is an attempt to make it fit a literalist
narrative.
I was struck though by some references to Elvis elsewhere. I've said that
I think a real figure was used to anchor standard myths in their own time
(which is quite different from the view that myths developed around him).
That sort of thing happened in the Dark Ages around Solomon, Alexander and
Charlemagne as well as Arthur. But it occurs to me that it's true in our
own time too. There are people who identify Elvis Presley with Jesus. (How
is quite beyond me! There was nothing profound about his warbling) Who
knows if in a couple of centuries Elvis could start to attract updated
versions of archetypal myth?
An educated Rastafarian can explain that Haile Selassie is a symbol of
African independence and innate divinity. A Rasta from the Kingston slums
is more likely to take it quite literally and believe that he ascended
into Heaven or in some way lives on because his fate is unknown.
Presumably he was executed but we'll never be quite certain.
We can say that these are recent 'historical' figures while Jesus is much
less attested outside of Christianity. Look at the communications
difference! If Elvis had been a singer under Roman conditions, how many
outside of his home state would have heard of him (or heard him)? If the
small number who started to attach archtypal myth to his name were
scattered all over the USA and spread the word, mightn't he become a
convenient name to wrap deeper mythic truths around? For plenty of
Rastafarians, Ethiopia is more myth than reality, the symbol of a vague
pre-colonial Africa and the real Haile Selassie nonexistent: their Haile
Selassie is already in 'Dreamtime' along with Jesus. Maybe there was an
incompetent Ethiopian emperor called Haile Selassie but that was not
ETHIOPIA or RAS TAFARI (his pre-accession name)
not to follow them up because whatever may have been intended in the
original, what we have now is an attempt to make it fit a literalist
narrative.
I was struck though by some references to Elvis elsewhere. I've said that
I think a real figure was used to anchor standard myths in their own time
(which is quite different from the view that myths developed around him).
That sort of thing happened in the Dark Ages around Solomon, Alexander and
Charlemagne as well as Arthur. But it occurs to me that it's true in our
own time too. There are people who identify Elvis Presley with Jesus. (How
is quite beyond me! There was nothing profound about his warbling) Who
knows if in a couple of centuries Elvis could start to attract updated
versions of archetypal myth?
An educated Rastafarian can explain that Haile Selassie is a symbol of
African independence and innate divinity. A Rasta from the Kingston slums
is more likely to take it quite literally and believe that he ascended
into Heaven or in some way lives on because his fate is unknown.
Presumably he was executed but we'll never be quite certain.
We can say that these are recent 'historical' figures while Jesus is much
less attested outside of Christianity. Look at the communications
difference! If Elvis had been a singer under Roman conditions, how many
outside of his home state would have heard of him (or heard him)? If the
small number who started to attach archtypal myth to his name were
scattered all over the USA and spread the word, mightn't he become a
convenient name to wrap deeper mythic truths around? For plenty of
Rastafarians, Ethiopia is more myth than reality, the symbol of a vague
pre-colonial Africa and the real Haile Selassie nonexistent: their Haile
Selassie is already in 'Dreamtime' along with Jesus. Maybe there was an
incompetent Ethiopian emperor called Haile Selassie but that was not
ETHIOPIA or RAS TAFARI (his pre-accession name)
Reply all
Reply to author
Forward
0 new messages