Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: [GTh] The Beginning

Expand Messages
  • Jim Bauer
    ... From: Grondin To: Sent: Tuesday, November 05, 2002 11:07 PM Subject: [GTh] The Beginning ... The
    Message 1 of 3 , Nov 6, 2002
    • 0 Attachment
      ----- Original Message -----
      From: "Grondin" <mwgrondin@...>
      To: <gthomas@yahoogroups.com>
      Sent: Tuesday, November 05, 2002 11:07 PM
      Subject: [GTh] The Beginning


      > In the beginning was the word, and the word was ... N-M-PHUE
      > ('of-the-heavens'). I don't know why it's taken me so long to recognize
      > this, since the answer was right there all along in saying 18 - "where the
      > beginning is, there the end will be". And if the end will be where the
      > beginning is, it stands to reason that the beginning is at the end - the
      > end, that is, of the text of GThom - that last "perfect" 6-letter word.

      <snip>

      The "upper" has to be made like the "lower", and the two
      > "outsides" have to be made like the "inside". Then there's more
      shenanigans
      > to which I don't yet have a clue.

      The problem with this, Mike--& I'm also commenting on your last few
      posts--is that both "the first shall be last" & "the opposites unite" are
      very standard mystical ideas found in many cultures. Why they are found
      trans-culturally is another question; personally, I'm of the opinion that
      there's a biological substrate to Jung's "collective unconscious". Whatever
      the reason, these ideas are much more widespread than just Thomas, so I'm
      not surprised to find them cropping up here, whether thru direct
      transmission or parallel evolution. If they were _unique_ to Thomas, you
      might have something. Does this mean that, say, the passage in the
      canonicals where Jesus says that "the first shall be last" mean that you
      have to take the ending & the beginning of that work as being part of some
      elaborate jigsaw puzzle? Likewise, the author(s) of Thomas are citing ideas
      which are widespread & not found in Thomas alone. To make your case stick
      you'd have to find some reason why these passages should be interpreted this
      way in this particular text & not elsewhere.

      Jim Bauer
      Havre, MT
    • Grondin
      ... ideas ... this ... There s only one way to make the case stick, and that s to actually solve the puzzle - or at least to solve enough of it that the
      Message 2 of 3 , Nov 6, 2002
      • 0 Attachment
        [Jim Bauer]:
        > The problem with this, Mike--& I'm also commenting on your last few
        > posts--is that both "the first shall be last" & "the opposites unite" are
        > very standard mystical ideas found in many cultures. ... Whatever
        > the reason, these ideas are much more widespread than just Thomas, so
        > I'm not surprised to find them cropping up here, whether thru direct
        > transmission or parallel evolution. If they were _unique_ to Thomas, you
        > might have something. Does this mean that, say, the passage in the
        > canonicals where Jesus says that "the first shall be last" mean that you
        > have to take the ending & the beginning of that work as being part of some
        > elaborate jigsaw puzzle? Likewise, the author(s) of Thomas are citing
        ideas
        > which are widespread & not found in Thomas alone. To make your case stick
        > you'd have to find some reason why these passages should be interpreted
        this
        > way in this particular text & not elsewhere.

        There's only one way to make the case stick, and that's to actually solve
        the puzzle - or at least to solve enough of it that the intermediate results
        are seen by the impartial observer to be both intuitive and far beyond the
        possibility of having been due to a combination of textual coincidence and
        the proponent's (my) imagination. I'm a firm believer that extraordinary
        theories require extraordinary evidence, and this is certainly an
        extraordinary theory.

        Mike Grondin
        Mt. Clemens, MI
      • fmmccoy
        ... From: Grondin To: Sent: Wednesday, November 06, 2002 1:07 AM Subject: [GTh] The Beginning ... If the
        Message 3 of 3 , Jan 23, 2005
        • 0 Attachment
          ----- Original Message -----
          From: "Grondin" <mwgrondin@...>
          To: <gthomas@yahoogroups.com>
          Sent: Wednesday, November 06, 2002 1:07 AM
          Subject: [GTh] The Beginning


          > In the beginning was the word, and the word was ... N-M-PHUE
          > ('of-the-heavens'). I don't know why it's taken me so long to recognize
          > this, since the answer was right there all along in saying 18 - "where the
          > beginning is, there the end will be". And if the end will be where the
          > beginning is, it stands to reason that the beginning is at the end - the
          > end, that is, of the text of GThom - that last "perfect" 6-letter word.

          If the end is where the begiining is, then the end to Thomas is not N-M-PHUE
          but, rather, its beginning word. That the scribe gave paramount attention
          to perfect numbers like 6 has yet to be demonstrated. IMO, this is pure
          speculation.

          >That
          > is where the solution to the puzzle begins - where the first steps are
          taken
          > that will eventually result in the reader constructing a "paradise" of
          five
          > "trees" whose leaves never fall. Already, the beginnings of a five-fold
          > "paradise" are visible in the five-fold division of GThom:

          If the scribe placed a paramount importance on perfect numbers, then why
          would (s)he give so much importance to 5 as to divide GThomas into 5
          divisions?--for 5 is *not* a perfect number. This needs to be explained,
          yet no explanation is given!

          > 1. pages 32-37 (6 pages, 4 blocks)
          > 2. pages 38-44 (7 pages, 5 blocks)
          > 3. page 45 (1 page, 3 blocks)
          > 4. pages 46-48 (3 pages, 2 blocks*)
          > 5. pages 49-51 (3 pages, 10 blocks*)
          >
          > (*last line of page 48 moved to top of page 49)

          Of the number of pages listed, only one (i.e., 6) is a perfect number.
          Further, none of the blocks is a perfect number. Why, if the scribe placed
          a paramount importance on perfect numbers, is this the case?

          The shifting of a line is, IMO, a warning signal that the evidence perhaps
          is being forced into a pre-determined conclusion.

          > The seeker has found the cosmos, but now there's going to be trouble. Why
          > trouble? Because "I give my mysteries to those worthy of my mysteries",
          and
          > the seeker hasn't yet proven himself worthy to enter the kingdom. He has
          to
          > do some work before he comes to the next stage - that of being amazed.
          What
          > kind of work? The "upper" has to be made like the "lower", and the two
          > "outsides" have to be made like the "inside". Then there's more
          shenanigans
          > to which I don't yet have a clue. This kind of "work" has never been
          > imagined by those who try to make sense of the existing structure of
          GThom.
          > It involves a construction job of moving lines or parts of lines, always
          > aiming toward "perfection" of the whole. The sayings of GThom themselves
          > give us all kinds of hints as to what needs to be done, and it's also my
          > belief that the Apocryphon of John actually sets out a step-by-step
          > procedure, if properly interpreted. But this all requires that the seeker,
          > like Thomas, stop being "drunk on the words" (as we all have been these 57
          > or so years since the discovery of the text) and instead begin
          interpreting
          > them in an entirely new and different light - as befits the student of a
          > hierophant who seeks to understand the hidden "divine" meaning of the
          > master's words. "Recognize what is before your face, and what is hidden
          will
          > appear to you."

          The assumption here is that the sayings of Jesus in Thomas have two levels
          of meaning--one of which gives us the clues necessary to solve the
          postulated word puzzle.

          The idea that there is a second level of meaning to Thomas is
          unremarkable--many maintain it. But the particular concept of this second
          level found here is unique and, so, is extraordiany. As such, it requires
          extraordinary evidence to validate it.

          I think it absolutely necessary that there be a comprehensive and rigorous
          outline of the "rules of the game" to be used in interpreting this
          hypothesised second level of meaning. Otherwise, anything goes and there
          are no testable controls over the interpretations being advanced. So, until
          this step is taken (and, so far, it has not), I do not think that this
          theory of Thomas being a word puzzle will ever be taken seriously by
          scholars.

          Frank McCoy
          1809 N. English Apt. 15
          Maplewood, MN USA 55109
          .
        Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.