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

Re: [GTh] The Beginning

Expand Messages
  • 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 1 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
      > 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
      > 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 2 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

        > is where the solution to the puzzle begins - where the first steps are
        > that will eventually result in the reader constructing a "paradise" of
        > "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",
        > the seeker hasn't yet proven himself worthy to enter the kingdom. He has
        > do some work before he comes to the next stage - that of being amazed.
        > 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
        > 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
        > 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
        > 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
        > 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

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