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

[gthomas] Re: Saying 97 (Mats) (2)

Expand Messages
  • Mats Winther
    ... Från: Mike Grondin Till: gthomas@egroups.com Datum: den 2 januari 1999 14:57 Ämne: [gthomas] Re: Saying 97
    Message 1 of 2 , Jan 2, 1999
    • 0 Attachment
      -----Ursprungligt meddelande-----
      Från: Mike Grondin <mgrondin@...>
      Till: gthomas@egroups.com <gthomas@egroups.com>
      Datum: den 2 januari 1999 14:57
      Ämne: [gthomas] Re: Saying 97 (Mats)


      >> So the white meal may be understood as ...
      >
      >There's no reason to assume that the meal was white. In fact, it probably
      >was not. In any case, if the color of the meal was of any significance to
      >the saying, the author would have specified it.
      >


      I will expand on my earlier interpretation but first I want to say that the different kinds of meal that I've come across (wheat, corn, rye, oats) are more or less white. The only exception I know of is maize, but it is yellow like sunlight - an even better approximation to the spiritual light.

      The point is that the spirit which Jesus talks about can be expressed in many different ways. It can be living water, living bread, vine, blood, light, seed and meal. In the Holy Communion we eat the spirit-bread and drink the spirit-vine. This spirit is what pours forth from the belly of the light-person who has entered into the Kingdom: (John 7:38) "He that believeth on me, as the scripture hath said, out of his belly shall flow rivers of living water." Such a person is truly alive. This is a person who is born of the spirit, not only born of the flesh. Two separate existences have become one. I think this is why Jesus says in logion 83: "Images are visible to people, but the light within them is hidden in the image of the Father's light. He will be disclosed, but his image is hidden by his light."
      This is confusing, but it seems to imply that all people have the image of the Father within. So from the start there are two existences: the Father and the person (Son). But when the Father is disclosed the two become one and the Father within becomes the light that shines like a beacon in the world. This is when rivers of living water flow from the belly and the person becomes a person of light (logion 24).
      This may actually improve our understanding of John 10:30: "I and my Father are one." This statement is well covered by theologians who dwell on the transcendental concomitants. But Thomas conveys more of an immanent understanding. What's more, In GOT Jesus repeats this formula of the two that becomes one e.g. logion 106: "When you make the two into one, you will become children of Adam..." Accordingly this could be understood as the unification of Father and Son.

      As I said in my earlier exposition I think that saying 97 is an amplification of this conception of the person that shines light from within. This light is food for the soul i.e. meal. But in this parable Jesus expands on the subject and introduces the element of suffering (breaking) and also how he himself feels as a person of light, i.e. that he is carried by the unconscious woman. So in a way he feels like a child who is carried by his mother. Perhaps he wants to convey his own complete feeling of security i.e. how a light-person will feel when two becomes one. And when the river of living water finally ceases to flow from his interior he will arrive at his Fathers house. But the Father is the Great Spirit himself, i.e. the source of all rivers of living water.

      Mats Winther




      ------------------------------------------------------------------------
      eGroup home: http://www.eGroups.com/list/gthomas
      Free Web-based e-mail groups by eGroups.com
    • Mike Grondin
      There is so much to respond to in your previous two notes, Mats, that I hardly know where to start. The impression I get is that you re willing to say just
      Message 2 of 2 , Jan 2, 1999
      • 0 Attachment
        There is so much to respond to in your previous two notes, Mats, that I
        hardly know where to start. The impression I get is that you're willing to
        say just about anything, whether you believe it to be true or not, to
        support your point of view. Am I being unfair? Look at what you yourself
        have written, in response to my claim that many of your assumptions are
        unwarranted:

        > Concerning "unwarranted assumptions" I must point out the following:
        > I have all the right in the world to make any assum[p]tions I want.
        > I live in a free world. When I make these rather "strong" statement[s],
        > it is because I want to make a point. Do you see?

        I think I do see, but do you? Notice that the first thing you do is to
        respond with a non sequitur ("I have the right to make any assumptions I
        want"). You then follow with the lame excuse that your assumptions
        shouldn't be taken too seriously anyway, because all you're trying to do is
        to make a point. In the space of these few sentences, you've not only given
        an example of, but essentially admitted to, what I said above - that you're
        willing to say just about anything (plausible or not) to make your point.
        To me, this is a serious charge - tantamount to an implicit claim on your
        part that the end (your point) justifies the means (faulty assumptions).

        But let's get back to your interpretation of #97. The issue of the colour
        of the meal arose precisely because you made it an important aspect of your
        interpretation. It was important to you that the meal be white, because if
        it was, your contention that the meal was a symbol of light was
        strengthened. But notice what you said when I challenged your assumption
        that the meal was white:

        > Well, the colour is not significant when proving that it is spirit that
        > is spilled out. But Jesus in the Gospels always talk[s] about wheat, so
        > we can assume that the meal is white. But avoid fixation [on] the colour.

        Here again, as in the example above, you've given multiple responses, the
        implications of which contradict each other:

        (1) the colour is not significant
        (2) the assumption that the meal is white is warranted
        (3) don't "fixate" on the colour

        In other words, you're saying that you were right about the colour in the
        first place, but that you don't want to be questioned about it. In light of
        (1) and (3), what is one to make of the statement contained in your latest
        note:

        > ... the different kinds of meal that I've come across (wheat, corn,
        > rye, oats) are more or less white. The only exception I know of is
        > maize, but it is yellow like sunlight - an even better approximation
        > to the spiritual light.

        If the colour is not significant, and you advise me not to "fixate" on it,
        why do you yourself come back to it? I'll tell you why: because your
        statements (1) and (3) were disingenuous from the start - they were only
        meant to stop someone from disagreeing with you. In particular, you
        believed that (1) was false, but you wrote it anyway, because you'll say
        anything to make your point.

        (Let me interrupt this discussion of methodology to point out that the
        lightly-colored meals with which Mats is familiar are evidently made from
        bleached flour, a product presumably unavailable at the time in question.
        If the flour is not bleached, the meal made from it will have a natural
        [non-white] colour. And again I say: if the colour was important to the
        meaning of #97, the writer would have specified it.)

        Since I've given you quite a bit to chew on already, I won't go into your
        current interpretation of #97 at any length. I do want to make this point,
        however: WE DON'T KNOW WHICH (IF ANY) OF THE SAYINGS IN GTHOM ARE
        ATTRIBUTABLE TO JESUS HIMSELF. Some of them may be, but it's virtually
        certain that not ALL of them are. So it's misleading to speak of Jesus
        himself as the speaker in #97 (or any other specific saying, for that
        matter). If you want to say that _the writer intended_ that the jar
        symbolize Jesus, then that's OK. But the assumption that it was Jesus
        himself speaking is unwarranted and must be defended. (I know - you're free
        to make any assumption you want to. But if your assumptions are unwarranted
        and/or implausible, why should anyone listen to you?)

        Mike

        ------------------------------------
        Resources for the Study of NH Codex2
        http://www.geocities.com/athens/9068

        ------------------------------------------------------------------------
        eGroup home: http://www.eGroups.com/list/gthomas
        Free Web-based e-mail groups by eGroups.com
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.