- ... From: M.W. Grondin To: email@example.com Sent: Tuesday, May 24, 2011 8:46 PM Subject: Re: [GTh] Re: Kingdom of heaven in Thomas Hi Mark, Andrew, etMessage 1 of 19 , May 25, 2011View Source----- Original Message -----From: M.W. GrondinSent: Tuesday, May 24, 2011 8:46 PMSubject: Re: [GTh] Re: "Kingdom of heaven" in ThomasHi Mark, Andrew, et al:I've enjoyed reading this discussion.<SNIP>Also: CGTh doesn't avoid 'god' completely. See http://www.gospel-thomas.net/htmfiles/god.htmBest,Mike G.
The references in CGTh are rather ambiguous.
It is not clear (at least to me) whether God in CGTh refers to the Heavenly Father of Jesus or to some other being eg the demiurge.
- ... Yes, I agree that this is an open question. In L30.1, the definite article isn t used, and for that and other reasons, I don t know what to make of it. OnMessage 2 of 19 , May 25, 2011View Source[Andrew C.]:> The references in CGTh are rather ambiguous. It is not clear (at least to me) whether God> in CGTh refers to the Heavenly Father of Jesus or to some other being eg the demiurge.Yes, I agree that this is an open question. In L30.1, the definite article isn't used, and forthat and other reasons, I don't know what to make of it. On the interpretation you suggest,though, it would appear to be good to be "one or two" but not good to be "three", whichseems a mite odd, but perhaps that could be worked out. As to L100.3, the definitearticle is used there (thus big-G 'God'), and the suggested interpretation would make senseof the addition of the non-canonical "give me what's mine" clause (100.4), which is in itsfavor, but I'm rather intrigued with the fact that if the clause is removed, it leaves asymmetrical structure of 4 lines totalling 100 letters. Of course, it could be just a coincidencethat L100 would be reducible to a 100-letter structure with the removal of the non-canonicalportion, but given the design of the prologue and other features, I have to wonder if it was.Be that as it may, I should point out for our readers, that you aren't the Andrew who has so farcontributed to this thread. We have in fact three prominent Andrews on our list: yourself andAndrew Bernhard are moderators and bloggers (in your case, a contributor to Stephen Carlson'sblog), while Andrew Phillip Smith (the "Andrew" who has participated up to this point) is alsowell-known here as a publisher and blogger widely-versed in gnosticism.I should also mention that I've changed a folder name at my site. The sublogia-display forthe word 'god', e.g., is now http://www.gospel-thomas.net/keywords/god.htm(It was previously 'htmfiles' instead of 'keywords'). The main directory (which is slowlynearing completion) is still http://www.gospel-thomas.net/keywords.htmBest wishes,Mike Grondin
- I had always interpreted this extra bit [in L100] over and above the other versions as a request for the reader s support in his opposition to the romans andMessage 3 of 19 , May 26, 2011View SourceI had always interpreted this "extra" bit [in L100] over and above the other versions as a request for the reader's support in his opposition to the romans and the Sanhedrin. Remember, Jesus was regarded as a heretic of the Jewish faith.