Steve 41oo wrote:the bible wrote:The Jews therefore said to Him, "You are not yet fifty years old, and have You seen Abraham?" Jesus said to them, "Truly, truly, I say to you, before Abraham was born, I am." Therefore they picked up stones to throw at Him; but Jesus hid Himself, and went out of the temple. (John 8:57-59)
"I and the Father are one." The Jews took up stones again to stone Him. Jesus answered them, "I showed you many good works from the Father; for which of them are you stoning Me?" The Jews answered Him, "For a good work we do not stone You, but for blasphemy; and because You, being a man, make Yourself out to be God." (John 10:30-33)
And Jesus cried out and said, "He who believes in Me does not believe in Me, but in Him who sent Me. And he who beholds Me beholds the One who sent Me. I have come as light into the world, that everyone who believes in Me may not remain in darkness." (John 12:44-46)
And so when He had washed their feet, and taken His garments, and reclined at the table again, He said to them, "Do you know what I have done to you? You call Me Teacher and Lord; and you are right, for I am. If I then, the Lord and the Teacher, washed your feet, you also ought to wash one another's feet." (John 13:12-14)
Jesus said to him, "I am the way, and the truth, and the life; no one comes to the Father, but through Me. If you had known Me, you would have known My Father also; from now on you know Him, and have seen Him." Philip said to Him, "Lord, show us the Father, and it is enough for us." Jesus said to him, "Have I been so long with you, and yet you have not come to know Me, Philip? He who has seen Me has seen the Father; how do you say, 'Show us the Father'?" (John 14:6-9)
make sense of that
Well I'm no christian but the above is interesting, for what it's worth then my interpretation is something like this:
The crux of the problem with the above quotes is that, as it's written, Jesus seems to be talking from and moving between two different perspectives, even within single sentences. The two different perspectives are, IMO, his personality, the person Jesus, who walked and talked etc and our original nature, I think maybe the buddhists call it buddha nature, or possibly the higher Self with the Hindu's. Anyway this "original nature" needn't be explained in great detail except to say that, for me, it is at the crux of religion in it's truest sense which essentially involves a consideration of our true, underlying relationship with the world around us. The important thing though, is that it's not a thing out there to be used, controlled, dominated or killed by/for. It's not a being or a thing that smites people, there's no personality at this level. Anyway I emphasise this last bit to try and shed a little light on the quotes above so,
Here's an example:
Quote:He who believes in Me does not believe in Me, but in Him who sent Me
He who believes in man's true underlying nature, our true relationship with the world (1st Me) does not believe in me the person, the individual, my various wants and needs, my whims and opinions or my individual influence in the here and now (2nd Me), but in the underlying nature of the world from which we all originate (Him) and shall return to.
I just assume that the writer has the intention (at least with some) of trying to simply convey something. Jesus seems to have been used to portray a man, so as to allow dialogue, that truly represents (as best as mere words can) our (the collective us, not this person or that, or those that submit etc, EVERYONE) true nature and relationship with the world. So, when he says:
Quote:I am the way, and the truth, and the life; no one comes to the Father, but through Me
I don't see it as, I the person, Jesus am the only way to truth, as in I the person hold some ideas close to my chest that you must submit to in some petty way, in order to have this "truth" but rather that again, the I in this sentence is not some personality but the fundamental nature of the world which is ultimately beyond words and therefore beyond any possible use for control and domination, it is utterly peaceful. Now I tend to take this interpretation purely because I see some sense in it, many might call it a bit of a "mystical" interpretation but I do think there's some consistency in it and it also lines up nicely with the idea of religion that is thoroughly aghast at control, domination and hatred. I guess when someone talks about the true nature of the world and then says it is beyond words there is a certain, instinctual reaction that it's all a bit la dee da and devoid of importance or meaning. OK fair enough, each to their own, I don't really have the inclination to argue against that. It is, at least to me though, interesting to consider the nature and limitations of words which is then the source of a wider debate that links in, on occasion, with much of the above.
Maybe it's the religious people who use the bible to justify such horific acts of hatred and nastiness that you'd most like to hear from though!
