I am the way the truth and the life

[Daniel]

I came across the following thought below while researching for another thread. What is one to make of this? A curious thought, no? The author of the book- The Mystic Christ- endeavors to make the case that Christ, Buddha and Krishna are One. What interests me below is the exegesis of the text below. And I'd be pleased if our resident scholars would take a took at it, especially the idea that the word 'erchetai' does not apply to all people everywhere, but rather, to the persons Jesus was speaking to, as well as the concept of the cosmic "I".

Oh I can just hear to whistle of the Gnosticland Express start and the screeching of the wheels as they spin and get nowhere!

http://www.jesus-christ.ws/

The following is excerpted and condensed from the book The Mystic Christ. Jesus never said he was the only way. In John 14:6 we read, ”I am the way, the truth, and the life. No man comes to the Father except through me.” In the original Greek version of this scripture, the word for “comes” is erchetai and it is very present tense meaning it does not apply to all people for all time. This verse applied only to those people Jesus was talking to at that time. In the Aramaic Bible, Jesus’ own language, the word for “I” in this scripture is ena-ena or I-I. The meaning is not the same as ena which is an individual “I.” Ena-ena is a cosmic “I” or I AM THAT I AM (Ex. 3:13 -14). In another scripture, Jesus tells us that we make a mistake if we think he is good, “Why do you call me good?” ‘Jesus answered.’ “No one is good - except God alone.” (Luke 18:19). And again: “By myself I can do nothing.” (John 5:30). The way to reconcile “I am the way...” And “Don’t call me good...” is to understand that it is the I AM (ena-ena) that is talking in John 14:6. The I AM is bigger than Jesus in the same way that all the water on this earth is more than any individual lake. By analogy, Jesus, Buddha and Krishna are lakes filled with the one living I AM. In another scripture, Jesus clearly says the only requirement for attaining eternal life is loving God and loving our neighbor: “On one occasion an expert in the law stood up to test Jesus. ‘Teacher,’ he asked, ‘what must I do to inherit eternal life?’ ‘What is written in the Law?’ he replied. ‘How do you read it?’ He answered: ‘Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your strength and with all your mind’; and, ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’ ‘You have answered correctly,’ Jesus replied. ‘Do this and you will live.’” (Luke 10:25-28). If believing in Jesus were necessary to attain eternal life, Jesus would have been guilty of lying to the temple official in this scripture. Not a single time did Jesus ever warn us about other religions. Rather, he said, “And Jesus said unto him, Forbid him not: for he that is not against us is for us.” (Luke 9:49-50). A Buddhist that is not against Jesus is for Jesus.

[u-dog]

Originally Posted by Daniel

I came across the following thought below while researching for another thread. What is one to make of this? A curious thought, no? The author of the book- The Mystic Christ- endeavors to make the case that Christ, Buddha and Krishna are One. What interests me below is the exegesis of the text below. And I'd be pleased if our resident scholars would take a took at it, especially the idea that the word 'erchetai' does not apply to all people everywhere, but rather, to the persons Jesus was speaking to, as well as the concept of the cosmic "I".

Oh I can just hear to whistle of the Gnosticland Express start and the screeching of the wheels as they spin and get nowhere!

Well, I'm not qualified to comment on the Greek ... I should be but alas ... I am not. I will leave that to brother Andrew. However, I think that the notion of the "Cosmic "I"" is not far off the mark. Without commenting on the Aramaic argument (which I am REALLY not qualified to do) I have always understood that one must hear the "I AM" statements of Jesus that appear in John's Gospel as being the words of the "Logos".

the Gospel of John begins with the lyrics of a hymn to the LOGOS. "In the beginning was the Word ..." I have always believed that this is the key to understanding John's Gospel. When Jesus speaks in this Gospel he is speaking as the Divine Word. He is speaking as the second person of the Trinity. In other words, it is not Jesus of Nazareth who is the Way, the Truth, and the Light, it is the LOGOS who he embodies that is the Way, the Truth, and the LIGHT. I don't believe that Jesus is the ONLY manifestation of the Logos in the world ... just that he is the full and complete incarnation of it.

C.S. LEWIS said in "Mere Christianity" that other religions can be "true" and admirable and worthy of respect in so far as they do not contradict the truth as it is revealed in the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus. I guess this is close to my own understanding as well.

[Zerbie]

Thank GOD! I'm not the only one.

I have always experienced sureness that what Jesus meant by "I" was not the individual body but the cosmic consciousness, the God consciousness that he was born to embody and exemplify.

[Daniel]

Originally Posted by u-dog

I have always understood that one must hear the "I AM" statements of Jesus that appear in John's Gospel as being the words of the "Logos".

Interesting. Very interesting indeed. Come to think of it, I vaguely remember this from by Evangel days, which, I have to say, are long behind me.

So the cosmic Logos rather than the ego of a man named Jesus is speaking, or being referred to? That sounds like the gist of it of what you are saying U-dog.

And I find the following very interesting.

Originally Posted by u-dog

When Jesus speaks in this Gospel he is speaking as the Divine Word. He is speaking as the second person of the Trinity.

My brain went somewhere else actually. And that is to the how one tells a story. It can be done in many 'voices' and persons, that is, in first person, second person etc. This changes the meaning of what is said, and writers are forever working on getting the voice right, because, when they do, the telling of the tale is that much better. So what I get out of this, is that Jesus is telling the listener a different meaning than what would normally be supposed. A very different perspective. The big picture in fact!

Thank you U-dog!

Now. Where is Andy? The other half of this verse needs some sleuthing!

[dsdrane]

Originally Posted by u-dog

When Jesus speaks in this Gospel he is speaking as the Divine Word. He is speaking as the second person of the Trinity. In other words, it is not Jesus of Nazareth who is the Way, the Truth, and the Light, it is the LOGOS who he embodies that is the Way, the Truth, and the LIGHT. I don't believe that Jesus is the ONLY manifestation of the Logos in the world ... just that he is the full and complete incarnation of it.

I love this. I love, love, love this.

Yes, Jesus is the "Son", but, if we take a trinitarian point of view, he is also God. So, it only follows that "I" can be read as plural, but it actually makes more sense as singular.

Jay and I just had a discussion about how Jesus -- in the "New" Testament -- shows up to communicate in a way that is much more direct and understandable than the way the Holy Spirit had been communicating in the "Old" Testament.

It's interesting to think of the Trio being originally a Duet! Burning bushes may work for Moses, but your everyday folk need something a little more grounded in their reality -- hence a baby in a manger who charms us and a man who willingly goes to the Cross.

But, at the end of the day, it's God speaking to us -- God, plural, and God, singular...all at the same time.

Jesus Christ wasn't kidding when he said there were things we could not yet understand. I take him at his word.

[andrewlittle]

Originally Posted by Daniel

Now. Where is Andy? The other half of this verse needs some sleuthing!

Then appears Andy, as if from no place. Read into that what you like.

I really like, and thoroughly agree with, the comments so far - especially u-dogs on the cosmos. I think Daniel summed it up quite well.

Technically, for what that is worth, the Greek reads ego eimi with eimi being a verb in the present tense. The best translation I've found is "I am the one who is", which is similar to God's claim to divinity. The first part of the sentence would be, then, "I am the one who is the way, the truth and the life, ..." but as has been mentioned in a somewhat esoteric sense. Claim to divinity - maybe. Claim to universality - maybe. Claim to exclusivity - not there.

As to the rest of the sentence and the interpretation of the Gnosticland Express (btw, John is about as Gnostic as they come):

Erchetai is, indeed, present tense. Greek verb tenses are all about action - most notably about when actions occur. The present tense denotes ongoing present action that is not finished - in essence, it is happening in real time. There are other tenses (aorist & imperfect) that signify action that may continue into the future. The article is right, therefore, in that it would be difficult to interpret this as continuing for all time.

Throughout scripture Jesus points the way to God, not to himself. All glory is to God - all worship is of God. Christ-centric worship is a later development. The sense is that Jesus is a way to God, but nowhere have I read anything compelling that says Jesus is the only way to God. I accept that Jesus is MY way to God, but that my way is not to be universalized.

Does this add anything to the conversation?

[Daniel]

Originally Posted by andrewlittle

Technically, for what that is worth, the Greek reads ego eimi with eimi being a verb in the present tense. The best translation I've found is "I am the one who is", which is similar to God's claim to divinity. The first part of the sentence would be, then, "I am the one who is the way, the truth and the light, ..." but as has been mentioned in a somewhat esoteric sense. Claim to divinity - maybe. Claim to universality - maybe. Claim to exclusivity - not there.

I like the way you put it Andy, that is, "Claim to exclusivity- not there." That says a mouthful. What does one do with this? How about not let others bludgeon one with their narrow view for starters? This My Way or the highway attitude.

Originally Posted by andrewlittle

As to the rest of the sentence and the interpretation of the Gnosticland Express (btw, John is about as Gnostic as they come):

I think Elaine Pagels mentions this in several of her books. I'd forgotten that.

Originally Posted by andrewlittle

Erchetai is, indeed, present tense. Greek verb tenses are all about action - most notably about when actions occur. The present tense denotes ongoing present action that is not finished - in essence, it is happening in real time. There are other tenses (aorist & imperfect) that signify action that may continue into the future. The article is right, therefore, in that it would be difficult to interpret this as continuing for all time.

It seems that Greek verbs are very different than English ones- much more particular in fact. The difficulty then seems to be one of interposing the meaning of one language for another.

I once had a teacher who remarked that "you think differently in different languages."

Originally Posted by andrewlittle

Throughout scripture Jesus points the way to God, not to himself. All glory is to God - all worship is of God. Christ-centric worship is a later development. The sense is that Jesus is a way to God, but nowhere have I read anything compelling that says Jesus is the only way to God. I accept that Jesus is MY way to God, but that my way is not to be universalized.

Christ-centric worship came later, huh? You remind me of the veneration of Mary. That came later too. And it's still with us, as far as the Catholic Church is concerned.

Originally Posted by andrewlittle

Does this add anything to the conversation?

Most definitely!

Practically speaking, it gives me something to say when this verse comes flying out around the dinner table at family gatherings. And it will (and has), especially as most of my siblings are firmly right of center as far as their expression of faith goes. Missionary brother et al.

What I don't understand is the need to pound away on others with 'you have to believe this or else!' Is it a safety in numbers, herd mentality thing? A we belong to the right club, have the Cadillac of saviors, my dad can beat your dad matter?

I guess this is what I am trying to understand.

[andrewlittle]

For what it's worth, I think the "believe as I believe" attitude is all about fear.

If I think my salvation is wrapped up in a legalistic outlook on faith, then I am going to want as much affirmation as I can possibly get. Without it, I might questioning my own faith - which in that circle would amount to losing my salvation. Affirmation from others who think like I do is one thing, but if I can get "non-believers" to believe then I accomplish two things: (1) the ultimate affirmation, and (2) browny points for saving someone else.

The downside - all eternity in hell. The upside - an eternity in the exclusive, pious God club. Scares the hell out of me - I'd better get busy.

[Daniel]

Seems all I got from converting straight people to the Way of the Gay is a closet full of tupperware.

Seriously. It's a very lucid argument you make Brother Andrew re 'believe as I believe' being fear-based.

Makes a hell (oops!) of a lot of sense.

[u-dog]

Originally Posted by andrewlittle

As to the rest of the sentence and the interpretation of the Gnosticland Express (btw, John is about as Gnostic as they come):

WHAT !?!?!?!? He most certainly is NOT a Gnostic. He uses Gnostic vocabulary, sure. He plays with Gnostic catagories. But his Gospel GUTS the Gnostic worldview totally. He begins his Gospel with "In the Beginning" which leads you immediately to Genesis where one finds the Divine creator down on the divine knees getting the divine fingernails dirty making the earth creature out of mud. That is enough to make a Gnostic vomit.

John Chapter 6? "Whoever does not eat my body and drink my blood...?" Guaranteed to make both devout Jews and Gnostics toss their cookies.

I believe that John uses the Gnostic lingo because it was current in his intellectual milleiu (how do you spell that word?) but he uses it to undermine the Gnostic worldview.

[Daniel]

Originally Posted by u-dog

I believe that John uses the Gnostic lingo because it was current in his intellectual milleiu (how do you spell that word?) but he uses it to undermine the Gnostic worldview.

M I L I E U

Milieu.

[French, from Old French, center : mi, middle (from Latin medius) + lieu, place (from Latin locus).]

[u-dog]

Originally Posted by Daniel

M I L I E U

Milieu.

Thanks! Of course, I'll forget before the next time I need to use it

[dsdrane]

Originally Posted by u-dog

Thanks! Of course, I'll forget before the next time I need to use it

You and me both, Toots!

[Pablo Rafael]

I am a little late to this conversation, I see. But I am not one who is too proud to butt into a conversation that has gone on a long time before I got here so...

I have trouble with the idea that Jesus is a way but not the only way. I think that we don't fully understand why Jesus became a human being, lived died and rose from the dead. But I am convinced that it was through Jesus that salvation came into the world. Jesus is the physical expression of God's love (grace) in the world. I believe the grace of God is the only hope for the world.

At the same time I strongly believe that we are not saved by being right, by knowing the right things. If we were saved by being right, then none of us would have a chance, for who can understand or know God? We are saved by the love of God shown to us in Jesus.

Take for example a young woman growing up in Saudi Arabia. Statisticaly she has almost no chance of becoming a Christian. I don't think God just says, "Sorry, bad luck for you being born in Saudi Arabia. You should have been born somewhere else." I think God's love extends to that person as well. Maybe she doesn't know all the Bible stories or believe in the prescribed doctrines of the Christian churches, but I am sure that God's love extends to her as well. The forgiveness won for us all by Jesus when he died and rose again must extend even to those who have never had a chance to hear that story. I have no idea how it does, but I am sure that God's power is not limited to our feeble minds.

The Bible says that God wants all people to be saved. I think some people intentionally chose a way of evil. They separate themselves from the love of God. They choose to live outside of the realm of grace. I believe that is what hell is, a state of being when one rejects the love and presence of God. Heaven is what God desires for all people, a state of being in his love and presence.

I think heaven will be full of people from all religious backgrounds, not because they are the one who "got it right", but because God is the one who got it right.

[u-dog]

Originally Posted by u-dog

WHAT !?!?!?!? He most certainly is NOT a Gnostic. He uses Gnostic vocabulary, sure. He plays with Gnostic catagories. But his Gospel GUTS the Gnostic worldview totally. He begins his Gospel with "In the Beginning" which leads you immediately to Genesis where one finds the Divine creator down on the divine knees getting the divine fingernails dirty making the earth creature out of mud. That is enough to make a Gnostic vomit.

John Chapter 6? "Whoever does not eat my body and drink my blood...?" Guaranteed to make both devout Jews and Gnostics toss their cookies.

I believe that John uses the Gnostic lingo because it was current in his intellectual milleiu (how do you spell that word?) but he uses it to undermine the Gnostic worldview.

Here Andy! Here boy! <<whistles through teeth>> It's a stick! You like sticks!

[andrewlittle]

Originally Posted by u-dog

Here Andy! Here boy! <<whistles through teeth>> It's a stick! You like sticks!

Boy! That's the best you can do? I like sticks, but they have to be sticks worthy of chasing down and sinking my teeth into. The fact that you choose to be wrong is certainly not enough to get me all slobbered up chasing your little twig.

Absolutely no sexual innuendo intended.

Pick a real topic to argue about.

[u-dog]

Is a new dog.

[josey]

Originally Posted by Daniel

I came across the following thought below while researching for another thread. What is one to make of this? A curious thought, no? The author of the book- The Mystic Christ- endeavors to make the case that Christ, Buddha and Krishna are One. What interests me below is the exegesis of the text below. And I'd be pleased if our resident scholars would take a took at it, especially the idea that the word 'erchetai' does not apply to all people everywhere, but rather, to the persons Jesus was speaking to, as well as the concept of the cosmic "I".

Oh I can just hear to whistle of the Gnosticland Express start and the screeching of the wheels as they spin and get nowhere!

I know this thread is very old, but I hope to revive it somewhat. I was looking up this scripture yesterday and found this website with this quote.

I agree that it is the I AM, and not Christ, but then the rest of it says, No one comes to the Father except through me, which makes it seem like you have to go through him. Why doesn't it read, except through I AM?

I hope that made sense. Anyone have any ideas?

[Victoria]

Originally Posted by josey

I agree that it is the I AM, and not Christ, but then the rest of it says, No one comes to the Father except through me, which makes it seem like you have to go through him. Why doesn't it read, except through I AM?

I bolded that part, to show you something.

I hope that made sense. Anyone have any ideas?

I think it might also help to see more of the text...

I prefer the Douay-Rheims version, most of the time, but all of them have a different way of saying the same thing at times =)

4 And whither I go you know: and the way you know.

5 Thomas saith to him: Lord, we know not whither thou goest. And how can we know the way?

6 Jesus saith to him: I am the way, and the truth, and the life. No man cometh to the Father, but by me. 7 If you had known me, you would without doubt have known my Father also: and from henceforth you shall know him. And you have seen him.
*note here it says ~by~ me, not a big deal for now, but ;-)

8 Philip saith to him: Lord, shew us the Father; and it is enough for us.

9 Jesus saith to him: Have I been so long a time with you and have you not known me? Philip, he that seeth me seeth the Father also. How sayest thou: Shew us the Father? 10 Do you not believe that I am in the Father and the Father in me? The words that I speak to you, I speak not of myself. But the Father who abideth in me, he doth the works. 11 Believe you not that I am in the Father and the Father in me?

I bolded that part because it shows how they are ~One~ ... I recently read a text from a Bhuddist that was describing a "oneness" with many things, being ~in~ a cloud, and the cloud is in you... lemme see if I can find that... to give you more examples of "Oneness" ;-)

Thich Nhat Hanh
Interbeing
The Sun has entered me.

The Sun has entered me together with the cloud and the river.

I myself have entered the Sun with the cloud and the river.

There has not been a moment when we do not interpenetrate.

But before the Sun entered me, the Sun was in me –

also the cloud and the river.

Before I entered the river, I was already in it.

There has not been a moment when we have not inter-been.

Therefore you know that as long as you continue to breathe,

I continue to be in you.


Please note, I ~also~ like to interpret the line "The Sun has entered me." as "the Son has entered me" because I invited him to live in me, as a Christian =)

So try seeing it not that "I Am" and "Christ" are ~separate~, but one in the same, as persons of the Trinity, so so when Jesus says the word "Me", he ~also~ means "I Am".

If you want, I can go into a lot more depth explaining how that works when you apply Linguistics... sort of a proof I've been working on, but I need a break from the computer =P

By the way, I'm a Catholic Christian, but not a Roman one... ;-)

[Victoria]

Oh alright... lets dip into the linguistic explanation ;-)

Why doesn't it read, except through I AM?

Limitation of understandings, is why things are worded the ways they are. You can only say so much, in so much time, to get the meaning across to as many people as you need to... but unless you can actually read their mind, it's ~very~ hard to really get what they mean, with what they say... until you start expanding you're ~own~ understandings a great deal... but not leaning on you're ~own~ understandings, and by leaning on God's Universal Understandings... which is one of the reasons I love Linguistics so much =)

A single word in a language has a multitude of meanings, on it's own, but ~with~ that, it also has relations to ~other~ words that are ~similar~... so you can say something that, in literal context, means something ~completely different~ that what you actually ~meant~... and people are quick to apply ~their~ meanings to what they read and hear, jumping to conclusions without asking "what did you mean by that?" if it's something they "heard" as "upsetting"... rather than say "that upset me a little... maybe I misunderstood what you meant..." and ask.

I put something together for my Uncle, who I've known to be a very Strict Roman Catholic, in the past, but once I started talking with him about things I've longed to talk to him about... leading in with my coming out of the closet... he's been a ~lot~ more open to talking about stuff than I thought =)

But it's only because even though he, initially, jumped to the conclusion that I was "gay", which (forgive him ;-) he took to ~mean~ "against God"... until we started talking and exchanging ~ideas~ we each had for the words we used, and I could start to show him that what I am (Male to Female, transsexual, non-surgical) ~isn't~ against God at ~all~... I haven't finished the whole discussion with him yet though, since it's via email, and he doesn't get online much =P but I ~love~ being able to talk about him with this stuff =)

So far we've gotten to the point where what ~he~ means when he hears the word “gay” is what I mean when I used the word “Licentious” (unrestrained by law or general morality; lawless; immoral basically what Sodom and Ghomorrah are ~really~ about, but too many people relate that word to mean "sex" ~rolls eyes~) ... anyways... We're on another topic, at the moment, so I'll come back to sharing our understandings of other stuff, later... he's having a rough time with things right now, so I don't wanna dump too much on him at once and risk pushing him away.

But... Basically, since the tower of Babel (I like to note, in English the word "babble" is also appropriate ;-) our languages were scattered to the wind, so to speak.

Genesis 11:7 Douay-Rheims
Come ye, therefore, let us go down, and there confound their tongue,
that they may not understand one another’s speech.

and if you've ever read An Essay Concerning Human Understanding by John Locke, he ~sees~ this, Verifies, in a sense, that this occurred:
http://oregonstate.edu/instruct/phl3..._contents.html

Chapter IV, Of the Names of Simple Ideas
Names of simple ideas, modes, and substances, have each something peculiar. Though all words, as I have shown, signify nothing immediately but the ideas in the mind of the speaker; yet, upon a nearer survey, we shall find the names of simple ideas, mixed modes (under which I comprise relations too), and natural substances, have each of them something peculiar and different from the other.

… (skipping over some stuff, after the concept of a Word being label for an Idea in the mind of the speaker)

If Tully, asking a Dutchman what beweeginge was, should have received this explication in his own language, that it was "actus entis in potentia quatenus in potentia"; I ask whether any one can imagine he could thereby have understood what the word beweeginge signified, or have guessed what idea a Dutchman ordinarily had in his mind, and would signify to another, when he used that sound?


Jump to wikipedia for a description of Lingustics...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Language

any language that is in a continuous state of change is known as a living language or modern language.

We can see this in each generation, using words differently than they were used by our parents... and a "generation gap" occurs, because we don't understand what the hell each other of us are saying... and we don't let go of our fears and just ~listen~ and ~understand~ what they mean, with what they say... we jump straight to the conclusion that they're ~wrong~ and ~dangerous~... because of fear.

2Ti 1:7 - Douay-Rheims
For God hath not given us the spirit of fear: but of power and of love and of sobriety.

So... that's why you can't really read the bible, and take it literally... and that's why it sometimes takes a bit of patience to understand things like

Why doesn't it read, except through I AM?

to see that 2 words, seemingly unrelated, are, and can mean the same thing.