Guest guest Posted April 20, 2000 Report Share Posted April 20, 2000 On Thu, 20 Apr 2000 15:34:39 Dan Berkow, PhD wrote: Jani: >>Or if the writers of the gospels just couldn't >>understand the more abstract concept of 'self' and thus ended >>up in the current form of 'I'/'me' meaning Jesus himself. >> >An excellent point, Jani. Dan: >So, I guess you could even say it as, > "no one comes to the self that > has no other, except through > the self that includes me > in you and you in me." I find that a great sounding "translation", Dan. I also suspect the words "self" and "I / me" could be very interchangeable and easy to "confuse" in many languages, as well as difficult to translate. Does anyone know the ancient Greek / Hebrew words for self / I / me btw ? A warm welcome to J(n)ani, good to see you here. Love, Amanda. Angelfire for your free web-based e-mail. http://www.angelfire.com Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 21, 2000 Report Share Posted April 21, 2000 Beautiful, Dan! >An excellent point, Jani. >Jesus told me that he meant the > same 'me' that he talked about > when he said 'you are in me > and I am in you.' >So what you're saying is right. >He also meant by father, the same > father that he talked about as > 'I am in the father and the father > is in me," and "who has seen me > has seen the father". >So, I guess you could even say it as, > "no one comes to the self that > has no other, except through > the self that includes me > in you and you in me." > >Love, >Dan Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.