John 8:58

[nash8]

I am just curious as to how Christian people interpret this passage:

"Jesus told them, "Truly, I tell all of you emphatically, before there was an Abraham, I AM!" John 8:58

Since I consider John to be a more of a Gnostic text than the others, and following my general view that the Bible writers would have been entrenched with Stoic philosophy, (as well as Jesus himself). I would consider this quote to be a reference to Jesus being an incarnation of the Logos, which is akin to "the Word" within many translations of the bible. The Logos was a term for God within Gnosticism, and a sort of reference to God within Stoicism, it was known as the supreme animating principle of the universe, and within some more esoteric aspects of stoicism, the Logos was able to incarnate into physical being.

The first Book of John uses the same language, and identifies Jesus as being the incarnation of the Logos in the flesh. John 8:58 just continues this identification in my opinion.

 

[NobodyYouKnow]

Hahaha. Thanks. Yes, the tradition of depicting Christ in such a way goes back to the earliest representations of Christ in art. If you look at His hand, He is making the Sign of the Cross (with His first two fingers) and the Sign of the Trinity with the other three. Orthodox Christians typically one or the other hand gestures when crossing themselves.

I know about the Hindu teaching of the Trimurti and the unity of all things.

You would also may like to know that upon my contemplations, I realised the three letters in His halo, also represent our A-U-M and that is the whole significance of the Logos; being the direct voice of God as Jesus heard it.

I understand this now and you have been a great help. You all have, and I've gained more respect and appreciation of your Faith now.

 

[nash8]

You would also may like to know that upon my contemplations, I realised the three letters in His halo, also represent our A-U-M and that is the whole significance of the Logos; being the direct voice of God as Jesus heard it.

I understand this now and you have been a great help. You all have, and I've gained more respect and appreciation of your Faith now.

So the Greek letters that spell I A M, translate into the three letters that represent the A U M in (Sanskrit???)? That is very interesting... can you cite some links to how you came to this realization?

 

[NobodyYouKnow]

Since I consider John to be a more of a Gnostic text than the others, and following my general view that the Bible writers would have been entrenched with Stoic philosophy, (as well as Jesus himself). I would consider this quote to be a reference to Jesus being an incarnation of the Logos, which is akin to "the Word" within many translations of the bible. The Logos was a term for God within Gnosticism, and a sort of reference to God within Stoicism, it was known as the supreme animating principle of the universe, and within some more esoteric aspects of stoicism, the Logos was able to incarnate into physical being.

The first Book of John uses the same language, and identifies Jesus as being the incarnation of the Logos in the flesh. John 8:58 just continues this identification in my opinion.

Yes. I thought of that just before you posted, but you got in before me...I arrived at the same conclusion differently.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

You would also may like to know that upon my contemplations, I realised the three letters in His halo, also represent our A-U-M and that is the whole significance of the Logos; being the direct voice of God as Jesus heard it.

I understand this now and you have been a great help. You all have, and I've gained more respect and appreciation of your Faith now.

You are quite welcome. :namaste

Speaking of Om, it is worth mentioning that the Bible has God "speaking" the cosmos into existence and Sanskrit writings have the Divine "vibrating" the cosmos into manifestation (as I understand it). Plus, A-U-M does have some similarity to Trinitarian concepts. So there are some things in common.

God bless.

 

[NobodyYouKnow]

So the Greek letters that spell I A M, translate into the three letters that represent the A U M in (Sanskrit???)? That is very interesting... can you cite some links to how you came to this realization?

You don't need 'links' to come to a realization.

I have also referred this thread to our Hindu section; those guys may find this thread an interesting read...

God says 'I Am that I Am' right? Jesus isn't saying that, He is just saying 'I Am'.

This is the difference between the two schools of thought in Advaita Vedanta, the Dual and the Non-Dual existence...the relationship between the conditioned soul and God.

In Sanskrit, we use the phrase 'Aham Brahmasmi' which basically means, 'I Am that I Am'. However, Jesus is simply saying 'I Am'.... 'I-A-M'....and the Hindus have a word for that too...it is called 'Soham'.

Soham, just simply means 'I Am' and if chanted for long enough and with enough concentration, it becomes 'Hamso', the exact reverse...then one tries to find out where it is that Hamso becomes Soham and they experience the eternal vibration, the Logos or the A-U-M.

I don't need a link. I create my own links. lol

 

[nash8]

You don't need 'links' to come to a realization.

I have also referred this thread to our Hindu section; those guys may find this thread an interesting read...

God says 'I Am that I Am' right? Jesus isn't saying that, He is just saying 'I Am'.

This is the difference between the two schools of thought in Advaita Vedanta, the Dual and the Non-Dual existence...the relationship between the conditioned soul and God.

In Sanskrit, we use the phrase 'Aham Brahmasmi' which basically means, 'I Am that I Am'. However, Jesus is simply saying 'I Am'.... 'I-A-M'....and the Hindus have a word for that too...it is called 'Soham'.

Soham, just simply means 'I Am' and if chanted for long enough and with enough concentration, it becomes 'Hamso', the exact reverse...then one tries to find out where it is that Hamso becomes Soham and they experience the eternal vibration, the Logos or the A-U-M.

I don't need a link. I create my own links. lol

LMAO... That was the best "link" ever.

I was looking for the reference to the Soham to Hamso. I might have to try that tehcnique during meditation tonight, but I still don't know how you got the Greek letters for I A M into the Sanskrit letters A U M?

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

I still don't know how you got the Greek letters for I A M into the Sanskrit letters A U M?

I think she's just finding a similarity between the concepts and not the etymology of the words/letters.

 

[NobodyYouKnow]

LMAO... That was the best "link" ever.

I was looking for the reference to the Soham to Hamso. I might have to try that tehcnique during meditation tonight, but I still don't know how you got the Greek letters for I A M into the Sanskrit letters A U M?

I didn't, but the eternal vibration has three 'resonances' which are symbolised by the three letters in each - it's complicated - neither can be directly compared or translated.

It's like that mentioned before...the Trinity or Trimurthi of existence, the Creator God (Brahma), Human Beings (Vishnu) and the Divine Soul/spark within us (Shiva).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soham_(Sanskrit)

In different variations of Hinduism (I am referring to Hinduism, you Hindu DIR guys), 'Hamso' becomes 'Hamsa'.

Hamsa is the Vehicle or Divine Swan of Discrimination (discriminating illusion from reality) that belongs to Lord Brahma (notices Brahma and Brahman both come from the Sanskrit root, Bri).

So, instead of Soham/Hamso (as I was taught), it became Soham/Hamsa.

This is why you cannot find this anywhere.

 

[outhouse]

Thank you! Frubal.

Now that's the stuff this thread is all about. I shall read on, but a great piece of intel there.

Don't get to wrapped up, the information given to you isn't exactly correct.


The original text were written in Hebrew

The later text of John is a Greek translation, of which we have no idea how the origin Greek was used.

Many think the beginning of John was added at a much later date.

 

[NobodyYouKnow]

Don't get to wrapped up, the information given to you isn't exactly correct.


The original text were written in Hebrew

The later text of John is a Greek translation, of which we have no idea how the origin Greek was used.

Many think the beginning of John was added at a much later date.

I am not allowing myself to get too 'wrapped up' here because the 'Hindu guys' have already basically all called me a 'new age B.S artist'.

If anything, this is not only a lesson in linguistics, but also a social experiment.

*Hebrew was one language I just couldn't learn anyway...way too hard basket.

 

[Pegg]

Hahaha. Thanks. Yes, the tradition of depicting Christ in such a way goes back to the earliest representations of Christ in art. If you look at His hand, He is making the Sign of the Cross (with His first two fingers) and the Sign of the Trinity with the other three. Orthodox Christians typically one or the other hand gestures when crossing themselves.

I know about the Hindu teaching of the Trimurti and the unity of all things.

just so long as people dont mistake that man made image as an actual photograph of Christ

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

just so long as people dont mistake that man made image as an actual photograph of Christ

As if anyone does.

 

[nash8]

I didn't, but the eternal vibration has three 'resonances' which are symbolised by the three letters in each - it's complicated - neither can be directly compared or translated.

It's like that mentioned before...the Trinity or Trimurthi of existence, the Creator God (Brahma), Human Beings (Vishnu) and the Divine Soul/spark within us (Shiva).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soham_(Sanskrit)

In different variations of Hinduism (I am referring to Hinduism, you Hindu DIR guys), 'Hamso' becomes 'Hamsa'.

Hamsa is the Vehicle or Divine Swan of Discrimination (discriminating illusion from reality) that belongs to Lord Brahma (notices Brahma and Brahman both come from the Sanskrit root, Bri).

So, instead of Soham/Hamso (as I was taught), it became Soham/Hamsa.

This is why you cannot find this anywhere.

Ahhh, very interesting info. I play a card game on my phone, and Hamsa is one of my favorite cards/creatures in the game lol. I wondered where the artwork came from.

Don't get to wrapped up, the information given to you isn't exactly correct.


The original text were written in Hebrew

The later text of John is a Greek translation, of which we have no idea how the origin Greek was used.

Many think the beginning of John was added at a much later date.

Where do you get that the original texts were written in Hebrew? I thought it was generally considered that the NT was written in Greek.

And also aren't the oldest surviving manuscripts written in Greek?

What information demonstrates that these Greek texts were translated from Hebrew?

What is the meaning of "how the Greek origin was used"? How does this play a part in the use of the word Logos?

How much later was the beginning of John considered to be added in?

 

[psychoslice]

I Am is just a way of saying, I am not this or that, you cannot conceptualize that which you truly are, once you try to say what you are, you become ignorant, so yes I AM is the nearest you can say that which you are.

 

[outhouse]

Where do you get that the original texts were written in Hebrew? I thought it was generally considered that the NT was written in Greek.

And also aren't the oldest surviving manuscripts written in Greek?

What information demonstrates that these Greek texts were translated from Hebrew?

What is the meaning of "how the Greek origin was used"? How does this play a part in the use of the word Logos?

How much later was the beginning of John considered to be added in?

Stop the nonsense if you cannot keep up.


This is a quote first used in the OT, and if you read through all the post instead of butting in, you would know that.


The original OT text were written in Hebrew

 

[nash8]

Stop the nonsense if you cannot keep up.


This is a quote first used in the OT, and if you read through all the post instead of butting in, you would know that.

The original OT text were written in Hebrew

Where does the quote, "before Abraham was, I am" appear in the OT. I am that I am, appears in the OT, but not I am. In my opinion there is a huge difference in the two.

Secondly, I read through the entire thread before I made my first post.

I know the OT text were written in Hebrew, but this thread was not about an OT verse, it was about an NT verse.

When is it generally considered that the first book of John was added in, and by who?

Lastly, would not the educated, hellenized Jewish writers of the Bible have been exposed, if not thoroughly entrenched in hellenistic philosophy, which happened to be stoicism at that period of time, whose beliefs and language correlate very closely to the ideals presented in the verses of John that were presented?

You stop the nonsense if you can't keep up.

 

[outhouse]

Where does the quote, "before Abraham was, I am" appear in the OT. I am that I am, appears in the OT, but not I am. In my opinion there is a huge difference in the two.

Secondly, I read through the entire thread before I made my first post.

I know the OT text were written in Hebrew, but this thread was not about an OT verse, it was about an NT verse.

When is it generally considered that the first book of John was added in, and by who?

Lastly, would not the educated, hellenized Jewish writers of the Bible have been exposed, if not thoroughly entrenched in hellenistic philosophy, which happened to be stoicism at that period of time, whose beliefs and language correlate very closely to the ideals presented in the verses of John that were presented?

You stop the nonsense if you can't keep up.

You interrupted a reply in which the definition used in the OT and the NT Greek usage was brought up

http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/3581745-post18.html

 

[nash8]

You interrupted a reply in which the definition used in the OT and the NT Greek usage was brought up

http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/3581745-post18.html

How did I interrupt a reply? You replied, and I replied to your reply. I also asked you a few questions of genuine interest concerning the subject. If you don't feel like answering them on this thread send a PM. I would really like to know the answers to them, and some of them you have already answered.

You have way more access to biblical scholarship than me, and presented an opinion that I haven't heard before, and I'd be interested in hearing where it came from, and what it's all about.

As with regard to the usage with of Greek in OT vs. NT my questions still apply. How does the Greek translation and usage of the two terminolgies listed and the Greek origin apply.

In other words, how does the difference in tense differ from OT to NT, and how would the (mis)translation of the OT into Greek play into the usage of it into the Greek NT?

What difference does it make, and if it does make a difference, what are the implications of the difference?

 

[outhouse]

Context, of the unknown NT author is different, only the wording track of the OT was used.

It was placed in the NT to build divinity that was competing with the Emperors divinity.


In this time they were trying to steal Gentile converts that were worshipping the Living Emperor.

They could not make Jesus divinity weaker then that of the Emperor also called the "son of god"