Go to Sannhetseeker
- Add a comment
- Go to Opinions on Gospel of Thomas 55 and Matthew 10:37-39
Westwend -
Thanks. I see what your saying. I like it. Inclusion of all, because we are all ultimately one.
posted by
sannhet
on October 28, 2004 at 3:34 PM
| link to this | reply
ok
I think Yeshua spoke in a representative voice at times. Of course, the famous reference is the one where he says "inasmuch as you have done so unto the least of these, you have done it unto me."
If we just let Yeshua speak in the first person singular, then all we have is us and him -- more rightly, the individual and "Jesus".
But if we read into the words "me" and "Son of Man" that Yeshua was referring to the people that you meet, then this becomes between the individual and others.
Son of man is used to represent a simple human being the the Old Testament; so why should it be any different in the New? Son of Man works on several levels -- a human, or a prophet (I think used to remind the prophet that he/she is human), or Yeshua taking on that appelation, could be as a title given to him -- could be also that he identifies himself as human -- can be the duality - - Yeshua and others whom we encounter.
so love/hate relative to mother and father and self versus Yeshua is really a hating of the self that we are to leave behind -- the one that lives by the rules of the world -- we all should know what they are because we have lived by them all our lives -- a hating of others that persist in living thus -- and a loving of the goal of reaching for the spiritual -- giving up physical and secular things for the spiritual -- and being a light to others in -- not your words ("Know Jesus", "Love Jesus", "Jesus loves you", etc.), but in actions -- the actions of the Sermon on the Mount (see MY TRANSLATIONS) which are totally counter to those actions that are usually considered advantageous.
Treat the other person as God.
posted by
Xeno-x
on October 28, 2004 at 2:02 PM
| link to this | reply
Westwend -
Could you elaborate on the "me" and the "son of man" referring more to others?
posted by
sannhet
on October 28, 2004 at 7:17 AM
| link to this | reply
JustA -
That's really beautiful. As with Ukie's comment, I am not familiar with it.
posted by
sannhet
on October 28, 2004 at 7:16 AM
| link to this | reply
Ukie -
Not familiar with what you said in your comment, but thanks for stopping by.
posted by
sannhet
on October 28, 2004 at 7:14 AM
| link to this | reply
i think its like
if you offend, its better to pluck out your eye
its relative
you have to love the spiritual aspects of life more than you do certain physical aspects
think about friends or relatives that you might have had to say no to -- either because to say yes would be harmful to both you and them -- or you have sort of pointed yourslef toward a better way
its not hating the person -- its hating certain usual lifestyles and attitudes and such.
because -- the "me" and the "son of man" in a lot of cases, I really do believe, refers more to other people than it does to Yeshua.
the higher aspects of things as opposed to the lower.
there are parables in much of what Yeshua says.
posted by
Xeno-x
on October 28, 2004 at 6:02 AM
| link to this | reply
ukie…your comment lead me to think…
Raja
It is royal to live according to our own burdens…but with sympathy toward the burdens of others…
I am humbled by what I do not know…but in that I find my partner…for Eternity…
Acceptance…bears the fruit…of fruits...
Praise that which is coming…
The Truth…Will Be…
posted by
justAcarpenter
on October 28, 2004 at 12:03 AM
| link to this | reply
raja
rajanaan, yen sarvamun neere...jai jai kaar ...thunai Yesuve!
posted by
QuailNest
on October 27, 2004 at 5:27 PM
| link to this | reply