I AM or am I

I am That I am is not a clever reply in order to avoid mentioning 'God' it is the only possible reply. But it is impossible to understand intellectually...

The father and son and God are all one not two not three...Its a show of one. When one really finds out even that One is gone. Only I Am remains. The very presence the only presence, there is.
Bible says and so do texts of other religions. I Am that I am. There is nothing to understand here intellectually, because this is essentially the experience when you know who you are. I am that I Am(presence, God, intelligence, source).

Its not just Jesus or Moses it is a statement that is the core of each one of us. All redemptive message is to spur on the self enruiry of Who am I? To find out the source of I. When the answer comes It comes as I AM That I Am.
Its very beautiful and matter of fact answer really. What else can a master say? That is the truth he has found and that is what he asks you to find out for yourself. Gives you a huge pointing I Am....

The master is the gate, the way, because that is true, because by going through him, surrendering to him, with a heart connection the I Am merges into I AM. Then is found that the master and desciple are not two. The master/guru awakens the inner guru.
I AM That I AM!

Hi jnani,
In some ways I agree with you, however what you say is all modern interpretation of the I AM. The original bible texts ar not supportive of the I AM. At the time it was saiid to Moses Jesus was not born and there had been no mention of the Holy Ghost.

To take 'historical' passages and apply modern interpretations to them essentially or at least possible falsifies them. Moses heard what he heard, and Jesus was happy to say God and use the words Father and Son and Holy Ghost, so why on the one occasion of I am the way does he not use God if that is the correct interpretation - this is the real question.

love
chris

Chris, I absolutely love your deep searching - bless you!

And Ruby, another super reply.

It's my bedtime, but I promise I'll give this the thought it deserves and come back tomorrow, but briefly, the way I see it is that "i am that I AM" It is a profound statement of the one-ness of God and man.

God is the I, we are the AM. We are in the Kingdom of Heaven right here and right now. All that is really going on is eternal Life expressing Itself to Itself, AS Itself. All that is going on is immortal Love expressing Itself to Itself, AS Itself. All that is going on is divine Mind expressing Itself to Itself AS Itself. All that is going on is infinite Truth expressing Itself to Itself AS Itself. etc.

When we stand in front of a mirror, what do we see? If we are combing our hair can the mirror image be brushing its hair? When we look in the mirror we are seeing a mortal reflected, but what is God seeing and knowing? I love these words of Mary Baker Eddy:

[COLOR="Blue"] I am Spirit. Man, whose senses are spiritual, is my likeness. He reflects the infinite understanding, for I am Infinity. The beauty of holiness, the perfection of being, imperishable glory,--all are Mine, for I am God. I give immortality to man, for I am Truth. I include and impart all bliss, for I am Love. I give life, without beginning and without end, for I am Life. I am supreme and give all, for I am Mind. I am the substance of all, because I AM THAT I AM. (Science and Health with Key to the Scriptures p 253)

To a student (James Neal) she wrote, "In the depth of your Soul realize I AM, I AM, I AM, with ceaseless feeling, and you will find your whole being filled with the power of God."

Words are only a help but they point the way to the truth. Christians (and others) have argued for centuries about the exact meaning of the various words in the Bible, but it's through spiritual inspiration that we get to the truth. Tomorrow I'll share more and try to tackle the thorny issue of Jesus' words.

But I'll leave you with this:

Be still and know that I AM God.
Be still and know that I AM.
Be still and know.
Be still.
Be. (From Psalm 46)

Love and peace,

Judy

Hi everyone,

The full Hebrew line translated I AM THAT I AM is ehyeh asher ehyeh (asher meaning "that, which, who"). And no, it's not mere chance - the Hebrew name for God, YHWH, does come directly from ehyeh, meaning "to be" or "to happen". I'm not an expert on Hebrew grammar - I did two semesters of it at uni, but let's just say, it's complicated!! - but I'm pretty sure that in this case, that verb is in a form that suggests an ongoing, continuing action, not something that's complete or in the past...

We might not realise just how radical that message was in Moses' day. Back then, virtually everyone worshipped multiple, anthropomorphic gods, each one associated with some particular element or place - gods of the sun, the moon, the wind, the rain, or of particular cities or regions. But here is a God who identifies Him/Her/Itself not with a place or a personality or a thing, but with being itself. The One who is; the One in whom and by whom and because of whom all things exist. There simply can be nothing outside, or separable from, that One.

Everyone will have their own individual slant on what this means, so I'm not going to go into rambling theological speculations here. But I love these descriptions from Mary Baker Eddy, the founder of the denomination I belong to, of what we, therefore, are in relation to that One: "the outcome of God"; "the expression of God's being"; "the immortal evidence that Spirit [God] is harmonious and man eternal". We are what God is being right now - what this one Mind is knowing, what this one Life is living. The implications of this are huge... endless, really. But I think I'll leave it there. 🙂

With love, Charis

Thanks for that Charis - I've included some Bible notes at the end of my (I'm afraid rambling) post which discusses the meaning of the I AM and the way Jesus used it.

By a special God-incidence, the Bible-lesson that all students of Christian Science study during the week and which is then read out loud as the sermon on Sundays, is titled Truth this week and includes the statement by Jesus:

[COLOR="Purple"] I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me. (John 14)

This statement, plus other passages, especially in John’s gospel (including the opening words) are taken by most orthodox Christians to mean that Jesus is God. But I can never get my head round how the whole of infinite Spirit could be contained within a person! And was God crucified on a cross and who was God praying to etc etc? :confused:

In Christian Science, we go back to the first creation account in Genesis 1 as the true spiritual account of creation (not a literal 6 days) Mary Baker Eddy has given a wonderful line-by-line exegesis of it. (Chapter 15 from this link [url]spirituality.com |Science and Health chapters[/url] )

In Genesis 1 it states that God made man in His image and likeness. Jesus said that God is Spirit, so it follows that the image and likeness of Spirit must be spiritual. Genesis 1 also says that man was made male and female. Again, most people assume (through using deductive reasoning) that that means men and women, well yes, obviously, but could it not also mean that our higher spiritual selfhood is male AND female? Also, if God’s image and likeness is male and female, doesn’t that make God not only Father but Mother too? (But I mustn't start getting :offtopic:)

The first creation account also says that man (read that in the generic sense) was given dominion (responsibility as well as authority) and was blessed. It’s a very different story in the Adam and Eve allegory – but I’m not going to go there! 😮 Then we are told that God saw everything that He had made and it was very good and then finally, it tells us:
[COLOR="Purple"]
Thus the heavens and the earth were finished, and all the host of them. (Genesis 2:1)

The second account was written by a different author and at a different time – actually, many Bible scholars believe that it was written later than the counterfeit creation in Gen. 2 – the material and mortal. I personally see it as a correction, which was edited in the way it was by someone who decided to leave the two accounts there, side by side.

So, what has all this to do with Jesus? Well, again, most orthodox Christians believe that Jesus came to show that God can be manlike. In Christian Science the very opposite is understood to be the truth! To me, one of the clearest explanations of Jesus' mission was made in the article,’ Christ Jesus and True Sonship,’ by Nathan Talbot

...to define Jesus as God would disguise the purpose of Jesus' presence on earth...

Jesus' life was not an illustration of how God could be manlike. Instead, his life afforded incontestable proof that man's true identity is Godlike. Jesus illustrated how each individual can realize himself to be the likeness of God. To define Jesus as God would misrepresent the nature of God, who is All, infinite Spirit.

On the other hand, to define Jesus' true nature as a mortal is to misrepresent his real identity. Jesus came not to show us that God can be a man but to disprove the belief that God's man is a mortal...

Christ is not actually a name – but a title for Jesus, meaning the anointed.

Mary Baker Eddy explains:
[COLOR="Blue"]
Jesus was born of Mary. Christ is the true idea voicing good, the divine message from God to men speaking to the human consciousness. The Christ is incorporeal, spiritual,--yea, the divine image and likeness, dispelling the illusions of the senses; the Way, the Truth, and the Life, healing the sick and casting out evils, destroying sin, disease, and death. (Science and Health 332)

The Christ was the Spirit which Jesus implied in his own statements: "I am the way, the truth, and the life;" "I and my Father are one." This Christ, or divinity of the man Jesus, was his divine nature, the godliness which animated him. (Science and Health 26)

The Christ was Jesus' spiritual selfhood; therefore Christ existed prior to Jesus, who said, "Before Abraham was, I am." Jesus, the only immaculate, was born of a virgin mother, and Christian Science explains that mystic saying of the Master as to his dual personality, or the spiritual and material Christ Jesus, called in Scripture the Son of God and the Son of man--explains it as referring to his eternal spiritual selfhood and his temporal manhood. (Message for 1901 p 8)

The Christ was not human. Jesus was human, but the Christ Jesus represented both the divine and the human, God and man…
(Message to 1901 page 10)

Back to the Bible-Lesson on Truth this week. There are some notes online to go with it and which discuss I AM and Jesus’ use of the words and in which context. That’s why I said it was a wonderful God-incidence!

[url]Bible notes I AM[/url]

Love and peace,

Judy

tackle the thorny issue of Jesus' words.

But I'll leave you with this:

Be still and know that I AM God.
Be still and know that I AM.
Be still and know.
Be still.
Be. (From Psalm 46)

Love and peace,

Judy

That is all there is to say. All spiritual quest contained in the above. Alpha to Omega covered. If a seeker just stopped here, he/she is home. Seeking over! But it is so simplistic that people keep looking for 'profound' teachings Thanks Judy for quoting this powerful precise and simple pointing.

Hi Judy, Charis and jnani,
Thanks for the comments - and I do agree with everyone that this kind of 'I AM' thing certainly can be interpreted as you describe it, a way of describing the singularity that represents it all.
I think that we also have to take into account the historical record though in such a way that it is put into context for the time and place at which it occurred and what was actually recorded.
Thanks Charis for the reminder that the god that spoke to Moses was different to those that were being worshipped at the time. It can't have been easy to persuade people to leave Egypt and go on a journey with the degree of uncertainty that was part of the one that Moses proposed to them, so perhaps the more 'I AM' rather than the 'I am' description was appropriate and needed.

This does not mean however that every single utterance that started with 'I am' after that carried the same meaning. If I look through the words of Jesus I find occasions where the 'I am' occurs and I do not think they are meant as 'I AM' - and the prime example is the 'I am the way'. If it was meant to mean 'I AM the way' then why in the chapters preceding it does Jesus speak of God, why not 'I AM'? and in the surrounding chapters he speaks of the Father, when the use of 'I AM' could also have worked? This is as far as we can suppose a record of what was said, and we know to whom it was said. There was no need for big pronouncements, Jesus was explaining what he saw was coming, he was preparing them for the events about to unfold, he did not really need to convince them of anything, they were his disciples. So when he uses the 'I am the way' I think that the supporting evidence does not point to him meaning 'I AM', in fact just the opposite, for there was no reason why he would not have been more explicit and said 'God'.

Furthermore in the Bible the use of 'I AM THAT I AM' is rendered in capitals, and of course this sets the 'I AM' thread going, however in the bible too we see the 'I am the way' not in capitals, now I understand this is just a translation, but if Jesus was saying 'I AM' then why is it mis-written?
For instance there are a number of cases in the bible of 'I am the LORD', the use of capitals supports the meaning, another example is "Thus saith the LORD; Behold, I am against thee", another use placed in context by the use of capitals, these cannot be ignored simply to apply a later message that every time the 'I am' is spoken the meaning is changed to 'I AM'.

But it is actually more important than it seems. For if the use of 'I am' is used it changes what people think Jesus' mission was, it alters whether he died to save us or whether he lived to save us.

This is much, much more important than just a discussion about what the meaning of 'I AM' may be, for taken in the right context the meaning is clear, but if it is wrongly applied then it potentially makes a mockery of what Jesus meant and his entire earthbound existence.
If he meant 'I am' then the message is that he had set the example of how to live then that is what we should be choosing to do, this was God's reason for sending him, if however he meant that the only way to reach God was through God then the message is very different, it becomes coercive rather than persuasive.

If we get this wrong, one mistake in just this small section, then the whole point of 'Christianity' and Christ's message, is subverted towards singular, loveless, central power and control, and yet if we get it right it becomes personal, loving, individual and empowering.

The churches would love to exert this control over the 'congregation', and often do, but if you go back and read the gospels this was never Jesus' message, he always advocated humility and not control - for instance: " But all their works they do for to be seen of men: they make broad their phylacteries, and enlarge the borders of their garments, And love the uppermost rooms at feasts, and the chief seats in the synagogues, And greetings in the markets, and to be called of men, Rabbi, Rabbi." This is the sign of control, the fear that God must impose in order to control, and yet this was never what Jesus said - "But be not ye called Rabbi: for one is your Master, even Christ; and all ye are brethren." - he handed over the choice to each of us, and part of this choice was to follow his example, his reason to be here, to choose the way, the truth and the life, he saw us as equals.
Even Peter understood this "For even hereunto were ye called: because Christ also suffered for us, leaving us an example, that ye should follow his steps: who did no sin, neither was guile found in his mouth" - he understood that Jesus suffered (not died) and the example was that thorough all the suffering Jesus was constant to the way, the truth and the life.

Go into a church and ask yourself if you believe that Jesus would be proud of it, of the people in it, the loud prayers, the songs, the leaders and the very building itself, feel the lack of love, the absence of healing and compassion - then realise what translation in support of control can do. Then ask Jesus himself what he thinks.

Big stuff eh...

If all he wanted to get across was that the way to God was through God then he would have been better served simply to enter the priesthood and become a powerful figure there, instead he demonstrated a way of living that was honest, true, gentle and loving, and in doing so provided a living example of the way to God - this I think was what god wanted to show us, not to give us a set of rules to live by, for blind obedience adds nothing to the heart except false pride, but to allow us the choice of whether we would see the true road that we could take, and whether we would choose to follow it through love and see that it allows us to grow and find grace.

So this is not just a small point of translation, it is the very crux of Jesus' existence and life.

The use of 'I am the way' in no way degrades the message of 'I AM', the contents of Psalm 46 remain intact, but the context of the chapters surrounding 'I am the way' in John do not support its use in this case......I think... and I think that other texts in the bible bear this out.

But why no ask him?

love
chris

I am very interested in your thoughts and musings Chris.

A book which sorted out an awful lot for me was [url]Jesus the Man by Barbara Thiering [/url]- fascinating! She is a Professor of Theology at Melbourne University. Gave me a whole new perspective, and well worth reading. Elaine Pagels' translations of the Nag Hammadi Tractates also fills in a lot of spaces too.

Don't forget, translations from Aramaic to Greek to Latin to English can also alter the balance of understanding, even without taking into account the current understanding and practices when the translations took place (often forgotten now), not to mention the setting up of power bases for those in charge, so what we have now may be quite far from what was actually written originally. Following the Council of Nicaea in 325 AD when Christianity was set up as the main religion of the Roman Empire by Constantine, it encompassed beliefs from some other religions for unification purposes, so even by then there will have been manoevering of information to define unity of beliefs for the whole of Christendom. Following the Council, the Bible was then put together to reinforce these parameters, and as many other religious books were destroyed as possible, including the burning of the great World Library at Alexandria - so very much was lost then, and what survived was later destroyed by the Arabs when they ransacked Egypt in the 7th century. Very little original work survived, so the Nag Hammadi Tractates were a revelation. So 'I AM' may be more than a bit confused and confusing without a doubt!

I know that there will be those that disagree with the above, but do a lot of reading around the subject and you might come to a similar sort of conclusion :rolleyes:

Hi Chris, I love your deep searching and your logic and integrity! 🙂

It's interesting - reading through your post for the second time today, I can see that you are coming from a completely different position in your conclusions as to how the "I am the way, the truth and the life, no man cometh unto the Father, but by me." has been used by Christians.

I also write on a fundamentalist Christian website - I can tell you, it is not the calm and loving place that HP is 😮 Most of them seem to spend their time attacking one group or another who don't believe exactly what they do. For instance, you are a heretic if you don't believe that the Bible was dictated word for word by God (so how do you account for all the contradictions and mistakes?) and the other great battle is over whether Jesus is God. I'm actually finding more open-mindedness on the Atheist/agnostic pages there, which is a pleasant surprise.

Anyway, the point I'm trying to make is that most Trinitarian Christians take that sentence as proof that Jesus was saying that he was God. They then set out to worship Jesus (not something he wanted) and use the second part of the sentence as exclusivity - as meaning that only Christians who have made Jesus their personal Lord and Master and accepted that he is God will reach salvation. All the rest of us will burn in hell! :014:

If I look through the words of Jesus I find occasions where the 'I am' occurs and I do not think they are meant as 'I AM' - and the prime example is the 'I am the way'. If it was meant to mean 'I AM the way' then why in the chapters preceding it does Jesus speak of God, why not 'I AM'? and in the surrounding chapters he speaks of the Father, when the use of 'I AM' could also have worked?..... So when he uses the 'I am the way' I think that the supporting evidence does not point to him meaning 'I AM', in fact just the opposite, for there was no reason why he would not have been more explicit and said 'God'.

In the [url]Bible Notes[/url] I gave yesterday:

Greek: KJV John 14:6 Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me.

Ego eimi (sounds like:e-go i-mee') 1) to be, to exist, to happen, to be present. John’s gospel used “I am” as a way of showing that Jesus is the Son of the God of Moses in Ex. 3:11-15.[1] Ego eimi shows up primarily in contexts where Jesus was speaking of himself in relation to God. For those who might like to study how Jesus likened himself to the eternal “I Am” by saying “I am”, the footnotes contain a list of Johannine texts that use ego eimi in a divine sense.[2] It should be thought provoking that a man who would rise from death should use this phrase of himself.

The notes [2] have a list of which context Jesus is probably speaking in. As a student of Christian Science, I believe as below:

[COLOR="Blue"]...Jesus Christ is not God, as Jesus himself declared, but is the Son of God. This declaration of Jesus, understood, conflicts not at all with another of his sayings: "I and my Father are one,"--that is, one in quality, not in quantity. As a drop of water is one with the ocean, a ray of light one with the sun, even so God and man, Father and son, are one in being. The Scripture reads: "For in Him we live, and move, and have our being."(Science and Health 361)

As I explained yesterday, to my understanding, Jesus came to show us, not that God can be man-like, but that that our real self-hood is God-like, not material with sometimes base and gross behaviour. As real man (the generic sense, including men and women) is God-like, we can and should indeed follow Jesus in all his ways - in his Christ qualities and in his Christ authority over all material limitations and suffering.

God is Love, therefore man, God's image and likeness must be loving, compassionate, patient, etc.

God is Spirit, therefore man, God's image and likeness must radiate the light of the Christ and be pure, innocent, good, sincere, powerful, eternal, etc

God is Truth, therefore man, God's image and likeness must be honest, truthful, sincere etc

I understand God to also be Life, Mind, Principle and Soul.

To me, it is through understanding what God really is (not some man-made masculine deity with human emotions, punishing and being selective in His favours), but the divine Principle, Love, which is what Jesus fully demonstrated, that we find the way to truth and life!

I have now run out of time, so will have to continue later. But perhaps Chris you can come back and continue this interesting discussion.

Love and peace,

Judy

Hi Judy,
Thanks for the reply - will read, digest and respond later. In the meantime a (long) response to some of what Caroline said, and much else that just spills out.

love
chris

Hi Caroline,
Thanks for the interest, alarmingly I doggedly follow these things wherever possible, each answer simply opens up more questions until eventually one arrives at the heart of the issue, and there lies the truth, but it is important I think that we do not just accept what people say on face value, there are many people claiming insights, healing methods, and ill formed modalities without ever truly evaluating them or analysing the cause and effect - this thread and your reply just widens the range of scrutiny.

You are correct that what we read in the bible, and what we (think we) know about those times is 'moderated' and has been through several layers of political and religious manipulation.

The reason I started to look at this was that while I understood the I AM concept, and it is a sort of spiritual, comprehensive absorption rather than a describable phenomenon, it seemed very clear that the translationists had got a bit over-enthusiastic with its application. This is a classic thing to happen, for when we discover something that works we assume that we can apply it to everything, but it is rarely true. The 'I AMists' I'm sure will disagree, however I felt that they were being a bit fervent and so I looked harder (of course it is difficult to disagree with established wisdom and the purveyors therein, but isn't that what we are all doing on this site!).

Here is another example of the controlists - some of us have worked at contacting those in spirit, so we understand the process of discernment - we know it works (I am no medium even so), yet when the idea of contacting Jesus is raised many throw their hands up in horror as if some great crime is being committed, or as if to ask 'who are you to talk to Jesus?', why? It makes no sense, he is there and we can talk to him about things (rather than just begging, begging, begging which is the normal contact mode).

So I examined 'I am the way...' and found that it much more relevant about Jesus' life and helped to dispel much of what I still feel uncomfortable about his death. I have never subscribed to the 'he died for us', 'to remove our sins', it has always felt like a cop-out, a way of absolution without responsibility. I think this kind of translation was one of the political/religious manipulations designed to make it all more powerful and attractive, coercive and restrictive.
Yet I feel that there is enough in the gospels to put together to make a reasonable picture of who he was and what his message was. He constantly urged tolerance in an environment that was intolerant (and it still is), love at a time when there was much hate driving society (and there still is), equality in a political arena of racism (and it still applies), humility where there was only conceited pride (and there still is the same).

He healed and preached in a manner that alarmed the established political/religious power bases, and he knew it, that was what he saw during his time in the wilderness and he saw too the potential path of compromise and all that it would lead to. He understood the danger, he knew what was coming yet never deviated, lied or compromised in order to avoid the confrontation that loomed. He could have accepted a place in the religious orders, a powerful but compliant priest (willing to fall down and worship the devil - guess who that might be), fame and power, but he denied the temptation and chose the hard, honest path. This was the way that he lived his life, and this was the example that he set, not how he died but how he lived - and I think this was the real message of 'I am the way..'.

Now this is not just about the translation, it is not just about the need for people to lay their own interpretations on it, it is much more important than that, for it changes the whole structure of Christianity and the established church powerbase.

Where we have High priests and Archbishops he would advocate only humble followers, working for the good of the community rather than for the power of the Church. Where we have grand buildings that get bigger and bigger in some apparent race to attract God's attention he would have preached on a hillside, where we see masses of people chanting 'vain repetitions' together he would see each praying in private (Take heed that ye do not your alms before men, to be seen of them). He says all this, he tells the people and the priests that this is the way to do it, and no one pays attention. He hands over (in an attunement) the power to heal, straight to the disciples, and for a while they hand it on to others like Stephen, but all is forgotten in the race to control and accumulate and dominate, and today there is pretty much no healing in the Church, and none of the priests know how any more - their hands are dead, used only for collecting money.

However if the 'I AM' is correct then this bolsters the great and imposing view, for 'I AM' was used first in order to command, it was used as a 'phrase of power' to compel the people (to leave Egypt), it gave the power and authority of instruction to the High Priest (Moses at the time), it is perfectly in line with the Grand Church, and if applied to 'I AM THE WAY....' and every other instance of 'I am' it further reinforces this view. The hierarchy of the Church is confirmed, the priests alone have the power to forgive any sin, again and again in an addictive manner, the congregation is reduced to a single compliant entity and contact with Jesus is discouraged (actually I made that last bit up - lol), but the priests become the only ones who have contact with God rather than anyone and everyone, the messages are translated and become instructions pronounced with deep authority creating fear and obedience.

The essential, gentle, caring and loving person that Jesus was is somehow lost because it does not fit in with the power base (which was why they crucified him in the first place) and he becomes a sad figure on the cross rather than a celebration of 'the way, the truth and the life'. We make more of the pathos of his frightening death and less of the captivating magic of his wonderful life, this is upside-down, reorganised for the wrong reasons by the wrong people.

So this is not just a matter of translation.......
love
chris

... The hierarchy of the Church is confirmed, the priests alone have the power to forgive any sin, again and again in an addictive manner, the congregation is reduced to a single compliant entity and contact with Jesus is discouraged (actually I made that last bit up - lol), but the priests become the only ones who have contact with God rather than anyone and everyone, the messages are translated and become instructions pronounced with deep authority creating fear and obedience.

The essential, gentle, caring and loving person that Jesus was is somehow lost because it does not fit in with the power base (which was why they crucified him in the first place) and he becomes a sad figure on the cross rather than a celebration of 'the way, the truth and the life'. We make more of the pathos of his frightening death and less of the captivating magic of his wonderful life, this is upside-down, reorganised for the wrong reasons by the wrong people.

So this is not just a matter of translation.......
love
chris

Absolutely agree Chris. And translation is only one way of skewing and manipulating the information for the Power and Control Base. Choosing what to put in and what to leave out is another - I believe we only have half the story/information. Control of information is all-controlling.

Thiering puts in a lot of background which describes the difficult times they were in and that a lot of the gospels are written in 'pesher' - where they have 2 meanings - the obvious one and the hidden ones where words are given a completely different meaning, so there can be an entirely different script to those who know the code. She also covers many customs of the people - it is really worth reading (too much info for me to cover here) - and clarified so much for me. Unfortunately I no longer have a copy - it was lost in the floods a few years ago. I could do with rereading it. She has done an enormous amount of research including on the Dead Sea scrolls.

What I believe now is certainly different from say 20 years ago - before my 'quest' started! I tend to keep it to myself though.

So Chris - keep asking and keep learning - it's a fascinating road ahead.

Hello Caroline,

I'm looking forward to talking a bit with you about Elaine Pagels etc, but have a lot on at the moment, so it will have to wait a few days!

And Chris, I keep finding your ideas irresistible and though I should be doing other things right now .....:

So I examined 'I am the way...' and found that it much more relevant about Jesus' life and helped to dispel much of what I still feel uncomfortable about his death. I have never subscribed to the 'he died for us', 'to remove our sins', it has always felt like a cop-out, a way of absolution without responsibility. I think this kind of translation was one of the political/religious manipulations designed to make it all more powerful and attractive, coercive and restrictive....

Chris, you really should read the chapter Atonement and Eucharist in Science and Health! :p
Have a look at this page - doesn't it sound like you? (I've put red marks at the beginning and end) [url]spirituality.com S&H 20[/url]

At-one-ment is about man's one-ness with God, and how man is reconciled to God, not God to man. Here are a few excerpts from that chapter:

[COLOR="Blue"]Jesus of Nazareth taught and demonstrated man's oneness with the Father, and for this we owe him endless homage. His mission was both individual and collective. He did life's work aright not only in justice to himself, but in mercy to mortals,--to show them how to do theirs, but not to do it for them nor to relieve them of a single responsibility. (Science and Health 18)

Final deliverance from error, whereby we rejoice in immortality, boundless freedom, and sinless sense, is not reached through paths of flowers nor by pinning one's faith without works to another's vicarious effort. Whosoever believeth that wrath is righteous or that divinity is appeased by human suffering, does not understand God. (p 22)

One sacrifice, however great, is insufficient to pay the debt of sin. The atonement requires constant self-immolation on the sinner's part. That God's wrath should be vented upon His beloved Son, is divinely unnatural. Such a theory is man-made. (p 23)

Here are some other parts of that chapter that you may find worth reading Chris:

[url]spirituality.com S&H 25[/url]

[url]spirituality.com S&H 37[/url]

He hands over (in an attunement) the power to heal, straight to the disciples, and for a while they hand it on to others like Stephen,....

I don't believe that Jesus had special power that he somehow passed onto his disciples, but that every man, woman and child in the world could heal if they were to understand what God is and if they allowed their consciousness to be so pure that the divine Mind could flow through it.

I've experienced cures (often instantaneous) countless times through a right idea of what God is and what I am as His/Her image and likeness. That understanding precludes the possibility that anything inharmonious could have been caused or allowed (or even known) by divine Love. Therefore, suffering, lack, limitation, sin, disease and even death (the last enemy that shall be destroyed I Cor 15:26) must be iligitimate and unreal. I can only conclude that healing was lost when Christianity became organised, because the vital spark of inspiration and communion with God were lost when that happened.

The essential, gentle, caring and loving person that Jesus was is somehow lost because it does not fit in with the power base (which was why they crucified him in the first place) and he becomes a sad figure on the cross rather than a celebration of 'the way, the truth and the life'. We make more of the pathos of his frightening death and less of the captivating magic of his wonderful life, this is upside-down, reorganised for the wrong reasons by the wrong people.....

Yes it saddens me that many Christians don't go further than the cross - and think of how crosses are all over churches, as if that was the end of the story! But Chris, I've noticed that you too are ignoring the resurrection and the ascension. It was the way Jesus proved that divine Love destroys hate and eternal Life destroys death. It was the resurrection and ascension that was the crowning point of Jesus' career.
[COLOR="Blue"]
In his resurrection and ascension, Jesus showed that a mortal man is not the real essence of manhood, and that this unreal material mortality disappears in presence of the reality. (Science and Health 292)

Do you deny the resurrection and ascension Chris? Just curious.

love and peace,

Judy

Hi Judy,
I'm getting behind again so apologies - I tend to write off line (which is why my quotes are often not 'regular quotes', but it does allow ne time to think about what I write a bit more.)

I think that some of the surrounding text to 'I am the way..' does suggest that Jesus is a sub-part of God, just as the Holy ghost is also (I never noticed that he says he will be "which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name" - hmm - needs looking into), so for me unsurprisingly he says he is part of God, as is the Holy Ghost. I agree that this does not stop them all being 'one', just as our kidneys are part of us, but still separate (poor analogy I know but actually better than the ray of light and the sun as the ray is no longer part of the sun, I think) - he also

Yes- we can be like Jesus and therefore like a part of God, he says so, and the route to get there is by 'The way, the truth and the light', and as you say in all of his ways - not because he tells us to and we blindly obey, but because we understand and choose to - this is why he spent so long explaining it to the disciples and others, sometimes in parables and sometimes plainly - as you put it " the divine Principle, Love, which is what Jesus fully demonstrated, that we find the way to truth and life!" -

Now this is at the heart of it all, the tipping point of his visit, we were meant to understand this, and yet many have missed it, they see only the 'parable like' commandments, they miss that he was the example, if all that was needed was a list of do's and don't's they could have just been inscribed on a few tablets of stone (lol), but it was the living example, with all the trials that theoretical rules never see, the politics and repercussions, the severe penalty that may be applied by those in power for threatening their power base, none of this is evident in the rules, and it is only by the unwavering example that we see the true way is by choosing and being constant right through to the end. He says a number of times that blindly following the rules get nothing, it is not enough to comply, we must choose the way, not be told or compelled, it is our choice, we have free will, and this is the point - if we choose, we do it through love, if we comply, we do it through fear - only one way works.
love
chris

Hi Chris,

I won’t write tons to you today, to give you an opportunity to catch up! But you haven’t answered my question as to whether you believe in the resurrection and ascension!

I came across this today in Science and Health and felt it was relevant to what you’ve been writing about:

[COLOR="Blue"]To understand all our Master's sayings as recorded in the New Testament, sayings infinitely important, his followers must grow into that stature of manhood in Christ Jesus which enables them to interpret his spiritual meaning. Then they know how Truth casts out error and heals the sick. His words were the offspring of his deeds, both of which must be understood. Unless the works are comprehended which his words explained, the words are blind. (p 350)

Love and peace,

Judy

Hi Caroline,

Just wanted to say that though I haven’t read Elaine Pagels' other books, I have Beyond Belief – The Secret Gospel of Thomas, which I highly recommend for a glimpse into original Christianity.

There were many differing shades of belief and practices in early Christianity (and arguments among them) , which is one of the reasons the Western Church was formed (the Eastern Orthodox broke away) and brought under one teaching and a set of creeds, with the approval of the books of the early writings that basically agreed with their beliefs, formed into the New Testament. There were only four gospels included because there were only four main winds in the world - makes sense doesn't it! :confused:

Pagel’s premise seems to be (other Bible scholars disagree) that there was rivalry between the authors (and followers) of John’s teachings and Thomas’ and she points out, using this bit below that Christianity might have been very different had the Gospel of Thomas been included too, because it turns away from the belief that we have to follow Jesus the person to get to God. (Incidentally, I was watching the excellent programme by Rageh Omar about the prophet Mohammed and Muslims believe that the only way that people can get to God is through Mohammed). Here is the excerpt from Elaine Pagels:

"According to Thomas, Jesus rebukes those who seek access to God elsewhere, even – perhaps especially – those who seek it by trying to "follow Jesus" himself. When certain disciples plead with Jesus to "show us the place where you are, since it is necessary for us to seek it," he does not bother to answer so misguided a question and redirects he disciples away from themselves toward the light hidden within each person: "There is a light within a person of light and it lights up the whole universe." (Beyond Belief – The Secret Gospel of Thomas by Elaine Pagels p 56)

I’ve more on this subject, but must go now!!

Love and peace,

Judy

Hi Caroline,
I will look out for Jesus the Man by Barbara Thiering, sounds interesting.
Yes I agree that what is left out is just as important as what is left in and how what we have access to is written and translated. The reference to pesher is interesting, it suggests that the authors knew that there would be some manipulation of what they said, and inserted 'code' that others would understand.

Hi Judy,
Yes - went to the 'prayer and atonement' chapter bit, I certainly hear many echos of what Jesus said and what I think as well (I've had this on the computer for a long time - the 1st edition but have not read it - yet). This " The danger of audible prayer is, that we fall into temptation through it, and become an involuntary hypocrite. First, by uttering what is not a real desire, and secondly, consoling ourself under sin with the recollection we have prayed over it." accurately describes what I see on my (infrequent) visits to church when the priest or vicar stands up and does his bit. No life, no understanding, just rote.
For many of these people (clerics in general) they seem to have lost the 'spark that guides them'. For instance I have great fun in Cathedrals - I take in binoculars so as to see the stained glass, and at some stage I collar one of the attending clerics (they come from local parishes often) - and explain to him that I understand that the stained glass was used primarily for teaching, and that Jesus was a primarily healer, that he did give sermons but that people came in their thousands to be healed, and that Jesus did pass this on (more later about this). They nod and nod and become hooked by this, unsure where it is going, and then I ask where the stained glass about healing is, where are the teaching aids for one of the most fundamental practises that Jesus passed to us, where are they? (of course there never are any). By now they want to know why I want to know, and there may be more collecting round, sometimes until I feel the need to stand on a pew (lol), and so I explain to them that the church has lost its way, that the fundamental things like healing , and love and compassion have been discarded to make way for grandeur, and money and ceremony, and that if they want to get the people back and interacting they need to return to the kind of things Jesus did, healing and teaching at a person level. They comment that they sometimes have healing services, but I ask where is the hands on healing that Jesus did, that was passed to the disciples, and to Stephen and should have been passed to them. The affects are amazing, their eyes shine, they remember why they joined the church, and a number have said that they will go back to their parishes and start healing, hands on healing. Often the general public stop to listen as well, it makes me smile, and is a bit wicked but effective - lol. Try it....

I could not agree more that everyone has the power to heal, what Jesus passed on was the opening up of that power, like a song that the disciples re-learned, and this is the nature of all of our 'attunements' and many of the ceremonies that we have. However this has stopped, the priests no longer sing the song to new priests, the song is lost for now, and so healing has been lost - this was the most fundamental part of Jesus' day - and they have forgotten it in the hurry to proceduralise, to wrest control and to mystify. We need no grand robes, no incense, no magnificent buildings for all this, these are the power constructs of the church.

Now - the resurrection - hmm. Many things seem to me not in doubt, and one of those is that we have a life beyond what we call death - so for me (not necessarily for the people then) this is natural and unremarkable. We also see that Jesus raised people from the dead so we know that death is not barrier to coming alive again. Given Jesus' healing abilities therefore (and those of us who also go back to give healing to him) I do not think that his resurrection is unlikely. That he ascended to God is what we all do so you see for me this is the least questionable part of his life, although it must have seemed remarkable to the people at the time, and although it is amazing, it is just what I would have expected - I see no reason to deny it.
That it should become the symbol of his life, and in many ways all we focus on is remarkable then, for he did and said many more remarkable things during his life - the message from his death pales against the messages from his life - for during his life he showed us how to live, but during his death he only demonstrated that we would survive death - no big deal.

love
chris

Hi Judy,

For instance I have great fun in Cathedrals - I take in binoculars so as to see the stained glass, and at some stage I collar one of the attending clerics (they come from local parishes often) - and explain to him that I understand that the stained glass was used primarily for teaching, and that Jesus was a primarily healer, that he did give sermons but that people came in their thousands to be healed, and that Jesus did pass this on (more later about this). They nod and nod and become hooked by this, unsure where it is going, and then I ask where the stained glass about healing is, where are the teaching aids for one of the most fundamental practises that Jesus passed to us, where are they? (of course there never are any)......

The affects are amazing, their eyes shine, they remember why they joined the church, and a number have said that they will go back to their parishes and start healing, hands on healing. Often the general public stop to listen as well, it makes me smile, and is a bit wicked but effective - lol. Try it....

Hi Chris,

Apologies for not replying earlier - I've been very tied up! Also, to be honest, I find your choice of Consolas font (and the tiny size it comes out in) really hard to read. :025:

You are amazing! It had never occurred to me to ask where the healing stained glass windows are in churches and cathedrals!! Well done you :p

I absolutely love stained glass (especially the Tiffany style) and hope one day to do a course in it. Most Christian Science churches are very plain and simple - no alter, no crosses, just two desks for the readers (we don't have clergy either) and two quotes on the wall - one from the Bible and one from Science and Health. But the original Mother Church in Boston MA, built in 1894, is a gorgeous, building, with lots of warm-toned wood and some lovely stained glass windows. And yes, there are healings - actually - all three are resurrections, I've just realised (well, that's the summit of healing!) Mary first at the Resurrection, The Raising of Lazarus, The Raising of Jairus' Daughter

Because of all the healing going on back then (and don't forget that in the 19th C, medical treatment was very hit or miss, so people were much more willing to turn to God than they are today) the church grew and grew and they had to built an extension in 1906, that seats 5,000. I just mention this, as if you want a quick glimpse of the windows I mentioned, go half way along to get to the original Mother Church - the beginning is the huge domed building of the extension. The church is on the tourist trail of Boston.

[url]Tours of The Mother Church | Church[/url] 1 min 25

I'm so glad you do believe in the resurrection too! It surely is the final proof of God-given authority over all the limitations of materiality and the belief that life and substance are in matter?

Love and peace,

Judy

Hi Judy,
Glad to see your reply - I thought maybe you had not like the bit where I said it was no big deal that Jesus resurrected - but the real meaning was that for someone like him, with all that he had done (including the three examples in the stained glass in the Mother Church) this was just what one could expect from Him, spectacular by anyone's standards but somehow in character for Him.

I too love churches and the simpler and older ones are often so much more connected, the feeling in them, the energies and the sense of peace and love is much stronger. Now this often true in places in some cathedrals (did you realise that in many the floor slopes, these were used in the week for things that included the exchange of animals so the sloping floor was easier to clean down).
I hate it when churches are closed, I understand why, I see that it has been forced on them by others behaving badly.

In each of them I find the connection to Jesus different, some more connected and some less, and in each one I ask him what he thinks of it - the replies differ - sometimes I am surprised by what the answer is, often not, sometimes I get pointers to some of the hidden best bits, things I had not noticed.
In each I leave a message for a prayer to be said, always the same, but not right for discussing here (a bit controversial). In each I ask permission from the building before entering, and give thanks when leaving, the same is true of churchyards, I always ask and while there offer my help, and give thanks and regards when leaving.

This does not make me a Christian really, you see what I write, but I do not belong to any church, I do my own thing, and just because I think that Jesus was sent to show us the way does not in any way make me feel linked to a church, and there have been many people who have been linked to god.

I have been to the local Spiritualist church, it too has some good energy (as do many of the stone circles, healing wells and other places of energy), but the point I'm eventually getting to is that they do free healing for those that need it (I'm not allowed to give healing there as I'm not trained by the Spiritualists). The spiritualist church is pretty full, there are people going for healing, and I think that if the Anglican or Catholic churches did healing sessions (I guess I'm not allowed to there either), they would attract many people in - once in, a bit like the spiritualist church, you have a captive audience, they will listen, and learn and sing and feel the energy. This is what I hold out to the clergy in cathedrals, this is what they could achieve if they chose to, this I think was what Jesus the healer would approve of.

love
chris

Thanks Chris,

This new font is much easier to read! 🙂

Well, I do learn a lot from you - sloping floors for animals in cathedrals no less!

I heard from a someone that our local Society of Friends has started a healing group one night a week and they have grown and grown.

I find it instructive to think about Jesus' works. he started with something simple (for him) - turning the water into wine. Peter's mother-in-law's healing of fever was an early one. he grew in his understanding over the three years of his mission. With raising the dead, the first one recorded was Jairus' daughter, who had just died, then there was the widow's son who was being taken for burial. Within Judaism, bodies must be buried within 24 hours. Then came Lazarus, who had been dead for 3 days, and finally, Jesus' own resurrection, his crowning point. But from what I read from my observations,is that he wouldn't have been able to do that initially, but had to grow first in his understanding and demonstration.

Love and peace,

Judy

Hi Judy,
Yes - the kind of things Jesus did did develop, and I agree to some extent that this was about his understanding of his mission. Of course I would say (I would wouldn't I) that his real mission was to show the way, but whatever one thinks the things he did and said changed.

Some of this may have been that he began to understand his mission more, some may have been just that he began to realise the extent of the power that he could, if he chose, wield. I think a good deal of it was also about politics and timing, it revolved a bit around the numbers of people he was affecting and reaching (not just healing but by the manner in which his reputation was spreading), it was also about the kind of people he was being noticed by, for instance the powerful leaders who would eventually feel very threatened and then take action.

The amazing thing is that he could see what was coming - not just predict, but see in detail. This was much more accepted in those days than now, for instance his birth was predicted and people turned up from far away once he was born (btw I've never figured out how one follows a star??), and if he had wanted some of what he saw was to come he could have tried to evade. Yet he did not, and this I think was part of the escalation (crescendo) of his life. He saw the end and did not compromise his principles and swerve away or seek advantage, he kept true to the end.

I see for instance that he became bolder about resisting what today we would call racist and in some cases sexist attitudes. In a country that was incredibly racist (and still is) he supported those who were persecuted, in a country where women were treated very badly (and still are) he stood up in their defence, these were not just minor acts of generosity or kindness, they were akin to acts of sedition, they were clearly acts of defiance and he got away with it (mainly because he was right). So while he did some amazing things by raising people from the dead, this was something he could do, but it carried relatively little risk publically or politically, while supporting people who were not politically in favour carried a lot of risk.

He resisted religious customs when he felt it was right, attacking the religious leaders attitudes and those who debased the idea of the church, he challenged some of the most strict rules by healing on Sunday for instance, and there seems to have been no area he would not challenge if he felt it was wrong.

He did what was right, all the time, and never wavered. This is exactly why I see his life as so important, not the things he did (though they are impressive), or the words he spoke (thought they were profound), but the way in which he did it, steadfast, honest and truthful, he really was the way, the truth and the life, and this was the important message (but I would say that lol).
love
chris

I love your deeply thought through insights Chris! You say you are not a Bible scholar, yet you understand so much more of what is important - the inspired Word!

Yes, I too agree that Christ Jesus is the way, the truth and the life.

He told Pilate;

To this end was I born, and for this cause came I into the world, that I should bear witness unto the truth. Every one that is of the truth heareth my voice. (John 18)

In the first epistle of John, we read:

For this purpose the Son of God was manifested, that he might destroy the works of the devil. (I John 3)

I see so many facets to his mission - but most of all, as I said earlier, I feel it was to show that man's true identity is God-like, rather than that God can become man-like. He showed us who and what God is and what he does for man. Jesus fully demonstrated the spiritual man of Genesis I who was given dominion and was blessed. Paul understood that the old theological beliefs about the Adam and Eve allegory were simply the counterfeit.

For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive. (I Cor 15)

...the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus hath made me free from the law of sin and death. (Romans 8)

He proved his one-ness with God again and again. I think that was what made the religious authorities hate him so much - that he dared (as they said) to make himself equal to God) he exposed their hypocrisy, for instance, redeeming someone's whole life, while they were fussing about outward rituals and taking the letter of the law literally - like not working on the Sabbath (Saturdays in Judaism :p )

These are two of Mary Baker Eddy's observations of why he was hated:

The determination to hold Spirit in the grasp of matter is the persecutor of Truth and Love. (Science and Health 28)

The real cross, which Jesus bore up the hill of grief, was the world's hatred of Truth and Love. (Science and Health 50)

He proved that spiritual power has dominion over material beliefs and he destroyed not only disease and death, but sin (the ways that do not work) and evil could not touch him, with his clear spiritual understanding of man's one-ness with God and his innate perfection and wholeness. But more than that, he showed us that we all can do the same - he showed us a different way of thinking and living that frees us from all the limitations and sufferings of material living and dying.

Does the world have any inkling of the enormous debt we owe him?

Love and truth,

Judy

Hi Judy,
Loved the John 18 quote - had not noticed it before.

When Jesus raised Jarius' daughter do yuo think she was dead? He said she was not but it could read either way.

5:41 And he took the damsel by the hand, and said unto her, Talitha
cumi; which is, being interpreted, Damsel, I say unto thee, arise.

5:42 And straightway the damsel arose, and walked; for she was of the
age of twelve years. And they were astonished with a great
astonishment.


love
chris

When Jesus raised Jarius' daughter do yuo think she was dead? He said she was not but it could read either way.

Oh absolutely Chris!

These excerpts from 3 resurrections make absolute sense to me - my highlights:

While he yet spake, there came from the ruler of the synagogue's house certain which said, Thy daughter is dead: why troublest thou the Master any further?...

And he cometh to the house of the ruler of the synagogue, and seeth the tumult, and them that wept and wailed greatly.
And when he was come in, he saith unto them, Why make ye this ado, and weep? the damsel is not dead, but sleepeth.
And they laughed him to scorn.
But when he had put them all out, he taketh the father and the mother of the damsel, and them that were with him, and entereth in where the damsel was lying....
And he took the damsel by the hand, and said unto her, Talitha cumi; which is, being interpreted, Damsel, I say unto thee, arise. (Mark 5)

Compare this with Lazarus:

When Jesus heard that, he said, This sickness is not unto death, but for the glory of God, that the Son of God might be glorified thereby.
Now Jesus loved Martha, and her sister, and Lazarus. When he had heard therefore that he was sick, he abode two days still in the same place where he was....

(he stayed because he wanted Lazarus to die so he could prove his authority over material beliefs)

...after that he saith unto them, Our friend Lazarus sleepeth; but I go, that I may awake him out of sleep. Then said his disciples, Lord, if he sleep, he shall do well. Howbeit Jesus spake of his death: : but they thought that he had spoken of taking of rest in sleep....

And when he thus had spoken, he cried with a loud voice, Lazarus, come forth. (John 11)

Now there was at Joppa a certain disciple named Tabitha, which by interpretation is called Dorcas: this woman was full of good works and almsdeeds which she did.
And it came to pass in those days, that she was sick, and died: whom when they had washed, they laid her in an upper chamber.

Then Peter arose and went with them. When he was come, they brought him into the upper chamber: and all the widows stood by him weeping, and shewing the coats and garments which Dorcas made, while she was with them.
But Peter put them all forth, and kneeled down, and prayed; and turning him to the body said, Tabitha, arise. (Acts 9)

This is where it's so important not to read the Bible literally - Jesus did not deny physical death - he was speaking of a higher reality - saying that death is an illusion (a dream), because Life is eternal!

Mary Baker Eddy (who raised several people from the dead) wrote:

[COLOR="Blue"]Mortal existence is a dream of pain and pleasure in matter, a dream of sin, sickness, and death; and it is like the dream we have in sleep, in which every one recognizes his condition to be wholly a state of mind. In both the waking and the sleeping dream, the dreamer thinks that his body is material and the suffering is in that body. (Science and Health 188)

Jesus said of Lazarus: "Our friend Lazarus sleepeth; but I go, that I may awake him out of sleep." Jesus restored Lazarus by the understanding that Lazarus had never died, not by an admission that his body had died and then lived again. Had Jesus believed that Lazarus had lived or died in his body, the Master would have stood on the same plane of belief as those who buried the body, and he could not have resuscitated it.
When you can waken yourself or others out of the belief that all must die, you can then exercise Jesus' spiritual power to reproduce the presence of those who have thought they died,--but not otherwise. (Science and Health 75)

It's also interesting to me how he and Peter both put out the wailing mourners. It's not helpful having hysterical or fearful thoughts surrounding your patients. You need to be alone with God.

Also, in each case, they spoke to the corpse, to arouse the person (awaken out of the stupor of death) There's an account in this article below of one of the several times that Mrs Eddy raised the dead - and she certainly was speaking to the body!! :p The author's healing of her mother's near-death is very moving too.

[url]Cracking the code[/url]

Love and peace,

Judy

Years ago, in a bookshop in Norfolk, I picked up a little book called “Revelations of divine Love” by Julian of Norwich as I was immediately attracted by the title. In 1373 Julian of Norwich (not her real name) had a series of sixteen visions of being taught by the crucified Jesus on her death bed (which healed her). She became an anchoress in the church of St Julian (and took on its name) then wrote down (over 20 years) what she had seen, in the first religious book written in English by a woman. As I read her wonderful insights about the Motherhood of God, Love and how everything is good, and how all will be well, it all felt so familiar. Here is one passage from her final chapter, which I felt adds to our discussion about what Jesus' mission was:

[COLOR="Blue"] "And from the time that it was shown, I often asked to know what was our Lord's meaning. And fifteen years after and more, I was answered in inward understanding, saying this:

'Would you know your Lord's meaning in this? Learn it well. Love was his meaning. Who showed it you? Love. What did he show you? Love. Why did he show it? For love. Hold fast to this and you shall learn and know more about love. But you will never need to know nor learn anything else for ever. So was I taught that love was our Lord's meaning.

And so I saw full surely that before ever God made us, he loved us. And this love was never quenched, nor ever shall be. And in this love he has done all his works, and in this love he has made all things profitable to us, and in this love our life is everlasting.

In our making we had beginning, but the love in which he made us was without beginning, in which love we have our beginning. And all this shall we see in God without end." (The Revelations of Divine Love)