|
Post by Beingist on Jan 5, 2012 18:02:03 GMT -5
You shall know the Truth, and the Truth shall set you free. You are freedom. Indeed.
|
|
|
Post by Beingist on Dec 22, 2012 0:35:02 GMT -5
Since it's about that time of year ...
*bump*
Was just doing some translating, and happened upon another interesting translation realization ...
It has long been an assumption that Jesus/God was 'no respecter of persons'. To the English speaking world, this means 'someone who treats [no one] according to their rank, status or importance' (per Wiktionary). However, the phrase used by Jerome in the Latin goes something like this:
Translation:
This would be a 'hard saying' to most, in the present day--after all, how can a humble, loving soul not accept people?
But, look at it directly for what it says, and we can see that this more likely means, simply, not accepting personhood.
|
|
|
Post by silver on Dec 22, 2012 0:43:11 GMT -5
That's a good point ~ Iow, He also doesn't 'recognize' them in any special way, especially if they have a status-y position in life. Or something like that.
|
|
|
Post by Beingist on Dec 22, 2012 0:49:59 GMT -5
That's a good point ~ Iow, He also doesn't 'recognize' them in any special way, especially if they have a status-y position in life. Or something like that. More like, he doesn't recognize anyone as a person. Of course, the usual definition can follow from that, regarding character, or rank, or personality, but the essential premise is not accepting the person, or personhood (a word that wouldn't appear in ancient Latin texts).
|
|
|
Post by silver on Dec 22, 2012 0:55:57 GMT -5
Oh, I see - that's cool. How would it be worded if it was intended to mean the modern understanding?
|
|
|
Post by Beingist on Dec 22, 2012 1:17:04 GMT -5
Oh, I see - that's cool. How would it be worded if it was intended to mean the modern understanding? obseruaror personarum is a literal Latin translation of 'a regarder of persons'.
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Dec 22, 2012 1:18:27 GMT -5
Since it's about that time of year ... *bump* Was just doing some translating, and happened upon another interesting translation realization ... It has long been an assumption that Jesus/God was 'no respecter of persons'. To the English speaking world, this means 'someone who treats [no one] according to their rank, status or importance' (per Wiktionary). However, the phrase used by Jerome in the Latin goes something like this: Translation: This would be a 'hard saying' to most, in the present day--after all, how can a humble, loving soul not accept people? But, look at it directly for what it says, and we can see that this more likely means, simply, not accepting personhood. Nice catch! Are there other teachings that refer to the impersonal in some way?
|
|
|
Post by Beingist on Dec 22, 2012 2:21:45 GMT -5
Nice catch! Are there other teachings that refer to the impersonal in some way? Still looking. Doubtless, I'll find something.
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Dec 22, 2012 2:26:23 GMT -5
Nice catch! Are there other teachings that refer to the impersonal in some way? Still looking. Doubtless, I'll find something. Don't go to a lot of trouble. It's just that it would be fun if he dropped a hint here and there.
|
|
|
Post by Beingist on Dec 22, 2012 2:34:01 GMT -5
Still looking. Doubtless, I'll find something. Don't go to a lot of trouble. It's just that it would be fun if he dropped a hint here and there. Well, as you know, it's all contextual. There's also so much ... negation. The Jesus of the gospels seemed to go to great effort to dispel beliefs. Hence, it's difficult, at least for me, to even look for specific teachings about anything in particular. I seem more likely to find stuff I'm not looking for. You know how it goes.
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Dec 22, 2012 3:35:13 GMT -5
Don't go to a lot of trouble. It's just that it would be fun if he dropped a hint here and there. Well, as you know, it's all contextual. There's also so much ... negation. The Jesus of the gospels seemed to go to great effort to dispel beliefs. Hence, it's difficult, at least for me, to even look for specific teachings about anything in particular. I seem more likely to find stuff I'm not looking for. You know how it goes. Makes sense. I ran into something else today. "In the beginning was the word". My understanding is that it really is "In the beginning was the logos". Is that true, and if so, what's your understanding of "logos"?
|
|
|
Post by tzujanli on Dec 22, 2012 6:51:50 GMT -5
Greetings..
One will see what they are looking for.. it's amazing what can be seen when one is not looking for something..
My perception of the quoted passage, is: that Jesus teaches the everlasting 'spirit', not the spirit's image.. i don't sense that Jesus is parsing 'personhood' apart from the person's actuality, he seems to simply be 'on point'.. it is the 'persons' that quibble about their actuality..
Be well..
|
|
|
Post by Beingist on Dec 22, 2012 10:35:11 GMT -5
Well, as you know, it's all contextual. There's also so much ... negation. The Jesus of the gospels seemed to go to great effort to dispel beliefs. Hence, it's difficult, at least for me, to even look for specific teachings about anything in particular. I seem more likely to find stuff I'm not looking for. You know how it goes. Makes sense. I ran into something else today. "In the beginning was the word". My understanding is that it really is "In the beginning was the logos". Is that true, and if so, what's your understanding of "logos"? Haven't we discussed 'logos', before? 'Word' is verbum, to me. That's the word Jerome used, and so, that's the one I have to go on, although, indeed, it was originally written in the Koine Greek, and indeed, logos has some alternate definitions (speech, oration, discourse, quote, story, study, ratio, word, calculation, reason).
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Dec 22, 2012 11:56:19 GMT -5
Makes sense. I ran into something else today. "In the beginning was the word". My understanding is that it really is "In the beginning was the logos". Is that true, and if so, what's your understanding of "logos"? Haven't we discussed 'logos', before? Yeah, I spose we have. Sorry.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 27, 2015 13:29:22 GMT -5
www.earlychristianwritings.com/thomas/gospelthomas3.html"Jesus said: If those who lead you say to you: See, the kingdom is in heaven, then the birds of the heaven will go before you; if they say to you: It is in the sea, then the fish will go before you. But the kingdom is within you, and it is outside of you. When you know yourselves, then you will be known, and you will know that you are the sons of the living Father. But if you do not know yourselves, then you are in poverty, and you are poverty." ..."you are poverty." It's like the buddha saying 'you are dukkha.' Makes sense. Without you, there is no poverty, no dukkha.
|
|