Re: [John_Lit] Re: Christology - high and low : Jn 17:3
- Hi Mike,
----- Original Message -----
From: Mike Grondin <mwgrondin@...>
Sent: Sunday, February 15, 2004 3:40 PM
Subject: [John_Lit] Re: Christology - high and low : Jn 17:3
> --- "frideslameris" wrote:
> > I remind you of an earlier statement of mine that (some) great
> > mystics, saints, spiritual teachers, have (had) no problem to
> > speak about their divine status during their lives.
> Mike G.
> Could you give some examples of what some of these others have said
> that you find similar to what's in GJn?
I give here one, quoted in Robinsons Priority of John p. 387 (note 132).
Catherine of Genoa: : 'My "I' is God and I know no other "I" but this is my God'.
And here is something more from POJ chapter VIII: The person of Christ.
The context is a discussion about Jesus' ego eimi sayings; what is meant
when Jesus says 'I'.
It is the "I' of the mystics, who make the most astonishing claims to be one
with God, without of course claiming to be God, the "I" of Meister Eckhart
and Angel Silesius, of the Sufis and the Upanishads, where atman and
brahman are completely 'one', as in John 10.30. Such is Bede Griffith inter-
pretation, born of long exposure to this tradition. In his latest book
(The marriage of East and West, London, 1982, 189) he says of Jesus:
In the depth of his being, like every human being, he was present
to himself, aware of himself, in relation to the eternal ground of his
being. In most people this intuitive awareness is inchoate or imper-
fect, but in the great prophet and mystic, in the seer like Gautama
Buddha or the seers of the Upanishads, this intuitive knowledge
of the ground of being becomes a pure intuition, a total awareness.
Such according to the tradition of St. Johns gospel (which in its
origin is now considered to be as old as that of the other gospels)
was the nature of the knowledge of Jesus. He knew himself in the
depth of his spirit as one with the eternal ground of his being.
And so has been the awareness of many other mystics, in past and
The ability to evaluate Jesus' or Christs own 'christology', may be, to
some or great degree, be dependent on how much of this intuitive
awareness of Oneness, the exegete would have available in his own
interpretational mind frame.
In the mean time, everyone would progress on his own level of understanding
and that may be the reason why 'interpretational universes' do not always
And this very principle would probably explain a lot why many people had (or
have!) such great difficulties to understand (the teachings of ) Christ, be they friends or
Best wishes to all
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]