Je Suis - The I in Jesus

[Dodo]

Lets take a step back and make things simple. I see more mindfuck than necessary. 

Je suis

I am

The quality of I am is common in all experiences and all people.

The masterful Jesus had a message of staying present to the Iam being now.

Not that I can be sure, but that's what I gather from my limited understanding of his teachings. 

When we put i in Jesus we get Jesuis, which translates to I am in french. It appears french has a pretty good pointer.

 

Let the I ( Jesuis) get more known to the I am, by means of directing awareness on the locationless I am, rather than immediately associating the I am with a form that is localized in space and time.

 Notice how you always associate the I am with a form, even if you've been in nonduality for a long time... Its sometimes a very subtle form of identification with form, but its there.

Now Bring some more light ? to the locationless I by staying present to the Je suis in which all forms arise and letting That know itself. 

 

I am trying to be most precise and helpful in this,  i don't want to confuse anyone. Tell me if you need clarification on this "exercise".

Love 

 

 

 

 

[bejapuskas]

Amazing, never noticed that

[Preety_India]

Jesus' name in Hebrew was “Yeshua” which translates to English as Joshua.

The name Yeshua appears to have been in use in Judea at the time of the birth of Jesus. The 1st-century works of historian Flavius Josephus, who wrote in Koine Greek, the same language as that of the New Testament, refer to at least twenty different people with the name Jesus (i.e. Ἰησοῦς).

In Latin, J makes the Y sound (Yesu). When the I and the J were officially separated with different sounds in the Latin alphabet, people pronounced the J as a J not a Y so translation and letter change were the reasons why Yeshua became Jesus.Jesus does not have a last name. Last names were not common in those times. Christ is not a name, but a title. Christ means “anointed” or “Messiah”, so Jesus became the “Christ” or “Messiah” when he got baptized at the age of 30.

Jesus is just a latinized name. 

Jesus has nothing to do with the "I am" notion.. In fact Jesus was more about "we are" than "I am." 

Implying anything out of his latinized name is bogus. Focus on his teachings though. 

 

[No Self]

18 minutes ago, Preety_India said:

Implying anything out of his latinized name is bogus. Focus on his teachings though. 

That's great research. Also, Francais didn't exist in Christ's time as it evolved out of Latin centuries later. According to Google, 'I am' in Latin would be 'ego sum'.

Still a really cool idea. I like it! Reminds me of 'The Moses Code' if anyone has seen that film. And at least my original mis-reading of the title as 'Jesuit' was wrong.

Edited October 17, 2020 by No Self

[Dodo]

2 hours ago, Preety_India said:

Jesus' name in Hebrew was “Yeshua” which translates to English as Joshua.

The name Yeshua appears to have been in use in Judea at the time of the birth of Jesus. The 1st-century works of historian Flavius Josephus, who wrote in Koine Greek, the same language as that of the New Testament, refer to at least twenty different people with the name Jesus (i.e. Ἰησοῦς).

In Latin, J makes the Y sound (Yesu). When the I and the J were officially separated with different sounds in the Latin alphabet, people pronounced the J as a J not a Y so translation and letter change were the reasons why Yeshua became Jesus.Jesus does not have a last name. Last names were not common in those times. Christ is not a name, but a title. Christ means “anointed” or “Messiah”, so Jesus became the “Christ” or “Messiah” when he got baptized at the age of 30.

Jesus is just a latinized name. 

Jesus has nothing to do with the "I am" notion.. In fact Jesus was more about "we are" than "I am." 

Implying anything out of his latinized name is bogus. Focus on his teachings though. 

 

 

2 hours ago, No Self said:

That's great research. Also, Francais didn't exist in Christ's time as it evolved out of Latin centuries later. According to Google, 'I am' in Latin would be 'ego sum'.

Still a really cool idea. I like it! Reminds me of 'The Moses Code' if anyone has seen that film. And at least my original mis-reading of the title as 'Jesuit' was wrong.

Do not fixate on the finger pointing at the moon. 

My post is not about how Jesus literally means I am and that's why he had this name. No. And I am aware that french comes after Jesus. That does not mean that Je suis is still not a great pointer.

@Preety_India notice how you talk about the "I am" pointed at here as some "I am" that is associated with a body or any other sort of localized identity (ego). Hence you think I am talking about an egoic I am which is associated with one person rather than all.

What is being pointed at here is the identity of All, the gold out of which all jewels are made, the ever present mystery.

Please re-read the post without thinking I am making some claims about a historical figure or about language, but rather try to follow what is being pointed at, as a present moment reality of your very own existence. 

 

The Je suis pointed to here is not the form identity (i.e. I am a bracelet) but the quality identity (i.e.  I am gold and so is the ring over there and the other bracelet, even if they look different to the way I look and even if they say and believe different things)

Edited October 17, 2020 by Dodo

[Preety_India]

@Dodo the point is that you're conflating two things. You could have made the same post leaving Jesus out. It kinda creates this misleading thought that Jesus adopted the name for that purpose or that he somehow meant it. When in reality it is you who is perceiving it like that falsely. 

I'm trying to say that whatever you're saying in the post has absolutely nothing to do with Jesus or his name. You have simply separated his name and given your own meaning to it. It's very misleading 

[Dodo]

1 hour ago, Preety_India said:

@Dodo the point is that you're conflating two things. You could have made the same post leaving Jesus out. It kinda creates this misleading thought that Jesus adopted the name for that purpose or that he somehow meant it. When in reality it is you who is perceiving it like that falsely. 

I'm trying to say that whatever you're saying in the post has absolutely nothing to do with Jesus or his name. You have simply separated his name and given your own meaning to it. It's very misleading 

Yes, I could have used any other enlightened master. But this post was spontaneous. It just appeared as inspirational, not something I am trying to imply or to put as Jesus's teaching or intention. It's not a teaching, it's a pointing that somehow felt clear to me, but it seems you are interpreting it the wrong way, because you are trying to defend a strawman Jesus, rather than look at the Christ Consciousness which is here now and Jesus (for me) was all about. 

It's about actualizing the actual i, its not about the label that is used to get there. I only used this label, because it is associated with Truth. I know that fundamental Christians do not gel with mystical Christianity and deny the direct teachings of Jesus, because they are seen as gnostic rather than faith-based. 

Edited October 17, 2020 by Dodo

[seeking_brilliance]

@Dodo nice one ?. Does not matter if French language existed, since all of time and space exists in one singularity. I have also noticed fun pointers even in English language, usually as a play on words with double meanings. it does not matter when the language is formed. The infinite expression does not care about time in a chronological order. 

Edited October 17, 2020 by seeking_brilliance

[Preety_India]

@Dodo  you're presenting something that is egregiously false.. 

Your theory falls flat on many levels. 

1. The original name of Jesus is not Jesus but Yeshua in Hebrew. Jesus did not speak English. His was born among jews who used the Hebrew and or Aramaic language. In this language, Yeshua does not mean "I am," so right there your theory falls flat. 

2. Jesus is a latinized name. Even in English, the name Joshua has nothing to do with "I am" once again your theory falls flat. 

3. There is no such teaching by Christ that involves the expression "I am" so your theory is redundant. 

4. You have inserted an "I" in the name. That's not the actual name. You cannot simply add something in a name and make up your own interpretation. Since the name does not have that letter. Any letter added or deleted completely changes the meaning of a name. 

5. Just because there is a similar sounding word in another language, it means nothing. It's not the exact transliteration of the word, but only a phonetically similar sounding word. You cannot take two words from two languages that sound similar and make a connection wherein such a connection is never viable unless the words themselves were derivatives of each other. In this case Joshua or Yeshua or Jesus has no correlation to the words Je Suis other than a similarity in sound or pronounciation. 

6. If I have to use your logic (which is false) I can say that any word from my language is similar to the word Jesus, we have a word in my language that is written and pronounced as Jasus, if I only replace E with A, I get the word Jasus which means "a detective" in my language. It would be absurd to make such a random association of similar sounding words because Jesus does not mean detective. It has no correlation.. 

7 I don't care if you follow or believe Jesus's teachings or not. What I see is very misleading because logically there is no way to connect Jesus and Je Suis and that's why I said that your post does not make any logical sense. 

[PurpleTree]

5 hours ago, Dodo said:

Lets take a step back and make things simple. I see more mindfuck than necessary. 

Je suis

I am

The quality of I am is common in all experiences and all people.

The masterful Jesus had a message of staying present to the Iam being now........etc..

 

But but....

 

5 hours ago, Preety_India said:

Jesus' name in Hebrew was “Yeshua” which translates to English as Joshua.

The name Yeshua appears to have been in use in Judea at the time of the birth of Jesus. The 1st-century works of historian Flavius Josephus, who wrote in Koine Greek, the same language as that of the New Testament, refer to at least twenty different people with the name Jesus (i.e. Ἰησοῦς).

etc....

exactly....

 

2 hours ago, Dodo said:

 

Do not fixate on the finger pointing at the moon. 

My post is not about how Jesus literally means I am and that's why he had this name. No. And I am aware that french comes after Jesus. That does not mean that Je suis is still not a great pointer.

@Preety_India notice how you talk about the "I am" pointed at here as some "I am" that is associated with a body or any other sort of localized identity (ego). Hence you think I am talking about an egoic I am which is associated with one person rather than all.

etc..

nice explanation, love it.

[Dodo]

41 minutes ago, Preety_India said:

@Dodo  you're presenting something that is egregiously false.. 

Your theory falls flat on many levels. 

1. The original name of Jesus is not Jesus but Yeshua in Hebrew. Jesus did not speak English. His was born among jews who used the Hebrew and or Aramaic language. In this language, Yeshua does not mean "I am," so right there your theory falls flat. 

2. Jesus is a latinized name. Even in English, the name Joshua has nothing to do with "I am" once again your theory falls flat. 

3. There is no such teaching by Christ that involves the expression "I am" so your theory is redundant. 

4. You have inserted an "I" in the name. That's not the actual name. You cannot simply add something in a name and make up your own interpretation. Since the name does not have that letter. Any letter added or deleted completely changes the meaning of a name. 

5. Just because there is a similar sounding word in another language, it means nothing. It's not the exact transliteration of the word, but only a phonetically similar sounding word. You cannot take two words from two languages that sound similar and make a connection wherein such a connection is never viable unless the words themselves were derivatives of each other. In this case Joshua or Yeshua or Jesus has no correlation to the words Je Suis other than a similarity in sound or pronounciation. 

6. If I have to use your logic (which is false) I can say that any word from my language is similar to the word Jesus, we have a word in my language that is written and pronounced as Jasus, if I only replace E with A, I get the word Jasus which means "a detective" in my language. It would be absurd to make such a random association of similar sounding words because Jesus does not mean detective. It has no correlation.. 

7 I don't care if you follow or believe Jesus's teachings or not. What I see is very misleading because logically there is no way to connect Jesus and Je Suis and that's why I said that your post does not make any logical sense. 

It is my understanding, be it erroneous or not, that Jesus taught that the Self in him is the Self in all. And that his true Self is beyond form, beyond space and beyond time. 

I am not a bible scholar and do not want to talk on a fundamentalist level and I am not obsessed with language used. 

You call this a theory, but I am not trying to present a theory here.. Call it a happy synchronicity. It really is missing the point to call this a theory. It's more of using the value of different symbols to point to that same isness/being in all.

I could have just as easily wrote this thread as: The "I am" in you is the "I am" in Jesus and the "I am" in Buddha. It is not something to be believed its a pointing to an actual seeing now. Can you not go past thinking that I want to present to you some gospel here? 

 

 

Edited October 17, 2020 by Dodo

[Preety_India]

2 minutes ago, Dodo said:

I could have just as easily wrote this thread as: The "I am" in you is the "I am" in Jesus and the "I am" in Buddha. It is not something to be believed its a pointing to an actual seeing now. Can you not go past thinking that I want to present to you some gospel here? 

There is no synchronicity other than what you created which is just a rough patchwork to suit the thought in your mind. Creating something where none existed. This is not about a gospel. Your idea is already flawed at the base when it's not logical. 

I tried to show you the lack of logic in your post. If you don't agree, well that's your choice. I debate no more. 

 

Have a nice day. 

[Dodo]

7 minutes ago, Preety_India said:

There is no synchronicity other than what you created which is just a rough patchwork to suit the thought in your mind. Creating something where none existed. This is not about a gospel. Your idea is already flawed at the base when it's not logical. 

I tried to show you the lack of logic in your post. If you don't agree, well that's your choice. I debate no more. 

 

Have a nice day. 

 

52 minutes ago, Preety_India said:

7 I don't care if you follow or believe Jesus's teachings or not. What I see is very misleading because logically there is no way to connect Jesus and Je Suis and that's why I said that your post does not make any logical sense. 

Je Suis does mean "I am" in french.

Jesus pointed that the I am in him is the I am of all. 

Do you see the logical connection now? At least I see it as logical, for me. Again, if he did not teach that, that's my mistake, but you can see why I find the connection. Please have more patience. 

 

I honor that you are feeling a bit triggered, but shouting "I am right" and then leaving the room is not something which shows much respect to Truth. 

Edited October 17, 2020 by Dodo

[Preety_India]

6 minutes ago, Dodo said:

I honor that you are feeling a bit triggered, but shouting "I am right" and then leaving the room is not something which shows much respect to Truth. 

I'm not triggered. I just let you in peace with your lack of logic. I can't have the patience to keep explaining plus it leads to nothing fruitful. So yea have a great day. 

 

[Dodo]

5 minutes ago, Preety_India said:

I'm not triggered. I just let you in peace with your lack of logic. I can't have the patience to keep explaining plus it leads to nothing fruitful. So yea have a great day. 

 

You did not read the other side of my post? Oh ok. I see. You are right, because you are right. No amount of logic can change that you think there is no logical connection between Jesus and Je suis.

 

Notice how Jesus says 

Before Abraham was, I AM (not I was)

Why is he saying it in present tense? Because he is talking about the reality beyond space and time. He is talking about the universal I am. Really you saying there is no logic between them does not mean that you have let me "in peace with my lack of logic" because I know the logic behind what I am saying and I am presenting it clearly for anyone with eyes to see. 

My conscience is clear, it is not up to me whether you get what I say, just don't be so arrogant to just dismiss what I'm saying and keep repeating your old story.

Its ok that you thought there is no logic, but why go out of your way to ignore my explanation of how there is logic? To fit your original narrative, that's why. Have a good day too! 

Edited October 17, 2020 by Dodo

[Mvrs]

16 hours ago, Preety_India said:

Jesus' name in Hebrew was “Yeshua” which translates to English as Joshua.

The name Yeshua appears to have been in use in Judea at the time of the birth of Jesus. The 1st-century works of historian Flavius Josephus, who wrote in Koine Greek, the same language as that of the New Testament, refer to at least twenty different people with the name Jesus (i.e. Ἰησοῦς).

In Latin, J makes the Y sound (Yesu). When the I and the J were officially separated with different sounds in the Latin alphabet, people pronounced the J as a J not a Y so translation and letter change were the reasons why Yeshua became Jesus.Jesus does not have a last name. Last names were not common in those times. Christ is not a name, but a title. Christ means “anointed” or “Messiah”, so Jesus became the “Christ” or “Messiah” when he got baptized at the age of 30.

Jesus is just a latinized name. 

Jesus has nothing to do with the "I am" notion.. In fact Jesus was more about "we are" than "I am." 

Implying anything out of his latinized name is bogus. Focus on his teachings though. 

 

Everything is imagined Right now , 

and either way maybe someone latinized it purposefully to be that who knows but I loove how much deep insight you gave about the roots!

[Visionary]

13 hours ago, Preety_India said:

@Dodo the point is that you're conflating two things. You could have made the same post leaving Jesus out. It kinda creates this misleading thought that Jesus adopted the name for that purpose or that he somehow meant it. When in reality it is you who is perceiving it like that falsely. 

I'm trying to say that whatever you're saying in the post has absolutely nothing to do with Jesus or his name. You have simply separated his name and given your own meaning to it. It's very misleading 

Thats nonsensical and surface level thinking.

[PurpleTree]

1 minute ago, Visionary said:

Thats nonsensical and surface level thinking.

I agree, if everything is "one"

then lovely mr. Jesus most surely hinted at those things too with his "teachings"

[Visionary]

16 minutes ago, PurpleTree said:

I agree, if everything is "one"

then lovely mr. Jesus most surely hinted at those things too with his "teachings"

Yeah I would recommend some christian mysticism. Contains some deep level metaphysical stuff. Nonduality definitely not excluded. 

[PurpleTree]

9 minutes ago, Visionary said:

Yeah I would recommend some christian mysticism. Contains some deep level metaphysical stuff. Nonduality definitely not excluded. 

Any specific recommendations?