Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -

The Disciple Whom Jesus Loved


Shibolet

Recommended Posts

The Disciple Whom Jesus Loved

As far as I am concerned, John neither wrote the books attributed to him in the NT nor was he the disciple whom Jesus loved. First, if you read Acts 4:13, Luke reports about John and Peter as unlearnt and ignorant men. As you must know, I hope, illiterate people cannot write books. And second, it does not fit to a Jew of the "size" of Jesus in the First Century to hang around with 12 guys while calling one of them the disciple whom he loved. Even to mention the possibility if it had been true, would be embarrassing even to consider.

Why would John be mentioned as the disciple whom Jesus loved and not Peter who loved Jesus more than all the others? (John 21:15) For three times Jesus tested Peter as if he didn't care if the others did not love him too; even John. (John 21:16,17)

If you ask me, yes, there was a disciple whom Jesus really loved and whose love was honorable to be mentioned. That disciple was Mary Magdalene whom Jesus loved and for whom Jesus left his father and mother to cling to as a husband does to his wife and to become with her of one flesh. (Gen. 2:24) It is only obvious that Mary Magdalene followed Jesus many times to deserve that title of the disciple whom Jesus loved. And Mary Magdalene was with Jesus to the last moment of his life. (John 19:25,26)

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ben

As far as I am concerned, John neither wrote the books attributed to him in the NT nor was he the disciple whom Jesus loved.

Quite so, the Beloved Disciple is cited as the written source for one incident (end of chapter 21) and is reasonably presumed to be the source for the other matter for which an unnamed witness is cited (the stabbing of the corpse in chapter 19, and so by implication, the crucifixion itself).

As you must know, I hope, illiterate people cannot write books.

They might hire scribes. Supposedly Mohammed did. Or they might recruit unpaid volunteers.

while calling one of them the disciple whom he loved

He also loved Lazarus, apparently a non-disciple, although they hung out a lot together towards the end. It's a good thing homosexuality hadn't been invented yet; people might talk.

.. and not Peter who loved Jesus more than all the others?

The searchable term is unrequited love.

Mary Magdalene is sometimes mentioned as a candidate for the never-named Beloved Disciple. There are some problems, however, most simply that BD is referred to as "he" in the text.

It is not unusual for women to be part of male homosexual friendship circles. I dislike the American colloquial term for that, but the term, however flippant, does refer to an actual social phenomenon.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Disciple Whom Jesus Loved

As far as I am concerned, John neither wrote the books attributed to him in the NT nor was he the disciple whom Jesus loved. First, if you read Acts 4:13, Luke reports about John and Peter as unlearnt and ignorant men. As you must know, I hope, illiterate people cannot write books. And second, it does not fit to a Jew of the "size" of Jesus in the First Century to hang around with 12 guys while calling one of them the disciple whom he loved. Even to mention the possibility if it had been true, would be embarrassing even to consider.

Why would John be mentioned as the disciple whom Jesus loved and not Peter who loved Jesus more than all the others? (John 21:15) For three times Jesus tested Peter as if he didn't care if the others did not love him too; even John. (John 21:16,17)

If you ask me, yes, there was a disciple whom Jesus really loved and whose love was honorable to be mentioned. That disciple was Mary Magdalene whom Jesus loved and for whom Jesus left his father and mother to cling to as a husband does to his wife and to become with her of one flesh. (Gen. 2:24) It is only obvious that Mary Magdalene followed Jesus many times to deserve that title of the disciple whom Jesus loved. And Mary Magdalene was with Jesus to the last moment of his life. (John 19:25,26)

The physic Edgar Cayce said the beloved was John Mark, Jesus`s cousin. Jesus heal him of a leg affliction at the age of twelve and John was seventeen at the crucifixion. John wrote many letters about Jesus in his life but were lost, the one letter he wrote at the age of sixty five made the Bible.

It is believable to me because at the cross Jesus tells his mother, women here is you son.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm no Biblical scolar, but I also think Jesus loved Mary Magdalene more than his deciples, or I should say loved her in a romantic way. I also think the term "love" as pertaining to men is used as a term of friendship and comradship in these old books, and has no homosexual connotations. You can love a friend in a platonic way.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes, he loved. For God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten son, that whosoever believed on him should not perish - but have everlasting life. He loved, indeed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This concept of romantic love between Yeshua and Mary Magdalene has a strong association with the whole Sang Real / Holy Grail narrative. The 'Holy Bloodline' that supposedly runs through the Royal Houses of Stewart, Sinclair (St. Clair, Rosslin / Roseline Chapel etc) and Guelph / Este / Habsburg. I do not subscribe to this (New Age) theory. I think Yeshua loved all his diciples, but not in a romantic way.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yeah, the Beloved Disciple was most definitely not the Magdalene, especially since the phrase, "the Disciple whom Jesus loved," is the masculine version of the word in Greek, Latin, and Aramaic. English may not include the gender of a word built into its form, but the original languages of composition do. So, unless Mary Magdalene has a Caitlyn Jenner thing going on, she's not the Beloved Disciple.

And the reason it's not Peter (despite Peter loving Jesus more than anyone else assembled in that scene) is evident because speaks of and to the Disciple apart from himself in that passage.

Peter may have denied Christ thrice and been reinstated and the Magdalene may have been at the crucifixion, but John was a member of Jesus' innermost circle (along with James and Peter), a witness to the transfiguration, was the only one of the Twelve at the crucifixion, entrusted to care for Mary (despite James being just as much her son as Christ was), and stands alongside (and arguably above) Paul and Moses as the most influential Biblical writers.

There's a reason tradition says it was John; there's a reason the poetic phrasing was selected for use specifically in the Gospel of John. Short of a contrived conspiracy theory from the twentieth century with no precedent otherwise, the answer is obviously John.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I do not subscribe to this (New Age) theory. I think Yeshua loved all his diciples, but not in a romantic way.

The word "loved" used is specifically the non-romantic, companionate form of love. You want the erotic or romantic kind, you go to the Song of Solomon, but this was specifically the platonic, Christian, Agape-love.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

This concept of romantic love between Yeshua and Mary Magdalene has a strong association with the whole Sang Real / Holy Grail narrative. The 'Holy Bloodline' that supposedly runs through the Royal Houses of Stewart, Sinclair (St. Clair, Rosslin / Roseline Chapel etc) and Guelph / Este / Habsburg. I do not subscribe to this (New Age) theory. I think Yeshua loved all his disciples, but not in a romantic way.

Love of Recently Married People

One day, Jesus was paying a visit to his most dearly-more-than-a-cousin, John the Immerser, over the other side of the Jordan. Perhaps, it had been a long time since they hadn't seen each other. (John 10:40)

Soon enough, while he was enjoying the company of his dearly host, a messenger from Bethany had arrived with the message that Lazarus was so sick that he was approaching his last hour. Jesus waved the urgency, discarded the messenger, and stayed for another two days.

Before Jesus started stinking like a fish, he gathered his disciples and headed towards Bethany. There is a saying in Hebrew that, "Orehim v'dagim masrihim aharei shelosha yamim." In English won't sound so funny but it goes thus, "Guests and fish start stinking after three days."

At the sight of Bethany, but still a few yards away, Martha, in tears, was running to meet Jesus, as she informed him that Lazarus had been buried already for four days. Somehow, Jesus waved her excitement away as if he had not listened to her, and asked, "Where is Mary?"

Martha got the message and ran back to the house to inform Mary that Jesus had arrived and was asking for her. This, promptly arose, and still in tears, went to meet him. As Jesus realized that Mary was crying, a strong disturbance occurred in the deepest of his emotions, and he also joined her in her predicament with likewise a tearful face.

Conclusion: a) At the news that Lazarus was at his final hour, Jesus discarded the messenger and the message for at least another two days. B) At meeting a crying Martha with the message that Lazarus was already buried, he asked for Mary. c) Mary didn't even have to speak, but the sight of a tearful face in his beloved was enough to extract from the deepest of his heart such a disturbed emotion that caused Jesus to melt all down in tears. That could not be anything else but love of the kind of recently married people. That's an extra evidence that they were married to each other. (John 11:1-38)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

:no: I see these forums have been filled by judaistic propaganda

im not giving you the link because your intent is not knowledge but to discreted anything about Christianity by all means possible including lies,assuming things, and ignoring other passages of the holy bible .

this link is for the true jews who will live in the new Jerusalem (the Christians)

Perhaps one of the most reflective statements of the closeness of the relationship between Jesus and John was in the last moments of Jesus' life when Jesus asked John to care for his mother after His death. John 19:26-27 says, "When Jesus saw his mother there, and the disciple whom he loved standing nearby, he said to his mother, 'Dear woman, here is your son,' and to the disciple, 'Here is your mother.' From that time on, this disciple took her into his home."

It is interesting that John referred to himself as "the disciple whom Jesus loved." Love was a recurring theme in much of John's writings, this from a man who had learned about love from the master teacher of love. In John's letters (1, 2, and 3 John), he made more than twenty-five references to love. John knew that Jesus knew him and yet loved him fully. 11 John 4:7-10 ays, "Dear friends, let us love one another, for love comes from God. Everyone who loves has been born of God and knows God. Whoever does not love does not know God, because God is love. This is how God showed his love among us: He sent his one and only Son into the world that we might live through him. This is love: not that we loved God, but that he loved us and sent his Son as an atoning sacrifice for our sins."

http://www.allaboutjesuschrist.org/disciple-whom-jesus-loved-faq.htm

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ben

They might hire scribes. Supposedly Mohammed did. Or they might recruit unpaid volunteers.

This is a hypothetical and an after-the-time suggestion.

He also loved Lazarus, apparently a non-disciple, although they hung out a lot together towards the end. It's a good thing homosexuality hadn't been invented yet; people might talk.

I am not sure I can see what you are talking about because the commandment not to adopt the abomination of homosexuality was as old as the Decalogue if you read Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13.

Mary Magdalene is sometimes mentioned as a candidate for the never-named Beloved Disciple. There are some problems, however, most simply that BD is referred to as "he" in the text.

I don't think so as I am quite sure that the Fathers of the Church erased as many as they could of the references to Mary Magdalene as the disciple whom Jesus loved.

It is not unusual for women to be part of male homosexual friendship circles. I dislike the American colloquial term for that, but the term, however flippant, does refer to an actual social phenomenon.

I don't believe Jesus had any thing at all to do with homosexuality as Paul did if you read Rom. 7:8-25. That's a long explanation about the thorn in his flesh. And also because Paul was all his life a bachelor advising the young men not to take a wife and to remain as he was, free of women. (Acts 13:50 and I Cor. 7:1,8) He used to live with another bachelor called Barnabas, also a former Hellenist from the Greek town of Cyprus. (Acts 11:25,26)

Edited by Shibolet
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ben

This is a hypothetical and an after-the-time suggestion.

Mohammed's authorship of the Koran is not hypothetical, and it is uncontroversial that scribes-for-hire were widely available duirng the First Century of the Common Era.

I am not sure I can see what you are talking about because the commandment not to adopt the abomination of homosexuality was as old as the Decalogue if you read Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13.

Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13 forbid lying with a man "as with a woman." That phrase invites interpretation - it is literally impossible, so it can only be applied figuratively. Jesus was a professional interpreter of scripture. Party on.

I don't think so as I am quite sure that the Fathers of the Church erased as many as they could of the references to Mary Magdalene as the disciple whom Jesus loved.

Evidence would be nice. And it's more than erasure, since the BD is referred to as a man, as has already been explained to you by two different posters.

I don't believe Jesus had any thing at all to do with homosexuality as Paul did if you read Rom. 7:8-25.

Paul mentions covetousness at 7:7. Covetousness doesn't set off my gaydar. Regardless, Paul has nothing to say about the identity of the Beloved Disciple, a term that first appears in a book written at least a generation after Paul died.

Edited by eight bits
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ben

1 - Mohammed's authorship of the Koran is not hypothetical, and it is uncontroversial that scribes-for-hire were widely available duirng the First Century of the Common Era.

2 - Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13 forbid lying with a man "as with a woman." That phrase invites interpretation - it is literally impossible, so it can only be applied figuratively. Jesus was a professional interpreter of scripture. Party on.

3 - Evidence would be nice. And it's more than erasure, since the BD is referred to as a man, as has already been explained to you by two different posters.

Paul mentions covetousness at 7:7. Covetousness doesn't set off my gaydar. Regardless, Paul has nothing to say about the identity of the Beloved Disciple, a term that first appears in a book written at least a generation after Paul died.

1 - I have nothing to do with Mohamed.

2 - Of course! You must be hiding something to imply that Lev. 18:22 and 20:13 must be interpreted figuratively.

3 - Yes, I know. Would it help to say, "History of Christianity" from the 4th Century? I don't remember the name of the author.

4 - I know but I don't recall to have quoted Rom. 7:7 but 7: 8-25. You still can check it out.

Edited by Shibolet
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ben

1 - I have nothing to do with Mohamed.

You said that illiterates can't write books. Mohammed wrote a book which says, among other things, that he was illiterate. That the book isn't to your taste is irrelevant.

2 - Of course! You must be hiding something to imply that Lev. 18:22 and 20:13 must be interpreted figuratively.

I see anatomy is not your long suit, either. And yeah, I do pretty much keep it out of sight. Scares the horses if I don't.

3 - Yes, I know. Would it help to say, "History of Christianity" from the 4th Century? I don't remember the name of the author.

Would you by any chance mean Church History by Eusebius of Caesarea? Is there anything there you'd specifically offer for discussion?

4 - I know but I don't recall to have quoted Rom. 7:7 but 7: 8-25. You still can check it out.

What you choose to cherry pick is your affair. Paul mentions covetousness immediately before the passage you seem to think is about homosexuality.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Love of Recently Married People

One day, Jesus was paying a visit to his most dearly-more-than-a-cousin, John the Immerser, over the other side of the Jordan. Perhaps, it had been a long time since they hadn't seen each other. (John 10:40)

Soon enough, while he was enjoying the company of his dearly host, a messenger from Bethany had arrived with the message that Lazarus was so sick that he was approaching his last hour. Jesus waved the urgency, discarded the messenger, and stayed for another two days.

Before Jesus started stinking like a fish, he gathered his disciples and headed towards Bethany. There is a saying in Hebrew that, "Orehim v'dagim masrihim aharei shelosha yamim." In English won't sound so funny but it goes thus, "Guests and fish start stinking after three days."

At the sight of Bethany, but still a few yards away, Martha, in tears, was running to meet Jesus, as she informed him that Lazarus had been buried already for four days. Somehow, Jesus waved her excitement away as if he had not listened to her, and asked, "Where is Mary?"

Martha got the message and ran back to the house to inform Mary that Jesus had arrived and was asking for her. This, promptly arose, and still in tears, went to meet him. As Jesus realized that Mary was crying, a strong disturbance occurred in the deepest of his emotions, and he also joined her in her predicament with likewise a tearful face.

Conclusion: a) At the news that Lazarus was at his final hour, Jesus discarded the messenger and the message for at least another two days. B) At meeting a crying Martha with the message that Lazarus was already buried, he asked for Mary. c) Mary didn't even have to speak, but the sight of a tearful face in his beloved was enough to extract from the deepest of his heart such a disturbed emotion that caused Jesus to melt all down in tears. That could not be anything else but love of the kind of recently married people. That's an extra evidence that they were married to each other. (John 11:1-38)

A conclusion that would be ill founded in my opinion. If you want to believe what you do based on what you quote, be my guest. I have no intention to engage you on it.

31 The Jews then which were with her in the house, and comforted her, when they saw Mary, that she rose up hastily and went out, followed her, saying, She goeth unto the grave to weep there.

32 Then when Mary was come where Jesus was, and saw him, she fell down at his feet, saying unto him, Lord, if thou hadst been here, my brother had not died.

33 When Jesus therefore saw her weeping, and the Jews also weeping which came with her, he groaned in the spirit, and was troubled.

34 And said, Where have ye laid him? They said unto him, Lord, come and see.

35 Jesus wept.

36 Then said the Jews, Behold how he loved him!

37 And some of them said, Could not this man, which opened the eyes of the blind, have caused that even this man should not have died?

38 Jesus therefore again groaning in himself cometh to the grave. It was a cave, and a stone lay upon it.

https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John+11%3A1-38&version=KJV

Edited by Phaeton80
Link to comment
Share on other sites

What about the evangeliion of Judas Iscariot? It sheds a different light, it's the only biblical text I've ever read really, so dont know of its authenticity.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What makes sense to me is Cayce said Mary Magdalene was the women Jesus had saved from stoning, a prostitute. he brought her home to Lazarus and her family to be reconciled. Jesus had become very good friends with Lazarus , and when he got sick with typhoid fever Mary contacted Jesus and Lazarus was placed in a cave to cool only in a loin cloth. Jesus came and stayed with him and nurse him from from the brink of death.All that homo sexuality stuff got made up . Mary Magdalene was never the beloved in the story at the cross, but Jesus did love her and her family.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What about the evangeliion of Judas Iscariot? It sheds a different light, it's the only biblical text I've ever read really, so dont know of its authenticity.

Yeah, so, definitely not a good one to start with. There are literally Superman movies with a greater canonicity.

No one in history has put so great an emphasis on their religious texts as the Judeo-Christians. If a book of the Bible was "lost" you're guaranteed that there was a reason for it. Hell, the Catholic editions still include the second-string Apocryphal books. If a book didn't make that cut (much less abandoned for a few centuries) it's value, authority, use, and tradition were minimal, if not outright heretical.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yeah, so, definitely not a good one to start with. There are literally Superman movies with a greater canonicity.

No one in history has put so great an emphasis on their religious texts as the Judeo-Christians. If a book of the Bible was "lost" you're guaranteed that there was a reason for it. Hell, the Catholic editions still include the second-string Apocryphal books. If a book didn't make that cut (much less abandoned for a few centuries) it's value, authority, use, and tradition were minimal, if not outright heretical.

Well, all becomes somewhat relative when considering the high plausibility the whole Roman Catholic construct / dogma would be viewed as outright heretical by the very prophet this hierarchy is claiming authority from, evenmore; claiming constituting 'a substitute' in his absence no less.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, all becomes somewhat relative when considering the high plausibility the whole Roman Catholic construct / dogma would be viewed as outright heretical by the very prophet this hierarchy is claiming authority from, evenmore; claiming constituting 'a substitute' in his absence no less.

True, and there was the Schism, but also keep in mind that, well, it worked and it worked for a reason.

The Church, as any institution helmed by men and forgetful of their own purpose, has done plenty that wasn't in the brochure Jesus left for His Apostles. But as far as its supremacy in Western Europe, it only makes good and proper sense. It traced it's lineage to the last congregations of Peter and Paul. While the Eastern Church held the holy sites, the Roman Church had the last instructions from "Management". Especially in Western Europe, it was definitely right that they held preeminence and, from an historical standpoint, arguably best for Medieval Europe that they hold supremacy.

But the Churches aside, at the moment, this is about an inarguably heretical gospel. We don't know if documents like these were originally written by malcontents in the Church, cult leaders, or if they were just satire we took too seriously. What's problematic now is that antiestablishment views are not only fostered by the Internet, they're being trumpeted as the only "true gospel" out there. It's not like it's creating jihadists, but it's causing a number of academic, religious, and spiritual issues just like it did sixteen or seventeen hundred years ago.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It traced it's lineage to the last congregations of Peter and Paul.

I would not think lineage is any legitimizing factor, moreso the complete opposite; being similar to rule by royal bloodline. As for Paul; he was the only ideological opponent of James the Just, first Bishop of Jerusalem, leader of the newly found Christian community after Jesus' departure. This man Paul, this self proclaimed Apostle who never met Jesus a single second in his life - this 'former' Roman Pharisee early Christian hunter turned authoritative self- proclaimed Apostle of Christ.. created a schism in the young emerging faith, between his version and that of James.. Seeding concepts like the trinity, divinity of Jesus, abolishment of Mosaic Law etc. into this religious congregation, while having the support of the political establishment of the time, succeeded in fomenting what we know today as 'Roman Catholic Christianity'.

Especially in Western Europe, it was definitely right that they held preeminence and, from an historical standpoint, arguably best for Medieval Europe that they hold supremacy.

Hmm, Im affraid this would need some elaboration. From what point of view, for whom, in contrast to what?

But the Churches aside, at the moment, this is about an inarguably heretical gospel. We don't know if documents like these were originally written by malcontents in the Church, cult leaders, or if they were just satire we took too seriously. What's problematic now is that antiestablishment views are not only fostered by the Internet, they're being trumpeted as the only "true gospel" out there. It's not like it's creating jihadists, but it's causing a number of academic, religious, and spiritual issues just like it did sixteen or seventeen hundred years ago.

Not that I personally put any credence into the specific book you are referring to here; we also do not know who wrote the Petrine epistles, yet readily accept them as an authoritative part of the Bibilical Canon. And ofcourse, 'heretical' is everything that does not conform to the RCC variant, and in that sense has very little meaning / value.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ben

1 - You said that illiterates can't write books. Mohammed wrote a book which says, among other things, that he was illiterate. That the book isn't to your taste is irrelevant.

2 - I see anatomy is not your long suit, either. And yeah, I do pretty much keep it out of sight. Scares the horses if I don't.

3 - Would you by any chance mean Church History by Eusebius of Caesarea? Is there anything there you'd specifically offer for discussion?

4 - What you choose to cherry pick is your affair. Paul mentions covetousness immediately before the passage you seem to think is about homosexuality.

1 - But in the case of Peter and John, do you happen to know who was the scribe who took from them dictations?

2 - We are discussing the Bible, not Anatomy.

3 - I don't care. Why would I cause your Ego to explode?

4 - Paul was of the same kind of preacher "To do what I say, though not what I do, for I am a sinner too."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ben

But in the case of Peter and John, do you happen to know who was the scribe who took from them dictations?

No. I also don't know whether they dictated anything, either. Your claim was that illiterates cannot write books (in the sense of to author writings). It is a fact that they can, and some have. Whether specific illiterate persons do that is up to them.

We are discussing the Bible, not Anatomy.

Anatomy decisively establishes that the Bible phrase does not describe a literal performance. We may therefore inquire into what act is being referred to, figuratively.

I don't care. Why would I cause your Ego to explode?

I don't know, but apparently that answers one of my questions with a No - you don't have any evidence to support your statement "that the Fathers of the Church erased as many as they could of the references to Mary Magdalene as the disciple whom Jesus loved."

Paul was of the same kind of preacher "To do what I say, though not what I do, for I am a sinner too."

As another poster mentioned, if you do ever muster the gumption to read the rest of chapter 7, then think about looking in on chapter 8, too. Turns out Paul thinks he has a handle on that sin problem, one that brings the doing and the saying parts into better alignment. But, nowhere does Paul tell us about the identity of the disciple whom Jesus loved.

Edited by eight bits
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I would not think lineage is any legitimizing factor, moreso the complete opposite; being similar to rule by royal bloodline…

Well then, apart from lineage, what in your mind constitutes a legitimizing factor for an institution? I'm not suggesting that it's the only factor to consider, but it's definitely at the forefront and nigh universal in human cultures. Even within this newfangled "democracy" that we've been banging on about since the Enlightenment; while the political factions and individuals who hold the highest offices are changed out, the continuity of the office remains.

And I find highly ironic that you would compare Paul's…credentials(?)…to that of James' in the impact of early authority figures in Christianity. If it had truly been an issue of royal bloodline, James, the brother of Jesus and member of His innermost circle of followers, would have, by rights, tradition, and law, inherited the mantle of leadership his older brother had worn. Instead, Christ Himself appointed Peter as the "leader" of the expanding movement and John as the caretaker of their mother.

...As for Paul; he was the only ideological opponent of James the Just, first Bishop of Jerusalem, leader of the newly found Christian community after Jesus' departure. This man Paul, this self proclaimed Apostle who never met Jesus a single second in his life - this 'former' Roman Pharisee early Christian hunter turned authoritative self- proclaimed Apostle of Christ.. created a schism in the young emerging faith, between his version and that of James.. Seeding concepts like the trinity, divinity of Jesus, abolishment of Mosaic Law etc. into this religious congregation, while having the support of the political establishment of the time, succeeded in fomenting what we know today as 'Roman Catholic Christianity'.

Paul, meanwhile, was a boon to the early Church exactly because of his former allegiances and training, since the one thing the Lord likes more that working in mysterious ways is irony. Remember at the climax of Jedi when Vader switches sides to finish off the Emperor? So much of the power of that scene draws from the fact that Vader's been the potent and terrifying arch-antagonist for the whole series. And St. Paul was the origin of this Vader Principle; that the only thing better than rallying another to your side is if that "new hire" has been your most capable and blood-chilling opponent for the duration of the conflict.

The rest of the Apostles were former tradesmen, turned teachers, and while basically educated, could easily have been outmaneuvered by an actual rabbi in terms of arguing the Law--Christianity was a charismatic movement, after all. Paul, who could've easily become a full-fledged rabbi in his own right, brought an eloquence and expertise of the Law that defined and crystalized the message of the Christian movement in an idiom that could be understood in a Jewish context, as well as a Gentile one. He was a vindictive, stubborn, offensive, over-zealous bulldog of a man, but he was our bulldog in an otherwise underdog movement and he forsook his former political, religious, and social station to suicidally throw in with a group that initially alienated him. And it's because of Paul's abrasiveness that our religion's theology got the final polish it needed last.

Hmm, Im affraid this would need some elaboration. From what point of view, for whom, in contrast to what?

Where would there be continuity in European culture after the Fall of Rome or any notion of Western nations if not for the Roman Church? Western Europe was already a disparate enough amalgam of different tribes under the Roman aegis; without that (even if only nominally) holding them together, how far would the micro-nations have drifted during the Migration Period? Is there any question that they'd re-adopt tribal paganism? And then, how long would the Continent hold out against Turkish and North African forces steamrollering their way through Europe? Without the notion of a "Christendom" that needed defending, would Europe have ever rallied as a united power against Muslim conquest and returned home from war with the preserved classical, medical, and scientific works that triggered the Renaissance and eventually the Enlightenment?

And even if Christianity had endured without a united Church in the the West, it never could have accomplished the unity the Roman Church provided for so long and all of European history would look like the Wars of Religion that followed the Reformation on a smaller scale. In our history, the Albigensians created an heretical doctrine that attempted to rebel against the authority of the Church, but far more importantly (and dangerous), sought to overthrow all notions of propriety and stability in medieval European society. Their biggest offense was to completely remove the value held in the system of oath-swearing, which was a system on par with the rights of hospitality. Given enough power, their commitment to the "inherent evil" of the physical world could easily have led to carnage that could put the Spanish Inquisition to shame. After all, if flesh is "evil" by its nature, where was the wrong in removing it from a prisoner? If anything, you'd be doing them a service.

But because there was a Church that held preeminence, represented a common cultural element, could arbitrate between parties, and could rally a coalition of disparate political allies in defense of an immensely powerful "Other" infringing upon and within Europe's borders, Darkest Timeline Europe was avoided.

Not that I personally put any credence into the specific book you are referring to here; we also do not know who wrote the Petrine epistles, yet readily accept them as an authoritative part of the Bibilical Canon. And ofcourse, 'heretical' is everything that does not conform to the RCC variant, and in that sense has very little meaning / value.

Though heresy is (rather rightfully) most associated with Roman Catholic dogma, heresy and the notion of heretical beliefs itself can be applied in all religions.

Such is the case of the Gospel of Judas, vis-a-vis Petrine Epistles and Synoptic Gospels. The canonical books weren't adopted, "because the Pope said so"; they had been in use by the majority of regional churches, had a traceable lineage and tradition to the earliest teachings, and exemplified the beliefs held by the representatives at early ecumenical councils. Judas not only flies in the face of Catholicism, but all of Christianity.

Certain "devil's advocate" thought experiments and discussions can be a phenomenal way to investigate and understand the nuances of God, case in point being these very forums. However, if the Gospel of Judas was, in fact, like other gnostic gospels and meant to be a source text taught from, it can only be seen as subversive, intentional deception used by a cult of extremists. That, or it's an intentional sleight and hate-speech against a religion. Regardless, Judas is not an underdog-truth being suppressed by a wickedly arrogant ivory tower of the Establishment; it's the purest form of anathema, more so than any Laveyan Bible could hope to be, and should not be seen as any sort of representative Christian text.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well then, apart from lineage, what in your mind constitutes a legitimizing factor for an institution? I'm not suggesting that it's the only factor to consider, but it's definitely at the forefront and nigh universal in human cultures. Even within this newfangled "democracy" that we've been banging on about since the Enlightenment; while the political factions and individuals who hold the highest offices are changed out, the continuity of the office remains.

And I find highly ironic that you would compare Paul's…credentials(?)…to that of James' in the impact of early authority figures in Christianity. If it had truly been an issue of royal bloodline, James, the brother of Jesus and member of His innermost circle of followers, would have, by rights, tradition, and law, inherited the mantle of leadership his older brother had worn. Instead, Christ Himself appointed Peter as the "leader" of the expanding movement and John as the caretaker of their mother.

That depends on which source one uses. Hegesippus, for instance, would certainly beg to differ (Commentaries volume 5: 'After the apostles, James the brother of the Lord surnamed the Just was made head of the Church at Jerusalem.'). I did not nor do I imply the leadership of this early religion should be based on bloodline. I questioned your statement concerning that very concept. I would say the individual who 'understands' most, who stands 'closest to the Father' - a true Son of G*d in that sense - would deserve that position. So James was chosen by the remaining congregation to lead their Church. That is, until Paul was set forth.

Paul, meanwhile, was a boon to the early Church exactly because of his former allegiances and training, since the one thing the Lord likes more that working in mysterious ways is irony. Remember at the climax of Jedi when Vader switches sides to finish off the Emperor? So much of the power of that scene draws from the fact that Vader's been the potent and terrifying arch-antagonist for the whole series. And St. Paul was the origin of this Vader Principle; that the only thing better than rallying another to your side is if that "new hire" has been your most capable and blood-chilling opponent for the duration of the conflict.

The rest of the Apostles were former tradesmen, turned teachers, and while basically educated, could easily have been outmaneuvered by an actual rabbi in terms of arguing the Law--Christianity was a charismatic movement, after all. Paul, who could've easily become a full-fledged rabbi in his own right, brought an eloquence and expertise of the Law that defined and crystalized the message of the Christian movement in an idiom that could be understood in a Jewish context, as well as a Gentile one. He was a vindictive, stubborn, offensive, over-zealous bulldog of a man, but he was our bulldog in an otherwise underdog movement and he forsook his former political, religious, and social station to suicidally throw in with a group that initially alienated him. And it's because of Paul's abrasiveness that our religion's theology got the final polish it needed last.

That is a comforting theory, indeed. If you would want to take Paul's word for it (vision of Christ on the road to Damascus, on his way to persecute early Christians), subsequently accepting Pauls inserts (which can be soully attributed to Paul), which in turn are completely out of the generic pattern described in the Septuagint (again; triune godhead, Jesus divinity / godhood, abolishment of Mosaic Law etc). In turn ignoring the humongous chance the establishment (read: Romans [ie. Herod] & Sanhedrin/Pharisee) desired to control (read: hijack) this newly found threat to their (religious & political) hegemony, or the chance they were succesful fomenting such a desire. Ignoring the royalty of that time, as well as the city of Tarsus specifically (centre of Zoroastrianism), were strongly versed in 'dying god' paganistic religions. Pagan history is absolutely rife with dying god versions, while such a concept would be the direct antithesis to what the Abrahamic prophets taught. Before self ordained Apostle Paul came into play, ofcourse.

Some might even say such an assumption could easily be marked as 'wishful thinking', which may or may not be maintained against better judgement to keep a construct in place one has invested too much to be able to reflect on it critically, objectively. Such people might be completely wrong ofcourse, only G*d knows.

Where would there be continuity in European culture after the Fall of Rome or any notion of Western nations if not for the Roman Church? Western Europe was already a disparate enough amalgam of different tribes under the Roman aegis; without that (even if only nominally) holding them together, how far would the micro-nations have drifted during the Migration Period? Is there any question that they'd re-adopt tribal paganism? And then, how long would the Continent hold out against Turkish and North African forces steamrollering their way through Europe? Without the notion of a "Christendom" that needed defending, would Europe have ever rallied as a united power against Muslim conquest and returned home from war with the preserved classical, medical, and scientific works that triggered the Renaissance and eventually the Enlightenment?

Another ruling body would almost certainly fill the void. The true source of enlightenment seems to have been the secret societies (all 'mystery school' variants), active under the guise of several institutions ('Poor Fellow Soldiers of Christ' aka Templars for instance). It is this element (and or European royal bloodlines) which would have done thesame, only under a different flag. I expect. If it were not 'Christendom' that needed defending, it would have been 'King & Country', or similar concept. Dont get me wrong, you might be right.. I just think the weight of the RCC is generally overstated, it was just another decadent elitist priesthood hierarchy misusing its power for self gain. Nothing more. It still is.

And even if Christianity had endured without a united Church in the the West, it never could have accomplished the unity the Roman Church provided for so long and all of European history would look like the Wars of Religion that followed the Reformation on a smaller scale. In our history, the Albigensians created an heretical doctrine that attempted to rebel against the authority of the Church, but far more importantly (and dangerous), sought to overthrow all notions of propriety and stability in medieval European society. Their biggest offense was to completely remove the value held in the system of oath-swearing, which was a system on par with the rights of hospitality. Given enough power, their commitment to the "inherent evil" of the physical world could easily have led to carnage that could put the Spanish Inquisition to shame. After all, if flesh is "evil" by its nature, where was the wrong in removing it from a prisoner? If anything, you'd be doing them a service.

But because there was a Church that held preeminence, represented a common cultural element, could arbitrate between parties, and could rally a coalition of disparate political allies in defense of an immensely powerful "Other" infringing upon and within Europe's borders, Darkest Timeline Europe was avoided.

I wonder. But again, you might be right. If indeed the case, there is at least one positive aspect to this hierarchy.

Though heresy is (rather rightfully) most associated with Roman Catholic dogma, heresy and the notion of heretical beliefs itself can be applied in all religions.

Such is the case of the Gospel of Judas, vis-a-vis Petrine Epistles and Synoptic Gospels. The canonical books weren't adopted, "because the Pope said so"; they had been in use by the majority of regional churches, had a traceable lineage and tradition to the earliest teachings, and exemplified the beliefs held by the representatives at early ecumenical councils. Judas not only flies in the face of Catholicism, but all of Christianity.

Certain "devil's advocate" thought experiments and discussions can be a phenomenal way to investigate and understand the nuances of God, case in point being these very forums. However, if the Gospel of Judas was, in fact, like other gnostic gospels and meant to be a source text taught from, it can only be seen as subversive, intentional deception used by a cult of extremists. That, or it's an intentional sleight and hate-speech against a religion. Regardless, Judas is not an underdog-truth being suppressed by a wickedly arrogant ivory tower of the Establishment; it's the purest form of anathema, more so than any Laveyan Bible could hope to be, and should not be seen as any sort of representative Christian text.

Agreed, well said. Could you link that cult of extremists you are referring to? In any case, why not play 'Devils Advocate' with Paul some more. I would truely appreciate that. One of my present points of attention, focus. These sort of discussions can be very valuable.

Edited by Phaeton80
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.