Abramelin Posted May 7, 2013 #51 Share Posted May 7, 2013 I'm not that immersed in the thick of it but I believe that the common consensus is either 'mouth' of 'lips' as the fragments translated by Wesley W. Isenberg of 'The Gospel of Philip CODEX II' has the phrase in completion, as far as I can tell // And that's the translation in my book. The book contains the translations of many scholars. James M. Robinson was the editor and only his name is on the cover (of the 1984 edition). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SHaYap Posted May 7, 2013 #52 Share Posted May 7, 2013 (edited) And that's the translation in my book. The book contains the translations of many scholars. James M. Robinson was the editor and only his name is on the cover (of the 1984 edition). Same Phillip but Codex II ..... Abe I have mine in PDF Edited May 7, 2013 by third_eye Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Abramelin Posted May 7, 2013 #53 Share Posted May 7, 2013 Same Phillip but Codex II ..... Abe I have mine in PDF I know, that's the only one in my book: Codex II. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Abramelin Posted May 7, 2013 #54 Share Posted May 7, 2013 (edited) And he kissed my mouth. He took hold of me, saying, "My beloved! Behold, I shall reveal to you those things that (neither) the heavens nor their archons have known. Behold, I shall reveal to you those things that he did not know, he who boasted, "[...] there is no other except me. Am I not alive? Because I am a father, do I not have power for everything?" Behold, I shall reveal to you everything, my beloved. Understand and know them, that you may come forth just as I am. Behold, I shall reveal to you him who is hidden. But now, stretch out your hand. Now, take hold of me." THE (SECOND) APOCALYPSE OF JAMES CODEX V Translated by Charles W. Hedrick Selection made from JamesM. Robinson, ed., The Nag Hammadi Library, revised edition. HarperCollins,San Francisco, 1990 It's a report by Mareim, priest and relative of Theuda, father of James. And it's about James, not Jesus as far as I understand it. From the intro: "James seems to function practically as a Gnostic redeemer". . Edited May 7, 2013 by Abramelin Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SHaYap Posted May 7, 2013 #55 Share Posted May 7, 2013 It's a report by Mareim, priest and relative of Theuda, father of James. And it's about James, not Jesus as far as I understand it. From the intro: "James seems to function practically as a Gnostic redeemer". . Frankly Abe ... I haven't had the chance to put everything in its proper place in my notes .... and the Dead Sea Scrolls fiasco kinda put me off it a bit. There's new updates to the translates there too, so can't say I'm on solid ground here ... but regarding the 'lips/mouth' interpretation I believe researchers are leaning towards it because 'the others found it offensive' hence ... because kissing was quite common ... feet, hands, breast, face ... but mouth or lips were of a more towards relative closeness or intimate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sundew Posted May 7, 2013 #56 Share Posted May 7, 2013 You know the meaning of the word drivel yet you still believe in Jesus? You can do a web search and find many educated men and women of (gasp!) science who where and are believers in God/Christ, many of which gave us the modern scientific principles that form the basis of our modern society, which we now enjoy. Perhaps you should read the very last sentence in Charles Darwin's "Origin of Species". Shocking! One should not stereotype so easily. And yes I know the meaning of "drivel" as well as the meaning of "condescension" and "tolerance", lol. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
+DieChecker Posted May 8, 2013 #57 Share Posted May 8, 2013 (edited) The Gospel of Philip is a gnostic gospel. It is not even written or based on the teachings of Philip. He is merely the only Apostle mentioned in the book. Gnosticism has as much in common with modern Christianity as Mormonism does. In that it holds there is a God and that Jesus lived and died on the Cross. But the Devil is in the details and the Details of Gnosticism are not the teachings of Christianity. Christians live in the Physical world and concentrate on the Physical, while Gnostics try to live in the Spiritual world and concentrate on the mystical. Basically it is about as made up, according to Religious scholars, as Mormonism, IMHO. (Sorry Mormons.) It was written 200 years after Jesus and seems to not come from first hand experience, but from 200 years of Chinese Whispers.... http://en.wikipedia....ospel_of_Philip http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gnostic http://en.wikipedia..../Valentinianism Edited May 8, 2013 by DieChecker Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
_Only Posted May 8, 2013 #58 Share Posted May 8, 2013 "Among mammals, a virgin birth (parthenogenesis) can only produce female offspring, for chromosomal reasons" - Frank Zindler Among humans, virgin births don't happen under normal scientific means, which is what the quote is referencing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
+DieChecker Posted May 8, 2013 #59 Share Posted May 8, 2013 (edited) "Among mammals, a virgin birth (parthenogenesis) can only produce female offspring, for chromosomal reasons" - Frank Zindler I wonder what Mammals can have virgin birth? I'm not aware of any.... Looking...... Edit: According to what I've found, parthenogenesis is ONLY possible in mammals if humans intervene and force it to happen. It has never been recorded in any natural inpregnation situation. http://en.wikipedia....Parthenogenesis There are no known cases of naturally occurring mammalian parthenogenesis in the wild. Edit, Edit: Anyway Jesus was a supernatural situation, and thus is outside the laws of regular parentage. Edited May 8, 2013 by DieChecker Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lightly Posted May 9, 2013 #60 Share Posted May 9, 2013 (edited) . . nah. I'm sitting here looking at a print of The Last Supper .. and the person at his right .. looks like a girrrrl in any version of the painting i've seen * Edited May 9, 2013 by lightly Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
+DieChecker Posted May 9, 2013 #61 Share Posted May 9, 2013 Usually John, believed to be the youngest of the Apostles, is shown with his head laid down, or sleeping, or reclining next to Jesus. Almost all Last Suppers show the 12 remaining Apostles, so if one is Mary, which Apostle is always being left out? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Last_Supper Lots of pictures at Wiki with no woman, but lots with a young John. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twelve_Apostles#The_Twelve_Apostles Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sundew Posted May 9, 2013 #62 Share Posted May 9, 2013 . . nah. I'm sitting here looking at a print of The Last Supper .. and the person at his right .. looks like a girrrrl in any version of the painting i've seen * The artist of the day often painted a young, sometimes feminine, looking Apostle John, but don't let that fool you. The Bible calls John and his brother James "the sons of thunder" and they were ready to call fire down on a city that rejected their message about Jesus. However, Jesus rebuked them for their rash behavior. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sundew Posted May 9, 2013 #63 Share Posted May 9, 2013 "Among mammals, a virgin birth (parthenogenesis) can only produce female offspring, for chromosomal reasons" - Frank Zindler That assumes, however that the cells in the offsprings body only come from the mother. From a purely scientific view that might be true, but that of courses discounts the supernatural. A transcendent God who made everything from nothing would have not trouble in producing a male offspring from a virgin. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lightly Posted May 10, 2013 #64 Share Posted May 10, 2013 (edited) Usually John, believed to be the youngest of the Apostles, is shown with his head laid down, or sleeping, or reclining next to Jesus. Almost all Last Suppers show the 12 remaining Apostles, so if one is Mary, which Apostle is always being left out? http://en.wikipedia....iki/Last_Supper Lots of pictures at Wiki with no woman, but lots with a young John. http://en.wikipedia....Twelve_Apostles Yup , total of 12 apostles in the painting. Just sayin... the one on Jesus' right almost always looks VERY feminine... none more so than the original Davinci version. ...Except maybe in the print on my wall. Hey i know! ... one of the twelve took the picture!* . . . (lol) Edited May 10, 2013 by lightly Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
freetoroam Posted May 10, 2013 #65 Share Posted May 10, 2013 The first painting of the last supper was in 1308 by Duccio, where did he get the descriptions from to paint them like that, because the descriptions of jesus varies, let alone his posse. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lightly Posted May 10, 2013 #66 Share Posted May 10, 2013 (edited) The first painting of the last supper was in 1308 by Duccio, where did he get the descriptions from to paint them like that, because the descriptions of jesus varies, let alone his posse. interesting painting, " nappiing "john"? is on Jesus' left ,rather than right and he looks like a young guy , instead of effeminate as in so many others? interesting piece of 'fabric' hanging on the beam ....... and, what' in that bowl ?! lol. Thanks freetoroam , i didn't know that , i assumed Davinvi's was first. ..good question. Edited May 10, 2013 by lightly Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
H132 Posted July 25, 2014 #67 Share Posted July 25, 2014 wow {facepalm} Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Neognosis Posted July 25, 2014 #68 Share Posted July 25, 2014 short answer: No. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
acute Posted July 25, 2014 #69 Share Posted July 25, 2014 Jesus was well documented by the Romans and was definitely male! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JGirl Posted July 25, 2014 #70 Share Posted July 25, 2014 gender is irrelevent. jesus is the word not the person anyway Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
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 accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now