The (real) disciple Jesus loved, Gospel of John

Let me state first and foremost that this is not going to line up with fundamental Christian theology, it is a Spiritual issue more than anything.

Few things quick:

John was an Apostle and not a disciple. He may qualify under the definition of disciple but he was an Apostle and I am making note of that.

The Word, or Logos, is first introduced here. Hate it or love it but Philo Judaeus is the first to apply the Logos concept to the Hebrew God and his philosophy is why the book of John, the last of the Gospels to be written, starts of with a bang.

John 1:1-3
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God and the Word was God.

Word is Logos, a Jewish philosophers idea. Logos also means Reason. I don't mind that Christianity borrowed it. I am a fan of it.

Philo was a great philosopher and pioneer in the philosophical and allegorical interpretation of the Holy Scripture. So I am going to just apply a method or two of his and tell you who I think the beloved disciple is.


Back to John. Every other Gospel agrees no Apostles were present at the crucifixion. Only John has "the beloved disciple" who is called a male.

Also the beloved disciple is told to go with Jesus mother Mary and be her "son." Basically take care of her.

But John was the Evangelist, so how could he watch Jesus mother? And if that was even a different John it is not believable that only one Gospel, John's own Gospel purportedly, is the only Gospel to tell of him being there. 3 vs 1. Or that a man would assume responsibility for an older woman. Not if he had spiritual duties.

So I am going to assume that Mary Magdalene and the beloved disciple are one and the same. And that it is written so it is not obvious on purpose because of necessity. And it wasn't as uncommon as you might think to change a she to a he and quite frankly, use more complex methods than that in writing to hide yet preserve otherwise lost knowledge.

And the same thing more or less is done at the empty tomb. That same unnamed mysterious disciple appears with Peter and the same disciple gets to the tomb before Peter, as is stated in John 20:1-11. Essentially, Mary got their first and Peter second and alone and Mary is the beloved disciple.

I am definitely saying this is just a personal interpretation but not baseless one. As with religion it is always theoretical and spiritual and supposed to make you think deep and comprehend the different ways of God's creation.

I don't see what reason Jesus has to have a special love, more than anyone in the Bible, for a man. Inappropriate .

Meanwhile, I am happy Jesus had a female companion to comfort him and make him the more Wise. I see Mary Magdalene as a High Priestess. Her town, Migdala or Magdala means tower and Miriam or Mary is an honorific name in Hebrew for a woman. I know Miriam was a prophetess in the Torah. It is not a stretch to think that Magdala meaning tower is also honorific.

But I digress, I am happy with my interpretation and you are welcome to share your's . Especially if you have your own idea on who the beloved disciple is.

Thank you.

a reply to: KingPhilipsiX

Oh sigh, the gospels were written between 3 and 400 years after Jesus. These John's have nothing to do with each other, I'd ask for citations, but they don't exist.

originally posted by: BlueJacket
a reply to: KingPhilipsiX

Oh sigh, the gospels were written between 3 and 400 years after Jesus. These John's have nothing to do with each other, I'd ask for citations, but they don't exist.

So what is it that you want? To gripe?

You did that.

And the actual author of the book or John is not even my focus so you gripe about a non-issue.

a reply to: KingPhilipsiX

You're whole point is off. I love God, but not silly enough to buy a fairy tale about John.

a reply to: KingPhilipsiX

My point is to protect my daughter from people who make # up in order to engender power with others. Do what i do

So not let your left hand know what your right hand is doing, pray in a closet, do not be like the Sanhedrin

You people are who ruin religion

originally posted by: BlueJacket
a reply to: KingPhilipsiX

You're whole point is off. I love God, but not silly enough to buy a fairy tale about John.

How is my point off, tell me?

I never asked you to buy anything why are you complaining again?

a reply to: BlueJacket

I think we are done. I am not "making up things" and I wish no one harm.

Freedom.

I mean no harm either
But you are making things up. The earliest we can date any of the new testament does not meet your criteria. So why try? I respect your spirituality, but leave others to theirs by not making stuff up. If anything you're doing chisianity a disservice .

I'll tell you when I'm done sonny

originally posted by: BlueJacket
I mean no harm either
But you are making things up. The earliest we can date any of the new testament does not meet your criteria. So why try? I respect your spirituality, but leave others to theirs by not making stuff up. If anything you're doing chisianity a disservice .

I'll tell you when I'm done sonny

"But let your communication be, Yea, yea; Nay, nay: for whatsoever is more than these cometh of evil. " -- KJV, Matthew 5:37

a reply to: BlueJacket

I meant I was done with you.

I took the extra measure of mentioning that I was not in line with fundamental theology.

And that I was only offering my personal theory, interpretation etc.

But I have not made up anything.

You have no issue and I am shocked by your fascist approach to this.

a reply to: AMPTAH

Lol grow up

a reply to: KingPhilipsiX

Fascist? Lol forget it then , I see now you are quite young. I'm sorry if I hurt your feelings young one.

Quick, look up fascism

Double and I'm done

a reply to: BlueJacket

Whoa, !

You people?

You use (real) in your thread title so prove the reality. Don't then "gripe" because others express their challenges to your perception of "real".

a reply to: KingPhilipsiX

Another fake account to fabricate more propaganda. You can't disprove the Bible, so you twist it into something else. You have no respect for ancient literature.

a reply to: KingPhilipsiX

A few quick responses.

Where do you make the distinction between being one of the 12 Disciples and being an Apostle? When I look up a definition of "Apostle" it says "each of the twelve chief disciples of Jesus Christ" as its primary definition.

How could you know if the Gospel of John is the last one to be written?

You persist in making statements with no basis in fact and yet you get all hurt when someone points it out.

Psalm 33:6 refers to the Word as the creator of the heavens. Psalm 119:105 refers to the Word as a guide. Isaiah 40:8 refers to the Word as eternal. Psalm 107:20 refers to the Word as a healer. Psalm 147:15 refers to the Word as a messenger. Isaiah 55:11 refers to the Word as an agent of divine instruction. So the concept of the Word as mentioned in John 1 was already part of Hebrew philosophy long before Philo of Alexandria.

In fact, Philo formalized earlier use of "the Word" as 'the holy word', 'the godly word' and 'the righteous word' pointing out their unity in being; as a descriptor for God, in the sense of 'an utterance from God'.

I also see that the direct references to "the beloved disciple" who is identified as John, son of Zebedee and Salome, younger brother of James, being male as a fairly absolute rebuttal to the idea that he was a female. That John and his brother were also called the "sons of thunder" by Jesus might also dispel the idea that he was not male.

... and it looks like you have a new logon again, GnosisFaith/Padwan.

originally posted by: NewzNose
a reply to: BlueJacket

Whoa,

!

You people?

You use (real) in your thread title so prove the reality. Don't then "gripe" because others express their challenges to your perception of "real".

Prove what reality?

I'm not the one griping, this is my thread not that person and 2000 year old religious myths can't be proven so for even asking that I laugh at you.

a reply to: chr0naut

I love your passion right on!

To each their own amigo.

"Also the beloved disciple is told to go with Jesus mother Mary and be her "son."

Beloveds are being told and have been told, to be with the Mother of God because the Mother of God "is." Taking care of Her means to truly take care of Her being the Mother of God. The only way to do that is to come to her like a son and not as an intimate equal or cast even remotely sexual eyes upon Mother God. The Mother of God is not a "jealous" God but a "virgin" God. Get it?

Hail Mary full of grace blessed are you AMONG women. Holy Mary Mother of God.

So... apparently a theory is enough to cause hostility in this area.

Eh. I wish everyone the best with that. Until someone introduces me in person to the Creator of creation, I will freely and with great joy postulate theories about God.

I have no attachment to theology, owe no debt to fundamentalism and the same goes for any other unproven aspect of life.

I suggest that anyone who can't deal with that refrain from reading. There are more upsetting things on the internet than Mary Magdalene being the disciple Jesus loved, I assure you.

I suggest that you spend some time learning about the wife of Jesus Christ, the magnificent Magdalene.

The female Christ.

Or enjoy your beliefs as I do mine, whatever they are.

I am an advocate of personal Spirituality.

Scriptures are meant for spirituality, not for telling people what truth is.

I can read, think about and enjoy them without having to subscribe to human doctrine.

After all, is God so simple he can not write a book with a message for humanity at large at the same time as having a unique personal message for every individual?


He is not. And I love Mary Magdalene like my own mother. She is the female Christ.

After all, if the consciousness of Christ was limited to a man it is incomplete. The feminine Christ must exist and who else but the Magdalene?