The (real) disciple Jesus loved, Gospel of John

a reply to: KingPhilipsiX

Mary Magdalene is described as Jesus companion, in the “Gospel of Philip” and is essentially the real “beloved disciple” whom Jesus loved…IMO

The Gospel of Philip
There were three who always walked with the Lord: Mary, his mother, and her sister, and Magdalene, the one who was called his companion. His sister and his mother and his companion were each a Mary.

The Gospel of Philip
As for the Wisdom who is called "the barren," she is the mother of the angels. And the companion of the [...] Mary Magdalene. [...] loved her more than all the disciples, and used to kiss her often on her [mouth.]

The “disciple whom Jesus loved”, is clearly Mary Magdalene in many other Gnostic texts, but a “beloved Disciple” is also mentioned in “John Gospel”, 6 times …here’s one example below…

John 21:20-21
20Peter turned around, and sees the disciple whom Jesus loved following, that is the one who in the supper had leaned back onto His chest and said, "Lord, who is the one betraying you?" 21 So when he saw this one, Peter says to Jesus, "Lord, and what about him?"

But curiously, (as you mentioned in your OP) neither Matthew, Mark and Luke, make any reference to any of the disciples witnessing the crucifixion.

And yet in Johns gospel, we have the following verse below…

John 19:25-27
25 And near the cross of Jesus stood his mother, and his mother's sister; and the Mary belonging to Clopas, and the Magdalene Mary. 26 Jesus therefore, seeing his mother and the disciple whom he loved standing near, says to his mother, "Dear woman, behold your son. " 27 Then he says to the disciple, "Behold, your mother." And from that time on, that disciple took her into his own home.

That phrase “Behold your son”, seems like a strange thing to say, considering the context of the verses…i.e. without any mention of John in line 25 etc… If you’re going to edit a text, it’s make more sense to edit as little as possible…

Were the words “her” and “daughter” changed, to “his” and “son” in the above accounts…. Personally, I think it was deliberately edited, like many parts of the New Testament have been IMO…

Also, if you read john 20, it makes more logical sense, that Mary is the beloved disciple who returns first to the tome, which is in keeping with the other accounts and traditions etc…

I think the evidence is there, if people would just honestly look for it. Also, why would Jesus need to have a “beloved (male) disciple”, singled out, above all the rest (Rhetorical question)…Personally, I think it’s obvious, Jesus was married to Mary Magdalene and she was the true and only “beloved Disciple”…the church just decided to hide it away…

It’s also highly likely (based on the Gnostic texts) that Peter was against Mary being a disciple, and that along with Paul, who leant more towards Judaism, and it’s views on woman being subordinate to men, that they decided to remove Mary, as a disciple, from the texts…

The Cathars clearly had a long tradition of Mary and Jesus being married, which means the tradition from those Gnostic texts, was clearly carried on for many centuries. Perhaps Leonardo da Vinci was aware of these traditions, when he drew his famous “Last Supper” painting of John 13:24, with its iconic depiction, of a feminine disciple and depicting Peter with evil intent, towards the beloved disciple…


The so called “gospel of John” contains a lot more esoteric hidden wisdom and knowledge than the other Gospels and certainly has a softer tone to it IMO…

Only someone very close to Jesus could have gained that knowledge. And it fits perfectly with the tradition's of the Essenes, that this would have most likely been a woman…


This post is a slightly rewritten version of this post written over 2 years ago…


Great OP S+F


- JC

a reply to: Joecroft

Thank you! The Egyptian Apocrypha like Gospel of Philip is one of the major reasons I believe this too.

a reply to: Joecroft

I also noticed that it is mentioned that Jesus had 7 female disciples.

And though they are men, the 7 disciples of John 21 speak to me as a clue.

There is a story about the 12 men and 7 women where Mary is the most eager and asks most of the questions. Peter gets heated and complains to Jesus and Jesus says, " Don't worry Peter I am going to make her "male."

That is almost sexist sounding unless you figure in that it was also taught that men had "to become male" and has nothing to do with gender.

Peter was always a work in progress. James was the actual leader of the first Nazarenes after Christ. He is always portrayed as being against Gentile conversion, another lie. Gentile conversion was never a problem for James as long as they followed 4 guidelines set forth in Acts.

originally posted by: BlueJacket
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

Do you mind if I ask how speculating about the identity of the disciple that Jesus loved could harm anyone?

I would imagine that any woman or girl would like the idea of a major disciple that was a woman and Mary Magdalene was a major disciple.

The church editing it to make said loved disciple a man makes perfect sense if you have any. They were liars from the days of Iranaeus with few exceptions.

Sloppy riddles too by the way.

Sanhedrin is a hefty insult to toss around and you shouldn't be so....you.

You are that person.

a reply to: KingPhilipsiX

Originally posted by KingPhilipsiX

Thank you! The Egyptian Apocrypha like Gospel of Philip is one of the major reasons I believe this too.

I also noticed that it is mentioned that Jesus had 7 female disciples.

And though they are men, the 7 disciples of John 21 speak to me as a clue.

Yeah, good point…there are tons of clues to this truth…


As you mentioned, John 21 as another big clue…The texts states that the following disciples were present, (1) Peter, (2) Thomas (3) Nathanael…the sons of Zebedee (4) James and (5) John…and 2 other disciples (6) Unknown (7) Unknown

Personally I think the other 2 (unknown) disciples were (6) Mary Magdalene and (7) Salome…

If this is truly the “Gospel of John” though, why would John write “the sons of Zebeede”…that doesn’t sound like a first persons account to me…which is what verse 24 (John 21:24) declares it to be…And surely John would clearly have known who the other two (unknown) disciples were, if this was truly a first persons account…

And along the same lines, and something which is easily overlooked, is why constantly use the phrase “the beloved disciple”. I mean, why not just write “John” or “I John” etc…because the only thing that distinguishes the “beloved disciple” as being male, are the words “his”, “him” and “he”, which could quite easily have been changed/edit…

Towards the end of John 21, specifically verses 20 to 25, the text is clearly being narrated and commentated on…which suggests that it came from another (lost text) original source that was edited…

Originally posted by KingPhilipsiX
There is a story about the 12 men and 7 women where Mary is the most eager and asks most of the questions. Peter gets heated and complains to Jesus and Jesus says, " Don't worry Peter I am going to make her "male."

Yes; in those Gnostic texts Jesus is constantly having to reassure the other disciples that Mary can somehow make it, that she can be worthy and that she will be able to be a disciple etc…

Examples…

The Gospel of Thomas 114
114 Simon Peter said to them, "Make Mary leave us, for females don't deserve life."

2 Jesus said, "Look, I will guide her to make her male, so that she too may become a living spirit resembling you males. 3For every female who makes herself male will enter the domain of Heaven."

Gospel of Jesus Wife
2 ] The disciples said to Jesus, “.(missing text…)

3 ] deny. Mary is worthy of it (missing text…)

4 ]……” Jesus said to them, “My wife..[ (missing text…)

5 ]… she will be able to be my disciple . . [

The Gospel of Mary Chapter 9:6-10 is another key example…

Originally posted by KingPhilipsiX
That is almost sexist sounding unless you figure in that it was also taught that men had "to become male" and has nothing to do with gender.

Peter was always a work in progress. James was the actual leader of the first Nazarenes after Christ. He is always portrayed as being against Gentile conversion, another lie. Gentile conversion was never a problem for James as long as they followed 4 guidelines set forth in Acts.

Sexism on the part of the disciples is clearly present, and although Jesus comment sounds sexist (Gospel of Thomas 114) I think it has to be compared to verse 22 from the same Gospel. The part where Jesus talks about making the two into one, and making the male and female into a single. Which is all about recognising that the spirit within has no gender IMO…if the disciples had understood that teaching, then they would not be asking Jesus that question in verse 114…

Although, the more I read the gnostic texts, the apocrypha's and canonical Gospels etc…the more I get this gut feeling that some of the texts tended to get edited or added too, towards the end of the chapters…Marks gospel being an obvious example…

Seems to me like they took that 114 verse literally, instead of understanding it’s true esoteric teaching, which incidentally, is exactly what has happened to most of Christianity.

They literally changed Mary into a male, by making her the disciple John

Peace be with you…


- JC

a reply to: Joecroft

What's good? If you don't mind I just wanted to add that I get the feeling that select (Gnostic) portrayals of Peter are a veiled reference to the emerging church claiming succession from Peter.

A more righteous Peter is portrayed in the Apocrypha of the NT era from Jewish Christians.

a reply to: eSotericSamIam

Originally posted by eSotericSamIam
What's good?

The point that KingPhilipsiX made about John 21 being a clue, that was the “good point” I was referring too…

Originally posted by eSotericSamIam
If you don't mind I just wanted to add that I get the feeling that select (Gnostic) portrayals of Peter are a veiled reference to the emerging church claiming succession from Peter.

A more righteous Peter is portrayed in the Apocrypha of the NT era from Jewish Christians.

hmmm interesting…do you have any specific Apocryphal chapters or verses in mind…?


- JC

a reply to: Joecroft

No, that was a rhetorical greeting, I wasn't actually asking that. Sorry about that.

Peter saying "women don't deserve life" is the best example of a veiled reference to what would become the Catholic Church's view on a women. Peter even had a wife if I am not mistaken.

Give me ten minutes I will get you a link.

a reply to: eSotericSamIam


Here is the Apocrypha Jewish Christians

Scroll down to Recognitions book 1

originally posted by: KingPhilipsiX
a reply to: Rex282

You keep accusing me of things, but show no evidence. You are far more dishonest than I, ditto on everything else you said.

You have a problem in that you have a problem without actually having a problem.

You are just mad. If you had more discipline you would not care about a "Sophomoric, unoriginal pedestrian."

I know that I don't.

eSotericSamIam,
Do you even know what dishonesty is.Are your thoughts so derivative you say "ditto on everything else you said" and believe a fictional book by Dan Brown.I bet you ANYTHING you will not respond in this post as King PhilipsiX because once again you have been banned for false multiple ID because you are dishonest to the core.Thank you for providing the evidence of ineptitude no further evidence is needed.

Here is a true fact eSotericSamIam you will be banned soon because you are a dishonest lia,r pure and simple.You will forever be on the outside looking in because you have zero concept of ethical action.Anyone who "plays" around " on the internet in forums claiming to be "spiritualy enlightened" under multiple false identities talking to themselves and railing on others is the epitomy of a liar and deranged person.What ID will you answer me with Philip I am positive it won't be you.

Bye bye eSotericSamIam maybe on your next reincarnation at ATS(the only human one you will ever experience) you can be less conspicuously vacant but I am positive you won't.

a reply to: eSotericSamIam

Originally posted by eSotericSamIam
No, that was a rhetorical greeting, I wasn't actually asking that. Sorry about that.

lol

Oh, a greeting… I see…my bad…sometimes my brian goes too many levels deep…lol

Originally posted by eSotericSamIam
Peter saying "women don't deserve life" is the best example of a veiled reference to what would become the Catholic Church's view on a women. Peter even had a wife if I am not mistaken.

Right, I see…makes perfect sense…

Originally posted by eSotericSamIam
Here is the Apocrypha Jewish Christians

Scroll down to Recognitions book 1

Thanks for that link…that’s quite a list…


Yeah, I like “Chapter XV.—Peter’s First Instruction: Causes of Ignorance.”… that sounds like a righteous version of Peter…IMO


- JC

originally posted by: KingPhilipsiX

originally posted by: Lazarus Short
I have never seen an ATS thread go south so quickly.

I didn't plan on that. I just love Mary Magdalene, actually do believe that she is the disciple Jesus loved and that it was more or less edited.

But I guess it is not a popular idea. It is what it is.

I even took the polite route and said that I am not a follower of theology and approach scripture spiritually and not as literal history right away, so people would not complain.

Lot of good that did. I actually got called a danger that someone is trying to protect their daughter from.

Quite insane when you consider the truly dangerous content on the internet, that my thoughts, a rather insignificant theory really, are what is thought of as dangerous.

As if freedom of speech and religion became bad things suddenly.

Yikes.

I know how you feel. My threads on the non-existence of Hell have prompted comments that I was pushing the doctrines of devils. My research on the origins of Hell says otherwise...

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.

No. There is a difference between the earliest surviving gospel accounts and epistles and the autographs themselves. They were letters, the originals didn't survive. Think of the care afforded the US Declaration of Independence just so it is preserved today, and it's 220ish years old. Early church fathers from 2nd century spoke of the gospel accounts and epistles. They quoted them and spoke of them because they existed at that time. Now, I will give you that the Alexandrian Gnostic pseudo-graphical books arrived centuries after Christ.

originally posted by: KingPhilipsiX
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.

So Matthew as well was an Apostle and not a disciple. Here is the difference between John and Matthew. Matthew was charged with the writing of the "parables"; hidden within his book include Gnostic mystery school enlightenment. What was the point of Johns close but duplicate proclamations?

a reply to: vethumanbeing

Originally posted by vethumanbeing
So Matthew as well was an Apostle and not a disciple. Here is the difference between John and Matthew. Matthew was charged with the writing of the "parables"; hidden within his book include Gnostic mystery school enlightenment. What was the point of Johns close but duplicate proclamations?

You should set up a thread asking “who were the 12 Disciples…???” and see how things go. I did that at a party once, which unleashed a major debate…with cries of…

“What about Nathanael…?”, and “you mean James the lesser right, not the other James…?”, and “Which Judas, weren’t there 2 of them…?” and “Mark and Luke never even met Jesus!!!” and “Weren’t Peter and Simon the same guy or do you mean the Zealot…?” and “didn’t Thomas have a twin brother too…?” and “Wasn’t Mary Magdalene a disciple…? she certainly hung out with them a LOT”

The 3 Gospels are all slightly differentiating duplicate proclamations of the earliest Gospel i.e. the Gospel of Mark…

And to take things a step further, they were all rewritten from original Gnostic teachings, and therefore they all contain some elements of Gnostic mystery teachings…some more than others…


- JC

a reply to: Joecroft

There were tons of "disciples" in the gospels, then there were "the twelve", and even among them there was the inner circle of 3, Peter James and John.

originally posted by: Joecroft
a reply to: vethumanbeing

vethumanbeing:
So Matthew as well was an Apostle and not a disciple. Here is the difference between John and Matthew. Matthew was charged with the writing of the "parables"; hidden within his book include Gnostic mystery school enlightenment. What was the point of Johns close but duplicate proclamations?

JC: You should set up a thread asking “who were the 12 Disciples…???” and see how things go. I did that at a party once, which unleashed a major debate…with cries of…
“What about Nathanael…?”, and “you mean James the lesser right, not the other James…?”, and “Which Judas, weren’t there 2 of them…?” and “Mark and Luke never even met Jesus!!!” and “Weren’t Peter and Simon the same guy or do you mean the Zealot…?” and “didn’t Thomas have a twin brother too…?” and “Wasn’t Mary Magdalene a disciple…? she certainly hung out with them a LOT”

I am too angry to do so. The early Gnostics ruined it all by showing a/their hand too early; obvious to the Roman/Jewish confab.

JC: The 3 Gospels are all slightly differentiating duplicate proclamations of the earliest Gospel i.e. the Gospel of Mark…

Each has it's personal interpretation (AGENDA) that is a forward bookmark to differing outcomes of ideology. They sound the same but are within all four have resounding differences.

JC: And to take things a step further, they were all rewritten from original Gnostic teachings, and therefore they all contain some elements of Gnostic mystery teachings…some more than others…

The mystery schools have no thing to do with organized practiced modern Dogmatic systems of belief (Catholic/Protestant/Islamic/Judaic/Buddhist).

a reply to: vethumanbeing

Originally posted by vethumanbeing
I am too angry to do so. The early Gnostics ruined it all by showing a/their hand too early; obvious to the Roman/Jewish confab.

The ones with the knowledge are always outnumbered, it takes life time, after life time to develop…

Anyway, you angry…why, what’s up…? Was the Ghostbusters reboot a real let down…? lol

Originally posted by vethumanbeing
Each has it's personal interpretation (AGENDA) that is a forward bookmark to differing outcomes of ideology. They sound the same but are within all four have resounding differences.

Resounding differences you say…knowing your style, that’s not code for anything, is it…? Care to throw out a few verses for The Croft, maybe set up a new thread etc…

Originally posted by vethumanbeing
The mystery schools have no thing to do with organized practiced modern Dogmatic systems of belief (Catholic/Protestant/Islamic/Judaic/Buddhist).

Here’s the thing, if you try hard to not be dogmatic in your overall approach, aren’t you actually being dogmatic anyway lol…? (not YOU) anybody in general…?

But Yeah, the mystery schools are open to interpreting the texts, based on a more flexible, mystical, cross referencing, interpretations of a higher spiritual foundation…

- JC

originally posted by: Joecroft
a reply to: vethumanbeing

vhb: I am too angry to do so. The early Gnostics ruined it all by showing a/their hand too early; obvious to the Roman/Jewish confab.

Joecroft: The ones with the knowledge are always outnumbered, it takes life time, after life time to develop…
Anyway, you angry…why, what’s up…? Was the Ghostbusters reboot a real let down…? lol

Those with knowledge should have kept it under wraps for another 2 or 300 years (NO, they had to show the cards) meaning early Christian belief would be (as gnostic mystery school thought come under scrutiny) and Paul's Church emerges as the popular ALTERNATIVE. You should be able to feel my anger with this alternate scenario that worked? The Gnostic teachings were supposed to be primary; combining science, faith and religion into a whole belief system "Christ Consciousness".

vhb:
Each has it's personal interpretation (AGENDA) that is a forward bookmark to differing outcomes of ideology. They sound the same but are within all four have resounding differences.

Joecroft: Resounding differences you say…knowing your style, that’s not code for anything, is it…? Care to throw out a few verses for The Croft, maybe set up a new thread etc…

Comparing and contrasting the 4 books of the new testament? They read identical but the insinuated power play each holds is different as is 'coded speak-a-fishish flibberdy jibber prose' for those that can decypher.

vhb: The mystery schools have no thing to do with organized practiced modern Dogmatic systems of belief (Catholic/Protestant/Islamic/Judaic/Buddhist).

Joecroft: Here’s the thing, if you try hard to not be dogmatic in your overall approach, aren’t you actually being dogmatic anyway lol…? (not YOU) anybody in general…?

For me? a Dogmatism not at all related to religious zealotry; one more of passion.

Joecroft: The mystery schools are open to interpreting the texts based upon a more flexable mystical cross referencing....higher spiritual foundation...

Where oh where are the "Arcane Teachings" to be found?

a reply to: vethumanbeing

Originally posted by vethumanbeing
Those with knowledge should have kept it under wraps for another 2 or 300 years (NO, they had to show the cards) meaning early Christian belief would be (as gnostic mystery school thought come under scrutiny) and Paul's Church emerges as the popular ALTERNATIVE. You should be able to feel my anger with this alternate scenario that worked? The Gnostic teachings were supposed to be primary; combining science, faith and religion into a whole belief system "Christ Consciousness".

When the uninitiated get hold of the sacred texts, they automatically decipher it literally and thus an incorrect religion is created…

Yes I can feel your anger and your pain…

Originally posted by vethumanbeing
Comparing and contrasting the 4 books of the new testament? They read identical but the insinuated power play each holds is different as is 'coded speak-a-fishish flibberdy jibber prose' for those that can decypher.

Surely you would agree that the so called “book of John”, has a lot more spiritual knowledge contained within it than the other 3…

Originally posted by vethumanbeing
Where oh where are the "Arcane Teachings" to be found?

Wait…you mean the Yoge books (aptly named) by William Walker Atkinson and the 21 lessons…? I haven’t got around to studying them yet…I’m still meditating on the Kabyalion…

If you mean the secret doctrine, and other such similar sacred works; they’re kept by the Masons and other secret Mystery Schools. Those teachings are kept secret and only taught to those deemed ready to receive them…


- JC