Newbie Question

[Silhouette]

Just in specific with 1 Timothy 2:11-15 are women denigrated. Those are good observations. The Romans passage I agree with wholeheartedly. I think you're mistaken still though with Paul not saying the Barbarians were unwise people. It reads that that is exactly what he's saying. It's not a metaphor, but in fact a direct statement. I think we attribute way too much to metaphor in the NT. These passages by in large are straightforward edicts and accounts as the authors saw fit to depict them. If Timothy was around today we'd call him a sexist pig and he would be drummed out of most circles, at least in developed or developing nations. Yet there he is; in one of the most important how-to Guidebooks for day-to-day modern life.

And the Orthodoxy lets that statement stand whilst Mary Magdalene's passive accounts of Christ were unjudiciously ripped from the Bible. Then we have the "anonymous beloved disciple" who in orthodox texts just happens to be all the same places at the same times as Magdalene in the Gnostic texts. What a strange coincidence. And also very coincidental is the fact that in the orthodox texts we have the "beloved disciple" being anonymous.

If this disciple was indeed John, why not say so? Why withold names? There has been no convincing answer given to me. Some of them have been quite a laugh though! One person suggested that John was merely being "modest" and was referring to himself! Yeah, like all the others of his contemporaries; he was reticent of advertising his connections with Jesus...ummm hmmmm....NOT.

So so so. Who is this mysterious "beloved disciple" whose name was edited and was in the same places as Magdalene at the same times....who who who could this be? This same "beloved disciple" who had the same adversarial relationship with Peter as the Gnostic Magdalene? Yet remains un-named singularly in exception to throngs of meticulously named characters from beggars, harlots and theives right up to the apostles.

I know where my money would be.....

 

[wonder111]

silhouette, I have to admit that was a very eye opening read. Here is the link again, it didn't post properly in your post
http://www.essenes.crosswinds.net/fourth.html

 

[Silhouette]

Thanks Wonder111! I'm not really all that adept at posting here yet. I have to work out all the little clicky-thingys. (highly technical term!). By the way thanks for the term "Jesus as a Feminist" you coined it for me; so to your credit sister.

 

[clinzey]

I think you're mistaken still though with Paul not saying the Barbarians were unwise people. It reads that that is exactly what he's saying. It's not a metaphor, but in fact a direct statement. I think we attribute way too much to metaphor in the NT. These passages by in large are straightforward edicts and accounts as the authors saw fit to depict them.

I refer you to Colossians 3:11, where Paul is once again talking about barbarians. He says that there is "no Greek or Jew, circumcised or uncircumcisedm barbarian, Scythian, slave or free...." Clearly he is not saying that there are no longer wild and mean or unwise people in the world - there will always be such people. He is referring to them (as he did in Romans) merely as a people group outside of the "civilised" world. They are not unwise or uncouth, they simply are not Greeks or Romans. And now because of Christ we are told that there are no national lines - all are in Him.

If Timothy was around today we'd call him a sexist pig and he would be drummed out of most circles, at least in developed or developing nations. Yet there he is; in one of the most important how-to Guidebooks for day-to-day modern life.

Again I say, it is not supposed to be a "how-to guidebook for day-to-day modern life." Not all of the situations addressed in the book are present today. It was never intended to be a "for all time" manual on the treatment of women. If you think it has become this then it is the fault of today's readers, not the apostle.

Mary Magdalene's passive accounts of Christ were unjudiciously ripped from the Bible.

What accounts are you talking about? Why do you assume that Gnostic texts are as reliable as the canonical texts (and I don't want any rhteoric here - just why you think the Gnostic texts are as/more reliable)?

Then we have the "anonymous beloved disciple...." If this disciple was indeed John, why not say so? Why withold names? There has been no convincing answer given to me. Some of them have been quite a laugh though! One person suggested that John was merely being "modest" and was referring to himself!

If you read the text, I think you will see that John did not write it. The Gospel According to John appears to be someone putting in narrative form the story from John's point of view. John 21:24 claims that the author knows the disciple and knows that his testimony is true. It can't be Mary M.

 

[filosofer]

When I took a post-graduate class in The Gospel According to John (~10 years ago), my studies revealed that some contend that "the disciple whom Jesus loved" was a reference to Lazarus (see John 11), because it is only after Lazarus was raised from the dead that the phrase "the disciple whom Jesus loved" is employed.

 

[clinzey]

When I took a post-graduate class in The Gospel According to John (~10 years ago), my studies revealed that some contend that "the disciple whom Jesus loved" was a reference to Lazarus (see John 11), because it is only after Lazarus was raised from the dead that the phrase "the disciple whom Jesus loved" is employed.

That actually makes sense - Lazarus is raised in ch.11, the "disciple whom Jesus loves is reclining on him in ch. 13, and this is the disciple whose testimony is true in ch.21. If this is the scenario then the Last Supper would not have been Jesus and the 12, but possibly some other guests? If Jesus is staying outside the city limits during passover he could possibly be holding the Passover meal at Lazarus' home.

I'm going to look into this some more and see how much I can compile. Thanks for turning me onto this line of thought, filosofer.

~clinzey