I see what makes the Mary Magdalene thesis attractive -- the reference to the author as the "Beloved Disciple" and Mary's relationship with Jesus in later gnostic works, the claim in John 19:35 to be a witness to the crucifixion (which Mary was and which few of the other disciples were), and the connection of Mary with gnostic revelation and the gnostic character of GJohn's precursor. The account of Mary's epiphany experience in John is also independent to that in Mark and Matthew. Against this view I would point out the lack of connection between the sayings in the GJohn and the Gospel of Mary. A connection might be expected if GJohn and GMary both originated from the same Magdalene tradition. This is not decisive, of course, since the later GMary did not necessarily have to derive from the same earlier "Magdalene traditions" to be accepted as a revelation of Mary by later Egyptian Christians.
Leolaia
JoinedPosts by Leolaia
-
26
The ascension of King David to heaven
by Leolaia inthere is a rather obscure statement in acts 2:34 that specifies that "david himself never ascended to heaven".
the obvious question that arises from this remark is -- who ever believed that david ascended to heaven?
to answer this, we need to look where else but to the pseudepigrapha.
-
-
-
26
The ascension of King David to heaven
by Leolaia inthere is a rather obscure statement in acts 2:34 that specifies that "david himself never ascended to heaven".
the obvious question that arises from this remark is -- who ever believed that david ascended to heaven?
to answer this, we need to look where else but to the pseudepigrapha.
-
-
Leolaia
My pet "speculation" at the moment is that the proto-gnostic precursor of GJohn was the gospel used by Cerinthus, or alternatively, the gospel used by Cerinthus drew from a common source to GJohn. I don't dispute that such proto-John precursors may have antedated the publication of Matthew and Luke between A.D. 80 and 90, and I think we had earlier sources like the Semeia Source and a GThom-like logia source which were contemporaneous with Q and proto-Mark. It is quite clear that it went through redaction under anti-docetist hands when it passed through the community responsible for the anti-docetist tract 1 John, and addition of the ch. 21 appendix may have had something to do with anti-docetist John the Presbyter responsible for 2, 3 John (cf. John 21:24=3 John 12).
I think regarding Peter mostly as a "late literary creation" is a bit of throwing the baby out with the bathwater. Accepting 1 Corinthians as a genuine Pauline letter (as Clement of Rome does in 1 Clement in writing to the Corinthians), I would say that Peter's original importance was as a popularizer of the notion of Jesus' resurrection and thus as one of the earliest leaders of the new movement. I also don't doubt that Peter's mission included Gentiles, as Galatians and Acts both attest (and I regard Acts as containing some historical information, despite its novelistic features). The association between Peter and the orthodoxy may instead rest with Peter's involvement with proto-orthodoxy (e.g. the Jewish and Gentile chuches Paul was involved with), and the later ecclesiastical organization of the Gentile church at the end of the first century is possibly in part an adaption to the loss of the Jerusalem church and its earlier centricity to the Gentile mission. Seeking a figure to centralize around, and preferring a member of the Twelve (and the first witness to the risen Christ) over Paul, Peter was then made post facto the founder of the orthodoxy. Thus, in the 80s and 90s, we find a proliferation of writing asserting this -- such as Matthew making Peter the "rock" Jesus would build his church, Acts fleshing out Peter's mission to the Gentiles, 1 Peter putting to paper the "orthodox" teaching of Peter and locating him in Rome, 2 Timothy confirming Peter's location in Rome (via Mark), 1 Clement describing Peter's martyrdom and describing him as one of our "greatest and most righteous pillars," the appendix to the Gospel of John (ch. 21) making Peter the shepherd of the flock, and the Gospel of Thomas even reacting to Peter's orthodoxy by parodying Peter's confession that led Jesus to bestow upon him primacy (in their version, this primacy is instead bestowed to Thomas and Peter in fact showed he misunderstood Jesus' significance). I doubt such a widespread claim could have succeeded so early (and addressed even by the opponents of the orthodoxy) if Peter had no historical connection with the emerging orthodoxy.
Leolaia
-
21
Early Christian apocalypses
by Leolaia inearly christian apocalyses
i thought it would be a good idea to put together into a single thread all the early 1st.
cent.
-
-
Leolaia
what types of writings are going on today that are the equivalent of the apocalyptic writings in that they provide an answer ( and perhaps hope) to the "things" of this present time period?
Well, this is not an exact parallel, but what about the LEFT BEHIND book series? Here is an attempt to visualize apocalyptic events within a contemporary context that draws the reader in to share this vision of what the future has in store. It does not speak the symbolic language of genuine apocalypses and presents itself as fiction instead of a real vision of the future, but as a visualization of hoped-for realities, it seems to fulfill a similar function as popular apocalypses of the past.
-
21
Early Christian apocalypses
by Leolaia inearly christian apocalyses
i thought it would be a good idea to put together into a single thread all the early 1st.
cent.
-
-
Leolaia
Peacefulpete....I think I was attending more to the Dutch radical view which you've mentioned previously than your current thinking. I agree with much of what you just mentioned. The theme of a delayed return is much more in line with such late post-Pauline writings as 2 Timothy 2:18 (disputing the notion that the resurrection has already occurred), the post-Johannine appendix in John 21:23 (disputing the rumor about John not dying until Jesus' return), and the reference to the "long wait for the Day of God to come" in 2 Peter 3:12. I also agree about the mention of Pauline pseudepigrapha in 2 Thessalonians 2:2 is probably an attempt to deflect suspicion about the work itself -- confirmed in the exaggerated attempt to assert Pauline authorship in 3:17, which is reminiscent of the continued attempts by Pseudo-Peter to assert his Petrine identity in 2 Peter: "Yes, I am SIMEON PETER, not just Peter (1:1, compare with 1 Peter 1:1), and I was indeed the Peter that was martyred (1:14), and yes my martyrdom was prophesied by Jesus (1:14, compare with John 21:18-19, which wasn't written until the second century), and yes I was the very one who witnessed the transfiguration (1:17-18, compare with Matthew 17:5), and I acknowledge I already wrote that other letter you all know (3:1), etc.," despite that fact that the Peter of 1 Peter makes no such strenuous attempt to assert his identity, and despite occasional slip-ups (like the reference to "the apostles" as those in the past in 3:2 or to the time passed "since the Fathers died" in 3:4 or reference to Paul's letters as "scripture" in 3:16, etc.). Anyway, I know you don't disagree on this, so I digress....
The issue of a pre-Christian or at least pre-John precursor of Revelation is itself a fascinating subject, considering the composite nature of the book and the relevance of the language to the events of Caligula's and Nero's reigns. I am most interested in the connections between Revelation and John the Presbyter's other chiliast expectations and 2 Baruch -- which anticipates certain key concepts of Revelation. Book 4 of the Jewish Sibylline Oracles also shares many cognate concepts with the hardboiled apocalypse in Revelation 9-18 (e.g. Nero redivivus, the Parthian army, the fall of Babylon).
-
21
Early Christian apocalypses
by Leolaia inearly christian apocalyses
i thought it would be a good idea to put together into a single thread all the early 1st.
cent.
-
-
Leolaia
Peacefulpete: The reference to the Temple was my only reservation about the late dating, and as you point out, it is not a decisive issue. As you know, we still disagree about the Marcionite authorship of the Pauline epistles.
Blueblades: I was not ruling out the coercive function of apocalyptic writing as well. John, in writing Revelation, for instance wanted to get the Christians in Phyrgia to stop participating in idolatry (by accepting cheap meat that was sacrificed to idols). The comment in the Didache that "all the time you have believed will be of no use to you if you are not found perfect in the last time" is also supremely coercive (Didache 16:2). We do not have a single revelation of Jesus, and we can argue whether this is a good thing or a bad thing, but I would rather appreciate the rich tapestry of different traditions that unfolded in early Christianity and take them on their own terms than accept a hammered out, homogenous harmony of the Synoptic-Pauline-Johannine Jesus or the Synoptic-Pauline-Johannine eschatology that did not really correspond to the individual views expressed in the Bible.
-
18
Just heard. About Micheal Jackson!
by ChimChim innot sure if this was already covered but i wanted to ask anyways.. i just heard about 20 minutes ago that this man thinks he is innocent because he "hypnotised" him and when people are hypnotised can't lie and they always tell the truth, and micheal said that nothing had happend that day, and they asked about something else to but i forget what it was for, something about why did he pay?
lol i cant remember.
i think it's alot of crap, i dont think he was hypnotised but i wasnt there so i wouldnt know!
-
-
Leolaia
when people are hypnotised can't lie
Except they often can and do confabulate.
Leolaia
-
26
The ascension of King David to heaven
by Leolaia inthere is a rather obscure statement in acts 2:34 that specifies that "david himself never ascended to heaven".
the obvious question that arises from this remark is -- who ever believed that david ascended to heaven?
to answer this, we need to look where else but to the pseudepigrapha.
-
-
Leolaia
Following Koester, I tend to view John's logia source as proto-gnostic like the Gospel of Thomas, following the basic gnostic paradigm but unelaborated in theology like the later Coptic gnostic works. I would not disagree in calling John proto-gnostic as well, especially since he still retains much latent gnosticism, but it is clear from the way he adapts the Jesus sayings that he departs considerably from the proto-gnostic Jesus of the GThomas -- especially in the theory of salvation and restricting (maybe not perfectly) divine descent to Jesus alone. Koester, for instance, points out that in John 14:2-6 believers are fully dependent on Jesus in their quest for the kingdom ("No one comes to the Father but by me") while the gnostic version of the same saying claims the opposite: "No one will enter the kingdom of heaven at my bidding" (Apocryphon of James 2:29-34). Although the proto-gnostic Jesus promises his followers in GThomas and other works that those prepared spiritually can follow the Savior into the heavenly realms (cf. GThom 1, 19, 49; Apoc. Jas. 2:23-27), the Johannine Jesus repeatedly reminds his disciples that they cannot follow him into his realm and must wait until he returns to take them with him (John 7:34-36, 8:21-22, 13:33). Thus Jesus in Apoc. Jas 2:23-27 says "I shall go to the place whence I came. If you wish to come, come with me," but the Jesus in GJohn says: "I am going away and you will seek me...where I go you cannot come" (John 8:21-22). This reversal of gnostic Jesus sayings, Koester explains, is not accidental but is part of an overall de-gnosticizing trend in John's gospel -- reflected also in the rejection of docetism in 20:24-29.
Back to the David issue, I found it very interesting how this is an instance how an "OT messianic prophecy" arose because of a peculiarity of translation in the LXX and how Luke-Peter misunderstood the beliefs of those who claimed that David ascended to heaven. Incidentally, since Peter was a native speaker of Aramaic, while Luke wrote in Greek, and since the logic of Peter's argument in Acts 2 is based entirely on the LXX and not the original Semitic, this may constitute evidence that the Petrine speech in Acts 2 was a construct of Luke's mind and not a historical report of something Peter said.
Leolaia
-
6
Michael Jackson's ex-wife concerned over Nation of Islam influence
by Dogpatch injacko bombshell: 'jewish' ex-wife vs. nation of islam.
debbie rowe, michael jackson's ex-wife and the mother of his two eldest children, is worried her kids are becoming muslims.. in the last few days, rowe has complained to friends that she does not want her children, paris and prince, exposed to the nation of islam.
jackson and his kids are currently living in the most expensive "safe house" in history, a beverly hills mansion rented, patrolled and monitored by the group.. more:.
-
-
Leolaia
Well, doesn't Paris Jackson already pretty much wear a burka?
-
10
!919 God chose them, recient articles???
by seedy3 inhey folks,.
i was in a discussion with a jw and the subject came up about the watchtower and their fds being gods sole channel and visable org.
i mentioned that the watchtower claims that they were chosen in 1919. i was abruptly told that had to have come from old literature.
-
-
Leolaia
Good question.....u know, before they change a doctrine, they often go silent on the issue for a while to not make the change so abrupt.
-
6
Time Limit ----- Words.
by Blueblades inin various watchtower publications what follows are the time limit words used by the society to keep the rank and file in the fold.. very near.------just ahead -----happen soon -------on the horizen ----soon -----drawn near ------at the threshold ------shortly take place ----about to -------drawn close -----swifthly nearing ------reward is in sight ----time is fast running out ---a new world very near -----now as never before -----soon to be detroyed ----complete in our day -----.
now here is the clincher -------are you ready for the clincher ------does this mean before the turn of a new month, a new year,a new decade,a new century?
here is the clincher ---no human knows!!!.
-
-
Leolaia
"Take care not to be deceived because many will come using my name and saying, 'I am he' and 'The time is NEAR AT HAND.' Refuse to join them." (Luke 21:8)