Scholarship
Submitted by David on August 19 2000 15:32:52
In reply to Re: Boylover Jesus submitted by Bonzo on August 19 2000 11:53:20
|
Bonzo: Thank you for the reassurance. I f I ever end up and academic I'll write my dissertation on the theory of Jesus' boylove, and I will quote all you guys. I too have felt that John was Jesus loved boy. I thought this was just conviently placed wishful thinking, but if one contemplates it it is a very sound theory. We know that the gosepl was composed in the late 90's by someone who in a non-community way had a very close a radically different viewpoint of Jesus. The gospel author obviously knew Jesus on a very deep level and was revealed certain things that the syntopitcs either did not record or did not find interesting. WE see the absoulte Christolozation of Jesus in Johns gospel, something which he had kept hidden except for the few that followed him so it only makes sense that he would reveal the most to a lover. It has been cited that Johns gospel is not the work of a community, and so we know that it is of one man who was not influenced in large part by the emerging communites of early Christianity. Lets pretend that whoever wrote it was a contemporary of Jesus. WE know empirically that the gospel was written in the mid-90's or even early 100's, so this would have made the author nearly 90 years old when contructing his record. Thus it serves to point that had the author "John," been of some younger years than his hero it may become much more sensical to hypothisize that he was, if he is the same boy that was quoted in Mark, a young man. To be a young man at that time meant prepubescent, on the edge of puberty, so say John was anywhere between 11-14 when Jesus was executed. This would explain how such a memory could be held in tact over all the years before he wrote his gospel because major occurences that happrn during youth never leave us, and if you were the yf of the messiah than you sure as hell would remember all of these details. LIsten to John when he talk, read the gospel as if it is the record of a yf for his af. Johns gospel is more a record not of public life and metaphors, but very deep spiritual truths that take a lifetime to understand. I've always thought that if we could only have one book in the Bible it would be John's gospel because he speaks of something so indescriable that it can only be categorized as No-Thing. There is a reason that the gospel of John is so loved by the world, because it is written as the most climatic love between the pure humanistic spirutal, and the pure spirtual human. It combines radical love with extreme reality, both of which can not be put into words which is why John's gospel always makes sure to lead us back to the man who inspired it. It leads us back saying "bring me into knowing what John could not make into a word, lead us into the wordless word of yourself." John puts into words the cannonically closest thing we can know about God, and it always leaves us wanting more, because like the pious Abba Peter of the desert said "our grasp for God should always extend our reach." God Speed David |
Follow ups: