Amos

Well I am glad to have made your day but please considder the following: John was born from the netherworld which is the same place Jesus went for three days after crucifixion (it was also Jonah's hiding place). Johns parents were old as if they were from a previous generation. It was the place whence Mary came to receive the Annunciation and to which She returned. When John was beheaded he was silent to give the free will appearance and John was recalled at the foot of the cross as his favorite apostle because John and Mary were the driving forces behind this entire event while Jesus was given the final say over his action (the Catholic free will notion is based on this).

Doctor X

Amos:

I am afraid the text does not support that; both J the B and "the one Junior loved" are clearly "born from above"--anothen or "from above"--ek ano--ανωθεν/εκ ανω

Jonah stayed in a fish--not sheol.

The rest is eisegesis rather than exegesis and does not, frankly, have any basis in the text.

--J.D.

Amos

J the B was born from old parents to indicate that the renewal also took place in the subconscious mind of Joseph (who still was the subject of renewal here), and this is what paved the way for a smooth journey in the conscious mind. It indicates that the melancholy of Joseph was involutional and not just a voluntary idea to get to heaven in a hurry. We can also say that John created harmony between the mind and the flesh (soul) because they were bosom buddies.

Catholics mythmakers used the Sacrament of Baptism to implant the rebirth of water that must accompany the rebirth of spirit.

Jonah was on a paid fare and while below the surface of the earth he felt guilty for the turmoil around him. This is a clear sign that his melancholy was involutionary and therefore he was swallowed up in his own turmoil as if by a whale. Notice that he, too, had the courage to run away fom God (religion) which is a necessary condition for salvation to take place. Hence, there is no salvation in churches but they only provide the environment for this melodrama to take place.

Doctor X

Amos:

No. It is not in the texts. You can believe it, certainly, but you can not cite it. Someone may think Romeo and Juliet inspires homoerotic love, but Shakespeare did not write it that way!

Furthermore, it is not in Mk, or Mt, or Lk, so you cannot even argue it was a common theme.

Now:

To quote Manuel: ¿Qué?

Whatever that means, it does not support your argument that Jonah went to Sheol or that Junior was swallowed by a fish!!

Look, Amos, with the tenderness shown by a favorite uncle to his niece just prior to him casting her down the stairs so he can claim the inheritence, I advise you to spend a little time with the literature. There are some great references in the Recommended Reading Section. I write that because you seem all over the place.

--J.D.

Gothic_J

its been suggested to me that jesus and all the 12 disciples were having fun. after all, love your fellow man.

its also been suggested that none of them existed. Im still pondering that one.

finally, Im told that david and jonathan were bi. odd how that never came up in bible school.

Doctor X

Bet You're Gay! No, I'm Not:

I tend to take a jaundiced view--maybe too much merlot--with some of these "historical details." Since we have, frankly, no uncontaminated historical documentation--I use "contaminated" to handle the Josephus-type stuff--and even the contaminated show diddly/squat. So where do people who make these conclusions get their information?

Now, I suppose someone can try to argue that . . . evidence suggests . . . that groups of men . . . in Palestine . . . often engaged in . . . but that is hardly conclusive!!

All Myths:

I must admit I tended to argue for the existence of a historical figure . . . of which we know less than diddly/squat. However, I have not read some of the recent stuff--referenced by other posters--that argue "it is all myth."

Nevertheless, the "best case" one could argue for is that Junior, his brother, and some of the more notable "merry men" existed like Peter.

What do we know about them? Not a hell of a lot. I think we can infer some things. IF Junior's brother, Peter and the rest of the Pillars of Jerusalem existed . . . they were not controversial. If anything, the Romans were efficient, and I cannot buy they would not stamp out the leaders of a threat.

Which brings us to one of the more uncomfortable problems with the whole death of Junior . . . why did the Romans not stamp everything out? As others have noticed, even if you accept everything in the NT it is hard to find what sort of threat he represented . . . without facing the problem of why not squish all of them.

Welcome to the forums.

--J.D.

Secular Pinoy

Fredriksen wrote a pretty good solution as to why Jesus was the only one executed, while his followers were spared. I'm too lazy to pick up the book right now (just got home, Manila traffic can really sap the enthusiasm of even the most energetic of men), so I'll just copy+paste the quote from PKirby's site:Peter Kirby went on to say [A]s Fredriksen argues, the point of the crucifixion as a mode of execution was the display for the crowds, and the eschatological fervor surrounding a specific prediction of immediate cataclysm would have been enough for Jesus to excite the imagination of the crowds. Fredriksen maintains that Jesus did not present himself as the Messiah but that such a claim was made for Jesus by the crowds in Jerusalem, which led to the expedient of Pilate to contain the situation by crucifixion.

Doctor X

Yet that quote really does not do what it says . . . if anything it undercuts itself. It does not explain why the Romans did not hunt them down.

To extend Peter's quote--a bunch of disciples hung up makes an even better display.

--J.D.

Secular Pinoy

Ah, then you just have to buy the book then, and support the Internet Infidels!