Clivedurdle

http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/...13&version=NIV

John 13 28

Is this not an example of editorial comment?

In the discussions I have seen about insertions, I do not remember comments about what actually might be an original and how many layers of editing we might be looking at.

Is there a literary original to be found or is that a fiction?

Chili

I think NIV is a translation error in that it designates those who Jesus loved as in the world while he himself was not:

Bolding mine.

A better line would be: "He had loved his own in this world, and would show his love for them to the end."

Crucial here is that Jesus was local in this world as first Adam for whom the 'love of life' was to be renewed to 'love in life' itself by him as second Adam now.

Peter is insight and Jude is the faith to be unraveled in the end, by Peter, to be sure, who himself is not the end but only an auxiliary towards that end --like maybe an engine on a sail boat -- wherein omniscient now is the order of the day and for that only 'white sails' will do. In this sense is Peter put on park as ex-cathedra now (while in the church the Peter-pulling party must go on).

The washing of feet is a sign of appreciation to the faith (Judaism here as opposite to Egyptian = Mary vs Isis who was the wicked witch in this (from Matt.1:15 to Gal. 3:1)), that delivers here wherein now recognition is given to the mystery contained.

In washing the feet of his equals love is the symbol used to express 'the faith' wherein they stand united, that has no opposite in hate from the source of love that here now is celebrating by them, and hence they must do each other so that united they will stand as 'universe' for him.

Insight has no opposite as that is wherein truth is seen that is told from mountaintops as real while perceived along the shore of the celestial sea where omniscience itself is at. This sea is the water to walk on to get into the promises land, and so not 'part it' to get in, is the message and be lost on the other side forever more. This would be like spiritual rape, I think he said in celebrating this event that actually follows next, wherein Peter's denial is foretold

So now, whereas John prepared the way and made all hills and valleys flat to announce the birth of messiah, he himself must endure new highs and lows for which Jude was a subject now as antagonist: v. 18 "who raised his heel against me" (from Gen. 3:15), now by Peter to undo.

Bottom line, it is to glorify Judaism as tool to reach the end wherein he made it clear that Jews cannot get to heaven as a Jew: "where I am going you cannot come [as Jew]," who must be crucified to set Man free (and so now only a dumb fuck will call himself Christian and wants to go there still, is what he really means to say).

Be reminded here again that "It is finished" is quite opposite to "My God my God, why have to forsaken me."

outhouse

It is fiction.


There were many different stories of Judas floating around, based from early scripture and the betrayal.

I wouldn't be surprised if ever aspect of Judas was fictional.

Chili

Well it may be fiction but it sure has a lot of people who can identify with it, and so now: are they fiction too?

Yes they are, is the message here and shows you how to make it real.

mountainman

It is of course. But are we not educated to the hypothesis that John and the other gospel authors wrote as an instrument of the "Holy Spirit"?

No other editors (Marcion was not an editor) of these writings are mentioned until the time of Eusebius, who served as the editor of the fifty Constantine bibles.

You may as well have also included the immediately preceding verse....

Certainly this appears to be high melodrama.

Why anyone would digest any of this fictitious garbage as history is beyond me.




εὐδαιμονία | eudaimonia

aa5874

Eusebius served as the editor of fifty Constantine Bibles?

Who was this Eusebius--the Bishop of Rome?

What did the Bishop of Rome edit during the time of Eusebius?

Something just doesn't sound right.

The Bishop of Caesarea had more power and influence than the Bishop of Rome!!!

Something is radically wrong with "Church History" attributed to Eusebius.

mountainman

I have thought it expedient to instruct your Prudence to order fifty copies of the sacred Scriptures, the provision and use of which you know to be most needful for the instruction of the Church, to be written on prepared parchment in a legible manner, and in a convenient, portable form, by professional transcribers thoroughly practised in their art.

Signed,

The Boss

He was an unknown monk.

"This unknown monk pretends to be a man of research
into very scanty records of the past

... [...] ...

He is not a man of research at all,
except in the sense in which many novelists and romancers
are men of research for the purposes of their construction.
This writer is, in fact, simply a theological romancer,
and only in that sense can he be called an historian at all".

Edwin Johnson: "Antiqua Mater: A Study of Christian Origins" (1890)

εὐδαιμονία | eudaimonia

Chili

Here he is the 'unknown author' who the world will never know. To explain this let me add to my previous post:



I think NIV is a translation error in that it designates those who Jesus loved as in the world while he himself was not:


Bolding mine.

A better line would be: "He had loved his own in this world, and would show his love for them to the end." Crucial here is that Jesus was local in this world as first Adam for whom the 'love of life' was to be renewed to 'love in life' itself by him as second Adam now.


To be sure: Conversion reverses direction (metanoia) wherein so the first Adam becomes second Adam with the descend of the HS to be in him and remain with him as per Jn.14:17 . . . and be the paraclete promised in verse 16 above.*

Peter is insight and Jude is the faith to be unraveled in the end, by Peter, to be sure, who himself is not the end but only an auxiliary towards that end --like maybe an engine on a sail boat -- wherein omniscient now is the order of the day and for that only 'white sails' will do. In this sense is Peter put on park as ex-cathedra now (while in the church the Peter-pulling party must go on).

The washing of feet is a sign of appreciation to the faith (Judaism here as opposite to Egyptian = Mary vs Isis who was the wicked witch in this (from Matt.1:15 to Gal. 3:1)), that delivers here wherein now recognition is given to the mystery contained. In washing the feet of his equals love is the symbol used to express 'the faith' wherein they stand united, that has no opposite in hate from the source of love that here now is celebrating by them, and hence they must do each other so that united they will stand as 'universe' for him.

Insight has no opposite as that is wherein truth is seen that is told from mountaintops as real while perceived along the shore of the celestial sea where omniscience itself is at. This sea is the water to walk on to get into the promises land, and so not 'part it' to get in, is the message and be lost on the other side forever more. This would be like spiritual rape, I think he said in celebrating this event that actually follows next, wherein Peter's denial is foretold.

So now, whereas John prepared the way and made all hills and valleys flat to announce the birth of messiah, he himself must endure new highs and lows for which Jude was a subject now as antagonist: v. 18 "who raised his heel against me" (from Gen. 3:15), now by Peter to undo.

Bottom line, it is to glorify Judaism as tool to reach the end wherein he made it clear that Jews cannot get to heaven as a Jew: "where I am going you cannot come [as Jew]," who must be crucified to set Man free.

Be reminded here again that "It is finished" is quite opposite to "My God my God, why have you forsaken me."

* Notice here that as first Adam we received our input (primary premiss) of all our actions from the woman of Gen. 3:15 . . . via Eve as temple tramp [or lesser serpent] in the TOK to strike our heel by desire to see more. Just a function of the mind that Plato called recollection.

To identify Adam let's go to Gen. 3:8-10 where man first became self aware and could see that he was naked, while in Gen.2:25 he was naked [to wit] and therefore felt no shame, which then makes Adam an image created in the TOK without substance as man and therefore hu-man as usurper now (who forever more will swear that he has free will to try and make that real).

And so the second Adam is the first Adam converted and will intuitly know every step that we made on the way out [from East of Eden] and therefore is the only one who can lead us 'back to Eden again.'

As 'converted' now our intuit input will be directly from' woman' without Eve in between that so makes the entire TOK superfluous to be raised into the TOL, and hence he should not go 'back to Galilee' again. This, in turn, makes Mary paraclete and Queen of angels prior to Coronation in our own life after Eden is restored.

This journey back is Plato's "Labyrinth" event, wherein the first Adam who led us West (via woman to Eve to our heel by way of desire as per Gen.3:15), it will be the second Adam to lead us back to Eden again, now 'first person' via woman with Eve no longer in between. It so is by 'intuition' that we go back to Eden, which then is what 'water-walking' is all about.

IOW, it is all intuition with no bible passages to be read in the redeeming stage of what was lost . . . and down into the labyrinth we go and necessarily must leave religion behind that so now becomes antagonist to be understood (and so the temple to rebuilt), which also is in 2 stages: one year stream entrant or sotapanna, two and a half more as sakadagami, and then the final stage as arahant is reached as Christian with the human condition crucified.

Plato called these parousia, synousia and syzen, and he used the Labyrinth to get there, as half animal half hu-man, that so is our Second Adam now.

So then also this is where the Gospels begin as the man-god now where Christ is born unto the naked animal man = beyond theology (Allen Watts) = beyond reason and hence Gabriel 'first cause' from God to reverse Gen. 2 where woman was taken from her man here now to be returned to him and crown her queen of heaven and of earth.

Woman here is later called Mary and was Isis, but is also Ariadne for Daedalus (Joyce called himself as Stephan and Stephanos-the-Catholic as a tribute to Latin in awakening there).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Labyrinth

And notice that it is part of Chartres and Saint-Remy.

Theseus is Jesus as second Adam here, and Ariadne is Mary here and the labyrinth is the complicated web he wove after he left Eden and West into his own world where he got lost. Such is human nature, I suppose, and there as lost by the 'good shepherd' is found (while nobody else really knows that he was lost. A good image of that is here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/D%C3%BCrer_graph

Then if you consider that the primary premiss of all our actions are from the woman in the TOL she would know the origin of its cause as she was the one who moved us as per Gen.3:15:

Aristotle elaborated on that in his Posterior Analytics where he concludes that all primary premises (the major), is ours by intuition. Bottom 4th last paragraph Book II:

http://classics.mit.edu/Aristotle/posterior.2.ii.html

The message here is that life is like a prayer to unfold and the adolescent period should never be a part of it with no tradition to lead us on wherein we have a dream to live (as opposite to a dreamer without a dream to live ('inner directed vs outer directed' as a reed blowing in the wind).

While I understand that this kind of kills the Free Will argument simply because we are divided in our own mind and so there is two of us and not just one. The idea of freedom is very real but that is not real until the two minds have become one, as is shown here in this poem by Hardy where in the end two hemispheres are jarred:

http://www.poetryfoundation.org/poem/176678


And notice that Human Pride designed her and the collision is caused by the Immanent Will.

My point here is that, if the Titanic can say the same there was no crucifixion because Hardy walked away from the same Image here, as did Joyce in the last line of his "Portrait" with the words: "Old father, old artificer, stand me now and ever in good stead," like Jesus said in Luke and Joyce here walked away from it on May 1st when "New Life" begins.

So now Labyrinth is Galilee and the life-line by Ariadne is 'woman' [proper] who in the Gospels is identified as Mary, who should know 'the way out' as she was the one who send him yonder as presiding over the TOL from where she struck Eve in her head and she in turn struck Adam = us at our heel by way of desire, now as in 'each one' of us.

Then if you consider that pleasure is an extraction from the TOL (that Plato called recollection and Aristotle holds to be prior to us in the soul), in the same way that eros is an extraction from agape, it is easy to conclude that temporal life is also an extraction from eternal life of which we outsider in the TOK, and so is why Hardy's consummation jars two hemispheres, and freedom itself is real but not until that point in life = no more tanha to yield dukha that the Stoics tried to imitate.

Ironic here is that even today nobody and nobody dares to equate the famous studied to death Gospels with Plato's Labyrinth wherein Jesus is the Minotaur personified and here you are squacking about Eusebius?

Chili

. . . and I do not want to sound like a preacher here, but if the labyrinth is a re-back on our own jouney of life to encounter the seven Sacraments that we received in life to serve as milestones of faith on the way out, it will be those same Sacraments to yield the pathway to follow on our way back home (instead of bread-crumbs as deeds of righteousness that the ravens picked away).

The Seventh sacrament here is Jesuit-by-nature, I suppose, in the same way that Judaism knows a Nazarite-by-nature, where now those Sacraments will be the seven heads of the first beast of Rev.13 who now have blasphemies on them in memory of the past that here now are natural to him, as opposite to virtuous as gifts from God on the way out.

In other words, there is not such thing as virtues in heaven or God would know evil as an opposite, is the message here, wherein 'to be good' is to be other than you are and so is human in origin, that here now has been crucified to die as shown by the wounds.*

Therefore notice that one of its heads was the seventh sacrament to identify the Jesuit-by-nature who got crucified, to say also that he will not preach no more but just has the evidence to show.

The ten horns represent the 10 commandments on which the diadems speak in evidence of victory over sin, and so is free from conviction of not just sin but also of good as an opposite to evil, and really does not care either way as non-social animal now, neither social nor asocial but solitarary as individual.

And then of course the 42 months is the purgation period wherein the first year is that typical anti-religion sentiment (antagonist here) that during the next two and a half is sifted trough to either be released or raised into the upper room, there called the sea so he can walk on it with confidence = get your minds in harmony.

And never mind the second beast that worships Jesus as Lord of all.


* Crucial here to understand is that man as animal is basically good, and why not? . . . if he runs the show on earth for whom now power is an expression of love instead of war.