- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
It’s interesting, Shawn, to look at those things that only John reports, since it seems to me that he was a close, personal friend of Jesus. I’m fairly certain he was the disciple of John, the Baptist, mentioned in John 1:40. He called himself “the disciple whom Jesus loved” more than once – and it is interesting to consider why he might have made that statement. The events that are the most instructive to me are his attendance at the wedding where Mary was in charge (almost certainly Jesus’ or one of his sibling’s wedding) and the fact that he was the only one with Jesus when Lazarus was raised from the dead. Both of those events were outside the normal “ministry” of Jesus, and both of them would have been very intimate, private affairs. Was he a cousin (like John, the Baptist) – or a brother-in-law (married to one of Jesus’ siblings or the brother of either Jesus’ wife [if he had one] or Lazarus, Martha and Mary) – or a best friend growing up – or a business partner – or something else that would mean he knew Jesus much longer than the other disciples?
In one of my classes at the Harvard Divinity School, a couple of the students were focused on gay theology. One of them wrote about David and Jonathan and their relationship, and one of them was writing about Jesus and John – NOT in an assertive way that insisted they were gay lovers, but rather in a way that focused on how intimately people could act in the Bible without modern Christians batting an eye and how different that is in our modern, Victorian society. I know some people do believe both of those situations were examples of homosexual friendships (with some believing David and Jonathan were active lovers and others believing John was a celibate gay friend and companion of Jesus). That class was an interesting introduction to how differently things can be viewed by people with differing perspectives. (The same class had students studying the divine feminine, liberation theology and other fascinating topics.)
No matter the actual nature of their relationship, I think there is real significance to what appears to me to be a closer, longer-term relationship between them than the others – and I love to study these sort of things and give serious consideration to all of the possibilities I view as reasonable.
Nah, disagree… the only hint Jesus may have had a love life in the canon is that he gets called rabbi. I think we make a mistake if we think all close friendships are sexual in nature.
That was the point, Sam. 
I don’t see anything in the canonical Gospels to link anyone specific to Jesus. Even kissing means nothing, French and Italian people kiss each other in greeting, which is what Judas does. (I’m sure someone out there thinks Iscariot was his gay lover – just a guess) The problem with marriage is that it raises the whole issue of children and lineage. We end up with the Muslim problem of caliphs etc, and the Da Vinci code.
John does refer to himself as the beloved, and while I don’t see the relationship between him and Jesus as being much more than a bromance, I could be wrong. I do believe the original 12 and Jesus were quite close and all knew each other quite well. They gathered together without Jesus, and had what was apparently a Passover meal together. Just my two cents. And while I’m pitching pennies, I’ll throw in that Luke has always been my favorite. I like how he is direct and clear in his explanations. Despite the idea that my son Luke is named for Luke Skywalker (which we do joke about), he is named for Luke the gospel writing physician.
DarkJedi wrote:John does refer to himself as the beloved.
Before you all dig too deep into the meaning of exactly what John is saying, remember that the Gospel of John was written c. 80-95 AD. Most scholars agree that John 21 was not part of the original manuscript, and it originally ended at John 20:31. So “the beloved disciple” was added by someone else. The unknown author of John probably used several sources to write the gospel. But the main fact is he was not even born when Jesus was crucified, and was going off several other people’s accounts.
Sheldon, that phrase appears four times in the Gospel of John: two in John 21 and two before that in John 13 and John 20. If John didn’t write chapter 21, as some people believe, the author probably took that phrase from the earlier references. The one in chapter 13 is the one that most people who speculate the furthest use, as it says:
Quote:“Now there was leaning on Jesus’ bosom one of his disciples, whom Jesus loved.”
There are multiple ways that could be interpreted, and I believe nearly all people read it to match whatever they believe when they read it. I mentioned all of this simply to say that, based on everything I read in the Bible, John had a central focus on love and appears to have been closer to Jesus for some reason than the other disciples. I think that influenced his writing greatly.
I’m not saying I personally believe he was gay – although many people believe Paul was a celibate homosexual, and I’m not saying I believe he was straight. I simply mentioned it as one possibility of many and one that some people believe. I’m agnostic on the issue, since I think we simply don’t have enough information to know why they appear to have been such close friends. My focus is on the closeness of the relationship, not if there was a sexual component to it or a physical attraction for John. I don’t care, one way or another, frankly.
By the way, the Greek uses three completely different words for love. Sexual love is clearly differentiated from brotherly love from divine love. English conflates them all… Old-Timer wrote:Sheldon, that phrase appears four times in the Gospel of John: two in John 21 and two before that John 13 and John 20. If John didn’t write chapter 21, as some people believe, the author probably took that phrase from the earlier references.
The one in chapter 13 is the one that most people who speculate the furthest use, as it says:
Quote:“Now there was leaning on Jesus’ bosom one of his disciples, whom Jesus loved.”
There are multiple ways that could be interpreted, and I believe nearly all people read it to match whatever they believe when they read it. I mentioned all of this simply to say that, based on everything I read in the Bible, John had a central focus on love and appears to have been closer to Jesus for some reason than the other disciples. I think that influenced his writing greatly.
I’m no saying I personally believe he was gay – although many people believe Paul was a celibate homosexual, and I’m not saying I believe he was straight. I simply mentioned it as one possibility of many and one that some people believe. I’m agnostic on the issue, since I think we simply don’t have enough information to know why they appear to have been such close friends. My focus is on the closeness of the relationship, not if there was a sexual component to it or a physical attraction for John. I don’t care, one way or another, frankly.
Thanks, Ray, and I agree. As to the homosexual issue, I, too, am agnostic but I also just don’t care. It really makes no difference to me if John, Paul, David, Jonathan, or anyone else in scripture was or was not homosexual. Their sexuality does not change the message.
I don’t think Ray was suggesting a homosexual relationship may have existed. I think he mentioned the class discussion only because it “was an interesting introduction to how differently things can be viewed by people with differing perspectives.” Let’s get back on topic 🙂 DarkJedi wrote:And while I’m pitching pennies, I’ll throw in that Luke has always been my favorite. I like how he is direct and clear in his explanations. Despite the idea that my son Luke is named for Luke Skywalker (which we do joke about), he is named for Luke the gospel writing physician.
This made me laugh because I have a son named Luke and I have made it clear to people that he is NOT named after Luke Skywalker, even though I do like Star Wars. He is named after Luke of the bible.I agree about Luke being clear. He was a physician of some sort and was probably a learned man. He seems to have been an organized biographer.
I remember a high school teacher once told me about how some kid was taking a while to eat his lunch… so he said to him, “Use the fork, Luke.” Sheldon wrote:Before you all dig too deep into the meaning of exactly what John is saying, remember that the Gospel of John was written c. 80-95 AD. Most scholars agree that John 21 was not part of the original manuscript, and it originally ended at John 20:31. So “the beloved disciple” was added by someone else. The unknown author of John probably used several sources to write the gospel. But the main fact is he was not even born when Jesus was crucified, and was going off several other people’s accounts.
I wouldn’t say it’s afactthat the author was not born until after the crucifixion. It’s quite possible that the ultimate source is actually John the apostle/beloved, even though others may have revised and completed the work. Quote:Let’s get back on topic
🙂 Thanks, Shawn. Sorry to have started the threadjack.
😳 My suspicion is that many of these books were written a few years before the earliest versions we have. It may well be that the earliest church leaders knew Jesus or the immediate disciples and when that generation died off… it suddenly dawned on them they needed to copy the earliest manuscripts.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.