flowperson, on Feb 25 2007, 07:43 PM, said:
But as far as Jesus not ever writing anything down...I don't know, and I don't think anyone knows about that...yet. IMHO.
The Gnostic gospel of Thomas may come the closest. That's an opinion that's been reached by many, not just me. If a genuine copy of the "Quelle" document really existed, rather than only as a reconstructed version based on scholarly speculations, then realistic comparisons could be made and discussed. Until then I reserve my opinion on the phenomenon of "oneness".
Or better yet, maybe that's already happened and has been kept from us all for some time... and that is the foundation of the conflict I mentioned. Interesting conundrum.
flow....
Yeah, how about that Flow? The interesting thing about being an angel on the other side, with a viewpoint that's a bit more . . . how shall I say? . . . expansive than the viewpoint of human beings is the list of things I know about Earth's history that most human beings don't know.
Since you brought up the "Quelle" document, I'll bite, my good friend.
First, let me be clear. I, Jesus, did not write the Quelle document. I wrote, as I've said before, sections of the Letter of James, along with short bits and pieces that were tucked into various other books by later editors to massage the message.
The Quelle document was written by the "one whom Jesus loved." That was my good friend, Lazarus. I loved him as a great and loyal friend. Of all those who wanted to befriend me, he was the only one I fully trusted. He "got it." He got what I was saying. That may have something to do with the fact that God and God's healing angels brought him back from the brink of a very nasty death. Necrotizing fasciitis was sweeping through his back, and he was given up for dead and removed from his home by his sisters Mary and Martha to prevent the disease from spreading. I came to help. I wasn't afraid of the disease. I prayed and wept and sang with the angels who came to aid him. He recovered, though his back was deeply scarred and most people feared him.
He wrote down my story. He's the only friend who came to my crucifixion. He's the only one who wrote it down more or less accurately.
His codex forms the basis of the Gospels of Matthew, Mark, and Luke. Can't say I like what was done to his work.
And John, whose Gospel is lauded for its high Christology? John was a man with issues, let us say. This was a man who believed himself to be a great prophet. This was a man who was baptising people in the River Jordan when I came along. This was a man who never got over his anger and resentment that I was the "usurper" of his destiny. What, you mean I'm saying John of the Gospels is John the Baptist? But . . . but the Bible says John was executed by Herod Antipas, so how could they be one and the same person? Well, you know, the history of "hatching, matching, and dispatching" is a complete mess in the Bible. Genealogy was a fluid concept for writers of religious tracts, since genealogy was such an important part of life for regular folk. Massaging the message -- not faithful recording of fact -- was considered the important goal for all New Testament writers but Lazarus (and me).
John wrote the Gospel which carries his name. He also wrote the Book of Revelation at the end of his very long life. The author of the Book of Revelation was clearly a psychotic individual. If your teenage son or daughter brought home such a confused, rambing, paranoid tract, you'd freak, and you'd hustle him/her into a psychiatrist's office. Too bad John was regarded as a prophet instead of a mentally ill individual.
Sometimes fact is stranger than fiction. This is indeed one case where the facts add up to a soap opera plot.
Love Jesus
May 2, 2007
This post has been edited by canajan, eh?: 02 May 2007 - 07:50 AM
Sign In
Register
Help
MultiQuote
