The (real) disciple Jesus loved, Gospel of John

originally posted by: BlueJacket
a reply to: AMPTAH

Lol grow up

"And said, Verily I say unto you, Except ye be converted, and become as little children, ye shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven. " -- KJV, Matthew 18:3

a reply to: KingPhilipsiX

The thread belongs to ATS, not you. Laugh yourself sillier.

originally posted by: NewzNose
a reply to: KingPhilipsiX

The thread belongs to ATS, not you. Laugh yourself sillier.

I literally have no idea what purpose you have for saying that other than you want to derail my thread.

You accuse me of thinking that I own this thread, show me what I said that supports that accusation.

If you work for ATS, I assure you that is not the case and I think I am conducting myself just fine.

Other than that I have no control over the floodgates of fundamentalism and can't please everyone.

And don't need to feel like the Antichrist because I made a little thread that is...gasp! outside the realm of dogma.

But have a good day anyway.

I have never seen an ATS thread go south so quickly.

originally posted by: KingPhilipsiX
a reply to: chr0naut

I love your passion right on!

To each their own amigo.

Yes, I passionately believe that statements made that are not truths, are lies. It's a very binary thing.

So, did the information that unambiguously answered the speculation in the OP actually register with you?

originally posted by: KingPhilipsiX
So... apparently a theory is enough to cause hostility in this area.

Eh. I wish everyone the best with that. Until someone introduces me in person to the Creator of creation, I will freely and with great joy postulate theories about God.

I have no attachment to theology, owe no debt to fundamentalism and the same goes for any other unproven aspect of life.

I suggest that anyone who can't deal with that refrain from reading. There are more upsetting things on the internet than Mary Magdalene being the disciple Jesus loved, I assure you.

I suggest that you spend some time learning about the wife of Jesus Christ, the magnificent Magdalene.

The female Christ.

Or enjoy your beliefs as I do mine, whatever they are.

I am an advocate of personal Spirituality.

Scriptures are meant for spirituality, not for telling people what truth is.

I can read, think about and enjoy them without having to subscribe to human doctrine.

After all, is God so simple he can not write a book with a message for humanity at large at the same time as having a unique personal message for every individual?


He is not. And I love Mary Magdalene like my own mother. She is the female Christ.

After all, if the consciousness of Christ was limited to a man it is incomplete. The feminine Christ must exist and who else but the Magdalene?

Jesus, the Son of Man and the Son of God, as recorded in the Gospels, is unarguably and unquestionably male.

YHWH God of the Old Testament identifies as "Father" and is called "He" in EVERY reference in the Bible.

The Holy Spirit is directly referred to as male throughout the Bible, except for a few references to attributes or actions of the Spirit which have either a female or genderless meaning.

The whole concept that an eternal spiritual deity would rationally require male and female counterparts is applying an anthropocentricity not even suggested in nature at large (Intellect and consciousness do not require gender. A large proportion of life on Earth is asexual). I suspect that your concept of a balance of genders probably has its basis in a primitive anthropocentric pantheon of 'little' deities.

To assume that there is a female counterpart to Christ, not mentioned in the scriptures is unreasonable.

The Church is referred to as "the Bride of Christ". Israel is poetically referred to as an adulterous woman loved by God (especially in Hosea, but elsewhere too). In both these cases, both male and female genders must reasonably be incorporated within the group entity. The 'gendering' of the group is therefore only an allegorical indication of the affection that God holds for them.

originally posted by: Lazarus Short
I have never seen an ATS thread go south so quickly.

I didn't plan on that. I just love Mary Magdalene, actually do believe that she is the disciple Jesus loved and that it was more or less edited.

But I guess it is not a popular idea. It is what it is.

I even took the polite route and said that I am not a follower of theology and approach scripture spiritually and not as literal history right away, so people would not complain.

Lot of good that did. I actually got called a danger that someone is trying to protect their daughter from.

Quite insane when you consider the truly dangerous content on the internet, that my thoughts, a rather insignificant theory really, are what is thought of as dangerous.

As if freedom of speech and religion became bad things suddenly.

Yikes.

a reply to: chr0naut

Thanks for your thoughts. I too am a Spiritual person. Just not into theology or religion.

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: KingPhilipsiX
So... apparently a theory is enough to cause hostility in this area.

Eh. I wish everyone the best with that. Until someone introduces me in person to the Creator of creation, I will freely and with great joy postulate theories about God.

I have no attachment to theology, owe no debt to fundamentalism and the same goes for any other unproven aspect of life.

I suggest that anyone who can't deal with that refrain from reading. There are more upsetting things on the internet than Mary Magdalene being the disciple Jesus loved, I assure you.

I suggest that you spend some time learning about the wife of Jesus Christ, the magnificent Magdalene.

The female Christ.

Or enjoy your beliefs as I do mine, whatever they are.

I am an advocate of personal Spirituality.

Scriptures are meant for spirituality, not for telling people what truth is.

I can read, think about and enjoy them without having to subscribe to human doctrine.

After all, is God so simple he can not write a book with a message for humanity at large at the same time as having a unique personal message for every individual?


He is not. And I love Mary Magdalene like my own mother. She is the female Christ.

After all, if the consciousness of Christ was limited to a man it is incomplete. The feminine Christ must exist and who else but the Magdalene?

Jesus, the Son of Man and the Son of God, as recorded in the Gospels, is unarguably and unquestionably male.

YHWH God of the Old Testament identifies as "Father" and is called "He" in EVERY reference in the Bible.

The Holy Spirit is directly referred to as male throughout the Bible, except for a few references to attributes or actions of the Spirit which have either a female or genderless meaning.

The whole concept that an eternal spiritual deity would rationally require male and female counterparts is applying an anthropocentricity not even suggested in nature at large (Intellect and consciousness do not require gender. A large proportion of life on Earth is asexual).

I suspect that your concept of a balance of genders probably has its basis in a primitive anthropocentric pantheon of 'little' deities.

I actually pretty much disagree with almost all your conclusions. I never called Jesus a girl, but whatever your reason for confirming his gender was, that I agree with.

I was listening to your views and I found them to be pretty basic and fundamental, and I don't really have a problem with other people's thoughts and opinions etc.

But when you theorized or "suspected"' to have any idea of the basis of my concepts, and that they are based in primitive concepts of little deities from a pantheon I had to point out that is actually pretty close to a description of the basis of the concepts we have today called religion whether or not it calls itself monotheistic or polytheistic or pantheistic now, it descends from primitive pantheons of deities usually with a prime superior creator. Canaan and the Semitic peoples of Akkad are the primitive origins of the Abrahamic God El.

And they had big and little deities.

But it is both primitive and modern. It is still alive in Hinduism and the inner esoteric teachings of Judaism. There is even focus on androgenous beings having both natures in creation teachings.

To assume that there is a female counterpart to Christ, not mentioned in the scriptures is unreasonable.

The Church is referred to as "the Bride of Christ". Israel is poetically referred to as an adulterous woman loved by God (especially in Hosea, but elsewhere too). In both these cases, both male and female genders must reasonably be incorporated within the group entity. The 'gendering' of the group is therefore only an allegorical indication of the affection that God holds for them.

In this instance unreasonable is your opinion. I find it perfectly reasonable.

About the "Israel is an adulterous woman" "Bride of Christ" stuff being poetical, I don't factor it in when contemplating the nature of the human relationship between Mary M. and Jesus Christ because it is not necessary.

I don't think that Israel is adulterous. Christ doesn't have to go without a lady because his followers are poetically called his bride. And I think of Mary Magdalene as the female Christ.

I also think we should become Christs ourselves. I realize it is aiming high but I don't think it is unreasonable (if it is what you want). And I am not saying become Gods, just Christs. Anointed by the Spirit. Good people who care about each other regardless of harmless ideas that they might have about Spirituality.

Because a good tree produces good fruit no matter what that fruit is. Or what land it belongs to.



If you recall I said "Philo was the first to apply the Logos concept to the Hebrew God."

Thank you for confirming it, he was not a Christian so it is no wonder his concept was altered to fit Christian theology and scripture and is different from the Christians version.

A form of it is still taught today in Kabbalistic philosophy.

a reply to: Lazarus Short

If by going south you mean full of sh....you are very correct but so is EVERY thread by the schizoid OP.If everyone just ignored his abundant of ignorance and lies eventually he will go away(far,far away preaching to the spiritual birds)....oh no ...now he is going to SCOLD me and put me down..Lions and Tigers and Bears OH MY!!

originally posted by: Rex282
a reply to: Lazarus Short

If by going south you mean full of sh....you are very correct but so is EVERY thread by the schizoid OP.If everyone just ignored his abundant of ignorance and lies eventually he will go away(far,far away preaching to the spiritual birds)....oh no ...now he is going to SCOLD me and put me down..Lions and Tigers and Bears OH MY!!

Talk about black being white. Lies? Schizoid?

Evidence would be nice. Otherwise you are everything you accused me of being.

a reply to: KingPhilipsiX

No it isn't ,it is the truth so please do the ATS members and yourself a favor and go away.You are the least enlightened person I've ever encountered .No one wants you here (including the ATS admin) posting your spiritual drivel not because it's true but because its an insane lie .You are the proverbial cockroach(by your characther choice).Please seek help .You need it badly.


here comes the rants and put downs..proceed

originally posted by: Rex282
a reply to: KingPhilipsiX

No it isn't it is the truth so please do the ATS members and yourself a favor and go away.You are the least enlightened person I've ever encountered .No one wants you here (including the ATS admin) posting your spiritual drivel not because it's true but because its an insane lie .You are the proverbial cockroach(by your characther choice).Please seek help .You need it badly.

I repeat, evidence would be great. I just made a small theory about Jesus and Mary M.

I didn't swear on a stack it was truth like you are pretending, I clearly said it was a theory.

And I am glad you think of me as unenlightened.


I would not accept myself as enlightened if you thought I was (if I even thought I was enlightened to begin with). I would reevaluate my life if this was the case.

At least I can take a breather on that.

And that I can survive nuclear war because I am a cockroach (according to you).

I doubt after two threads the whole administration of ATS is mad at me. You have the problem if you think that. I am using the website for its purpose. Think about that for a second and realize what you are saying and doing because I can take being called a cockroach, but I would never call anyone a cockroach.

Which is worth noting.

originally posted by: KingPhilipsiX

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: KingPhilipsiX
So... apparently a theory is enough to cause hostility in this area.

Eh. I wish everyone the best with that. Until someone introduces me in person to the Creator of creation, I will freely and with great joy postulate theories about God.

I have no attachment to theology, owe no debt to fundamentalism and the same goes for any other unproven aspect of life.

I suggest that anyone who can't deal with that refrain from reading. There are more upsetting things on the internet than Mary Magdalene being the disciple Jesus loved, I assure you.

I suggest that you spend some time learning about the wife of Jesus Christ, the magnificent Magdalene.

The female Christ.

Or enjoy your beliefs as I do mine, whatever they are.

I am an advocate of personal Spirituality.

Scriptures are meant for spirituality, not for telling people what truth is.

I can read, think about and enjoy them without having to subscribe to human doctrine.

After all, is God so simple he can not write a book with a message for humanity at large at the same time as having a unique personal message for every individual?


He is not. And I love Mary Magdalene like my own mother. She is the female Christ.

After all, if the consciousness of Christ was limited to a man it is incomplete. The feminine Christ must exist and who else but the Magdalene?

Jesus, the Son of Man and the Son of God, as recorded in the Gospels, is unarguably and unquestionably male.

YHWH God of the Old Testament identifies as "Father" and is called "He" in EVERY reference in the Bible.

The Holy Spirit is directly referred to as male throughout the Bible, except for a few references to attributes or actions of the Spirit which have either a female or genderless meaning.

The whole concept that an eternal spiritual deity would rationally require male and female counterparts is applying an anthropocentricity not even suggested in nature at large (Intellect and consciousness do not require gender. A large proportion of life on Earth is asexual).

I suspect that your concept of a balance of genders probably has its basis in a primitive anthropocentric pantheon of 'little' deities.

I actually pretty much disagree with almost all your conclusions. I never called Jesus a girl, but whatever your reason for confirming his gender was, that I agree with.

I was listening to your views and I found them to be pretty basic and fundamental, and I don't really have a problem with other people's thoughts and opinions etc.

But when you theorized or "suspected"' to have any idea of the basis of my concepts, and that they are based in primitive concepts of little deities from a pantheon I had to point out that is actually pretty close to a description of the basis of the concepts we have today called religion whether or not it calls itself monotheistic or polytheistic or pantheistic now, it descends from primitive pantheons of deities usually with a prime superior creator. Canaan and the Semitic peoples of Akkad are the primitive origins of the Abrahamic God El.

And they had big and little deities.

But it is both primitive and modern. It is still alive in Hinduism and the inner esoteric teachings of Judaism. There is even focus on androgenous beings having both natures in creation teachings.

To assume that there is a female counterpart to Christ, not mentioned in the scriptures is unreasonable.

The Church is referred to as "the Bride of Christ". Israel is poetically referred to as an adulterous woman loved by God (especially in Hosea, but elsewhere too). In both these cases, both male and female genders must reasonably be incorporated within the group entity. The 'gendering' of the group is therefore only an allegorical indication of the affection that God holds for them.

In this instance unreasonable is your opinion. I find it perfectly reasonable.

About the "Israel is an adulterous woman" "Bride of Christ" stuff being poetical, I don't factor it in when contemplating the nature of the human relationship between Mary M. and Jesus Christ because it is not necessary.

I don't think that Israel is adulterous. Christ doesn't have to go without a lady because his followers are poetically called his bride. And I think of Mary Magdalene as the female Christ.

I also think we should become Christs ourselves. I realize it is aiming high but I don't think it is unreasonable (if it is what you want). And I am not saying become Gods, just Christs. Anointed by the Spirit. Good people who care about each other regardless of harmless ideas that they might have about Spirituality.

Because a good tree produces good fruit no matter what that fruit is. Or what land it belongs to.



If you recall I said "Philo was the first to apply the Logos concept to the Hebrew God."

Thank you for confirming it, he was not a Christian so it is no wonder his concept was altered to fit Christian theology and scripture and is different from the Christians version.

A form of it is still taught today in Kabbalistic philosophy.

The absolute monotheism of the Bible is by direct revelation.

The fact that they used Semitic descriptions of deity reflects more upon the development of language than upon a gradual modification of pantheism to monotheism. The only possibility of a gradual development of deistic concept is if you totally ignore the content of the Bible, Old and New Testament.

Philo's philosophical teachings do not require modification to 'fit' Christianity or Judaism, they just do.

As Kabbalah is a branch of Judaism, of course it absorbs Judaistic philosophy. Kabbalah has also on occasion failed to deliver, philosophically, as is well evidenced in the case of the much hyped Sabbatai Zevi and also the actual outcomes of the Galilean community in Safed.

If Kabbalah will achieve its goals by elevating and purifying the minds of large numbers of people, then it's exclusivity, secrecy and esoterism is actively preventing that. As its core philosophy and practice, it is confounded.

a reply to: chr0naut

Awesome.

a reply to: BELIEVERpriest
Once again Gnosisisfaith/Szarah/ oh too many user accts to names is at it again.

originally posted by: ChesterJohn
a reply to: BELIEVERpriest
Once again Gnosisisfaith/Szarah/ oh too many user accts to names is at it again.

My suggestion is to quit feeding the troll and taking their bait.Their posts are very easy to discern because of their great lack of intelligence, sophomoric pedestrian writing skills,unoriginal thought and complete dishonesty.

a reply to: Rex282

You keep accusing me of things, but show no evidence. You are far more dishonest than I, ditto on everything else you said.

You have a problem in that you have a problem without actually having a problem.

You are just mad. If you had more discipline you would not care about a "Sophomoric, unoriginal pedestrian."

I know that I don't.