Last Supper, Not Mary, My proof, page 3

Originally posted by FlyersFan
There is a long standing Catholic sacred tradition that St. John was very young.

A 'long standing Catholic sacred tradition' does not a truth make, dear.

In fact, from what I've discovered, and, truly, it was usually by accident, researching something else--I've never really been interested in Catholicism, but considering so many around here are, including my ex-husband's entire family whom are good people and still dear to me--which has made for many surprising discoveries of my own, that tag on any certain accepted belief renders it about 80% chance it was some one's diversionary tactic, in the long-gone days of early traditional christianity. With the attitude of supposed authority that the RCC has always carried, and bequeathed to their clergy, it not fantasy to strongly suspect that there were often Cardinals or Bishops, Popes (this one is proven) who felt the need to tweak a belief just a bit away from what the bible says, for whatever reason. This started, initially, with the PR campaign about Peter being head of the church, etc...

Oh what a tangled web we weave when first we practice to deceive.

Flyer's Fan, please don't take this as a person attack--it's your chosen religion and that is perfectly within your God-given right to select for yourself. I believe that anyone who follows their chosen religion with their heart certainly loves God just as much as I may, or whomever--and God knows that, too. Whatever He intends things to end up configured as, well, I know He will in due time.

BUT I have done years of research, and not just this more recent type of internet/forum board posting 'research,' I started years ago and used printed books and now it's like having an enyclopedia at my fingertips, but I've gotten the ideas I rant on these days from a large body of work that shows an undeniable unfolding 'plot' as it were, for the world.

Dan Brown really isn't that far off of how perhaps things might be, IMO. I don't believe Jesus got married or had kids, and I've posted my reasons on another thread somewhere. The connection with Leonardo is an educating and entertaining part of it, I am sure, because he was a rare genius. The secret society stuff is crap, IMO--God doesn't need that kind of melodrama--He just keeps us asleep until He calls us. That's human intrigue, and I really don't think God is so unwise He would trust us with more than a generation's continued participation in His overall Master plan--one generation, every x amount of generations, and God calls His servants and they do some work.

But it is a book of fiction, and that is what he maintains. It is not the first book to maybe cast aspersions on humanity's idea of God--but the reaction and defensive mechanisms going up so hard and fast, by those who subscribe to what the RCC has made into 'traditional' facts, a big red flag if you're in tune.

Some of it comes from the scripture quote where Christ tells his apostles -
to paraphrase - 'what is it to you if this one (John) doesn't die'. They were
talking about who would die before Christ returned.

No, they were speaking of the 'disciple that Jesus loved' in the 4th Gospel, attributed to John but that has never been absolutely 'proven' except inside the RCC. For centuries we have accepted their authority with our eyes closed, protestants just the same as Catholic and orthodox...this was what God was keeping hidden, until it was time. It's not a bad thing--it was what was required by Him, but those times are coming to a close and people are beginning to see what's really what.

And so the endless hype.

If we take every single instance of 'the disciple Jesus loved' out of the whole bible, we really don't have too many more mentions of John, son of Zebedee. Now, I am sure he was as real as James, and the rest, but I don't think he can be assumed to be so beloved to Christ based on anything outside of the RCC's own approved scriptural canon.

They all were killed except John, who survived assassination attempts.

The only record of John's long life and then death is what the RCC again has in their traditional authority.

If we remove all books said to be authored by John son of Zebedee and don't assume a thing past what is written in the canon after that--it just doesn't add up and I don't believe it for a minute. There is nothing to support anything currently accepted as 'fact' about John. I think, that all we can really say for sure from the 4 gospel canons that John of Z was a disciple and was present at the transfiguration with James and Peter. This is supported. The rest is unfounded on anything but 'tradition.' This strict analysis doesn't allow us to consider who might have been this person--but that's okay. I don't seek to prove it was Mary, but I am certain it was not John of Zebedee. I have a lot of evidence with contradicts it and non that confirms it (other than what comes out of the RCC).

And, if this alteration of 'tradition' came at the very first days, it would certainly make sense to change one important disciple from a young woman to a very very young man. Who lived to be, what, something like 100+ years? After being boiled in oi--right!--what kind of thing is that? The Apostles were crucified, beheaded, killed with swords and sharp things--things of the iron age days. Boiling in oil is like a King Arthur times thing to do,--that's probably a big clue to when these diversions were being paved into 'traditions.' It is a medieval tradition, and I don't think John lived that long.

Also, to say he was not martyred is to say one of Christ's prophecies was inaccurate! The RCC shouldn't be willing to do that!

And the artists, by the time of the Renessaince had accepted, like all the world that Mary Magdalene was a sinner, whore, or nothing at all but a groupie, and that John was the 'beloved disciple.' But the Renessaince is so named because it means 'new start' or something like that--awakenening, new life. And so I think it is very possible that Leonardo painted these figures as he did, out of tradition, but something inside him that he didn't realize wasn't him was telling him to put the alternating clothing scheme colors on them and whatever else intrigues us in the present. And no one's seen that, no one has questioned the RCC too much after that--another one generation long group of God's servants: Leo, Michaelangelo, Raphael, Galilieo, Newton, Tynedale, Weymouth, Luther, Shakespeare, Gutenberg, etc. But it broke the dark ages. And then people eventually begin getting their hands on the bible and finding out they'd been had! That was the end of the Church's literal hold on the world's mentality...it's still been a shadowy hand since then, but...

Much of it comes from sacred tradition in the Church that has been handed down for 2,000 years.

No doubt. But they didn't get it from Jesus Christ or his first generation Apostles. What we need to know, they have told us. That's what we should go by but to stick with the established RCC catechism law or whatever you call that, sorry

and still promote more what is not in the bible than what is--this is a blatant hypocrisy by the general human spirit that has run that insititution since the first days!

Really, most of them would have been young. Even Peter, who was married.

We don't know that. We can't assume.
Wasn't the average life span back them much shorter?
Not necessarily. Joseph of the patriarchs lived to be 110 as Vizier of Egypt! Of course, he had a bit better life--but his family was all with him. It was, on the average shorter, I think, but there were still those that grew older than the rest. We can't assume a thing--and saying John was that young is assuming a lot. It doesn't even say John is younger than James! I have heard (more tradition) that Peter lived to be almost 70. I think this is from scholars who study the texts and authorship, etc. But I'm not saying that's 'fact' either, because I don't know. But it gives us an idea, perhaps.

They all would have been married younger and died younger ....

I don't think many were married. Peter was, but the rest, we don't know. Hopefully God didn't prepare Christ's disciples for their trying lives and bloody ends by providing them with a wife and kids. God is not cruel in any way at all, and that would be cruel. No one can say it wouldn't be. That's why I say, also that there was no physical wedding between these two.

But if Adam had Eve, and the Lamb has a Bride, then why can't a Jesus have a Mary?
Would God let His son be utterly alone, or would He provide a 'help-meet?' Eve had a a part of the loss, why can't some counterpart have the opportunity to make amends, as well?