This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 |
There needs to be made mention here of the tradition which identifies the Beloved Disciple with John. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.176.68.73 ( talk) 19:23, 17 June 2005 (UTC)
"This category contains only self-identified Born again Christians that follow the Bible's teachings as the Word of God and worship Jesus Christ as their Lord and Saviour." So, does "John the Apostle" belong? I didn't notice any self-identification as such. -- Peter Kirby 12:45, 13 August 2005 (UTC)
As far as I know, "Divine" is a Latinate word for "Theologian", not "one who has had a revelation" -- which would, after all, make that title a tautology. (See the second definition of the noun here.) "John the Theologian" in many traditions is how the author of the fourth Gospel is called, and thus "John the Divine" simply identifies the author of Revelation with the author of the Gospel. However, I question whether this is what the book is "formally" called anyway. This online Greek Bible simply calls it "Apokalypsis Ioannou", while the current version of the Vulgate has "Apocalypsis Ioannis". I think we need a cite for "John the Divne" in the title of that book if it's to be kept. TCC (talk) (contribs) 04:39, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
Why are there three sections on John the Evangilist, John Aposle of Jesus, and John of Patos? There is a further section on John the Presbyter. This all seems very redundant. 65.5.230.181 02:44, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
Hi, I'm doing my confirmation project and I need to know what this means:
"In art, John as the presumed author of the Gospel is often depicted with an eagle, which symbolizes the height he rose in the first chapter of his gospel."
How exactly did he "rise?" I've looked on other sites, but they all say the same thing, with no explanation. -- Thrashmeister 00:18, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
Hi. Great article. Forgive me for a bit of editing. You make a reference to an octave in the Roman Catholic calendar after the Feast of St John on December 27. This octave (though not the feast) was surpressed in the Roman Rite in 1963( refer to the Roman Missal, 1963 edition, approved by Pope John XXIII). I have taken the liberty of removing the reference to an octave. --Gaz — Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.173.128.90 ( talk) 13:27, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
This article states as a matter of fact that John, the disciple of Jesus described in the New Testament, trained Polycarp, a Christian bishop of the early 2nd century. What is the proof for this? Also the article on Polycarp only says it is 'probable' the two knew each other. Revilo098 22:43, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
The suggestion that Jesus & John had a Homosexual relationship is totally illogical and unsubstantiated! Actually they were cousins. Modern people look back at history and think that certain customs are rather strange. Fact is they didn't have chairs,so John and Peter were using Jesus as a pillow. So they are not looking at this in the proper light of the time. Pillows were the only chairs of the time and you sat on the ground. The serving table was 3 tables place in a U -shape which allow the servers to come between the tables and properly serve everyone. Custom was to lift you hand over your head and take food and eat while laying down. It seems to be based soley from the Bible's description of John leaning his head back against Jesus' chest at the Last Supper. In this regard it is important to note that they did not use chairs back then when they dined, but rather that they reclined on pillows at very short tables. The fact that John considered himself "the disciple whom Jesus loved" bears testimony to the fact that Jesus loves each and every one of us - 'Yes, Jesus loves me. Yes, Jesus loves me, Yes, Jesus loves me, the Bible tells me so'." It only goes to show that John knew that Jesus did love him enough to die for him.
In addition, all one has to do is to go to Greekbible.com and punch in the verses from The Gospel of John to read the Greek for yourself. When you do, you will see that the Greek word used here for love is Agape love (agapaw,v {ag-ap-ah'-o} 1) of persons 1a) to welcome, to entertain, to be fond of, to love dearly 2) of things 2a) to be well pleased, to be contented at or with a thing. The acncient Greeks had four separare words for love. Agape is the one for a type of intentional unconditional love, There is a separate word for erotic love "Eros" in Greek - WHICH IS NOT USED IN THE GOSPEL OF JOHN to describe Jesus' relationship with John. The other two types of love in Greek are "Philos" for Brotherly Love - hence Philadelphia, and "Storge" for family / parental love.
See separate article on the four Greek words for defferent types of love: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greek_words_for_love
Whoever wrote this section of this article needs to learn his Greek !!! When he does, he will quickly realize that this claim should be dropped immediately based on the true menaing of "Agape" love.
In any case, had there been any hint of such a sexual relationship, you can rest assured that the Pharisees and Scribes would have accussed them of such and used it against them! The fact that there is no evidence of any of the enemies of Christianity having made such an acccusation until the 16th Century -- according to your own blurb is significant! The Jews of that day would certainly have quoted from Leviticus 20 had either of them been known to have committed any kind of sexual sin. In other words, even their contemporary enemies did not accuse them of such a thing!!
The Apostle Paul - once a perscutor himself of early Christianity - would never have written Romans 1:26-32, if there had been any truth to such accusations.
This section is nothing more than Politcally Correct BS to placate Gay Readers. The text itself is pure. It is only the minds of those reading into what they want - or hope - to see that creates such a perverse idea.
In any case, the arguement is totally unspported by any contemporary evidence and defies logic - when one considers that their contemporay enemies never saw fit to accuse them of such behavior!-- Wolfgrogan 19:42, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
The content of the section is probably acceptable, but the heading is certainly at best badly phrased.
John Carter
21:50, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
I largely agree with the recent sentiments of John Carter, Pastordavid and Cuchullain. The problem with this matter is not that it is “provocative” or “uncomfortable”, it’s that it is a fringe theory. I don’t think there is any question that it is, and as such it should be handled with the Wikipedia content guidelines relating to fringe theories. A few of the guidelines that are particularly salient here I have included below and applied to this matter: 1) “If a non-mainstream theory is so unnotable that mainstream sources have not bothered to comment on it, disparage it, or discuss it, it is not notable enough for Wikipedia.” For example, the subject is not even mentioned at all in the Encylopedia Britannica entry (The New Encyclopedia Britannica v.6 pp 585-586). As noted above, the subject may be untouched in Johannine studies but considered in queer studies. In which case it probably should be treated in an article on queer readings of the bible, or a like article. This does not constitute a POV fork. 2) “The discussion of a non-mainstream theory, positively or negatively, by other non-mainstream groups or individuals is not a criterion for notability, even if the latter group or individual is itself notable enough for a Wikipedia article.” 3)“Ideas which are of borderline or minimal notability may be documented in Wikipedia, but should not be given undue weight. Wikipedia is not a forum for presenting new ideas, for countering any systemic bias in institutions such as academia, or for otherwise promoting ideas which have failed to merit attention elsewhere.” Haiduc claims that the absense of this theory in Johanine studies may be due to bias, but as Wikipedia guidelines note, this “is not a forum…for countering systemic bias”. If mainstream Johanine studies ignore the subject, for whatever reason, this is not the place to remedy that. There may be a place for mentioning this reading of John’s life somewhere on Wikipedia but probably not in this article and certainly not to this degree, as it is plainly given undue weight in light of the idea’s status. Mamalujo 20:17, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
Article spun off, abstract left in place. Thank you all, this has been very instructive and helpful. Your suggestions and critiques point the way for developing that article further. Haiduc 04:39, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
Is the section based on the opinion of the source quoted or are there verifiable facts to support the section and meet the test of verifiability? It seems that this section may contain objectionable content based on opinion or hearsay and then question of notability comes into play. If we are to deal with hypotheticals when adding to a subject I think it takes away from the validity of the article. And in that case I think the section should be omitted in good faith. Chronicle2000 05:16, 19 February 2007 (UTC)Chronicle2000 Chronicle2000 05:16, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
The section has only one source to rely on, which is based on interpretation and theory. This significantly weakens the section's argument. The most reliable source regarding the Apostle John is the bible, it truthfully recounts the events of his life. There are eyewitnesses to the life of John which can be found in the writings of the gospels. To silence the truths presented in the bible is disconcerting. Maybe the section can be lengthened to show that there is no basis in the bible to substantiate the authors interpretation. That way the reader can distinguish that the theory advanced is not fact but interpretation. This would preserve the objectivity of Wikipedia. On the other hand, if Wikipedia is indeed a secular site then there should be no discussion of the Apostle John and the question of homosexuality. Chronicle2000 03:57, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
That the "queer interpretation" of Jesus and John is non-canonical is already noted. To call it "fringe" is overkill; and in no way could it be seen as a NPOV description. -- Pastordavid 11:00, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
to John , the DaVici Code is fantasy , there is no historical base, in fact there are 270 historical mistakes . Anthony Teale ,14,March,2007
The fact that its a fringe theory is clear if only due to the fact that the only citation is unlinkable, is only from the book of one man, on one page apparently. This theory is just not credible enough based upon the huge body of mainstream Christian thought, nor is there a historical basis that can be verified in any way. We know almost nothing about the lives of the apostles historically to any great degree of certainty and there is no widespread belief that John the Apostle was gay. This does not mean that the article Homosexual readings of Jesus and John shouldn't be listed under internal links. If there is a larger body of thought from credible sources that I'm unaware of the section miight be reasonable. but one man's (Louis Crompton) book that I have to just assume actually exists. with no way to determine this man's credibility. As well this book is entitled "Homosexuality and civilization" but apparently mentions this theory on just one page. I am going to put this under an internal link until there are a few more citations. Colin 8 19:21, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
The section as it is is worded as if its content is the mainstream belief. This is not the case. Someone please rectify the problem. Suggestions include clarifying that this belief is held by the minority as opposed to the majority, noting that the main reason some believe this is because of The disciple whom Jesus loved, and possibly that a different interpretation of this could be that Jesus could have taken on the role of a father figure to the young disciple. If the bias is not removed I will suggest the section's deletion from the article. James Callahan 20:51, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
(Unindent) Suggest that the word "love" in the beginning of the second sentence be changed to "alleged relationship" or some other term which might make it a bit clearer that what is being discussed seems to be, according to most of the sources used, some sort of variation on what is generally referred to as "sexual conduct." John Carter 16:48, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 |
There needs to be made mention here of the tradition which identifies the Beloved Disciple with John. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.176.68.73 ( talk) 19:23, 17 June 2005 (UTC)
"This category contains only self-identified Born again Christians that follow the Bible's teachings as the Word of God and worship Jesus Christ as their Lord and Saviour." So, does "John the Apostle" belong? I didn't notice any self-identification as such. -- Peter Kirby 12:45, 13 August 2005 (UTC)
As far as I know, "Divine" is a Latinate word for "Theologian", not "one who has had a revelation" -- which would, after all, make that title a tautology. (See the second definition of the noun here.) "John the Theologian" in many traditions is how the author of the fourth Gospel is called, and thus "John the Divine" simply identifies the author of Revelation with the author of the Gospel. However, I question whether this is what the book is "formally" called anyway. This online Greek Bible simply calls it "Apokalypsis Ioannou", while the current version of the Vulgate has "Apocalypsis Ioannis". I think we need a cite for "John the Divne" in the title of that book if it's to be kept. TCC (talk) (contribs) 04:39, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
Why are there three sections on John the Evangilist, John Aposle of Jesus, and John of Patos? There is a further section on John the Presbyter. This all seems very redundant. 65.5.230.181 02:44, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
Hi, I'm doing my confirmation project and I need to know what this means:
"In art, John as the presumed author of the Gospel is often depicted with an eagle, which symbolizes the height he rose in the first chapter of his gospel."
How exactly did he "rise?" I've looked on other sites, but they all say the same thing, with no explanation. -- Thrashmeister 00:18, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
Hi. Great article. Forgive me for a bit of editing. You make a reference to an octave in the Roman Catholic calendar after the Feast of St John on December 27. This octave (though not the feast) was surpressed in the Roman Rite in 1963( refer to the Roman Missal, 1963 edition, approved by Pope John XXIII). I have taken the liberty of removing the reference to an octave. --Gaz — Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.173.128.90 ( talk) 13:27, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
This article states as a matter of fact that John, the disciple of Jesus described in the New Testament, trained Polycarp, a Christian bishop of the early 2nd century. What is the proof for this? Also the article on Polycarp only says it is 'probable' the two knew each other. Revilo098 22:43, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
The suggestion that Jesus & John had a Homosexual relationship is totally illogical and unsubstantiated! Actually they were cousins. Modern people look back at history and think that certain customs are rather strange. Fact is they didn't have chairs,so John and Peter were using Jesus as a pillow. So they are not looking at this in the proper light of the time. Pillows were the only chairs of the time and you sat on the ground. The serving table was 3 tables place in a U -shape which allow the servers to come between the tables and properly serve everyone. Custom was to lift you hand over your head and take food and eat while laying down. It seems to be based soley from the Bible's description of John leaning his head back against Jesus' chest at the Last Supper. In this regard it is important to note that they did not use chairs back then when they dined, but rather that they reclined on pillows at very short tables. The fact that John considered himself "the disciple whom Jesus loved" bears testimony to the fact that Jesus loves each and every one of us - 'Yes, Jesus loves me. Yes, Jesus loves me, Yes, Jesus loves me, the Bible tells me so'." It only goes to show that John knew that Jesus did love him enough to die for him.
In addition, all one has to do is to go to Greekbible.com and punch in the verses from The Gospel of John to read the Greek for yourself. When you do, you will see that the Greek word used here for love is Agape love (agapaw,v {ag-ap-ah'-o} 1) of persons 1a) to welcome, to entertain, to be fond of, to love dearly 2) of things 2a) to be well pleased, to be contented at or with a thing. The acncient Greeks had four separare words for love. Agape is the one for a type of intentional unconditional love, There is a separate word for erotic love "Eros" in Greek - WHICH IS NOT USED IN THE GOSPEL OF JOHN to describe Jesus' relationship with John. The other two types of love in Greek are "Philos" for Brotherly Love - hence Philadelphia, and "Storge" for family / parental love.
See separate article on the four Greek words for defferent types of love: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greek_words_for_love
Whoever wrote this section of this article needs to learn his Greek !!! When he does, he will quickly realize that this claim should be dropped immediately based on the true menaing of "Agape" love.
In any case, had there been any hint of such a sexual relationship, you can rest assured that the Pharisees and Scribes would have accussed them of such and used it against them! The fact that there is no evidence of any of the enemies of Christianity having made such an acccusation until the 16th Century -- according to your own blurb is significant! The Jews of that day would certainly have quoted from Leviticus 20 had either of them been known to have committed any kind of sexual sin. In other words, even their contemporary enemies did not accuse them of such a thing!!
The Apostle Paul - once a perscutor himself of early Christianity - would never have written Romans 1:26-32, if there had been any truth to such accusations.
This section is nothing more than Politcally Correct BS to placate Gay Readers. The text itself is pure. It is only the minds of those reading into what they want - or hope - to see that creates such a perverse idea.
In any case, the arguement is totally unspported by any contemporary evidence and defies logic - when one considers that their contemporay enemies never saw fit to accuse them of such behavior!-- Wolfgrogan 19:42, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
The content of the section is probably acceptable, but the heading is certainly at best badly phrased.
John Carter
21:50, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
I largely agree with the recent sentiments of John Carter, Pastordavid and Cuchullain. The problem with this matter is not that it is “provocative” or “uncomfortable”, it’s that it is a fringe theory. I don’t think there is any question that it is, and as such it should be handled with the Wikipedia content guidelines relating to fringe theories. A few of the guidelines that are particularly salient here I have included below and applied to this matter: 1) “If a non-mainstream theory is so unnotable that mainstream sources have not bothered to comment on it, disparage it, or discuss it, it is not notable enough for Wikipedia.” For example, the subject is not even mentioned at all in the Encylopedia Britannica entry (The New Encyclopedia Britannica v.6 pp 585-586). As noted above, the subject may be untouched in Johannine studies but considered in queer studies. In which case it probably should be treated in an article on queer readings of the bible, or a like article. This does not constitute a POV fork. 2) “The discussion of a non-mainstream theory, positively or negatively, by other non-mainstream groups or individuals is not a criterion for notability, even if the latter group or individual is itself notable enough for a Wikipedia article.” 3)“Ideas which are of borderline or minimal notability may be documented in Wikipedia, but should not be given undue weight. Wikipedia is not a forum for presenting new ideas, for countering any systemic bias in institutions such as academia, or for otherwise promoting ideas which have failed to merit attention elsewhere.” Haiduc claims that the absense of this theory in Johanine studies may be due to bias, but as Wikipedia guidelines note, this “is not a forum…for countering systemic bias”. If mainstream Johanine studies ignore the subject, for whatever reason, this is not the place to remedy that. There may be a place for mentioning this reading of John’s life somewhere on Wikipedia but probably not in this article and certainly not to this degree, as it is plainly given undue weight in light of the idea’s status. Mamalujo 20:17, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
Article spun off, abstract left in place. Thank you all, this has been very instructive and helpful. Your suggestions and critiques point the way for developing that article further. Haiduc 04:39, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
Is the section based on the opinion of the source quoted or are there verifiable facts to support the section and meet the test of verifiability? It seems that this section may contain objectionable content based on opinion or hearsay and then question of notability comes into play. If we are to deal with hypotheticals when adding to a subject I think it takes away from the validity of the article. And in that case I think the section should be omitted in good faith. Chronicle2000 05:16, 19 February 2007 (UTC)Chronicle2000 Chronicle2000 05:16, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
The section has only one source to rely on, which is based on interpretation and theory. This significantly weakens the section's argument. The most reliable source regarding the Apostle John is the bible, it truthfully recounts the events of his life. There are eyewitnesses to the life of John which can be found in the writings of the gospels. To silence the truths presented in the bible is disconcerting. Maybe the section can be lengthened to show that there is no basis in the bible to substantiate the authors interpretation. That way the reader can distinguish that the theory advanced is not fact but interpretation. This would preserve the objectivity of Wikipedia. On the other hand, if Wikipedia is indeed a secular site then there should be no discussion of the Apostle John and the question of homosexuality. Chronicle2000 03:57, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
That the "queer interpretation" of Jesus and John is non-canonical is already noted. To call it "fringe" is overkill; and in no way could it be seen as a NPOV description. -- Pastordavid 11:00, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
to John , the DaVici Code is fantasy , there is no historical base, in fact there are 270 historical mistakes . Anthony Teale ,14,March,2007
The fact that its a fringe theory is clear if only due to the fact that the only citation is unlinkable, is only from the book of one man, on one page apparently. This theory is just not credible enough based upon the huge body of mainstream Christian thought, nor is there a historical basis that can be verified in any way. We know almost nothing about the lives of the apostles historically to any great degree of certainty and there is no widespread belief that John the Apostle was gay. This does not mean that the article Homosexual readings of Jesus and John shouldn't be listed under internal links. If there is a larger body of thought from credible sources that I'm unaware of the section miight be reasonable. but one man's (Louis Crompton) book that I have to just assume actually exists. with no way to determine this man's credibility. As well this book is entitled "Homosexuality and civilization" but apparently mentions this theory on just one page. I am going to put this under an internal link until there are a few more citations. Colin 8 19:21, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
The section as it is is worded as if its content is the mainstream belief. This is not the case. Someone please rectify the problem. Suggestions include clarifying that this belief is held by the minority as opposed to the majority, noting that the main reason some believe this is because of The disciple whom Jesus loved, and possibly that a different interpretation of this could be that Jesus could have taken on the role of a father figure to the young disciple. If the bias is not removed I will suggest the section's deletion from the article. James Callahan 20:51, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
(Unindent) Suggest that the word "love" in the beginning of the second sentence be changed to "alleged relationship" or some other term which might make it a bit clearer that what is being discussed seems to be, according to most of the sources used, some sort of variation on what is generally referred to as "sexual conduct." John Carter 16:48, 6 March 2007 (UTC)