Arcadia Discussion Zone

Take a look at this interesting link Dave. I have posted it before, but you may have missed it.
http://www.BelovedDisciple.org

Dave Rorschach wrote:



Unfortunately, you are confused again Dave. There is no 'theory' that 'John' was effeminate. There is however a belief that 'John' was youthful. And the standard way to denote youth in certain paintings was to portray the male character effeminately. As for the 'theory' that 'John' was young, the answer is fairly straightforward. By the 2nd century some 'Church fathers' believed that the Fourth Gospel was the work of John-Z, who was believed to have died at the age of 94, sometime in the early 2nd century. So, if for example he died in 110AD, and Jesus died in 30AD, John-Z would have been a 14 year old youth at the supposed event known as the Last Supper. And whether any of that is true or not is essentially irrelevant to the point under discussion. This is a tradition that began to develop very early in Church lore and explains why the Beloved Disciple was believed to be, and generally portrayed as, youthful.

Dave Rorschach wrote:



Why do you believe that suggesting that Jesus was homosexual was 'scraping the barrel so deeply'? Can you explain what you mean? And what was it you were ranting about? Something about 'vile, sexist, prejudice'...

TOOT-CS

Very good read wayward, cheers.

Parrotfeet wrote

What a load of unfounded old tosh.
You cannot base an entite theory on hearsay and old wives tales.
There are no assumpstions in history that John was either youthful of effeminate, it doesn't cite it in any of the four Gospels, in any Gnostic text or anywhere is history.
The only possible reason for an effeminate John written in antiquity was because the author of the fourth Gospel was the beloved diciple and the RCC decided in had to be a male.
That made John effeminate by definition but it didn't make him young. The fact that early Christian writers changed MM into John actually embarrassed themselves because it suggests the Lord is homosexual.
This has nothing to do with beliefs, old wives tales and hearsay, it's to do with who authored the 4th Gospel.
You can fantasize about a young effeminate John as much as you like but unfortumately there is no reference to it in any scripture.
Toot CS is a reference to you continually talking out of your arse and nothing else.

Toot CS is a reference to you continually talking out of your arse and nothing else.

I love the way you trash people's understanding or education without actually knowing anything about the person you trample

thanks Dave, I should mention I don't agree with everything Jusino says, for instance he still (at least in 1998), believed in the church. Also, trying to untie Mary Magdalen from the prostitute label he says the woman sinner at Luke 7: 36-50 does not refer to Mary Magdalen while I think it is her, and is one of the 5 gospel references to her one annointing of Jesus as King (Messiah), btw, in no way does this scripture call her a prostitute. The other scripture Jusino says is not her is at John 8: 1-11, but in this case the text does not appear in the early manuscripts.---Bill

I have no time for arseholes who continually try to provoke.
He started his reply with 'Dave Rorschach wrote:'
He will get back some of his own medicine plus a little interest until he dicides to behave himself.

Don`t confuse John with the angel of the Revelation whom he sees.

Dave, you obviously believe LdV was in possesion of hidden knowledge. Where do you suppose he obtained his little secret, and why would someone feel he was worthy enough to be let in on this secret?

Not sure it was a hidden knowledge C.G.. Try to forget everything you learned in "Church" and attempt to make sense of the 4th gospel, but don't forget that Leonardo was smarter than the average bear. ---Bill

Dave Rorschach wrote:



I took the above to be a genuine attempt to try and understand some of what you are so keen to discuss. So I replied with:



In response Dave Rorschach wrote:



Sorry Dave, you are confusing me! I assume your 'or anywhere is history' should read 'or anywhere else in history'..! Are you claiming that there was no early tradition that John-Z was youthful... or are you claiming that the tradition itself is inaccurate?

Or do you even know what it is you are claiming? I'm beginning to think that you have absolutely no idea how any of this 'theory'/debate stuff actually works.

Dave Rorschach wrote:



I did indeed start my reply with 'Dave Rorschach', and I finished it by signing off as TOOT-CS...which is your name for myself, Tim, Thomas...and presumably any one else who doesn't argree with your nonsense.

Dave Rorschach wrote:



Roger wrote:



The irony here is that Dave's claims are not even backed up by 'hearsay and old wives tales'. They are based solely on his internal interpretation and his feelings about images he believes he sees in various paintings.

Which brings me back to a question I have been asking him for several weeks now, which he has steadfastly refused to answer...

Dave, what is your opinion about the sad pig and Garfield symbolism 'hidden' in the painting we were discussing a few weeks back. I think it is the painting where you believe the artist painted Christ in a petticoat to 'secretly' portray that He was a She. I think the 'sad pig' image is crucial to the claims that you have been making on this forum, and also the anger you have been 'feeling' against those who do not 'see' what you 'see'. Please address the issue of the 'sad pig' and Garfield, so we can move on.

Dave Rorschach wrote:




Why do you believe that suggesting that Jesus was homosexual was 'scraping the barrel so deeply'? Can you explain what you mean? And what was it you were ranting about? Something about 'vile, sexist, prejudice'...

Signed by,

TOOT-CS

Roger wrote

The reason I believe that the beloved diciple is more likely to have been MM than john is partly based on observation and party based on Gnostic text and gospels such as Philip, Mary and Thomas.
The John theory is based on entire fantasy and the RCC's suppression of women.
crimson ghost wrote

My answer to that is what wayward said.

Parrotfeet wrote

I'm not interested in traditions, they can be inaccurate and i'm not willing to draw any conclusion from any type of hearsay. Meanwhile if you could point me to somewhere in scripture where it is written that John was youthful, i'd appreciate it.

The church was so busy trying to suppress MM and replace her with John that in that very action they implied the lord was gay. This probably wasn't done intentionally but a result of some bafoon with one thing on his mind trying to re-write history.
RCC's actions in suppressing women, keeping them out of scripture and of ministry is sexist, prejudice and vile.

Dave Rorschach wrote:



Well, it is this very tradition that has so heavily influenced later artists! And what you originally asked was:



Dave Rorschach wrote:



TOOT-CS wrote:



Dave Rorschach wrote:



But why do you believe that implying 'the lord was gay' was scraping the barrel so deeply? What do you mean scraping the barrel so deeply?

And Dave, what is your opinion about the sad pig and Garfield symbolism 'hidden' in the painting we were discussing a few weeks back. I think it is the painting where you believe the artist painted Christ in a petticoat to 'secretly' portray that He was a She. I think the 'sad pig' image is crucial to the claims that you have been making on this forum, and also the anger you have been 'feeling' against those who do not 'see' what you 'see'. Please address the issue of the 'sad pig' and Garfield, so we can move on.


Signed by,

TOOT-CS of the XIo degree...

parrotfeet wrote

I didn't imply no such thing, my reference to 'scraping the barrel' was their desperate attemp at editing MM out of scripture when it suited them, leaving a trail of obvious mistakes behind them.
You seem very protective about the lord being gay, tell me parrotfeet, do you think he was?

Dave Rorschach wrote:



Isn't it very clear to all what you mean here Dave? And that it isn't just 'the Church' that is 'sexist, prejudiced and vile'.

Dave Rorschach wrote:



I'm struggling to understand the first part of that question (You seem very protective about the lord being gay ). Can you try and be a little 'clearer' about what you mean?

Jeez, Dave.........

It is better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to open one's mouth and remove all doubt.
Abraham Lincoln

Do you ever read what you type before you post?
Or are all your profundities drawn from the deep well in the Saloon bar?

TD

In answer to the statement I made which I have placed in bold, you seem to think that I'm having a go at homosexuals don't you?
I'm not getting into an argument with you concerning this matter and I havn't written anything derogatory about such matters. Scraping the barrel wasn't a reference to homosexuality it was a reference to the RCC's lack of judgement.
My question was simply - do you think Jesus and John were lovers?

Ahhhh, the penny has just dropped. Are you gay parrotfeet? TCP is gay and i'm wondering if TD is also gay.
Is this a sort of campaign to establish John was gay and the partner of jesus? Well, everyone is entitled to their opinion but I think some of your logic where you mention traditions rather than printed history fall short.

On second thoughts Dave, don't stop this is getting more entertaining by the second.
Now that the 'nudge-nudge wink-wink homophobia has surfaced lets see you dig your way out of this.
Loving your work on irony!
Parrotfeet's logic is suspect whilst yours is still resolutely on the Gold standard?

TD

There is no nudge nudge wink wink TD and there is no homophobia I can assure you. One of my colleagues is gay and I hold no prejudice against him the same as I hold none on here with anyone regarding their sexuality.
So you can get that idea out of your tiny mind.
Regarding the subject of tradition, many traditions are not written down but are hearsay, although some traditions have been written about concerning Christianity, I don't hold them in antiquity the same as I do written scripture, Gospel or text.
The tradition that John was young therefore, holds no weight with me.

But the tradition that LDV was the possessor of the secret truth and was talking directly to you does hold weight?
How can you apply the modern concept of 'gay' to a social context over 2000 yrs ago?
Do you think that the classical world had the same attitudes to sexuality as you do?
Does LDV's sexuality have any bearing on his work?

BTW your prejudices are your own and you're welcome to them. I sort of expected thats where we were going with all the 'bottom gags'. At least have the courage to own your prejudices!
One of your colleagues is gay? wow, how inclusive of you! Given the stats involved I would imagine that more than one is, the rest just don't trust you enough to share it with you.
Interesting how you didn't refer to them as a friend merely a colleague.

TD

He is my work colleague and has been for the past 28 years. I don't know who else is gay around these parts because unlike most areas where homosexuality is widely accepted, here is has difficulties. People around these parts are culturally sensitive and accepting homosexuality seems to be a problem although personally I hold no such objections. I happen to believe that people should be free to choose their sexuality and their religion without persecution from anyone, we are all born free to choose which ever path we take apart from obvious stuff like breaking the law.
So TD you are wrong, if one of my children told me they were gay then I would accept their choice, embrace them and fully support them - it is their free choice.
It is an insult to me that you have accused me of homophobia when in actual fact I am one of the few people in my community that accepts the right for people to choose their own sexuality.
Back to the subject at hand, yes homosexuality was different in biblical times, in Rome for example it was common practise for males to be bisexual as well as many other cultures. I'm not sure about the holy land though. As for LDV's time, i'm just not confident that he would have painted John in this way and reference to certain texts points toward the MM theory. There is no big secret as such, maybe LDV had hold of a copy of the Gospel of Philip, Mary or Thomas or perhaps an unedited version of the 4 Gospels.

Dave,
No not really. Just that it seems to be accepted that he died a natural death at about 90 odd years of age at the end of the first/beginning second century. I'm not Bible scholar though either, so I don't recall age information being given for any of the disciples - but doesn't LDV portray them in certain way? Aren't some old? Is LDV being ageist with them?

What I don't follow again, is that if you class John as 'youthful' as being based on hearsay, can't you level the same accusation against virtually the whole NT? Wasn't the whole thing written after the event based on presumably oral traditions? At what point do you stop that argument?
I think most would take John as 'youthful' - whether that is correct or not - who knows? But it is accepted. To challenge that is fine. BUT if you challenge it, it doesn't mean that LDV also challenged it. He may simply have accepted that John was a youth and portrayed him differently to the 'grizzled' older fisher folk around him to get across that simple idea.

I'm no expert on art either - but would a good place to look be in other artists work? Do they also show John as a 'youth'?

Of, course sexuality is irrelevant to any 'intelligent' conversation but its you who keeps referring to the sexual orientation of other Forum members either explicitly or with the oh-so-mature bottom gags!
Would be acceptable to say I'm 'just not confident' about your protestations?

Speaking of which, your confidence about the motives employed by LDV might carry more weight if it appeared that they were informed by something more substantial than the feeling in your water. Many posters have pointed out that we can comment with little certainty on his motives as we have no evidence to base those comments on other than our own interpretation of his work.

At the moment you are drawing a dinosaur from the shape of its foot prints.

TD