Okay. Good to hear. Just didn't know if such a topic would be too taboo.gmx wrote: ↑Mon Jun 11, 2018 4:24 amUndoubtedly left-field, but certainly not inappropriate. I don't have any on-topic response to the subject you raise, but wanted you to know I think your question is valid / genuine. As per the "Greater Questions of Mary", such subjects have not historically been off-limits.
Discussion about the New Testament, apocrypha, gnostics, church fathers, Christian origins, historical Jesus or otherwise, etc.
The "bridal chamber", as well as Jesus being the bridegroom to his bride, has obvious sexual connotations, but I venture to believe that this is based on an eclipse. (Eclipse of 59 ad).
My inference of Osiris was to draw out similar ideas and motifs among the ancient traditions. The death of God, or a god, creating the elements of nature (particularly water, semen and blood) was a common trope, as these elements are primal ingredients for life. So it would only be logical to have the world formed--or reformed--out of these elements.jude77 wrote: ↑Mon Jun 11, 2018 1:38 pmHello Joseph DL
I would suggest that JN 19:34 be interpreted in light of John's overall theological thrust rather that introducing Osiris. In the context on John's theological arc, the blood would represent Jesus being the sacrificial Passover lamb. Notice that to enforce that symbolism John synchronizes Jesus' crucifixion with the sacrifice of the lambs in 19:14, "Now it was the day of Preparation of the Passover. It was about the sixth hour." So Jesus is being killed at the same time as the lambs,
Isn't this similar to Paul's espousal of baptism? Also curious is the similarities between Moses striking a rock to produce water, with Jesus being pierced to produce blood and water.The water symbolism is more complex. On one hand it certainly references the water of baptism, but in John water is a deeper metaphor for transformation that leads to submission to God's will.
I wanted to include the water into wine miracle, but didn't know how to properly connect it. Of course the wine is synonymous with blood (likewise with Dionysus and Osiris), and this confers with the Eucharist.I don't have the time to fully develop that idea here, but it begins in John 2:1-9 where water is transformed into wine (thus beginning the transformation metaphor), and reaches it denouement in John 13:4-5 where Jesus pours water into a basin and then washes his disciples feet as an act of humility and submission.
Indeed, but one curious omission of John is that Jesus is not baptized, instead John only witnesses the Spirit descend upon Jesus (which I think is an entendre for the Spirit descending upon John the Baptist); but in the Synoptics, it is this act that has Jesus become submissive to God's will. The crucifixion is not a submission, at least explicitly, because Jesus repeatedly boasts of being raised like the serpent by Moses, and that the Son of Man must be crucified. And John's Christology is such that Jesus is both submissive to God, and his own autonomous agent, and that he's going to his crucifixion freely of his own accord.i believe in John's mind Jesus' willingness to be crucified the ultimate act of submission to God's will, so the water in JN 19:34 should be linked with the water in 13:4.
I agree in part with this exegesis, but my opinion of John is that it is Pauline (perhaps even Marcion's actual Gospel, or closer to it than Luke); so in that regard, it is not water from the restored Temple that flows from Jesus. Rather, it is the water that washes away the Temple and the Old Covenant. This is testified by Jesus in his final words, "It is finished".lastly, another theme that John develops is that Jesus replaces the temple and he becomes the locus of salvation (see John 2:18-22). If that is correct then water flowing from him would be a symbolic reference to Ezekiel 47 where Ezekiel sees water flowing from the restored temple to the Dead Sea and thereby filling the sea with life. In that case what John would be saying that at the cross water flows from Jesus as the temple into the heart of the believer filling him/her with life. I know that is a complex exegesis, and I hope it makes sense.
The idea that this is a reference to semen is twofold: one, the connection between the cross of Jesus and the numerous herms that granted men with well endowment and higher fertility; and The Gospel of John's possible connection with the Carpocratians and Secret Mark.So, to answer your question, I guess the water/blood motif could be a reference to semen, but I guess I'd be a little a little skeptical of that analysis. But that's just me.
But even if this particular thread leads nowhere, I'm sort of convinced that the blood and water was a metaphor for the New Covenant of baptism for Paul.
You too.All the best to you.
Cheers. That somewhat aligns my previous post in this thread, viz. - http://www.earlywritings.com/forum/view ... 273#p88273Joseph D. L. wrote: ↑Mon Jun 11, 2018 10:14 pm
Cheers Ben. That is interesting.Ben C. Smith wrote: ↑Mon Jun 11, 2018 7:49 pm
I like MacDonald on this point. For me, the most likely answer is simply that the epistles of John came before the gospel of John:
Therefore, the water and the blood were originally intended to indicate the principal Christian rites: baptism and blood, respectively, but the author(s) of the gospel used the epistles, sometimes confusingly, and in this case both the water and the blood come out as symbols of Jesus' death, thus covering the eucharistic angle but reflecting the baptismal angle only at some cost in terms of coherence; this can definitely happen when ideas are forced into a theological construct.