The Dyadic Holy Ghost

Since I regard God the Creator as dyadic, our Heavenly Parents, Father and Mother (actual, and presumably eternally incarnate, persons)...

And since I regard Jesus Christ's marriage to Mary of Bethany (Mary Magdalene) as a vital and transformative aspect of His work of the Second Creation...

Then it seems to follow - and has a intuitive rightness - that the Holy Ghost is also dyadic, and a consequence of the eternal commitment of Jesus and Mary in love (their "celestial marriage"). 

I think this is necessary because ultimate creativity comes from the eternal dyadic love of our Heavenly Parents (that is, the concept of creation includes (and/or arises from) love, as it includes freedom and agency - as distinguishable but inseparable aspects).  

Thus the Holy Ghost is both guide and teacher, and comforter; and it may be that these aspects reflect Jesus Christ the man and Mary Magdalene the woman; after their death, resurrection and ascension. 

In other words (bearing in mind these are emphases, not separate domains), the main theme of Jesus Christ in the Holy Ghost is to contribute discernment and purpose in a long-term, strategic way; while Mary contributes immediate help, here and now, in a tactical way. 

Jesus shows us the path, Mary keeps us upon it. 

Of course this cannot (even in principle!) be proved from the Gospels; yet the account of Mary in the Fourth Gospel strikes me as compatible by what I have just said - and from other traditions in Christianity. 

By my understanding, Mary Magdalene makes five appearances in the The Fourth Gospel: 1, implicitly in Jesus's Marriage at Cana (a passage that seems clearly tampered-with, including by deletions), in the resurrection of Lazarus (Mary's brother), the episode of the ointment on Jesus's feet in Bethany, at the foot of the cross and after Jesus's resurrection. 

Mary's concerns in the latter four episodes are very immediate, supportive, "caring" - and indeed it seems possible that Mary had a role in the resurrection of Jesus in a way analogous to John the Baptist's role in the divine but mortal transformation of the pre-baptism Jesus into Jesus Christ*. 

I get this from the hints contained in the reported conversation between the resurrected Jesus, and Mary, when she was the first to meet Jesus after his death, thus.

John 20: 14... she turned herself back, and saw Jesus standing, and knew not that it was Jesus. [15] Jesus saith unto her, Woman, why weepest thou? whom seekest thou? She, supposing him to be the gardener, saith unto him, Sir, if thou have borne him hence, tell me where thou hast laid him, and I will take him away. [16] Jesus saith unto her, Mary. She turned herself, and saith unto him, Rabboni; which is to say, Master. [17] Jesus saith unto her, Touch me not; for I am not yet ascended to my Father: but go to my brethren, and say unto them, I ascend unto my Father, and your Father; and to my God, and your God.  

It strikes me that Jesus may here be talking of their future eternal union - to include the spiritual emanation of the Holy Ghost, available to all who follow Jesus - to happen (only) after Mary's death and resurrection. 

In very general terms - to include Mary Magdalene/ of Bethany in the Holy Ghost is a further development and explication of the deadly rejection of the feminine that afflicted Christianity from early-on (and which I blame of the monotheist philosophers who captures and continue to torment Christin theology!)

The progressively increasing emphasis on Mary the mother of Jesus in Catholic practice, I take to be a theologically-distorted - but nonetheless spiritually very valuable - manifestation of the reality of Heavenly Mother, and the wife of Jesus Christ. 

The fact that the Blessed Virgin Mary is mainly called-upon for aid and comfort in the difficulties of everyday living, fits with my understanding of the role of the divine feminine in general, and Mary Magdalene in her marriage-into the Holy Ghost specifically.   

Joseph Smith, the Mormon prophet, rediscovered the Christian feminine in God; but the CJCLDS have since neglected and suppressed this aspect of Joseph's revelation - and have chosen not to develop it, while never denying it. 

I am strongly of the view that an explicit inclusion of Heavenly Mother in the fundamental concept of God; and probably too a personal womanly aspect of the Holy Ghost; has (belatedly) become an all-but essential quest or project - for us, here and now. 

This is not something Christians can get off-the-peg or from any external source; but something each needs to work-through for himself - by the usual external and internal means of spiritual guidance. 

*Note added: This is easily (negatively or positively) misinterpreted in terms of divided stereotypical sex roles. I mean much more and almost the opposite; which is that the dyad of a man and woman eternally co-committed in love, can do something that neither can do alone - or, at least, one person can do less, and less well. That is something like a harmony of strategic purposive wisdom with immediate help. By analogy (very approximate) it is a bit like the benefit of being loved and looked-after by two people, a man and a woman, each with distinctive perspectives and capacities, eternally combined in love; who completely share divine purposes and method. This would be better than any conceivable single person, with only a single perspective and vision. That this is two persons creates and sustains a dynamic and growing aspect to the situation - whereas a single person would tend towards inertia and stasis. That this is two persons, rather than more than two, should be seen as an extra gift and potentiality added to the situation of single person - rather than a limitation.   

Jesus, Marriage and Family - an interpretation of the second part of the Fourth Gospel

There may be more of the subject of marriage and the family that is intentionally-implied by the Fourth Gospel than is obvious to most readers.

What the Gospel seems to be telling me, and I am not arguing this but stating it; concerns Jesus’s increasing involvement with the family from Bethany with Lazarus and Mary as siblings.

My understanding that: 1. the raised-Lazarus is the author of the Fourth Gospel – renamed the Beloved Disciple; 2. that the episode of Mary of Bethany anointing the feet of Jesus with spikenard was a mystical marriage ceremony; and that 3. Mary Magdalene is the same person as Mary of Bethany – renamed after her marriage to Jesus.

While there seems no way I could prove these Three Assumptions, and what I believe follows-from them; for me they cohere wonderfully with the subsequent events of the Fourth Gospel. Indeed, they raise it even higher to a supreme importance in all Scripture.

The following are not intended as argument or 'proof', but as illustrations of how the three assumptions cohere with the events of the Fourth Gospel; when I read it in what I regard as my best frame of mind.

1. Jesus is emphatically described as loving both Lazarus and the Beloved Disciple; but we do not hear of Lazarus’s fate, by that name.

2. The Beloved Disciple does not abandon Jesus after the arrest as do the other disciple (Jesus being now Lazarus’s brother-by-marriage).

3. The Beloved Disciple and Magdalene are present at the foot of the cross, where Jesus requests that his mother be cared for by the Beloved Disciples family (of whom Jesus is now a part).

4. Mary Magdalene first finds the empty tomb, and she is the first person to speak with the risen Christ. She immediately touches him.

5. The last episodes of the Fourth Gospel include the implication that the Beloved Disciple will live until the Second Coming – which is possible since he has been raised from the dead – I believe he was probably literally resurrected. (This chimes with the Pharisee's desire to kill Lazarus, but apparently not being able to.)

If my Three Assumptions are accepted, then Chapters 11-21 of the Fourth Gospel take-on a marvellous extra dimension of which the above are only a part.

I suppose that these facts were not mentioned explicitly because they were known to the intended readers, at the time of writing - and (more important) that the Forth Gospel throughout (and necessarily) is written in a style in which the most important things are implied rather than stated.

To unlock the Fourth Gospel entails the reader attaining an empathic identification with the intent of the Gospel... but then this applies to all Scriptures, if they are to be understood as divinely-inspired.

That is; God must help us to understand Scripture - each, individually, here-and-now. Nothing else will suffice; and one person's understanding cannot replace nor stand-in-for another person's.


But what became of Mary Magdalene? If she is as important as I have said, then why is her fate not mentioned? The answer is that her fate must be mentioned; but that the 'message' is not being recognised. My best idea concerning an implicit reference to Mary's fate is the exchange of words with Mary at the tomb. This may imply that she would join the risen Jesus after he had ascended. “Touch me not; for I am not yet ascended to my Father” means, therefore: stop touching me just-now – we will be able to touch one another when I am ascended (after all, it wasn't forbidden to touch Jesus - Doubting-Thomas was invited-to. My inference is that Mary touched Jesus in some fashion as a wife would touch him - but this was not correct or appropriate until after the ascension: until after their ascension.). Then Jesus describes his ascension “unto my Father, and your Father; and to my God, and to your God.” Such a very specific form of address (the reiterated symmetry of my-your) is appropriate to the wife of Jesus; in the sense that God has become (by mystical marriage) Mary's Father ‘in Law’, and 'her' God – in the same kind of direct and personal way as for Jesus. So, we are being-told (by her brother) that Mary Magdalene ascended to God to be with her divine husband - and Lazarus perhaps did not know exactly when or how this happened, but certainly that it did happen.  

Mary Magdalene at the tomb and after: Two presumed later excisions from Easter Sunday in the Fourth Gospel

Mary and the resurrected Jesus at the tomb

Where I presume later excisions is marked: [...]

John 20: [1]: The first day of the week cometh Mary Magdalene early, when it was yet dark, unto the sepulchre, and seeth the stone taken away from the sepulchre. [2] Then she runneth, and cometh to Simon Peter, and to the other disciple, whom Jesus loved, and saith unto them, They have taken away the Lord out of the sepulchre, and we know not where they have laid him. [3] Peter therefore went forth, and that other disciple, and came to the sepulchre. [4] So they ran both together: and the other disciple did outrun Peter, and came first to the sepulchre. [5] And he stooping down, and looking in, saw the linen clothes lying; yet went he not in. [6] Then cometh Simon Peter following him, and went into the sepulchre, and seeth the linen clothes lie, [7] And the napkin, that was about his head, not lying with the linen clothes, but wrapped together in a place by itself. [8] Then went in also that other disciple, which came first to the sepulchre, and he saw, and believed. [9] For as yet they knew not the scripture, that he must rise again from the dead. [10] Then the disciples went away again unto their own home. [11] 

But Mary stood without at the sepulchre weeping: and as she wept, she stooped down, and looked into the sepulchre, [12] And seeth two angels in white sitting, the one at the head, and the other at the feet, where the body of Jesus had lain. [13] And they say unto her, Woman, why weepest thou? She saith unto them, Because they have taken away my Lord, and I know not where they have laid him. [14] And when she had thus said, she turned herself back, and saw Jesus standing, and knew not that it was Jesus. [15] Jesus saith unto her, Woman, why weepest thou? whom seekest thou? She, supposing him to be the gardener, saith unto him, Sir, if thou have borne him hence, tell me where thou hast laid him, and I will take him away. [16] Jesus saith unto her, Mary. She turned herself, and saith unto him, Rabboni; which is to say, Master. 

[...] 

[17] Jesus saith unto her, Touch me not; for I am not yet ascended to my Father: but go to my brethren, and say unto them, I ascend unto my Father, and your Father; and to my God, and your God. [18] Mary Magdalene came and told the disciples that she had seen the Lord, and that he had spoken these things unto her. 

[...]

It seems evident that there is something missing between "Master" and "Jesus saith" - because we have no explanation as to what Jesus meant by "touch me not" - in a context that the Gospel is nearly always self-explanatory and indeed detailed with respect to observed, recorded or experienced action - such as the detailed descriptions of how the author and Simon Peter ran t the tomb, and what they saw. 

And also because I am prepared to assume further excisions (and insertions) by a later hand; in the (not-very many, as a proportion) other places where the Gospel is not self-explanatory, nor is "poetic" in form.

And then there is the fact that the Gospel, as we have it, leaves Mary unaccounted for: having been so very important throughout - her story is just "left-hanging". 

This is marked as my inferred second excision.

But I think it can be inferred what is missing in these instances, and why. 

Such inferences derive from the basis of an assumed fact that Mary was married to Jesus; and that the Fourth Gospel tells us this by implication in several places. 

But later hands have removed all explicit references to this, for what may be theological reasons. Presumably they were deleted on the basis of assuming that, because the Mary relationship was (later) regarded as theologically impossible, such references must themselves have been erroneous.

Somewhat as I wrote: The exchange of words between Jesus and Mary at the tomb may imply that she would join the risen Jesus after he had ascended. 

“Touch me not; for I am not yet ascended to my Father” means, therefore: stop touching me just-now – we will be able to touch one another when I am ascended. 

After all, it wasn't forbidden to touch Jesus - Doubting-Thomas was invited-to. 

My inference is that Mary touched Jesus in some fashion as a wife would touch him - but this was not correct or appropriate until after the ascension: until after their ascension.

Then Jesus describes his ascension “unto my Father, and your Father; and to my God, and to your God.” Such a very specific form of address (the reiterated symmetry of my-your) is appropriate to the wife of Jesus; in the sense that God the Father has become Mary's Father-‘in Law’, and 'her' God – in the same kind of direct and personal way as for Jesus. 

So, we are being-told, by Mary's brother Lazarus, author of the Fourth Gospel; that Mary Magdalene ascended to God to be with her divine husband.  

However, it seems - I assume, that such further explicit and explanatory reference to Mary Magdalene was deleted by some later hand. 

I also assume that this Gospel reference was removed because seen as contradicting metaphysical-philosophical - but not genuinely Jesus-derived - assumptions of a "Trinitarian" and Monotheistic nature; assumptions that seemed to entail that Jesus could not have been married.

Or maybe that, even if Jesus was married, this could be of no theological significance; i.e. marriage could have no relevance to Jesus's divine work.

At any rate; when marriage to Mary Magdalene is not regarded as by-prior-assumption impossible, and when the Fourth Gospel is acknowledged as our first, only eye-witness, and most authoritative source - then the Good Friday encounter between Mary and the risen Jesus at the tomb; emerges as of something close-to primary significance, in our understanding of Jesus's life and work. 

Mary Magdalene and the role of women in Christianity - mundane and cosmic

The role of women in religion can be examined from the point of view of the extent to which it is mundane - i.e. to do with the conduct of mortal life in this world; or cosmic - i.e. concerned with eternal matters and existence outwith this mortal life. 

A cosmic role for women could be a religion where the creator was a woman, or when one or more of the god's was a woman - and there are also other possibilities. 

My main interest is in Christianity. In historical Christianity we can see a cosmic role for the mother of Jesus in both the Eastern and Western Catholic churches. 

And Mormons regard God the creator as a dyad of man and woman - Heavenly Parents who manifested divine creation and (in some literal sense) procreated Men. 

Other types of Christianity among Protestants have essentially zero cosmic role for women; and this applies to Judaism and Islam.  

As regards a mundane role for women - this is seen in terms of supernatural help with everyday life. This could range from a theologically formal role of female saints and other holy women in helping with various problems of life; to all kinds of unofficial, popular and folk beliefs of the same kind; that shade-off into superstitions and "luck" (and may occur even in what are officially strictly monotheistic religions). 

At a further remove, there is the matter of women's role in the various churches. In some religions women have a essential role in churches, but in historical Christianity this has not been the case. 

Sometimes all essential church roles were restricted to men, but in all instances women were inessential to the work of the church. The religion can be conducted entirely without participation of women. 

Another vital aspect relates to Jesus Christ. 

When it comes to a cosmic role for women in the life and work of Jesus Christ, historical Christianity has either had none; or has focused exclusively on the mother of Jesus whose role is probably only of explicitly cosmic significance relatively late in the history of the Roman Catholic Church - with the doctrine of immaculate conception. 

Even the mundane role of women in the usual versions of the life of the adult Jesus during his ministry is minor to the point of being inessential. 

This is (variously) a consequence of taking either the whole-Bible, or the whole-New-Testament (or Synoptic Gospels, or Pauline Epistles) as the major basis for Christian assumptions, and also of deriving core assumptions of church authority, tradition and a lineage of theology and practice dating back to Church Fathers. 

However, my understanding of Christianity is focused upon the Fourth Gospel, regarded as the earliest and most authoritative source of knowledge. 

As such, I see a potentially cosmic role for Mary Magdalene; who I believe to have been the wife of Jesus, and brother of Lazarus - whom I regard as the author of the Fourth Gospel.

Here - in brief - is what I regard as the description of Mary Magdalene's cosmic role in the work of Jesus Christ - using the Fourth Gospel (see this link for further discussion and more detailed referencing): 

The Marriage at Cana (Chapter 2) is a rather garbled and tampered-with account of Jesus's marriage to Mary Magdalene - and it was the time of his first miracle. 

I assume that Jesus became aware of his divinity at the time of his baptism by John; but he did not perform a miracle until he was married to Mary; which marriage therefore implicitly has a cosmic dimension, far beyond any mundane earthly ceremony. 

Jesus encounters Mary on the way to resurrection of Lazarus (Chapter 11) - his profoundest and greatest miracle - the first resurrection. 

Then again at the episode of the mysterious episode of the anointing of Jesus's feet by Mary (Chapter 12) - when he realized and announced that his death was imminent.  

Mary Magdalene was present (with Jesus's mother, other women, and Lazarus) at Jesus's death on the cross (Chapter 19); and was then the first to meet him two days later when resurrected (Chapter 20). 

I take these descriptions - bracketing Jesus's death and resurrection - to imply that Mary had some cosmic role in these unprecedented and eternally significant events. 

The last we hear of Mary and Jesus is when he tells her: I ascend unto my Father, and your Father; and to my God, and your God. 

Which I regard as an anticipation of the continuation of their eternal, cosmic marriage in Heaven, after Jesus's ascension and Mary's resurrection. 

Was Jesus married?

NOTE ADDED: some months after writing this post, after further reflection and study of the Fourth Gospel, I decided that the description of the marriage of Jesus and Mary was actually the wedding at Cana, therefore not the episode described below.

** 

For a Mormon-believer the surprising thing would be if Jesus was not married; since marriage is regarded as necessary for the highest divine exaltation. Also, it provides a solid reason why Christ had to be incarnated in order to become our Saviour, despite that he was already divine before incarnation: perhaps Christ needed to be reincarnated in order that he might marry and achieve the final degree of exaltation such that he could Father premortal spirit children?

The main apparent obstacle is that the Bible seems not to mention Jesus getting married - but maybe it does, and quite explicitly. It depends on our understanding of the key section of the key gospel of the whole Bible; namely the events surrounding the raising of Lazarus in John's Gospel - that point of inflexion of the narrative in which events move towards Jesus's crucifixion, implying that Christ's ministry was now complete. What went before (including the delay of thirty years before the start of Jesus's ministry) may be seen as awaiting this moment.

I am going to state why there is good reason to assume that Jesus married Mary Magdalene. I do not think this is any kind of stretch of logic assuming three things: 1. It is plausible Jesus was married. 2. Mary of Bethany and Mary Magdalene are the same person - Bethany having changed her name after the anointing of Christ. 3. The anointing of Jesus by Mary with spikenard, the wiping of it with her hair, would have been clearly understood by John and his contemporary readers as describing the known ritual of a divine, royal marriage.

The second and third assumptions seem quite reasonable - even though they are not entailed by what we happen to know (from secular histories) of the evidence.

If John's gospel is read in the light of these three assumptions, then the idea of a marriage fits without strain, and explains the subsequent events at the cross (the presence of Mary Magdalene) and the events at the tomb of Jesus after the resurrection.

I append the relevant text. Whether this is found compelling by the skeptic is doubtful; but if we choose to assume that Then took Mary a pound of ointment of spikenard, very costly, and anointed the feet of Jesus, and wiped his feet with her hair: and the house was filled with the odour of the ointment is describing a wedding ceremony, the interpretation enables a naturalness, clarity and simplicity to the narrative - which is otherwise extremely puzzling; given its prominence, detail and placement.

**

John 11: 11 Now a certain man was sick, named Lazarus, of Bethany, the town of Mary and her sister Martha. 2 (It was that Mary which anointed the Lord with ointment, and wiped his feet with her hair, whose brother Lazarus was sick.) 3 Therefore his sisters sent unto him, saying, Lord, behold, he whom thou lovest is sick. 4 When Jesus heard that, he said, This sickness is not unto death, but for the glory of God, that the Son of God might be glorified thereby. 5 Now Jesus loved Martha, and her sister, and Lazarus.

John 12: 18 Now Bethany was nigh unto Jerusalem, about fifteen furlongs off: 19 and many of the Jews came to Martha and Mary, to comfort them concerning their brother... 28 And when [Martha]had so said, she went her way, and called Mary her sister secretly, saying, The Master is come, and calleth for thee. 29 As soon as she heard that, she arose quickly, and came unto him. 30 Now Jesus was not yet come into the town, but was in that place where Martha met him. 31 The Jews then which were with her in the house, and comforted her, when they saw Mary, that she rose up hastily and went out, followed her, saying, She goeth unto the grave to weep there. 32 Then when Mary was come where Jesus was, and saw him, she fell down at his feet, saying unto him, Lord, if thou hadst been here, my brother had not died. 33 When Jesus therefore saw her weeping, and the Jews also weeping which came with her, he groaned in the spirit, and was troubled...

John 12: 12 Then Jesus six days before the passover came to Bethany, where Lazarus was which had been dead, whom he raised from the dead. 2 There they made him a supper; and Martha served: but Lazarus was one of them that sat at the table with him. 3 Then took Mary a pound of ointment of spikenard, very costly, and anointed the feet of Jesus, and wiped his feet with her hair: and the house was filled with the odour of the ointment. 4 Then saith one of his disciples, Judas Iscariot, Simon’s son, which should betray him, 5 Why was not this ointment sold for three hundred pence, and given to the poor? 6 This he said, not that he cared for the poor; but because he was a thief, and had the bag, and bare what was put therein. 7 Then said Jesus, Let her alone: against the day of my burying hath she kept this.

John 19: 25 Now there stood by the cross of Jesus his mother, and his mother’s sister, Mary the wife of Cleophas, and Mary Magdalene. 26 When Jesus therefore saw his mother, and the disciple standing by, whom he loved, he saith unto his mother, Woman, behold thy son! 27 Then saith he to the disciple, Behold thy mother! And from that hour that disciple took her unto his own home.

John 20: 20 The first day of the week cometh Mary Magdalene early, when it was yet dark, unto the sepulchre, and seeth the stone taken away from the sepulchre. 2 Then she runneth, and cometh to Simon Peter, and to the other disciple, whom Jesus loved, and saith unto them, They have taken away the Lord out of the sepulchre, and we know not where they have laid him. 10 Then the disciples went away again unto their own home. 11 But Mary stood without at the sepulchre weeping: and as she wept, she stooped down, and looked into the sepulchre, 12 and seeth two angels in white sitting, the one at the head, and the other at the feet, where the body of Jesus had lain. 13 And they say unto her, Woman, why weepest thou? She saith unto them, Because they have taken away my Lord, and I know not where they have laid him. 14 And when she had thus said, she turned herself back, and saw Jesus standing, and knew not that it was Jesus. 15 Jesus saith unto her, Woman, why weepest thou? whom seekest thou? She, supposing him to be the gardener, saith unto him, Sir, if thou have borne him hence, tell me where thou hast laid him, and I will take him away. 16 Jesus saith unto her, Mary. She turned herself, and saith unto him, Rabboni; which is to say, Master. 17 Jesus saith unto her, Touch me not; for I am not yet ascended to my Father: but go to my brethren, and say unto them, I ascend unto my Father, and your Father; and to my God, and your God. 18 Mary Magdalene came and told the disciples that she had seen the Lord, and that he had spoken these things unto her.

The male and female principle in Jesus Christ and Mary Magdalene

For an idea of what I intend by the "male and female principles", see this book review and the quotations from Owen Barfield and DE (Doris Eveline) Faulkner Jones. A terse summary of their argument is provided by Faulkner Jones:

One might call the special gift of women 'creative receptivity', and it should be used in close co-operation with the 'creative activity' of men... An example of the harmonious working-together of the male and female principles in social life is medicine in the nineteenth century. New discoveries were revolutionising medical work when there emerged in Florence Nightingale a woman powerful enough to feel deeply, and comprehend fully, the importance of these discoveries and of medical work in general. It was through her work in founding and organising nursing as a profession for women that the new medical ideas, generated through the male creative intellect, could be applied beneficently and systematically, on a wide basis, to all the classes of the community. Without the steady, loving, systematised, daily and hourly attention of trained nurses, the most brilliant surgical or medical treatment would fail.

Of course I am here comparing the cosmically great reality of Jesus and Mary, with the micro-cosmically specific instance of the male founders of modern medicine and Florence Nightingale and her nurses. 

But I would like to suggest that Jesus was - inevitably - specifically a man, hence male - and therefore essentially engaged in "creative activity"; therefore in need of a woman and the female principle of "creative receptivity" in order fully to fulfil the potential of his work. 

In the Fourth Gospel (for my understanding and explanation of this scripture, see here) we have a vivid and human portrait of Jesus provided by an eye-witness; and it can be seen that Jesus's character is distinctively that of a man. Jesus is neither androgynous, nor a fusion of man and woman: he is archetypically male. 

By contrast, of the five episodes that feature Mary Magdalene; the first is the marriage feast at Cana, which I believe to be a (later redacted) version of the marriage of Jesus and Mary; but it provides no information as the bride's behaviour or character. 

However, the next four descriptions of Mary Magdalene all mention archetypically female, indeed wifely, behaviour: these are:

1. Mary weeping at Jesus's feet at the resurrection of Lazarus, her brother - expressing direct sadness and empathy for the here-and-now situation;

2. Mary anointing Jesus's feet in Bethany and wiping them with her hair - demonstrating her knowledge of Jesus's divine status, and a focus on the present moment - and "indifferent" to larger and abstract masculine issues such as "the poor". 

3. Mary's presence at the foot of the cross during the crucifixion: being-present, while Jesus dies, i sympathetic participation.

4. Mary's discovery of the empty tomb, and her later first-witnessing of the resurrected Jesus; Mary apparently visited the tomb alone, and with no functional purpose other than - again - to be there, to participate in Jesus's condition. When she meets, and then recognizes, the resurrected Jesus; she desires primarily to touch him - again, an archetypically female response to the situation.   

None of Mary's behaviours are surprising, but in their here-and-now immediacy and care, they do emphasise the contrast with Jesus's own "Big Picture" words and behaviours. 

Mary's behaviours emphasize too that "creative receptivity" which is missing from, and complementary to, and necessary to the completion of, the masculine creative activity of Jesus.

This is one reason why I consider that Mary Magdalene later became one of the dyad that is the Holy Ghost; our guide (masculine active creativity) and comforter (feminine receptive creativity). 

If I were to draw any tentative lessons from this analysis for this, our mortal lives; and for the ideal relationship between a man and a woman towards which we might strive; such lessons would be along the lines of understanding the ultimate and spiritual nature of these male and female characteristics. 

Jesus and the human 'gene pool'

I was startled recently when a priest (Anglican, liberal) in a carol service said that Christmas celebrated Jesus entering the human 'gene pool'.

I expect he didn't really understand what he had said. But it set me off thinking what he meant, and whether it could even be true! And if so, how.

I think he probably meant a spiritual (not genetic) sense by which Jesus, by incarnating, became a-part-of the human condition. All Christians would agree with that, I suppose...  

However, for Jesus's genetic material actually to have entered the human gene pool; presumably Jesus would have had-to have-reproduced while a mortal man; therefore he must first have been married. The obvious candidate is Mary Magdalene.

I find it plausible that Jesus did marry Mary of Bethany - who then became known as Magdalene. And if he married, then presumably it would necessarily have been consummated (to count as a real marriage).

So everything would then hinge on whether Mary became pregnant, then more generally on what happened to Mary Magdalene after the ascension of Jesus. I don't know of any potentially-valid source on this - but my feeling is that Mary would have followed Jesus soon-after, at least if she was not pregnant.

If she was, she would probably have remained living with Mary the Mother of Jesus and the Beloved Disciple ('John') (the group present at the crucifiction) and, I guess, brought-up the child...

Then, Jesus could indeed have entered the human gene pool!

But I strongly suspect that that was not what the preacher intended to imply...

    

The Gospel of John - the heart and essence of the Christian message

In my understanding; the Gospel of John has an uniquely important position in all of Christian Scripture, and indeed in all the world's writings - because of its author. The author was the disciple whom Jesus most loved, an eyewitness of his ministry; and the events of his death and resurrection.

The author of the Gospel was also, I believe, Lazarus - the first Man to be resurrected to immortality and re-named John - still alive and active in the world, until the second coming. He was sister to Mary of Bethany; who anointed Jesus's feet in a ceremony of sacred marriage after which she became Mary Magdalene and was the first to discover and speak with her resurrected Lord. Mary Magdalene and John were present with Jesus's mother Mary at Jesus's crucifixion; when John was given care of Jesus's mother.

All of this makes John's Gospel potentially of primary value for Christians - the 'source' above all others; the first source in importance, which should structure our interpretation of all other sources.

When I read the Gospel, in a proper state of mind that is both attentive and also open to its deep meanings, I find that it is - unlike the other Gospels, which read as reverend miscellanies and comprehensive compendia of memoirs - a through-composed, thematic and structured piece of writing in which everything written is of importance.

Furthermore, John's Gospel is almost wholly symbolic in its language and implications - it is absolutely not supposed to be read as a prose account of Jesus's life; but as a mystical, deep, poetic text from those who already know the basics and necessities, and have an ability to feel the resonances and implications.

This much is clear from many, many passages and parables in which Jesus's words are quoted both to demonstrate and to explain that this is what is going-on in the Gospel - again and again Jesus is asked for a straight, factual explanation of something and replies with a figurative one.

This is why I can only read and comprehend John's Gospel when I in a similar state of mind - when I am at a level of consciousness such that the symbolic, figurative, and poetical are natural and spontaneous modes of expression.

This is not a Gospel to decode or dissect or examine under a high-powered textual microscope; any more than is a soliloquy of Hamlet or a lyric by William Blake. John's Gospel is not a code - any more than Coleridge's Xanadu is a code! That attitude is guaranteed to miss the point and close-off even the slightest possibility of responsive and valid understanding.

Therefore, there can be no recipe for reading John's Gospel, no Footnotes or Cliff Notes encapsulation, no prose summary capturing what it 'means' - and the only advice I can offer is: to read it when you, personally, are at your best and most elevated; and then read it in solitude and with concentrated and trance-like attention.

Then, and only then, may it speak to you.

Note: Commenter WmJas points out that the author of the Gospel of John may NOT have been named John - the author of the Gospel may NOT be John the son of Zebedee named in the other Gosepls. The author of John's Gospel names himself as the disciple whom Jesus loved, ie. the Beloved Disciple. So my contention should be rephrased that Lazarus was resurrected as the Beloved Disciple, author of the text called the Gospel of John. 

"Behold they son!... Behold thy mother!"

John 19:25-27. Now there stood by the cross of Jesus his mother, and his mother's sister, Mary the wife of Cleophas, and Mary Magdalene. When Jesus therefore saw his mother, and the disciple standing by, whom he loved, he saith unto his mother, Woman, behold thy son! Then saith he to the disciple, Behold thy mother! And from that hour that disciple took her unto his own home.

For a background summary and supporting argument, see Lazarus Writes: 

This is described by the eye-witness author of the Fourth Gospel - who was the resurrected Lazarus. Present with Lazarus at the foot of the cross stood Jesus's mother and aunt; and Mary Magdalene who was Jesus's wife; and Lazarus himself, brother to Mary M, and who was therefore Jesus's brother-in-law. 

This web-of-relationships explains why Jesus specifically asked his brother-in-law, the author of the Fourth Gospel, to "adopt" Jesus's mother after Jesus's death - Jesus's mother already being mother-in-law to Lazarus's sister. 

Jesus's wife's brother becomes the "son" to Jesus's mother; reciprocally, Jesus's mother became his brother-in-law's "mother".  

Why was the Marriage at Cana the situation for Jesus's first miracle?

The Fourth Gospel tells us that the Marriage at Cana, changing water into wine, was the first miracle of Jesus; which raises the question of - why then?

By my understanding; Jesus's miracles should primarily be understood as evidence of his primary creative power; that Jesus was divine and shared in God's creative power. 

I also understood Jesus's baptism by John to be the moment when the Holy Spirit descended onto him and stayed; so that Jesus 'knew who he was' and also became divine (i.e. fully and permanently aligned with  God's will)... 

But if that was the whole story, then the question arises: why the 'gap' between the baptism and the first miracle? 

The answer - I now believe - is that it was Jesus's marriage to Mary (Magdalene) at Cana which made possible the miracles. 

The background to this can be found in my theological writings over the past years - and in particular my mini-online-book about the Fourth Gospel. 

There can be found the arguments as to why this is the primary source on Jesus's life and teachings (qualitatively superior to any other source - whether Old testament, Gospel, Epistle, Revelation or otherwise). 

Once this is acknowledged, it may readily be seen that we are clearly being told by the Fourth Gospel that Jesus married Mary at Cana; that 'this Mary' was the same as Lazarus's sister (Mary of Bethany) and Mary Magdalene; and that the resurrected Lazarus was author of the Fourth Gospel - Chapters 1-20 of which were written shortly after the ascension of Jesus (and, presumably, Mary his wife). 

The other necessary understanding is of the nature of God and creation. I understand 'God' to be the dyad of Heavenly Parents - of the prime, divine man and woman; and creation to be the manifestation of their Love. 

Taken together, this implies (although it does not entail) that the divine creativity of Jesus, as shown by his miracles, also required to be completed by a dyadic love between a man and a woman; which was made possible by the eternal/ celestial/ divine marriage of Jesus with Mary.

Until that point - Jesus could not perform miracles of divine creation; and this is why Lazarus took care to inform us in his Gospel that Cana was Jesus's first miracle. 

The centrality of John's gospel to reading and understanding the Bible

It is clear that modern people - me included - find it very difficult to 'read the Bible' - even if that reading is largely restricted to the New Testament.

The experience is too often confusing rather than enlightening, misleading rather than clarifying; and the reigning rival paradigms for reading the Bible - either regarding the book as 'inerrant' on a line-by-line basis, or else regarding it as if it was just another historical document to be dissected by scholars - both do more harm than good by regarding the text as if it were a mosaic composed of detachable and autonomous words and sayings.

Here is a concrete suggestion that I have been using for a while: I regard John's gospel as the central text of the Bible, and read outwards from that to the other Synoptic gospels, the rest of the New Testament, and then to the Old - regarding them mainly in terms of explaining and expanding the message of John.

The reasons I regard John's gospel is central are manyfold: that it was written by a disciple, eyewitness and participant in the events; the disciple that Jesus most loved and who was most faithful to Jesus; the only disciple who remained loyal and did not hide after Jesus's arrest; the only disciple who was present at the crucifixion, standing with the mother of Jesus and Mary Magdalene - where Jesus from the cross entrusted to John the care of His mother; who responded to Mary Magdalene's news of the risen Christ and who ran faster than Simon Peter to arrive first at the opened tomb; the disciple who did not die but is still alive today and with us - ministering until the second coming; and the Biblical author whose gospel is unmatched in its beauty, coherence and the goodness and newness of its message.

I think that reading John as a whole (in the Authorised Version, the King James Bible - which is the only divinely-inspired English translation) gives us the gospel, the good news which Christ was; and does this in a way that is uniquely authoritative, and at the level of the highest poetry - which is the only language capable of whole-truth.

John's Gospel is the very heart of the Christian message: and surely that is what we most need and the obvious place for our understanding to be located.

Resurrection firsts

As far as I can understand from reading the Fourth Gospel; three 'resurrection firsts' are described:

1. Lazarus (Jesus's brother in law) was the first person to be resurrected to divine immortality - by Jesus; and Lazarus was resurrected into this world. It also sounds like he was resurrected into the space formerly occupied by his mortal body. His subsequent fate included looking after Jesus's mother.

2. Jesus himself was the second person to be resurrected. He also seems to have been resurrected into the space of his mortal body, and into this mortal world; after which Jesus was the first resurrected Man to ascend to Heaven.

3. Mary Magdalene was Jesus's wife. From the conversation after she discovered the resurrected Jesus in the tomb, it seems to me likely that she was expecting to join Jesus in Heaven as soon as he ascended; there to become his divine spouse. If so, Mary was the first Man to die on earth and be resurrected into Heaven, in the way that subsequently became 'normal' for Christians.

Each of these three resurrections is different in form, and both Lazarus and Jesus has features that were likely unique.

It was probably Mary Magdalene who was the first person actually to follow that path to Heavenly life eternal which Jesus incarnated to make possible.

Martha's perspective: Mary Magdalene and the death of Lazarus in the Fourth Gospel

I have been reading Chapter 11 of the Fourth Gospel (the 'raising of Lazarus' episode) to understand the role of Mary and Martha, sister of Lazarus.

I am reading this with the conviction that Mary of Bethany is the same person later referred to as Mary Magdalene, and that she was the wife of Jesus (they married at the water-into-wine feast in Cana, described earlier in the Gospel). I also assume that Lazarus was the 'beloved disicple', and author of the Fourth Gospel. All this is covered in my mini-book on the Fourth Gospel.

This means that - at the time of the events described in John: 11, Lazarus was still dead - and therefore he must have been writing on the basis of some other person's account. Therefore, this section is one of the few parts of the Fourth Gospel where the author is not an eye-witness.

The internal evidence of Chapter 11 suggests that the eye-witness the resurrected consulted was Lazarus's sister Martha, since she is the central character.

Mary was not, I assume, available to be consulted; since the Gospel was written some time after Jesus's ascension; and Mary, as the wife of Jesus, had presumably died-resurrected-ascended with her husband (as seems to be indicated when Mary met Jesus as the tomb and he made the 'touch me not' series of comments indicating they will both ascend to Heaven to be together. In other words, at the time of the Fourth Gospel was written, Mary was 'dead'.

So, we get the events of the raising of Lazarus from Martha's perspective. This is why her conversation is reported in detail, but not the conversation between Jesus and Mary (since Martha was not present (Mary is made merely to repeat a part of what Martha had said).

A striking aspect of this passage, is contextual: the suggestions that Mary was important and had some kind of following - as would be expected for the wife of Jesus.

Apparently Mary was 'in the house', with a group of The Jews, who then followed her when she came to Jesus (supposedly thinking she was going to weep at the grave). And in verse 45 there is a reference to The Jews who came to Mary.

It seems likely that Mary - wife of Jesus and sister of the recently-deceased disciple of Jesus - was a person of some importance, and the focus of public interest or concern, but Martha was not.


John.11 [1] Now a certain man was sick, named Lazarus, of Bethany, the town of Mary and her sister Martha. [2] (It was that Mary which anointed the Lord with ointment, and wiped his feet with her hair, whose brother Lazarus was sick.) [3] Therefore his sisters sent unto him, saying, Lord, behold, he whom thou lovest is sick. [4] When Jesus heard that, he said, This sickness is not unto death, but for the glory of God, that the Son of God might be glorified thereby. [5] Now Jesus loved Martha, and her sister, and Lazarus. [6] When he had heard therefore that he was sick, he abode two days still in the same place where he was. [7] Then after that saith he to his disciples, Let us go into Judaea again. [8] His disciples say unto him, Master, the Jews of late sought to stone thee; and goest thou thither again? [9] Jesus answered, Are there not twelve hours in the day? If any man walk in the day, he stumbleth not, because he seeth the light of this world. [10] But if a man walk in the night, he stumbleth, because there is no light in him. [11] These things said he: and after that he saith unto them, Our friend Lazarus sleepeth; but I go, that I may awake him out of sleep. [12] Then said his disciples, Lord, if he sleep, he shall do well. [13] Howbeit Jesus spake of his death: but they thought that he had spoken of taking of rest in sleep. [14] Then said Jesus unto them plainly, Lazarus is dead. [15] And I am glad for your sakes that I was not there, to the intent ye may believe; nevertheless let us go unto him. [16] Then said Thomas, which is called Didymus, unto his fellowdisciples, Let us also go, that we may die with him. [17] Then when Jesus came, he found that he had lain in the grave four days already. [18] Now Bethany was nigh unto Jerusalem, about fifteen furlongs off: [19] And many of the Jews came to Martha and Mary, to comfort them concerning their brother. [20] Then Martha, as soon as she heard that Jesus was coming, went and met him: but Mary sat still in the house. [21] Then said Martha unto Jesus, Lord, if thou hadst been here, my brother had not died. [22] But I know, that even now, whatsoever thou wilt ask of God, God will give it thee. [23] Jesus saith unto her, Thy brother shall rise again. [24] Martha saith unto him, I know that he shall rise again in the resurrection at the last day. [25] Jesus said unto her, I am the resurrection, and the life: he that believeth in me, though he were dead, yet shall he live: [26] And whosoever liveth and believeth in me shall never die. Believest thou this? [27] She saith unto him, Yea, Lord: I believe that thou art the Christ, the Son of God, which should come into the world. [28] And when she had so said, she went her way, and called Mary her sister secretly, saying, The Master is come, and calleth for thee. [29] As soon as she heard that, she arose quickly, and came unto him. [30] Now Jesus was not yet come into the town, but was in that place where Martha met him. [31] The Jews then which were with her in the house, and comforted her, when they saw Mary, that she rose up hastily and went out, followed her, saying, She goeth unto the grave to weep there. [32] Then when Mary was come where Jesus was, and saw him, she fell down at his feet, saying unto him, Lord, if thou hadst been here, my brother had not died. [33] When Jesus therefore saw her weeping, and the Jews also weeping which came with her, he groaned in the spirit, and was troubled, [34] And said, Where have ye laid him? They said unto him, Lord, come and see. [35] Jesus wept. [36] Then said the Jews, Behold how he loved him! [37] And some of them said, Could not this man, which opened the eyes of the blind, have caused that even this man should not have died? [38] Jesus therefore again groaning in himself cometh to the grave. It was a cave, and a stone lay upon it. [39] Jesus said, Take ye away the stone. Martha, the sister of him that was dead, saith unto him, Lord, by this time he stinketh: for he hath been dead four days. [40] Jesus saith unto her, Said I not unto thee, that, if thou wouldest believe, thou shouldest see the glory of God? [41] Then they took away the stone from the place where the dead was laid. And Jesus lifted up his eyes, and said, Father, I thank thee that thou hast heard me. [42] And I knew that thou hearest me always: but because of the people which stand by I said it, that they may believe that thou hast sent me. [43] And when he thus had spoken, he cried with a loud voice, Lazarus, come forth. [44] And he that was dead came forth, bound hand and foot with graveclothes: and his face was bound about with a napkin. Jesus saith unto them, Loose him, and let him go. [45] Then many of the Jews which came to Mary, and had seen the things which Jesus did, believed on him. [46] But some of them went their ways to the Pharisees, and told them what things Jesus had done.

The Corpus Christi carol

He bore him up, he bore him down, 

He bore him into an orchard brown. 

(Chorus) 

Lully, lullay, lully, lullay! 

The falcon has borne my make away. 

And in that hall there standeth a bed: 

It was hanged with gold so red; 

(Chorus) 

And on that bed there lieth a knight, 

His woundis bledyng day and night; 

(Chorus) 

And by that side there kneleth a may, 

And she wepeth both night and day; 

(Chorus)

And by that bed there standeth a stone, 

“Corpus Christi” written thereon.

(Chorus)

Key: "make" = "mate"; "may" = "maid"; "Corpus Christi" = "body of Christ"

There are many variants of title and lyrics, and even more of the melody.

But this is the tune I regard as definitive (although the performance is only adequate IMO - I can't find any better online). 

It is composed in the Doric/ Dorian Mode, which runs from D to D on the white notes of a piano; and is characterized by a minor third and a flattened seventh (no "leading note"). This lends a suitably "medieval" quality to the ancient song. 

This "carol" (it isn't really a carol) is very mysterious in its subject matter; seeming like an imaginary journey of initiation as we are led from scene to scene to a climatic revelation - none of which scenes are explained, and all of which seem "symbolic" in some way. 

Some ideas about the poem are that it is to do with a slain knight and his betrothed, the Holy Grail and the Fisher King; or Mary and Jesus (maybe the Blessed Virgin Mary, or perhaps Mary Magdalene) - or perhaps all of these at the same time. 

 

Resolving apparent inconsistencies/ omissions in the fourth Gospel

Long-term readers of this blog will know that I am trying to understand Christianity using only the fourth Gospel, as if it was my only source; because I regard it as qualitatively the most authoritative scripture.

On that basis I have come to regard the author (the disciple who 'Jesus loved') of the gospel as the resurrected Lazarus (and that Lazarus was resurrected, not just brought back to life); that Lazarus's sister Mary (of Bethany) was married to Jesus in Cana (in an 'ordinary' Jewish ceremony) when the first miracle was performed, and that there was a further mystical marriage at the time of the anointing of Jesus's feet with Spikenard on Mary's hair, and that this Mary is the same person as Mary Magdalene ('both' Mary's treating Jesus with loving but respectful familiarity, and 'both' engaging in physical contact appropriate only to a wife)...


Anyway; this is the background for trying to interpret an anomalous verse John 2: 4 - when Jesus says to his mother "Woman, what have I to do with thee? mine hour is yet to come."

To me, there is something clearly wrong with this verse - certainly it does Not mean any kind of rejection of Jesus's mother, since she accompanies Jesus (and his brothers) to Capernum in verse 12. The verse might be garbled, or interposed - but my guess is that - since Jesus is the 'bridegroom' of the marriage feast, it may refer to Jesus's new allegiance to his wife.


And this may answer another puzzle about the fourth Gospel: why did Jesus's ministry start when it did? The answer seems to be that Jesus's ministry began when he was baptised by John the Baptist, and JtB recognised Jesus as the Christ, as the divine Spirit descended upon him and stayed - causing Jesus's new self-awareness as Son of God (to become Son of Man, at his ascension), and his new powers.

But why did Jesus get baptised by JtB? Well, the author doesn't say that Jesus and John are cousins  (that is in another gospel) - which seems like a strange omission, since the author of the fourth gospel - Lazarus - was a disciple first of John then of Jesus. So, if they were cousins, then he would know!

However, I think we can assume that it was Lazarus who brought his future brother-in-law Jesus to be baptised by his then-Master John the Baptist, just two days before the wedding. Perhaps (as in my own extended family) terms like 'sister' (referring to John's and Jesus's mothers), did not necessarily mean sharing the same parents - and perhaps the real link was the marriage-link between Lazarus's and Jesus's families, and that was underpinned by some childhood relation between the mothers of Jesus and Lazarus... (The beloved disciple is asked, by Jesus on the cross, to look-after Jesus's mother.)

Thus it was Lazarus who was responsible for the timing of  Jesus's ministry; and Lazarus was present at his sister's wedding to Jesus in Cana two days later when Jesus's new status as the Messiah became explicit with the first miracle - in which water to wine is both literal and deeply symbolic (the symbolism - which is itself literal - being multiply expressed in other parts of the fourth Gospel).


The second omission is more obvious and important than the garbled comment of Jesus to his mother; and it is the dispute among the Jewish leaders about whether Jesus could be the Messiah given that he had not been born in Bethlehem.

John 7: 41-3 - Others said, This is the Christ. But some said, Shall Christ come out of Galilee? Hath not the scripture said, That Christ cometh out of the seed of David, and out of the town of Bethlehem, where Davis was? So there was a division among the people because of him.

Having raised this as an important issue, the author of the fourth Gospel does not resolve it for us. Of course, we are told in Matthew and Luke that Jesus was born in Bethlehem... But we are not told this in the fourth Gospel, where the issue is left 'up in the air' and (so far as I can see) never resolved for the reader.

This could be some omission from the Gospel, something that was lost - a statement that Jesus was born in Bethlehem; because it seems strange that, if Jesus was indeed born in Bethelehem, the dispute reported in the fourth Gospel was not simply settled.

Or, if nothing was lost; and since I regard the fourth Gospel as more authoritative than any of the Synoptics (or Epistles); perhaps this really was one way in which Jesus did not fulfil all the prophecies - but one which was later patched-up by oral history and legend...

After all, the fourth Gospel provides in abundance all the evidence necessary to prove that Jesus really was the Son of God, the Christ, the Messiah... There is, in particular, the testimony of John the Baptist (the most authoritative witness of that time and place); the miracles - especially the raising of Lazarus; and of course Jesus's resurrection, ascension, and his sending of the Holy Ghost.

Reading the fourth gospel in the way it was meant to be read

As I have mentioned several times, I am engaged on an intense, poetic reading of the fourth Gospel ('John's) in which I read with the assumptions that this is the primary and most valid communication concerning Jesus.

Why? Because the author of this gospel is the beloved disciple who is Lazarus (-raised), who is the brother of Mary of Bethany, who is the same person as Mary Magdalene, who is the wife of Jesus (them having married initially in a normal Jewish way in Cana, and then in some heavenly and eternal fashion in Bethany: the episode of the spikenard ointment).

The author of the Fourth Gospel was therefore Jesus's best friend, an ex-disciple of John the Baptist (who had an essential role in the ministry of Jesus), Jesus's brother-in-law on earth and eternally, and himself an eternal being - the first resurrected Man.

The primary validity of such a 'source' is self-evident. 


My assumption is that at the time of writing of the fourth gospel, its readers will all have known the identity of the author, his nature, and his close and unique relationship with Jesus. This is therefore taken for granted in the text; and the text makes perfect sense in light of such knowledge.

This is certainly not an arcane, secret, occult, or gnostic interpretation of the fourth gospel! Quite the opposite. The fourth gospel was and is perfectly clear, its message was and is on the surface and not hidden between the lines. Its message is available to all and not restricted to the 'initiated'.

The fourth gospel is simply the story of Jesus written by such a man as Lazarus was known to be, as clear as possible given the nature of the material, and in the 'poetic' way that such matters were written - at that time and and in that place.


By 'poetic' reading, I mean that I am reading in a manner that empathises with the consciousness of the author and era, and therefore regards the language as poetry not prose.

Naturally, I am reading and re-reading the 'King James'/ Authorised translation of the gospel; as being the only divinely-inspired English version. And the KJB is poetic - indeed it is one of he greatest works of literature in its language, or any language.

Since poetic language (like all ancient language) is poetic, it cannot be translated word-by-word, nor concept-by-concept. Ancient languages meant many things at once in ways that are now impossible to express, except by more poetry (and poetry is currently extinct, or all-but). The nearest - which is not very near - is a list of semi-synonyms based on etymology; from-which a jump of sympathy, empathy, identification may be helped.


Furthermore, my understanding is that because the fourth gospel is by far the most valid and important part of the Bible - to understand Jesus and his work and message I need initially to understand it from the fourth gospel alone - without the endless-distractions and misleading tendencies of attempting to triangulate other and less valid New and Old Testament sources.

In other words, if I can attain clarity of the correct issues from the fourth gospel, regarded as valid; then this understand may then be applied to the other parts of the Bible (and indeed other sources).


Note: The method of the fourth gospel seems to be in working through great sweeps of text which clarify; by approaching a question or point from many 'angles', and aiming to remove ambiguities or incomprehension. It seems necessary to read, therefore, at sufficient length to notice these convergences.  It is proving to be an astonishingly rich experience, yielding wave after wave of clarification and insight.


Most important is the essence of what Jesus offers - that he variously calls by terms such as the word meaning 'thought', making, creation, life, light... So that Life is the key word/ concept; and everlasting life is the main thing that Jesus brings or offers.

Everlasting life (and light) is everlasting creativity, generation - it is thus more like biology (with  development and growth); than it is like physics. Therefore, what Jesus offers us is something 'in' time; it is active, dynamic, changing as living entities - it is not a blueprint for some final static state.

And he offers this on the basis that we 'believe' him - that is we trust him, have faith and confidence in him, love and esteem him, ally with him - and in doing so we ally with the primary creator who is Jesus's Father, with whom Jesus is in complete accord and whose mission he is fulfilling.

It really does seem that simple (and that complex): Jesus offers everlasting life (which is a situation arrived at via death and by bodily resurrection) by-means-of our attitude to the person of Jesus.


Simple, but...

There are many passages in which, by his attitude and teachings, Jesus is clear that many or most people will-not-want-to-take-up his offer of everlasting life - for various reasons.

It seems that it is a mistake to try and persuade people that they want everlasting life.

Jesus works by trying to make clear the situation, and the nature of what he offers, what he brings; he explains things in several ways - with parables, and sayings, with miracles, and with analogies. Sometimes Jesus answers direct questions - but often there comes a point when he refuses to say any more to people; when he realises that they understand and know but reject his gift.

In effect: You asked me, I told you. You will Not accept my answer, yet you ask me again! I am not going to repeat myself. You ask for evidence, I give you evidence. You will not accept the evidence yet you ask for more evidence!

My distinct impression is that Jesus did not expect his offer to be taken-up by everybody; he anticipated that everlasting life would be rejected by many people.


'Belief' in Jesus is clearly something conceptually simple (albeit that concepts such as belief were then far more complex/ multi-valent/ symbolic than they are now) and potentially instantaneous.

But this was when Jesus was physically present on earth in his mortal, or resurrected, life - and therefore his 'influence' was spatially limited.

Jesus explains to his disciples that this limitation will be overcome after he ascends to his Father, when he will send the Holy Ghost or Comforter - who will be an improvement on the physical presence of Jesus.

We moderns find this hard to believe, but Jesus was quite definite: it is better to have the Holy Ghost than the physical presence of Jesus. Because the Holy Ghost provides what Jesus did - but universally and from within each person.


Jesus makes clear that the Holy Ghost is in fact himself - the Holy Ghost is our direct and personal contact and communication with the ascended Jesus; that, without any other source, potentially provides every person with knowledge and guidance sufficient for eternal life.


Sometimes Jesus is talking to and about the disciples as a specific group - it was clearly of great importance that the disciples be a coherent and loving group after Jesus had ascended; at other times he seems to be to be referring to everybody alive and hereafter...

But, rather than the work of the disciples and their descendants; I think the fourth gospel is telling us that the core 'method' of Christianity is the direct contact with Jesus himself, in his universal form as the Holy Ghost/ Comforter.


Much more can, and I hope will, be said on these matters.

St Godric and the earliest recorded English songs

From William Wildblood: 

The main reason I wanted to draw attention to St Godric is because of three songs he is supposed to have received in visions.

The first, Sainte Marie viergene, was given him by the Virgin Mary who appeared to him in the chapel of his hermitage accompanied by Mary Magdalene. Then a second song was given him by his recently deceased sister Burgwen, for whose soul he had been praying. She visited him with two angels who added the Kyrie Eleison refrains to her song, Crist and Sainte Marie.

The third song may have been given him by Saint Nicholas as Reginald writes that the saint  (who was eventually to be transformed into Santa Claus/Father Christmas) visited him one night and they sang loudly together. Apart from being very beautiful, and they are, these songs are of special interest in that they are the earliest English songs with surviving music.

More at:

http://albionawakening.blogspot.co.uk/2016/12/st-godric.html

What relation does the resurrection body have to the mortal body?

My understanding is that an eternal and indestructible resurrected body has no physical relation to the mortal body; but is 'regenerated' from the soul: regenerated from that which survives death.

This is confirmed for me by the possibility of reincarnation, which seems to have been the 'normal' thing for souls in many parts of the world throughout history - including the ancient Hebrews and first Christians - since the possibility or prophecy of prophets being reborn is mentioned several times in the Old and New Testaments (including the Fourth Gospel Chapter 1, when discussing the identity of John the Baptist).

If a person is to be reincarnated, especially when widely separated by time, then this must presumably be with different bodies - showing that the principle is established whereby a soul may be housed in different bodies - including, potentially, the resurrection body.


On the other side; the indications that resurrection involves re-animating the mortal body can be taken to be implied by two episodes in the Fourth Gospel ('John'): the raising of Lazarus (assuming, like me, you regard this as a resurrection) and by the episode in the 20th chapter where the resurrected Jesus twice shows the wounds in his sides and hands to the disciples.

Some would assume that Lazarus is brought to life in the same physical body that has died, presumably after it had been miraculously repaired; and that the continued presence of wounds in Jesus's hands and side means that we all should expect to be resurrected in the same physical bodies in which we died - or at least one that looks the same.

Instead, my assumption is that these particular public demonstrations of  resurrection are not intended to be a pattern for all possible ones. In these; I assume that the resurrected body formed in more-or-less the same physical space as the dead mortal body; as a proof of continued identity for bystanders. But this is not necessary - nor indeed usual.

Unless resurrection was intended to be restricted only to those who had died without serious damage to their bodies, the process of resurrection (whatever it is) cannot depend on the survival intact of the physical body. There is no indication anywhere in the Fourth Gospel that resurrection is so restricted.


Furthermore, I personally do not hang too much on the 'showing of the wounds' episode, since it may well be a later addition to the Gospel by another hand and is unconfirmed by other parts of the Gospel. For example, when Mary Magdalene first met the risen Jesus at the tomb, she seems not to have seen any wounds - or else she would (surely?) immediately have recognised him.

(It is characteristic of the Fourth Gospel that all key points are repeated in different sections; I suppose so that they are emphasised, and also in order to better explain them using different 'metaphors' and contexts.) 

Therefore, lacking confirmation, I would not want to depend on the showing of the wounds as decisive evidence; especially as I am sure that the immediately adjacent and interpolated passage in Chapter 20 - about the coming of the Holy Ghost - is a later and false insertion.

It may be that most of Chapter 20 is not from the beloved disciple (whom I recognise as Lazarus); and instead based on later hearsay and the not-from-Jesus hence alien, 'imminent second coming' agenda.


But either way, I think that the fact of resurrection being the provision of a 'new' body (eternal and incorruptible) by a 'process' that does Not require any contribution from the mortal body, was something known and assumed at the time the Fourth Gospel was written.

What Gnosticism is Not...

This is a slightly-edited version of a comment at the Orthosphere, written in response to a post by Kristor. This, in turn, was based on my comment to a recent post by Francis Berger.

@ Kristor - Am I correct in assuming that you - and those you implicitly address in this post - are deriving your understanding of (what you term) "Gnosticism" from the US political philosopher Eric Voegelin? 

(Whether influenced directly - or via those who were, in turn, strongly-influenced by V. - such as Lawrence Auster.)

That, in other words, Voegelin's conceptualization came first, and set the template within-which your understanding of historical Gnosticism has developed?

If so; this may account for this "Gnosticism"'s bizarre irrelevance to actual historical Gnosticism! 

What you call Gnosticism here (and other Orthosphere authors, in other posts) is so different from what I derived from reading about the ancient Gnostics, that I find it impossible to get from one to the other.

Clearly there must be an unmentioned third factor at work, behind the scenes - which I guess to be Voegelin.

If your concept of Gnosticism derived from Voegelin, it is important to clarify that Voegelin was not a Christian, was not engaged in any kind of Christian discourse or project; and he was indeed one of those who (mistakenly!) regarded leftism as a Christian 'heresy'.

Most importantly; Voegelin cannot have known much about real-life historical Gnosticism, because the relevant Gnostic texts (Nag Hammadi library especially) had not been translated when he was writing.

So - Why should Voegelin's ideas of Gnosticism have any validity At All?

Some modern *individuals* have become fascinated by historical Gnosticism - especially through the 1960s as the texts were first made available in translation (e.g. Philip K Dick via his friend Bishop James Pike, who was involved in the translations) - but the most basic Gnostic idea that earth was created by 'the devil' and that all matter is evil - is not a part of any modern Christian *church* that I've ever come across.

The nearest equivalent would be the "perennial philosophers" (usually operating within New Age discourse nowadays) who have adopted the basic assumptions and methods of "Eastern Religions" and absorb into this bits of Christianity in an eclectic fashion.

These have retained the ultimate ideal of escaping the material altogether, and ascending into a realm of pure spirit (ie. rejecting bodily resurrection). And such people are often very interested by the actual Gnostic writings - especially the Gospel of Thomas (very Neo-Platonic), and of that of Mary Magdalene (for feminist reasons). But not many such people claim to be "Christians".

In sum... Surely it is Not legitimate to equate Voegelin's modern socio-political terminology with an actual ancient religion/s - especially an ancient religion that seems to have left no institutional descendent?

I find this kind of "Gnostic" discourse so vague and slippery that it seems like no more than shadow-boxing - generative of neither heat nor light - with a bit of passive-aggressive name-calling thrown in!

**

Note: I personally find near-zero appeal in the actual ancient Gnostics - who I regard (in a nutshell) as the result of maintaining the metaphysics and social structures of pagan, Neo-Platonic secret cults; and absorbing into these groups some of the Christian terminology and history.

I therefore find the Gnostics to be (merely) a more extreme version (more pagan/ Platonic, less Christian) of the same process that led to the mainstream orthodox Christian church (which I regard as a product of exactly the same errors and processes).

The actual historical Gnostic metaphysical assumptions are mostly in direct opposition to (and incompatible with) my own most important assumptions concerning reality.

I would also add that modern individualism/alienation of thinking was Not an aspect of Gnosticism - was indeed all-but impossible to Men of that era. The Gnostics were, it seems, a variety of groups - individual judgment was immersed in a secret and disciplined cult with graded initiations (and no doubt punishments for transgression).

A secret initiatory group-cult is pretty-much the opposite of that explicitly individual discernment and taking of personal responsibility for one's Christianity, which is meant by "Romantic" Christianity.

Was John the Evangelist the resurrected Lazarus?

I came across this idea in the writings of Rudolf Steiner, whose Christian speculations usually strike me as convoluted, unnecessary and untrue. But this idea - that the disciple and evangelist John was actually renamed from Lazarus after he had been raised from the dead; and this is why just as the name of Lazarus disappears from the record, the name of John the disciple appears - stuck in my mind, and began to make sense...

The main evidence against the idea is that John's gospel does not explicitly mention this happening, and that no oral tradition of such a thing has come down from the early church.

In favour of the idea is that it makes sense of several aspects of John's gospel.

The strongest factor, for me, is the emphasis John gives to the fact that he calls himself the disciple whom Jesus loved; but that this phrase is never mentioned until after the Lazarus raising.

But before this, there has already been a similar emphasis that Jesus loved Lazarus (and also loved Lazarus's sisters, Martha and Mary of Bethany - the Mary who anointed Christ and wiped his feet with her hair, and who I believe to be the same person as Mary Magdalen). The Evangelist goes to considerable length to emphasise both of these loves - for Lazarus and John, and no other man is so described.

If (two assumptions joined here...) John had been Lazarus, and Mary Magdalen was the same person as Mary of Bethany - this would explain why they were both together at the crucifixion. 

The other thing this helps to explain is the idea that John the disciple would never die, but would tarry until the second coming of Christ. This is discussed between Jesus and Peter, and apparently comes out of the blue; but if John was Lazarus and therefore had been resurrected then it would make sense, would be a reasonable inference, that John was not going to die as other men die.

As I said, it all fits together except that the Lazarus-John change of name isn't mentioned in the way that the Simon-Peter change is mentioned. This does not rule it out - the fact may have been so well known at the time the gospel was written that it could be taken for granted (after all, John's gospel was written in a way that does seem to take a lot of prior knowledge for granted).

Here are the relevant Biblical passages:

Ch 11 Now a certain man was sick, named Lazarus, of Bethany, the town of Mary and her sister Martha. ² (It was that Mary which anointed the Lord with ointment, and wiped his feet with her hair, whose brother Lazarus was sick.) ³ Therefore his sisters sent unto him, saying, Lord, behold, he whom thou lovest is sick. ⁴ When Jesus heard that, he said, This sickness is not unto death, but for the glory of God, that the Son of God might be glorified thereby. ⁵ Now Jesus loved Martha, and her sister, and Lazarus.

Ch 12 Then Jesus six days before the passover came to Bethany, where Lazarus was which had been dead, whom he raised from the dead. ² There they made him a supper; and Martha served: but Lazarus was one of them that sat at the table with him.

Ch 13 ²³ Now there was leaning on Jesus’ bosom one of his disciples, whom Jesus loved.

Ch 19 ²⁵ Now there stood by the cross of Jesus his mother, and his mother’s sister, Mary the wife of Cleophas, and Mary Magdalene. ²⁶ When Jesus therefore saw his mother, and the disciple standing by, whom he loved…

Ch 21 ²⁰ Then Peter, turning about, seeth the disciple whom Jesus loved following; which also leaned on his breast at supper, and said, Lord, which is he that betrayeth thee? ²¹ Peter seeing him saith to Jesus, Lord, and what shall this man do? ²² Jesus saith unto him, If I will that he tarry till I come, what is that to thee? follow thou me. ²³ Then went this saying abroad among the brethren, that that disciple should not die: yet Jesus said not unto him, He shall not die; but, If I will that he tarry till I come, what is that to thee? ²⁴ This is the disciple which testifieth of these things, and wrote these things: and we know that his testimony is true.