Talk:Disciple whom Jesus loved: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 20:41, 9 May 2005

A present, this article is about a phrase, so the bolded entry should be italicized. It may be better to make the article about a person. In that case, an article can be inserted and the italics removed. -Acjelen 17:01, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

John 20

I don't know what "although John 20 has these two figures together, even in early times" is suppose to mean. The sentence once was referring to an event in the Gospel of John (and a fairly important one) when Mary Magdalene tells Simon Peter and the Beloved Disciple that Jesus' tomb is empty. The point is that Mary cannot be the Beloved Disciple if she goes and tells him her amazing news. They appear "together" in the scene with Simon Peter. An editor has added "even in early times" to the end of the sentence. I am not sure if this editor means that John 20:2 existed in the earliest versions of John's gospel or that early Christians knew Mary wasn't the Beloved Disciple because of oral traditions of Mary telling those two disciples, or something else. The same editor then goes on to discuss the gnostic Gospel of Mary. I would like this editor to explain what "even in early times" adds to the sentence in questions. -Acjelen 02:58, 9 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Which John is Which

One element of identifying the Beloved Disciple is the question of who wrote the Gospel of John and whether the John in the gospel's title refers to the apostle and son of Zebedee or to some other man named John.

This is addressed at Authorship of John

In any event, John the Evangelist is used to mean the John referred to the the gospel's title (in a somewhat circular way).

It is this by definition.

An editor of this article has recently added a comment from King James I of England. In the context of the Wikipedia article, the addition is used to strengthen the position that John the Evangelist is the Beloved Disciple.

No, it is a quote explicitely identifying that John was held to be the beloved disciple in earlier times, and that it wasn't just the position of academics. The sentence I framed the quote in made that clear. It is about the fact that the position existed, and was a traditional one, rather than an argument supporting the position itself. It is a meta statement on the position, if you like.

But James' quote only says "John" and does not distinguish which John he means to imply had a homosexual relationship with Jesus.

That's splitting hairs.

In my opinion, this quote from the Scottish king

He was an English King too, and a very significant one, indeed, it is due to him that the King James Version exists. Highly appropriate that he should comment on it, don't you think?

would fit better in a section of the article discussing what the term Beloved Disciple means rather than who it refers to.

As mentioned above, it is a quote explicitely identifying that John was held to be the beloved disciple in earlier times, and that it wasn't just the position of academics. The sentence I framed the quote in made that clear.

I would like to hear from the contributor of this comment on its context in the article. -Acjelen 03:16, 9 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 8: / Line 8: @@
 :This is addressed at [[Authorship of John]]
 In any event, John the Evangelist is used to mean the John referred to the the gospel's title (in a somewhat circular way).
-:Indeed, that is by definition.
+:It is this by definition.
 An editor of this article has recently added a comment from King James I of England.  In the context of the Wikipedia article, the addition is used to strengthen the position that John the Evangelist is the Beloved Disciple.
+:No, it is a quote explicitely identifying that John was held to be the beloved disciple in earlier times, and that it wasn't just the position of academics. The sentence I framed the quote in made that clear. It is about the fact that the position existed, and was a traditional one, rather than an argument supporting the position itself. It is a meta statement on the position, if you like.
-:No, it is used to indicate that the position is one which existed for many centuries, and not just amongst academics.
 But James' quote only says "John" and does not distinguish which John he means to imply had a homosexual relationship with Jesus.
+:That's splitting hairs.
-:James' relationship with [[George Villiers]] can hardly have been said to be platonic, such was the scandal at the time - see [[James I of England]] which details the relationship more closely.
-In my opinion, this quote from the Scottish king would fit better in a section of the article discussing what the term Beloved Disciple means rather than who it refers to.
+In my opinion, this quote from the Scottish king
-:It is relevant to the fact that the position that it was John was one held in antiquity, and not just amongst academics, i.e. that it was a tradition. It is a quote from James I of england, the one who caused the [[King James Version]] to exist. One of the best people to comment on what the King James Version had to say, and didnt, don't you think?
+:He was an English King too, and a very significant one, indeed, it is due to him that the [[King James Version]] exists. Highly appropriate that he should comment on it, don't you think?
+would fit better in a section of the article discussing what the term Beloved Disciple means rather than who it refers to.
-I would like to hear from the contributor of this comment on its context in the article.  -[[User:Acjelen|Acjelen]] 03:16, 9 May 2005 (UTC)
+:As mentioned above, it is a quote explicitely identifying that John was held to be the beloved disciple in earlier times, and that it wasn't just the position of academics. The sentence I framed the quote in made that clear.
+I would like to hear from the contributor of this comment on its context in the article.  -[[User:Acjelen|Acjelen]] 03:16, 9 May 2005 (UTC)
-To the person who contributes from the computer identified as 81.156.177.21: I do not understand what you write.  You seem to argue against points I have not made and ignore ones I do.  When James I compared his relationship with the Duke of Buckingham to Jesus' relationship with John, which John did he mean?  Did he mean the theoretical John the Evangelist or John the Apostle or did James I think they were the same person?  I ask you to answer one.  Then I would like you to change this article to reflect that.  If you want to use James I as evidence that the Beloved Disciple was John the Evangelist and not some other person named John (such as John the Apostle), then it would be better to state so more clearly.