Home  |  Contact  

Email:

Password:

Sign Up Now!

Forgot your password?

FORO LIBREPENSADOR SIN CENSURA
 
What’s New
  Join Now
  Message Board 
  Image Gallery 
 Files and Documents 
 Polls and Test 
  Member List
 GENERAL 
 REGLAS DE ESTE FORO LIBRE 
 Panel de quejas 
 CONCORDANCIAS BIBLICAS 
 PANEL DEL ADMINISTRADOR BARILOCHENSE 6999 
 
 
  Tools
 
General: Egipto; cuando Pablo VI devolvió a los coptos las reliquias de San Marcos
Choose another message board
Previous subject  Next subject
Reply  Message 1 of 52 on the subject 
From: BARILOCHENSE6999  (Original message) Sent: 15/02/2018 03:07

Egipto; cuando Pablo VI devolvió a los coptos las reliquias de San Marcos

Un gesto extraordinario de Papa Montini como telón de fondo del peregrinaje de Francisco al país del norte de África
 

Egipto; cuando Pablo VI devolvió a los coptos las reliquias de San Marcos

 
 
 
178
1
Pubblicato il 06/04/2017
Ultima modifica il 06/04/2017 alle ore 15:05
LUIS BADILLA - FRANCESCO GAGLIANO
 
 

La catedral ortodoxa copta de San Marcos, iglesia que se encuentra en el distrito de Abbasyia en El Cairo (y por este motivo es conocida como catedral de Abadía o Abbasyia), es la sede del Papa Patriarca copto ortodoxo Tawadros II. La Iglesia está dedicada a San Marcos el Evangelista, considerado y venerado como fundador de la Iglesia copta. Algunas de sus reliquias se encuentran dentro de este templo. En junio de 1968, Papa Pablo VI devolvió a los coptos ortodoxos de Egipto una parte de las reliquias del Evangelista, después de que se lo pidiera el Patriarca Cirilo VI, en ocasión de las celebraciones por los 1900 años del martirio de San Marcos. Las reliquias del Santo fueron robadas en el año 828 y llevadas a Venecia. Las partes que Montini devolvió fueron «depositadas con gran devoción» en un altar construido para este objetivo y todavía se encuentran allí. En el templo también se veneran las reliquias de San Atanasio, Patriarca de Alejandría. 

 

Los Papas de Roma y los Papas coptos 

 

Desde aquel momento las relaciones entre los católicos y los coptos comenzaron crecer tanto en profundidad como en frecuencia; este es un elemento que hay que tener en cuenta en la «interpretación» del próximo viaje de Francisco a Egipto, en donde, como se sabe, se reunirá por segunda ocasión con su hermano Tawadros II. 

 

El primer encuentro entre un Papa y un Patriarca ortodoxo copto de Egipto fue en mayo de 1973. En esa ocasión Pablo VI y Shenouda II firmaron en el Vaticano una importante «Declaración» cristológica común y pusieron en marcha el diálogo ecuménico bilateral entre ambas Iglesias. La Declaración comenzaba afirmando que la Iglesia de Roma y la Iglesia de Alejandría comparten la misma fe en Jesucristo, «Dios perfecto en cuanto a Su Divinidad, y perfecto hombre en cuanto Su humanidad». 

 

El siguiente encuentro fue entre Papa Shenouda III y san Juan Pablo II, y se llevó a cabo en El Cairo en febrero de 2000, durante el peregrinaje Jubilar. La reunión más reciente, a 40 años del primer encuentro entre sus predecesores (1973) fue el 10 de mayo de 2013, cuando Papa Francisco y Papa Tawadros II, ambos apenas elegidos para que guiaran sus Iglesias, se reunieron en Roma. 

 

Pablo VI 

 

Hablando sobre San Marcos, Evangelista que conocía mucho y que era muy importante para él, durante la catequesis del 25 de abril de 1967, Papa Pablo VI dijo: «La historia de Marcos (de Juan, su nombre hebraico, llamado Marcos, nombre latino) es interesantísima; acaso se entrelaza con la de Jesús, en el episodio del chico que, en en la noche cuando lo capturaron en el Huerto de los Olivos, lo seguía, después de la fuga de sus discípulos, cubriéndose con un manto (¿por curiosidad, por devoción?), peri cuando los que arrestaron a Jesús trataron de atraparlo, el chico les dejó en las manos el mando, y se escapó. Pero sobre todo la historia de Marcos se funde con la de los Apóstoles: Pablo y Bernabé, especialmente, a quienes sigue a Chipre en la primera expedición apostólica (era primo de Bernabé), y que después, tal vez cansado, tal vez atemorizado, al llegar a Perge, en la Panfilia, abandona para volver solo a casa de su madre, en Jerusalén. Pablo quedó dolido, tanto que quiso tenerlo como compañero tres o cuatro años más tarde, en el segundo viaje, a pesar de que Bernabé intercediera; así, Bernabé y Marcos dejaron a Pablo con Silas para navegar hacia Chipre. Pero luego Pablo habrá perdonado a Marcos por su primera infidelidad en los empeños apostólicos, porque en tres ocasiones lo nombra amorosamente en sus cartas. Y de las relaciones entre el apóstol Pedro y Marco, además de las antes citadas, poco sabemos; pero aquí nos basta con hacer nuestra la conclusión de la tradición y de los estudios modernos: el Evangelio de San Marcos es una reproducción escrita de la catequesis narrativa del apóstol Pedro en Roma; refleja, sin objetivos literarios, sino con gran sencillez y vivacidad de detalles, las narraciones de San Pedro sobre sus memorias; su documentación es principalmente, cuando no la única, la palabra misma del Apóstol, reproducida como la relación genuina de un testigo ocular, que conserva la más inmediata impresión sobre Jesús». 

 

La Catedral ortodoxa copta de San Marcos 

 

Es la mayor catedral del África y del Medio Oriente. En realidad, el apelativo de «San Marcos» se refiere a un complejo de edificios religiosos que forman parte de la sede primacial del Patriarcado copto. Entre estas construcciones está, por ejemplo, la pequeña iglesia de San Pedro y San Pablo, en donde el EI, el 11 de diciembre de 2016 (fiesta musulmana del «Mawlid»), perpetró un atentado que provocó la muerte de 25 personas y decenas de heridos. La inauguración de la catedral fue el 25 de junio de 1968, en una ceremonia en la que participaron el presidente egipcio, Gamal Abdel Nasser, y el monarca etíope Haile Selassie. 

 

Los terrenos en los que se encuentra el complejo de San Marcos, fueron concedidos a la Iglesia ortodoxa copta en el año 969 por el general Gawhar, el conquistador del norte de África por cuenta de la dinastía fatimí y fundador de la misma ciudad de El Cairo, además de la mezquita universidad de al Azar. Fue una compensación por los terrenos «decomisados» para construir el Palacio de Ma'ad al-Muizz Li Dinillah, cuarto califa fatimí; el edificio fue una obra colosal que formaba parte de los planes urbanísticos de la nueva capital de Egipto. En el siglo XII, en la zona en la que se encontraban diez iglesias coptas, que fueron destruidas después, durante el reino de Qalawun, el 18 de febrero de 1280. 

 

En la actualidad hay siete iglesias en la zona, entre las que está, además de San Marcos y San Pedro y San Pablo, la famosa iglesia Anba Rouis, construida en el siglo XIV. Su nombre original, San Mourkious, cambió después de que Anba Rouis fuera sepultado en ese lugar en 1404. Miles de personas visitan esta iglesia para pedir la bendición y la intercesión del santo en la actualidad. 

http://www.lastampa.it/2017/04/06/vaticaninsider/es/en-el-mundo/egipto-cuando-pablo-vi-devolvi-a-los-costos-las-reliquias-de-san-marcos-bVNq2lNWIaSaIy5wQzRLGO/pagina.html


First  Previous  2 to 7 of 52  Next   Last 
Reply  Message 2 of 52 on the subject 
From: BARILOCHENSE6999 Sent: 20/02/2018 00:16
Resultado de imagen para hiroshima little boy
 
little boy = pequeño niño (PABLO=PEQUEÑO)
 
6/8/1945-6/8/1978 (33 AÑOS EXACTOS)
 
 
PABLO VI MUERE A LOS 33 AÑOS EXACTOS DE LA BOMBA DE HIROSHIMA (DIA DE LA TRANSFIGURACION EN LA IGLESIA CATOLICA)
 

Pablo VI

De Wikipedia, la enciclopedia libre
 
Saltar a: navegaciónbúsqueda
Venerable Pablo VI
Papa de la Iglesia católica
21 de junio de 19636 de agosto de 1978
Paolovi.jpg
Ordenación 29 de mayo de 1920
por Giacinto Gaggia
Consagración episcopal 12 de diciembre de 1954
por Eugène Tisserant
Proclamación cardenalicia 15 de diciembre de 1958
por el papa Juan XXIII
Secretario Pasquale Macchi
Predecesor San Juan XIII
Sucesor Juan Pablo I
Cardenales creados Véase categoría
 
 
EL PAPA DE LA PRIMERA LLEGADA A LA LUNA
 
NO ES CASUALIDAD QUE EL PAPA JUAN PABLO I FUE EL PAPA DE LOS 33 DIAS

Reply  Message 3 of 52 on the subject 
From: BARILOCHENSE6999 Sent: 22/02/2018 00:00
Resultado de imagen para 22 july apolo 11
 
 
Reply Delete message  Message 5 of 5 on the subject 
From: BARILOCHENSE6999 Sent: 21/02/2018 20:43
NEXO APOLO 11 CON PABLO DE TARSO O SAULO
 
4. 1 Corintios 1:12 Quiero decir, que cada uno de vosotros dice: Yo soy de Pablo; y yo de APOLOs; y yo de Cefas; y yo de Cristo.

5. 1 Corintios 3:4 Porque diciendo el uno: Yo ciertamente soy de Pablo; y el otro: Yo soy de APOLOs, ¿no sois carnales?
NO ES CASUALIDAD QUE EL PAPA PABLO VI FUE ECUMENICO O EL PADRE DEL CONCILIO VATICANO II

 

 
¿EL APOSTOL PABLO "VIAJO EN EL TIEMPO"?

Reply  Message 4 of 52 on the subject 
From: BARILOCHENSE6999 Sent: 22/02/2018 02:43

La verdad sobre María Magdalena: ¿fue una prostituta?

 Miguel Pastorino | May 24, 2017
PD
Maria Magdalena (El Greco)
Comparte 
5k
Comenta
 
 
 
2
 

La Iglesia ya ha superado las confusiones históricas, pero la cultura popular se resiste...

Los evangelios presentan a María Magdalena como una discípula de Jesús, testigo presencial de su muerte en la cruz, y primera testigo de su resurrección.

En los cuatro evangelios hay doce referencias a ella, once de las cuales se vinculan directamente con la pasión y resurrección de Jesús. Sólo Lucas (8, 2-3) agrega el detalle de que “María, llamada la Magdalena” era la mujer a quien Jesús liberó de siete demonios. No se sabe nada más. Tampoco puede afirmarse que haya sido prostituta como se cree comúnmente.

Habiendo gozado del privilegio de ser la primera en contemplar el Resucitado, fue enviada por el mismo Jesús a anunciar a los apóstoles la buena noticia. Puesto que “apóstol” significa “enviado”, puede comprenderse, siguiendo este sentido, que tanto los padres de la Iglesia como Juan Pablo II la nombrasen con el apelativo de “apóstol de los apóstoles”.

La simpatía que recayó sobre María Magdalena, tanto en el cristianismo primitivo, como en el resto de la historia de la Iglesia, se refleja en la cantidad de templos dedicados a ella en Europa.

Entre la historia y la leyenda

Su conocida representación como “prostituta” o “pecadora arrepentida” no fue un plan de los apóstoles para desprestigiarla, como sostienen novelas esotéricas y pseudohistóricas, ya que ningún texto asevera cosa semejante. La errónea identificación con una pecadora arrepentida se originó recién en la Edad Media.

Fue a partir de una homilía de Pascua del papa Gregorio el Grande en el año 591, en la cual confundió a la pecadora arrepentida de Lc. 7,37, con María de Betania (Lc. ), y con María Magdalena de quien Jesús echa siete demonios (Lc 8,1), como si todas ellas fueran la misma mujer.

Muchos todavía confunden a María Magdalena con la pecadora arrepentida que aparece en el capítulo 7 de Lucas. Incluso se la confunde con la mujer adúltera que aparece en el evangelio de Juan (cap. 8), de la que tampoco sabemos su nombre.

A partir de ese momento, el lugar común de una María Magdalena prostituta, confundida con la pecadora arrepentida que aparece en el evangelio de Lucas, se extendió al arte, la predicación y la liturgia.

Sin embargo este error ya fue corregido hace décadas por teólogos católicos y por los últimos papas. En su fiesta litúrgica (22 de julio) se leen las lecturas de la escena junto al sepulcro de Jesús dándole relevancia como discípula enviada a testimoniar la fe en el Resucitado y no el texto sobre la pecadora arrepentida.

Refiriéndose al Papa que cometió este error de interpretación, la historiadora Katherine Ludwig Jansen escribe: “Sería un grueso error de interpretación histórica verlo como una conspiración o un acto malicioso de su parte. Uno debe ver a Gregorio en su contexto, un período caracterizado por intensas dislocaciones: invasiones germánicas, plaga, hambruna… el mundo romano se resquebrajaba bajo sus pies”, una época de gran incertidumbre, donde la figura de María Magdalena fue un icono de esperanza e identificación para los creyentes que pasaban “de pecadores a fieles discípulos”.

Las versiones gnósticas y New Age

A partir de muchas novelas pseudohistóricas y textos gnósticos se vuelve a proponer la versión de una relación “especial” de Jesús con María Magdalena, como si hubiera sido su esposa o su amante.

Pero los evangelios gnósticos, además de no poseer valor histórico sobre el cristianismo y ser muy posteriores a los evangelios canónicos, no hablan de ello más que un sentido simbólico y místico.

Los gnósticos tenían un gran desprecio por la mujer como un ser de segunda categoría frente al hombre y el único evangelio que habla de una relación especial entre Jesús y María Magdalena es el evangelio gnóstico de Felipe, pero lo hace para afirmar doctrinas gnósticas a través de la figura de Jesús.

A muchos lectores incautos les sedujo la idea de encontrarle una novia o esposa a Jesús, pero según las fuentes canónicas está claro que Jesús era célibe y que Magdalena tuvo un lugar destacado como discípula suya.

¿María Magdalena en el sur de Francia?

Es verdad que durante la Edad Media en Francia se creó una importante devoción en torno a la figura de María Magdalena y aparecieron leyendas alusivas a ella. Se construyeron así muchas Iglesias en su honor, aludiendo incluso a una tumba suya en Provenza en el siglo XIII.

La verdad es que no sólo no hay rastros de María Magdalena en Francia antes del siglo IX, sino que fueron puras invenciones.

En esa época surgió la leyenda que describe la llegada a Francia de Lázaro y sus hermanas Marta y María; pero esta María no es Magdalena, sino María de Betania. Con la confusión que las unió desde el siglo VI por la homilía del papa Gregorio en adelante, no es difícil que hayan colocado a María Magdalena dentro de esta leyenda.

Es conocido también el dato de que no hay rastros de cristianismo en esas zonas hasta comienzos del siglo III, razón por la cual ni Lázaro, ni ninguna María habría llegado a este lugar. El San Lázaro que se conoce en Francia es del siglo III y no es el mismo que el que aparece en la Biblia.

Toda la leyenda de María Magdalena en Francia es una construcción medieval que luego alimentó nuevas leyendas. Esto se entiende en un contexto medieval donde ante el avance musulmán muchos inventaron que tenían reliquias de santos para obtener protección y prestigio.

De forma similar, muchas historias sin fundamento se transformaron en Europa en devoción popular con el pasar de los siglos.

María Magdalena y la Iglesia

La Iglesia católica ha dejado de considerar a María Magdalena como una prostituta arrepentida, pero popularmente ha sido más difícil de erradicar esta idea que viene desde la Edad Media. Todavía se la ve así en películas cristianas y en publicaciones catequéticas.

En 1969 el papa Pablo VI retiró del calendario litúrgico el apelativo de “penitente” que se le adjudicaba tradicionalmente a María Magdalena y desde entonces dejaron de emplearse las lecturas de la liturgia de su día que se referían a la pecadora arrepentida y comenzaron a utilizarse los textos que se refieren estrictamente a ella en los evangelios.

Juan Pablo II en la carta Mulieris Dignitatem se refirió a ella como la “apóstol de los apóstoles”, título que ya usaban los padres de la Iglesia en los primeros siglos y la describió como una de esas “mujeres que demostraron ser más fuertes que los apóstoles” en el momento de la crucifixión, permaneciendo al lado de Jesús.

Recientemente, el 10 de junio de 2016, la Santa Sede ha elevado por decreto la memoria de santa María Magdalena a grado de fiesta en el Calendario Romano General.

 
https://es.aleteia.org/2017/05/24/la-verdad-sobre-maria-magdalena-fue-una-prostituta/

Reply  Message 5 of 52 on the subject 
From: BARILOCHENSE6999 Sent: 25/02/2018 01:22

Discursos 1968 Junio


Reply  Message 6 of 52 on the subject 
From: BARILOCHENSE6999 Sent: 01/03/2018 00:42

« Arguments for John Mark as the Beloved Disciple »

Let us assume (and these are reasonable assumptions as we will further explain) these things:

1) that Salome, the mother of John and James, the sons of Zebedee, was the Virgin Mary’s sister — an assumption reached by comparing three verses: Mark 15:40 and Matthew 20:20; 27:56.

2) that John and James, the sons of Zebedee, were not given the names “sons of thunder” to flatter them; but rather because they were hot-tempered (and therefore unlovable) and always jockeying for special favor with Jesus, presumably their cousin by virtue of Mary being Salome’s sister. Indeed, the other disciples are often shown grumbling that John and James persist in asking Jesus if they will find special favor in the world to come.

3) that the apostle John, the son of Zebedee, who is one of two candidates for the writer of the Gospel of John, which by default makes him one of two candidates for the scholarly third-person identifier “the disciple whom Jesus loved,” was a fisherman’s son from Galilee and not a scholar who lived in Jerusalem and knew the high priests Annas and Caiaphas.

4) that Mary Magdalene does not deserve to be identified as “the disciple whom Jesus loved” by virtue of the fact that she is not a man named John, who would have written the Gospel of John, and by virtue of the fact that she is seen in the company of “the other disciple, the one whom Jesus loved” at the empty tomb with Peter.

5) that the home of John Mark and his mother Mary served as the home where the actual last supper took place — and, that this home was located near the Garden of Gethsemane, to which Jesus and Peter, James and John journey immediately following the last supper.

6) that when John and James flee the Garden of Gethsemane upon seeing Judas and the Roman soldiers arrive that they do not later become emboldened and proceed to Golgotha to witness the crucifixion of Jesus.

7) that John Mark of Cyrene knew Simon of Cyrene (as indicated by Mark’s naming of his two sons Rufus and Alexander), who helped to carry Jesus’ cross.

8) that the Virgin Mary would not have wanted to witness the torturous execution of her son Jesus.

9) that John Mark was a scholar, having been trained in Cyrene in north Africa to read and write classical Greek, Latin and Hebrew.

10) that John Mark wrote the Gospel of Mark.

11) that John Mark is the only man named John to be placed near Ephesus, according to a letter written by Paul to Timothy, who at the time was in Ephesus, near Patmos, where the book of the Revelation of Jesus was written by a man named John.

12) that the controversy of which man named John is the writer of the Gospel of John and therefore “the beloved disciple” has been a topic for debate even among laymen since the third century.

13) that Leonardo da Vinci, having had three years to paint The Last Supper (from 1495 to 1498), did not mistakenly leave in his painting a hand holding a dagger without an arm or person attached behind the back of Judas — something which the Da Vinci Code never addresses.


None of these are in any way outrageous assumptions, but quite plausible and already readily accepted by most Bible scholars. If we assume all of these things … we can go through the following vague references to a man named John and a woman named Mary and end up with the identity of the true beloved disciple, the writer of the Gospel of John.

Now let us turn our attention to 19 vague references to people which appear in the gospels of Mark and John. We believe that taking into account these first 12 assumptions above that we can demonstrate that all but two of these references are references to African scholar John Mark. We contend that two of the 19 references are made to John Mark’s mother Mary.

1) “A certain youth” is found in Mark 14:51-52. — These verses along with John 19:25-27 are KEYSTONE verses, in that they are the two passages from the gospels of Mark and John which indicate tampering with the original gospel manuscripts. This Mark passage sticks out like the proverbial sore thumb, because without identifying the “certain youth” and what he was doing in the vicinity of the Garden of Gethsamene it very obviously has nothing to do with the narrative. That is a clue that the original passage was altered by someone who wished to obscure John Mark, whom scholars tend to believe was the “certain youth” anyway.

These unspecific verses about a seemingly unrelated event on the night that Jesus was arrested serve as the keystone upon which all of the vague references in John’s Gospel must be overlaid and considered.

2) “The disciple whom Jesus loved” is found in John 13:23. — This we know is a man named John.

Jesus thought enough of the beloved disciple — and Peter knew it — that Peter should be compelled to nudge John — “the disciple whom Jesus loved” — and ask him to ask Jesus who it would be who would betray Jesus. John had a special relationship with Jesus, which went beyond being a mere disciple. That’s an important point. It is the closeness of the relationship between John and Jesus that has precipitated the use of the vague and obscuring language; in other words, as we shall see the vaguely identified John in subsequent passages, whom we say is John Mark, became necessary to the alterer of the original manuscripts if the alterer was to be successful. Of all of the references to the person who serves as Jesus’ defender, which we shall see next, we would expect these references to be clear, i.e., we would expect the disciple to be named, and he is not.

Peter, as close as he was to Jesus, felt compelled to ask John to ask Jesus who was going to betray Jesus. John clearly had a familial relationship with Jesus — they were that close. It had to be a unique and very special relationship, one based on mutual trust and understanding, how a home boy would feel toward another.

3) “Another disciple” is found in John 18:15. — This is a man who is a scholar, scribe and likely a priest, having been known to the high priests Caiaphas and Annas.

4) “This disciple” is found in John 18:15. — This is a man who is a scholar, scribe and likely a priest.

5) “This other disciple” is found once in John 18:16. — This is a man who is a scholar, scribe and likely a priest.

Why would the person who was willing to go to bat for Jesus be unnamed? Surely this man, whom we say is scholar John Mark, was not just a casual acquaintance of the high priests Caiaphas and Annas. They must have trusted him, otherwise he doesn’t get an audience. And we would have to say that John Mark may have come very close to winning Jesus’ freedom because of what they thought of John Mark. This John (John Mark) lived and worked in Jerusalem. Zebedee’s John was a fisherman from Galilee, as Peter was. If Peter would deny Jesus repeatedly … why would Zebedee’s John do any differently? In fact, Zebedee’s John was nowhere to be found, having fled with his brother James.

Clearly, the unnamed disciple was a special person. But apparently not special enough to be named. Was the unnamed disciple’s name removed? In other words, was John Mark’s name ever used, was it used in the original manuscript? We will probably never know, but a name doesn’t appear here, and it is jarring. Mark 14:51-52 is the keystone: this person is a youth, younger than the other disciples, which John Mark was; the name has apparently been removed in these verses, rendering them nonsensical, irrelevant; then why does this passage appear at all if it seemingly has no bearing on the story? These verses appear as subterfuge: Because if John Mark is not wearing his priestly white linen garment … then he cannot be “the other disciple” who serves as Jesus’ defense counsel. Only a scribe, i.e., attorney could have argued effectively on Jesus’ behalf. John Mark was a scribe. From the second century B.C.E. forward … all Jewish scribes were also priests. So the white linen makes sense. It is the hidden John Mark who is the only person who could play this role. He is the thirteenth disciple.

6) “The other disciple, the one Jesus loved” is found in John 20:2. — This person is with Peter at the empty tomb. This person outruns Peter to the empty tomb. This person is not Mary Magdalene.

This is a very critical reference to the unnamed disciple, because Mary Magdalene is in the same scene with this person, i.e., “the other disciple, the one Jesus loved” — therefore removing any likelihood that Mary Magdalene was herself the beloved disciple. This is a critical passage also because it describes “the other disciple” as outrunning Peter to the empty tomb, something a younger man would be expected to do. But when John Mark got to the empty tomb … he did not go in. He was frightened. That would change. John would become bold and take a second name, a Greek name, Marcus, which some have tried to say means “deformed fingers”; it means “Hammer,” which is a testament to John Mark’s newfound boldness after seeing his friend crucified. John Mark must have been hated, and so he has been obscured.

7) “The other disciple” is found in John 20:3. — This is the same person as the one above.

8) “The other disciple” is found in John 20:4. — Ditto.

9) “The other disciple” is found in John 20:8. — Ditto.

10) “The disciples” is found in John 20:10. — This is Peter and the other disciple above.

11) “Two other disciples” found in John 21:2. — It is uncertain who these two disciples are; but we know they are not the sons of Zebedee, John and James, who are previously named in the same sentence.

This is a critical reference, too — for it distinguishes two unnamed disciples from the two sons of Zebedee, John and James. A pattern by this point has been established: wherever John Mark appears … there are only vague references. “The other disciple” could not have been Zebedee’s John in any of these other instances, so we assume based on previous assumptions that this must be John Mark … and one other person. The second disciple may have been added to confuse us.

12) “The disciple whom Jesus loved” is found in 21:7. — This is the writer of the Gospel of John.

This reference is made in the way that a scholar would use such a reference to identify himself, in the third person. I suspect that those who wanted to obscure John Mark took a cue from this sort of reference and the one in chapter thirteen in John’s Gospel, when John Mark as a scholar refers to himself in the third person. Those who tampered with these other verses took advantage of the ambiguity … to obscure the scholar.

13) “The other disciples” is found in John 21:8. — It is uncertain who these other disciples are.

14) “The disciple whom Jesus loved” is found in 21:20. — This is the writer of the Gospel of John.

15) “This disciple” is found in John 21:23. — This is the writer of the Gospel of John, whom Jesus says will likely not die. This person very likely lives to write the book of the Revelation of Jesus.

This is Jesus’ reply to Peter, who has asked Jesus if one of the disciples, whom we contend is John Mark, will escape martyrdom: “What is it to you if this disciple is not martyred? You worry about yourself.” This in effect is what Jesus says when Peter wants to know if the rumor is true that “this man,” “this disciple,” according to the grapevine, is not going to be martyred. Peter would have never raised the issue within earshot of Zebedee’s John if this person had been Zebedee’s John. And Jesus would never have played favorites, showing favoritism for Zebedee’s John or James over the other disciples. John and James, the sons of Zebedee, were also the sons of Salome, the sister of Jesus’ mother Mary, making John and James Jesus’ cousins. What cousin is beloved? What cousin is chosen over another cousin and called beloved?

16) “This disciple who testifies to these things” is found in John 21:24. — This person is the writer of the Gospel of John.

Here again, John Mark refers to himself in the third person as a scholar would do. Only John Mark is a scholar. I don’t know why other Bible scholars have not consulted the Coptic biography of John Mark written by Pope Shenouda III, the patriarch of the Holy See of St. Mark, but they haven’t (it appears in our “sky links” above under “Biography of St. Mark,” conveniently enough. New Testament commentaries which I have read pertaining to John Mark doubt that he was even the founder of the Coptic church in Alexandria, Egypt. The Coptic biography of John Mark is unequivocal in stating all that John Mark was, and he was a considerable force of early Christianity. The only thing the Copts get wrong has to do with the alleged martyrdom of John Mark, which cannot have occurred. For he lived on to write Revelation. Zebedee’s John, on the other hand, was expecting martyrdom … because Jesus told him and James that they would drink from the same cup as Jesus.

17) “The other Mary” is found in Matthew 28:1. — It is uncertain who this woman is, but note that she is described in the same way as “the other disciple.”

This Mary can be one of many other women named Mary, and there is a passel of them — which is why we should expect a more precise description of just which Mary this is. But it is a vague reference to this Mary, who, very notably, is in the presence of Mary Magdalene, who is already suspect certainly, not being the beloved disciple — and she is not because John Mark, the other disciple who is with her at the empty tomb, is. It is reasonable to assume that Mary, John Mark’s mother, would also be treated obscurely if any woman named Mary would be … for this John and Mary are the actual mother and son who appear at the foot of Jesus’ cross in John 19:25-27.

18) “The other Mary” is found in Matthew 28:61. — Ditto.

When these verses are cross-referenced, laid one on top of the other, with an understanding of motivations and John Mark’s actual background, national and educational, we come out at the distilled end with only one person who fits the criteria in all of these verses. And that is John Mark. It can be no one else. Bible scholars for years have avoided even weighing in on this subject, because it appeared unsolvable.

19) “The disciple whom Jesus loved” and Mary, the mother of Jesus” is found in John 19:25-27.

This famous passage reads as follows: “When Jesus saw his mother there, and the disciple whom he loved standing nearby, he said to his mother, ‘Woman, behold your son,’ and to the disciple, ‘Behold your mother.’ From that hour, this disciple took her into his home.”

Let’s assume the beloved disciple in this instance is John, the son of Zebedee, who fled Gethsemane earlier, abandoning Jesus. In Matthew 13:54-57, we’re presented with the strongest evidence as to why this famous passage in John as it is presently written doesn’t ring true. It reads: “Coming to his hometown, he began teaching the people in their synagogue, and they were amazed. “Where did this man get this wisdom and these miraculous powers?” they asked. “Isn’t this the carpenter’s son? Isn’t his mother’s name Mary, and aren’t his brothers James, Joseph, Simon and Judas? Aren’t all his sisters with us? Where then did this man get all these things?” And they took offense at him. But Jesus said to them, “Only in his hometown and in his own house is a prophet without honor.”

Why would Jesus ask Zebedee’s John, a hot-tempered firebrand against whom the other disciples often grumbled, to take care of his mother Mary, when we know from this passage in Matthew that Jesus had at least four brothers, one of whom being James, who became the head of the church in Jerusalem, and sisters as well? This passage in John is even further made questionable by the possibility that the Virgin Mary was likely the aunt of the apostle John, as we have said, with Mary being the sister of Salome, whose sons were James and John, the sons of Zebedee.

Besides, as we have already stated … once Judas and the Roman soldiers arrive in Gethsemane, James and John, the sons of Zebedee, run for their lives, presumably not to be seen again until the book of Acts, when we learn that James, alas, is martyred, just as Jesus predicted. But what of John? James and John were inseparable. It is highly doubtful that James and John, having been told earlier by Jesus that they would be martyred … it is highly doubtful that they would have suddenly become bold enough to ascend Golgotha and watch Jesus as he was executed. Neither would Peter have been bold enough to ascend to Golgotha. And then of course there is the inescapable fact that John Mark is placed atop Golgotha, having followed as an eye-witness Jesus and Simon of Cyrene (very apparently known to John Mark of Cyrene), who would carry Jesus’ cross.

If the disciple whom Jesus loved in this instance was Zebedee’s John, this passage is odd. It makes sense if John Mark, who is already present at Golgotha, is the disciple whom Jesus loved. What Jesus then appears to be saying when he tells the two to “behold” one another … is not to perceive one another as mother and son anew … but to look after one another in Jesus’ physical absence. And this John Mark does, leaving Paul on the mission field to go home to Jerusalem, which caused the famous rift between Paul and John Mark. You’ll recall that Barnabas, after this fight, sides with John Mark … and they leave for Cyprus. Barnabas was the nephew of Mary, the mother of John Mark. And so Barnabas, too, may well have been an African. We also know that he was wealthy, as John Mark and his mother Mary apparently were.

Let us recap what we’ve said here: This passage, then, along with Mark 14:51-52, is a keystone passage, because it has apparently been tampered with, changing the person Mary, the mother of John Mark, to Mary, the mother of Jesus. John Mark and Mary were Jesus’ benefactors: wealthy Africans and unsung heroes of early Christianity. It is hard to imagine that Jesus’ mother would have wanted to be anywhere near Golgotha to see her son tortured and killed. And, as for John the apostle, he could not possibly be here, neither he nor his James, for they fled and abandoned Jesus in the Garden of Gethsemane; nor is Peter here, he having denied even knowing Jesus. John Mark, as evidenced in Mark 15:21, is the only man named John to be present at Golgotha. And we know this because John Mark in the Gospel of Mark describes Simon of Cyrene, whom John Mark would have known along with Simon’s two sons Rufus and Alexander, because John Mark was himself from Cyrene. Only John Mark witnesses the selection of Simon and accompanies Simon and Jesus to the top of Golgotha.

Granted, we are making some pretty large assumptions here. But we’re being realistic when we say that John Mark was at the cross and Zebedee’s John along with Peter and James very likely were not. The passage makes sense if it is John Mark with his actual mother Mary.

Notably (and interestingly) John Mark is placed at Jesus’ cross despite the statements of Papias that John Mark “neither heard nor accompanied Jesus,” these beliefs of Papias coming on the word of a mysterious man named John, apparently known as Presbyter John.

This explanation makes an odd verse suddenly make sense. Jesus told actual mother and son to “behold” or look out for one another in his physical absence. It is of course possible that John Mark may have been standing with Mary, the mother of Jesus, but if Mary, the mother of Jesus, was John Mark’s aunt … it would make this verse odd. We have to assume that John the apostle never took Jesus’ mother to his home in Galilee to care for her, and so the Virgin Mary would never had gone to Ephesus, as Mary Magdalene is alleged to have done, where both are believed to have lived, died and been buried.

A German nun in 1951 initiated the apparently false rumor that the Virgin Mary lived in Ephesus with John, the son of Zebedee, and died there. But, of course, we have the tomb of the Virgin Mary in Jerusalem to refute that.

It bears noting that if this pair was John the apostle and Mary, the mother of Jesus, verse 27, which indicates they left for the beloved disciple’s home at “that very hour,” would suggest that it would have been very unlikely for John, who lived in Galilee, sixty miles to the north, to make the return trip to Jerusalem to be present at the empty tomb — which offers more validation that our interpretation of these verses is accurate.

FINAL NOTE: The Last Supper, as the painted is interpreted by the Da Vinci Code, we contend perpetrates a lie about the true beloved disciple, John Mark, who actually lived in the home where the actual last supper was held. Recognizing this and recognizing that the patron of The Last Supper was Ludovico Sfroza, a.k.a. “the Moor,” whose “justice,” Leonardo said, “was as black as he himself,” it is at least possible that Ludovico may have known about the biblical controversy over which man named John was the beloved disciple, and that one of them was an African. And we say this because in the painting where there should be a man named John being nudged by Peter there is a woman, whom the Da Vinci Code says is Mary Magdalene. She could be anyone. But is she John? No, we don’t think so, and that is because of the presence of the hand behind Judas’ back with no arm or person attached to it. The painting has obviously to our mind been repainted, and it very likely may have been to paint out Ludovico the Moor’s little joke of including John Mark, the hidden thirteenth disciple about whom we know so little. The painting disintegrated within decades after it was painted, being painted presumably on dry plaster, which would seem to be nothing that the master Leonardo would do in creating a fresco. A fresco is only a fresco if it is painted using wet plaster. The French invasion of Milan in 1499, which sent Ludovico and Leonardo packing, would have given anyone who wished to a chance to repaint the fresco, painting out one John or perhaps two, including John Mark, and also repainting Jesus. It is notable that the figure believed to be Mary Magdalene and Jesus himself are of a lighter pigment and style than the rest of the figures in the painting and their expressions, being demure and detached, do not fit the scene. Are The Last Supper then and the Da Vinci Code part of the coverup, which is like the one which appears in the New Testament gospels to obscure John Mark? And who would be responsible for a coverup going as far back possibly as the first century? Papias’ cryptic statement that “the presbyter John” told him that Mark was not a follower or hearer of Jesus … may be a clue.

The presbyter John of Papias’ day in the second century and/or Prester John, a mythical character about whom fanciful stories were told, are suspicious figures, indeed. But are they both fabrications or are they real? They never found Prester John, and, notably stopped looking for him in the seventeenth century reportedly in Ethiopia. Prester John, an Adamic figure, who was supposed to have been a mystical king and priest overseeing a land rich with gold and exotic animals, may have been subterfuge to convince people that there was nothing resembling Eden to be found in Ethiopia, and science today tells us otherwise.

Race is irrelevant, as God is invisible, spirit, indwelling all things. But as we can conclude from the conclusion we reach, race obviously has been the motivation to hide John Mark, but why? Because he was an African and Jesus’ closest friend? You can draw your own conclusions.

 
http://tanata.squarespace.com/journal/2009/4/15/arguments-for-john-mark-as-the-beloved-disciple.html

Reply  Message 7 of 52 on the subject 
From: BARILOCHENSE6999 Sent: 01/03/2018 02:08

John Mark as the Beloved Disciple

 
A key proponent of the suggestion that John Mark was the beloved disciple is Pierson Parker, “John and John Mark” JBL 79 (1960): 97-110. He makes the following points:
  1. John Mark lived in Jerusalem (Acts 12:12) where the Fourth Gospel concentrates most of the activity of Jesus and the beloved disciple (97).
  2. John Mark was related to a Levite named Barnabas (Colossians 4:10; Acts 4:36) and may have mutilated his fingers to get out of his priestly duties (Mark’s Latin prologue in codex Toletanus). The Fourth Gospel is interested in the temple cult, the beloved disciple knows the high priest in John 18:15, and there is the tradition of Polycrates that “John” wore the priestly vestment (98).
  3. John Mark was a figure of means, befitting a Gospel that does not take as much interest in the poor and the elite circles of the beloved disciple (98).
  4. John Mark could be host of the last supper (98).
  5. John Mark was a companion of Paul and there is Pauline influence in the Fourth Gospel, though in the author’s distinct terminology (98-99).
  6. John Mark was a co-worker of Luke. The distinct agreements between the Gospels of John and Luke, as well as their differing wording and literary contexts, are due to two authors sharing oral traditions when they worked together (99-100).
  7. Just as Paul reconciled with Barnabas and John Mark after their dispute over Gentile “Judaizing” (cf. Acts 15:37-39; Gal 2:7; Col 4:10), the Fourth Gospel sides with the Gentile view of the controversy (100).
  8. John Mark ministered among the diaspora and the Fourth Gospel is the sole one to mention Greek-speaking Jews in the diaspora (John 7:35; cf. 12:20) (101).
  9. John Mark was a companion of Peter (Acts 12:12). The Fourth Gospel goes into the most detail about Peter and the beloved disciple is his constant companion (101).
  10. There is no reason to suppose (John) Mark waited to be Peter’s “interpreter” until late in Peter’s life (cf. Papias) and the Fourth Gospel aligns with Peter’s preaching in Acts (102).
  11. The discrepancy over whether (John) Mark wrote a Gospel after Peter’s death (cf. Irenaeus) or during Peter’s lifetime (cf. Clement of Alexandria) is due to the evangelist adding an addendum (John 21) after Peter died (102-3).
  12. The tradition that John Mark went to Alexandria accords with the Alexandrian theology of the Fourth Gospel (103).
  13. John Mark visited Ephesus, explaining the tradition of the evangelist John in Ephesus (103).

Parker turns to Papias where he points out that (John) Mark’s substandard order may reflect the Fourth Gospel’s departures from the Synoptic tradition based on his personal recollections (104). Against Papias’s statement that (John) Mark was not a witness of Jesus, Parker cites a line from the Muratorian Canon that “he was present at some events” and argues that Papias defended the Fourth Gospel against its detractors (105). Since Papias ascribes the observation about (John) Mark’s lack of order to the Elder John of Ephesus (note: Parker leans towards seeing the tradition that the Apostle John was in Ephesus as mistaken), John Mark and the Elder John must be separate individuals (110). He closes with one more list about the evangelist:

  1. He had a home near Jerusalem in John 19:27 (106).
  2. He was a young man cared for or “loved” by Jesus (106).
  3. His date for Easter was supported by Christians in Ephesus (106).
  4. He stresses eyewitness testimony and could be one of the eyewitness “ministers” of the word (cf. Luke 1:2; Acts 13:5) (106).
  5. He did not rely on written sources besides his memory (106).
  6. The Fourth Gospel took shape after Peter’s death when John Mark was old (106).
  7. The Fourth Gospel has a good grasp of Jewish and Pagan though (106-7).
  8. The Fourth Gospel is similar to Colossians in combating Gnostic ideas.

It could also explain the unanimous tradition that the author of the Gospel was John, even as the various figures named John became confused in the early church (107-8).

This theory coheres with the beloved disciple being an elite Jerusalem follower, but major flaws remain. There is no evidence in the New Testament that John Mark knew Jesus during his lifetime or that the house in Acts 12 was the locale of the last supper and it seems problematic to discern the identity of a character in one text from an entirely separate book (Acts). Papias clearly states that (John) Mark was not a witness like the beloved disciple but a second-hand reporter of Peter, which is why he was not able to get the “order” correct, while the fragmentary line in the Muratorian canon could refer to Peter as the subject. The early church followed Papias in linking Mark or Peter with the second canonical Gospel: Parker is not persuasive in dismissing Justin Martyr (Dialogue 106:3) and, while he notes that Jerome hesitatingly related John Mark of Acts to the second canonical Gospel (Commentary in Philemon 24) (109n.36), 1 Peter 5:13 was the more common proof-text in defending that Gospel’s authorship.



First  Previous  2 a 7 de 52  Next   Last 
Previous subject  Next subject
 
©2024 - Gabitos - All rights reserved