#john's gospel

[theinwardlight]

Artwork: ‘Jesus on the Tube’ by Antonio Rolls

Text: from “Friendship with the Beloved Disciple as Type in a Theology of Friendship” by Jonathan Sammut

[lavideenrose]

I am in favor of John and his “In the beginning was the Word,” but it is an enigmatic beginning. It means the following: for the average Joe—for this carnal being, this repugnant personage—the drama begins only when the Word is involved, when it is incarnated, as the true religion says. It is when the Word is incarnated that things really start going badly. Man is no longer at all happy, he no longer resembles at all a little dog who wags his tail or a nice monkey who masturbates. He no longer resembles anything. He is ravaged by the Word.

From The Triumph of Religion by Jacques Lacan (quoted in ‘Jacques Lacan's Benedict Option’ by Chase Padusniak)

[nyuiarantes]

A short comic based on a passage in Acts of John, an apocryphal christian writing from the second century CE. I really enjoy the way it's written as a first person account of the travels of Saint John, it's very lovely:

113 O thou who hast kept me until this hour for thyself and untouched by union with a woman: who when in my youth I desired to marry didst appear unto me and say to me: John I have need of thee: who didst prepare for me also a sickness of the body: who when for the third time I would marry didst forthwith prevent me, and then at the third hour of the day saidst unto me on the sea: John, if thou hadst not been mine, I would have suffered thee to marry: who for two years didst blind me, and grant me to mourn and entreat thee: who in the third year didst open the eyes of my mind and also grant me my visible eyes: who when I saw clearly didst ordain that it should be grievous to me to look upon a woman[...] who didst make my love of thee spotless: who didst make my joining unto thee perfect and unbroken: who didst give me undoubting faith in thee, who didst order and make clear my inclination toward thee[...]

[godslove]

[thefugitivesaint]

Evelyn De Morgan (1855-1919), 'The Light Shineth in Darkness and the Darkness Comprehendeth It Not, no date "De Morgan derived her inspiration for this drawing from the Gospel of St John, Chapter 1 Verse 5. This follows the story of creation and the emergence of God from nothingness, reflecting on the triumph of light against darkness. Christian doctrine is clearly present in many of De Morgan's works, and several of her paintings employ biblical titles and themes. From around 1910 her paintings show a shift into the use of more ambiguous spiritual imagery. De Morgan's mother-in-law, Sophia De Morgan, was a Spiritualist who had a profound influence on the artist's personal beliefs and style; particularly in her later career.

This drawing shows a heavenly figure of light exquisitely rendered in a blaze of gold. She is holding a lamp in her left hand, whilst showing the sign of benediction in her right. Rays of light radiate out to fill the whole composition, brightening the dark landscape and illuminating snakes and reptiles who lurk below in the gloom. This work relates to De Morgan's 1895 oil painting Lux in Tenebris…whose title also derives from the Gospel of St John. In Lux in Tenebris, the heavenly central figure is dressed elaborately in gold and holds a laurel branch, whilst two crocodiles circle below. In 1906 De Morgan also painted another oil titled The light shineth in the darkness…featuring a similar composition, but instead of reptiles at the angel's feet there lie three naked figures, shackled to rocks and blinded by despair. Though De Morgan exhibited and was known as an oil painter, she used gold drawing on dark paper throughout her career. There are fourteen known works in this medium. The contrast between the black paper and gold paint makes these jewel-like pictures singular within her oeuvre." Source

[artandthebible]

Christ and St Mary Magdalen at the Tomb

Artist: Rembrandt van Rijn (Dutch, 1606-1669)

Date: 1638

Medium: Oil on Panel

Collection: Royal Collection Trust, United Kingdom

Description

Christ and St Mary Magdalene at the Tomb reveals how imaginatively Rembrandt could interpret traditional religious subject-matter. The scriptural source for this scene is the Gospel of St John (20:11-18), who describes in some detail the burial and subsequent resurrection of Christ following the Crucifixion. Mary Magdalene returns to the tomb early the next morning, only to find the stone at the entrance removed and two angels inside it where the body should have been. She then fetches two of the disciples, who check that the tomb is empty and then leave her. The angels then ask Mary Magdalene, ‘Woman, why weepest thou?’ and she replies, ‘Because they have taken away my Lord, and I know not where they have laid him.’ At that moment she turns round and sees a man dressed as a gardener, not appreciating that he is the resurrected Christ. She appeals to him for information, but he calls her by her name and she instantly recognises him. (‘Jesus saith unto her, Mary. She turned herself, and saith unto him, Rabboni; which is to say master.’) Rembrandt has depicted the moment of realisation just before the actual recognition. Most artists chose to paint the next moment in the text, when Mary Magdalene reaches out towards Jesus and he forestalls her with the words ‘Touch me not’ (in Latin, Noli me tangere).

Rembrandt skilfully evokes the dawn as the opalescent light picks out from the darkness the towers of the Temple of Jerusalem, the upper half of the figure of Christ, the face of Mary Magdalene, and the outline of one of the angels in the tomb. This use of light is almost symbolic in both the physical and the spiritual senses. The paint is in general thinly applied and, apart from the treatment of the light and the vegetation around the tomb referring to Christ’s activities as a gardener, could almost be described as monochrome. It is only after a time that the eye focuses on the two female figures (the Gospels of St Mark and St Luke refer to three Maries at the tomb) in the middle distance on the left descending the hill.

Of particular note is the positioning of Christ, who in the relationship established between his partially silhouetted vertical form and the Temple of Jerusalem behind and the rocky cave next to him dominates the composition, whereas the twisting pose of Mary Magdalene is the pivot. The tension created between Christ’s standing figure and the twisting kneeling Mary Magdalene is palpable. The artist’s only other treatment of the subject of Christ and Mary Magdalene is in Brunswick (Herzog Anton Ulrich Museum): it is dated 1651 and is totally different in composition.

[illustratus]

The Last Chapter by James Doyle Penrose

[idylls-of-the-divine-romance]

"The Hellenistic influence on John" this and "the Hellenistic influence on John" that. What about the Jewish influence on the Gospel of John??? What about the fact that John 1 describes Jesus with references to Lady Wisdom? What about the same chapter describing Jesus as both the Tabernacle and the Light that fills it? What about Jesus as a "Greater than Moses" who turns water into wine instead of blood? What about Jesus entering into the temple on Hanukkah and declaring himself to be the light of the world, as well as claiming to be God made maniphest? What about the constant harkening back to Jesus being Yahweh, the God of the Jews?

We cannot erase/be ignorant of the Jewish influence of the Scriptures and then be shocked when people complain of antisemitism

[tomicscomics]

04/09/2023

Peter has a breakdown.

___

JOKE-OGRAPHY: In John's Gospel, John refers to himself as "the disciple whom Jesus loved", which makes it sound like Jesus didn't love the others.  I doubt that implication is intended, but I can't help characterizing him as a bit full of himself because of it.  In the story this is based on, John talks about him and Peter running to Jesus's tomb.  He makes sure to mention he got there before Peter, but that he let Peter go in first, so he's more athletic than (but still very courteous to) his crusty elders.  The story sounds like John is bragging or subtly insulting Peter for being slow, so in this cartoon, I've dialed those implications up to 11.  Perhaps this is an earlier draft of John's Gospel... before Peter gave him an editorial review.

[avengers-21]

today’s verse ✨

“We love him, because he first loved us.”

‭‭1 John‬ ‭4‬:‭19‬ ‭KJV‬‬

[theinwardlight]

From Paul Anderson, Following Jesus

[flickeringflame216]

blessings roll call! add on in the tags if you so wish <3

[apenitentialprayer]

hi, this is a legitimate question, I'm not trying to start any kind of argument or debate. Where does the idea in Catholicism that the Virgin Mary was free from sin come from? Again, I'm merely asking for informational purposes, not to start anything.

Okay, lets hit this real quick.

The sinlessness of Mary was a majority, but not unanimous, opinion of the orthodox Christian community by the late fourth century. Saint Augustine can confidently say that out of all the saints, she is the only one who did not sin; as does his teacher, Saint Ambrose. Maximus of Turin likewise takes this position, but instead of talking about her lack of sinfulness, he focuses on a positive formula: she has "original grace." The Syriac Fathers, of whom Ephraem of Edessa is probably the most well known, also love, love, love drawing parallels between Mary and Eve, as well as giving her titles like "all-pure" and "most-holy."

(Lest anyone think this is a post-Nicene development in Christian theology, Hippolytus of Rome also taught that Mary was free from corruption. This is especially interesting, because Hippolytus is said to be a student of Saint Irenaeus, who could trace his teaching back to Saint John the Apostle).

But by the Middle Ages, all that was universally agreed on was that Mary was never personally responsible for committing a sin; there was a question of whether she was still under the effects of Original Sin. It was an 11th Century English theologian who first formulaically proposed the idea that Mary was free from sin from the moment of her creation; he said it was possible, it was fitting, and so God did it. (Notice that this argument expressly does not argue that Mary had to be immaculate in order to give birth to the Savior). It wasn't until Franciscan theologian Blessed Duns Scotus took up the cause that it became the controversy that it did. Duns Scotus (who, it should be noted, was also the major proponent for the absolute primacy of Christ in the Middle Ages) provided arguments from Scripture, tradition, and reason to argue in favor of the Immaculate Conception.

That being said, Mary's Immaculate Conception remained a pious opinion for a long time; even the Council of Trent, which affirms the Virgin Mary's freedom from personal sin, only suggests Mary may have been exempt from Original Sin. It is not until 1854 that the Catholic Church elevated the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception to dogma and formally defined what that doctrine meant.

As I said, this is a very, very fast overview; if you want a Scriptural reference, I would suggest Luke 1:28, in which Mary is referred by the Archangel Gabriel not by name, but by a title: κεχαριτωμένη, or Kecharitōmenē, translated as "Favored One" or "Full of Grace." This word, which is unique in Greek literature to Luke, indicates that Mary is some sort of beneficiary of God, and (as Fr. Charles Grondin says) is an identity; it's connected to her personhood.

[godslove]

[lionofchaeronea]

Woman at the Well, Carl Heinrich Bloch (1834-1890)

[soaringeaglesingingjoy]

John 14:21

‭John 14:21 NLT‬

[21] Those who accept my commandments and obey them are the ones who love me. And because they love me, my Father will love them. And I will love them and reveal myself to each of them.”

https://bible.com/bible/116/jhn.14.21.NLT