Talk:Healing the ear of a servant

This is a spiritual metaphor
In John 18:9-10, the two conjunctions, "hina" and "oun" lead off the two verses, respectively, correctly rendered from the Greek. They are "That" (subordinate) and "therefore" (continuous). The sword 'cutting' by Peter is metaphorical, as in Hosea 6:1-6, and Zechariah 13:7 -- famously mistranslated as "Strike the Shepherd", when it really is "Strike, O Shepherd". It is a metaphor for transfer of spirit and it pertains not to the arrest of the disciples in John 18, but to the initiation of Malchus, the last disciple of Jesus (unless you count the thief on the cross). "That the word of the Lord be fulfilled, 'Of those whom Thou gavest me I lost not one', [John 17:12]; therefore, Peter, having a sword, drew it and struck the high priest's slave and cut off his right ear." The spiritual metaphor is complete with the realization that it is the Word heard on the 'right' side within in mystic meditation which saves through gnosis -- the inward knowing of oneness with the Master. For reference see "Light on St. John" under "books by the Masters" at website Science of the Soul.org. In Luke, please note that Jesus touches the ear and heals not the ear, but "him". This is enormously significant. The hearing of the mystic Word, or Apophasis Logos (Gospels of Thomas and Judas), repairs the wayward disciple and effects spiritual union (Hosea 6:1-6, "I have slain them by the Words of my mouth").Sahansdal (talk) 04:30, 26 October 2015 (UTC)


 * It seems like you are trying to present one true interpretation of the text. Wikipedia cannot take sides. Also, all information added to articles must be backed up with reliable sources. We should present all notable points of view on an issue. If there is a competing view, which is notable, and can be found in reliable sources, by all means add it to the article. However, we cannot delete other competing notable views, nor can we state which one is the correct view. We must remain neutral in the matter. It seems you want to incorporate information from Gnostic gospels. That is fine, if notable, reliable sources can be cited. However, Gnosticism is not the majority view, and we should not present it as more important than Christianity. We should also present what nonreligious scholarship says on the matter, and the historical view (which I believe is the miracle narrative cannot be traced back earlier than Luke, and is not found in earliest sources, so it cannot be considered historical). In regards to title, one source I've found, "Jesus the Miracle Worker: A Historical and Theological Study" by Graham H. Twelftree, refers to it as "Healing the High Priest's Slave's Ear", though that phrase itself, while found in a few other books, has very little google hits. Googling your phrase, "Healing of the Servant of the High Priest" yields again very little results and some of them include ""Healing of the Servant of the High Priest's ear". Our current title has the most google hits, but that could be biased around the ubiquity of Wikipedia. It does have a few more hits in book searches than the others, but still not a lot. I'm open to a name change, if we can demonstrate sources by majority agree on a specific title. It seems you want to remove the reference to the ear to support your minority POV? Though perhaps dropping reference to the ear would leave the article's title more inclusive to all POVs. Again, let's check sources. -Andrew c [talk] 13:45, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
 * It seems a very common name for this miracle, especially in regards to art, is "The Healing of Malchus's Ear" or "The Healing of the Ear of Malchus". I'm a little concerned that the title is a gospel harmony, in that the healing and the person's name do not appear in the same source... -Andrew c [talk] 13:56, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

The kiss "of Judas" in the Apocalypses of James
This is the most important revelation in the history of mankind. When read correctly, the "betrayal" of Jesus is really the succession of James the Just. In the Nag Hammadi Codex gnostic Apocalypses of James, both First and Second, the protagonist, James, kisses Jesus. Here it is obviously a symbolic transfer of spirit. In context, especially "the flesh is weak", "armed multitudes seizing [archons in NHC, Jesus in the canon]" , "Hail, brother [James the Just in NHC, 'Master' in the canon]" , and "stripped and rising naked [spiritually, Mark 14:51-2]" , this is an orthodox reversal of a gnostic original tradition of Mastership succession. What this reveals is serial Mastership: the world is never without a living Master. Go to www.rssb.org and Science of the Soul.org for more information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sahansdal (talk • contribs) 04:52, 26 October 2015 (UTC)