On Peter's nakedness in John 21

[Melody]

Originally posted by Cyrus of Persia

LOL!

Why should i WANT that?? I just say that it's one of the possibilities. It's same as atheist asking from me why i WANT that the same God i'm worshipping created the world. Can you see the point?

My agenda is to put people like you to THINK, and not to stick with an habit to recieve every tradition without asking questions. And authorship of John is a tradition.

Of course there is no "beloved disciple" in Synoptics!

:doh:

I asked why JOHN is not mentioned in Synoptics in the situations where in John's Gospel "beloved disciple" is mentioned. If you still cant get what i mean, then i cannot help it :help:

Because it was not essential to their message. Matthew is the only one who tells us of the wise men from the east. Just because there is no collaboration in the other synoptics does not mean they weren't there.

As I posted before, all the other gospels spend only one chapter on the crucifixtion, whereas, John takes several chapters and goes into greater detail than any of the others indicating a more personal eyewitness account verifying that he was there personally while the others obtained their information secondhand probably from the women that they all mention. For example only one gospel mentions Salome by name.

 

[Cyrus of Persia]

Originally posted by Melody

Because it was not essential to their message. Matthew is the only one who tells us of the wise men from the east. Just because there is no collaboration in the other synoptics does not mean they weren't there.

Ok, i can agree with that. But how do we know who the beloved disciple was if there is no hint who he/she was in Synoptics, nor in Gospel of John? We cannot know who he/she was with 100% certainity.

As I posted before, all the other gospels spend only one chapter on the crucifixtion, whereas, John takes several chapters and goes into greater detail than any of the others indicating a more personal eyewitness account verifying that he was there personally while the others obtained their information secondhand probably from the women that they all mention. For example only one gospel mentions Salome by name.

About John being eyewitness, read again the P.S. part of my message #9. But to make it shortly again:

You take the TRADITION that John was the writer as ASSUMPTION and you see the Gospel through with your biased glasses. There is no hint nor in Synoptics, not in the Forth Gospel that John was the actual writer of it.

If you can show me ANY hint clearly written in the Bible that John wrote the Gospel, it would give some credit to your assumption. So far we got no facts, only myths talked by some church fathers at the end of second century.

 

[Turbo]

Cyrus,

There is evidence that "the disciple whom Jesus loved" is male, and he identifies himself as the author of that Gospel.

Do you believe that the different references to an unnamed disciple "whom Jesus loved" are not all referring to the same individual? That was the impression I got from post 9.

I mentioned on another thread one piece of evidence that the apostle John wrote John. While the other three Gospels always refer to John the Baptist as "John the Baptist," in John he is simply called John. There was no need for John the apostle to specify which "John" he was talking about.

I have two friends/coworkers named Doug. If I'm talking about one of them to my wife, I call them by their last name, or by their first and last name. I have to make it clear which Doug I'm talking about.

But if one of the Dougs is talking to me or my wife about the other Doug, he simply calls him "Doug" without worrying that we might not know who he is talking about.

 

[Cyrus of Persia]

Originally posted by Turbo

There is evidence that "the disciple whom Jesus loved" is male, and he identifies himself as the author of that Gospel.

What evidence besides Jesus saying to His mother: "This is your SON"? This saying was already discussed somewhere i think, that it actually doesnt solve the puzzle was this "son" male, or female.

Do you believe that the different references to an unnamed disciple "whom Jesus loved" are not all referring to the same individual? That was the impression I got from post 9.

It can be one possibility, yes.

I mentioned on another thread one piece of evidence that the apostle John wrote John. While the other three Gospels always refer to John the Baptist as "John the Baptist," in John he is simply called John. There was no need for John the apostle to specify which "John" he was talking about.

It's the first sound argument i hear what is supporting John's authorship. Althought it's not strong argument. Let me explain...

True, "John the Baptist" is very commonly used in Synoptics. But it's mostly used as quote what someone said. Like when his disciples come to Jesus they say: "John the Baptist sent us". It's not description, it's quotation what someone said about someone. Actually you can find that gospel writers use the name "John the Baptist" when referring to him ONLY twice:

Matt 3:1 and Mark 1:4.

That's why it is argument, but not very strong one IMO.


But thanks anyway for your reply. At least we moved one step on and found at least some hints that give some credit to John too

Now we only need to make sure was he related to Jew priests, because no male disciple could be near the cross of Jesus unless he should have been in good relationships with priests.

 

[Melody]

Originally posted by Cyrus of Persia



Now we only need to make sure was he related to Jew priests, because no male disciple could be near the cross of Jesus unless he should have been in good relationships with priests.

And what do you base this "assumption" on?

 

[Cyrus of Persia]

Originally posted by Melody

And what do you base this "assumption" on?

Because they would have been caught by Jew Leaders if they would dared to "get too close".

You see them running away when Jesus was captured. Only Peter is following him at some distance. You also see one anonymous disciple going with Jesus when He was captured and letting Peter "in" after talking with servant of chief priest. Maybe he/she was "the beloved disciple"? We dunno. What we can be pretty sure that he/she was in good relations with priests.

We see same thing under the cross. Why no male disciples we know of arent there? Why were they afraid?
And if there was ONE male disciple, he should been known by priests, because he was not arrested.

 

[Melody]

Originally posted by Cyrus of Persia

Because they would have been caught by Jew Leaders if they would dared to "get too close".

You see them running away when Jesus was captured. Only Peter is following him at some distance. You also see one anonymous disciple going with Jesus when He was captured and letting Peter "in" after talking with servant of chief priest. Maybe he/she was "the beloved disciple"? We dunno. What we can be pretty sure that he/she was in good relations with priests.

We see same thing under the cross. Why no male disciples we know of arent there? Why were they afraid?
And if there was ONE male disciple, he should been known by priests, because he was not arrested.

The disciples ran because of their own fear, not because anyone was chasing them. If they had truly been in danger of arrest Peter would have been arrested the first time the servant identified him as a follower of Jesus in the courtyard.
And we know that there was "one" disciple there because Jesus referred to him as Son and placed his mother under "his" care.

The priests could have cared less about Jesus' disciples at this point, they thought that they had cut off the head and the body would die of it's own entropy. They were too busy basking in their own glory to worry about one insignificant fisherman.

It is more probable that they welcomed the witness of one of Jesus' followers to his demise.

 

[jaguar_prince]

Originally posted by Melody

Jhn 13:23 Now there was leaning on Jesus' bosom one of his disciples, whom Jesus loved.
Jhn 13:24 Simon Peter therefore beckoned to him, that he should ask who it should be of whom he spake.
Jhn 13:25 He then lying on Jesus' breast saith unto him, Lord, who is it?
Jhn 13:26 Jesus answered, He it is, to whom I shall give a sop, when I have dipped [it]. And when he had dipped the sop, he gave [it] to Judas Iscariot, [the son] of Simon.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Come on now, do you really think that John was not at the last supper? And the masculine gender is used several times. Also there is no indications that any women were there.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Jhn 19:26 When Jesus therefore saw his mother, and the disciple standing by, whom he loved, he saith unto his mother, Woman, behold thy son!
Jhn 19:27 Then saith he to the disciple, Behold thy mother! And from that hour that disciple took her unto his own [home].
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Again, masculine gender.
John has written more details concerning the passion week than any of the others, indicating a more personal "eye witness" experience.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Jhn 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.
Jhn 20:2 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.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Now, Mary Magdelene is coming to tell Peter and "herself"?

This disciple is indicated again and again as male gender.

Jhn 21:7 Therefore that disciple whom Jesus loved saith unto Peter, It is the Lord. Now when Simon Peter heard that it was the Lord, he girt [his] fisher's coat [unto him], (for he was naked,) and did cast himself into the sea.

Which makes more sense, John on the boat with a bunch of naked men or Mary.



Again and again the masculine gender is noted.


Jhn 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?
Jhn 21:21 Peter seeing him saith to Jesus, Lord, and what [shall] this man [do]?
Jhn 21:22 Jesus saith unto him, If I will that he tarry till I come, what [is that] to thee? follow thou me.
Jhn 21:23 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?
Jhn 21:24 This is the disciple which testifieth of these things, and wrote these things: and we know that his testimony is true.


These are the five times the disciple whom Jesus loved is mentioned.


The only time this expression is used in the gospel is in the Book of John. And this detail of Jesus indicating Judas as the one who would betrayed him is also unique to John's gospel indicating his personal knowledge.

John 21:24 tells us that John himself is this loved disciple because he wrote these things.

We have explained several times that in some Church circles it was current to consider as honorary males women that had reached a high level of spirituality. So the use of masculine pronouns cannot be regarded as proof that the "beloved" disciple was not a wo-man.

The passage under the cross shows clearly that only women are present.

On the day of the resurrection Mary the Magdalene went to fetch Peter and the OTHER disciple whom Jesus loved (as a relative or friend: the Greek verb is NOT the same!!!). There are TWO disciples whom Jesus loved.

But he loved them differently. One he "egapa", the other he "ephilei". In the dialogue between Peter and Jesus in the last chapter of "John", Jesus first uses "agapas me" two times and then switches to "phileis me". "Agapo" means "I love with brotherly or divine love" whereas "philo" means "I like" or "I love" but this love is for own's own blood (parents and relatives).

Naked men on a fishing boat? Naturism in AD 33 ? Obviously you have never been on a fishing boat.

I have indicated that "gumnos"(naked) is not to be interpreted literally: the men on board the ship wore light undergarments. Women in Palestine worked very hard in the fields and at home. There is no reason to suppose that they would not have accompanied Peter and the other male disciples to help them with their work.

 

[jaguar_prince]

Originally posted by Turbo

Cyrus,

There is evidence that "the disciple whom Jesus loved" is male, and he identifies himself as the author of that Gospel.

What is this evidence you are talking about? I know nothing of it.

Do you believe that the different references to an unnamed disciple "whom Jesus loved" are not all referring to the same individual? That was the impression I got from post 9.

Yes. The author of the Gospel of John says "the OTHER disciple whom Jesus loved (as a friend or relative)". If there is another disciple, there must be two of them. Notice that the first one is loved with spiritual love: "egapa" from "agapao" while the other is loved with "philia". The English translation masks this very important linguistic feature. Greek had several words for the single verb "to love" in English.

I mentioned on another thread one piece of evidence that the apostle John wrote John. While the other three Gospels always refer to John the Baptist as "John the Baptist," in John he is simply called John. There was no need for John the apostle to specify which "John" he was talking about.

So what? Exodus mentions Moses by name. Does that mean that he is the author of it?

John is simply called John because he has been introduced in the other Gospels (Mark and Matthew) as one of the sons of Zebedee. The sons of Zebedee are mentioned in John 21,2.

 

[Melody]

Originally posted by jaguar_prince

We have explained several times that in some Church circles it was current to consider as honorary males women that had reached a high level of spirituality. So the use of masculine pronouns cannot be regarded as proof that the "beloved" disciple was not a wo-man.

You show me ONE time in the scriptures where Jesus referred to a woman in the male gender.

Just because the other gospels did not mention him does not mean that John was not there.

 

[Cyrus of Persia]

Originally posted by Melody

The disciples ran because of their own fear, not because anyone was chasing them. If they had truly been in danger of arrest Peter would have been arrested the first time the servant identified him as a follower of Jesus in the courtyard.
And we know that there was "one" disciple there because Jesus referred to him as Son and placed his mother under "his" care.

Why should they be so afraid if no real punishment would not awaited them? Peter kept denying, and he was talking with a girl, not with any leader. If he would talked with some leader, maybe they would be more suspicious. But Peter kept denying out of fear even to the girl.

If there was one bold fisherman under the cross then why no synoptic doesnt name him to give him credit for his boldness?

 

[Melody]

One of them did, John.

 

[Cyrus of Persia]

Originally posted by Melody

One of them did, John.

Synoptics are Matthew, Mark and Luke.

The author of fourth gospel doesnt mention himself by name "John"

We are in the beginning again. Do you really want to go over it again? Or we just finish it here as you got no more arguments for John favour? If your life would be brighter knowing that John was the writer of Fourth Gospel, i can offer you this joy. Besides, it's also joyful to know that Santa Claus is real and comes every Christmas with nice presents :chuckle:

 

[Melody]

And you have yet to provide ONE scripture where is a woman is referred to with a male pronoun.

Quote
We have explained several times that in some Church circles it was current to consider as honorary males women that had reached a high level of spirituality. So the use of masculine pronouns cannot be regarded as proof that the "beloved" disciple was not a wo-man.


And in some Church circles it is current to ordain practicing homosexuals but that doesn't make it correct. This point is invalid. Scripture interprets scripture, not "Church" circles.

 

[jaguar_prince]

My answer to that is that there is an oral tradition besides the written tradition. Not everything is found in scripture.

There are abundant testimonies to spiritual transgender in the Church fathers. Gregory of Nyssa is one of them. He says that females need to become "males" in order to be saved.

Anyway, there was also the overriding need to conceal the feminity of the beloved disciple because the Paulinian Church taught that women could not be teachers.

How do you explain John 19,25? Do what you will, there were only females under the cross.

If you don't believe that there is a parallel oral tradition in Christianity and in all religions, read the dialogue between Jesus and Nicodemus:

"-Nicodemus, noone can see the Kingdom of God unless he is born again
-What? How shall an old man like me go back into his mother's womb?
-Again I tell you: unless one is reborn from water and spirit, one cannot see the Kingdom of God.
-How is that possible? I...I don't get it
-Nicodemus, you are a priest in Israel and you don't know all this?"

Now ask yourself why Jesus complained about Nicodemus'ignorance. The fact is rebirth from water and spirit is not mentioned in the law and the prophets (the OT). So how could Jesus expect Nicodemus to know about this essential truth?

Answer: because there was an oral tradition besides the scrolls of paper.

What Jesus apparently didn't know is that Nicodemus, although he was a priest, had had no access to this mystical tradition. Maybe it was even lost to the priestly class.

 

[Cyrus of Persia]

Few more comments: There are some verses in Gospel of Thomas where Jesus is speaking about making the male and female the same. In one verse He is speaking that He makes M.M. into male, because Peter was complaining that women should not be with them.

Paul (maybe influenced by those sayings of Jesus) tells us that in Christ there is no male, nor female, but all are one.

As we "play" with different possibilties of authorship of Fourth Gospel, M.M. can be one POSSIBILITY. I have heard hypotesis that Thomas could be the "beloved disciple". It fits better into another view on Paul. Actually it's highly possible, that Paul was not against women teaching in Church. It is He who says that when woman prophecies she should cover Her head. How could a woman prophecy if she cannot speak at all in the Church??

Besides in the last chapter of Romans there are mentioned many women who helped him in his ministry (also some most probably female apostles mentioned).

When Paul speaks that women should not teach men, nor rule over them he is speaking to specific situation the addressate church was encountering. Probably there were women who loved to speak nonsense and spread confusion. He is not speaking it as general rule.

In 1 Cor we see him debating with people who told that women should not speak in the Church. He is asking from those heretics who claim that: WHAT?! Has the word of God came only from you??

It's one possibility to see that at least Pauline churches appreciated the role of woman in active church work during first century. Later the position of women grew worser.

 

[Aimiel]

Nudity is Not Public, but Occurs in Many Scriptures

Nudity is Not Public, but Occurs in Many Scriptures

I believe that if you read where Jesus washed the disciples' feet, He was naked. I can't see drying someone's feet with a towell that one is wearing. He took off His clothes to expose Himself completely. He was portraying what they needed to see. He was humbling Himself, which they would have to do. They could also see that they were to expect nothing to be covered, meaning their every secret would be exposed. I also beleive that The Father revealed Himself, and that, one day, when The Holy Spirit reveals Himself, that The Mystery of God shall be finished.

 

[Cyrus of Persia]

Re: Nudity is Not Public, but Occurs in Many Scriptures

Re: Nudity is Not Public, but Occurs in Many Scriptures

Aimiel,

Excellent post! :thumb:

I havent read anything like that before (even didnt noticed that Jesus was naked when washing their feet).

It reminded me similar verse in Gospel of Thomas:

"37 His disciples said, "When will you appear to us, and when will we see you?"

Jesus said, "When you strip without being ashamed, and you take your clothes and put them under your feet like little children and trample then, then [you] will see the son of the living one and you will not be afraid.""

 

[Melody]

Re: Re: Nudity is Not Public, but Occurs in Many Scriptures

Re: Re: Nudity is Not Public, but Occurs in Many Scriptures

Originally posted by Cyrus of Persia

Aimiel,

Excellent post! :thumb:

I havent read anything like that before (even didnt noticed that Jesus was naked when washing their feet).

It reminded me similar verse in Gospel of Thomas:

"37 His disciples said, "When will you appear to us, and when will we see you?"

Jesus said, "When you strip without being ashamed, and you take your clothes and put them under your feet like little children and trample then, then [you] will see the son of the living one and you will not be afraid.""

If this is the kind of nonsense proclaimed in the "Gospel of Thomas" it is no wonder it is not included in the accepted scriptures.

 

[jaguar_prince]

Originally posted by Cyrus of Persia

Few more comments: There are some verses in Gospel of Thomas where Jesus is speaking about making the male and female the same. In one verse He is speaking that He makes M.M. into male, because Peter was complaining that women should not be with them.

Paul (maybe influenced by those sayings of Jesus) tells us that in Christ there is no male, nor female, but all are one.

As we "play" with different possibilties of authorship of Fourth Gospel, M.M. can be one POSSIBILITY. I have heard hypotesis that Thomas could be the "beloved disciple". It fits better into another view on Paul. Actually it's highly possible, that Paul was not against women teaching in Church. It is He who says that when woman prophecies she should cover Her head. How could a woman prophecy if she cannot speak at all in the Church??

Besides in the last chapter of Romans there are mentioned many women who helped him in his ministry (also some most probably female apostles mentioned).

When Paul speaks that women should not teach men, nor rule over them he is speaking to specific situation the addressate church was encountering. Probably there were women who loved to speak nonsense and spread confusion. He is not speaking it as general rule.

In 1 Cor we see him debating with people who told that women should not speak in the Church. He is asking from those heretics who claim that: WHAT?! Has the word of God came only from you??

It's one possibility to see that at least Pauline churches appreciated the role of woman in active church work during first century. Later the position of women grew worser.

I would really like to believe you when you say that Paul may not have been as anti-women as some people make him out to be but what he says about not letting women teach men is supported by an argument that makes it clear that this was not a temporary arrangement.

This argument, which is completely grotesque, is that because Eve deceived Adam, women are inherently unfit for the ministry of teaching Christian doctrine.

There are several problems with this argument

-Eve was not called Eve when she deceived Adam
-Mary contributed positively to the Incarnation showing obedience where the wo-man had shown disobedience
-If Adam was deceived by an inferior creature like the Wo-man (she did not use hypnosis or any magical tricks), it follows logically that males are inferior to women. They should be the ones that have to wear a veil on their head
- If women are inherently deceitful, why let them make prophecies?