On Peter's nakedness in John 21

[jaguar_prince]

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

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

Originally posted by Aimiel

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.

Is that supposed to be an indirect argument against the feminity of the beloved disciple?

It is perfectly plausible that he was still wearing some light undergarment when he washed the disciple's feet.

The text ("John" 13) does not say that he ungirded himself. The text says: he girded himself and washed the feet of the disciples with the towel "wherewith he was girded".

Apparently the author was very anxious to avoid any misunderstanding: Jesus was not stark naked. That might be a hint that a woman or several women were present.

The Gospel does not say that he was "gumnos"(English gymnastics), the Greek word for "naked". And even "gumnos" can not always be interpreted as "completely naked".

Even if he was indeed completely naked, how does that preclude the presence of the beloved disciple?

I don't consider it likely that Jesus was a Victorian Puritan. If the love between Jesus and Mary the Magdalene was spiritual, there was no reason whatsoever for him not to show himself naked to her.

Do I need to remind you that he was stark naked on the cross and that nonetheless a whole crowd of women were there?

 

[jaguar_prince]

I have noticed an anomaly: "John" in chapter 13 tells us that the washing of the feet of the disciples happened AFTER supper had ended and that at that moment Satan had already put into Judas' heart to betray Jesus (verse 2).

But verse 27 makes it clear that it is only when Jesus gave Judas a piece of bread that Satan entered his heart. So the words "one of you shall betray me" and the question of the beloved disciple concerning the identity of the traitor (verse 25), although they appear after the washing of the feet, must have been pronounced BEFORE the washing of the feet.


I'm lost...

 

[Lighthouse]

The verse in John 21 clearly proves that the "disciple whom Jesus loved" was not a woman. And the greek does not use eros for that phrase, therefore the love was nothing more than platonic. So why would anyone argue so vehemently that it was a woman?

 

[Cyrus of Persia]

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

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

Originally posted by Melody

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.

I'll might reply to it when Fellowship Week ends :shut:

 

[Cyrus of Persia]

Originally posted by jaguar_prince

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?

I agree that this pastoral letter is confusing. Some people date it to the beginning of second century (so it's not authentical letter of Paul). Some date it earlier. If Paul really happens to be it's author, then maybe his understandings about women are already bit "developed". Or as it's personal letter than he uses some arguments against those specific women, but supports them with emotional arguments, not rational ones.

Knowing Paul we cannot exclude emotional arguments out of his personal letters.