PDA

View Full Version : On Peter's nakedness in John 21



jaguar_prince
April 12th, 2004, 01:03 AM
In a previous post I suggested that Mary the Magdalene (Magdalene is a title not a name!) may have been Jesus' beloved disciple.

A careful and intelligent poster objected among other things that since in John 21 Peter takes off his clothes when the disciple whom Jesus loved recognizes the mysterious figure on the shore as the Lord and nakedness was taboo among Jews, the beloved disciple could not have been a woman. For Peter to appear as the Man (adam) before the Fall would have been to unseemly...

At first I found this a sterling counterargument and I dropped my theory in utter confusion but having reflected on it again during the week-end I no longer think that this "Victorianl" argument is as good as it sounds.

Why?

Well, because there is a famous example in the Bible in which a king-and not an ordinary one but the most famous king in the Bible- put off his clothes and danced naked before Mose's arch and ALL his people.

So in exceptional circumstances, nakedness was no longer considered shameful.

Considering Peter's impetuousness and the identity of the man on the shore( is He not much more than Moses's arch?), is it too much to say that Peter could have put aside conventional decency in order to reach his beloved master more quicky?

If we choose to read this passage symbolically and mystically, we may also say that in this episode we see the disciple who was to become the pillar of the Church recovering the candor of our protoparents before the Fall...

Any thoughts on that?

Lighthouse
April 12th, 2004, 01:21 AM
The verse says that Peter put his clothes back on, before swimming to Jesus. It says he was naked, while he worked. Which is when there would be no woman there.

Melody
April 12th, 2004, 01:29 AM
John, the brother of James is the beloved disciple. It is in his humbleness that he didn't write his own name in his gospel. Just as Mark did not tell us that it was himself in his gospel.

As for David, he was not naked in the sense that we think of as nakedness, he was dressed in an ephod, (breeches).

2Sa 6:14 And David danced before the LORD with all [his] might; and David [was] girded with a linen ephod.

He was uncovered in Michal's viewpoint because he had put aside his royal garments to honor God.

jaguar_prince
April 12th, 2004, 03:23 AM
Originally posted by lighthouse

The verse says that Peter put his clothes back on, before swimming to Jesus. It says he was naked, while he worked. Which is when there would be no woman there.

Apparently he was not completely naked. No naturism avant la lettre

Naked: Not absolutely, but clothed merely in his undergarment or shirt.
http://www.godrules.net/library/robert/robertjoh21.htm (http://)

If what this guy says is right, then the whole objection falls to the ground.

Cyrus of Persia
April 12th, 2004, 06:30 AM
Originally posted by Melody

John, the brother of James is the beloved disciple. It is in his humbleness that he didn't write his own name in his gospel. Just as Mark did not tell us that it was himself in his gospel.



If he was humble not to mentioning himself with his right name, then why NO synoptics mention him in the same situations where this beloved disciple was?

Granite
April 12th, 2004, 09:37 AM
The passion account in the gospel of John, specifically Jesus' instruction to John and his farewell to Mary his mother, pretty much do away with the argument that Magdalene was the beloved disciple--the text clarifies who's who too clearly for anyone to try to make a distinction.

Melody
April 12th, 2004, 10:23 AM
Originally posted by Cyrus of Persia

If he was humble not to mentioning himself with his right name, then why NO synoptics mention him in the same situations where this beloved disciple was?

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.

Cyrus of Persia
April 12th, 2004, 11:48 AM
Originally posted by granite1010

The passion account in the gospel of John, specifically Jesus' instruction to John and his farewell to Mary his mother, pretty much do away with the argument that Magdalene was the beloved disciple--the text clarifies who's who too clearly for anyone to try to make a distinction.

What text?

I dont see John under the Cross with women nor in John, or in Synoptics. Can you see him named there?

Cyrus of Persia
April 12th, 2004, 11:55 AM
Melody,

you quote a bunch of passages from John, where John is NOT mentioned, and you dont give any passage from Synoptics. I wonder did you REALLY replied to my question. Seems that not.

Mary running to Peter and to "beloved disciple" is different story and not related with my question. I got couple of possibilities to offer, but i will write it later when you have replied to my question what i asked earlier:

"Originally posted by Cyrus of Persia

If he was humble not to mentioning himself with his right name, then why NO synoptics mention him in the same situations where this beloved disciple was?"


P.S. Assuming that John was the author of Gospel of John is
1) not proven, so it can be made as trustable assumption to base on your logic on those passages you are referring to

2) only the tradition what might be true, but might be lie. Back to those days the one who wrote a book, or letter needed not nessessarily wear the same name according to what he names his writing.

Granite
April 12th, 2004, 12:04 PM
Originally posted by Cyrus of Persia

What text?

I dont see John under the Cross with women nor in John, or in Synoptics. Can you see him named 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].
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.

John's identity and presence at Calvary is evident from the text.

Turbo
April 12th, 2004, 12:07 PM
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. POTD! :first: (http://www.theologyonline.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=13813)

Cyrus of Persia
April 12th, 2004, 12:20 PM
Granite,

Check out my post #9



Turbo,

it's interesting how "popular" are the posts what actually dont reply to the question what has been asked. But as it's Fellowship week, i seal my lips from further comments about that.

Turbo
April 12th, 2004, 12:35 PM
Cyrus,

Melody's post utterly refuted the notion that "the disciple whom Jesus loved" or "the beloved disciple" was in reference to Mary Magdalene, which is the topic of this thread.

Why she quoted you specifically, I'm not sure. But she did mention that John gave a more detailed account of the crucifixion than did the synoptic Gospel writers.

Cyrus of Persia
April 12th, 2004, 02:09 PM
Originally posted by Turbo

Melody's post utterly refuted the notion that "the disciple whom Jesus loved" or "the beloved disciple" was in reference to Mary Magdalene, which is the topic of this thread.


No, it didnt. I have some explanations to the passage where M.M and "beloved disciple" are both in the same situation. But i want Melody to reply my question first.



Why she quoted you specifically, I'm not sure. But she did mention that John gave a more detailed account of the crucifixion than did the synoptic Gospel writers.

Read the P.S. part of my post #9

Granite
April 12th, 2004, 02:24 PM
MM and the beloved disciple being in the same situation is one thing, but they are never used to refer to the same person. Either way, this seems like a moot point: there is no evidence whatsoever that Mary was present at the last supper or was the disciple Christ loved.

Cyrus of Persia
April 12th, 2004, 02:50 PM
Originally posted by granite1010

MM and the beloved disciple being in the same situation is one thing, but they are never used to refer to the same person. Either way, this seems like a moot point: there is no evidence whatsoever that Mary was present at the last supper or was the disciple Christ loved.

Ok, i will post it now, as Melody hasn't posted yet (and i expect her at first reply to my first question about Synoptics and then comment this one here)

MM and beloved disciple in the same situation.

MM discovers that the grave is open. She runs to Peter and "to this other disciple whom Jesus loved" and they (Peter and beloved disciple) run to the grave. Note that Synoptical accounts mention only Peter running to the grave. Why's that? And even more: why Luke (who is the only one describing it besides of writer of John's Gospel) doesnt mention John running with Peter to the grave?

Let's go further. We see that those disciples go home after being convinced that the tomb is empty. In next verse we see MM crying near the tomb. How she happened back there? Why there is no account that she runned with "them" back to the grave after announcing that the tomb is open?

2 possible solutions i have read about:

1) Due to patriarchical spirit the mainline of early church was lead, there was impossible that a woman can be an author of the Gospel. The known fact also was that MM was the first witness of the empty tomp. So the redactor of the Gospel couldn't change it. So trying to convince the reader that the beloved disciple was actually a male, he put both MM and "beloved disciple" into the same situation. So in reality MM runned to Peter and they together runned back to the tomb. Then Peter leaves, but MM stays crying. But the redactor trying to hide the fact that MM = "beloved disciple", brings in third character into the story. If you got what i meant due to my poor English :chuckle:

2) There actually were 3 persons in the story as it's written. But as Jesus loved many disciples, this third person is described as "the other disciple whom Jesus loved". He is not the same "beloved disciple" who narrated the testimony of the Gospel, but "other".



And there is also NO evidence that MM wasnt present in Last Supper.

Melody
April 12th, 2004, 05:10 PM
Originally posted by Cyrus of Persia

Ok, i will post it now, as Melody hasn't posted yet (and i expect her at first reply to my first question about Synoptics and then comment this one here)

MM and beloved disciple in the same situation.

MM discovers that the grave is open. She runs to Peter and "to this other disciple whom Jesus loved" and they (Peter and beloved disciple) run to the grave. Note that Synoptical accounts mention only Peter running to the grave. Why's that? And even more: why Luke (who is the only one describing it besides of writer of John's Gospel) doesnt mention John running with Peter to the grave?

Let's go further. We see that those disciples go home after being convinced that the tomb is empty. In next verse we see MM crying near the tomb. How she happened back there? Why there is no account that she runned with "them" back to the grave after announcing that the tomb is open?

2 possible solutions i have read about:

1) Due to patriarchical spirit the mainline of early church was lead, there was impossible that a woman can be an author of the Gospel. The known fact also was that MM was the first witness of the empty tomp. So the redactor of the Gospel couldn't change it. So trying to convince the reader that the beloved disciple was actually a male, he put both MM and "beloved disciple" into the same situation. So in reality MM runned to Peter and they together runned back to the tomb. Then Peter leaves, but MM stays crying. But the redactor trying to hide the fact that MM = "beloved disciple", brings in third character into the story. If you got what i meant due to my poor English :chuckle:

2) There actually were 3 persons in the story as it's written. But as Jesus loved many disciples, this third person is described as "the other disciple whom Jesus loved". He is not the same "beloved disciple" who narrated the testimony of the Gospel, but "other".



And there is also NO evidence that MM wasnt present in Last Supper.

Why do you WANT it to be Mary Magdalene soo much that when you can't prove your point that you throw out red herrings.

What is your agenda?

Additionally there is no "Beloved disciple". The only time "beloved" is used in the gospels is in reference to the Beloved son, Jesus Christ.

jaguar_prince
April 13th, 2004, 01:02 AM
Originally posted by granite1010

The passion account in the gospel of John, specifically Jesus' instruction to John and his farewell to Mary his mother, pretty much do away with the argument that Magdalene was the beloved disciple--the text clarifies who's who too clearly for anyone to try to make a distinction.

You must be kidding, dear. The scene under the cross is the biggest clue to the real identity of the beloved disciple. There were only three women there, all of them called Mary. Jesus beheld his mother and the disciple. Who could this disciple be but one of the women other than Mary?

jaguar_prince
April 13th, 2004, 01:12 AM
Originally posted by Melody

Additionally there is no "Beloved disciple". The only time "beloved" is used in the gospels is in reference to the Beloved son, Jesus Christ.

"Beloved disciple" is a short-cut for "the disciple whom Jesus loved": ten matheten on Iesous egapa/ ephilei.

It is true that "beloved disciple" does not occur in the NT but it is not sacrilegious at all to use such a short phrase because it comes down to the same thing.

"Beloved son" is in Greek "agapetos uios". It is used in the account of the baptism of Jesus and in the account of the transfiguration. Some people, speculating on the Hebrew word behind it, say that"agapetos" should be rendered as "with whom I am one".


Why do you WANT it to be Mary Magdalene soo much that when you can't prove your point that you throw out red herrings.

What is your agenda?

My question to you is :

Why do you want it not to be Mary THE Magdalene soooo much that you refuse any discussion about her?

Cyrus of Persia
April 13th, 2004, 06:52 AM
Originally posted by Melody

Why do you WANT it to be Mary Magdalene soo much that when you can't prove your point that you throw out red herrings.

What is your agenda?

Additionally there is no "Beloved disciple". The only time "beloved" is used in the gospels is in reference to the Beloved son, Jesus Christ.

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:

Melody
April 13th, 2004, 07:52 AM
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
April 13th, 2004, 03:34 PM
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
April 13th, 2004, 03:53 PM
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
April 13th, 2004, 04:45 PM
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 :D

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
April 13th, 2004, 04:50 PM
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
April 13th, 2004, 04:55 PM
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
April 13th, 2004, 05:59 PM
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
April 14th, 2004, 01:12 AM
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
April 14th, 2004, 01:26 AM
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
April 14th, 2004, 02:02 AM
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
April 14th, 2004, 06:31 AM
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
April 14th, 2004, 04:52 PM
One of them did, John.

Cyrus of Persia
April 14th, 2004, 05:42 PM
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
April 14th, 2004, 11:12 PM
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
April 15th, 2004, 03:08 AM
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
April 15th, 2004, 06:09 AM
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
April 15th, 2004, 06:56 AM
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
April 15th, 2004, 04:50 PM
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
April 15th, 2004, 11:24 PM
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
April 16th, 2004, 01:12 AM
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?

jaguar_prince
April 16th, 2004, 01:37 AM
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
April 16th, 2004, 01:48 AM
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
April 16th, 2004, 03:58 AM
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
April 16th, 2004, 07:24 AM
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
April 16th, 2004, 07:28 AM
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.