On Peter's nakedness in John 21

[jaguar_prince]

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]

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]

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]

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

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

 

[Cyrus of Persia]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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:

 

[Cyrus of Persia]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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: