Posted                          

quote:

---

Originally posted by no prophet:
This comment is in young person Sunday School territory, but we thought it was in contrast to Judas, the disciple Jesus obviously hated.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by stonespring:
When the persona adopted by the author of John referred to who was ostensibly himself as "the disciple whom Jesus loved," what exactly did he mean about their relationship compared with Christ's relationship with the other apostles and with other people? I know some people like to say it meant romantic/sexual love but I see no reason to believe that given the way the word love was used at that time.

So what does it mean?

---

Posted                          

quote:

---

Originally posted by pimple:
In the conversation with Jesus after the post-resurrection picnic (in John 21), Peter demands, angrily "What about that man/fellow?" The BD, we have been told, has just appeared on the scene. How is this explained by those (and there are many) who claim that Mary was the BD?

---

Posted                          

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mudfrog:
Isn't John a cousin of Jesus and that's why, as a relative, he was loved?

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Hart:
Wow. I've disagreed with FF Bruce before, but generally found him a sober voice worth listening to. I have to say that this seems like harmonizing gone mad to me.

---

Posted                          

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mudfrog:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Hart:
Wow. I've disagreed with FF Bruce before, but generally found him a sober voice worth listening to. I have to say that this seems like harmonizing gone mad to me.

---

Nope, perfectly reasonable; certainly more reasonable than suggesting that John was Jesus' boyfriend or that TDTJL was Mary Magdalene.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
not in answer to your main question, but just a note on the "angrily"--I don't see that at all. I see it rather as Peter (feeling very uncomfortable with the prophecy of his own death and anxious to turn the subject!), hurriedly gloms on to the first topic he can think of, which happens to be John standing nearby. There may also have been a hint of jealousy involved, as Jesus' rebuke may indicate--or may not.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by pimple:
OK, let me repeat that rather cumbersome question and apologise for the questionable modern analogy.

Why would Peter think (as John thinks, with the benefit of hindsight) that Jesus' little lecture referred to the way in which he (Peter) would die? If Lamb Chopped can't or won't help me with this, maybe someone else can?

Are we meant to assume that Peter could read the mind of Jesus as well John could, decades later? Or have I missed something in the text?

---

Aauggghhh, Pimple, I was NOT deliberately refusing to "help you". It's been a bit busy in my life right now, and I didn't see this.

Okay. "Are we meant to assume that Peter could read the mind of Jesus as well John could, decades later?" Actually the simplest solution is that Peter understood him perfectly well at the time the conversation went on--remember, they had been living together for more than three years at this point, and Jesus was, er, in the field of communications--I would assume he knew how to phrase his point in a way that Peter would understand it. After all, we don't see Peter turning round immediately to say "Huh?" As reported, Peter seems to have understood it all too well for comfort.

Really, it would make more sense to ask how John knew what it meant, not how Peter did. Jesus was talking to Peter, therefore had tailored his words to Peter, and had every reason to believe that Peter would take his point. Jesus was NOT talking to John, had not invited him along on this walk, and if anybody was going to misunderstand, I suspect it was John, the eavesdropper.

So let's ask it: How does John know what Jesus meant in that private conversation with Peter? No, I'm not going to pull out the theory of inspiration here, but the much simpler I think Peter told him later. After all, they were the two pillars of the church left after James bar Zebedee died. I'm sure they talked quite a bit.

--------------------
Er, this is what I've been up to (book).
Oh, that you would rend the heavens and come down!

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by pimple:
Thanks for coming back at - I mean for - me, LC. But it all seems too tidy for me. Everything makes perfect sense. But only read/understood backwards, so to speak. The issue of Peter's prophesied death only becomes apparent in the context of Jesus' remark about the beloved disciple, which comes after "what about that man? - and there's no way Peter could have known what was coming in advance. It's as though John wants to contradict in advance the far more obvious explanation - that Peter wanted somebody[/i/] punished, perhaps even killed. And it would be natural for the BD, coming late on the scene, to assume that Peter was talking about [i]him.

I know this is all rather counter-intuitive (is that what I mean? Left-field, anyway) but it's all far too pat to assume that the whole conversation was heard and recorded from start to finish. This was a private conversation, and clearly not a friendly one at times - Peter's truculence is pointed out by the evangelist. So there will have been raised voices, and muttered sulks, and Jesus's quiet insistence cutting through it all to remind Peter that his task wasvto feed the sheep, not slaughter them.

---

quote:

---

15 When they had finished breakfast, Jesus said to Simon Peter, “Simon, son of John, do you love me more than these?” He said to him, “Yes, Lord; you know that I love you.” He said to him, “Feed my lambs.” 16 He said to him a second time, “Simon, son of John, do you love me?” He said to him, “Yes, Lord; you know that I love you.” He said to him, “Tend my sheep.” 17 He said to him the third time, “Simon, son of John, do you love me?” Peter was grieved because he said to him the third time, “Do you love me?” and he said to him, “Lord, you know everything; you know that I love you.” Jesus said to him, “Feed my sheep. 18 Truly, truly, I say to you, when you were young, you used to dress yourself and walk wherever you wanted, but when you are old, you will stretch out your hands, and another will dress you and carry you where you do not want to go.” 19 (This he said to show by what kind of death he was to glorify God.) And after saying this he said to him, “Follow me.”

20 Peter turned and saw the disciple whom Jesus loved following them, the one who also had leaned back against him during the supper and had said, “Lord, who is it that is going to betray you?” 21 When Peter saw him, he said to Jesus, “Lord, what about this man?” 22 Jesus said to him, “If it is my will that he remain until I come, what is that to you? You follow me!” 23 So the saying spread abroad among the brothers that this disciple was not to die; yet Jesus did not say to him that he was not to die, but, “If it is my will that he remain until I come, what is that to you?”

24 This is the disciple who is bearing witness about these things, and who has written these things, and we know that his testimony is true.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by pimple:
It's an interesting and charitable take on the text. Why does Peter put clothes on in order to haul in the fish? I thought it was for modesty's sake because he was in a hurry to get ashore before the others -leaving them to haul the catch in. but I might have misread it; how do we know it was Peter who counted the fish? And did Thomas really have to wait another week - or do you mean he had had to wait an extra week? The chronology is almost impossible to pin down, I would think, because John says at the beginning of chapter 21 "After this..." (doesn't he?) But that may be just a way of tacking on the extra bit of evidence that has come to light after the original version of the gospel was finished.

I 'm not entirely sure about my own feelings towards the big fisherman. Do I hope he was forgiven? After the denial, yes, but the gruesome tale of Ananias and Sapphira lurks in the background. I am not in a congregation of one in thinking Peter was a blackguard. But I sure as hell don't think Jesus loved the good guys and hated the bad - the way we do, the way the church fathers did from the outset, the way the whole gang of judgmental Christendom has always done.

[Shambles off, in an everlasting shroud of grumps. Somebody give the old git a beer and tell him to cheer up...]

---

[Hands Pimple a virtual beer] I just love "everlasting shroud of grumps." Must remember that for personal use, oh, about 7 a.m. tomorrow....

The only reason I can think of for Peter to dress before flinging himself overboard was to show Jesus extra respect. They'd lived together for what, three years? and I'm sure that everybody in the disciples' group was thoroughly familiar with one another's bad-hair-and-body days, so it wasn't modesty. And John takes particular note of the dressing, which suggests it was unusual and unexpected. Heck, so was the jump into the water--they weren't that far from land, so he could have waited five minutes if he were going to be practical. Yet he didn't. It was the gesture that counted.

As for who counted the fish, it's clear (particularly in the Greek!) that Peter jumped up to take the whole "deal with the fish, boys" task on himself. Nowhere does it say that anybody else moved a muscle. I rather suspect they tried, but Peter shushed them off with the well-known "don't worry about it, I've got it, thanks" routine recognized by every adult who's fruitlessly tried to help an elderly parent clean up after a Thanksgiving meal. Which, if I'm reading this correctly, would make Peter the over-enthusiastic counter-of-the-fish (I mean, REALLY. What was the point of that, again? )

The Ananias-and-Sapphira thing is a whole 'nother can of worms, and I'm not going to hash through it (winces at bad metaphor) here. We've had threads-a-plenty on that one. But it is possible to read that in less-than-a-blackguardly way too, and even if not, it's clear the other disciples had their moments as well.

About Thomas--all I meant to say is Jesus left him to dangle in the wind for an extra week. Thomas heard the news Sunday, refused to believe it (daresay I would have, too), and got to spend the following week sticking his fingers in his ears and going La-la-la-LA, I can't hear you! to everybody else until Jesus showed up again that eighth day. Could Jesus have made a special appearance for him, say, on Monday? Sure. Did he? No. Why? could be lots of reasons, but one that leaps to mind is simply "it wasn't necessary." Thomas wasn't going anywhere. A week of la-la-la wasn't going to hurt anything but his temper. Peter, on the other hand, was IMHO a real suicide risk. And Jesus had had enough of that among the people he loved.

--------------------
Er, this is what I've been up to (book).
Oh, that you would rend the heavens and come down!

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mudfrog:
The phrase 'stretch out your hands' is a euphemism for crucifixion. It's a bit like 'putting your head on the block' means being beheaded.

Another similar euphemism is when Jesus said 'the Son of Man must be 'lifted up' - that is an accepted term meaning crucified. It's a bit like being 'strung up' means being hanged.

When Jesus told Peter he would 'stretch out his hands' Peter knew exactly what he was talking about.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by pimple:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mudfrog:
The phrase 'stretch out your hands' is a euphemism for crucifixion. It's a bit like 'putting your head on the block' means being beheaded.

Another similar euphemism is when Jesus said 'the Son of Man must be 'lifted up' - that is an accepted term meaning crucified. It's a bit like being 'strung up' means being hanged.

When Jesus told Peter he would 'stretch out his hands' Peter knew exactly what he was talking about.

---

Thank you for that. I wasn't aware of the euphemism. Is it used elsewhere? Or do you just mean it's an accepted euphemism among Christians?
I can quite see how it could be. But not how it has to be.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mudfrog:

quote:

---

Originally posted by pimple:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mudfrog:
The phrase 'stretch out your hands' is a euphemism for crucifixion. It's a bit like 'putting your head on the block' means being beheaded.

Another similar euphemism is when Jesus said 'the Son of Man must be 'lifted up' - that is an accepted term meaning crucified. It's a bit like being 'strung up' means being hanged.

When Jesus told Peter he would 'stretch out his hands' Peter knew exactly what he was talking about.

---

Thank you for that. I wasn't aware of the euphemism. Is it used elsewhere? Or do you just mean it's an accepted euphemism among Christians?
I can quite see how it could be. But not how it has to be.

---

John 8 v 28 and John 12 v 32 also speak euphemistically about the crucifixion as being 'lifted up'.

The latter says:
"But I, when I am lifted up from the earth , will draw all men to myself." He said this to show the kind of death he was going to die.

So we can see there that his listeners, hearing the phrase 'lifted up' knew immediately that Jesus was talking about being crucified.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by no prophet:
Someone please define "love" in this context.

---

Posted                          

quote:

---

Originally posted by pimple:
I think the church has a problem with Jesus, as God, having any emotion whatsoever - perhaps because of its abhorrence of sex. But the old testament is full of commands not to go whoring after other gods...

I always think of the love between Jesus and that unknown disciple as posssibly being like that between David and Jonathan.

---

Posted                          

quote:

---

Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
No need to drag actual sex into it.

---