Doubts about Newman's Beatification
#21
(10-06-2010, 02:11 PM)geogeer Wrote: That disciple therefore whom Jesus loved, said to Peter: It is the Lord. Simon Peter, when he heard that it was the Lord, girt his coat about him, (for he was naked,) and cast himself into the sea. But the other disciples came in the ship, (for they were not far from the land, but as it were two hundred cubits,) dragging the net with fishes.
[/quote]

What's the exact word for "naked" used here?  Does anyone know the possible connotations?  Was he sunbathing or something?  was this a practice in ancient Israel?
Reply
#22
(10-06-2010, 02:18 PM)3Sanctus Wrote: What's the exact word for "naked" used here?  Does anyone know the possible connotations?  Was he sunbathing or something?  was this a practice in ancient Israel?

It was a 2 garment society.  When working hard out on a dirty boat and only in the company of men, it was probably okay to remove the outer garment. 
Reply
#23
3Peter,

Your example of Peter and N's haughty and unmanly treatment of Manning are about as closely related as Quentin Crisp and Chuck Norris.


Sorry, I don't get it.  Maybe you can help me understand how that works.
Reply
#24
I was not referring to an inclination towards 'any' sin.

I was referring to the sin of Sodomy. The 1962 Missal lists this as a sin 'Crying out to heaven for vengeance'.

Scripture seems explicit enough.

"And the men of Sodom were very wicked, and sinners before the face of the Lord, beyond measure" Genesis 13:13.  Not to mention the destruction of the Sodomites, Genesis 19:24.
Reply
#25
(10-06-2010, 02:48 PM)Remegius Wrote: I was not referring to an inclination towards 'any' sin.

I was referring to the sin of Sodomy. The 1962 Missal lists this as a sin 'Crying out to heaven for vengeance'.

Scripture seems explicit enough.

"And the men of Sodom were very wicked, and sinners before the face of the Lord, beyond measure" Genesis 13:13.  Not to mention the destruction of the Sodomites, Genesis 19:24.

Oppressing the poor and defrauding workers of their wages are also sins that cry out to heaven for vengeance.  So, by your reasoning, if an employer was consistently tempted (had an inclination) toward cheating his employees, but never did (sublimated it), according to you that employer could not attain Sainthood.  Sounds ridiculous to me.

Pax,
Jesse

ETA: in fact, someone who consistently fights temptations, especially those of the flesh, and does not give in would make a great saint!
Reply
#26
(10-06-2010, 02:48 PM)Remegius Wrote: I was not referring to an inclination towards 'any' sin.

I was referring to the sin of Sodomy. The 1962 Missal lists this as a sin 'Crying out to heaven for vengeance'.

Scripture seems explicit enough.

"And the men of Sodom were very wicked, and sinners before the face of the Lord, beyond measure" Genesis 13:13.  Not to mention the destruction of the Sodomites, Genesis 19:24.

So someone who, through no fault of their own, has an inclination toward this sin and spends their entire life "working out [their] own salvation in fear and trembling" can't go to Heaven because of this involuntary inclination?

Obviously committing sodomy is serious, and must be dealt with, but:  1) sodomites can repent and 2) for something to be a sin it was to be something we choose (if a man is possessed and during the possession the demon uses his body for lewd acts that man has not committed those sins, they are not on his soul if he was not in control of his body - likewise, if someone doesn't chose to be tempted, but resist temptation, then they may [read, are capable of, at least theoretically] attaining sainthood).
Reply
#27
(10-06-2010, 02:27 PM)geogeer Wrote: It was a 2 garment society.  When working hard out on a dirty boat and only in the company of men, it was probably okay to remove the outer garment. 

So "naked" could mean lacking one of two garments?
Reply
#28
(10-06-2010, 03:09 PM)3Sanctus Wrote: So "naked" could mean lacking one of two garments?
Possibly.  There have been Egyptian paintings showing fishermen working naked or in loincloths.  Depending on the translation is what you'll see...

I posted the Douay Rheims version, but different versions of the New Testament vary widely in their translation of the phrase that suggests nudity: King James Version–"he was naked"; Revised Standard Version, New American Standard Bible and New English Bible–"he was (NEB: ‘had’) stripped"; Living Bible–"he was stripped to the waist"; New International Version–"he had taken it [his outer garment] off"; Jerusalem Bible–"[he] had practically nothing on."

I suppose we'll never actually know - well at least in this lifetime, but I doubt that when (if?) I make it to the pearly gates that this'll be a pressing question I have for St. Peter.
Reply
#29
(10-06-2010, 03:20 PM)geogeer Wrote: I suppose we'll never actually know - well at least in this lifetime, but I doubt that when (if?) I make it to the pearly gates that this'll be a pressing question I have for St. Peter.

Hey, Pete!  Why were you naked in the boat!?  :laughing:

No offense meant to Saint Peter, of course, that's just what popped into my head after reading your post, lol.

I didn't realize fisherman were known to work like that.  Makes sense to me.

Why would he have jumped in the water if that was normal practice, though?  Scruples about being seen in working attire by Our Lord?
Reply
#30
(10-06-2010, 03:25 PM)3Sanctus Wrote: Why would he have jumped in the water if that was normal practice, though?  Scruples about being seen in working attire by Our Lord?
It may have been that while it was acceptable to be so attired on the boat, it would not be so on the shore where a situation of mixed genders could be.  It may have been a reflex action by someone in his profession for so long.  It may have been that he was entering into the presence of the Lord and wished to be more properly attired.  Unfortunately it is all supposition.
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)