FEATURE ADJUSTMENT: The Flag button is temporarily unavailable for members. We are doing certain system adjustments as of the moment to prevent some users from abusing this feature. For reports, please message the moderators or email us at [email protected]
PEx Alert: Welcome to the new PinoyExchange. For access issues, bug reports and technical concerns, please email us at [email protected] Thank you!

Mark 14:51-52 - The Jesus Gay Scandal

AteoAteo Non est Deus. Fac cum eo. ✭✭✭
Read those verses with an open mind. Read the verses before it or after it if you want to understand its contrxt. Gee, read the entire chapter if you want to.

But the passage is unrelated at all to the earlier or later verse. It stands out as a sore thumb, like a stub remnants of heavy editing. What remains though sounds like a Jesus gay scandal. A young man (reminds one of a sakristan) was with Jesus (while all the disciples were away. And the one was only wearing a linen underwear that was stripper away by thugs. He ran away stark naked! Who was that boy? Were those thugs anti-gay bigots harassing Jesus or paparazzi trying to catch a scandalous photo of Jesus?

What do you think a out this most mysterious passage of Mark?
«1345

Comments

  • ArchimedesArchimedes B?nned by ?dmin ✭✭✭
    Uy pansinin naman ninyo ang Thread ni Taeo, may bagong idea daw siya :lol:
  • iskrotumiskrotum Ako si King Kong! PExer
    Ateo wrote: »
    Read those verses with an open mind. Read the verses before it or after it if you want to understand its contrxt. Gee, read the entire chapter if you want to.

    But the passage is unrelated at all to the earlier or later verse. It stands out as a sore thumb, like a stub remnants of heavy editing. What remains though sounds like a Jesus gay scandal. A young man (reminds one of a sakristan) was with Jesus (while all the disciples were away. And the one was only wearing a linen underwear that was stripper away by thugs. He ran away stark naked! Who was that boy? Were those thugs anti-gay bigots harassing Jesus or paparazzi trying to catch a scandalous photo of Jesus?

    What do you think a out this most mysterious passage of Mark?

    I think Jesus has a naked young boy hidden somewhere and when he was taken the boy tried to go with him.
  • AteoAteo Non est Deus. Fac cum eo. ✭✭✭
    Archimedes wrote: »
    Uy pansinin naman ninyo ang Thread ni Taeo, may bagong idea daw siya :lol:

    Don't hide in mockery. Just explain the passage in a solemn, convulated manner.

    Any Bible experts here? Research muna sa Evangelical websites...
  • AteoAteo Non est Deus. Fac cum eo. ✭✭✭
    iskrotum wrote: »
    I think Jesus has a naked young boy hidden somewhere and when he was taken the boy tried to go with him.

    Parsimony! That is the word preferred by scientists. That is also the characteristic of your explanation - simple, straight-forward, and hewn closely from the facts of the case.

    Now, watch the outlandish explanation of Bible experts.
  • alchemistofophiralchemistofophir Christian Communist ✭✭✭
    NagEnglish 102 ka ba?

    Betrayal and Arrest of Jesus
    43 And immediately, while he was still speaking, Judas came, one of the twelve, and with him a crowd with swords and clubs, from the chief priests and the scribes and the elders. 44 Now the betrayer had given them a sign, saying, “The one I will kiss is the man. Seize him and lead him away under guard.” 45 And when he came, he went up to him at once and said, “Rabbi!” And he kissed him. 46 And they laid hands on him and seized him. 47 But one of those who stood by drew his sword and struck the servant[e] of the high priest and cut off his ear. 48 And Jesus said to them, “Have you come out as against a robber, with swords and clubs to capture me? 49 Day after day I was with you in the temple teaching, and you did not seize me. But let the Scriptures be fulfilled.” 50 And they all left him and fled.

    A Young Man Flees
    51 And a young man followed him, with nothing but a linen cloth about his body. And they seized him, 52 but he left the linen cloth and ran away naked.


    Here's the plot. Jesus was arrested. And a young man followed him when he was with the Roman soldiers. Probably that young man was just an onlooker or one among the crowd na may konting sayad (bakit sya nakalinen cloth lang sa labas? :rotflmao:) o griego (greek togas are basically a scrap of cloth attached to your body). An unimportant character in the story. or a wily literary hook to catch [email protected] readers with gay agenda.
  • AteoAteo Non est Deus. Fac cum eo. ✭✭✭
    Compare Iskrotum's and CrackOphir's explanations. The first ine is straightforward and facts-based. Ophir's explanation ay may sayad talaga.

    Linen underwear and Greek outer toga ay two different things. Only the most stupid of Bible writers cannot make the differentiation.

    Unimportant character in the story? Jeez! Mark has less than 20 chapters, bakit niya sasayangin ang oras niya sa dalawang bersikulong walang kahulugan?

    And what the fock is that pronoun "they" doing in verse 51? All grammar rules say that a pronoun refers to the nearest noun. But the nearest plural noun (disciples) does not make sense at all!
  • alchemistofophiralchemistofophir Christian Communist ✭✭✭
    Ateo wrote: »
    And what the fock is that pronoun "they" doing in verse 51? All grammar rules say that a pronoun refers to the nearest noun. But the nearest plural noun (disciples) does not make sense at all!

    50 And they all left him and fled.

    A Young Man Flees
    51 And a young man followed him, with nothing but a linen cloth about his body. And they seized him, 52 but he left the linen cloth and ran away naked.

    FLED. Wala na dun yung apostoles. Tapos that young man followed Jesus. And they seized him. So yung they ay yung mga kasama ni Hesus, which is the Roman soldiers.

    BAGSAK SI [email protected] SA ENGLISH 102.
  • AteoAteo Non est Deus. Fac cum eo. ✭✭✭
    Mababaw ang explanation mo, Ophir. Seguro nakagamit ka kagabi ng magic crystal.

    Anyway, there was a "they" in verse 50 and another "they" in verse 51, and the two do not refer to the same noun. That is not allowed in grammar. This only means that there are missing verses!!! (The missing Mark is, btw, already found; and you won't like what they found, bwahahahaha).

    Your explanation Ophir is way too different from the official exegesis of Christianity, thus making you a false Catholic and a true self-admitted addict.
  • alchemistofophiralchemistofophir Christian Communist ✭✭✭
    Binasa mo na pala ang official exegesis eh, so ano pa ang purpose ng thread na ito? Para magingay? :rotflmao::rotflmao:

    Gusto mo ng opinion ng mga iba pang Christians ngayong nasupalpal ka, ibabato mo tong "official exegesis" card? :rotflmao::rotflmao:

    eto tanong mo o
    Ateo wrote: »
    What do you think a out this most mysterious passage of Mark?
  • AteoAteo Non est Deus. Fac cum eo. ✭✭✭
    Yes, I am warning you crackpot. Once I start a thread, I have already fully researched it and there are planned expansion along the way. The invitation for you to comment is simply to check if you have listened to your pastor during Sunday service. Obviously, you don't go to church yourself as you are busy with your crystal session.
  • AteoAteo Non est Deus. Fac cum eo. ✭✭✭
    Mark is so important in our study, Christianists, because it is considered by scholars (not atheists) as the original gospel. It is what inspired the group of gospels called, Synoptic gospel (Luke and Matthew), which must be the divine way of saying "totally word-for-word plagiarized gospels.

    Anyway, Mark has many curiosities. Mark 10:46, for example, shows proof of massive editing. "46 And they came to Jericho. And as he was leaving Jericho with his disciples and a great crowd, Bartimaeus, a blind beggar, the son of Timaeus, was sitting by the roadside.

    What! They have just arrived in Jericho and the next sentence already said that they were leaving Jericho. Scholars (not atheist writers) AGREED that there is a huge missing passage or story inside that single verse. Why announce an arrival to a city and then proceed to leave the city in the next sentence? If you think Bible writers are stupid, this is one proof.
  • AteoAteo Non est Deus. Fac cum eo. ✭✭✭
    Jesus' Sexuality

    One important dogma of Christianity is that Jesus was fully God AND FULLY HUMAN. As a full human, he must have had sexuality, it would be blasphemous to suggest that he was a fake human with no sexual dimensions -- as all humans have.

    So, Jesus could be either heterosexual, homosexual or bisexual or any other gradations in between. He is considered a Rabbi, a Jewish designation that would have required him to be married, according to the Law of Moses. But he was single. Why?

    Back to his sexual drive, Jesus has never been recorded to have a girlfriend or had romantic relations with women (not counting the fictional Da Vinci Code). The only persons who quarreled over their love for him were his muscular, unwashed fishermen drinking buddies, otherwise called as apostles. These apostles were in a weird group -- the requirements to be in that group included having to leave your wife (Peter, for example, did so). If you have any cursory understanding of ancient Jewish society, leaving your wife was a death sentence to the wife. In that conservative society, the wife could not have any viable, sustainable source of income other than begging. Peter was a [email protected]@rd for leaving his wife for Jesus.
  • alchemistofophiralchemistofophir Christian Communist ✭✭✭
    Ateo wrote: »
    Mark is so important in our study, Christianists, because it is considered by scholars (not atheists) as the original gospel. It is what inspired the group of gospels called, Synoptic gospel (Luke and Matthew), which must be the divine way of saying "totally word-for-word plagiarized gospels.

    Anyway, Mark has many curiosities. Mark 10:46, for example, shows proof of massive editing. "46 And they came to Jericho. And as he was leaving Jericho with his disciples and a great crowd, Bartimaeus, a blind beggar, the son of Timaeus, was sitting by the roadside.

    What! They have just arrived in Jericho and the next sentence already said that they were leaving Jericho. Scholars (not atheist writers) AGREED that there is a huge missing passage or story inside that single verse. Why announce an arrival to a city and then proceed to leave the city in the next sentence? If you think Bible writers are stupid, this is one proof.

    is this how you read sh1t?

    of course they came to Jericho. And what happened in their stay was untold or obscured or unimportant. Parang yun ang hudyat sa susunod na importanteng mangyayari. That is the events when they are leaving Jericho. Parang transition lang.

    Puro [email protected] lang kasi ang alam mo. Basa ka ng Literary Critique Techniques, marami nyan sa internet. :rotflmao::rotflmao:
  • alchemistofophiralchemistofophir Christian Communist ✭✭✭
    Ateo wrote: »
    Yes, I am warning you crackpot. Once I start a thread, I have already fully researched it and there are planned expansion along the way. The invitation for you to comment is simply to check if you have listened to your pastor during Sunday service. Obviously, you don't go to church yourself as you are busy with your crystal session.

    Usaping o haka-hakang [email protected] nanaman yan. Bago ako pumupunta sa Simbahan, alam ko na ang mga Readings

    http://www.usccb.org/bible/readings/050116.cfm

    Pumupunta lang ako dun para sa ambiance at ostiya.

    :rotflmao::rotflmao:
  • AteoAteo Non est Deus. Fac cum eo. ✭✭✭
    Usaping o haka-hakang [email protected] nanaman yan. Bago ako pumupunta sa Simbahan, alam ko na ang mga Readings

    http://www.usccb.org/bible/readings/050116.cfm

    Pumupunta lang ako dun para sa ambiance at ostiya.

    :rotflmao::rotflmao:


    Hahaah! Fake Catholic, the Bible actually commanded you to go to church every Sunday (or Saturday, whatever), and not just to check the online gospel while hitting on crystal (what is the verb to use when you shoot poison into your system?).

    Ostiya! That sacred, genuine flesh of Jesus! And you are mentioning it while laughing as if it is just the come-on that you need to go to church. What are you? A flesh-eating crackpot?
  • alchemistofophiralchemistofophir Christian Communist ✭✭✭
    Ateo wrote: »
    Ostiya! That sacred, genuine flesh of Jesus! And you are mentioning it while laughing as if it is just the come-on that you need to go to church. What are you? A flesh-eating crackpot?

    What you eat is what you become daw. or as they say, you are what you eat. :rotflmao::rotflmao:
  • AteoAteo Non est Deus. Fac cum eo. ✭✭✭
    As a friend, Ophir, are you sure you want to be in this forum? There is another forum thread that talks about people who are obsessed with numbers and patterns, as in people with number as their profile's sub-title and the Periodic Table of the Elements as their profile location.

    Here it is; talk to your people: http://www.anxiety-central.com/index.php?/topic/1598-obsessed-with-numbers-and-patterns-is-this-ocd/
  • alchemistofophiralchemistofophir Christian Communist ✭✭✭
    Why don't you analyze your profile details to know who you really are? :rotflmao:

    I eat Jesus every Sundays while you eat millions of potential human beings whenever available, and you hoping that they would come from the picture in your profile. . :rotflmao::rotflmao:
  • JagonJagon Don't listen to me ✭✭✭
    "neaniskos" was used in this verse meaning "young man", this was also used a few times in the NT. Suprisingly, it was also mentioned in Mark 16:5, the "young man" who informed the confused women looking for Jesus' tomb.

    the linen cloth that was used is a sindon, traditionally used to wrap dead people for burial during those times.

    the "young man" who lost his cloth is the reverse opposite of the "young man" who is wearing it in Mark 16:5.

    it narrates how His disciples' state during when He was arrested and resurrected, state of shame during His arrest and state of glory during His resurrection.
  • alchemistofophiralchemistofophir Christian Communist ✭✭✭
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toga

    The toga, a distinctive garment of Ancient Rome, was a cloth of perhaps 6 metres (20 feet) in length which was wrapped around the body and was generally worn over a tunic. The toga was made of wool,[1] and the tunic under it often was made of linen.


    Mark 14

    A Young Man Flees
    51 And a young man followed him, with nothing but a linen cloth about his body. And they seized him, 52 but he left the linen cloth and ran away naked.

    An onlooker or one among a crowd who followed Jesus, wearing only a tunic made of linen, if you ask me.
«1345

Leave a Comment

BoldItalicStrikethroughOrdered listUnordered list
Emoji
Image
Align leftAlign centerAlign rightToggle HTML viewToggle full pageToggle lights
Drop image/file