COMMUNITY NOTICE: If you are having trouble in your account access, please do send us a message at [email protected] for assistance.

Mark 14:51-52 - The Jesus Gay Scandal

135

Comments

  • iskrotumiskrotum Ako si King Kong! PExer
    Ben Marcing,

    I see you edited your post. :glee:
  • sophionsophion Member PEx Veteran ⭐⭐
    50 Then everyone deserted him and fled.

    51 A young man, wearing nothing but a linen garment, was following Jesus. When they seized him, 52 he fled naked, leaving his garment behind.




    This dude was just one of many who followed jeeezus. I dont think it implies anything. Probably the author included it to inject some humor into an otherwise dull scene. :D
  • benMarcingbenMarcing Member PEx Veteran ⭐⭐
    Well, I spoke so soon. Sorry about that.
    iskrotum wrote: »
    Just saying, that an entity declared as FULLY HUMAN would feel the effects of raging hormones and at least though about getting laid a few times in his life.

    But this argument could be said to those who only believe Jesus is only human, assuming sex drive necessarily must be fulfilled. But perhaps you've never heard of asexuals, those who simply have no desire. What would you do then? Would you call them homosexual, when they are asexual?

    Have you heard of self control as virtue? Aristotle have it in his writings, didn't you read? Have you heard of virtue ethics?
    I apologize for that.

    No problem.
    Nor about junk food nor laying out in the sun too long. Could cause health problems, you know.

    Exactly the point! So just because he didn't say explicitly about homosexuality doesn't mean he approves it, how much more practice it.
    Did the gospel writers form opinions on homosexuality? As far as I know, they just narrated Jesus' story.

    You'll have to start with the law, and from there draw an inference. If Jesus is law abiding, and the law forbids homosexuality, then Jesus necessarily did not practice homosexuality. Did the gospel say or suggest he was law abiding? Yes.
    "Do not think that I came to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I did not come to abolish, but to fulfill." Matt. 5:17
    If he was law abiding, he should have dragged the woman to court. Or had the man who was picking up sticks on Sabbath Day executed.

    There is the law, and there is the spirit of the law. In fact, what seems to be contradictory demonstrates to be lacked of understanding of the law. God requires sacrifice, but he desires mercy more. Where there seems to be a contradiction, priority applies, e.g. what is weightier. For example, circumcision vs observing the rules on Sabbath. What was said is circumcision, if it occurred on the Sabbath, must be honored over observance rules of the day.
    Who does Jesus send to hell, the homosexuality or the homosexual person?

    Actually, Jesus was not sending people to hell. It is people who send themselves to it. The choice is theirs. Homosexuality is condemned on the cross, that's why there is no excuse for practicing homosexuals to say they didn't get help. It is right there on the cross.
    If you won't know if those monks whack their wieners but make them as examples anyway, try posting stuff you do really know.

    When I say I don't know, it is because it's not for me to spy on what they do every hour. What can be said, however, is how monks view *****. It is a sin. So, even if there is one who committed such, if he is a good monk, he will still confess it because they know it to be sin. In doing so, they agreed that it is something to be condemned. You'll have to know more about the moral life of Orthodox Christianity to understand this.

    As said previously, this has nothing to do with homosexuality. I simply set the example of monks as proof that one can elect to be celibate and chose to serve God, whether they have a homosexual inclination or not, for there are indeed Orthodox monks who were previously homosexual and yet overcame. And thus demonstrating homosexuality, and any kind of lusts, can be subjected to the will of God. Sexuality is not just either or between heterosexuality vs homosexuality or bisexuality, but also asexuality and a deliberate choice of celibacy to serve God.

    These other options not presented is what made the argument of Ateo a false dichotomy.

    Thanks,
    benMarcing
  • benMarcingbenMarcing Member PEx Veteran ⭐⭐
    iskrotum wrote: »
    You replied too soon bro.

    I did, and I apologized for that.
    But yeah, I proved you wrong, didn't I?

    God has something to do with evil.

    So, you know it is red herring.

    Anyways, this is different topic as the quote you have does not have a direct bearing on the nature of God. Open up a thread on it, if you want.

    Thanks,
    benMarcing
  • benMarcingbenMarcing Member PEx Veteran ⭐⭐
    iskrotum wrote: »
    Ben Marcing,

    I see you edited your post.

    I did, and nothing that had changed as much since the argument stands as is. Any editing is for the purpose of sharpening the argument, and to advance what could be asked later anyway.

    You seem to suggest I backed out.

    Thanks,
    benMarcing
  • benMarcingbenMarcing Member PEx Veteran ⭐⭐
    sophion wrote: »
    50 Then everyone deserted him and fled.

    51 A young man, wearing nothing but a linen garment, was following Jesus. When they seized him, 52 he fled naked, leaving his garment behind.


    This dude was just one of many who followed jeeezus. I dont think it implies anything. Probably the author included it to inject some humor into an otherwise dull scene. :D

    Among those who identified themselves as atheist, you did well on your comment. In fact, being "naked" doesn't mean not wearing underwear. For instance, Peter was naked when he was fishing after Jesus resurrected.
    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. John 21:7

    Now what practical reason a fisherman would go stark naked when fishing? None.

    Moreover, undergarments is part of normal covering even in the ancient times, how much more when Palestine was influenced by Greeks and Romans who wear them.

    It simply is bad reading.

    As for the young man. Since the apostles already fled, what was suggested is this was actually the author of the gospel, i.e. St Mark as indicated by the fine linen for which a well to do family of St Peter's nephew could afford.

    Thanks,
    benMarcing
  • iskrotumiskrotum Ako si King Kong! PExer
    benMarcing wrote: »


    So, you know it is red herring.

    Anyways, this is different topic as the quote you have does not have a direct bearing on the nature of God. Open up a thread on it, if you want.

    Thanks,
    benMarcing

    Yes, but still wrong.
  • benMarcingbenMarcing Member PEx Veteran ⭐⭐
    iskrotum wrote: »
    Yes, but still wrong.

    Nothing is wrong about it. Take a lesson from this thread. What is wrong is to get this thread diverted into something which it is not. Start a thread or open any thread you know related to it.

    Thanks,
    benMarcing
  • iskrotumiskrotum Ako si King Kong! PExer
    benMarcing wrote: »
    Nothing is wrong about it. Take a lesson from this thread. What is wrong is to get this thread diverted into something which it is not. Start a thread or open any thread you know related to it.

    Thanks,
    benMarcing

    It caught my eye because it is BLATANTLY goes against the book you believe. But yes, its not the topic. Ipagpipilitan mong tama? Eh di lalo tayong lumayo sa topic. I don't mind.
  • benMarcingbenMarcing Member PEx Veteran ⭐⭐
    iskrotum wrote: »
    It caught my eye because it is BLATANTLY goes against the book you believe. But yes, its not the topic. Ipagpipilitan mong tama? Eh di lalo tayong lumayo sa topic. I don't mind.

    No, it's not. Isaiah couldn't possibly get it wrong. Read the whole Isaiah and you'll see what it means by evil when he says God create it.

    I've seen Isaiah 45:7 used as proof text that God is evil, either you or one of the atheists here. As I said, learn from this thread. "Naked" does not always mean stark naked, and by the same token not all evil means morally evil.

    Thanks,
    benMarcing
  • iskrotumiskrotum Ako si King Kong! PExer
    benMarcing wrote: »
    But this argument could be said to those who only believe Jesus is only human, assuming sex drive necessarily must be fulfilled. But perhaps you've never heard of asexuals, those who simply have no desire. What would you do then? Would you call them homosexual, when they are asexual?

    Have you heard of self control as virtue? Aristotle have it in his writings, didn't you read? Have you heard of virtue ethics?

    You believe Jesus is God, yet FULLY human. If he was fully human, why would he not feel lust in his heart?:rotflmao:

    Are you implying that monks who live like eunuchs are asexuals? What are the chances?

    Do you know any male human being on planet earth on or above the age of puberty who has not masturbated in his entire life?

    Exactly the point! So just because he didn't say explicitly about homosexuality doesn't mean he approves it, how much more practice it.

    Exactly the point too!! And more so that it doesn't mean that he is against it! You just assumed because of the OT and Paul's pronouncements, and it doesn't necessarily follow. Silence can open doors to a lot of assumptions. I wonder why Jeezas was silent on homosexuality

    You'll have to start with the law, and from there draw an inference. If Jesus is law abiding, and the law forbids homosexuality, then Jesus necessarily did not practice homosexuality. Did the gospel say or suggest he was law abiding? Yes.
    "Do not think that I came to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I did not come to abolish, but to fulfill." Matt. 5:17



    There is the law, and there is the spirit of the law. In fact, what seems to be contradictory demonstrates to be lacked of understanding of the law. God requires sacrifice, but he desires mercy more. Where there seems to be a contradiction, priority applies, e.g. what is weightier. For example, circumcision vs observing the rules on Sabbath. What was said is circumcision, if it occurred on the Sabbath, must be honored over observance rules of the day.

    Jesus was not law abiding. He did not suggest that the alleged adulteress be dragged to court nor to put to death the man picking up sticks on Sabbath.

    He was even against DIVORCE which was allowed in the OT. And yet you quote Matt 5:17.

    That means only one thing. The OT laws written in the bible are corrupt. God and Jesus didn't have anything to do with it. If it were from God, he would not oppose it, not in the slightest bit.

    Actually, Jesus was not sending people to hell. It is people who send themselves to it. The choice is theirs. Homosexuality is condemned on the cross, that's why there is no excuse for practicing homosexuals to say they didn't get help. It is right there on the cross.

    Nobody in his right mind would knowingly send himself to pain, torture, suffering and what more, eternal damnation.:lol:

    It is God's fault that mankind is acting this way. He made man so defective that he regret creating them.
    Genesis 6:7
    And the Lord said, I will destroy man whom I have created from the face of the earth; both man, and beast, and the creeping thing, and the fowls of the air; for it repenteth me that I have made them

    That only goes to show that God was utterly clueless. What kind of God regrets?? A God who doesn't know the future.

    The quality control in his human factory is absolutely NON-EXISTENT. He is a GROSSLY INCOMPETENT creator that 100% of what goes out of his assembly line is 100% defective.

    Romans 3:10-12King James Version (KJV)

    10 As it is written, There is none righteous, no, not one:

    11 There is none that understandeth, there is none that seeketh after God.

    12 They are all gone out of the way, they are together become unprofitable; there is none that doeth good, no, not one
    .

    Now, the biggest excuse: FREE-WILL.

    Apparently, God freezes at the sight of free-will. With all his supposed powers, he will do nothing to alleviate human suffering. All because of free-will. It was our choice. KUNO.

    If homosexuality is evil, God should be blamed. Not the powerless, puny, human who just cannot resist acting according to what his temperament dictates, and he has little or no control.

    Revelation 20:10
    And the devil that deceived them was cast into the lake of fire and brimstone, where the beast and the false prophet are, and shall be tormented day and night for ever and ever.


    They were cast into the lake of fire by someone who has the power to do that.
    Matt 10: 28 And fear not them which kill the body, but are not able to kill the soul: but rather fear him which is able to destroy both soul and body in hell.


    When I say I don't know, it is because it's not for me to spy on what they do every hour. What can be said, however, is how monks view *****. It is a sin. So, even if there is one who committed such, if he is a good monk, he will still confess it because they know it to be sin. In doing so, they agreed that it is something to be condemned. You'll have to know more about the moral life of Orthodox Christianity to understand this.

    As said previously, this has nothing to do with homosexuality. I simply set the example of monks as proof that one can elect to be celibate and chose to serve God, whether they have a homosexual inclination or not, for there are indeed Orthodox monks who were previously homosexual and yet overcame. And thus demonstrating homosexuality, and any kind of lusts, can be subjected to the will of God. Sexuality is not just either or between heterosexuality vs homosexuality or bisexuality, but also asexuality and a deliberate choice of celibacy to serve God.

    These other options not presented is what made the argument of Ateo a false dichotomy.

    Thanks,
    benMarcing

    How do you know they really overcame? Just because somebody said so? You can elect to be celibate but to maintain that celibacy is something else. It's easy and popular to be a hypocrite, more so in the religious world. But I heard differently. I heard that some young men with homosexual tendencies wanted to escape this dilemma and opted for a life of servitude to God. But they turned into something else, and it is much worse.

    One can only speculate why a naked man wrapped only in linens popped out of nowhere to follow Jesus, and homosexual activity is a good guess.
  • benMarcingbenMarcing Member PEx Veteran ⭐⭐
    iskrotum wrote: »
    You believe Jesus is God, yet FULLY human. If he is fully human, why would he not feel lust in his heart?

    Because lust is sin, and he is holy. Not only that, Jesus being divine subjected his human body to what's proper to it, i.e. self control.
    Are you implying that monks who live like eunuchs are asexuals? What are the chances?

    Not at all. But let's assume some are asexual, then that destroys the argument that because they did not have sex with the opposite sex then they are homosexual.

    What you need to understand is there were monks who entered the monastery at an earlier, and had shown desire to serve God alone, and fully aware that once they are tonsured as monks they can no longer marry. Celibacy is a deliberate choice.
    Do you know any human on planet earth on or above the age of puberty who has not masturbated in his entire life?

    Jesus.
    Exactly the point too!! And more so that it doesn't mean that he is against it! You just assumed it because of the OT and Paul's pronouncements, and it doesn't necessarily follow.

    It is not assumed. I already demonstrated that Jesus upholds the law, and since the law is against homosexuality, there is no reason to believe that he believes otherwise. You are grasping for straw to insist otherwise, and the bible is stacked up against your claim.
    Jesus is not law abiding. He did not suggest that the alleged adulteress be dragged to court or to put to death the man picking up sticks on Sabbath.

    You are not paying attention to what I said. The covenant of circumcision, for instance, is not something to be delayed or done earlier since the law says that a male child must be circumcised on the eight day. Now, the law also says there is no work to be done on the sabbath day. But suppose the eight day when a male child is to be circumcised fell on the sabbath, is circumcision to be done or not? Circumcision is to be done even though no work is to be done on the sabbath. That's because the covenant of circumcision has more weight than no work requirement of the sabbath.

    When Jesus came, the Jewish leaders were doing things legalistically. They forgot that the Lord also says that He desires mercy over sacrifice. He did not approve of not honoring the parents, and to put what should be given to them as offering to the temple instead.

    Since Jesus came to save, as God he forgives sin. He opted to forgive rather than condemn the adulteress. God always has a choice. He came to save.

    As for the man picking up sticks on the sabbath, you are confusing old testament with the new. This occurred in OT, not in NT. Please lead me to where Jesus was present.
    He was even against DIVORCE!! Divorce is allowed in the OT but he hates it! And then you quote Matt 5:17??

    Is Jesus the only one against divorce? Here's Malachi 2:16
    For the LORD, the God of Israel, saith that he hateth putting away: for one covereth violence with his garment, saith the LORD of hosts: therefore take heed to your spirit, that ye deal not treacherously. (KJV)

    The NASB version is much clearer,
    "For I hate divorce," says the LORD, the God of Israel, "and him who covers his garment with wrong," says the LORD of hosts. "So take heed to your spirit, that you do not deal treacherously."

    Just because it's been allowed then God prefers it. Jesus said that it is because of weakness divorce was allowed. So then, he laid down what was originally God had in mind, that those who came together as husband and wife should live as one since they are one flesh. He added, "what God has put together, let no man put asunder." The Orthodox church allows divorce for the same reason God allows it in NT.
    That means only one thing. The OT laws written in the bible are corrupt. God and Jesus didn't have anything to do with it. If it is from God, he would not oppose it, not in the slightest bit.

    The OT laws are fine. It's our understanding and our weaknesses that made it hard to understand.
    Nobody in his right mind would knowingly send himself to pain, torture, suffering and what more, eternal damnation.

    Right. The unfortunate thing is it's not because they were not told, or they don't know it, but they rather prefer to live away from God. And to that end, being away from the living God, is what makes man dead. Their choice will be honored in the end -- an eternity of death, away from the living God.

    As for the rest of your diatribe, you are forcing this thread to deviate. You have so many issues, they need to be addressed in different threads, why not create them?
    How do you know they really overcame? Just because somebody said so?

    Because before they used to, but instead they abandoned that life. Read up on the life of Fr. Seraphim Rose.
    You can elect to be celibate but to maintain that celibacy is something else. But I heard differently. I heard that some young men with homosexual tendencies wanted to escape this dilemma and opted for a life of servitude to God. But they turned into something else, and it is much worse.

    Perhaps. It is a struggle; some fell, some endured.
    One can only speculate why a naked man wrapped only in linens popped out of nowhere to follow Jesus, and homosexual activity is a good guess.

    That interpretation lacks consistency. But that's your choice.

    Thanks,
    benMarcing
  • benMarcingbenMarcing Member PEx Veteran ⭐⭐
    iskrotum wrote: »
    One can only speculate why a naked man wrapped only in linens popped out of nowhere to follow Jesus, and homosexual activity is a good guess.

    This will take us back to the topic.

    Could you please lay out the story that will convince a reasonable person to accept your guess that there was a homosexual activity?

    Thanks,
    benMarcing
  • JagonJagon Don't listen to me PEx Influencer ⭐⭐⭐
    Ateo wrote: »
    Actually, Jagon, we don't invent stories. We are not religious myth-makers.

    How many men in ancient times rose from the dead? Actually, there were a few; each one was based on a myth.

    How many men practiced Pederasty in Ancient Rome and Greece. Actually, you only have to google the word to know the answer.

    The Gospel of John was written with the Hellenistic audience in mind. It picture Jesus as a pederast, with a young lover. The verse of the Bible clearly depict it, especially the coded phrase: "the disciple whom Jesus loved", even as he should be loving all disciples and all of us anyway. That code phrase had a special meaning.


    Ateo, I'm just trying to give a meaning to that naked guy incident. Whether there was pederasty or not, the meaning I gave remains valid.
  • JagonJagon Don't listen to me PEx Influencer ⭐⭐⭐
    Ben,

    What is your take on that naked (or half naked) guy?

    what is its spiritual significance?
  • AteoAteo Non est Deus. Fac cum eo. PEx Influencer ⭐⭐⭐
    benMarcing wrote: »
    This will take us back to the topic.

    Could you please lay out the story that will convince a reasonable person to accept your guess that there was a homosexual activity?

    Thanks,
    benMarcing

    I can do it.
  • iskrotumiskrotum Ako si King Kong! PExer
    All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness,
    2 Timothy 3:16

    Therefore, that naked man verse should have significance in "teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness."

    Good luck on that. :lol:
  • benMarcingbenMarcing Member PEx Veteran ⭐⭐
    Ateo wrote: »
    I can do it.

    Please do.

    Thanks,
    benMarcing
  • benMarcingbenMarcing Member PEx Veteran ⭐⭐
    Jagon wrote: »
    Ben,

    Christ is Risen!

    You know in the Orthodox church, we have a cycle of readings, a lectionary; so we all read and hear the same. There are some readings that are read more than once, like the man possessed by the demoniacs in Gadara. That doesn’t mean we are not studying the whole bible; we do. But the Gospel has such a special place in the life of the Church that a traditional priest will actually deliver his homily from the Gospel alone. So the question that comes to mind is after one year, will the priest repeat the same message?

    Even though, say, we read the account of the transfiguration of the Lord (Mt 17.1-92, see also Mk 9.1-9; Lk 9.28-36; 2Pet 1.16-18), the message can be different. At times, though, it does not matter because we knew the experience of the angels who day and night never stop saying “holy, holy, holy”. What I mean by this is, these angels day and night say the same thing without rest. Day and night! Can you imagine that? Day and night they don’t stop worshiping God saying same words over and over again. An outsider will say, “Boring!” But you see, for us Orthodox repetition is not boring; it’s good! Why? because in that stillness is an experience that you don’t want to get out of. Do you know that feeling? It’s like you falling in love, and you just want to be sick in love, and you don’t want to be in other place but that, to remain in that state forever!
    what is its spiritual significance?

    The spiritual significance of what we read in the scripture can be varied. That’s why in the works of the fathers, one will say this, and one that. That’s because the scripture can benefit us in many different ways. In other words, I may speak of this and yet it is not the only way one can draw benefit from it. Of course, in the Orthodox church we have what we call the mind of Christ, the mind that the Church has. Now, once this mind is acquired, it then aligns our thoughts and understanding with that of the apostles since what the Spirit that inspired their mind will be the one who also will open one’s heart and mind in understanding the scriptures.

    So, really, I’m not sure if I could give you “the” spiritual significance of it. But we can go along with what iskro said,
    iskrotum wrote: »
    All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness,
    2 Timothy 3:16

    Therefore, that naked man verse should have significance in "teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness."

    Good luck on that.

    Our priest once told me that in our reading of the scriptures that I should look for what the text says about God, more than just getting facts and information. The liturgical theology of Orthodox have this in mind: that in everything that we do, it should bring us into our knees and an attitude of worship. We are Orthodox! Our occupation is right worship of God.

    Unfortunately, for example, here posters are actually using the bible as weapon of insults and abuse instead of an ointment to heal wounds (for we are all already wounded).
    What is your take on that naked (or half naked) guy?

    Certainly Mark 14.51-52 has many vectors and angles. We can focus on the linen, for instance; or begin to exegetically explore each word till we arrive at some acceptable understanding of it. The point is the richness of it can lead to different interpretations; but whatever we could come off of it, we should not deviate from the mind of Christ.

    Not all interpretations are equal.

    Sometimes, we should be contented with what we got from it and never venture into further reading that lead others to wrong reading, and thus led them to heresy. This is what happened to all heresies: an alienation from the mind of Christ.

    See how others are reading this as a gay story? It’s a clear example of not having the mind of Christ.

    I intend, if you bear with me, to present my take of the text in response to what will Ateo say. I think that in this way, we stay relevant to the moment. And I think that this reply had somehow brought some spiritual significance you can use.

    Christ is Risen!

    benMarcing
  • iskrotumiskrotum Ako si King Kong! PExer
    benMarcing wrote: »
    This will take us back to the topic.

    Could you please lay out the story that will convince a reasonable person to accept your guess that there was a homosexual activity?

    Thanks,
    benMarcing

    If you totally write off possible homosexual/ pedophilic activity, ie:

    Authorities come in:
    Naked boy
    Wrapped in linens
    followed Jesus
    ran away

    then you are being intellectually dishonest.

Leave a Comment

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