Ateo wrote: »
My argument really in bringing you all (BenMarcing) to a conclusion that the naked lad incident was likely to be a gay situation that was captured in the Bible is provide the whole context of Jesus' sexuality.
Absent any direct evidence, how do I make my case? Well, I will enumerate a lot of circumstantial evidence enough to allow you to make a conclusion that Jesus was more probably gay.
Here is my outline, which I will flesh out in the next several posts and weeks.
a. Statistical argument for the presence of gays in history
b. Presence of gays in ancient Semitic, Hellenic and Roman cultures
c. Behavior and attitude of Jesus towards the sexes
d. Gay-curious incidents in the NT
e. Opinions from biblical and contemporary writings
f. Current opinions of some biblical experts
Look around (I said "around", not at the mirror). Gays are around us. According to statistics, 7-10% of any random groupings of people are gays. That explains why in you high school class of 40, there were at least 2 openly or suspected gays, not counting those who successfully closeted themselves.
That is the reason why of the dozens of biblical characters, none is viewed as gay.
At the time of Jesus, the dominant culture is called Hellenic culture (akin to saying that the dominant culture today is Western/Hollywood culture). In that culture, it was totally acceptable for males to have sex with a younger male.
Stanford U described the typical relationship this way: "The cultural ideal of a same-sex relationship was between an older man, probably in his 20's or 30's, known as the erastes, and a boy whose beard had not yet begun to grow, the eromenos or paidika." "Erastes" is translated as the "lover" while "eromenos" translates to the "beloved".
Thus, biblical phrases like "the disciple whom Jesus loved" or the title of "John the Beloved" were easily understood by the Greek-cultured readers of the Bible at that time, who were potential recruits to Christianity.
iskrotum wrote: »
So what's with the naked young man wrapped in linens who followed him then fled?
benMarcing wrote: »
With what had been demonstrated so far, there is nothing sexual about the incident since the available evidence does not support this.
Being naked doesn't mean stark naked, not wearing anything. Peter was also naked when he was fishing, and there is no reason to think he would go stark naked while working. It's not practical. But a focus on the linen cloth, SINDON in Greek, tells something about the status of this young man.
First, SINDON is only used five times in the scripture: once in Matthew, three times in Mark, and also once in Luke. Common to the three gospels is that Joseph Arimathea, a rich follower of Jesus, used same fine linen cloth to wrap the body of Jesus.
We can, thus, surmise that the young man is a person of no small means. One could connect the dots that perhaps he is even related to Joseph.
Second, fine linen like this is worn at night during bed time much like some people wear silk at night. So we can suppose that this disciple, really, was ready for a good sleep, instead of an all out readiness that night. We can further suppose that he followed Jesus, although the Jews already seized Him, because he was gripped with guilt for not being ready.
Why would they seize him when the rest already fled? I am proposing that this young man was the same person known to the high priest, and asked to let Peter in. That they seized him not the way they seized Jesus (for he simply fled away from them without difficulty) signifies more of a familiarity of him, and being upset that he was with Jesus rather than with them.
Who is this disciple? We dont know for sure, but I think the likeliness that it was St John is strong.
What was said above are possible inferences within the bounds of evidence. But whatever it might be, St Mark put it there having something else in mind, and it cant be sexual.
benMarcing wrote: »
And Da Vinci was one among present at the last supper, right Ateo? ;-D