Mark 14:51-52 - The Jesus Gay Scandal

1235»

Comments

  • benMarcingbenMarcing Member PEx Veteran ⭐⭐
    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.

    Based solely on internal evidence, do you admit that you can't establish your argument?
    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.

    You'll have to mount up a mountain of circumstantial evidence to push your agenda. The way I see that you did in the past is that you failed to look the other way, to be taken on its own. But then, you already know that.
    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

    It seems the argument is already complete. Elements of your argument as you laid it out are there. Opinions of others are really not important because there are scholars and experts who will say otherwise.

    Thanks,
    benMarcing
  • KidlatNgayonKidlatNgayon Member PEx Influencer ⭐⭐⭐
    Ateo, the fact that God despises homosexuality (we all know that) and that Jesus Christ is one with God, your speculations are very far from the truth. I am also saddened by the fact that you have blasphemed the Holy Spirit by accusing God of not upholding His own law by incriminating His beloved son Jesus Christ who did not sin and whose blood cleansed the sinners. I know you are an atheist but you have no hope of being forgiven unlike some non-believers who have managed to be brought into the light and are now forgiven. :(
  • benMarcingbenMarcing Member PEx Veteran ⭐⭐
    Should you elect to work out some more of the same, I think I should start addressing what you already submitted as it could be long if I will address them later. This way, we can cover some of the items you’ve already said.

    Overall, your argument is based on bias. Let's assume that there is 50-50 chance, yet your argument tilted it to make it greater than that so that it has a greater amount of certainty, and yet you have to do it by casting doubts on the scriptures’ credibility, argue on silence, use more statistical fallacy, and ignoring the evidence. But should we expect any other way? You are an atheist, you find things that do not exist in order to serve your purpose. Your attempt failed to come up with a rational argument.

    The following are the errors you’ve made that I noticed besides the error in your previous posts, i.e. false dilemma.
    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.

    How can you arrive at a conclusion that Jesus is gay, when you are basing it on 7-10% likeliness of gay in a population. Nowadays, you may argue that given the agenda being pushed to kids who really have no idea what it is that is being shoved to their throats.

    Just because there is a chance of raining 7-10%, then it will rain. You see how you are misusing statistics?

    And what about the strength of association? What is the likeliness that a very conservative Jewish family will have kids growing up gay in? You have to establish that conclusively. You have to establish the strength of association that it will likely occur.

    So far, you are using statistics the way advertisers deceive people.
    That is the reason why of the dozens of biblical characters, none is viewed as gay.

    Well, there is no reason to be. All you have is, well this is this, therefore it has to be that. Why would you want to go circumstantial when there are actually non-circumstantial evidence available? It is obvious that the homosexual activity is a detestable act (Lev. 18:22, 20:13, 1Cor. 6:9-10, Rom. 1:26-28). The biblical characters are aware of this, so the likeliness of them violating this, even though, let’s say for the sake of argument they have a homosexual feeling, is suppressed to please God since it is by obeying the law it can be done. And Jesus is obedient to the law.

    If, at least, you can establish that homosexuality is an act that pleases God, then you may have a chance. But you chose not to. So for you to achieve your goal you have to cast the scripture into something else. Somehow, you are certain that it was heavily edited. What is the percentage all the existing records are edited, 90-93%? You are simply basing your argument on what have happened on others which may or may not happen in the bible, but for you it has to happen because others had done it. You are moving an uncertain to a certainty, and if you are not how is it that you are sure that there was a gay scandal? It’s called bias.

    The fact that you don’t want to deal just what is written is, to me suggests, that you are convinced it is stacked up against your claim.
    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.

    This view heavily undermines the Jewish culture, especially those in the Palestine. It is true that some Jews were influenced by Hellenic culture, but this is true in philosophy, though not all. The culture based on the law prohibits what you are hoping the case to be. Now I won’t deny that there were those who probably adopted some of the Greek culture regarding sexuality, especially those already inclined to it. But some is not all.

    The fact of the matter is, the Palestinian Jews were unyielding to adopting Greek and Roman cultures. Clothing is fine, but adopting their morality and practice? Moreover, it was the policy of Rome to leave them to have their religion intact. Like Iskrot, you are grasping for straw.
    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".

    You could at least pay attention to the words used. It says “paidika”, where the obvious association with boys from the word paedo is present. But the word used by St Mark is “neaniskos”, a young man. So even here the association is not present.
    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.

    Another false assumption. The word used for “beloved” has nothing to do with “eromenos” because the word used is “agapao”. It is how God’s love is described. While St John described himself so, does that show Jesus didn’t agapao his other disciples? Let me guess, your answer is he can’t, it has to be John ONLY.

    Jesus also agapao Martha, and yet you only came up with a homosexual love. He also agapao a rich man who who was asking what to do to gain eternal life. And to you this is rational argument?

    Thanks,
    benMarcing
  • iskrotumiskrotum Ako si King Kong! PExer
    So what's with the naked young man wrapped in linens who followed him then fled?
  • benMarcingbenMarcing Member PEx Veteran ⭐⭐
    iskrotum wrote: »
    So what's with the naked young man wrapped in linens who followed him then fled?

    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 don’t 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 can’t be sexual.

    Thanks,
    benMarcing
  • iskrotumiskrotum Ako si King Kong! PExer
    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 don’t 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 can’t be sexual.

    Thanks,
    benMarcing

    Sure. And he could also be Jesus' gay lover.
  • AteoAteo Non est Deus. Fac cum eo. PEx Influencer ⭐⭐⭐
    benMarcing wrote: »
    And Da Vinci was one among present at the last supper, right Ateo? ;-D

    Thanks,
    benMarcing

    Hahaha. Da Vinci was invited to take the official fotog at the Last Supper. He came late though by several centuries.

    But, he was the official artist at the Vatican, so this dude knew the insider rumors among the venerables, haha. This particular painting was made for a monastery in Milan, so I am sure the learned monks must have complained if they thought that the art did not represent what they believed.

Leave a Comment

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