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

124

Comments

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

    Ben, that's so typical. The bible never means what it says except what you want it to mean doesn't it?

    Based on the bible, it IS true. I've said it in a previous post and you dismissed it as mere "diatribe". He cannot produce even ONE SINGLE GOOD HUMAN because as the bible says 'not one is righteous'. After Adam and Eve, God continually tortured and eradicated humans in the hopes of making a new breed of righteous humans, and to appease him, he needs blood sacrifice. He is just like the gods of ancient myths. Ain't that true?

    Having said that, why wouldn't Jesus ***** or be attracted to boys if he is 100% fully human? He has exhibited a lot of human qualities like being racist, having anger issues, cursing, being hungry.. it's perfectly alright! If priests are representative of Christ on earth, look at the similarities!
  • benMarcingbenMarcing Member PEx Veteran ⭐⭐
    iskrotum wrote: »
    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.

    At the moment, what I can tell you is this: I looked at the available evidence, and I see no reason why I should accept the possibility of homosexual activity. It is therefore your task to establish a rational argument that in the garden there was a homosexual activity. Up to now, you and Ateo have not come up with something that does not deny what has been written in the bible. (This denial defines intellectual dishonesty.) Moreover, you introduced questions that are not even related to the thread topic. That doesn’t mean I won’t engaged them. What you and Ateo have said are claims; and claims are not argument.

    Let’s assume that you established a credible argument that I couldn’t refute, but simply refused it with no reason, then, yes, that would be me being intellectually dishonest. At this time I have nothing to evaluate. You have to establish that homosexual activity is a real possibility, not simply asserted.

    As for paedophilic activity, I couldn’t believe you have come up with this; based on Mark 14:51-52?? Are you willing to establish that the young man’s age is what can be considered what paedophile usually attacked, which is aged 13 or younger? Do you want to start with this first? Then, please do.

    Thanks,
    benMarcing
  • iskrotumiskrotum Ako si King Kong! PExer
    benMarcing wrote: »
    At the moment, what I can tell you is this: I looked at the available evidence, and I see no reason why I should accept the possibility of homosexual activity. It is therefore your task to establish a rational argument that in the garden there was a homosexual activity. Up to now, you and Ateo have not come up with something that does not deny what has been written in the bible. (This denial defines intellectual dishonesty.) Moreover, you introduced questions that are not even related to the thread topic. That doesn’t mean I won’t engaged them. What you and Ateo have said are claims; and claims are not argument.

    Let’s assume that you established a credible argument that I couldn’t refute, but simply refused it with no reason, then, yes, that would be me being intellectually dishonest. At this time I have nothing to evaluate. You have to establish that homosexual activity is a real possibility, not simply asserted.

    As for paedophilic activity, I couldn’t believe you have come up with this; based on Mark 14:51-52?? Are you willing to establish that the young man’s age is what can be considered what paedophile usually attacked, which is aged 13 or younger? Do you want to start with this first? Then, please do.

    Thanks,
    benMarcing

    Your intellectual dishonesty is so blatant. How can you deny even just the "possibility"? What is a naked man/boy doing following Jesus? Nakedness/ linens connote sexual activity. Would you deny that?

    I haven't established anything that's why I keep on saying "possibility".

    If you couldn't believe I came up with paedophilic activity, I couldn't believe that you lack imagination to connect dots.

    But what other possibilities could you think of given those facts? Could you give it a shot?

    I know I haven't established anything that's why I keep on saying "possibility". You too haven't established anything but you can't even speculate what a naked boy was doing there following your Saviour because you're afraid to go to hell.
  • AteoAteo Non est Deus. Fac cum eo. PEx Influencer ⭐⭐⭐
    I told Ben Marcing that I will make my case. But you all have to be patient because we all live in different time zones. Also, it is a difficult case. There is no verse that would say, "Then, Jesus sucketh the lad." Don't expect that from me. The editors that long stripped the sexuality of Jesus. But, don't despair. I will pile up all circumstantial evidences, so that I could convince the rational. I fear I could not convince you, Ben. You have closed your mind while wearing the cloak of faked intellect.

    The irony of Jesus is that dogma demands that He was fully human (while fully divine, etc.etc.). And yet, Christians can't picture him being human like having a diarrhea or having sex. But the dogma allows us to ask the question: If Jesus had sexual drive, to which gender it was directed? The answer is not really that difficult as we are all keen students of human behaviors.
  • AteoAteo Non est Deus. Fac cum eo. PEx Influencer ⭐⭐⭐
    By the way, I like very much the parsimony of Iskrotum's argument. I tend to be wordy, thus less effective than him.

    Jesus was racist, he damaged properties of the moneychangers, he lied, he partied at Cana with unli wine. So, where are the sex stories? We had a lot of sex stories with the other human patriarchs. Why was Jesus so virginal? Virginity was never a prerequisite for a rabbi, a messiah, a king, or even a Jewish male. Heck, even Gods were not virgins - Jupiter, Apollo, etc. Even Yahweh fertilized Mary. So why was Jesus so uptight? Answer: Because the bible editors were uptight. But, they were not thorough. Some editing stubs were left, just like this passage of Mark.
  • benMarcingbenMarcing Member PEx Veteran ⭐⭐
    iskrotum wrote: »
    Your intellectual dishonesty is so blatant. How can you deny even just the "possibility"? What is a naked man/boy doing following Jesus? Nakedness/ linens connote sexual activity. Would you deny that?

    I haven't established anything that's why I keep on saying "possibility".

    It is your claim; therefore, the first thing you must do is establish it. Until then, the possibility that it is true does not exist. When you come up with a rational argument, then that is a possibility. Good inference is good, but that doesn’t mean it’s true. If someone comes and refutes your good inference, then the possibility does not exist.
    If you couldn't believe I came up with paedophilic activity, I couldn't believe that you lack imagination to connect dots.

    The word used for young man is NEANISKOS, not PAIDION where paedo is related. Did you stop for awhile to think it didn’t say child? It says young MAN, telling us that this is already a man, only young, but not a child. Even at this, paedophilia is very remote. So, no, there is nothing to connect. Really, it’s up to you to establish the connection, not me.
    But what other possibilities could you think of given those facts? Could you give it a shot?

    I could, but let's focus on your argument first. Don’t worry I will lay it out.
    I know I haven't established anything that's why I keep on saying "possibility". You too haven't established anything but you can't even speculate what a naked boy was doing there following your Saviour because you're afraid to go to hell.

    If you come making accusation, you ought to establish what you are saying is true. Suppose I succeeded in demolishing your argument, won’t that establish mine?

    Thanks,
    benMarcing
  • benMarcingbenMarcing Member PEx Veteran ⭐⭐
    iskrotum wrote: »
    Ben, that's so typical. The bible never means what it says except what you want it to mean doesn't it?

    Iskro, that's eisegesis, I don’t do that stuff. We can do a word study, but it’s not enough. The reason is word can have multiple meanings, and what determines its true meaning is the context. That’s why I told you to read the whole book. If you are simply giving me a quote, and then you simply assert, then you are depriving other readers of what would benefit them. And if you do not research what you are asserting, then how can you come up with a reasonable argument? And if you are avoiding because you might find yourself into trouble, then that, my friend, is intellectual dishonesty.
    Based on the bible, it IS true. I've said it in a previous post and you dismissed it as mere "diatribe".

    I did not address them, but I am not dismissing them, and they are diatribe. All I asked is for us to get this gay claim be out of the way first. Okay, since in this forum no moderator is actually monitoring when discussion already veered away from the thread, then you don’t need to create a new thread, and we’ll just discuss them here. But please, don’t keep moving the target. Let’s just deal things one at a time. Can you do that?
    He cannot produce even ONE SINGLE GOOD HUMAN because as the bible says 'not one is righteous'.

    I don’t know what you meant by “good”. Abel is considered righteous; so also Noah. God was so pleased with Enoch, who walked with Him, that he was not found.

    The word “righteous” like many words in the bible has different nuances. There is no contradiction when the bible says “this man is righteous,” and then on the other, “no man is righteous.” The first is a righteousness based on faith, while the latter for which all of us failed is a righteousness based on God’s law. This is the reason why there is sacrifice: to remedy the broken relationship of man with God caused by his misdeeds.
    After Adam and Eve, God continually tortured and eradicated humans in the hopes of making a new breed of righteous humans,

    This assertion is incorrect. God CONTINUALLY eradicated humans in hopes of making a new breed of righteous humans? You are exaggerating. The only time we read God judged humanity is in the great flood. It is a judgment of the sin of men, and that after years of preaching by Noah. They had been warned, but they won’t listen.

    As for Noah, well, he is righteous as already mentioned above because of his faith shown by his fear of God and his obedience. That doesn’t mean he was without sin. Isn’t this an act of mercy? God extended his mercy to his family. It’s not mercy? You’ll probably say, not enough. But what can we do, the rest were warned but they won’t listen.
    and to appease him, he needs blood sacrifice.

    Well, first, God has no need. God doesn’t need animal blood. Perhaps, you mean He requires it.

    Second, the sacrifice is required not for God’s benefit but for the benefit of the one who offers. Life is in blood, and the one who offers identifies himself with what is offered; thus, what is required is that man should offer himself to God, not because God needs it, but because it is good for the man; for then, as man empties himself, God then will fill him with Himself. Orthodox calls this theosis or deification, a participation in the life of God, that we might become like God. Not to become God, but be like God.
    Having said that, why wouldn't Jesus ***** or be attracted to boys if he is 100% fully human?

    I already answered this, but let me restate again: Jesus is holy; and what you suggested is sin. He came to fulfill the law, not to break it. Both ***** and being attracted to boys are not normal, but are deeds of fallen being.

    Are you naturally attracted to boys? To kids below 13?

    Thanks,
    benMarcing
  • benMarcingbenMarcing Member PEx Veteran ⭐⭐
    Ateo wrote: »
    I told Ben Marcing that I will make my case. But you all have to be patient because we all live in different time zones. Also, it is a difficult case. There is no verse that would say, "Then, Jesus sucketh the lad." Don't expect that from me.

    No worries, I don’t expect you to.
    I will pile up all circumstantial evidences, so that I could convince the rational. I fear I could not convince you, Ben. You have closed your mind while wearing the cloak of faked intellect.

    Haha … So if anyone does not agree with you, then they are not rational? Well, the rest of your statement state as much. Perhaps, that should go to Urban Dictionary: A rational person is one who agrees with me. ;-D
    The irony of Jesus is that dogma demands that He was fully human (while fully divine, etc.etc.). And yet, Christians can't picture him being human like having a diarrhea or having sex.

    Well, diarrhea is okay, but sex? I can’t see it, so you have to show it. I read your claim, but that’s it. I will wait.
    But the dogma allows us to ask the question: If Jesus had sexual drive, to which gender it was directed? The answer is not really that difficult as we are all keen students of human behaviors.

    Still going for false dichotomy?

    Thanks,
    benMarcing
  • iskrotumiskrotum Ako si King Kong! PExer
    Ateo wrote: »
    By the way, I like very much the parsimony of Iskrotum's argument. I tend to be wordy, thus less effective than him.

    Jesus was racist, he damaged properties of the moneychangers, he lied, he partied at Cana with unli wine. So, where are the sex stories? We had a lot of sex stories with the other human patriarchs. Why was Jesus so virginal? Virginity was never a prerequisite for a rabbi, a messiah, a king, or even a Jewish male. Heck, even Gods were not virgins - Jupiter, Apollo, etc. Even Yahweh fertilized Mary. So why was Jesus so uptight? Answer: Because the bible editors were uptight. But, they were not thorough. Some editing stubs were left, just like this passage of Mark.
    Thanks for the compliment.

    About Jeezas' marital status, I have an issue with that. The bible is eerily silent. Strange huh? With all his magical powers, women should be throwing themselves at him. Again, he could be a homosexual, or he could very well be one variety of LGBT. There are lots, as I have been lectured. Nowadays, it's more than just male, female, bakla, tomboy.

    Let's look at the possibilities:
    1. Jesus was gay and the bible writers didn't want to discuss his sexuality (naked young man in linens).
    2. Jesus was a ladies' man and writers didn't want to discuss his sexuality. Mary Magdalene/ Woman with the alabaster jar.
    3. Jesus was a eunuch and/or an asexual as may have suggested, and that too is an embarrassing state for the Son of God to be in. (He considered ogling at ladies to be adultery. What full blooded male would say that?)
    4. The Gospels were corrupt and they made up a drama and maybe mixed up ideas from older writings of ancient sages that would soften up the masses to a new religion.

    I don't blame Marcing for his reasoning though. He is in love with his religion and no amount of reasoning specially from a non believer can move him. For him, Jeeezas was a macho man who never masturbated in his life. Ever!! Naked young men following him absolutely means nothing, or if there is a meaning, it could be profound. Religious people have a knack for making BS sound profound, but in this case, our friend BenMarcing had nothing though he makes it look like he has something up his sleeves that he could reveal with the right timing. But there should be something because it is written, "All scripture is God-breathed...good for correction.. bla bla bla.."
  • AteoAteo Non est Deus. Fac cum eo. PEx Influencer ⭐⭐⭐
    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. As I said earlier, I could not provide a direct admission, such as, "Jesus sucketh the lad and the lad cometh." While the OT was more shockingly sexual, the Christian Church in the first 300 years, when the biblical canon was formalized, was very sexually uptight. 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

    I will end with a positive note. I will argue that Jesus could still qualify for God or Messiah even if he was gay. No need to be uptight.
  • AteoAteo Non est Deus. Fac cum eo. PEx Influencer ⭐⭐⭐
    The Closeting of History

    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.

    Wait, there is the closet that complicates the counting. While gays are easier to count now ( that hyper-masculine, homophobic, religious youth camp leader, for example), it is not easy to count it using historical or biblical account. That is because there was a "closeting" of history. People hide non-traditional sexuality from historical records, especially records of respected individuals. If I will ask you how many of the more than 40 US presidents were gays? You could not cite one based on official biographies. That is a statistical anomaly if they were all straight. How many military generals in history were gay? Even more difficult to count because we thought that General = Straight, although, currently, President Obama has appointed gay military leaders such as US General Randy Taylor and US Secretary of the Army Eric Fanning.

    That is the reason why of the dozens of biblical characters, none is viewed as gay. It is, of course, a statistical anomaly, especially if you think that Gods of other contemporary cultures, like the Greek top God Zeus was bisexual and had a romp with the handsome young prince of Troy, Ganymede. http://www.gayexplained.com/gay-myth-zeus-jupiter/ In fact, the sexual relation between a senior male figure with a young man from a good family was so common in the Greek society such that it was embedded both into their culture of Pederasty and into their religion/myth (Zeus-Ganymede love affair).

    I digressed. What I am trying to say is that the absence of gays in the NT is a statistical anomaly that can be best explained as the closeting of the Bible.

    Let us proceed with this thread with an open mind. Let us assume that there should be biblical characters who were gays, assuming that they were humans (or even Gods). So, if there were, was Jesus one of them?
  • AteoAteo Non est Deus. Fac cum eo. PEx Influencer ⭐⭐⭐
    LGBTQ and the Alphabet of Sexuality

    Complicating our analysis is the fact that it is way too difficult to enumerate the range of sexuality. Some of the terms we use today, especially the word "gay" would not be understood in history.

    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".

    http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/homosexuality/

    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.

    So, when we say in this thread that "Jesus was gay", I am not saying that he was wearing a rainbow skirt while being fisted by Peter. What I am saying is that Jesus was a "top" who lovingly mentored his younger "beloved". This mentorship relationship, of course, had physical components, as Stanford reported. That explains why there is extraordinary emphasis in the Bible that one of the disciples was really young. In that culture, it would be rather unusual for the two partners to be of the same age.
  • ArchimedesArchimedes B?nned by ?dmin PEx Influencer ⭐⭐⭐
    Kadiri ka naman
  • AteoAteo Non est Deus. Fac cum eo. PEx Influencer ⭐⭐⭐
    Archimedes wrote: »
    Kadiri ka naman

    Echos ka.

    Pansinin ang nasa kanan ni Hesus sa Last Supper interpretation ni Da Vinci. It is a person WITHOUT BEARD. The Da Vinci Code movie latched on this by claiming that it depicts a woman - Mary Magdalene, who was one of the disciples.

    The correct and obvious purpose of Da Vinci is to show the expected depiction of an EROMENOS, a young beloved whose beard had not started growing yet. Take note that the rest of the apostles had beard, as required by Mosaic law and practice.
  • ArchimedesArchimedes B?nned by ?dmin PEx Influencer ⭐⭐⭐
    ih1vnE5.jpg


    ano bang pinagsasabi mo, ang daming walang beard sa painting
  • AteoAteo Non est Deus. Fac cum eo. PEx Influencer ⭐⭐⭐
    Archimedes wrote: »
    http://wallpapercave.com/wp/ih1vnE5.jpg


    ano bang pinagsasabi mo, ang daming walang beard sa painting

    May mga beard lahat yan, ang dalawa maikli nga lang, except yang katani no Jesus na makasuot ng green and red.
  • ArchimedesArchimedes B?nned by ?dmin PEx Influencer ⭐⭐⭐
    Bolero! Magsalamin ka nga!
  • AteoAteo Non est Deus. Fac cum eo. PEx Influencer ⭐⭐⭐
    Archimedes wrote: »
    Bolero! Magsalamin ka nga!

    You are latching on a minor part of my argument -- that all apostles wore beard. But my main and key point here is that the apostle at the seat of honor was a young-looking man with no beard -- raising the possibility that Da Vinci was depicting an eromenos.
  • benMarcingbenMarcing Member PEx Veteran ⭐⭐
    iskrotum wrote: »
    About Jeezas' marital status, I have an issue with that. The bible is eerily silent. Strange huh?

    Not true. Jesus is identified as bridegroom. In fact, Jesus himself refers himself as such. But as Jesus is divine, and his passion is spiritual, his marriage is therefore spiritual. For in the end He and the Church will be united as one, as is any marriage.
    With all his magical powers, women should be throwing themselves at him. Again, he could be a homosexual, or he could very well be one variety of LGBT. There are lots, as I have been lectured. Nowadays, it's more than just male, female, bakla, tomboy.

    Let's look at the possibilities:

    You mentioned possibilities, but you have to completely deny what could be. You fell to the same error as Ateo's -- false dilemma, false bifurcation, false dichotomy. This is clearly intellectual dishonesty.
    1. Jesus was gay and the bible writers didn't want to discuss his sexuality (naked young man in linens).

    The internal evidence does not support this. You didn't even establish that it occurred. Your claim that this event is a proof of paedophilia is nothing but a claim. Even the word used to identify the person in Mark 14.51-52 could not be used to prove that this is a child; rather, this is a young man. Are we now to conclude that you can't establish what you claimed that Jesus is paedophile?
    2. Jesus was a ladies' man and writers didn't want to discuss his sexuality. Mary Magdalene/ Woman with the alabaster jar.

    You are simply assuming, and not basing your claim on evidence. You want to insinuate what does not exist.
    3. Jesus was a eunuch and/or an asexual as may have suggested, and that too is an embarrassing state for the Son of God to be in. (He considered ogling at ladies to be adultery. What full blooded male would say that?)

    Do you have to completely closed your mind on the concept of holy? That shows your bias and intellectual dishonesty.

    I don't think Jesus is asexual. That he chose to devote himself to God (eunuch, if you will) is not to be considered strange since John the Baptist himself, and Paul, remained single to the end of their lives.
    4. The Gospels were corrupt and they made up a drama and maybe mixed up ideas from older writings of ancient sages that would soften up the masses to a new religion.

    Then establish it already.

    Overall, you only have guesses. Guessing is fine, but at least based it on evidence available instead of asserting.

    Thanks,
    benMarcing
  • benMarcingbenMarcing Member PEx Veteran ⭐⭐
    Ateo wrote: »
    You are latching on a minor part of my argument -- that all apostles wore beard. But my main and key point here is that the apostle at the seat of honor was a young-looking man with no beard -- raising the possibility that Da Vinci was depicting an eromenos.

    And Da Vinci was one among present at the last supper, right Ateo? ;-D

    Thanks,
    benMarcing

Leave a Comment

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