Political Crossfire Forums

[sLiPpY]

In my preparation for next week's exam...I came across some scripture I found a little "creepy" and unsettling. Peter and Jesus seem a little "close" for men in their thirties? Or is the writer simply describing what might be considered normal behavior for the culture at that time?

Book of John

13:23 Now there was leaning on Jesus' bosom one of his disciples, whom Jesus loved.
13:24 Simon Peter therefore beckoned to him, that he should ask who it should be of whom he spake.
13:25 He then lying on Jesus' breast saith unto him, Lord, who is it?

21:20 Then Peter, turning about, seeth the disciple whom Jesus loved following; which also leaned on his breast at supper, and said, Lord, which is he that betrayeth thee?

Also this uhh, "Jacksonian" episode, of a young naked man fleeing from Jesus as the High Priest came to arrest him? Am I missing some nuance? or is Mark's account truly a little "fruity?"

Book of Mark

14:51 And there followed him a certain young man, having a linen cloth cast about his naked body; and the young men laid hold on him:

14:52 And he left the linen cloth, and fled from them naked.


Is there anyone in the house, that might be able to point out some symbolism that might better explain? Maybe some pagan thing? to make Jesus more appealing for potential converts?

[Snarf]

It is likely that Jesus had sex with both men and women, and thought nothing much of it as that was very common then. He did seem to prefer men but then again, he was a radical SOB who was not exactly a good catch for the average woman of the day...

[sLiPpY]

:think: There are "other" versions of the Book of Mark. In fact, most Bible's today notate what the original ending was/or had been added.

There is also material, deemed for more "spiritually advanced" attributed to Mark. Here's an excerpt that expands upon the "Jacksonian" episode.

"The young man looked at Jesus, loved him, and began to beg him to be with him....Six days later. Jesus gave him an order; and when evening had come, the young man went to him, dressed only in a linen cloth. He spent the night with him, because Jesus taught him the mystery of God's domain." Other's translate God's domain as "Kingdom of God"

There were initiation rituals of sorts, back in the day...it's an interesting topic that's riddled with irony.

[thefranzkafkafront]

sLiPpY wrote:
Book of John

13:23 Now there was leaning on Jesus' bosom one of his disciples, whom Jesus loved.
13:24 Simon Peter therefore beckoned to him, that he should ask who it should be of whom he spake.
13:25 He then lying on Jesus' breast saith unto him, Lord, who is it?

21:20 Then Peter, turning about, seeth the disciple whom Jesus loved following; which also leaned on his breast at supper, and said, Lord, which is he that betrayeth thee?


Both refrences to the beloved disiple, if youll read to the end of John he is apprenty indentified as the author. The reason for this being that the Book of John was composed by a group known as the Johnanine community, bibilical scholars generally agree that its an attempt by this community to validate their account by linking them selves direclty to jesus's life.

Secondly the gospels are translated from greek, the greeks have four words for love. Only one has sexual connatations.

Quote:
Book of Mark

14:51 And there followed him a certain young man, having a linen cloth cast about his naked body; and the young men laid hold on him:

14:52 And he left the linen cloth, and fled from them naked.

To be honest not even the most respected bibilical scholars have the case closed on this one. the most likely explanation i've heard is that this was a part of the oral tradition (rember the gospels were oral for a long time before being written down in greek) that coulnt be left out becuase tt identified a witness to the events but the passage was still taken out of context over time.


Its less a matter of sybolism and more corruptions in lignustics from the transfer from 1st centuary greek to english, and secondly sections of whats known as pareacopi (segments of oral tradition) being warped and taken out of context over time.

[thefranzkafkafront]

Snarf wrote: It is likely that Jesus had sex with both men and women, and thought nothing much of it as that was very common then. He did seem to prefer men but then again, he was a radical SOB who was not exactly a good catch for the average woman of the day...

You don't know what your talking about, as a relgious Jew extremely well versed in torahic law jesus would most certainly not have had sex with men, homosexuality was seen as sinful and hellenistic its inconceiveable that jesus had sex with men.

Secondly, it was rare for a man of Jesus's age not to be married (as 30 in 30ad was middle aged) and even more rare for man of that age to have sex out of wedlock. Jesus as most similar Jewish Prophitic charaters of the day known as Hasidim, was probally celabate.

Your confusing the Hellenicitic world with the jewish world. I recomend you read the changing faces of jesus by Geza Vermes.

If you still think otherwise please provide some evidence.

[Snarf]

thefranzkafkafront wrote: Snarf wrote: It is likely that Jesus had sex with both men and women, and thought nothing much of it as that was very common then. He did seem to prefer men but then again, he was a radical SOB who was not exactly a good catch for the average woman of the day...

You don't know what your talking about, as a relgious Jew extremely well versed in torahic law jesus would most certainly not have had sex with men, homosexuality was seen as sinful and hellenistic its inconceiveable that jesus had sex with men.

Secondly, it was rare for a man of Jesus's age not to be married (as 30 in 30ad was middle aged) and even more rare for man of that age to have sex out of wedlock. Jesus as most similar Jewish Prophitic charaters of the day known as Hasidim, was probally celabate.

Your confusing the Hellenicitic world with the jewish world. I recomend you read the changing faces of jesus by Geza Vermes.

If you still think otherwise please provide some evidence.
Jesus did not follow Jewish Law. He knew it and was raised with it but He rejected it and followed a new path to God. The sexual acts you refer to as homosexuality were unnamed as such then and the prohibition was against sex with boys more than sex with other men. The fact that Jesus wasn’t married makes it even more likely he had sex with others in His age group as young men and boys have been doing that since man first walked the earth. If Jesus had been a married, pious, monogamous Jew, we would not be talking about Him today. He was a seeker who followed His own desires, and that very likely includes who He took to His bed…

[VBach37]

I bet some priest probably translated it wrong intentionally in order to justify his own actions. :wink:

Snarf wrote: The fact that Jesus wasn’t married makes it even more likely he had sex with others in His age group as young men and boys have been doing that since man first walked the earth.

Nobody knows for certain whether Jesus was married or not, however it's likely that he was. Far more likely than Jesus being gay. He's more likely to have not had sex at all then to sleep with another male.

Snarf wrote: He was a seeker who followed His own desires, and that very likely includes who He took to His bed…
You clearly have a very perverted view of Jesus. He was not a "seeker who followed his own desires". His life was devoted to spreading the word of God's will, not his own. He wasn't a frikken hippie.

[sLiPpY]

thefranzkafkafront wrote: sLiPpY wrote:
Book of John

13:23 Now there was leaning on Jesus' bosom one of his disciples, whom Jesus loved.
13:24 Simon Peter therefore beckoned to him, that he should ask who it should be of whom he spake.
13:25 He then lying on Jesus' breast saith unto him, Lord, who is it?

21:20 Then Peter, turning about, seeth the disciple whom Jesus loved following; which also leaned on his breast at supper, and said, Lord, which is he that betrayeth thee?


Both refrences to the beloved disiple, if youll read to the end of John he is apprenty indentified as the author. The reason for this being that the Book of John was composed by a group known as the Johnanine community, bibilical scholars generally agree that its an attempt by this community to validate their account by linking them selves direclty to jesus's life.

Secondly the gospels are translated from greek, the greeks have four words for love. Only one has sexual connatations.

Quote:
Book of Mark

14:51 And there followed him a certain young man, having a linen cloth cast about his naked body; and the young men laid hold on him:

14:52 And he left the linen cloth, and fled from them naked.

To be honest not even the most respected bibilical scholars have the case closed on this one. the most likely explanation i've heard is that this was a part of the oral tradition (rember the gospels were oral for a long time before being written down in greek) that coulnt be left out becuase tt identified a witness to the events but the passage was still taken out of context over time.


Its less a matter of sybolism and more corruptions in lignustics from the transfer from 1st centuary greek to english, and secondly sections of whats known as pareacopi (segments of oral tradition) being warped and taken out of context over time.

What a terrific reply! Yes, agape is the term employed to the best of my knowledge for the Book of John. However, there are others who find other language nuiances that imply "in love with" about eight times.

However for the section of Mark, Clement of Alexandria (185 C.E.) Wrote a letter, saying that it is authentic...being part of an expanded Markan account in use by Christians in Alexandrine Church. At the time, he was addressing the issue of heretical additions in other areas. Only two items out of what the audience inquired of, were identified as being authentic.

Was Clement lying through his arse? I don't know.

[sLiPpY]

Snarf wrote: thefranzkafkafront wrote: Snarf wrote: It is likely that Jesus had sex with both men and women, and thought nothing much of it as that was very common then. He did seem to prefer men but then again, he was a radical SOB who was not exactly a good catch for the average woman of the day...

You don't know what your talking about, as a relgious Jew extremely well versed in torahic law jesus would most certainly not have had sex with men, homosexuality was seen as sinful and hellenistic its inconceiveable that jesus had sex with men.

Secondly, it was rare for a man of Jesus's age not to be married (as 30 in 30ad was middle aged) and even more rare for man of that age to have sex out of wedlock. Jesus as most similar Jewish Prophitic charaters of the day known as Hasidim, was probally celabate.

Your confusing the Hellenicitic world with the jewish world. I recomend you read the changing faces of jesus by Geza Vermes.

If you still think otherwise please provide some evidence.
Jesus did not follow Jewish Law. He knew it and was raised with it but He rejected it and followed a new path to God. The sexual acts you refer to as homosexuality were unnamed as such then and the prohibition was against sex with boys more than sex with other men. The fact that Jesus wasn’t married makes it even more likely he had sex with others in His age group as young men and boys have been doing that since man first walked the earth. If Jesus had been a married, pious, monogamous Jew, we would not be talking about Him today. He was a seeker who followed His own desires, and that very likely includes who He took to His bed…

Snarf is correct that Jesus was heavily critized for subverting, and not following jewish laws and customs. Specifically, for drinking and a few other things. If he were a well behaved practitioner, I doubt there'd be accounts of going before the high priest. Plus, Jesus was very exposed to hellenistic culture as were most of that region and time.

My thoughts are that it is an open question. There is no explicit evidence that Jesus was heterosexual, homosexual, asexual, celebate or bi-sexual. What if Jesus were a hermaphrodite? :? We'll never know for sure, unless some other authentic recordings of oral tradition are found. It's even possible the Markan account did employee some helenistic flavor to appeal to the audience. Afteral, Jesus did heal a Centurian's slave...and there's no proof that the Centurian was gay and the slave was iz' "love slave." :lol: But it was incredibly common behavior for the period, in that Centurians weren't allowed to marry.

[Snarf]

VBach37 wrote: He wasn't a frikken hippie.
In today's terms actually, He was, and so were his followers. Much more socialist commune of free-love (without the sex part, mostly) than any Sunday chruch-going Conservative will ever admit to. He was a penniless deviant visionary who rejected the historical faith of his people and was executed as a heretic. The way we live today He would never have supported as He didn't support it then. Do you know many Christians who'd be baptized naked in a cold water stream, then take on new garments and be fed milk and honey? He was...

[connermt]

sLiPpY wrote: In my preparation for next week's exam...I came across some scripture I found a little "creepy" and unsettling. Peter and Jesus seem a little "close" for men in their thirties? Or is the writer simply describing what might be considered normal behavior for the culture at that time?

Book of John

13:23 Now there was leaning on Jesus' bosom one of his disciples, whom Jesus loved.
13:24 Simon Peter therefore beckoned to him, that he should ask who it should be of whom he spake.
13:25 He then lying on Jesus' breast saith unto him, Lord, who is it?

21:20 Then Peter, turning about, seeth the disciple whom Jesus loved following; which also leaned on his breast at supper, and said, Lord, which is he that betrayeth thee?

Also this uhh, "Jacksonian" episode, of a young naked man fleeing from Jesus as the High Priest came to arrest him? Am I missing some nuance? or is Mark's account truly a little "fruity?"

Book of Mark

14:51 And there followed him a certain young man, having a linen cloth cast about his naked body; and the young men laid hold on him:

14:52 And he left the linen cloth, and fled from them naked.


Is there anyone in the house, that might be able to point out some symbolism that might better explain? Maybe some pagan thing? to make Jesus more appealing for potential converts?

Nothing personal to the poster, but to understand the above as posted does nothing more than to show the Western Civilization's ignorance is friendship, love & sex. Some culters today have men that hold hands when they are nervous ( I worked with some of them & asked them why they do that & that is what I was told). And even in the US, women can be more physical with each other, go to the bathroom together, talk about their sexuality more openly together & can comment on another woman w/o being seen as 'gay' or 'fruity' or 'weird'. Let a guy do that in the US & it is seen a little differently.

[sLiPpY]

Snarf wrote: VBach37 wrote: He wasn't a frikken hippie.
In today's terms actually, He was, and so were his followers. Much more socialist commune of free-love (without the sex part, mostly) than any Sunday chruch-going Conservative will ever admit to. He was a penniless deviant visionary who rejected the historical faith of his people and was executed as a heretic. The way we live today He would never have supported as He didn't support it then. Do you know many Christians who'd be baptized naked in a cold water stream, then take on new garments and be fed milk and honey? He was...


:? now Snarf...I too knew of the "naked" baptismal rituals. In fact, there are a few who practice it to this day. i.e. Back in the seventies, we had a Pentecostal church in town that liked to handle snakes. We all thought they were weird. But the minister came over and asked if he could use the lake in front of our house for a baptism. Dad was like, sure...why not.

Well they baptized all right, and what a spectacle it was. Hardly a stitch of clothing between the minister and the individual being submersed...as soon as they were done. They all got naked and went swimming. Fortunately, we didn't have any neighbors where we were living at the time. At least not for a mile...

But lets not give the Conservative Christians, any new ideas. Now we wouldn't want for the Baptism's to become "unsightly." :lol:

[sLiPpY]

connermt wrote: sLiPpY wrote: In my preparation for next week's exam...I came across some scripture I found a little "creepy" and unsettling. Peter and Jesus seem a little "close" for men in their thirties? Or is the writer simply describing what might be considered normal behavior for the culture at that time?

Book of John

13:23 Now there was leaning on Jesus' bosom one of his disciples, whom Jesus loved.
13:24 Simon Peter therefore beckoned to him, that he should ask who it should be of whom he spake.
13:25 He then lying on Jesus' breast saith unto him, Lord, who is it?

21:20 Then Peter, turning about, seeth the disciple whom Jesus loved following; which also leaned on his breast at supper, and said, Lord, which is he that betrayeth thee?

Also this uhh, "Jacksonian" episode, of a young naked man fleeing from Jesus as the High Priest came to arrest him? Am I missing some nuance? or is Mark's account truly a little "fruity?"

Book of Mark

14:51 And there followed him a certain young man, having a linen cloth cast about his naked body; and the young men laid hold on him:

14:52 And he left the linen cloth, and fled from them naked.


Is there anyone in the house, that might be able to point out some symbolism that might better explain? Maybe some pagan thing? to make Jesus more appealing for potential converts?

Nothing personal to the poster, but to understand the above as posted does nothing more than to show the Western Civilization's ignorance is friendship, love & sex. Some culters today have men that hold hands when they are nervous ( I worked with some of them & asked them why they do that & that is what I was told). And even in the US, women can be more physical with each other, go to the bathroom together, talk about their sexuality more openly together & can comment on another woman w/o being seen as 'gay' or 'fruity' or 'weird'. Let a guy do that in the US & it is seen a little differently.

Yes that is correct. Even Bushius likes to hold hands and kiss arab men. :lol: And there are a lot of people, who have called him the Fabulous Fruit for going on well, most of his life.

In my own take, I actually thought nothing of the first four passages quoted. But it does, present an interesting twist for the folks who get all bent out of shape on gays.

My primary "unsettledness" Has to do with the second subject. The one where Jesus was hosting the Michael Jackson style pajama party. Granted their may be nothing to it at all, but still it's a little creepy and how can anyone in their right mind claim the Bible to be infallible and take it literally, without also perceiving Jesus with a fleeing naked young man.

If a Christian had a birds eye view of any adult, and a fleeing naked younger one. What would they think? "oh, it's just Jesus." :!?:

I don't think so...

[SilveryMinnow]

Gods love is not Gay. Jesus was Gods love for humanity.

If there is a problem with the concept of God loving the children of Adam... It should be pointed out that the flaw belongs to the accuser, not with God who is perfect.

Quote: Book of John

13:23 Now there was leaning on Jesus' bosom one of his disciples, whom Jesus loved.
13:24 Simon Peter therefore beckoned to him, that he should ask who it should be of whom he spake.
13:25 He then lying on Jesus' breast saith unto him, Lord, who is it?

21:20 Then Peter, turning about, seeth the disciple whom Jesus loved following; which also leaned on his breast at supper, and said, Lord, which is he that betrayeth thee

Couldnt this be the same kind of love that one would show to a close family member? A ill father, brother or son? Jesus love was unconditional, we are all like close members of his family.

Quote: Book of Mark

14:51 And there followed him a certain young man, having a linen cloth cast about his naked body; and the young men laid hold on him:

14:52 And he left the linen cloth, and fled from them naked.
This is out of context. Mark was describing himself and his own urgency to flee from the trial that the lord was about to endure. That such was Marks own fear that he left his sleeping attire and fled naked rather that join Jesus in what was about to occur.

To understand better the teachings of Gods written word, understand that Jesus and his disciples taught their lessons with literal interpretations. Look for what is good to be learned.

[SilveryMinnow]

Snarf wrote: thefranzkafkafront wrote: Snarf wrote: It is likely that Jesus had sex with both men and women, and thought nothing much of it as that was very common then. He did seem to prefer men but then again, he was a radical SOB who was not exactly a good catch for the average woman of the day...

You don't know what your talking about, as a relgious Jew extremely well versed in torahic law jesus would most certainly not have had sex with men, homosexuality was seen as sinful and hellenistic its inconceiveable that jesus had sex with men.

Secondly, it was rare for a man of Jesus's age not to be married (as 30 in 30ad was middle aged) and even more rare for man of that age to have sex out of wedlock. Jesus as most similar Jewish Prophitic charaters of the day known as Hasidim, was probally celabate.

Your confusing the Hellenicitic world with the jewish world. I recomend you read the changing faces of jesus by Geza Vermes.

If you still think otherwise please provide some evidence.
Jesus did not follow Jewish Law. He knew it and was raised with it but He rejected it and followed a new path to God. The sexual acts you refer to as homosexuality were unnamed as such then and the prohibition was against sex with boys more than sex with other men. The fact that Jesus wasn’t married makes it even more likely he had sex with others in His age group as young men and boys have been doing that since man first walked the earth. If Jesus had been a married, pious, monogamous Jew, we would not be talking about Him today. He was a seeker who followed His own desires, and that very likely includes who He took to His bed…

Jesus did follow Jewish law, he taught the Pharisees. Jewish law dictated that should a man lie with another man that the penalty was death. If Jesus had committed such acts, he would have died by stoning. The charges against him are chronicled by Nicodemus.

[sLiPpY]

SilveryMinnow wrote: Gods love is not Gay. Jesus was Gods love for humanity.

If there is a problem with the concept of God loving the children of Adam... It should be pointed out that the flaw belongs to the accuser, not with God who is perfect.

Quote: Book of John

13:23 Now there was leaning on Jesus' bosom one of his disciples, whom Jesus loved.
13:24 Simon Peter therefore beckoned to him, that he should ask who it should be of whom he spake.
13:25 He then lying on Jesus' breast saith unto him, Lord, who is it?

21:20 Then Peter, turning about, seeth the disciple whom Jesus loved following; which also leaned on his breast at supper, and said, Lord, which is he that betrayeth thee

Couldnt this be the same kind of love that one would show to a close family member? A ill father, brother or son? Jesus love was unconditional, we are all like close members of his family.

Quote: Book of Mark

14:51 And there followed him a certain young man, having a linen cloth cast about his naked body; and the young men laid hold on him:

14:52 And he left the linen cloth, and fled from them naked.
This is out of context. Mark was describing himself and his own urgency to flee from the trial that the lord was about to endure. That such was Marks own fear that he left his sleeping attire and fled naked rather that join Jesus in what was about to occur.

To understand better the teachings of Gods written word, understand that Jesus and his disciples taught their lessons with literal interpretations. Look for what is good to be learned.

I pretty much agree with your points on the Book of John. However, the Book of Mark? Could you explain how the author of Mark could have possibly been present for those events? Last I'd check there isn't a single original disciple who'd written anything. And if you'd read the surrounding passages, it's pretty clear to me...the only people present in the story is Jesus, the naked boy, and whoever is coming to fetch Jesus for the High Priest?

Also, I thought Jesus taught in parables. Please expound on how a parable is to be taking literally? I'd be really interested in learning more about how that is possible?

[sLiPpY]

SilveryMinnow wrote: Snarf wrote: thefranzkafkafront wrote: Snarf wrote: It is likely that Jesus had sex with both men and women, and thought nothing much of it as that was very common then. He did seem to prefer men but then again, he was a radical SOB who was not exactly a good catch for the average woman of the day...

You don't know what your talking about, as a relgious Jew extremely well versed in torahic law jesus would most certainly not have had sex with men, homosexuality was seen as sinful and hellenistic its inconceiveable that jesus had sex with men.

Secondly, it was rare for a man of Jesus's age not to be married (as 30 in 30ad was middle aged) and even more rare for man of that age to have sex out of wedlock. Jesus as most similar Jewish Prophitic charaters of the day known as Hasidim, was probally celabate.

Your confusing the Hellenicitic world with the jewish world. I recomend you read the changing faces of jesus by Geza Vermes.

If you still think otherwise please provide some evidence.
Jesus did not follow Jewish Law. He knew it and was raised with it but He rejected it and followed a new path to God. The sexual acts you refer to as homosexuality were unnamed as such then and the prohibition was against sex with boys more than sex with other men. The fact that Jesus wasn’t married makes it even more likely he had sex with others in His age group as young men and boys have been doing that since man first walked the earth. If Jesus had been a married, pious, monogamous Jew, we would not be talking about Him today. He was a seeker who followed His own desires, and that very likely includes who He took to His bed…

Jesus did follow Jewish law, he taught the Pharisees. Jewish law dictated that should a man lie with another man that the penalty was death. If Jesus had committed such acts, he would have died by stoning. The charges against him are chronicled by Nicodemus.

Did you know the Pharisees didn't come to prominance, until around forty years after Jesus died and the temple had been destroyed?

Jesus seemed to follow most of the 615. However, he spent a lot of time "unclean" and was often criticized as the story goes. What's interesting, is there is no commentary as to whether Jesus practiced the appropriate rituals after touching a leper, a dead person, etc. At least I hadn't noticed anything like that. :wink:

[cap'n queasy]

Quote: Could you explain how the author of Mark could have possibly been present for those events?

Mark was the secretary of Peter, who was there. He wrote down the Gospel that Peter related to him.

Obviously, there is some confusion in the modern mind between sex and love. How many times do we have to be subjected to this feckless topic. This is about the eighth time this same issue has been rehashed.

Try something a little more original. This has been debunked many times on this forum already. It's obvious trolling.

The title of the thread is "Was Jesus fruity" this is meant only to provoke a negative response.

[John]

Quote: However, the Book of Mark? Could you explain how the author of Mark could have possibly been present for those events? Last I'd check there isn't a single original disciple who'd written anything. And if you'd read the surrounding passages, it's pretty clear to me...the only people present in the story is Jesus, the naked boy, and whoever is coming to fetch Jesus for the High Priest?

You should look into who Mark is. His mother owned the upper room and he was a boy when the event in question happened.

It wouldn’t be abnormal for a child to sleep in nothing else but a sleeping garment. A group of soldiers would have been noisy and it's likely that a boy would go check out what has happening. Many people believe that this boy is Mark...and is his 2 cents that he saw it go down.

[cap'n queasy]

Wow, cool.

I didn't know that.