Vinnie

My latest addition to historical Jesus research is sure to ruffle some feathers!

http://www.after-hourz.net/ri/wasjesusgay.html

Rebuttals, flames, you are going to hells, and other criticisms are encouraged!

Vinnie

DougP

The thing here is that you are using the Bible in a lot of these accusations to say that the HISTORICAL Jesus was gay. Was he? Maybe, maybe not, but I dont think using the bible is the best way to prove it either way. Very interesting either way though, thanks for the link.

Vinnie

Wow! I just posted this and its like forty pages! Fast reader or skimmer

You have to read my arguments. I dig beneath the texts that survive to argue this. I don't merely cite the Bible. I use early Christian texts (intra and extra-canonical like Thomas, Secret Mark and so on). Saying "I use the Bible" is merely false terminology and raises red herrings.

I also bifurcated between two issues a) Was Jesus open to homosexuality and B) was Jesus himself homosexualy. A was deemed viertually certain whereas B more probable than not.

Using early Christian texts is all we have and my methodology is laid out in minor detail on that page, more detail elswhere, soon in full complete detail as my revamp is almost done

Vinnie

Brother Daniel

How would your probability estimation be affected if Secret Mark turned out to be a forgery? I've read Bart Ehrman's Lost Christianities, but I know little else about such matters (please pardon my ignorance) - and as a result, it looks to me like a serious possibility that Secret Mark was Morton Smith's own work. (Ehrman does not come down on one side or the other, but he points out certain anomalies, which I can't remember off the top of my head, and he believes that Morton Smith was brilliant enough that he could have pulled it off.)

Al Kafirun

Secret Mark seems to fit within the gospel, but I've always found it suspect, too. Morton Smith fits the profile of a forger. Somebody start a thread on that, or point me to a previous thread if one exists. Thus have I spoken!

Anyhoo, 'historical Jesus' is an oxymoron. Now, the traditional Jesus (again, especially in Mark) seemed to resemble the typical Greek romance character, complete with a young 'Beloved' male disciple. And considering he wasn't married... I bet John was never a doubting Thomas. Hello!

Toto

Secret Mark:

naked young man

Yuri Kuchinsky claims Secret Mark is authentic pts I, II

Yuri Kuchinsky claims Secret Mark is authentic III, IV

Update from Yuri on Secret Mark in Journal of Early Christian Studies

Secret Mark discussion with Kirby, Bede, Haran, and others

Where is Secret Mark now? with links to other threads

Al Kafirun

Hot damn, thanks.

Vinnie

Morton Smith forged Clements comments on Secret Mark? Did Smith also alter every Markan manuscript to include this naked young man who comes from nowhere and goes nowhere in the text? This account is obviously pulled from Secret Mark which has a longer version of it. There is no reasonable doubt about the account I used being in Secret Mark, a text which was earlier than canonical Mark.

Vinnie

Oh and to answer your other question, if we didn't have Secret Mark A would be very strong and B would probably be in the non-liquet camp. (the A and B are taken from my conclusion in section 13).


I do think Secret Mark tends to be the money ball tying all the other male-male intimacy and facts together. It makes explicit mention of what could only otherwise be reasonably inferred from these texts.

Vinnie

Al Kafirun

Eh, having read all those links and the links from those links I'm pretty convinced it was a really elaborate joke. But the gay-Jesus theory could still be lifted from the canon-easily.