Freethought & Rationalism Archive

spin · 05-10-2004, 06:36 PM

Here's a cute bit of "criticism" from Vinnie that came from his web page but was probably ashamed to post here:

Also, the Lxx of Amos 2:26 uses "will be pursued" whereas Mark 14:52 uses "fled".

Umm, it was taken as, ahh, how should I put this, Vinnie?, to be taken as, you know, prophecy, and well, umm, prophecy is often seen to be in the umm, you know, future, whereas, umm, when, well, Mark gives the fulfillment of the eh-hem, prophecy, strangely enough, you know, well, umm, it gets put in the having been fulfilled ahh category, so oddly enough the, cough, future gets you know, umm, transformed into a past, um, tense. Cough. Clears throat. Checks fly to see it's all there. Umm, I wonder if this is the reason he didn't post it here. . .

Hmm, and let me add another exmple of the same trope, ahh, flicks pages, here it is, Mic 2:8 ". . . you rise up against my people . . . you strip the robe from the peaceful . . ."

spin

Vinnie · 05-10-2004, 07:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

Here's a cute bit of "criticism" from Vinnie that came from his web page but was probably ashamed to post here:

Actually that was the update with Gundry's comments that I said I would add. First draft didn't have them.

Vinnie

Al Kafirun · 05-10-2004, 07:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Magus55

Jesus' mission was not to come to Earth and start a mortal family life.

I thought he was the embodiment of God come to earth to suffer as man. Where's the prophecy that says the Messiah will be a confirmed bachelor?

Zech 90:43 And he shall taketh long soapy showers, neither ye a wife.

Vinnie · 05-10-2004, 07:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Magus55

Vinnie, as to your reply on the Homosexuality references in the Bible thread:

I can just read the chapter titles/description of your article and tell its a load of crap, and nothing but highly questionable assumptions.

*Silence on Wife and Children*. Yeah, because not being married and not having children is clearly evidence of homosexuality....

Jesus' mission was not to come to Earth and start a mortal family life. Jesus came to Earth for a VERY specific purpose. It would in fact, be more questionable and suspicious if Jesus was married. Why would God incarnate have any need to get married? That was not His purpose for being on Earth. Sorry, but this is an invalid argument for Jesus being gay. While you're at it, lets just call every other human on Earth, including monks, nuns, and priests who choose a Celibate life homosexual. Thats what this argument is assuming.

The article also says there is no evidence for Jesus being heterosexual. Well, duh. What the heck kind of evidence would there be? A passage with Jesus checking out the butt on Mary Magdalene? Does Jesus the Christ, God incarnate who knew no sin, mean anything to you? Lusting after a women ( which is the only thing I can even think of as evidence towards heterosexuality, and even that isn't very strong), is a sin, so I don't expect Jesus to have done that.

What does Jesus dining with sinners have to do with homosexuality? All sin is equal to God, and Jesus doesn't deny sinners, because all of us are sinners. If Jesus rejected sinners, what the heck would be the point of Him coming to Earth? He came specifically to be among sinners because thats who needs to hear His message and seek repentence. I don't even get how your argument of Jesus eating with sinners is even related to being gay, let alone a valid argument.

Skimming through the other points proves to be a waste of time so I won't touch on them. You have failed to actually provide convincing arguments to Jesus being gay. More like random assumptions, some of which don't even pertain to the topic or have any relevence. To sum up your argument, its basically: Jesus doesn't have a wife or kids, so he's gay; Jesus has male disciples, so he's gay; Jesus eats with sinners, so hes gay.

I addressed your later concern and for your former issue I never argued Jesus was gay cause he was not married.

Vinnie · 05-10-2004, 07:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Attonitus

Vinnie, you're amazing. Was the monolithic marriage at that time the norm in the Judaism? The Essenes and Therapeutae were known to have practiced celibacy, they were also gays?

Never made this argument. Reading my paper clearly shows this.

NOGO · 05-10-2004, 08:05 PM

Hi Vinnie,

I have not finished reading your article. I find it quite interesting and basically I don't care either way.

Most amusing is the reaction it generates.

My concern is as follows.

If Jesus was overtly gay then one must assume that many if not all of his disciples were also gay. I say this given the attitude that the then Jewish society had toward homosexuals. Since you see evidence from more than one source then it must have been a well known fact.

Unless the gospel message was meant for gay people then I would think that the authors would have gone out of their way to suppress any evidence of Jesus' homsexuality.

Vinnie · 05-10-2004, 08:24 PM

Quote:

If Jesus was overtly gay then one must assume that many if not all of his disciples were also gay. I say this given the attitude that the then Jewish society had toward homosexuals. Since you see evidence from more than one source then it must have been a well known fact.

Gay or bisexual since some, like Peter (who had a mother-in law) obviously were married and since many believe there was a traveling in pairs thing happening (husband and wife).

Quote:

Unless the gospel message was meant for gay people then I would think that the authors would have gone out of their way to suppress any evidence of Jesus' homsexuality.

I think it was redacted out. Church kept what was useful and wiped this out of the record. Mark, after all, in my view scatters controversial aspects of secret Mark throughout his Gospel and Mt and Lk omit these parts.

We must also remember that the Gospels are written some 40-70 years after the events far from the original homsebase. They have no trouble omiting, creating, suppressing, rearranging, expanding, redacting, lying and so on.

It is also a basic rule in the field that the church retained material useful to it. I don't think Jesus' homosexually was the thrust of his mission. I just think the evidence slightly favors he was one and that he acccepted such "outcasts" to table fellowship.

Once those wacky rez traditions cropped up the church dwelt on this in many sources and only retained "what it wanted to" or in some case, what it was forced too since it was common knowledge.

Vinnie

rlogan · 05-10-2004, 10:43 PM

Vinnie, I didn't think you were serious with this. It looked like you were just trying to have fun with controversy. Like saying Jesus was a girl or something. But it seems you're serious. Goodness.

You don't have anything. Where is it? So you have what one author - and not actually a Bible verse - that says "warm kiss". That's your smoking gun?

For Christ's sake - talk about preposterous exaggeration and taking out of context. Judas was not having sex with Jesus. Are you arguing that he was keeping Jesus busy deep-throating him like a flaming faggot so the Romans could grab him while he was pre-occupied with his hard-on?

Write this author who said "warm kiss". I'm betting you a hundred bucks he was not meaning "warm like a queer kisses his lover". That is something you just take out of context with all this silliness of "no family" and etc. In other words - a quote mine. In the meantime, please provide the entire context.

If this author does not mean "kiss like a queer" then you can't use it to mean "kiss like a queer". That is every bit as irresponsible as the creationists on E&C quote mining on evolution.

I have nothing against queers. Just don't be trying to kiss me. Yuk.

Please don't over-react. I am really blown away that you think this though.

Vinnie · 05-10-2004, 10:51 PM

""""""""You don't have anything. Where is it? So you have what one author - and not actually a Bible verse - that says "warm kiss". That's your smoking gun? """""""""

Actually I documented that narratively, the scene makes no sense as its frames for whatever reason and that in it Jesus is given a warm kiss by a close male confidant. THis ws not my smoking gun. I pooled it collectively with every other detail.

Quote:

Write this author who said "warm kiss". I'm betting you a hundred bucks he was not meaning "warm like a queer kisses his lover".

Unfortunately I cannot write Raymond Brown. He passed away and he most assuredly would not support my theory. I only used his translation of the passage.

Quote:

If this author does not mean "kiss like a queer" then you can't use it to mean "kiss like a queer".

My argument only has force when its coupled with an "intimate disciple whom Jesus loves", the other reconstructed facts and also an almost naked young man wanting "Jesus to be with him".

I offered a collective argument. I suggested that Secret Mark ties lots of it together.

You wrote: "Judas was not having sex with Jesus."

Pray tell us, what evidence doth ye have for such an baseless assertion?

Unlike you, I make no unwarranted assumpions.
Vinnie

Vinnie · 05-10-2004, 11:03 PM

Quote:

Vinnie, I didn't think you were serious with this. It looked like you were just trying to have fun with controversy.

The length of the article itself should make it clear I am being serious.

Quote:

Please don't over-react. I am really blown away that you think this though.

I am blown away that out of 100s (about 250 total) of responses only one was half way devent in critiquing me. Most simply caricature my arguments either assuming absurd things like I said Jesus wasn't married so he was gay or failing to notice I used a collective argument and that I think the evidence just favors a homsoexual Jesus.

Vinnie

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

05-10-2004, 06:36 PM	#31
spin Contributor Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: nowhere Posts: 15,747	Here's a cute bit of "criticism" from Vinnie that came from his web page but was probably ashamed to post here: Also, the Lxx of Amos 2:26 uses "will be pursued" whereas Mark 14:52 uses "fled". Umm, it was taken as, ahh, how should I put this, Vinnie?, to be taken as, you know, prophecy, and well, umm, prophecy is often seen to be in the umm, you know, future, whereas, umm, when, well, Mark gives the fulfillment of the eh-hem, prophecy, strangely enough, you know, well, umm, it gets put in the having been fulfilled ahh category, so oddly enough the, cough, future gets you know, umm, transformed into a past, um, tense. Cough. Clears throat. Checks fly to see it's all there. Umm, I wonder if this is the reason he didn't post it here. . . Hmm, and let me add another exmple of the same trope, ahh, flicks pages, here it is, Mic 2:8 ". . . you rise up against my people . . . you strip the robe from the peaceful . . ." spin

05-10-2004, 08:05 PM	#36
NOGO Veteran Member Join Date: Dec 2001 Location: Canada Posts: 1,562	Hi Vinnie, I have not finished reading your article. I find it quite interesting and basically I don't care either way. Most amusing is the reaction it generates. My concern is as follows. If Jesus was overtly gay then one must assume that many if not all of his disciples were also gay. I say this given the attitude that the then Jewish society had toward homosexuals. Since you see evidence from more than one source then it must have been a well known fact. Unless the gospel message was meant for gay people then I would think that the authors would have gone out of their way to suppress any evidence of Jesus' homsexuality.

05-10-2004, 10:43 PM	#38
rlogan Banned Join Date: Oct 2003 Location: Alaska Posts: 9,159	Vinnie, I didn't think you were serious with this. It looked like you were just trying to have fun with controversy. Like saying Jesus was a girl or something. But it seems you're serious. Goodness. You don't have anything. Where is it? So you have what one author - and not actually a Bible verse - that says "warm kiss". That's your smoking gun? For Christ's sake - talk about preposterous exaggeration and taking out of context. Judas was not having sex with Jesus. Are you arguing that he was keeping Jesus busy deep-throating him like a flaming faggot so the Romans could grab him while he was pre-occupied with his hard-on? Write this author who said "warm kiss". I'm betting you a hundred bucks he was not meaning "warm like a queer kisses his lover". That is something you just take out of context with all this silliness of "no family" and etc. In other words - a quote mine. In the meantime, please provide the entire context. If this author does not mean "kiss like a queer" then you can't use it to mean "kiss like a queer". That is every bit as irresponsible as the creationists on E&C quote mining on evolution. I have nothing against queers. Just don't be trying to kiss me. Yuk. Please don't over-react. I am really blown away that you think this though.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.