sighhswolf

"And they went to Bethany and there was a woman whose brother had died. And coming up to him, she prostrated herself before Jesus and said to him, "Son of David, have mercy on me." But the disciples rebuked her.

And becoming angry, Jesus went with her to the garden where the tomb was. And immediately a great sound was heard from the tomb, and Jesus, going toward it, rolled away the stone from the entrance to the tomb. And going in immediately where the young man was, he stretched out a hand and raised him up, holding his hand. Then, the man looked at him and loved him and he began to call him to his side, that he might be with him. And going from the tomb, they went to the house of the young man, for he was rich. And after six days, Jesus instructed him. And when it was late, the young man went to him. He had put a linen around his naked body, and he remained with him through that night. For Jesus taught him the mystery of the kingdom of God. After he got up from there, he turned to the region of the Jordan.
Then they came to Jericho. And the brother of the young man whom Jesus loved was there, as well as his mother and Salome. And Jesus did not welcome them."

I would like to ask the intelligent and learned people who post here in this forum to
give an opinion and/or interpretation of the verses above, theist and non-theist.

I am just very curious about what mental images people take away with them after reading these verses.

Mortin Smith's discovery of the secret
gospel of mark and his subsequent work, like much of the non-canonical gospels was widely dismissed
and Smith was even thought to have fabricated the entire story of the uncovering of these verses
that were edited out of the canonical version.


Could it be that searching for the Jesus of history as opposed to the Jesus of the NT and finding nothing really concrete..... was by design?
I wonder how much information was actually available, but was supressed or destroyed by the early church fathers resulting in a void in the documentation of the life of Jesus?

I think about the words of Augustine, " It is lawful then to him that discusses disputes and preaches of things eternal or to him that narrates of things temporal pertaining to religion or piety to conceal at fitting times whatever seems fit to be concealed."

We all know about the Porphyry book
"Against the Christians" where the parallels between Jesus and other pagan deities was examined and comparisions made by Porphyry as early as the 3rd century.
And of course the church ordered the seizure and burning of all copies of this book, along with copies of the Talmud.

But the reason I looked this up and examined the
history of Smith's work was a direct result of the discussions about christians and the "Gay Lifestyle" and you can probably see why the above verses would have been left out of the canon because they could have established a vague and veiled connection that was not welcome by the church.
Just wondering what you guys think. Not making a Judgement here, just asking a question.
Wolf

Perchance

Wow. I can see why the early church (at least assuming that they knew pretty early they didn't want "ambiguities" in their sacred texts) would have banned this. You don't have to draw a sexual conclusion from "taught him the mystery of the Kingdom of God"- I suppose it could also mean religious instruction- but even the implication that you could might have been enough. I do know that I would draw a sexual conclusion from it if I were reading it with different names.

In fact, maybe my reluctance to draw one from it is because of the cultural training I've endured to make Jesus seem asexual? .

That would be another thing, even assuming that you don't think the above text seems to indicate homosexuality. Sexuality of any kind in relation to Jesus is taboo to some Christians. If you believe the myth, Jesus wasn't even produced by sex, so that's not surprising.

Interesting stuff.

-Perchance.

Asha'man

The speculation that Jesus may have taken a young lad as a lover is not new to me. I’ve read at least one analysis of the gospels that come to the same conclusion, but I don’t remember where it was anymore. There are clearly some references to “the one that he loved,” as well as a mysterious young lad that ran away naked when Jesus was arrested.

As I remember the line of speculation, Jesus fled Jewish society as a child, partly to escape the people that condemned him as a bastard (literally). He probably went to a city with a great deal of Egyptian and Greek culture, which was just about everywhere. He may have learned some Greek philosophy, and he probably learned some Egyptian stage magic. He may have also adopted other parts of Greek culture, which included the acceptance of homosexual relations.

I’m personally convinced that many of the early Christian writings were outright lies designed to cover up a few unsavory parts of Jesus’ life. The virgin birth just screams out as a cover for Mary having fooled around before getting married. Could the Christians have also tried to cover up some aspects of Jesus’ later life? Absolutely.

Is there good evidence to support this? Of course not, not after 2000 years. However, it does provide a plausible explanation for how parts of the story came about, without resorting to supernatural forces or complete fabrication of myths.

wildernesse

Wolf,

Would you give me the name of the book/research where you found this? I'm assuming the author is Martin Smith, but you're really not very clear. I'll refrain from commenting on the verses until I decide what I think about the source material. If the book is common knowledge, please forgive me for asking the question.

Also, I don't know how well today's anti-gay attitudes relate to the early church and their deciding what was part of the canon. But then, I don't know all that much about the early church.

And I will admit that my first response is that "This can't possibly be true!"--which is why I want to know more about this topic.
Thanks!

--tiba

sighhswolf

"That would be another thing, even assuming that you don't think the above text seems to indicate homosexuality. Sexuality of any kind in relation to Jesus is taboo to some Christians. If you believe the myth, Jesus wasn't even produced by sex, so that's not surprising."

Interesting stuff.

-Perchance.
------------
Yes I have always found the "asexual" nature of Jesus to be rather unrealistic.
There are quite a few people who think that Jesus and Mary were married.
Some think the reference to the "Beloved disciple"
was an actual reference to Mary, and that her influence on the gospels were very great.
The Gnostics held her in very high regard.
Some modern theologians are pretty much convinced that Mary was the real author of the Book of John.
In the book of Thomas I think, there is a verse indicating that Mary and Jesus shared a very close relationship to the point of public displays of affection including kissing full on the lips.

And in the Gospel of Mary, she takes heat from some of the disciples for her "closeness" with Jesus and her special treatment in gaining private privilaged teachings that they had not received.
4) When Mary said this, she turned their hearts to the Good, and they began to discuss the words of the Savior.

5) Peter said to Mary, Sister we know that the Savior loved you more than the rest of woman.

6) Tell us the words of the Savior which you remember which you know, but we do not, nor have we heard them.

7) Mary answered and said, What is hidden from you I will proclaim to you.
1) When Mary had said this, she fell silent, since it was to this point that the Savior had spoken with her.

2) But Andrew answered and said to the brethren, Say what you wish to say about what she has said. I at least do not believe that the Savior said this. For certainly these teachings are strange ideas.

3) Peter answered and spoke concerning these same things.

4) He questioned them about the Savior: Did He really speak privately with a woman and not openly to us? Are we to turn about and all listen to her? Did He prefer her to us?

5) Then Mary wept and said to Peter, My brother Peter, what do you think? Do you think that I have thought this up myself in my heart, or that I am lying about the Savior?

6) Levi answered and said to Peter, Peter you have always been hot tempered.

7) Now I see you contending against the woman like the adversaries.

8) But if the Savior made her worthy, who are you indeed to reject her? Surely the Savior knows her very well.

9) That is why He loved her more than us. Rather let us be ashamed and put on the perfect Man, and separate as He commanded us and preach the gospel, not laying down any other rule or other law beyond what the Savior said.

10) And when they heard this they began to go forth to proclaim and to preach.
From:
"The Gospel According to Mary"


Why the church would even attempt to supress any sexual activities of the character Jesus is a mystery to me.
Here is a man who is supposedly traveling all over the middle east with an unmarried female and a group of fairly young men.

For one thing it would have been very unusual
for a Rabbi/teacher/preacher to be unmarried, it was considered a skirting of the laws of god admonishing the Jews to be fruitful and multiply.

The passages about the young man are interesting
because they present a slight problem with the notion that homosexuality is an abomination.
Yet it was not unusual for the time period for men to engage in sexual acts with young boys.

Anyway the entire nature of Jesus with regard to
an "asexual" existence strikes me as being abnormal, and I dont really see how anyone could
say that a human being, with human fears and desires, and struggles with authority in the prime age of the early 30's could be asexual.

It would seem that a sexual nature would have made this being more believable.
I mean god had consorts didnt he?
There are some who say that Lilith Adams first wife left Adam and became one of god's consorts.

" In this striking passage we see Lilith becoming the consort of God! This resulting from God's regular consort, the Matronit, being in exile. While they are apart, the Matronit is abused by the left emanations (bad guys) while Lilith takes her place at God's side. Keep in mind here that 'God' in this context refers to one of the emanations of God, not the absolute (Ein Sof). Of course, it would be tempting to combine this with the 'Adam's first wife' streams of the tradition, leaving us with a story in which Lilith is at first rejected by Adam only to be elevated to be the mate of God himself. I suspect, however, that these stories come from different places and cannot be justifiably combined." (From the work of
Alan Humm Professor Penn. State
Christianity & Judaism in the Hellenistic Period
Magic & Demonology in Judaism and Christian History
Textual Criticism
Papyrology
Social & Psychological context of prophetic activity
Image processing
Computer textual analysis and manipulation).

Anyway it is entertaining to read some of this mythology and get opinions as to the sexual nature of religious icons.
Wolf

Tercel

Sighhswolf,
My thoughts on the matter are: Forgery.

I have always thought it rather... suprising... that he himself would discover a manuscript so... conveniently... proving his own theories.

Dr Quentin Quesnell explains:
'In his [Smith's] dissertation (1951) he had written: "An important part of primitive Christianity was a secret doctrine which was revealed only to trusted members." He found this implied in the "mystery of the kingdom of God" (Mk 4:11) and he interpreted it in the context of a "similar distinction" by which the Tannaitic literature kept secret all material "dealing with forbidden sexual relationships."' (CBQ 1975, vol37:1, p. 60)

These ideas have so impressively close parallels to the contents of Secret Mark to say the least. It is more than a little supicious that someone should find a manuscript so exactly proving his own hypothesis.
Even more supicious is that after the "discovery" of the manuscript of Secret Mark in 1958 by Smith, he managed to carelessly lose it and preserve only photos... a pity for anyone wanting to examine the manuscript carefully...

A "void" in the documentation of the life of Jesus? As I understand it he was one of the single most written about figures in ancient history. Perhaps you would like to produce for me an instance of someone else having 4 biographies written within 100 years of their death. Not to mention the who knows how many written over the next 100 years. Not to mention the rest of the NT Canon and early church writings which mention him in passing...

I'm not familiar with the quote, but it seems to simply scream "mis-interpreted quote out of context"...

Tercel

cloudyphiz

for anyone who hasn't visited his site, here's
a link to peter kirby's excellent

<a href="http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/" target="_blank">early christian writings page</a>

it has info on both secret mark and the gospel of mary (as well as links the the complete text of each).

-gary

Vorkosigan

The Secret Mark homepage is <a href="http://www-user.uni-bremen.de/~wie/Secret/secmark_home.html" target="_blank">here</a>.

Secret Mark appears to be a forgery to me. I lean toward Morton Smith as the author, but it could have taken place anytime between 200 AD and its discovery. Some scholars accept it, I believe Koester is one. The Scret Mark page is chock full of info...

Vorkosigan

wildernesse

Thank you for the links to the Secret Mark and the early Christian writings page. I’ve browsed through some of the Secret Mark page links, and my conclusion so far is that Secret Mark is a tad fishy to me. My main problem is that so few people have actually seen this evidence and investigated it fully. I’m interested in his original work, and the criticisms Smith encountered then--and if anyone is even bothering to critique it now. I am skeptical of anything that I see on the Internet—I prefer books and journals (although I know that they are subject to screw-ups too) to make my info “real”.

I don’t think people should ever underestimate the ability of people to deceive others—or for people to believe whatever they want to believe. I’m sure that this works both ways concerning theists and atheists. Thanks for contributing to the jumble of random info in my head!

--tiba

Vorkosigan

A "void" in the documentation of the life of Jesus? As I understand it he was one of the single most written about figures in ancient history. Perhaps you would like to produce for me an instance of someone else having 4 biographies written within 100 years of their death. Not to mention the who knows how many written over the next 100 years. Not to mention the rest of the NT Canon and early church writings which mention him in passing...

&lt;yawn&gt; How many dozen figures do you want? We have diaries and dynastic histories from China that put these nonsense claims about Jesus to shame. Numerous Chinese from this period were interred with biographies and diaries. For Socrates there are three sources from his own lifetime, Xenophon, Plato and Aristophanes. A biography from one's own hand, like with Caesar, beats anything from tertiery sources an unknown number of years after unknown events.

In fact, we should look at Caesar. We have

• Two works from his own hand about events in his own life
• letters about him from contemporary Cicero
• He is mentioned in contemporary poetry by Catullus
• We have a history from contemporary Sallust -86 to -34, whom Caesar made a governor.
• We have mention of Caesar in biographies by contemporary Cornelius Nepos, ~-100 to -24.
• We know of lost material about written by contemporaries, such as Pollio and Hortensius, and by Caesar himself
• We have numerous later histories. For example, we have Paterculus, who was born in -19 and died in +31. Much closer to Caesar than any of Jesus' later mythmakers were to him.

Claims like this are absurd on their face, and falsified by the actual record. The Jesus of the Gospels is a myth, the character he is based on is an unknown, nobody knows when he lived or died, no one can even say for sure which gospel events are legend and which are true.

Vorkosigan

[ May 28, 2002: Message edited by: Vorkosigan ]</p>