All these specious arguments take it for granted that Jesus was a man in the sense all other men are men. He was different. Procreational activities are not an absolute in a man's life. There had been and are millions of ordinary mortals who have never really felt the need for getting intimate with another human being. Why could not Jesus have been one like those millions, even if you think He was not God's begotten son?

[edit on 29-10-2009 by thirdmillenium]

[edit on 29-10-2009 by thirdmillenium]

I tried to keep the homosexual Jesus angle in roughly similar proportion with Smith's treatment of it. It's there, along with much else. The gay interpretation is available, and the availablility of the interpretation all by itself will attract attention. It certainly did in the last century when Smith published.

Clement, in the disputed letter, writes against an amplification of the passage's gay potential by the heretics, additional words which suggest nude men touching each other. Throughout the letter, Clement maintains a somewhat anti-sensual posture. His complaint against the heretics seems to stem as much from disapproval of their parties as of their doctrines.

If the letter is genuine, then the "eighth sacrament," as Clement would practice it, would likely not be easily mistaken for gay sex.

One of the bona fide factors in assessing the credibility of Secret Mark is Smith's own views about homosexuality. There are reasons to think that whether or not he was gay, that he might have been sympathetic to gay concerns. So, it is food for thought that he, of all people, should discover material that could be read as portraying Jesus as more open to possibly agreeing with him than canonical sources show.

And, of course, Smith's views may be irrelevant. The document was indisputably found in a single-sex community. It could have been produced by them for the reasons mentioned in the previous paragraph.

Finally, there is a purely ritual interpretation of the single linen over bare skin. It suggests a burial cloth or shroud. Since the Christian message is about "victory over death," in whatever sense, a ritual involving grave clothes might be an unsexual expression of an aspect of the Jesus movement's message.


[edit on 29-10-2009 by eight bits]

I'm of the opinion the letter existed and I believe the Church deliberately removed this portion from Mark. Shame on them.

This has nothing to do with homosexuality and everything to do with one of the greatest mysteries of God, that so few get to experience. What's more is that Jesus predicted correctly that very few will experience this "life" giving mystery.

There are disciples, then there are beloved disciples. Disciples are a dime a dozen. Beloved disciples are very rare. If someone professes to be a follower of Jesus - they are one of the two. Most unwittingly don't realize they are on the broad road that leads to destruction. Those that find the narrow path are the beloved. And it is the beloved that make up the body of Christ - with him being the head.

Two things need discussed - the mystery itself and the deliberate omission of the text, by "the" church.

What is this mystery, that can make males, as well as females fall so head over heals in love with our Messiah, that we follow him, like sheep following their Shepherd? It's all about "knowing" and what it means to know Messiah.

"Many will say to me on that day, 'Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and in your name drive out demons and perform many miracles?' Then I will tell them plainly, 'I never knew you. Away from me, you evildoers!" Matthew 7:22-23

There are two greek words for "know"

1. ginosko - direct experience
2. oida - knowledge of a fact, that is apart from direct experience.

Ginosko is the word used in the above scripture.

The same word (ginosko) is used in Matthew 1:25 - regarding Joseph taking Mary as his wife:

"But he had no UNION with her until she gave birth to a son. And he gave him the name Jesus." NIV

or

"And KNEW her not till she had brought forth her firstborn son: and he called his name Jesus." KJV

It is also the word used by the apostle Paul in Philippians 3:10-11

"That I may KNOW him, and the power of his resurrection, and the fellowship of his sufferings, being made conformable unto his death; If by any means I might attain unto the resurrection of the dead."

Paul LOVED to talk about the mysteries, in fact Paul loved to talk period. Take a little looksie:

"Listen, I tell you a MYSTERY: We will not all sleep, but we will all be changed" 1Co 15:51

"the MYSTERY of his will according to his good pleasure" Eph 1:9

"the MYSTERY made known to me by revelation" Eph 3:3

"my insight into the MYSTERY of Christ" Eph 3:4

"This MYSTERY is that through the gospel the Gentiles are heirs together with Israel, members together of one body" Eph 3:6

"the administration of this MYSTERY, which for ages past was kept hidden in God" Eph 3:9

"This is a PROFOUND MYSTERY (marriage between a man and a woman)--but I am talking about Christ and the church." Eph 5:32

"I will fearlessly make known the MYSTERY of the gospel." Eph 6:19

"the MYSTERY that has been kept hidden for ages and generations, but is now disclosed to the saints" Col 1:26

"the glorious riches of this MYSTERY, which is Christ in you" Col 1:27

"UNITED IN LOVE, so that they may have the full riches of complete understanding, in order that they may know the MYSTERY of God, namely, Christ" Col 2:2

"that God may open a door for our message, so that we may proclaim the MYSTERY of Christ, for which I am in chains" Col 4:3

"Beyond all question, the MYSTERY of godliness is great: He appeared in a body, was vindicated by the Spirit, was seen by angels, was preached among the nations, was believed on in the world, was taken up in glory" 1Tim 3:16

Let's suppose, that I'm right - secret Mark exists, and was deliberately removed. When the young man came to Jesus in a linen cloth, spent the night with him and Jesus taught him the mystery of the kingdom of God - what really happened?

How about foot washing? In no other Gospel but John's do we find immediately after the last supper, Jesus standing up, undressing down to nothing but a linen cloth wrapped around his waist, washing the disciples feet and drying them with that linen cloth. The author of the gospel of John IS the beloved disciple and since he had already been shown this mystery, he or someone very closely associated with him, was the man carrying the water pitcher, that Jesus told Peter and John to look for and then follow into the home to prepare for the last supper.

The beloved disciple John, clearly states that Jesus was about to show them, the full extent of his love. As Jesus was washing their feet, he told them 'You do not realize now what I am doing, but later you will."

The mystery is divine union or marriage to the bridegroom. Man and woman make one kind of love and it often produces a child. God and man have another type of union and it too produces a child. Jesus said that we are from BELOW and that He, the Son Of Man is from above. I can be more explicit.... Man and womans union is below, whereas God and mankind is from above - or the mind. Or, what happens below, happens above. God is love and he has made a way to proove it. Now, you know why the beloved disciple wanted to know him - not the below type of love, but the love of above.

Everything rises, the pattern being after the resurrection itself. What starts as a gift of living water, springs up in the individual from bottom to top or from the FEET to the head; born of spirit and WATER.

As far as the omission. Who cares. God can't be contained. They let us have the Gospel of John, the one Gospel that is soooo different than the other three - because the beloved disciple shows in his own way the mysteries of God.


[edit on 30-10-2009 by Myrtales Instinct]

Greetings, Myrtales

We agree that one of the most interesting questions about Secret Mark, if it is genuine, is what the "eighth sacrament" ritual was.

As you probably know, foot washing has been proposed as a sacrament by some of the churches that observe sacraments. A ritual foot wshing is actually part of the liturgy of Holy Week among Roman Catholics (a celebrant washes the feet of another ordained man). It may show up in other "apostolic" liturgies as well (Eastern Orthodox or Anglican).

I would take scrupulous exception to one thing you said in passing:

The author of the gospel of John IS the beloved disciple

The authorship clause (21: 24)

It is this disciple who testifies to these things and has written them, and we know that his testimony is true.

is consistent with the author of John being different from the Beloved Disciple, but someone who relies on his testimony; a "ghost writer," as we would say. Since John is easily the most "professionally polished" and theologically sophisticated of the gospels, I favor the ghost-writer hypothesis. I am also persuaded by the matter immediately preceding the authorship clause that the Beloved Disciple was dead at the time John 21 was written.

That is not fatal to the point you were making. Lazarus of Bethany is frequently mentioned as a candidate for being the Beloved Disciple. Of course, it is Lazarus of Bethany to whom Clement's passage from Secret Mark points. The Gospel of John, then, could still be the testimony of the recipient of the eighth sacrament.

[edit on 30-10-2009 by eight bits]

I've noticed if a person sticks around ATS long enough, topics become de ja vu. I've noticed if a person sticks around ATS long enough, topics become de ja vu. It's already been addressed before as a "shock and awe" to discredit Christianity (as here it is said that Christ breaks one of the laws set forth by God in the Old and New Testament) as well as promote and alternative agenda of an alternative lifestyle. I'd go into details, but they're already present on ATS. I've no reason to perpetuate disinformation however, so I'll let the reader conduct the search themselves.

Well, saint, when you feel like taking a break from cataloging all you've noticed, please consider reading Smith's find. You'll see that Clement writes in opposition to the lifestyle that bothers you. The suggestion that he discusses is dynamite, as I said. I didn't say it was true; Clement sure didn't.

Personally, I hope Jesus got some while he was here. If he didn't, then he missed out on something wonderful about being human. Whether he liked boys or girls doesn't much matter to me. I do not see how anyone could be discredited by being called gay. Regarding conformity with the Law, last I heard, Jesus was the Law, or at least that's the theory of the case.

As to previous discussions of Secret Mark in ATS, I gave the URLs that turn up in the site's search function. Those discussions were about many things. This cannot be a surprise, given the many questions that the incident raises.

Coverage of the matter in the current issue of Biblical Archaeology Review is a reasonable and timely occasion for posting a thread here. You may be sure that BAR is not a gay-baiting publication.

Originally posted by eight bits
Well, saint, when you feel like taking a break from cataloging all you've noticed, please consider reading Smith's find.

Again? Why, did something change?

Originally posted by eight bits
You'll see that Clement writes in opposition to the lifestyle that bothers you.

Where did I say there was a lifestyle that bothers me?

Originally posted by eight bits
Personally, I hope Jesus got some while he was here. If he didn't, then he missed out on something wonderful about being human.

Is there an assumption here that sex is greater than the things in heaven? If one believes in God, why God make an earth better than heavenly things? (especially after our desire to become God and repetitive disobedience)

Originally posted by eight bits
Whether he liked boys or girls doesn't much matter to me.

He loved boys and girls, just not hormonally. He did so with his heart. There is a difference between love and lust, though the lines seem blurred to many in the teen years.

Originally posted by eight bits
I do not see how anyone could be discredited by being called gay.

No, he'd be discredited for breaking the Old and New Testament mandates by God, which in effect is the real problem with declaring he was a homosexual here. I think the word gay is a misnomer, you don't have to be homosexual to be happy and know some homosexuals who are not gay.

Originally posted by eight bits
Regarding conformity with the Law, last I heard, Jesus was the Law, or at least that's the theory of the case.

Christ fulfilled the law, he does not contradict it. This is an interesting point to discuss but would be off-topic.

Originally posted by eight bits
As to previous discussions of Secret Mark in ATS, I gave the URLs that turn up in the site's search function. Those discussions were about many things. This cannot be a surprise, given the many questions that the incident raises.

Fair enough, though rehashing old ground seems redundant.

Originally posted by eight bits
Coverage of the matter in the current issue of Biblical Archaeology Review is a reasonable and timely occasion for posting a thread here. You may be sure that BAR is not a gay-baiting publication.

Careful trusting sources so quickly. Explore agendas and weigh all the evidence evenly. I still haven't heard you mention the religious affiliation that would benefit from such a claim, but am sure you'll soon discover it if you haven't already.



[edit on 30-10-2009 by saint4God]

I still haven't heard you mention the religious affiliation that would benefit from such a claim, but am sure you'll soon discover it if you haven't already.

Why not help the rest of us out with that, saint?

My own view is that all Christian denominations might benefit from a credible glimpse into an early, pre-establishment Christianity that was both orthodox and also tolerant of step-by-step, progressive enrichment of personal involvement leading to a climactic revelation.

Secret Mark is a lively maybe as a vehicle for providing that credible glimpse. The current state of scholarly opinion about Smith's find is divided. That is real scholarly opinion, not a plurality of Youtube videos and Wiki articles.

Suppose for a moment that Clement did write that letter, and that what he had to say was truthful about how Christianity was practiced before its imperial establishment. What happened to the rest of Mark? What happened to the progressive revelation of Jesus' message?

Sometimes conspiracies are banal. An established religion functions in a different market environment from a disestablished one. Clement's Christianity was disestablished. It had to give people spiritual experiences competitive with what was offered by mystery cults.

We know those were of high quality. We today can still read about a sample of what kind of thing those cults offered in The Odyssey, in the initiation and underworld passages.

Clement was succeeded a few generations later by an established church that didn't have to work nearly so hard. No surprise that it didn't work hard at all.

And the current relevance of sorting that out?

Disestablishment, whether de jure as in the United States or de facto as in much of Europe, is once again the norm in rich countries. Christian churches surely could use some marketing advice. Maybe Secret Mark can help fill the pews.

There would be a practical difficulty in implementing a revival of Clement's eighth sacrament, apart from figuring out what it is. Whatever it is, it is apparently labor intensive.

Of course, in fee-for-service religion, that may be a feature rather than a bug .

"Originally posted by saint4God[/ It's already been addressed before as a "shock and awe" to discredit Christianity (as here it is said that Christ breaks one of the laws set forth by God in the Old and New Testament) as well as promote and alternative agenda of an alternative lifestyle."

Alternative lifestyle? I always thought it was the Christians who are "in but not of the world", and therefore promoting an alternative lifestyle? How peculier.
Just reading "The Gnostics" (Andrew Phillip Smith). It makes sense in a non-sexual context in this setting of Gnosticism. The Gnostics believed that knowledge, rather than blind faith led to salvation.
It is rather suspicious that the modern family unit occurs rarely in the Bible. Old Testament tribes looted for women, and had several wives and concubines (with the blessing of the Lord). Jesus and the apostles were a homosocial brotherhood (how alternative). In fact in Matt 10:34-39 Jesus announces that he comes to tear families asunder with a holy sword.
In this context I still wonder how anyone can point out "alternative lifestyles"?

Alternative lifestyle? I always thought it was the Christians who are "in but not of the world", and therefore promoting an alternative lifestyle? How peculier.

I think saint's antennae were all atwitter because he interpreted Smith's work as being a slur on Jesus' gender preference. I really don't think that that's the story here. For sure, it's not the only story here.

Just reading "The Gnostics" (Andrew Phillip Smith). It makes sense in a non-sexual context in this setting of Gnosticism. The Gnostics believed that knowledge, rather than blind faith led to salvation.

I think you can find a foundation for that in canonical Mark.

Jesus has a personal religious experience when he is baptized. He sees the heavens open, he sees the Spirit descend on him, he is told that he is the son of God. He then goes out to the desert under the Spirit's guidance. These are all private experiences in Mark (1: 9-13). These are the kind of personal experiences that some Gnostics would later strive for.

And, perhaps of some relevance to the ceremony of Secret Mark, Jesus can induce (if that's the right word) directly perceived religious experiences in other people. Jesus takes Peter, James and John to the mountain and shows them Moses and Elijah. The three disciples also hear what Jesus heard at his baptism, a voice from heaven acknowledging Jesus as the son of God. (9: 2-10).

Of course, we can discuss the historical reality of any Bible story. We can also question any religious experience as to its psychological character. But, taking canonical Mark at face value, Peter and James and John's faith after witnessing the transfiguration would not be blind, but founded on knowledge, founded on their experiences.

And those experiences were given to them, when they were prepared to receive them, privately by Jesus. Not so very different a story, then, from Jesus and the youth in Bethany.

Secret Mark is not that far out of line with canonical Mark. And, at least some elements of Gnosticism might have been as well-founded as many other Christian practices that were in use before the establishment of Christianity as a state-sponsored religion.

Originally posted by eight bits
Why not help the rest of us out with that, saint?

I have faith you'll come across it soon if you haven't already.

Originally posted by eight bits
My own view is that all Christian denominations might benefit from a credible glimpse into an early, pre-establishment Christianity that was both orthodox and also tolerant of step-by-step, progressive enrichment of personal involvement leading to a climactic revelation.

You're certainly entitled to your view. Why would you assume it wasn't already considered?

Originally posted by eight bits
Secret Mark is a lively maybe as a vehicle for providing that credible glimpse. The current state of scholarly opinion about Smith's find is divided. That is real scholarly opinion, not a plurality of Youtube videos and Wiki articles.

Scholarly opinions are still opinions, hence the split.

Originally posted by eight bits
Suppose for a moment that Clement did write that letter, and that what he had to say was truthful about how Christianity was practiced before its imperial establishment. What happened to the rest of Mark? What happened to the progressive revelation of Jesus' message?

We cannot live until suppositions. It's fun to toy with, but this as I understand it is a fact finding site, not a fiction writing site.

Originally posted by eight bits
Christian churches surely could use some marketing advice. Maybe Secret Mark can help fill the pews.

That would be the day I'd stopped going to church. It isn't a market as seen in Matthew 21:12-13.

Originally posted by halfoldman
Alternative lifestyle?

Not my phrase nor the Bible's. If you prefer another, I could use it to better relate.

Originally posted by halfoldman
I always thought it was the Christians who are "in but not of the world", and therefore promoting an alternative lifestyle?

Pardon my attempt at communicating with a modern crowd. I'll keep saying homosexual then for clarity. Though to read homosexual in every sentence may be accurate, it certainly makes for a boring read but so be it.

Originally posted by halfoldman
Just reading "The Gnostics" (Andrew Phillip Smith).

Thanks for answering eight bits question for me.

Originally posted by halfoldman
In this context I still wonder how anyone can point out "alternative lifestyles"?

Hit the dead horse a few more times, I think I saw it twitch last time you did.

Originally posted by eight bits
I think saint's antennae were all atwitter because he interpreted Smith's work as being a slur on Jesus' gender preference.

Careful in thinking for others, there's the tendency to be wrong.

Glad you'd come upon the answer as to what religious group would benefit from the claim, may want to thank halfoldman for the assistance.

[edit on 31-10-2009 by saint4God]

saint4god

Your answer was distributed over a few posts, with some parts directed at another poster, so I won't try to sort all that out with quote boxes.

At the end of the day, you are visibly more concerned than I am with the possibility that Jesus was gay. We also disagree about cui bono in this matter. That happens on discussion boards.

As to the overall mix of fact and surmise surrounding this topic, I would say the mix is fully competitive with other threads on ATS. Perhaps your impression about the mix would carry more weight, or possibly even be different, if you had read the conspicuously fact-oriented article linked to in the OP, rather than relying on your sense of already knowing what it says.

Sigismundus

Hi -

Smith reputedly joked about a headline "Rabbi arrested - naked boy flees." Interpretations of that are all over the place, as I hardly need to tell you.

It is interesting that in Mark 14, the request to keep close watch with Jesus is personally asked of Peter, James and John. That is the same trio who have the transifguration experience. Of course, they falter here.

Although Mark is the least "literary "of the canonical Gospels, the author is in form here. He's juxtaposing Judas' betrayal by malice with others' betrayal by fallibility, and working the theme of triple failure expertly.

And then, there it is, 51-52

Now a young man followed him wearing nothing but a linen cloth about his body. They seized him, but he left the cloth behind and ran off naked.

I don't know what to make of it. It has a literary quality to it. Maybe it is not a factual incident at all, but an allegorical contrast between this anonymous callow initiate being awake, versus the most adept of the elite adepts who fell asleep. The Mark author isn't usually praised as a prose stylist, but he is exemplary in this chapter, so maybe he is in these verses, too.

But as I say, I don't know.

I also liked the other scriptural connections you developed. Like you, I look forward to the discovery of further source texts.

I am even so cock-eyed optimistic that I could imagine the spotlight of the internet embarrassing whoever is sitting on the pages found by Smith to "find" them again, and allow the open world to move forward with the obvious forensic tests.

Originally posted by eight bits
At the end of the day, you are visibly more concerned than I am with the possibility that Jesus was gay.

No, I will restate. I'm am concerned with the suggestion that Jesus would break God's enduring mandate (and therefore would suggest that he is not the Christ, who he said he was). It is the same as saying he didn't die on the cross (which is both a separate thread and promotion of a separate religion).

Originally posted by eight bits
Perhaps your impression about the mix would carry more weight, or possibly even be different, if you had read the conspicuously fact-oriented article linked to in the OP, rather than relying on your sense of already knowing what it says.

One contentious point at a time. Notice how we're still discussing this singular notion?

[edit on 1-11-2009 by saint4God]

Originally posted by saint4God

Originally posted by halfoldman
Alternative lifestyle?

Not my phrase nor the Bible's. If you prefer another, I could use it to better relate.

Originally posted by halfoldman
I always thought it was the Christians who are "in but not of the world", and therefore promoting an alternative lifestyle?

Pardon my attempt at communicating with a modern crowd. I'll keep saying homosexual then for clarity. Though to read homosexual in every sentence may be accurate, it certainly makes for a boring read but so be it.

Originally posted by halfoldman
Just reading "The Gnostics" (Andrew Phillip Smith).

Thanks for answering eight bits question for me.

Originally posted by halfoldman
In this context I still wonder how anyone can point out "alternative lifestyles"?

Hit the dead horse a few more times, I think I saw it twitch last time you did.

OK, lets call a spade a spade. By "alternative lifestyle" these days I
mean Christian fundamentalsists, who are often associated with homophobia, misogyny, homophobia, pseudo-science and war-mongering.
Ironically, respective streams in the Western gay movement and Christianity mirror each other in so many ways. Both socially migrate to spaces of like-minded people, both have a parrallell media to the main-stream, both are catered for by capitalist industry, with targeted products and specific marketing. Arguably both "alternative lifestyles" can complain about discrimination, ignorance and stereotyping (especially from science). Both agree with the fundamental US Constitutional paragraphs relating to freedom of choice.

One contentious point at a time. Notice how we're still discussing this singular notion?

Yes, we both notice many things. So, let's make "What's new this time?" our one contentious point, shall we?

There is something important, I think, that the sponsor of this current re-examination is Biblical Archaeology Review. Its editor, Hershel Shanks, is both well respected and shrewd in the ways of applying public pressure.

Shanks was a big player in prying the Dead Sea Scrolls loose from the academic cartel that was withholding them from public review for so long. He did a variety of helpful things, some straightforward like using his magazine as a megaphone, and some creative - the irregular and ultimately ruled-to-be illegal acquisition of a bootleg set of images. But he did it.

So, Shanks' taking up the Morton Smith question is significant. Apart from the free article cited in the OP, there are two subscription articles written by Shanks onsite. In the first, he plays "devil's advocate" for the case that Smith was a forger... ostensibly because Shanks couldn't find any academic accuser who would write, and sign, such an article for BAR. In the second, he writes his personal conclusion: Smith was telling the truth.

That's a pretty smooth publicity stunt. Publicity puts pressure on the Greek Orthodox officials to give up the pages for forensic tests. And if not give up voluntarily, Hershel Shanks has shown that he can get his hands on hidden documents by midnight procurement, if he has to. He's done it before. The Orthodox' worst nightmare is that he might just do it again.

Just a thought.