Originally posted by halfoldman
OK, lets call a spade a spade. By "alternative lifestyle" these days I
mean...

Yep, surely that horse is dead. This time when you struck it, it did not twitch, indicating it's complete nervous system has successfully collapsed and has entered into a state of rigor mortis.

Please do me at least the minute respect of reading my response instead of carrying on with the soap box regurgitation.

[edit on 1-11-2009 by saint4God]

Just because something is old doesn't make it true. A lie is still a lie even if it's thousands of years old.

Originally posted by saint4God
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.

I repeat: "as well as promote and (sic) alternative agenda of an ALTERNATIVE lifestyle.

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?

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

I clarify: "alternative lifestyle": "Not my phrase..."? See above post, really?
I merely gave a clarification on the various ways in which "alternative lifestyles' are misunderstood, and focused on the commonalities.
Sorry for the alleged "saop-boxing". Could you perhaps repeat your central point. Perhaps the contradictions and so forth made it somewhat confusing.

Hi Eight Bits---

I'm not sure if forensic tests would prove anything vis a vis 'authentication' for the (18th century?) shorthand Greek 'transcription' of the Alexandrian Clement Letter to 'Theodore' allegedly found by Morton Smith in 1958 at the Mar Saba Monastery --he surmised that it must have been originally (and 'hurriedly') made (in secret? oh, the Romance of it all, probably some 18th century monk surreptitiously copying a forbidden text by the light of a single candle in the privy...the mind boggles..) and (who knows?) may well have derived from some rotting or 'forbidden' (locked up) collection or a now-lost or now-sequestered (from embarrasment?) late 2nd/ early 3rd century UNCIAL original) -- the shorthand transcript was allegedly found pasted on the back end pages of a St Ignatius Collected Writings book printed in the year 1646--the 'terminus post quem' for the Greek shorthand transcription.

The acutal UNCIAL Greek text of the Clement Letter to Theodore re: the Carpocratians and their Sodomy Baptisms is not (apparenlty) extant.

Or is it...hmmm....the Vatican or some other Christian institution may be hiding it of course, but I suspect it is probably being kept well-hidden in the monastery where the transcript was found...

However carbon (or whatever method is best) dating the shorthand sheets (and the inks used, especially in terms of chemical content) to after 1646 but before say 1940 or so would obviously get Morton Smith himself off the hook vis a vis all those detractors and forgery claims--but the passage may still be another forger's work, who knows...

One would really like to examine an actual old UNCIAL copy of this letter from an earlier period, but no soap apparently...

Hi, Neo

Jesju warms a newly revived, freesing Lazarus, and using skin against skin thus saving Lazarus from freesing to death..

We keep coming back to the gay thing. I cannot help but wonder if that would have been such a big deal in the Third Century.

A week is said to elapse between the youth's revival and his night with Jesus. So, brotherly warming-up of understandably cold flesh doesn't really fit Clement's passage, IMO.

But when you get right down to it, if somebody wanted to make the case for a gay historical Jesus, the canonical account already gives plenty of ammunition. John reports Jesus in physical contact with the Beloved Disciple during a social event. Theirs is a committed relationship. The Beloved is the only male disciple who witnesses the Crucifixion. The dying Jesus "adopts" him into the family, so to speak.

The traditional and conventional depiction of John the Apostle in religious art is stereotypically effeminate, since artists conflated him with the author of John, and then further conflated the author with the Beloved Disciple. Dan Brown was not the first person to mistake a painter's depiction of John for a woman, you may be sure.

So, Church officials could not possibly have been unaware of what could be made of this canonical material. And there it is. Gay Jesus if you want a gay Jesus.

I can't help you with possibly inconsistent versions of Mark. Canonical Mark is unambiguous (15: 44-45) on the dead-ness of Jesus:

Pilate was amazed that he was already dead. He summoned the centurion and asked him if Jesus had already died. And when he learned of it from the centurion, he gave the body to Joseph.

Call it personal prejudice, but I have great respect, if little admiration, for the professionalism of a Roman exactor mortis. Note, too, that Longinus is not a Marcan character (although neither is Lazarus, of course).

The Secret Gospel of Mark is really just the Gospel of Mark, with a couple of additions.

I was thinking this morning about the various versions of Mark. I am not so sure that the canonical Mark is the same as the shorter of Clement's two "divinely inspired" versions.

As has come up in discussions here, canonical Mark depicts private religious experiences. And, of course, there is chapter 4, in which Jesus discusses having two tiers of teaching, parables for the public, and plain talk for the brethren. Altogether prident, too, in an environment with hecklers and where your words might easily be used against you. There is also attention paid to waiting for the right time to disclose a private experience publicly, as at the end of the transfiguration scene.

What Clement reveals here, then, changes very little from a religious perspective that is not contained in canonical Mark.

Maybe when the canonical version was compiled, nobody cared that the Lazarus incident was missing from Mark, or they were unsure about the reliability of whatever version they had since the other synoptics didn't have it, and decided to let John cover the matter. The version of the Lazarus incident in John hardly discourages gay-oriented speculation about Jesus. It's not like Clement's verse is so much "worse" than what made it into the canon.

Anyway, maybe we end up with a "Goldilocks" Mark, not too long (Secret Mark), not too short (maybe excerpts used to recruit converts early on), but just right. More or less.

[edit on 2-11-2009 by eight bits]

Hi Neo & Eight Bits--

Again, one does NOT HAVE TO NECESSARILY posit a homosexual midnight baptism here---

The Secret Mark story about the raising of the 'young man' from a tomb may well have been derived from purely 'old testament' canonical Hebrew material: almost EVERY SINGLE LINE of the gospel material in the NT canon has an OLD TESTAMENT referral point (often expanded in the gospel stories 'midrashically' to bring out their 'messianic last days' meaning for the earliest Nazorean churches...
(cf: tjhe 3rd gospel ('of Luke' whoever he was) in the Road to Emaeus pericope where the 'ghostly' risen Christ-in-disguise tells his fellow travellers Search (aram. 'Midrash', = lit ' seek out for hidden meanings') the Scriptures, for in them you will see everything that was written about the Son of Man (aram. Bar-Enasha) must come to pass [in the last Days]')

Following this OT sourcing logic and applying it to Morton's Secret Mark, all one has to do it turn at once to the miracles of the northern (later 'Galilean') prophet Elisha'q in the opening chapters of the book of II Kings (these pericope miracle stories read like proto Gospels each little pericope with a setup beginning, a middle section rising to a fever pitch of miracle working at the end...the same pattern we see in the gospel miracle 'signs' in the council approved gospels in the post Nicene NT) who like R. Yehoshua bar Yosef who followed on the heels of his Rabbi R. Yohanon bar Zechariah the Levite (aka John the Baptist) since Elisha'q, followed in the footsteps of his own guru teacher Elijah 'whose mantle fell on his shoulders'...

One could see that many of the gospel 'miracles' (especially the 7 Signs of the 4th gospel, whoever wrote that book) of Yehoshua bar Yosef (also a Galilean prophet) were modelled on the 'miracles' of Elisha'q , e.g. Elisha'q turns a bowl of pottage to feed 100 men, Yehoshua turns some loaves and fish into a meal for 5,000 men (and women and children besides) i.e. 'something greater than Elisha'q is here) ; we also see the miracle story of Elisha'q raising or floating the (borrowed) and lost axe head (in the gospels, including the 4th canonical one, Yehoshua walks on water all by himself: Elisha'q had to use a lodestone or magnetic stick to get the axe head to float to the top of the water---again the gospel writer is suggeting something greater than Elisha'q is here...) &tc. You could apply ALL SEVEN of the SIGNS in the 4th gospel to re-iterations of the Elisha'q miracles in II Kings chapters three through ten.

One of the miracle stories in the 4th Gospel relating to the Secret Mark pericope of the Naked Young Man in the Tomb involves the so-called Raising of Eleazar (aka 'Lazarus' the brother of Martha and Miryam, which young man was named specifically by one of the sisters as 'the Disciple whom Jesus Loved' see: "Rabbi, behold, the Disciple Whom YOU LOVE is dead...") by a word: (no 'touching his naked' in t he 4th gospel, no sir !)--which also hearkens back to the Elisha'q miracles: the raising of the Shunamite woman's son ('and Elisha'q shut their door upon him and...stretched himself on TOP of the BOY, and placed his hands on the boy's hands, and his lips on the boys LIPS and his EYES on the boy's EYES, and the boy was warmed by him...then the boy sneezed seven times, then the boy opened his eyes...', II Kings 4:1-38)...

Curious parallels include the item that the prophet 'shuts the door upon the boy' (cf: the youth in the tomb, which is sealed), and that the 'boy' in the Elisha'q narrative and the 'male' in the Secret Mark narrative is 'a youth' --whereas the OT narrative has the boy sneezing seven times, in the Secret Mark, the 'young man' is told to WAIT FOR SIX DAYS and on the SEVENTH DAY 'he was taught the mysteries of the Kingdom of the Most High...' by R. Yehoshua (we may also recall Moses waiting for 6 days before he could ascend the Mountain of EL)

Either way, we do not HAVE TO posit (necessarily) a homosexual ritual initiation here on the part of R. Yehoshua and the naked young male in Secret Mark---just as we don't have to necessarily say that Elisha'q was having male on male sex with the Shunamite woman's son just because 'he laid his body on him and placed his lips on the boy's lips...' in order to warm him (maybe mouth to mouth resuscitation is meant here? which is generally considered to be a non-sexual act -- at least in most cases I've heard of !!)

Just a few extra thoughts for Alle Hallowes' today !

Originally posted by Sigismundus
Hi Neo & Eight Bits--

Again, one does NOT HAVE TO NECESSARILY posit a homosexual midnight baptism here---

The only referance I had to homosexuality was the fact that the reasoning behind banning this version of Mark, was that THEY ie. the early church spokesmen, deemed the addition of Jesju lying naked with the naked man heretic probably due to them believing it was over the top to display Jesju in bed with a naked man. Hipocritical in my opinion. I see absolutely no connection to the Gospel of John's enigma of the Beloved Disciple. If it was Lasarus who was the Beloved Disciple, it would be natural, since he would be Jesju's brother-in-law, being the brother of a certain Mary or Miriam of Bethany, in some traditions the same as Mary Magdalene.

Neo

Opinions differ about the identity of the Beloved Disciple. The canon makes him masculine. It doesn't matter to the thread whether or not the canonical account is correct, only that John is as easily to reconcile with a gay Jesus as Smith's fragment of Clement.

As to the other matter, it is clear that Jesus' principal purpose is to share a religious experience with the Bethany youth. Whether that involves other physical activities as well, whether sexual or therapeutic, simply cannot be established by an examination of Morton Smith's work.

Sig

Well, it is Clement. Excursion into layered meanings of scripture is practically invited.

Part of the game is that Clement accepted that the base layer of gospel material was the plain meaning. Further interpetation, then, was constrained by the simple truth of what was said.

So, I would be comfortable with a theory in which Jesus crafted some ritual which recalled Elijah and events in Elijah's career. That would not be too hard to justify within what canonical Mark tells of Jesus' own religious initation, his use of Elijah in the transfiguration, and the "Who do people say I am?" incident (8: 28).

Could've sworn we were at All Souls. Time flies .

[edit on 2-11-2009 by eight bits]

Originally posted by eight bits
Neo

Opinions differ about the identity of the Beloved Disciple. The canon makes him masculine.

Well, as far as I can see, the Greek codexes never reveal the sex of the disciple whom Jesju loves.

Words translated him his etc. are all general in gender, Autos, Touto, Ekeinos, they are all general words, meaning "son, daughter, descendant etc.", "to this one" and "he, she it, etc". It's first when the texts were translated into European languages from the Greek texts that there has grown a concensus that the disciple whom Jesju loves is a man. Quite absurd knowing from the apocrypha that Jesju loved Mary Magdalen more than the other disciples, and even used to kiss her publicly, in John this disciple is seen leaning towards Jesju's chest, showing similar public affection.

Since my Greek is terrible, perhaps Sigismundus or some of the other people here who reads Koine Greek could elaborate, or dismiss or confirm my tesis.

[edit on 2/11/2009 by Neo Christian Mystic]

Hi Neo--

Actually Greek Verbs DO in fact show the gender of the nouns to which they refer, e.g. the last words of the 2nd gospel ('of Mark' whoever he was) clearly is speaking of females at the tomb: Mark 16:8

καὶ οὐδενὶ οὐδὲν εἶπαν, ἐφοβοῦντο γάρ

KAI OUDENI OUDEN EINAN, EPHOBOUNTO GAR

"And they (fem.) said nothing to no-one, they (fem) were afraid because..."

e.g. Ephobounto is the feminine imperfect active of PHOBEO....showing that the subjects are women. In English 'they' is neuter, so English has to ADD words 'the WOMEN said nothng to to one: they (i.e. the WOMEN) were afraid because..."

However..in the mangled Greek texts of the 4th gospel the grammar of the phrase in Greek: 'Rabbi, Behold, the Disciple (HO ADELPHOS) whom YOU LOVE is dead..."

which can be found in the so-called Eleazar ('Lazarus') pericope in the 4th gospel ('of John' whoever he was) is gramatically MASCULINE therefore refers to a male disciple not a female one, at least according to the Greek texts.

I cannot be sure if the 4th gospel writer here is trying to 'typologically' link the alleged sexual relationship which existed between the OT 'David' and his male lover-'prince Jonathan' son of Saul (e.g. the accusations found in Saul's rant against his son in I Sam 20:30) with the 'Son of David' (i.e. Yehoshua) and another male lover figure or not---certainly we DO see the 'disciple whom Iesous loved' (!) 'laying upon' (against) his breast' (i.e. close skin to skin contact) in 'John' chapter 13:23-25 'while reclining' at the Last Supper in the 4th gospel, sharing whispers that others present did not hear...

I think what we are seeing here are two schools of thought. One was forced undergound and one is in control. For instance, the texts found at Nag Hammadi seem to talk more openly about what is known as the actual mysteries in Christianity, whereas the Catholic Church controlled not only the content, but also who they allowed to have access to it.

In trying to figure out who is right or wrong, it doesn't help that Christians are warned not to cast their pearls before swine yet on the other hand are supposed to shout from the rooftops what you hear whispered in your ear. Also at Jesus' trial he said he never spoke anything in secret, but we have the Gospel of Thomas starting out "these are the secret words that the living Jesus spoke."

The only way to reconcile all this - is to believe that Jesus intended the true teachings for anyone who believed on him and was attempting to walk in the "way." If I started openly talking about the lessor or greater mysteries of Christianity in this thead it would no doubtedly be a benefit to those eager to know truth. However, at the same time, there are people who don't believe anything about God, let alone Jesus, who will do just as he said they would -trample it in the mud.

When one looks at it this way, one can see why the Church would hide something like this, but it doesn't excuse them from keeping things pertinent to spiritual health from their own.

With that being said, the clue to this whole thing is in three words that Clement wrote "AFTER SIX DAYS."

Assuming, the young rich man, Lazarus, the beloved disciple and the author of John are all four, somehow, intricately connected, we know that Lazarus was brought back to life after four days. Then, according to Clement, after six days the young man was taught the mystery of the kingdom.

So why would have it been necessary to wait six days for this teaching?

Do you know the answer?

They don't teach this stuff at Sunday School.Lol

Hi Myrtales--

See if you can find/read my posts sent earlier on this thread--the 6 days mentioned in Secret Mark have to do with 'ascension' perhaps, in parallel to the 6 days that Moses had to wait before he could 'further' ascend the Mount of EL in the book of Exodus (24:12-18)

12And YHWH said to Moses, Come up to meet me on the mountain, and wait there: and I will give you stone tablets and an Instruction ('torah') and commandments which I have engraved; that you should teach them.

13 And Moses ascended [part of the way] with his assistant Joshua: and Moses climbed up the Mountain of EL alone.

14And he said unto the advisors ('old men') Wait here for us, until we come down: behold, Aaron and Hur are with you: if any man have any matters to do, let him present his case to them.

15 And Moses climbed the mountain and lo, a cloud covered the mountain.

16 And the Cavod of YHWH remained on mount Sinai,

And The CLOUD COVERED IT FOR SIX DAYS: and the seventh day he called unto Moses out of the middle of the cloud.

17And the sight of the Cavod of YHWH was like devouring fire on the top of the mountain in the sight of the benei Yisroel below

18 Then Moses walked into the middle of the cloud, and reached its summit: and Moses was on the mountain for forty days and forty nights.


There may be something parallel here about Secret Mark's 'expliacating the mysteries of the Kingdom of God' after 6 days, and and 'the cloud of Cavod ('glory') that rested upon the mount for SIX days before Mosheh is able to walk into it in order to commune face to face with YHWH' etc. and receive the 'commandments and instructions...'

Notice in Secret Mark, the quote includes the phrase in clumsy Greek: 'and after six days he gave him an instruction...' which is also taken from the same passage in Exodus...

The writer of Secret Mark (like the shorter 2nd Canonical Gospel, probably the same writer...) is using a narrative typological device (also a literary one) here between the contact between the clan god YHWH on the mountain and Mosheh 'ascending' and between Yeshua and the young man who 'was lifted up' (i.e. made to ascend) by the arm in the tomb...which I believe the writer expected his originally Jewish-oriented listeners to understand when the 'gospel' was 'read in the Jewish-Christian- Messianic synagogues/churches'...

Hi Neo

Naturally we don't know the sexual-marital history of R. Yehoshua bar Yosef the Galilean Nazir---and speculation about Miryam haGedolah ('Mary the Great') was rife even before Holy Blood Holy Grail in the 1980s...and long before Dan Brown wrote his fictional novels...

Neither do we know the true etymology of 'Mary Magdalene' and there are some weird theories out there.

Since in the list of Mary's (Miryam = princess, i.e. a common name for women of the larger Daviddic family tree), Mary 'Magdelene' always occurs FIRST in the list (even before mommy), I prefer the Miryam haGedolah theory (Mary the Great) and this title may well be a kind of sacred-prostitute-sister-wife figure in the earliest torah abiding Nazorean churches that the socalled Greek Pauline gentile loving churches (who fought with them) basically tried to erase from history after the Jewish War when Israel was destroyed, and the eyewitnesses to the earliest palestinian Nazorean 'rituals' were long dead.

The 'Annointing at Bethany' pericope is problematic for 'biblical historians' since in different gospels it is set in different places and focuses on different things at times, e.g. place and parts of bodies:

In 'Luke' the scene is set in the house of a Pharasee, and in 'Mark' and 'Matthew' (whoever they were...) it is set in the House of 'Shimeon the Jar-Maker' (sometimes translated as 'the Leper' - Aram. GARABAH - 'Jarmaker' / Aram. GARBA - 'Leper'). The connexion with JAR should be obvious, although 'Matthew' prefers "box" (no rude answers, please !)

In the 4th Gospel ('John') it occurs at the House of Miryam (haGedolah), her brother Eleazar and her sister Martha.

This whole pericope (especially the 4th gospel's version) seems like it is building (consciously) upon an Aramaic Midrash of the Song of Songs, chapters 1-4 which speaks of the King of Israel reclining at a Feast (there's a lot of overt erotic love-poetry in this book for you, if you really want to find it - complete with ointments and everything)

SONG OF SONGS (Canticles, aka Song of Solomon)

1:4. Lo, the king hath brought me into his chambers: we will be glad and rejoice in you we will remember your love . 2:4 He brought me to the banqueting house, and his banner over me was LOVE

Especially see tjhe key note midrashic verse: :
Song of Songs 1:12 While the King sat at his table, my spikenard sendeth forth the smell thereof.

Here are some other ointment passages from the Song: notice COSTLY ointment and REMEMBRANCE occurs in the poem, two key words used in the annointing in the gospel narratives...('the mitsvah this woman has performed for me shall be spoken of as a remembrance of her')

1:2 Let him kiss me with the kisses of his mouth: for your love is better than wine. 1:3 Because of the smell of your costly ointments your name is as an ointment poured out and that is why the young girls love thee !

1:4b we will be glad and rejoice in you we will remember your love . 2:4 He brought me to the banqueting house, and his banner over me was LOVE 4:10 10 How delightful is your love, my sister-bride ! How much more pleasing is your love than wine, and the fragrance of your perfume than any spices !

Interestingly in Galilean Aramaic, HaGedellah means 'hair dresser' as well, and we all know the weird ritual with the HAIR is echoed in the Lukan and Johanine versions: both Luke and John focus the ritual on the 'feet' (heb. regley, a dual noun which is sometimes used to replace the Heb. word for 'testicles', hence the sexual immorality innuendo - see proto-Isaiah 7:20 for the 'hair of the feet' issue ='pubic hair' &tc.)

Here is 'John's' s take on the scene: ('John' 12:1-8)

1 Then Iesous six days before Pseach came to Bethany, where Eleazar lived [the one who was dead / whom he raised from the dead].

2 And there they prepared him a meal that Martha served and Eleazar was one of the guests who reclined with them.

3 Then Miryam took a full pound of ointment of very costly spikenard, and anointed (Meshia'q) the 'feet' of Jesus, and wiped his feet with her hair: so that the house was filled with the odour of the ointment.


Compare the 'un-named whore' version of the account in 'Luke' 7:37-39 which also focuses on 'feet' and 'hair' but not on the 'head'

'And, behold, a woman in the city, who was a wanton, when she had learned that Jesus was reclining at dinner in the house of a Pharisee brought an alabaster box of perfume; and lo, she stood at his feet behind him weeping, and began to wash his feet with tears, and did wipe them with the hair of her head, and kissed his feet, and anointed (Meshia'q) them with the ointment. 39 And when the Pharisee which had invited him saw it, he through to himself, This man, if he really were The Prophet, he would have known who this woman is who is 'touching' him, and what she is, for she's obviously a [whore].'

The 2nd Gospel's ('Mark') chap 14:3-9 version like 'Luke' and 'Matthew' has no actual name for the ointment-lady--but head is used, not 'feet' and there is no hair scene.

'And while he was in Bethany, reclining at table in the home of a man called Shimeon-the-[Jar-Maker] (sometimes mis-translated as 'leper') there comes to him a woman with an alabaster jar of very expensive perfume, made of pure nard. She broke the jar and poured the perfume on his head'

Here is 'Mathew '26:6-13 (also has the 'Meshia'q on the head, but no feet or hair, reworded from the earlier Markan version)

26:6 Now when Iesous was in Bethany, in the house of Simon the [leper],
26:7 There came unto him a woman having an alabaster box of very precious ointment, and poured it on his head, as he sat [at meat].

So we have Mark-Matthew with the Head Focus and Luke-John with the Feet Focus.

Since Meshia'q means 'annointed' (aka Messiah - 'smeared one') this whole Annointing Pericope is locked up with some kind of kingly coronation ritual or ceremony---the 'testicles/feet' connection might be a subtle hint to those among the earliest circles of Nazoreans that a blood line was indeed involved...(i.e. the Shoot of Jesse in the Last Days) &tc.

Makes one wonder HOW MUCH of the gospel material had been pared down in the earlier ARAMAIC oral phases of its existence in various places !



[edit on 3-11-2009 by Sigismundus]