frizzantik
Bluelight Crew
- Joined
- Sep 19, 2002
- Messages
- 14,281
[size=big]Marks tells of Jesus Being Bisexual[/size]
[size=big]S[/size]cholars have long wondered at a curious passage in the canonical Gospel of Mark (undisputedly the oldest of the canonical gospels) which seems to hint that a detail or two might have been left out: Then they came to Jericho. As he was leaving Jericho with his disciples (Mark 10:46). But what happened in Jericho on Jesus' whistle-stop tour of the provinces? Did Jesus simply pass through and then leave without doing or saying anything to anyone? If the visit was so irrelevant to Jesus' mission, why is it even mentioned? The gap suggests a mission portion of Marks Gospel. The Lettersupplied below--of Clements, who had access to the complete version of Marks gospel, places the events in Jericho.
Both what is missing and why were supplied by Morton Smith, the Columbia University professor scholar whose 1958 research expedition culminated in the discovery of a copy of a letter in the 1646 edition of letters of Ignatius of Antioch (a 2nd century church writer) at the monastery of Mar Saba, twelve miles south of Jerusalem. This letter contains quotes from what Saint Clemens Bishop of Alexandria refers to as The Secret Gospel of Mark. (Based on this letter we can conclude that The Secret Gospel of Mark was the older and more complete, and the version we have is an edited version with the troubling passages left out by the Church fathers.) The portions supplied by Clements in this letter found by Professor Morton Smith fill in the gap at Mark 10:46.
Bishop Clemens of Alexandria wrote to a disciple named Theodore who had asked for advice regarding the Caprocratians, (a Gnostic Christian sect) use of the "Secret Gospel of Mark." Clement not only confirmed the existence and authority of "Secret Mark" in his reply, but actually denounced Carpocrates for using black magic to steal a copy "Secret Mark" from the church library! So scandalous was the Carpocratian "The Secret Gospel of Mark" that Clement advised Theodore never to admit that Mark even wrote it: "You did well in silencing the unspeakable teachings of the Carpocratians. For... priding themselves in knowledge, as they say, "of the deep things of Satan," they do not know that they are casting themselves away into "the nether world of darkness"... For even if they should say something true, one who loves the truth should not, even so, agree with them.... Now of the things they keep saying about the divinely inspired Gospel of Mark... even if they do contain some true elements, [these] are not reported truly...."
As for Mark then, during Peter's stay in Rome [Mark] wrote an account of the Lord's doings, not, however, declaring all of them, nor yet hinting at the secret ones, but selecting what he thought most useful for increasing the faith of those who were instructed. But when Peter died a martyr, Mark came over to Alexandria, bringing both his own notes and those of Peter, from which he transferred to his former book the things suitable to whatever makes for progress towards knowledge. Thus he composed a more spiritual gospel for the use of those who were being perfected. Nevertheless, he yet did not divulge the things not to be uttered, nor did he write down the hierophantic teaching of the Lord [and] he left his composition in the church in... Alexandria, where it is... most carefully guarded, being read only by those who are being initiated into the great mysteries."
But since the foul demons are always devising destruction for the race of men, Carpocrates... using deceitful arts, so enslaved a certain presbyter in the church that he got from a copy of the secret gospel, which he interpreted according to his blasphemous and carnal doctrine..."
To them, therefore, as I said above, one must never give way... [or] even concede that the secret gospel is by Mark... but deny it on oath. For, 'Not all true things are to be said to all men..."
This letter is strong evidence that the Secret Gospel of Mark was in fact the complete version of Mark, and what we have is the edited version by the Church fathers. Barnstone at 340 lists as being visible signs of this editing process Mark 4:ll; 9:25-27; 10:21, 32,38-39; 12:32-34; 14:51-52. What, then, were these "true things" that the Church fathers hoped to hide from the untutored eyes of the average Christian? What was the unspeakable?
St. Clement quotes from this complete, "Secret Gospel of Mark" at length towards the end of his letter. Clement in the last third of his letter to Theodore wrote: "To you, therefore I shall not hesitate to answer the questions you have asked refuting the falsifications by the very words of the [Secret] Gospel (Barnstone 342). "And they come into Bethany. And a certain woman whose brother had died was there. And she prostrated herself before Jesus and says to him, Son of David, have mercy on me. But the disciples rebuked her. And Jesus, being angered, went off with her unto the garden where the tomb was, and straightway a great cry was heard from the tomb. And going near, Jesus rolled away the stone from the door of the tomb. And straightway, going in where the youth was, he stretched forth his hand and raised him, seizing his hand. But the youth, looking upon him, loved him and began to beseech him that he might be with him. And going out of the tomb they came into the house of the youth, for he was rich. And after six days Jesus told him what to do and in the evening the youth came to him, wearing a linen cloth over his naked body. And he remained with him that night, for Jesus taught him the mystery of the Kingdom of God. And thence, arising, he returned to the other side of the Jordan."
After these words follows the text, And James and John come to him, and all that section. But naked man with naked man, and the other things about which you wrote, are not found."
And after the words, And he comes into Jericho, the secret Gospel adds only, And the sister of the youth whom Jesus loved, and his mother and Salome were there, and Jesus did not receive them. But many other things about which you wrote both seem to be and are falsifications. Now the true explanation and that which accords with the true philosophy." [1] This passage quoted by Clemens from the Gospel, could be interpreted as an account of a baptism preformed by Jesus on this young ladand some dobut for 3 facts. One that Clements and the Church fathers not only suppressed the passage but found it scandalous. Second, the plain meaning of the words naked man with naked man and whom Jesus loved support the conclusion that Sexual union with a man as part of the sacrament was practiced. Third, that it was a practice of some Christian sects for to have (like in Tantra Yoga) to engage in sexual intercourse as part of a union with God. Such was said of some Christian communities. There are passages in the Pauline Epistles which admonishing certain unnamed sexual practices and there is a letter from a Roman physician describing in detail this practice. Morton Smith, the discoverer of the letter writes: Freedom from the [Mosaic] law may have resulted in completion of the spiritual union by physical union.
This certainly occurred in many forms of Gnostic Christianity; how early it began there is no telling (Morton Smith, The Secret Gospel, p. 94, The Secret Gospel: The Discovery and Interpretation of the Secret Gospel according to Mark. New York: Harper & Row, 1973). From the tone of the letter of Clement, the fact that are present Gospel of Mark is incomplete in a way that indicates deliberate suppression of passages, and from the quoted passages of in the letter, and from the practices of early Christian communities it is quite reasonable to conclude that the Secret Gospel of Mark described the sexual union of Jesus with a young disciple.
This portrayal of the Messiah Jesus as partaking in sexual union fits well with the view of Jesus as a prophet, like Mohammed, Elijah, and others. Much has been written on the meaning of the Messiah (anointed leader) and the meaning of the Son of God needs to be set in its proper context. A number of heroes were the son of god, including Hercales, Helen, and it was widely believed that Philip of Macedonia was not the real son of Alexander. Mark who was first, and whose Gospel was incorporated with aggrandizements embellishment by Matthew and Luke, and as meaning a prophet unto whom the spirit of god has enter Jesus.[2] This would not be necessary if Jesus was already divine. Nor would God need to inform his son[3] that he is his son, unless son of God meant something like chosen one. Son of God, most scholars agree, is an ambiguous title at best, so too, is lord from the Aramaic mare, which could be interpreted in a spectrum of ways from the mundane sir to the divine lord.[4] As a mortal, having intercourse with women would be fitting, and to be celibate would to most be very abnormal.
Would it be very abnormal for Jesus to take a young man and in the religious initiation have sex with him? The Greeks and Romans both approved such if done with the spirit of a mentor and one also loved women. Three centuries of domination had its effects. Mark had written in his fiction on the life of Jesus[5] things that were deemed proper in the Hellenized world? Could not Mark, who was most certainly not Mark of the disciples, had Jesus do that which Mark free done? Modern research often proposes as the author an unknown Hellenistic Jewish Christian, possibly in Syria and perhaps shortly after the year 70.[6] Clement of Alexandria in his letter acknowledges a complete and suppressed original edition of Marks Gospel, a copy in the Churchs library in Alexandria. Thus the most consistent explanation of the missing passages including the one concerning Jericho is that the Church Counsel was not as Hellenized as Mark, and that they upheld the Hebraic injunction against Greek love.
Read Original
[size=big]S[/size]cholars have long wondered at a curious passage in the canonical Gospel of Mark (undisputedly the oldest of the canonical gospels) which seems to hint that a detail or two might have been left out: Then they came to Jericho. As he was leaving Jericho with his disciples (Mark 10:46). But what happened in Jericho on Jesus' whistle-stop tour of the provinces? Did Jesus simply pass through and then leave without doing or saying anything to anyone? If the visit was so irrelevant to Jesus' mission, why is it even mentioned? The gap suggests a mission portion of Marks Gospel. The Lettersupplied below--of Clements, who had access to the complete version of Marks gospel, places the events in Jericho.
Both what is missing and why were supplied by Morton Smith, the Columbia University professor scholar whose 1958 research expedition culminated in the discovery of a copy of a letter in the 1646 edition of letters of Ignatius of Antioch (a 2nd century church writer) at the monastery of Mar Saba, twelve miles south of Jerusalem. This letter contains quotes from what Saint Clemens Bishop of Alexandria refers to as The Secret Gospel of Mark. (Based on this letter we can conclude that The Secret Gospel of Mark was the older and more complete, and the version we have is an edited version with the troubling passages left out by the Church fathers.) The portions supplied by Clements in this letter found by Professor Morton Smith fill in the gap at Mark 10:46.
Bishop Clemens of Alexandria wrote to a disciple named Theodore who had asked for advice regarding the Caprocratians, (a Gnostic Christian sect) use of the "Secret Gospel of Mark." Clement not only confirmed the existence and authority of "Secret Mark" in his reply, but actually denounced Carpocrates for using black magic to steal a copy "Secret Mark" from the church library! So scandalous was the Carpocratian "The Secret Gospel of Mark" that Clement advised Theodore never to admit that Mark even wrote it: "You did well in silencing the unspeakable teachings of the Carpocratians. For... priding themselves in knowledge, as they say, "of the deep things of Satan," they do not know that they are casting themselves away into "the nether world of darkness"... For even if they should say something true, one who loves the truth should not, even so, agree with them.... Now of the things they keep saying about the divinely inspired Gospel of Mark... even if they do contain some true elements, [these] are not reported truly...."
As for Mark then, during Peter's stay in Rome [Mark] wrote an account of the Lord's doings, not, however, declaring all of them, nor yet hinting at the secret ones, but selecting what he thought most useful for increasing the faith of those who were instructed. But when Peter died a martyr, Mark came over to Alexandria, bringing both his own notes and those of Peter, from which he transferred to his former book the things suitable to whatever makes for progress towards knowledge. Thus he composed a more spiritual gospel for the use of those who were being perfected. Nevertheless, he yet did not divulge the things not to be uttered, nor did he write down the hierophantic teaching of the Lord [and] he left his composition in the church in... Alexandria, where it is... most carefully guarded, being read only by those who are being initiated into the great mysteries."
But since the foul demons are always devising destruction for the race of men, Carpocrates... using deceitful arts, so enslaved a certain presbyter in the church that he got from a copy of the secret gospel, which he interpreted according to his blasphemous and carnal doctrine..."
To them, therefore, as I said above, one must never give way... [or] even concede that the secret gospel is by Mark... but deny it on oath. For, 'Not all true things are to be said to all men..."
This letter is strong evidence that the Secret Gospel of Mark was in fact the complete version of Mark, and what we have is the edited version by the Church fathers. Barnstone at 340 lists as being visible signs of this editing process Mark 4:ll; 9:25-27; 10:21, 32,38-39; 12:32-34; 14:51-52. What, then, were these "true things" that the Church fathers hoped to hide from the untutored eyes of the average Christian? What was the unspeakable?
St. Clement quotes from this complete, "Secret Gospel of Mark" at length towards the end of his letter. Clement in the last third of his letter to Theodore wrote: "To you, therefore I shall not hesitate to answer the questions you have asked refuting the falsifications by the very words of the [Secret] Gospel (Barnstone 342). "And they come into Bethany. And a certain woman whose brother had died was there. And she prostrated herself before Jesus and says to him, Son of David, have mercy on me. But the disciples rebuked her. And Jesus, being angered, went off with her unto the garden where the tomb was, and straightway a great cry was heard from the tomb. And going near, Jesus rolled away the stone from the door of the tomb. And straightway, going in where the youth was, he stretched forth his hand and raised him, seizing his hand. But the youth, looking upon him, loved him and began to beseech him that he might be with him. And going out of the tomb they came into the house of the youth, for he was rich. And after six days Jesus told him what to do and in the evening the youth came to him, wearing a linen cloth over his naked body. And he remained with him that night, for Jesus taught him the mystery of the Kingdom of God. And thence, arising, he returned to the other side of the Jordan."
After these words follows the text, And James and John come to him, and all that section. But naked man with naked man, and the other things about which you wrote, are not found."
And after the words, And he comes into Jericho, the secret Gospel adds only, And the sister of the youth whom Jesus loved, and his mother and Salome were there, and Jesus did not receive them. But many other things about which you wrote both seem to be and are falsifications. Now the true explanation and that which accords with the true philosophy." [1] This passage quoted by Clemens from the Gospel, could be interpreted as an account of a baptism preformed by Jesus on this young ladand some dobut for 3 facts. One that Clements and the Church fathers not only suppressed the passage but found it scandalous. Second, the plain meaning of the words naked man with naked man and whom Jesus loved support the conclusion that Sexual union with a man as part of the sacrament was practiced. Third, that it was a practice of some Christian sects for to have (like in Tantra Yoga) to engage in sexual intercourse as part of a union with God. Such was said of some Christian communities. There are passages in the Pauline Epistles which admonishing certain unnamed sexual practices and there is a letter from a Roman physician describing in detail this practice. Morton Smith, the discoverer of the letter writes: Freedom from the [Mosaic] law may have resulted in completion of the spiritual union by physical union.
This certainly occurred in many forms of Gnostic Christianity; how early it began there is no telling (Morton Smith, The Secret Gospel, p. 94, The Secret Gospel: The Discovery and Interpretation of the Secret Gospel according to Mark. New York: Harper & Row, 1973). From the tone of the letter of Clement, the fact that are present Gospel of Mark is incomplete in a way that indicates deliberate suppression of passages, and from the quoted passages of in the letter, and from the practices of early Christian communities it is quite reasonable to conclude that the Secret Gospel of Mark described the sexual union of Jesus with a young disciple.
This portrayal of the Messiah Jesus as partaking in sexual union fits well with the view of Jesus as a prophet, like Mohammed, Elijah, and others. Much has been written on the meaning of the Messiah (anointed leader) and the meaning of the Son of God needs to be set in its proper context. A number of heroes were the son of god, including Hercales, Helen, and it was widely believed that Philip of Macedonia was not the real son of Alexander. Mark who was first, and whose Gospel was incorporated with aggrandizements embellishment by Matthew and Luke, and as meaning a prophet unto whom the spirit of god has enter Jesus.[2] This would not be necessary if Jesus was already divine. Nor would God need to inform his son[3] that he is his son, unless son of God meant something like chosen one. Son of God, most scholars agree, is an ambiguous title at best, so too, is lord from the Aramaic mare, which could be interpreted in a spectrum of ways from the mundane sir to the divine lord.[4] As a mortal, having intercourse with women would be fitting, and to be celibate would to most be very abnormal.
Would it be very abnormal for Jesus to take a young man and in the religious initiation have sex with him? The Greeks and Romans both approved such if done with the spirit of a mentor and one also loved women. Three centuries of domination had its effects. Mark had written in his fiction on the life of Jesus[5] things that were deemed proper in the Hellenized world? Could not Mark, who was most certainly not Mark of the disciples, had Jesus do that which Mark free done? Modern research often proposes as the author an unknown Hellenistic Jewish Christian, possibly in Syria and perhaps shortly after the year 70.[6] Clement of Alexandria in his letter acknowledges a complete and suppressed original edition of Marks Gospel, a copy in the Churchs library in Alexandria. Thus the most consistent explanation of the missing passages including the one concerning Jericho is that the Church Counsel was not as Hellenized as Mark, and that they upheld the Hebraic injunction against Greek love.
Read Original
I mean, cmon.. hanging out with 12 dudes all the time? seems a little suspect to me
