Jesus has suffered many accusations during his walk on earth and even until now, there’s still so many false things said about Jesus. One of them, is Jesus, being gay. Here is one example of an article saying about Jesus being gay.
Professor Morton Smith, a Christian (believes that we essential know of the life and teachings of Jesus) has found a letter by the Bishop of Alexandria (c. 125 C.E.) describing a deleted passage of Mark’s Gospel.
It should be noted that Morton Smith is a Christian, and typical of them, even in their critical scholarship, they are committed to certain conclusion that the evidence fails to uphold. They invariable fail to address several compelling criticisms of the New and Old Testaments. They assume certain truths, which upon scrutiny aren’t truths. In the case of Morton Smith, he holds that there is an historical Jesus, a viewpoint that has been shown to be without merit by the German School of biblical scholars at the beginning of the 20th century and improved upon by later scholars.
yet another Christian being the follower of Jesusanity.
Scholars 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 Mark’s Gospel. The Letter—supplied below–of Clement’s, who had access to the complete version of Mark’s gospel, places the events in Jericho.
There’s nothing special about this. Mark wanted to imply that Jesus once came to Jericho then when He was leaving, He met a blind man named Bartimaeus. Mark just wanted to make the passage right. nothing else. This thinking is very unnecessarily to provide more skeptical view. If you just want to show there was a missing passage, what’s the point of this paragraph? nothing.
Both what is missing and why is 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. The letter consists of 3 pages of Greek manuscript bound in as end-papers. This letter contains quotes from what Saint Clement of Alexandria (c.156-211) refers to as “The Secret Gospel of Mark.” Professor Smith writes, “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 Clement in this letter found by Professor Morton Smith fill in the gap at Mark 10:46.
And it is too possible that it’s a later version of Mark, then edited. Haven’t they tested a Carbon-12 test on the manuscript? Even in the best available manuscripts today, there are some text that couldn’t be read, missing torn page, etc.
Morton Smith published his findings in 1973 in two different books: one was a rigorously academic volume from Harvard entitled Clement of Alexandria and a Secret Gospel of Mark, while the second was a popular explanation The Secret Gospel. It is the latter which I have read.
Bishop Clement of Alexandria has 3 surviving books Exhortation to the Greeks, The Insructor, and the Miscellanies, and several fragments and lesser works. One is a letter 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…”
Whatever is said, it’s just another excuse so that other false information can come in.
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.”
the passage I’ve marked is similar to John 11:17-44, it’s an event that should occur long after that Jesus’ visit to Jericho. Because of this matter and examining the passage above, the motive of writing is very similar to those Gnostic books. It’s clearly recognizable and easy to identify that the passage came from Gnostic writers.
“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.
look at your source. Does this defy your view?
“Now the true explanation and that which accords with the true philosophy. “
This passage quoted by Clement from the Gospel, could be interpreted as an account of a baptism preformed by Jesus on this young lad—and some do—but for 3 facts. One that Clement 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 (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 our present Gospel of Mark is incomplete in a way that indicates deliberate suppression of the passage, 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. 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 Heracles, Helen, and more recently, it was widely believed that Philip of Macedonia was not the real son of Alexander, but rather a god. Mark was first, his Gospel was incorporated with aggrandizement, and revisions by Matthew and Luke. Mark saw Christ as a mortal unto whom the spirit of god has entered when he was baptized. If he was a god or part of Yahweh (as is currently maintained) then God would not need to inform his son that he is his son, unless “son of God” meant something like chosen one—a position held by the Gnostic Christians. “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.” As a mortal, having intercourse with women would be fitting, and to be celibate would be very abnormal. Having sex with a young man, in the Hellenized world also was quite unexceptional.
That is because, they do not understand about the Oneness of God. The “Son of God” image is the visible image of the invisible God (Col 1:15), and truly is part of the Oneness of God.
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. Bisexuality was the norm. Three centuries of Greek and Roman domination had its effects. Mark had written in his fiction on the life of Jesus things that were deemed proper in the Hellenized world? Could not Mark, who was most certainly not Mark of the disciples[i], be Hellenized? “Modern research often proposes as the author an unknown Hellenistic Jewish Christian, possibly in Syria and perhaps shortly after the year 70.” Clement of Alexandria in his letter acknowledges a complete and suppressed original edition of Mark’s Gospel, a copy in the Church’s 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.
Modern bible scholars already acknowledged the author of this book as Mark, as either Peter’s son or Paul’s secretary or could be both. And the most unnecessary and the most unimportant verse Mark 14:51-52 is there to prove that it’s probably the writer himself (and to keep his writing all in third-person view, he don’t use first-person word to describe himself), telling about his experience. Therefore, Mark was a firsthand witness.
FYI, Mark lived in the Hellenistic age. Jewish youth generation that time already adopted Greek lifestyle, well without forgetting their Jewish root. And most of them can speak Greek or Old Latin fluently.
The last part of the article itself wants to tell us that the writer is actually an unknown Hellenistic writer, who wanted to write his own story, according to his way, Hellenistic view.
This is your own source, and it denies your own view.
Above article is a response to http://skeptically.org/newtestament/id5.html posted by someone in a forum.