Author Topic: SCANDAL!!! Jesus and the Naked Young Man  (Read 328 times)

Offline St Truth (OP)

Re: SCANDAL!!! Jesus and the Naked Young Man
« Reply #15 on: September 29, 2017, 07:30:30 AM »
The Gospels were produced by Hellenistic Jewish men, probably high on ganja.  Drug use was common in all historical periods.  Scrying in a dark fluid filled bowl may also have been involved, if you believe the testimony of Nostradamus, that he used "Jewish" methods for his "sight" seeing.  The editing question is trivial.  There is no infallibility or inerrancy here ... or anywhere.  The Quran doesn't exist as an eternal object in Heaven as claimed by Muslim theologians.  Traditionally, Arab boys scry using the reflections of their finger nails.  The Apostle Paul was clearly an unbalanced personality, and much of what is ascribed to him, came from others.  And Paul's genuine letters were also edited.  The Gospel of Mary, though fragmentary, reveals how this stuff actually came about ... thru a seance of disciples contacting a "disembodied" Christ.  Gnostic LARPing, not historical encounters with a risen god.

It is not in dispute that many of the epistles in the New Testament are pseudepigraphical - they were written by people who pretended to be Paul or Peter or James. They were forgeries. I say it's not in dispute but of course I am wrong. Saying that of the New Testament epistles was one reason I was banned from CF. LOL. But it's a fact that they were forgeries. The Gospels were written by Hellenistic Christians and NOT by Jews. The fact that they were unable to read the Hebrew Bible and made hilarious mistakes when they quoted from the Septuagint shows quite clearly they were not Jews and knew no Hebrew. The Hebrew Bible was as alien to them as the Veda would be to us today.

Offline Baruch

Re: SCANDAL!!! Jesus and the Naked Young Man
« Reply #16 on: September 29, 2017, 12:38:24 PM »
It is not in dispute that many of the epistles in the New Testament are pseudepigraphical - they were written by people who pretended to be Paul or Peter or James. They were forgeries. I say it's not in dispute but of course I am wrong. Saying that of the New Testament epistles was one reason I was banned from CF. LOL. But it's a fact that they were forgeries. The Gospels were written by Hellenistic Christians and NOT by Jews. The fact that they were unable to read the Hebrew Bible and made hilarious mistakes when they quoted from the Septuagint shows quite clearly they were not Jews and knew no Hebrew. The Hebrew Bible was as alien to them as the Veda would be to us today.

Well, you agree with the rabbis then.  But the rabbis were and are sectarian.  Hellenistic Jews ... were not Jews to them, and you agree.  I disagree, I think that there can be more than one model of Jewishness.  The rabbis in later centuries have so deviated from Tanakh, that the Samaritans are more Jewish than they are ;-)
שלום

Offline aitm

Re: SCANDAL!!! Jesus and the Naked Young Man
« Reply #17 on: September 29, 2017, 02:07:24 PM »
The human Jesus is more fun and scandal-filled than a divine Jesus created by our fertile imagination.

Most of us here have spent years, or in some cases, minutes, looking for our own answers. I remember the very first time I read Lucretius, On the Nature of Things, I thought it pretty damn good and then when i first found (or was led to) The Epic of Gilgamesh and years later came across an Native American "The flood, the voice and the reed" - I think that was the title..been years. I congratulated myself on my devotion to study to lead me to common sense and hopefully wisdom. But you seem to get a little too exuberant at new information. You should calm down, it may be your undoing.
A humans desire to live is exceeded only by their willingness to die for another. Even god cannot equal this magnificent sacrifice. No god has the right to judge them.-first tenant of the Panotheust

Re: SCANDAL!!! Jesus and the Naked Young Man
« Reply #18 on: September 29, 2017, 02:19:01 PM »
If you have not heard the religious scandal of the century, google 'Morton Smith and Clement's Letter on the Secret Gospel of Mark' and I'm sure you will be spellbound for the next ten minutes or so as you read wikipedia on the subject. What is your view on the subject? Is Clement's letter a hoax?

I wrote to Robert Price, the renowned scholar who disputes the historicity of Jesus. Price was one of the scholars who slammed Smith for forgery. Price very kindly replied (that's the good thing about the internet - you can conceal your appearance and age) and he said it was most definitely a hoax. But he added that he wished it were true.

I'm now reading Morton Smith's book about how he found the letter and what he did after that and all the scholarly studies on the document. I used to think it was a hoax. Bart Ehrman thinks it's a hoax. But now, I'm not so sure.

Morton Smith does not seem to suggest (I haven't completed my reading of his book yet) that Jesus was having a homosexual intercourse with the naked young man. He thinks it was a secret initiation into some cultic esoteric knowledge that may have Gnostic implications.

I have always thought Smith found a letter slipped between the pages of an ancient volume in the library of the monastery of Mar Saba. But I was mistaken. The letter was transcribed by an 18th century monk on the book itself. It was written in 18th century calligraphy and has been verified by handwriting experts. If it were a separate letter slipped between the pages of the 18th century volume, I can understand it to be a hoax. But how could Prof Smith forge an 18th century calligraphic writing if people are suggesting that he wrote it while in the library under supervision of a Greek Orthodox monk who kept watch over the precious books of the library?

I find all this fascinating. The human Jesus is more fun and scandal-filled than a divine Jesus created by our fertile imagination.
Love Robert M. Price.  He is the author that kick-started my search for the historical Jesus.  Read Earl Doherty (The Jesus Puzzle) right after.   Finished Richard Carrier's 'On the Historicity of Jesus(Why we might have a reason to doubt).  If you have not read that book, you are in for a treat.  I am now convinced that Jesus, as is his father, a fiction.  For most of my life I thought of him as a real person around whom a lot of legends grew; that he was not divine nor had any 'powers' and was just human. 

As for Jesus and the naked man/boy, I first read of that story in Biblical Archaeology maybe 15 yrs, ago.  I found it interesting and figured it was alluding to  an initiation of some sort.  Now I realize, since Jesus is a fiction, that the story cannot be real and was simply a part of a much larger writing of a religious propaganda nature.
Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able?
Then he is not omnipotent,
Is he able but not willing?
Then whence cometh evil?
Is he neither able or willing?
Then why call him god?

Offline St Truth (OP)

Re: SCANDAL!!! Jesus and the Naked Young Man
« Reply #19 on: September 29, 2017, 08:18:53 PM »
Well, you agree with the rabbis then.  But the rabbis were and are sectarian.  Hellenistic Jews ... were not Jews to them, and you agree.  I disagree, I think that there can be more than one model of Jewishness.  The rabbis in later centuries have so deviated from Tanakh, that the Samaritans are more Jewish than they are ;-)

I only agree on very limited matters with rabbis or anyone who is as shallow-minded as to believe in magic. We may agree that pork pies are delicious and that's about as far as our agreement goes. In many weighty matters we don't agree. I did not say Hellenistic Jews are not Jews. I don't give a toss who is or is not a Jew just as I don't care who is a Wookiee. All I said was the writers of the Gospels were not Jews but Hellenistic Christians. These people had nothing to do with Judaism. They are uncircumcised, unmutilated Greeks who became Christians through the dumb preaching of Paul. How you pervert what I've said to make it appear as if I were a dumb sectarian Jew.

Offline St Truth (OP)

Re: SCANDAL!!! Jesus and the Naked Young Man
« Reply #20 on: September 29, 2017, 08:26:59 PM »
Love Robert M. Price.  He is the author that kick-started my search for the historical Jesus.  Read Earl Doherty (The Jesus Puzzle) right after.   Finished Richard Carrier's 'On the Historicity of Jesus(Why we might have a reason to doubt).  If you have not read that book, you are in for a treat.  I am now convinced that Jesus, as is his father, a fiction.  For most of my life I thought of him as a real person around whom a lot of legends grew; that he was not divine nor had any 'powers' and was just human. 

As for Jesus and the naked man/boy, I first read of that story in Biblical Archaeology maybe 15 yrs, ago.  I found it interesting and figured it was alluding to  an initiation of some sort.  Now I realize, since Jesus is a fiction, that the story cannot be real and was simply a part of a much larger writing of a religious propaganda nature.

I remember reading somewhere that there was no secular record of Jesus' existence at all. Even his crucifixion was not recorded. But 100 years before Jesus, there was someone called Jesus who was crucified for treason. That means he was an apocalyptic prophet who wanted to free Israel of Roman rule. It's of course possible that the legend of our Jesus grew out of the story of that real Jesus who existed 100 years before. But who knows? These things are all buried in the depths of history. What is clear is the Jesus created by Mother Church is not the same Jesus as the historical Jesus, if there was one.

Offline Baruch

Re: SCANDAL!!! Jesus and the Naked Young Man
« Reply #21 on: September 29, 2017, 08:41:03 PM »
I only agree on very limited matters with rabbis or anyone who is as shallow-minded as to believe in magic. We may agree that pork pies are delicious and that's about as far as our agreement goes. In many weighty matters we don't agree. I did not say Hellenistic Jews are not Jews. I don't give a toss who is or is not a Jew just as I don't care who is a Wookiee. All I said was the writers of the Gospels were not Jews but Hellenistic Christians. These people had nothing to do with Judaism. They are uncircumcised, unmutilated Greeks who became Christians through the dumb preaching of Paul. How you pervert what I've said to make it appear as if I were a dumb sectarian Jew.

Misunderstanding then ... the majority of messianics were theological Pauline, post 135 CE.  Prior to the majority were Jewish people, the majority militant and anti-Roman (anti-Pauline).  The majority of messianics were killed in 66-135 CE ... both Semitic and Hellenistic, in three great Jewish-Roman wars.  By 200 CE ... there were only early rabbinic Jews and gentile Christians (of various sects, not all orthodox), because in the mean time Jewish Pauline folks had abandoned Jewish practices (gone fully gentile, but no longer pagan either).

Until 66 CE, there were good reasons for gentiles to associate with Jewish synagogues, some because they were gentile slaves manumitted by Jewish masters.  Others because of rejection of paganism in favor of monotheism, and a less licentious life.  As alluded to in the first part of Acts ... the social welfare system among Jews of all kinds, was superior.  "Christianoi" originally refers to messianic maniacs (Hellenistic Jews) in Antioch.  They were apparently recognized as such in Rome as well ... and the naming was prejudicial by the pagans ... same as Quakers refers to a later messianic sect.
« Last Edit: September 29, 2017, 08:48:25 PM by Baruch »
שלום

Re: SCANDAL!!! Jesus and the Naked Young Man
« Reply #22 on: September 29, 2017, 08:50:15 PM »
I remember reading somewhere that there was no secular record of Jesus' existence at all. Even his crucifixion was not recorded. But 100 years before Jesus, there was someone called Jesus who was crucified for treason. That means he was an apocalyptic prophet who wanted to free Israel of Roman rule. It's of course possible that the legend of our Jesus grew out of the story of that real Jesus who existed 100 years before. But who knows? These things are all buried in the depths of history. What is clear is the Jesus created by Mother Church is not the same Jesus as the historical Jesus, if there was one.
I find it interesting that Jesus and Joshua are the same name in different languages.  Moses lead the chosen into the wilderness, but not to the promise land.  Joshua did that.  His name means 'savior'; he secured the promised land for the Jews.  And it is no huge stretch to think there were Jews looking for a savior or Jesus in the 70's and earlier.  I imagine there were many 'Jesus' or savior cults growing up then.  Since Jesus was and still is, a popular name, I would think that name would appear in many documents and records of the time.

There are no records of a contemporary Jesus--none.  And that is not for a lack of writers or historians writing at the time.  Not even Philo of Alexandra wrote of the man, and he was a frequent visitor to Jerusalem and a famous Jewish leader.  No wonder Robert M. Price called him the Incredible Shrinking Man.
Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able?
Then he is not omnipotent,
Is he able but not willing?
Then whence cometh evil?
Is he neither able or willing?
Then why call him god?

Offline Baruch

Re: SCANDAL!!! Jesus and the Naked Young Man
« Reply #23 on: September 29, 2017, 08:54:05 PM »
Johannine theology is closest to the original, rather than the historicizing gospels from Antioch etc.  And it primarily rips off Philo of Alexandria, who wrote about the Logos.  Paul, the earliest writer of the NT, was closer theologically to the Johannine version.  And Gnostic Christians subsequently were appreciative of the Gospel of John as well.
« Last Edit: September 29, 2017, 08:56:12 PM by Baruch »
שלום

Offline Cavebear

Re: SCANDAL!!! Jesus and the Naked Young Man
« Reply #24 on: October 01, 2017, 05:47:55 AM »
exactly how many toys does Cavebear have? (no doubt you are way ahead of me)

Yard equipment in my case.  My definition of "toys" is rather practical.  I had a boat and sold it when I didn't use it enough.  Maybe some woodworking equipment.   My car is a 2005 Toyota Highlander and I live in my 1986 "starter house".
Atheist born, atheist bred.  And when I die, atheist dead!  b 1950