![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
I was recently looking up the whole "black Jesus" debate on Wikipedia, I got sucked into some rather interesting articles about the Gospels. Specifically, those revolving around the Secret Gospel of Mark, which is a version of Mark with a few extra paragraphs. Most notably:
"And they come into Bethany. And a certain woman whose brother had died was there. And, coming, 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 into 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 comes 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."
This is almost certainly another version of the story of Lazarus in John 11; a man from Bethany dies, his sister comes to Jesus in some distress, Jesus opens the tomb and raises the man from the dead.
It also ties in with several other passages in the canonical Mark; the man in linen who was following Jesus at the time of his arrest, who then flees naked (Mark 14:51-52) and possibly also the man whom Mary, Mary and Salome are surprised to find in Jesus' tomb (Mark 16:5)
But let's now go out on a limb and ask if the sexual undertones of the above passage are more than just undertones. What were those two doing at night together? Just discussing theology? Or was the youth's love for Jesus more than Platonic? Was it returned? Was Jesus gay? Bisexual perhaps?
We now turn to another mysterious figure, this time in the Gospel of John: the "disciple whom Jesus loved". The traditional view is that this is John the Evangelist, the author of this gospel, or John the Apostle (who may or may not be the same person). But would John the author really refer to himself in such a self-congratulatory manner? And if it's a different John, why not just call him John? Other people have suggested that it is to be taken literally, as a reference to Mary Magdalene—though this clashes with both John 19, where he refers to the beloved disciple as a man, and John 20, where the disciple and Mary Magdalene are seen together.
Could the "Disciple whom Jesus loved" be Lazarus? Could he have been Jesus' boyfriend ever since Jesus visited Bethany? Could the gospel writers have been unable or unwilling to excise his embarrassing presence from the story entirely, but instead have referred to him in euphamisms and vague terms? Well, possibly. On the other hand, the proposal of a character who ties up so many loose ends in the bible is possibly just too good to be true. In any story with any significant amount of truth to it, it's quite likely that certain characters are just there, for no good reason. "There was some other guy there; I don't know who he was or what he was doing."
As with seemingly everything about Jesus the person, we are unlikely to ever know for sure. Did Jesus have a secret (or apparently not-so-secret) boyfriend named Lazarus? I don't know, but merely asking the question will certainly piss off the fundies. 8^D
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
From:
A little drunk but I mean every word.
This means; Piss off with your hate and destructive discrimination! Do you work on Sunday? Eat meat INCLUDING fish on a friday? Eat milk and meat together? Shave? Cut your hair? Then Piss off, read it properly, and get a grip!
Gah!
*rant about religious hypocracy*
*rant about own inability to spell*
From:
Re: A little drunk but I mean every word.
I think that the Jesus of the gospels is more interesting when he is portrayed as human than when he is portrayed as divine. As divine, he can do whatever he wishes; heal people with a thought, even bring them back from the dead. His suffering on the cross becomes patronising, even pointless, since he could choose to end it at any point (and arguably, as God he has an infinite capacity for pain). Far more interesting is the view of a Jesus as a limited human being1. He expresses doubts and temptation in the desert; he experiences an all-too-human rage at the merchants in the churchyard; he suffers on the cross, and with a cry of "why have you forsaken me", despairs.
Along the same lines, it is interesting to ask what sort of passions he might have found himself subject to. How would he react to the laws and customs of the day? Would he avoid a relationship entirely if it would discredit his public image? Would he hide it? Would he feel guilt, or would he be certain of himself? Would he act on his passions?
But now I've asked about two dozen questions, and not answered any. 8^P
1 A religious person might consider him to be of God, but not God himself. I merely consider him an interesting character.
From:
no subject
Slightly more seriously, this kind of speculation depends quite closely on the Greek text corresponding to "looked on him and loved him" - eros and agape and all the rest. I can go and poke a Greek-reading theologian, but it might take a few days to get back to you, and of course I would have to bill you for the beer... (I do not read classical Greek. You would be astonished how guilty I do not feel.)
Also, the stories of Lazarus and the other miracle cures seem to me to make a great deal more sense when you read them as deliberately placing Jesus in the tradition of the Hebrew prophets - a son of David, who danced before the Ark - and not as a literal history. Compare Ezekiel in the valley of bones. Hell, compare the miracles attributed to Vespasian, the first emperor to come out of the east.
I once claimed that Jesus was a remarkable species of intelligent yeast, based on the "this is my body, this is my blood" bit. With psychoactive properties, similar to ergotism. It's consistent with the evidence!
From:
no subject
Wait... I really don't want to think about what that signifies for the story of the virgin birth.
Guhhhhh. Too late.
From:
no subject
From:
no subject
From:
no subject
From:
no subject
From:
no subject
From:
no subject
From:
"...merely asking the question will certainly piss off the fundies. "
~Alex
From:
Re: "...merely asking the question will certainly piss off the fundies. "
Because people say a lot of crap about Jesus, and it's good to have an answer for them.
And because it's a good story, and I like finding new aspects to it.
Yes, I do read "mere" humanism into spirituality. I am, after all, a humanist!
This is what I believe:
Humans, by their seemingly unlimited creativity, show themselves to be far more interesting than the one-dimensional and often petty gods that they create. All religious experience is human experience. All science, all art, all religion are human inventions. The glory of humanity is a thousand times greater than any empty conception of God by any religion.
I appreciate that you consider yourself a spiritual person, and I ask that you don't dismiss me with the easy stereotype of "unimaginitive atheist". I am spiritual too, it's just that I have come to the conclusion that the majesty of existence is within the person who percieves it. The divininity and mystery of the universe is in your own interpretation of it. "God" is just you. A cause for dismay, but also for rejoicing. Do you follow?
From:
Re: "...merely asking the question will certainly piss off the fundies. "
You state this as if all conceptions of God by all religions are empty. Is that what you meant to say?
~~~
"...don't dismiss me with the easy stereotype of "unimaginitive atheist"."
I didn't and I shan't!
~~~~
"'God' is just you."
With this I disagree.
~Alex
From:
Re: "...merely asking the question will certainly piss off the fundies. "
Pretty much. I particularly dislike the formulation of God by modern day christians: "He's infinitely good! All-seeing! And infinitely powerful! He can do whatever he wants, even if that's logically inconsistent! I can't even begin to understand him but that's okay because he's meant to be inscrutable", which is just so meaningless, y'know? It's just a series of superlatives without thought to what you're implying.
The only real conceptions of "God" I respect tend to be those that aren't really God at all, but share some characteristics; Indra's net, the Dance of Shiva, and of course the Tao.
> With this I disagree.
I don't expect you to agree. I only want you to understand.
From:
Re: "...merely asking the question will certainly piss off the fundies. "
"He's infinitely good! All-seeing! And infinitely powerful! He can do whatever he wants, even if that's logically inconsistent! I can't even begin to understand him but that's okay because he's meant to be inscrutable"
This intrigues me because if you replace He with It (meaning what I conceive of as our Unconscious mind), it makes perfect sense to me...
"The only real conceptions of 'God' I respect tend to be those that aren't really God at all, but share some characteristics; Indra's net, the Dance of Shiva, and of course the Tao."
I would say that these, which I, too, respect, *are* really God...
Words and their meanings are my trade and using them makes me respect their infinite malleability...
~Alex
From:
Re: "...merely asking the question will certainly piss off the fundies. "
That aside, two standard questions. Feel free to replace 'he' with 'it' if you prefer:
1) Can god create a rock so large that he himself can't lift it?
2) If god is infinitely good, infinitely powerful, and infinitely knowledgeable, then why is there evil in this world?
From:
Re: "...merely asking the question will certainly piss off the fundies. "
This is a question with "rigour"?
Still, the answer is no...
2) If god is infinitely good, infinitely powerful, and infinitely knowledgeable, then why is there evil in this world?
Because He gives us free will and those that don't choose to accept God's "Goodness" create what we call "Evil".
From:
Re: "...merely asking the question will certainly piss off the fundies. "
Second answer implies that God is either morally dubious or not all-seeing. Consider: if "free will" means that God doesn't know what we're going to do, than he can't tell what's going to happen in the future and hence he's not all-seeing.
If, however, he can see the future perfectly, then... well, let's take the "Adam & apple" situation, though it applies to everyday life as well. God set up the universe, and when he did so, he knew perfectly well that the situation would arise such that Adam would eat the apple and know sin. It's God's fault, because he designed the universe that way. Adam couldn't have done anything else. In short, an all-seeing, all-powerful God makes free will an illusion, and so your argument falls down.
From:
Re: "...merely asking the question will certainly piss off the fundies. "
I'm aware of and appreciate your command of logic itself. However, the creation of premises is a field that is ripe with potential error.
If you feel that you can out-think the Creator of the Universe, go ahead.
I'm going somewhere else to contemple His Glories...
~Alex
From:
Re: "...merely asking the question will certainly piss off the fundies. "
Even somebody with little experience of logic can tell that circular reasoning is a fallacy. I'll demonstrate:
a) I,
b) As God, everything I say is truth.
c) Therefore, when I said point a), I was being truthful.
d) Therefore I really am God.
You wouldn't let me get away with that, and well you shouldn't. Because if you disagree with point a), you render points b)-d) meaningless.
But you have to accept that you're not allowed to do it either. You're not allowed to assume the existence of a deity, then bring him in to assert his own existence, and then somehow expect me to be convinced. Surely you see the fatal flaw?
Now, you said you wouldn't dismiss my viewpoint, but the above comment certainly looks like an offhand dismissal to me. If you just say "I'm sorry, my logic isn't great, I can't go on with this argument", then I'll accept that, and judge you based on other aspects of your belief. But it seems to me a case of sour grapes; you're not that great at logic, so logic must, somehow, be not that important.
But it is important. Logic describes how the universe works, and simply invoking the name of a God will not make that go away. With improper logic, you can prove anything, and that's no basis for a belief system.
I accept that you believe in a God. Then, please, believe also that—although you don't know how—it is a logical way in which he exists.
From:
Re: "...merely asking the question will certainly piss off the fundies. "
From:
Re: "...merely asking the question will certainly piss off the fundies. "
This page collects and makes fun of them. It is rather funny.
It is, however, inexplicably more funny in French. 8^)