Exactly WHAT I SAID!Rrose Selavy said:Christianity and the Roman Catholic Church - who produce Popes - are of course two different things.
Any resemblance between the two is purely coincidential.
rjm said:I'm sorry but can we be more specific when we attack religious bodies. I assume you mean the Roman Catholic Church, other denominations have different views of homosexuality and it would not do to tar everyone with the same brush.
Would he not have been above and beyond mere sexuality? A bit like Michael Jackson........Dr Poo said:rjm, so really in terms of the true meaning of Christianity, is it fair to say that it isn't really a big deal if JC was gay?
Wow. From the Messiah to the Bishop of Rome to Wacko Jacko...Conners said:Would he not have been above and beyond mere sexuality? A bit like Michael Jackson........
*does the moonwalk*lopaka said:Wow. From the Messiah to the Bishop of Rome to Wacko Jacko...Conners said:Would he not have been above and beyond mere sexuality? A bit like Michael Jackson........
Magdelene Is Not My Lover
She's Just A Girl Who Claims That I Am The One
But The Kid Is Not My Son
She Says I Am The One, But The Kid Is Not My Son
I believe this to be true personally, although the major-orginisations would probably dispute this.Dr Poo said:rjm, so really in terms of the true meaning of Christianity, is it fair to say that it isn't really a big deal if JC was gay?
No, no - it's all a misinterpretation, I tell you! A man lying to a man was an abomination. :lol:Pshaw said:Jesus was a Jew and the Jews at that time believed that a man lying with a man was an abomination.
As I understand it in the ancient world the idea of homosexuality as such didn't exist (as some one else has said the word "homosexual" is a 19th century German medical term) - what mattered much more was who did what to whom. With out going into too much detail, taking was considered much worse than giving. What you did defined you more than who you did it too.Pshaw said:Jesus was a Jew and the Jews at that time believed that a man lying with a man was an abomination. Jesus preached against sexual immorality and the Jewish idea of sexual immorality included homosexuality.
That we can read sexual intent into scripture shows how unnaturally obsessed with sex we have become.
Actualy there's an argument that Levidicas says something else entirly (for instance the language much of the bible comes to us in has on specific word for difrent genders.)Pshaw said:Jesus was a Jew and the Jews at that time believed that a man lying with a man was an abomination. Jesus preached against sexual immorality and the Jewish idea of sexual immorality included homosexuality.
That we can read sexual intent into scripture shows how unnaturally obsessed with sex we have become.
The current issue of Biblical Archaeology Review has an article on this manuscript from the Mar Saba library.Prof. Smith points to a fragment of manuscript he found at the Mar Saba monastery near Jerusalem in 1958 which he says alludes to Jesus having a homosexual relationship with a youth he raised from the dead. The fragment shows that the full text of St. Mark, Chapter 10 (between verses 34 and 35 in the standard version of the Bible) includes the following passage:
"And the youth, looking upon him (Jesus), loved him and beseeched that he might remain with him. And going out of the tomb, they went into the house of the youth, for he was rich. And after six days, Jesus instructed him and, at 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".
It would be fasinating to hear your Church's arguments for one position or the other. Please post if you are willing and have the time. Cheers .I'm part of a group that's trying to work out a possible reasonable (and hopefully tentative) position our Church (Episcopal) can take on homosexuality, in the wider context of human sexuality in general. I can say that it's not easy for the church to just decide to take a particular stance. It's not a simple matter at all, but I won't start peeling that onion here.
The article continues to discuss the scholarly debate over whether what Smith found was genuine. Apparently very few scholars have seen the manuscript (which Smith returned to its place in the library; I'm not sure why it should be so hard to go look at it there). Also significant: "No other ancient documents mention the Secret Gospel, and the one that does (the letter of Clement copied into the Voss book) is relatively modern. Most importantly, the letter lacks significant copying errors, which you would expect of a text with a lenghty history of scribal transmission (p. 60)."(p. 44 BAR)...This gospel passage was rediscovered in 1958 by Morton Smith, who was a respected professor of history at Columbia University. While cataloguing manuscripts in the tower library of Mar Saba, a Greek Orthodox monastery in the Judean wilderness, Smith photographed an 18th-century copy of a Greek letter ascribed to the second-century church father Clement of Alexandria. The author of this letter describes a 'more spiritual' version of Mark's gospel and quotes two passages from it. So Smith did not find a gospel manuscript but, rather, a letter by Clement of Alexandria, which is the only text we have of the Secret Gospel of Mark.
...No sooner had Smith published his discovery than scholars began to debate whether it might be a forgery, some even suspecting Smith himself. Recent evidence, however, tends to exonerate Smith...
(p. 47)...The only evidence we have for the Secret Gospel is the manuscript Smith discovered in Mar Saba in 1958. This 18th-century copy of a letter of Clement of Alexandria, addressed to a man named Theodore, was scrawled on three blank end-pages of a book by Isaac Voss published in 1646. The letter recounts how the evangelist Mark composed a longer, 'more spiritual' edition of his gospel for advanced believers in Alexandria, and how the heretic Carpocrates (125 C.E.) stole a copy of this gospel and revised it for his own purposes. Evidently, Theodore had heard about the adulterated version of the raising of the young man from the dead and wrote to Clement to find out whether Mark actually wrote it. Clement quoted the relevant passages 'word for word' as proof that the true 'mystic gospel' (a more accurate translation than 'Secret' Gospel) did not contain the words 'naked man with naked man' and other statements that Theodore found disturbing.
(p. 47-48)...Smith believed that the key to understanding the Secret Gospel is the linen sheet that the young man put on seven days after he was raised from the dead. Taking this material to be a baptismal garment, Smith argued that the raising and instruction of the young man was part of the baptism liturgy in Alexandria. Many scholars followed Smith this far, but bid him adieu when he claimed the excerpt ws evidence that the historical Jesus performed magical baptisms in which a disciple united with Jesus' spirit and the two ascended mystically into God's (heavenly) kingdom, there experiencing freedom from the Law of Moses, which applies only to the lower world. Smith's further speculation that 'Freedom from the law may have resulted in completion of the spiritual union by physical union' - that is, sex between two men - had an enormously negative effect on the reception of the Secret Gospel.
SourceFirst openly gay Episcopal bishop says he's falsely accused of suggested Jesus was homosexual
By Tim McCahill, Associated Press Writer | April 5, 2005
CONCORD, N.H. -- The first openly gay Episcopal bishop said Tuesday he is being falsely accused of suggesting Jesus might have been homosexual.
The allegations arose from Web log comments posted after Bishop V. Gene Robinson's remarks at a Feb. 13 forum on sexual issues at Christ Church in Hamilton, Mass.
"(Jesus) lived a very untraditional lifestyle," Robinson told The Associated Press. "Which is not to say that I in any way asserted that he was gay, or anything about his sexual orientation."
Robinson told the New Hampshire Union Leader he is "being flooded with angry messages" because of his forum comments. He said he was making the point that the nuclear family is a relatively new idea and that, even for his time, Jesus apparently led a nontraditional life.
"What I recall is that the question was trying to get me to say that Jesus affirmed the nuclear family as the only way a family can be," Robinson said. "I was just pointing out that you best check Scripture again before you use the life of Jesus to try to pronounce a blessing on that."
Recordings from the forum are on the church's Web site.
"Interestingly enough, in this day of traditional family values and so on," Robinson says in one of the recordings, "this man that we follow ... was single as far as we know; who traveled with a bunch of men, although there were lots of women around; who had a disciple who was known as 'the one whom Jesus loved'; who said my family is not my mother and father, my family are those who do the will of God -- none of us like those harsh words. That's who Jesus is, that's who he was, at least in his earthly life."
Robinson married and had two daughters before accepting his own homosexuality. He has lived for years with his male partner.
"I happen to think the traditional family is a wonderful thing. I'm a product of it," Robinson said at the forum. "I dearly love my family, and I love my own family, with my own two kids. It just looks a little nontraditional. But this Jesus, when you ask who is Jesus, he was not terribly mainstream, was he?"
David Virtue, who runs what he describes as an orthodox online Anglican news service, apparently was the first to accuse Robinson of suggesting Jesus was gay.
"He is a person who wants the Anglican Communion to recognize the conservatives in the Episcopal church as the real Anglican Communion in the United States," Robinson said. "That's his goal, and he is willing to write and say almost anything to achieve that goal."
Virtue responded that Robinson's forum comments were part of the "gay agenda" that would end up splitting the worldwide Anglican Communion.
"They're all pushing the envelope as far as they can," said Virtue, who is based in West Chester, Pa.
The Episcopal Church, with 2.4 million members, is the U.S. branch of the 77 million-member Anglican Communion, which traces its roots to the Church of England. The church has been roiled by controversy since Robinson's ordination in 2003.
On the Net:
Christ Church: http://www.christchurchhw.org