Secret Gospel of Mark - Was Jesus Gay?

From the Secret Gospel of Mark:

And they went to Bethany and there was a woman whose brother had died. And coming up to him, she prostrated herself before Jesus and said to him, "Son of David, have mercy on me." But the disciples rebuked her.

And becoming angry, Jesus went with her to the garden where the tomb was. And immediately a great sound was heard from the tomb, and Jesus, going toward it, rolled away the stone from the entrance to the tomb. And going in immediately where the young man was, he stretched out a hand and raised him up, holding his hand. Then, the man looked at him and loved him and he began to call him to his side, that he might be with him. And going from the tomb, they went to the house of the young man, for he was rich. And after six days, Jesus instructed him. And when it was late, the young man went to him. He had put a linen around his naked body, and he remained with him through that night. For Jesus taught him the mystery of the kingdom of God. After he got up from there, he turned to the region of the Jordan.

http://www.gospels.net/translations/secretmarktranslation.html

We can see why this part didn't make it into the NT!

Well, the antichrist will be gay and Jewish. Maybe the gayness is part of the weird symmetry beyween him and Jesus.

Daniel 11:37

Wait, how did the SAB decide this verse makes him Jewish? Sounds more like an atheist to me.

http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/dan/11.html#37

Originally posted by no1marauder
From the Secret Gospel of Mark:

And they went to Bethany and there was a woman whose brother had died. And coming up to him, she prostrated herself before Jesus and said to him, "Son of David, have mercy on me." But the disciples rebuked her.

And becoming angry, Jesus went with her to the garden where the tomb was. And immediately a great sound wa ...[text shortened]... /secretmarktranslation.html

We can see why this part didn't make it into the NT!

It did. At least part of it did.

Mark 14:51
John 13:23
John 21:20

Then there's the 144,000 men who were not defiled by women in Revelations 14:1-4. Sounds like a Catholic Priest to me...

Originally posted by no1marauder
From the Secret Gospel of Mark:

And they went to Bethany and there was a woman whose brother had died. And coming up to him, she prostrated herself before Jesus and said to him, "Son of David, have mercy on me." But the disciples rebuked her.

And becoming angry, Jesus went with her to the garden where the tomb was. And immediately a great sound wa ...[text shortened]... /secretmarktranslation.html

We can see why this part didn't make it into the NT!

The authenticity of the Secret Gospel of Mark is hardly established. As usual, scholars get their hands on something supposedly groundbreaking like this and blow it all out of proportion in order to make a name for themselves. The document found in 1958 is merely an eighteenth century copy of a letter supposedly written by Clement of Alexandria, a letter which no one has any other evidence ever existed. Both the attribution to Mark and Clement's authorship have been rejected.

Originally posted by AThousandYoung
Well, the antichrist will be gay and Jewish.

I'm not Jewish, so you can all rest assured that I'm not the Anti-Christ! 😛

Originally posted by gaychessplayer
I'm not Jewish, so you can all rest assured that I'm not the Anti-Christ! 😛

I'm actually not convinced he will be. I heard he would be from a quote from an evangelical quoted in an Al Franken book, and the Skeptic's Annotated Bible says the Bible say's he's Jewish...

but the actual Bible just says he won't follow the God of his forefathers or something. How does that make him Jewish? That's is the religion of the God of the forefathers of the Christians...

Originally posted by no1marauder
From the Secret Gospel of Mark:

And they went to Bethany and there was a woman whose brother had died. And coming up to him, she prostrated herself before Jesus and said to him, "Son of David, have mercy on me." But the disciples rebuked her.

And becoming angry, Jesus went with her to the garden where the tomb was. And immediately a great sound wa ...[text shortened]... /secretmarktranslation.html

We can see why this part didn't make it into the NT!

can't you find a better way to justify your lifestyle?

Originally posted by epiphinehas
The authenticity of the Secret Gospel of Mark is hardly established. As usual, scholars get their hands on something supposedly groundbreaking like this and blow it all out of proportion in order to make a name for themselves. The document found in 1958 is merely an eighteenth century copy of a letter supposedly written by Clement of Alexandria, a lett ...[text shortened]... idence ever existed. Both the attribution to Mark and Clement's authorship have been rejected.

By whom? The great majority of scholars accept that Clement's letter is genuine.

That's actually fascinating. I may be stretching things a bit, but that explains one of the strangest parts in Marks gospel: Mark 14:51-52. That character is never explained. That this passage appears to explain that would boost its authenticity.

Originally posted by no1marauder
By whom? The great majority of scholars accept that Clement's letter is genuine.

"Clement's attribution of the gospel to "Mark" is universally rejected." - M. Smith "Clement of Alexandria and Secret Mark:The Score at the End of the First Decade"

Smith took a picture of the document in 1958, then wrote a book about it. Nobody except Smith claimed to have seen the document in person, until 2003, when G. A. G. Stroumsa published an account of his visit to Mar Saba in 1977 when he photographed the document. No other attempts by scholars to view the documents independently have been successful.

So we have a document which all but two people in the world have seen since its discovery in 1958, which is purportedly a copy written in the 18th century of a Clement of Alexandria letter of unknown origin, a letter which there is no evidence even existed in the first place. In light of this, I think it is a stretch to say that the majority of scholars accept that this document is genuine.

I didn't make it in because they didn't want people to interpret it incorrectly. The Gnostic peoples already had claimed that the church was trying to cover up Jesus's sexuality. I don't personally think that he was gay or bi (like me! ^^), but there is a possibility. Does it really matter?

Originally posted by UzumakiAi
I didn't make it in because they didn't want people to interpret it incorrectly. The Gnostic peoples already had claimed that the church was trying to cover up Jesus's sexuality. I don't personally think that he was gay or bi (like me! ^^), but there is a possibility. Does it really matter?

Yes it matters, because Christian organizations have been persecuting homosexuals for a long, long time.

You can bet your ass he was...a great exponent of the 'gay science'.

Originally posted by epiphinehas
"Clement's attribution of the gospel to "Mark" is universally rejected." - M. Smith "Clement of Alexandria and Secret Mark:The Score at the End of the First Decade"

Smith took a picture of the document in 1958, then wrote a book about it. Nobody except Smith claimed to have seen the document in person, until 2003, when G. A. G. Stroumsa publis ...[text shortened]... t is a stretch to say that the majority of scholars accept that this document is genuine.

Stephen Patterson writes: "Today, however, there is almost unanimous agreement among Clementine scholars that the letter is authentic."

http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/secretmark.html


So is it a "stretch" to say that the majority of scholars accept that the letter is genuine?

Smith, not being a thief, could only take pictures of the letter (which are available online and are fairly clear). The monks seem to have misplaced it, perhaps conveniently.

EDIT: As to the present location of Clement's letter:

In 1980, Thomas Talley, a Professor from the General Theological Seminary in New York City visited the Greek Orthodox Patriarchate Library in Jerusalem. While there, a priest, Archimandrite Melito, stated that he had taken Clement's letter (or perhaps the Voss 1646 book with the letter intact) from Hagios Sabbas to the Jerusalem library.

The librarian, Archimandrite Kallistos Dourvas, confirmed this, but said that it was being repaired and was not available for inspection.

During the 1990s, Kallistos told Professor Nikolaos Olympiou, a Professor of Old Testament at the University of Athens, that he, Kallistos, had removed the letter of Clement from the book shortly after he received the book into the Patriarchate library. Kallistos later gave color photographs of the letter to Olympiou.

Professor Olympiou speculated that the missing Clement letter was concealed by someone at the library for religious reasons.

There is visual evidence that the photographs of Clement's letter were once in the Voss edition. A small circular discoloration appears on the last page of the book. A matching discoloration is found on the first page of the letter.

Charles Hedrick concludes:

"The letter of Clement does exist, and the consensus (with some dissenting opinions) is that it is genuine. Thus at the end of the second century multiple different versions of the Gospel of Mark were known to exist. Scholars have been reluctant to accept Clement's testimony and assign the fragments of the Secret Gospel to the hand of the author of original Mark. But in spite of their reluctance, clearly Clement's letter confirms that a second Gospel of Mark thought to be by the author of the original Gospel of Mark was used in the Alexandrian Church, and it is to be dated before the end of the second century. As Smith noted, 'the real issue seems to be whether they [the excerpts from Secret Mark] should be classed with the pseudepigraphic gospels of the mid- and later second century, or with the canonical gospels and others of that type (P. Egerton 2, G. Hebrews, etc.).' ... Whether or not this 'spiritual gospel' of Mark might, in principle, contain information about the historical Jesus depends on how early the fragments are dated (are they early enough to preserve original oral memory about Jesus), as well as on other usual criteria for determining the originality of traditions." 3

http://www.religioustolerance.org/chr_miss4.htm

Originally posted by no1marauder
Stephen Patterson writes: "Today, however, there is almost unanimous agreement among Clementine scholars that the letter is authentic."

http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/secretmark.html


So is it a "stretch" to say that the majority of scholars accept that the letter is genuine?

Smith, not being a thief, could only take pictu originality of traditions." 3

http://www.religioustolerance.org/chr_miss4.htm

The document may be authentic, but that doesn't make the content authentic or true.