Biblical Criticism & History Forum - earlywritings.com

rakovsky wrote:Robert Price of the Center for Inquiry (skeptics org.) writes about how M.Smith saw Jesus as gay:

In his analysis of the text, Smith had claimed to find the depiction of Jesus’ homosexual practice. But the portions of the text, chiefly the phrase, “and he stayed the night with him,” is only employed as a euphemism for a sexual tryst in modern times. And in light of his scene of the naked youth wearing only a sheet approaching Jesus for nocturnal initiation, Smith seemed to want us to read the similarly half-clad youth at Gethsemane as another nubile nudist seeking out Jesus for a sexual experience, only to be rounded up by the Gay-bashing cops, led by Judas (whose catty homosexual jealousy I suppose we might infer from his kiss and his betrayal!). But homosexuality was not persecuted in this manner in the ancient world. Rather, it represents the treatment of Gays in 1950s America, at the very time Smith claimed to have discovered the text. Carlson avoids mentioning Smith’s own homosexuality and the hatred he reportedly bore the church for opposing it

http://www.robertmprice.mindvendor.com/ ... l_hoax.htm

I contacted Robert Price already in 2009 and pointed out a number of errors in his essay. Then not particularly about the homosexuality (since that is just rumors and as impossible to refute as it is to prove) but about the non-existing tremors in the handwriting, about the non-existing “baldy” or “bald-faced liar” Madiotes, and Carlson’s misinterpreted salt metaphor. I told him that this has been proven wrong. He kindly replied and excused himself by saying that “all these goodies are more recent than my reviews” and that accordingly his judgment was based on the information available in 2005 but not on the new information that had been presented since.

I think that you also should stop relying on outdated information. Robert Price wrote that he in fact hoped that I was right, as “it would serve me better if the Secret Gospel were authentic! Thanks again! Bob”.

And all this long-winded detour because rakovsky didn't know what the Messianic Secret is....

Edit: Although I have to admit that this is probably more fruitful than trying to tackle the OP.

And can we stop with this little bit of naivete:

As far as I, and I suspect you, know, is that the only thing that argues for M Smith being "gay" is the fact that he never married.

Most of the degenerates I knew were married. I remember when this married woman was hitting on me and then her husband walked over to talk to me when I was hanging out in Miami. I thought he was going to hit me or something. Then he tells me, 'My wife and I are in the swinging community. We'd like to have sex with you.' I was like WTF? I didn't know what to say. Being a Canadian I didn't like insulting people so I was like, 'well thanks for the offer but ...'
Being married probably means you are having sex with men in a public bathroom instead of your bedroom if you are so inclined. Can we stop with this bit of 1950's naivete? I mean the list of 'married gay men' would undoubtedly include:




and this: http://www.ranker.com/list/famous-gay-m ... rity-lists

"Did someone intentionally suppress them"

The texts themselves might very well have been sexually abused.

neilgodfrey wrote:

Steven Avery wrote: Thus Neil Godfrey start talking about their being a case for interpolation (ho-hum, circularity the jewel).

IIRC it was Bart Ehrman who made the case for interpolation and I was referencing him in one of the posts at http://vridar.org/2014/01/16/the-born-o ... -44-index/
If there is circularity there then please do point it out to me.

Sure, this goes back to the earlier post.

Reply to Hoffmann’s “On Not Explaining ‘Born of a Woman'”
July 7, 2012
http://vridar.org/2012/07/10/reply-to-h ... f-a-woman/
"Hoffman... bizarrely claimed that mythicists always pull out the interpolation card whenever they find a verse they feel “antipathy” toward."

And then you do exactly that with Galatians 4:4

"If there is a case for interpolation — I do think there is, just that I won’t bet my house on it — "

"Doherty... Although this was not part of an argument for interpolation I would think that the uniqueness of the Greek expression in Paul’s letters does tilt the question of authenticity another notch towards interpolation."

"The interpolation idea was entirely my own extrapolation and that was only by way of adding another gram in favour of the interpolation argument."

Now, Hoffman is all wrong on Galatians 4:4 (you astutely point out his blunder on Galatians 4:29), however he is right on the interpolation motif of mythicists and skeptics. They piggy-back on liberal scholarship and make what are in essence worthless arguments against those who do believe we have the received scripture in the NT.

Steven

Secret Alias wrote:My point DCH was not to encourage speculation about "gay subplots" and conspiracies but rather to ridicule them.

OK, so then saying X Men is a gay subplot/secret intention of the writer would be deserving of ridicule then too, because seeing such "gay subplots" is ridiculous, right?

Do you think X Men is gay?
Simple question.

But it's a question that has no material relevance to the topic? Do 'gay subplots' exist in books and plays? Of course. On the Importance of Being Earnest is a good example. But clearly Tarantino is developing a ridiculous application of that awareness to a movie that does not really have a gay subplot. In fact that is pretty much confirmed when he and his friend 'remember' the ending in a way which does not conform to the actual ending of Top Gun. There is no 'you can ride my tail any time' nor the phallic 'sword fight!' business 'cited' in the movie. You are demonstrating yourself to be an imbecile by continuing with this. My point is clearly, you can't 'make a connection' between a man who was not gay to a document that doesn't have a gay reference and say 'there you go, gay conspiracy!' It's like having a 'druggie subplot' to Gone With the Wind.

Secret Alias wrote:There is no 'you can ride my tail any time' nor the phallic 'sword fight!' business 'cited' in the movie.

you can't 'make a connection' between a man who was not gay to a document that doesn't have a gay reference

The pilots share hilarious repartee ("This gives me a hard-on," Wolfman says while watching a training video. "Don't tease me," whispers Hollywood in reply.
"I want butts!" shrieks Air Boss Johnson
There's Maverick's banter with wingman Goose ("You cook great, honey").
...how does Tom Skerritt's moustachioed Viper comfort Mav? By visiting him while he's basically naked in the bathroom, where he tells him: "You gotta let him go." That's before giving his bare back a gentle caress.
...

"Oh, I think that's fantastic," Val Kilmer laughed of Tarantino's [gay] theory during an interview with Spliced Wire. "It's absolutely real!" Iceman has spoken...

http://www.digitalspy.com/movies/featur ... y-classic/

“I want somebody’s butt, I want it now!”

“You can be my wingman anytime.”
https://ca.news.yahoo.com/top-gun-is-it ... 49518.html

Secret Alias wrote:It's like having a 'druggie subplot' to Gone With the Wind.

If you had Tarantino saying there was one and pointing out possible drug related aspects, there could be something to that.

Wizard of Oz could have drug aspects. I think Alice in Wonderland does.

Have you actually matched up (a) the cited concluding rapportage by Tarantino et al and (b) the actual concluding bavardage in Top Gun. In reality (a) is not an accurate rendition of (b). Tarantino is not trying to be serious. It was a comedic moment. This is the most stupid argument in the history of the forum