Was Jesus gay?

[LegionOnomaMoi]

Ehrman isn't arguing that it is authentic. He may argue that it was written by Clement; however, Clement wasn't the author of Mark. We don't know who the author of Mark is. And according to his other works, he lists it as a hoax.

Here's his argument.

 

[CynthiaCypher]

Ehrman isn't arguing that it is authentic. He may argue that it was written by Clement; however, Clement wasn't the author of Mark. We don't know who the author of Mark is. And according to his other works, he lists it as a hoax.

Read the article. Ehrmans criticism is that most accept it as genuine and he thinks it is forged

 

[CynthiaCypher]

Obviously, those who argue that it was the wedding of Jesus, don't think he was invited, but that the story itself is story that was created based on an actual wedding.

Well the story says he was invited, you don't get invited to your own wedding

 

[fallingblood]

Read the article. Ehrmans criticism is that most accept it as genuine and he thinks it is forged

In his other works, he concludes that many think it is forged. He even references two recent works showing that it is forged. So maybe he switched his opinion, I don't know.

And either way, one can't show it is authentic, as we don't have the manuscript. So it is dubious.

 

[fallingblood]

Well the story says he was invited, you don't get invited to your own wedding

I'm not saying I agree with the argument. However, as I said, those who argue that it was the wedding of Jesus state that the story as we have it now was a made up story that was based on a historical nugget.

 

[CynthiaCypher]

In his other works, he concludes that many think it is forged. He even references two recent works showing that it is forged. So maybe he switched his opinion, I don't know.

And either way, one can't show it is authentic, as we don't have the manuscript. So it is dubious.

We can't show Q is authentic either, does that mean Q never existed?

 

[fallingblood]

We can't show Q is authentic either, does that mean Q never existed?

I would say that Q may not have existed. In fact, I really don't like the focus that Q gets. There are other possibilities as well, and some simply blow Q out of proportion. After all, it is only a hypothetical document.

 

[CynthiaCypher]

I'm not saying I agree with the argument. However, as I said, those who argue that it was the wedding of Jesus state that the story as we have it now was a made up story that was based on a historical nugget.

There is no evidence that JC even had a close relationship with MM in the NT and you know it

 

[CynthiaCypher]

I would say that Q may not have existed. In fact, I really don't like the focus that Q gets. There are other possibilities as well, and some simply blow Q out of proportion. After all, it is only a hypothetical document.

Not would even Ehrman suggest that Q did not exist

 

[waitasec]

I would say that Q may not have existed. In fact, I really don't like the focus that Q gets. There are other possibilities as well, and some simply blow Q out of proportion. After all, it is only a hypothetical document.

i'm leaning towards that line of thinking too. maybe Q was an eclectic collection of writings that contradicted each other

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

I would say that Q may not have existed. In fact, I really don't like the focus that Q gets. There are other possibilities as well, and some simply blow Q out of proportion. After all, it is only a hypothetical document.

Not necessarily a document. It could be oral tradtion.

 

[CynthiaCypher]

i'm leaning towards that line of thinking too. maybe Q was an eclectic collection of writings that contradicted each other

And so what if it was?

 

[fallingblood]

There is no evidence that JC even had a close relationship with MM in the NT and you know it

John Shelby Spong thinks differently, and he has made a case for just that. And really, I think it is just as credible as the evidence with Jesus being gay.

I mean, one of his arguments is that Mary seemingly thought that she had a right to the body (after he died) of Jesus. This would suggest, according to him, that they were indeed married. And if we are taking writings outside of the NT (such as with the Secret Gospel), we can look at various Gnostic Texts that support an idea. I'm not saying I buy it, but that I think it is just as probable as Jesus being gay.

Not would even Ehrman suggest that Q did not exist

He does state that it is a hypothetical document, and that there are other options. The majority of scholars do accept the Q hypothesis. However, I do not think it is a must.

 

[fallingblood]

Not necessarily a document. It could be oral tradtion.

True. I just don't think it is a must either way. I can see the argument of Matthew using Mark, and then Luke using both Matthew and Mark being as probable.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

True. I just don't think it is a must either way. I can see the argument of Matthew using Mark, and then Luke using both Matthew and Mark being as probable.

I've tried to delve into the argument now and again. But in the end I've always decided to just go with the majority. It's a reasonable explanation and it seems to best fit the evidence. But I do think that it is important to always keep in mind that Q is hypothetical "text" not something we can really reconstruct and then identify layers and communities behind them.

 

[CynthiaCypher]

I've tried to delve into the argument now and again. But in the end I've always decided to just go with the majority. It's a reasonable explanation and it seems to best fit the evidence. But I do think that it is important to always keep in mind that Q is hypothetical "text" not something we can really reconstruct and then identify layers and communities behind them.

Q would be a good topic for another thread

 

[waitasec]

And so what if it was?

it's hearsay...isn't it?

no different than reading an unauthorized biography about someone.

 

[CynthiaCypher]

it's hearsay...isn't it?

no different than reading an unauthorized biography about someone.

What else do we have about Jesus or most ancient historical figures but hearsay?

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

it's hearsay...isn't it?

Did you ever have a friend tell you about an event you weren't present at? A parent or grandparent tell you a story of their life? Or anyone close to you tell you something about their experience at one time or another? That's also hearsay. So what?

 

[waitasec]

What else do we have about Jesus or most ancient historical figures but hearsay?

nothin'

don't get me wrong, i believe there is enough evidence that supports there was a person named jesus that ruffled some feathers...but thats as far as i'll go with that.