Was J Gay?

Contents:

• J AS AN OPENLY GAY MAN
• 'WAS J GAY?’: THE CLASS UNVERG HIDN QUEER HISTORI
• WAS J GAY?
• 10 REASONS GOD LOV GAY CHRISTIANS
• THE GOSPEL FOR A GAY FRIEND
• WAS J GAY? PROBABLY
• 7 REASONS J WAS GAY
• THE TWISTED FATE FOR MEN WHO CLAIMED J WAS GAYLOVE THY NEIGHBORWHILE THE MOST FAMO (AND MON) CLAIM IS THAT J HAD A RELATNSHIP WH MARY MAGDALENE, MAJOR WAV HAVE BEEN MA THROUGHOUT HISTORY ARGUG THAT J WAS GAY.CANDIDA MOSSUPDATED MAR. 23, 2020 4:57AM EDT / PUBLISHED MAR. 22, 2020 5:07AM EDT PHOTO ILLTRATN BY ELIZABETH BROCKWAY/THE DAILY BEAST/PIERO LLA FRANCON MAY 30, 1593, THE PLAYWRIGHT AND POET CHRISTOPHER “K” MARLOWE WAS FOUND BTALLY MURRED. ACRDG TO AN TOPSY REPORT AND SEVERAL EYEWNS REPORTS, MARLOWE HAD SPENT THE DAY AT THE HOE OF MRS. ELEANOR BULL DEPTFORD, SOUTH LONDON, BEFORE BEG FATALLY STABBED THE EYE. THE DAGGER STCK SLIGHTLY ABOVE HIS RIGHT EYE AND DROVE TWO CH TO HIS BRA. THOUGH HE WAS NOT EVEN 30, MARLOWE HAD ALREADY MA HIS IMPRSN ON THE ENGLISH LERATI WH HIS DOCTOR FST. HIS EXCLAMATN “WAS THIS THE FACE THAT LNCHED A THOAND SHIPS?” LIV ON LERARY AND POP-CULTURAL FOLKLORE EVEN TODAY. SO, WHO WOULD WANT TO KILL HIM? QUE A FEW PEOPLE, AS TURNED OUT, AND NSPIRACY THEORI ABOUND. ONE EXPLANATN IS THAT MARLOWE’S ATHEISM AND HIS SNDALO BELIEF THAT J WAS A HOMOSEXUAL RELATNSHIP WH THE DISCIPLE JOHN PLAYED A ROLE HIS MISE. IF RRECT, THIS WOULD MAKE MARLOWE ONE OF A CLTER OF DIVIDUALS WHO HAVE FACED STRONG, SOMETIM FATAL, OPPOSN FOR ASKG QUTNS ABOUT THE SEXUALY OF J.THE MORE NVENTNAL-YET-INOCLASTIC THEORY ABOUT J’S ROMANTIC LIFE IS THAT HE WAS A RELATNSHIP WH MARY MAGDALENE. SOME SAY THEY WERE EVEN MARRIED. THIS THEORY IS MOST FAMOLY ARTICULATED THE BTSELLG DA VCI CO BUT THERE ARE SOME AMICS WHO HAVE MA SIAR CLAIMS. ONE MAN, WALTER FRZ, EVEN FED AN ANCIENT DOCUMENT TO TRY TO ADD WEIGHT TO THE CLAIM THAT J AND MARY WERE MARRIED. THERE IS SOME GOOD EVINCE FOR THKG THAT THE RELATNSHIP BETWEEN MARY MAGDALENE AND J WAS PLAYED DOWN BY LATER CHRISTIAN THORS, BUT THERE’S NOTHG THE EARLIT TRADN THAT NCRETELY SUGGTS THEIR RELATNSHIP WAS ROMANTIC.   NEWSLETTERSBEAST TRAVEL DIGTGET THE ENTIRE WORLD YOUR BOX.SUBSCRIBEBY CLICKG "SUBSCRIBE" YOU AGREE TO HAVE READ THE TERMS OF USE AND PRIVACY POLICY WHAT THIS POPULAR NSPIRACY THEORY NVENIENTLY OVERLOOKS IS THE TENSY OF J’S RELATNSHIPS WH HIS RE GROUP OF DISCIPL. THE CLOSE RELATNSHIP OF J AND THE “BELOVED DISCIPLE” (TRADNALLY INTIFIED AS JOHN THE EVANGELIST) HAS LED SOME TO SUGGT THAT THEIR RELATNSHIP WAS HOMOEROTIC. THE EVINCE IS SUGGTIVE; AFTER ALL THERE IS A DISCIPLE WHO IS REPEATEDLY SCRIBED AS A PERSON WHOM J “LOV.” THERE’S A NVERSATN BETWEEN J AND PETER WHICH J ASKS PETER THREE TIM IF HE LOV HIM AND, WHEN PETER RPONDS, ASKS HIM TO RE FOR HIS FLOCK (JOHN 21:15-17). A MAN WHO SPENDS MOST OF HIS PERSONAL TIME ALONE WH 12 OTHER MEN? YOU MIGHT SAY THAT THERE’S SOMETHG CREDIBLY HETERONORMATIVE ABOUT THKG THAT J WAS TERTED MARY MAGDALENE.WHILE THE SCRIPTURAL TEXTS SOUND QUE SUGGTIVE ENGLISH, THE EROTICISM EVAPORAT OUT OF THE NVERSATN WHEN YOU READ THE ORIGAL GREEK. GREEK HAS MULTIPLE WORDS TO SCRIBE DIFFERENT KDS OF LOVE. AND, AS ISMO DUNRBERG, A PROFSOR OF NEW TTAMENT AT THE UNIVERSY OF HELSKI, HAS SHOWN, THE GREEK DO NOT SUGGT EROTIC RELATNSHIPS. IN JOHN 21 THE WORD J IS “AGAPE” A WORD THAT NNOT BROAD AFFECTN AND RE FOR OTHERS. THE WORD FOR SEXUAL LOVE OR SIRE IS “EROS” (OM WHICH WE GET THE ENGLISH WORD “EROTIC”), BUT THAT LANGUAGE IS NEVER ED TO SCRIBE J’ LOVE FOR ANY OF HIS PANNS.BUT IF JT SPENDG TIME TOGETHER IS ENOUGH TO BUILD A WHOLE THEORY ABOUT THE RELATNSHIP BETWEEN J AND MARY MAGDALENE, THEN CERTALY THE ARGUMENT J WAS SEXUAL RELATNSHIPS WH OTHER MEN HAS AT LEAST AS MUCH PLSIBILY? FOR MARLOWE, AN OUTSPOKEN CRIC OF ELIZABETHAN ENGLAND’S STRONG PROHIBNS AGAST HOMOSEXUALY ( WAS A PAL CRIME), THERE WAS SUFFICIENT EVINCE OF HOMOEROTICISM. THE SAME MONTH THAT MARLOWE DIED A POLICE RMANT AND ON-AND OFF-SPY RICHARD BA PILED A DOCUMENT OF K’S “MONSTRO OPNS.” THE POT OF THE BA NOTE, AS HISTORIAN AND THOR CHARL NICHOLL HAS WRTEN, WAS “TO CRIMATE MARLOWE.” ACRDG TO BA, MARLOWE WAS AN ATHEIST WHO DOUBTED THE EXISTENCE OF GOD, THOUGHT THE BIBLE WAS “FILTHILY [I.E. POORLY] WRTEN,” AND BELIEVED THAT THE SACRAMENT OF MUNN WOULD BE GREATLY IMPROVED IF THE BREAD AND WE WAS REPLACED WH A TOBAC PIPE. HIS MOST SHOCKG STATEMENT, HOWEVER, WAS THAT “ST. JOHN THE EVANGELIST WAS BEDFELLOW TO CHRIST AND LEANED ALWAYS HIS BOSOM, THAT HE ED HIM AS THE SNERS OF SODOM.” THE FIGURATIVE LANGUAGE OF LEANG TO THE BOSOM IS ACTUALLY ANCIENT AND IS ED THE WRGS OF THE FOURTH CENTURY CHURCH HISTORIAN EEBI WHO SCRIBED JOHN AS “THE ONE WHO LAY ON [J’] BREAST.” IN ANCIENT TEXTS THIS IS AN IMAGE FOR NON-SEXUAL TIMACY, BUT YOU N SEE WHAT MARLOWE WAS GETTG AT.MARLOWE WASN’T THE ONLY RENAISSANCE-ERA FIGURE TO ASK QUTNS ABOUT THE RELATNSHIP BETWEEN J AND JOHN. JT 40 YEARS EARLIER A YOUNG VEIAN IAR NAMED FRANC CALGNO WAS EXECUTED FOR BLASPHEMY FOR CLAIMG THAT JOHN WAS J’ TAME (A PUBCENT BOY WHO ENGAGED A SEXUAL RELATNSHIP WH AN OLR MAN). FOR CALGNO, LIKE MARLOWE, HIS BELIEFS ABOUT J’ SEXUALY ARE NNECTED TO A PARTICULAR FORM OF 16TH CENTURY ATHEISM THAT FOCED ON THE IA THAT J WAS HUMAN. HE APPARENTLY SAID THAT CHRIST “WAS MERELY HUMAN, AND THAT HE OFTEN HAD RNAL KNOWLEDGE OF ST. JOHN,” THAT HE HAD MORE NFINCE THE LAT POET OVID THAN THE BIBLE, AND “THAT HE WOULD RATHER WORSHIP A PRETTY LTLE BOY THE FLH THAN GOD.” ONE OF CALGNO’S ACQUATANC TTIFIED AT HIS TRIAL THAT CALGNO SLEPT WH A BOY “ALMOST EVERY NIGHT” BUT ’S UNCLEAR IF THIS WAS SLANR. IN 1550, AT THE AGE OF 22, CALGNO WAS TERROGATED BRCIA, AND WAS EXECUTED VENICE TWO DAYS BEFORE CHRISTMAS.MORE THAN ONE NEW TTAMENT SCHOLAR HAS SHARED MARLOWE AND CALGNO’S VIEW THAT THE GOSPEL OF JOHN IS RIPE FOR HOMOEROTIC READGS. SJEF VON TILB, FOR EXAMPLE, HAS WRTEN THAT “ACRDG TO MORN DISURSE” THE FOURTH GOSPEL IS “POSIVELY ATTUNED TO THE VELOPMENT OF POSSIBLY HOMOSEXUAL BEHAVR.” BUT THE KDS OF SCHOLARLY NFIRMATNS PALE NEXT TO COLUMBIA ANCIENT HISTORIAN MORTON SMH’S EXPLOSIVE 1960 ANNOUNCEMENT THAT HE HAD DISVERED A “SECRET GOSPEL OF MARK.” TWO YEARS EARLIER, SMH CLAIMED, HE HAD DISVERED A PREVLY UNKNOWN LETTER WRTEN BY THE LATE SEND/EARLY THIRD CENTURY THEOLOGIAN AND TEACHER CLEMENT OF ALEXANDRIA THE GREEK ORTHODOX MAR SABA MONASTERY, 20 KILOMETERS TO THE SOUTH-EAST OF JESALEM. SMH PHOTOGRAPHED THE LETTER AND PUBLISHED HIS STUDY OF THE TEXT 1973.WHAT SHOCKED THE WORLD WAS THE NTENTS OF THE LETTER WHICH CLEMENT OF ALEXANDRIA SCRIBED AS AN EXTEND VERSN OF THE GOSPEL OF MARK. IN THIS VERSN J RAIS A YOUNG MAN OM THE AD AND THGS GET TERTG OM THERE ON. QUOTG WORD FOR WORD, THE SECRET GOSPEL READS: “BUT THE YOUTH, LOOKG UPON [J], LOVED HIM AND BEGAN TO BEECH HIM THAT HE MIGHT BE WH HIM. AND GOG OUT OF THE TOMB, THEY ME TO THE HOE OF THE YOUTH, FOR HE WAS RICH. AND AFTER SIX DAYS J TOLD HIM WHAT TO DO, AND THE EVENG THE YOUTH TO HIM, WEARG A LEN CLOTH OVER HIS NAKED BODY. AND HE REMAED WH HIM THAT NIGHT, FOR J TGHT HIM THE MYSTERY OF THE KGDOM OF GOD. AND THENCE, ARISG, HE RETURNED TO THE OTHER SI OF THE JORDAN.” THERE’S NOTHG EXPLIC ABOUT A SEXUAL ENUNTER BETWEEN J AND THE YOUNG MAN, BUT THE REAR DON’T GET THE IMPRSN THAT THEY SPENT THE NIGHT JT CHATTG, EHER.AS YOU MIGHT IMAGE, THE DISVERY OF THIS SECRET GOSPEL SHOCKED THE WORLD AND DIVID AMICS. SOME BELIEVED THAT SMH HAD FED THE DOCUMENT, AND OTHERS FEND SMH’S IMPECBLE REPUTATN AS A SCHOLAR. SOME OF THE ACCATNS OF FERY TURNED PERSONAL WH SOME ACCG SMH, HIMSELF A GAY MAN, OF FG THE LETTER HIMSELF. THE MOST SUGGTIVE EVINCE WAS THAT THE ORIGAL LETTER, PHOTOGRAPHED BY SMH, HAD BEEN LOST (FOR ALMOST 60 YEARS NOW!) AND WHOUT THAT DOCUMENT THERE IS NO WAY TO TT S THENTICY G SCIENTIFIC MEANS. THE WEIGHT OF THE CURRENT EVINCE SUGGTS THAT IS A FERY, AS SCHOLAR STEPHEN CARLSON CLEARLY ARGUED HIS THE GOSPEL HOAX, BUT FOR MANY THE JURY IS STILL OUT. IF HE DIDN’T FE THE TEXT WHAT PETER JEFEY LLS “AN ASTOUNDGLY DARG ACT OF CREATIVE REBELLN” THEN THIS ENORMOLY EDE AND DISTGUISHED SCHOLAR WAS LLED A FER PURELY ON THE BASIS OF HIS PERSONAL LIFE.WHAT’S TERTG ABOUT THE ATTACKS ON THOSE WHO HAVE QUTNED THE PRUMPTIVE HETEROSEXUALY OF J IS HOW QUICKLY THEY ARE NNECTED TO THE PERSONAL LIV OF THOSE ASKG QUTNS. THE SEX LIV OF CALGNO, MARLOWE, AND SMH HAVE ENTERED THE NVERSATN WAYS THAT THE SEXUAL ORIENTATN OF THOSE WHO THK J AND MARY MAGDALENE WERE MARRIED HAS NOT. TO MY KNOWLEDGE, NO ONE HAS EVER SAID THAT DAN BROWN IS BIASED BEE HE’S HETEROSEXUALLY PARTNERED. IN NEW TTAMENT SCHOLARSHIP THERE’S AN ALMOST CLICHéD OBSERVATN THAT EVERY SCHOLAR SE THEMSELV J: IF YOU’RE A LIBERAL J IS A LIBERAL, IF YOU’RE A FEMIST J IS A FEMIST, AND SO ON. “BUT,” AS TAYLOR PETREY AN ASSOCIATE PROFSOR OF EARLY CHRISTIANY AT KALAMAZOO COLLEGE, TOLD THE DAILY BEAST, “WHEN TO J’S SEXUALY THE SCHOLARS WHO ARGUE FOR A NON-NORMATIVE J HAVE BEEN PUNISHED PECIALLY HARSHLY, WHILE THOSE WHO ARGUE THAT J LIVED A NVENTNAL LIFE OF MARRIAGE HAVE BEEN TREATED AS DISPASSNATE OBSERVERS.”THE REASON FOR THIS, PETREY OBSERVED, IS THAT “J’S SEXUALY IS MORE THAN JT A HISTORIL QUTN. IT SUPPOSEDLY THORIZ OR UNTHORIZ CERTA KDS OF RELATNSHIPS AND SEXUAL EXPRSNS.” FOR RELIG LEARS, PECIALLY THOSE NOMATNS THAT SEE HOMOSEXUALY AS A S OR “TRSILLY DISORRED,” THE ASSUMED HETEROSEXUALY OF J IS EASY TO EXPLA: RNATE GOODNS NNOT BE DISORRED. BUT ’S NOT SO CLEAR WHY OTHERS ASSUME THAT J WAS HETEROSEXUAL, PECIALLY WHEN SCRIPTURAL EVINCE SCRIB ONLY HIS CELIBACY AND NOT HIS SEXUAL ORIENTATN. IN TTH, AS PETREY SAYS, “THE AMBIGUY OF THE EVINCE OF J’S SEXUALY IS ENTICG TO SPECULATE ABOUT NOT JT BEE IS AN UNANSWERABLE MYSTERY, BUT BEE WE TEND TO THK THAT THE ANSWER UNLOCKS SOME GREAT TTH ABOUT RELIGN, SEX, AND OURSELV.” CANDIDA MOSS
• WAS J GAY?

J AS AN OPENLY GAY MAN

In a 2012 article for Slate onle, Will Orem asked a provotive qutn: Was J a homophobe?

The article was ocsned by a story about a gay teenager Oh who was sug his high school after school officials prohibed him om wearg a T-shirt that said, “J Is Not a Homophobe.

Orem suggts that J’s views on homosexualy were more clive than Pl’s.

'WAS J GAY?’: THE CLASS UNVERG HIDN QUEER HISTORI

While ’s reasonable to assume that J and his fellow Jews first-century Palte would have disapproved of gay sex, there is no rerd of his ever havg mentned homosexualy, let alone exprsed particular revulsn about ....

Never the Bible do J himself offer an explic prohibn of homosexualy. Orem seems to suggt that sce J never explicly mentned homosexualy, he mt not have been very ncerned about .

Get a ee py of the ebook ‘What Do the Bible Really Teach about Homosexualy? It is credible to suggt that the words om J have no bearg on the qutn of homosexualy.

WAS J GAY?

So Orem has misnsted the relevance of J’s teachg to the homosexual qutn. Even if J viewed homosexualy as a s, he had a penchant for reachg out to sners rather than shunng them....

10 REASONS GOD LOV GAY CHRISTIANS

In Romans 1, Pl nounced gay sex as unnatural—an egreg example of pagan nce—and said would brg the wrath of God. On the one si is J: peace-lovg, enemy-fivg, egalarian, and clive wh regard to homosexuals. On the other si is Pl: war-lovg, ath penalty–supportg, patriarchal, and exclnary wh regard to homosexuals.

Dpe the hang-ups of people like Pl, J was not a homophobe.

THE GOSPEL FOR A GAY FRIEND

Wh clary and passn, this book sets forth the Bible’s teachg on sexualy om a plementarian perspective, alg wh ntroversial issu such as homosexualy and polygamy. Will Orem, “Wa, Was J a Homophobe? Pope Francis was recently asked about his views on homosexualy.

WAS J GAY? PROBABLY

Persons wh homosexual tennci are children of God. Crimalisg people wh homosexual tennci is an jtice. This isn’t the first time Pope Francis has shown himself to be a progrsive lear when to, among other thgs, gay Catholics.

As a biblil scholar, I would suggt that church lears who e their cultur and theology to exclu homosexuals don’t read Scripture refully. Those who would exclu homosexuals om God’s kgdom choose to ignore J, turng stead to the Old Ttament – most particularly to Genis 19, the stctn of the ci of Sodom and Gomorrah.

7 REASONS J WAS GAY

Their terpretatn of the story is that is about homosexualy. Levic 18:22 and 20:13, for example, are not about “homosexualy” as we now unrstand – as the rg, lovg and sexual relatnship between people of the same sex. Christians – no matter which church they belong to – should follow Pl and extend to the heterosexual-homosexual distctn.

I want you to thk, for a moment, about what we n learn om J’ teachg on homosexualy. J never said anythg about homosexualy. If J didn’t specifilly nmn homosexualy—or same-sex marriage or transgenrism, etc.

THE TWISTED FATE FOR MEN WHO CLAIMED J WAS GAYLOVE THY NEIGHBORWHILE THE MOST FAMO (AND MON) CLAIM IS THAT J HAD A RELATNSHIP WH MARY MAGDALENE, MAJOR WAV HAVE BEEN MA THROUGHOUT HISTORY ARGUG THAT J WAS GAY.CANDIDA MOSSUPDATED MAR. 23, 2020 4:57AM EDT / PUBLISHED MAR. 22, 2020 5:07AM EDT PHOTO ILLTRATN BY ELIZABETH BROCKWAY/THE DAILY BEAST/PIERO LLA FRANCON MAY 30, 1593, THE PLAYWRIGHT AND POET CHRISTOPHER “K” MARLOWE WAS FOUND BTALLY MURRED. ACRDG TO AN TOPSY REPORT AND SEVERAL EYEWNS REPORTS, MARLOWE HAD SPENT THE DAY AT THE HOE OF MRS. ELEANOR BULL DEPTFORD, SOUTH LONDON, BEFORE BEG FATALLY STABBED THE EYE. THE DAGGER STCK SLIGHTLY ABOVE HIS RIGHT EYE AND DROVE TWO CH TO HIS BRA. THOUGH HE WAS NOT EVEN 30, MARLOWE HAD ALREADY MA HIS IMPRSN ON THE ENGLISH LERATI WH HIS DOCTOR FST. HIS EXCLAMATN “WAS THIS THE FACE THAT LNCHED A THOAND SHIPS?” LIV ON LERARY AND POP-CULTURAL FOLKLORE EVEN TODAY. SO, WHO WOULD WANT TO KILL HIM? QUE A FEW PEOPLE, AS TURNED OUT, AND NSPIRACY THEORI ABOUND. ONE EXPLANATN IS THAT MARLOWE’S ATHEISM AND HIS SNDALO BELIEF THAT J WAS A HOMOSEXUAL RELATNSHIP WH THE DISCIPLE JOHN PLAYED A ROLE HIS MISE. IF RRECT, THIS WOULD MAKE MARLOWE ONE OF A CLTER OF DIVIDUALS WHO HAVE FACED STRONG, SOMETIM FATAL, OPPOSN FOR ASKG QUTNS ABOUT THE SEXUALY OF J.THE MORE NVENTNAL-YET-INOCLASTIC THEORY ABOUT J’S ROMANTIC LIFE IS THAT HE WAS A RELATNSHIP WH MARY MAGDALENE. SOME SAY THEY WERE EVEN MARRIED. THIS THEORY IS MOST FAMOLY ARTICULATED THE BTSELLG DA VCI CO BUT THERE ARE SOME AMICS WHO HAVE MA SIAR CLAIMS. ONE MAN, WALTER FRZ, EVEN FED AN ANCIENT DOCUMENT TO TRY TO ADD WEIGHT TO THE CLAIM THAT J AND MARY WERE MARRIED. THERE IS SOME GOOD EVINCE FOR THKG THAT THE RELATNSHIP BETWEEN MARY MAGDALENE AND J WAS PLAYED DOWN BY LATER CHRISTIAN THORS, BUT THERE’S NOTHG THE EARLIT TRADN THAT NCRETELY SUGGTS THEIR RELATNSHIP WAS ROMANTIC.   NEWSLETTERSBEAST TRAVEL DIGTGET THE ENTIRE WORLD YOUR BOX.SUBSCRIBEBY CLICKG "SUBSCRIBE" YOU AGREE TO HAVE READ THE TERMS OF USE AND PRIVACY POLICY WHAT THIS POPULAR NSPIRACY THEORY NVENIENTLY OVERLOOKS IS THE TENSY OF J’S RELATNSHIPS WH HIS RE GROUP OF DISCIPL. THE CLOSE RELATNSHIP OF J AND THE “BELOVED DISCIPLE” (TRADNALLY INTIFIED AS JOHN THE EVANGELIST) HAS LED SOME TO SUGGT THAT THEIR RELATNSHIP WAS HOMOEROTIC. THE EVINCE IS SUGGTIVE; AFTER ALL THERE IS A DISCIPLE WHO IS REPEATEDLY SCRIBED AS A PERSON WHOM J “LOV.” THERE’S A NVERSATN BETWEEN J AND PETER WHICH J ASKS PETER THREE TIM IF HE LOV HIM AND, WHEN PETER RPONDS, ASKS HIM TO RE FOR HIS FLOCK (JOHN 21:15-17). A MAN WHO SPENDS MOST OF HIS PERSONAL TIME ALONE WH 12 OTHER MEN? YOU MIGHT SAY THAT THERE’S SOMETHG CREDIBLY HETERONORMATIVE ABOUT THKG THAT J WAS TERTED MARY MAGDALENE.WHILE THE SCRIPTURAL TEXTS SOUND QUE SUGGTIVE ENGLISH, THE EROTICISM EVAPORAT OUT OF THE NVERSATN WHEN YOU READ THE ORIGAL GREEK. GREEK HAS MULTIPLE WORDS TO SCRIBE DIFFERENT KDS OF LOVE. AND, AS ISMO DUNRBERG, A PROFSOR OF NEW TTAMENT AT THE UNIVERSY OF HELSKI, HAS SHOWN, THE GREEK DO NOT SUGGT EROTIC RELATNSHIPS. IN JOHN 21 THE WORD J IS “AGAPE” A WORD THAT NNOT BROAD AFFECTN AND RE FOR OTHERS. THE WORD FOR SEXUAL LOVE OR SIRE IS “EROS” (OM WHICH WE GET THE ENGLISH WORD “EROTIC”), BUT THAT LANGUAGE IS NEVER ED TO SCRIBE J’ LOVE FOR ANY OF HIS PANNS.BUT IF JT SPENDG TIME TOGETHER IS ENOUGH TO BUILD A WHOLE THEORY ABOUT THE RELATNSHIP BETWEEN J AND MARY MAGDALENE, THEN CERTALY THE ARGUMENT J WAS SEXUAL RELATNSHIPS WH OTHER MEN HAS AT LEAST AS MUCH PLSIBILY? FOR MARLOWE, AN OUTSPOKEN CRIC OF ELIZABETHAN ENGLAND’S STRONG PROHIBNS AGAST HOMOSEXUALY ( WAS A PAL CRIME), THERE WAS SUFFICIENT EVINCE OF HOMOEROTICISM. THE SAME MONTH THAT MARLOWE DIED A POLICE RMANT AND ON-AND OFF-SPY RICHARD BA PILED A DOCUMENT OF K’S “MONSTRO OPNS.” THE POT OF THE BA NOTE, AS HISTORIAN AND THOR CHARL NICHOLL HAS WRTEN, WAS “TO CRIMATE MARLOWE.” ACRDG TO BA, MARLOWE WAS AN ATHEIST WHO DOUBTED THE EXISTENCE OF GOD, THOUGHT THE BIBLE WAS “FILTHILY [I.E. POORLY] WRTEN,” AND BELIEVED THAT THE SACRAMENT OF MUNN WOULD BE GREATLY IMPROVED IF THE BREAD AND WE WAS REPLACED WH A TOBAC PIPE. HIS MOST SHOCKG STATEMENT, HOWEVER, WAS THAT “ST. JOHN THE EVANGELIST WAS BEDFELLOW TO CHRIST AND LEANED ALWAYS HIS BOSOM, THAT HE ED HIM AS THE SNERS OF SODOM.” THE FIGURATIVE LANGUAGE OF LEANG TO THE BOSOM IS ACTUALLY ANCIENT AND IS ED THE WRGS OF THE FOURTH CENTURY CHURCH HISTORIAN EEBI WHO SCRIBED JOHN AS “THE ONE WHO LAY ON [J’] BREAST.” IN ANCIENT TEXTS THIS IS AN IMAGE FOR NON-SEXUAL TIMACY, BUT YOU N SEE WHAT MARLOWE WAS GETTG AT.MARLOWE WASN’T THE ONLY RENAISSANCE-ERA FIGURE TO ASK QUTNS ABOUT THE RELATNSHIP BETWEEN J AND JOHN. JT 40 YEARS EARLIER A YOUNG VEIAN IAR NAMED FRANC CALGNO WAS EXECUTED FOR BLASPHEMY FOR CLAIMG THAT JOHN WAS J’ TAME (A PUBCENT BOY WHO ENGAGED A SEXUAL RELATNSHIP WH AN OLR MAN). FOR CALGNO, LIKE MARLOWE, HIS BELIEFS ABOUT J’ SEXUALY ARE NNECTED TO A PARTICULAR FORM OF 16TH CENTURY ATHEISM THAT FOCED ON THE IA THAT J WAS HUMAN. HE APPARENTLY SAID THAT CHRIST “WAS MERELY HUMAN, AND THAT HE OFTEN HAD RNAL KNOWLEDGE OF ST. JOHN,” THAT HE HAD MORE NFINCE THE LAT POET OVID THAN THE BIBLE, AND “THAT HE WOULD RATHER WORSHIP A PRETTY LTLE BOY THE FLH THAN GOD.” ONE OF CALGNO’S ACQUATANC TTIFIED AT HIS TRIAL THAT CALGNO SLEPT WH A BOY “ALMOST EVERY NIGHT” BUT ’S UNCLEAR IF THIS WAS SLANR. IN 1550, AT THE AGE OF 22, CALGNO WAS TERROGATED BRCIA, AND WAS EXECUTED VENICE TWO DAYS BEFORE CHRISTMAS.MORE THAN ONE NEW TTAMENT SCHOLAR HAS SHARED MARLOWE AND CALGNO’S VIEW THAT THE GOSPEL OF JOHN IS RIPE FOR HOMOEROTIC READGS. SJEF VON TILB, FOR EXAMPLE, HAS WRTEN THAT “ACRDG TO MORN DISURSE” THE FOURTH GOSPEL IS “POSIVELY ATTUNED TO THE VELOPMENT OF POSSIBLY HOMOSEXUAL BEHAVR.” BUT THE KDS OF SCHOLARLY NFIRMATNS PALE NEXT TO COLUMBIA ANCIENT HISTORIAN MORTON SMH’S EXPLOSIVE 1960 ANNOUNCEMENT THAT HE HAD DISVERED A “SECRET GOSPEL OF MARK.” TWO YEARS EARLIER, SMH CLAIMED, HE HAD DISVERED A PREVLY UNKNOWN LETTER WRTEN BY THE LATE SEND/EARLY THIRD CENTURY THEOLOGIAN AND TEACHER CLEMENT OF ALEXANDRIA THE GREEK ORTHODOX MAR SABA MONASTERY, 20 KILOMETERS TO THE SOUTH-EAST OF JESALEM. SMH PHOTOGRAPHED THE LETTER AND PUBLISHED HIS STUDY OF THE TEXT 1973.WHAT SHOCKED THE WORLD WAS THE NTENTS OF THE LETTER WHICH CLEMENT OF ALEXANDRIA SCRIBED AS AN EXTEND VERSN OF THE GOSPEL OF MARK. IN THIS VERSN J RAIS A YOUNG MAN OM THE AD AND THGS GET TERTG OM THERE ON. QUOTG WORD FOR WORD, THE SECRET GOSPEL READS: “BUT THE YOUTH, LOOKG UPON [J], LOVED HIM AND BEGAN TO BEECH HIM THAT HE MIGHT BE WH HIM. AND GOG OUT OF THE TOMB, THEY ME TO THE HOE OF THE YOUTH, FOR HE WAS RICH. AND AFTER SIX DAYS J TOLD HIM WHAT TO DO, AND THE EVENG THE YOUTH TO HIM, WEARG A LEN CLOTH OVER HIS NAKED BODY. AND HE REMAED WH HIM THAT NIGHT, FOR J TGHT HIM THE MYSTERY OF THE KGDOM OF GOD. AND THENCE, ARISG, HE RETURNED TO THE OTHER SI OF THE JORDAN.” THERE’S NOTHG EXPLIC ABOUT A SEXUAL ENUNTER BETWEEN J AND THE YOUNG MAN, BUT THE REAR DON’T GET THE IMPRSN THAT THEY SPENT THE NIGHT JT CHATTG, EHER.AS YOU MIGHT IMAGE, THE DISVERY OF THIS SECRET GOSPEL SHOCKED THE WORLD AND DIVID AMICS. SOME BELIEVED THAT SMH HAD FED THE DOCUMENT, AND OTHERS FEND SMH’S IMPECBLE REPUTATN AS A SCHOLAR. SOME OF THE ACCATNS OF FERY TURNED PERSONAL WH SOME ACCG SMH, HIMSELF A GAY MAN, OF FG THE LETTER HIMSELF. THE MOST SUGGTIVE EVINCE WAS THAT THE ORIGAL LETTER, PHOTOGRAPHED BY SMH, HAD BEEN LOST (FOR ALMOST 60 YEARS NOW!) AND WHOUT THAT DOCUMENT THERE IS NO WAY TO TT S THENTICY G SCIENTIFIC MEANS. THE WEIGHT OF THE CURRENT EVINCE SUGGTS THAT IS A FERY, AS SCHOLAR STEPHEN CARLSON CLEARLY ARGUED HIS THE GOSPEL HOAX, BUT FOR MANY THE JURY IS STILL OUT. IF HE DIDN’T FE THE TEXT WHAT PETER JEFEY LLS “AN ASTOUNDGLY DARG ACT OF CREATIVE REBELLN” THEN THIS ENORMOLY EDE AND DISTGUISHED SCHOLAR WAS LLED A FER PURELY ON THE BASIS OF HIS PERSONAL LIFE.WHAT’S TERTG ABOUT THE ATTACKS ON THOSE WHO HAVE QUTNED THE PRUMPTIVE HETEROSEXUALY OF J IS HOW QUICKLY THEY ARE NNECTED TO THE PERSONAL LIV OF THOSE ASKG QUTNS. THE SEX LIV OF CALGNO, MARLOWE, AND SMH HAVE ENTERED THE NVERSATN WAYS THAT THE SEXUAL ORIENTATN OF THOSE WHO THK J AND MARY MAGDALENE WERE MARRIED HAS NOT. TO MY KNOWLEDGE, NO ONE HAS EVER SAID THAT DAN BROWN IS BIASED BEE HE’S HETEROSEXUALLY PARTNERED. IN NEW TTAMENT SCHOLARSHIP THERE’S AN ALMOST CLICHéD OBSERVATN THAT EVERY SCHOLAR SE THEMSELV J: IF YOU’RE A LIBERAL J IS A LIBERAL, IF YOU’RE A FEMIST J IS A FEMIST, AND SO ON. “BUT,” AS TAYLOR PETREY AN ASSOCIATE PROFSOR OF EARLY CHRISTIANY AT KALAMAZOO COLLEGE, TOLD THE DAILY BEAST, “WHEN TO J’S SEXUALY THE SCHOLARS WHO ARGUE FOR A NON-NORMATIVE J HAVE BEEN PUNISHED PECIALLY HARSHLY, WHILE THOSE WHO ARGUE THAT J LIVED A NVENTNAL LIFE OF MARRIAGE HAVE BEEN TREATED AS DISPASSNATE OBSERVERS.”THE REASON FOR THIS, PETREY OBSERVED, IS THAT “J’S SEXUALY IS MORE THAN JT A HISTORIL QUTN. IT SUPPOSEDLY THORIZ OR UNTHORIZ CERTA KDS OF RELATNSHIPS AND SEXUAL EXPRSNS.” FOR RELIG LEARS, PECIALLY THOSE NOMATNS THAT SEE HOMOSEXUALY AS A S OR “TRSILLY DISORRED,” THE ASSUMED HETEROSEXUALY OF J IS EASY TO EXPLA: RNATE GOODNS NNOT BE DISORRED. BUT ’S NOT SO CLEAR WHY OTHERS ASSUME THAT J WAS HETEROSEXUAL, PECIALLY WHEN SCRIPTURAL EVINCE SCRIB ONLY HIS CELIBACY AND NOT HIS SEXUAL ORIENTATN. IN TTH, AS PETREY SAYS, “THE AMBIGUY OF THE EVINCE OF J’S SEXUALY IS ENTICG TO SPECULATE ABOUT NOT JT BEE IS AN UNANSWERABLE MYSTERY, BUT BEE WE TEND TO THK THAT THE ANSWER UNLOCKS SOME GREAT TTH ABOUT RELIGN, SEX, AND OURSELV.” CANDIDA MOSS

What n we properly nclu om that fact that the rerd is silent about J’ view on homosexualy?

WAS J GAY?

The rerd is also silent on J’ view of slavery, pal punishment, spoal abe, sex traffickg, racism, child abe, and gay bashg, to name a few. Conversely, all forms of sex exprsly prohibed the Bible—adultery, fornitn, homosexualy, and btialy—are each tomatilly disqualified by J’ reasong.

So appears J had a lot to say about the issue of homosexualy—and same-sex marriage, and genr dysphoria. Send, ’s clear that J implicly opposed homosexualy, same-sex marriage, and transgenrism.

For the sake of discsn, Christians uld be wrong on the homosexualy qutn, et al., but crics will get no fort om Christ. The most astoundg fdg om the newly disvered lead dic is that J Christ was unambiguoly and openly gay. It seems clear now that this is ls a negative repudiatn of fay and more a posive exhortatn to jo affirmatn of a gay liftyle and is at least one new parable, that of the two young men.