Gay J - Who Was The Beloved Disciple? - The J of History

Contents:

• WAS J GAY? PROBABLY
• WAS THE APOSTLE PL GAY?
• GAY J – WHO WAS THE BELOVED DISCIPLE?
• J AS AN OPENLY GAY MAN
• WERE ANY APOSTL GAY
• WAS J GAY?—AN EXAMATN OF THE SECRET GOSPEL OF MARK
• THE (POSSIBLY) GAY, ELE APOSTLE WHO BELIEVED RADIL EQUALY FOR ALL'ALL OF THESE ARE ONE'PL THE APOSTLE IS OFTEN BRAND AS A PATRIARCHAL MISOGYNIST WHO HATED ALL GAYS. BUT DIG TO HIS LETTERS AND YOU'LL FD AN TENSE VOTN TO ERASG ALL FORMS OF OPPRSN.JAY PARIPUBLISHED APR. 20, 2019 11:22PM EDT PUBLIC DOMADURG THE PAST , IF NOT BEFORE, I’VE BEEN WRTLG WH AN ANGEL: PL THE APOSTLE. I’VE BEEN READG THE LETTERS OF PL TENSELY OM THE TIME I WAS A YOUNG MAN, DRAWN BY HIS WILD AND VISNARY SENSE OF REALY, HIS “VENTN” OF CHRISTIANY, HIS EXAMPLE AS A MAN WHO MOVED THROUGH THE WI SMOPOLAN WORLD OF THE FIRST CENTURY WHOUT THE SLIGHTT FEAR OF NSEQUENC. (IN THIS, HE’S VERY DIFFERENT OM ME AND, I SPECT, MOST OF !) AS EASTER APPROACH, I BEG TO THK ABOUT WHAT PL SAID WHEN HE URGED TO “TAKE ON THE MD OF CHRIST” [PHILIPPIANS 2.5], WHICH HIS THEOLOGY MEANS ENTERG PLETELY TO THIS SMIC SPIR SO THAT THE SPIR SELF BE PART OF . MY OWN SPIRUAL JOURNEY HAS BEEN A TEXTUAL ONE PART, LIVG THE GOSPELS AND LETTERS OF PL AS A REAR, DIGGG TO THE GREEK WORDS THEMSELV TO UNEARTH THEIR FULL MEANG. THIS WORK, MOST RECENTLY, HAS LED TO A SERI OF 21 LECTUR THAT I RERD SOME MONTHS AGO ABOUT J, PL, AND THE EARLY CHRISTIANS. AND I HAVE JT PUBLISHED THE DAMASC ROAD:  A NOVEL OF SAT PL.   IN THIS NOVEL, I WRE AS PL THE FIRST PERSON, UNTERG OR “RRECTG” HIS NARRATIVE WH THAT OF HIS TRAVELG PANN, LE, WHO WROTE THE GOSPEL OF LE AND, OF URSE, THE ACTS OF THE APOSTL, THE LATTER BEG AN ACUNT OF THEIR MISSNARY JOURNEYS THROUGH THE ROMAN WORLD—A JOURNEY THAT END WH THE MARTYRDOM OF PL ROME AROUND THE TIME OF THE GREAT FIRE OF 64 A.C.E.  LE’S OL-HEAD VIEW OF WHAT WAS HAPPENG STANDS (AT LEAST MY NOVEL) NTRAST TO PL’S MAD VISNARY RHETORIC, AS EMBODIED HIS LETTERS.  TO WRE THIS, I HAD TO SK TO THE PHYSIL AS WELL AS MENTAL GEOGRAPHY OF THE MEN, TRAVELG TO THE HOLY LANDS (WHAT I LL PALTE THE NOVEL, AS ALL OF THIS REGN WAS LLED ROMAN TIM), TO THE JORDANIAN SERT, TO ASIA MOR OR WHAT IS NOW TURKEY, TO GREECE AND ITALY. I FOLLOWED AS BT I ULD THE FOOTSTEPS OF PL, HOPG TO SUMMON THAT WORLD IMAG, TRYG AT ALL TIM TO REMD MYSELF HOW THE PLAC WOULD HAVE PLAYED ON THE FIVE SENS, WH S TGLG ATMOSPHERE OF HERBS AND SPIC, WILD FLOWERS, SH THE STREETS, YG BODI, BRILLIANT SUNSHE ON THE SEA, AND EVERGREEN FORTS AS EP AS ONE N IMAGE. THIS WAS AN TELLECTUAL JOURNEY AS WELL AS A PHYSIL ONE. LIKE PLATO, PL WAS A FOUNDG THKER THE WT. IN FACT, I BEGAN TO WRE THIS NOVEL AFTER READG AGA THROUGH THE DIALOGU OF PLATO—ALWAYS A TEXT I RETURN TO FOR SPIRATN AND BRACG MENTAL EXERCISE. I REALIZED HOW MANY OF PLATO’S IAS, EVEN PHRAS, HAD SUNK TO PL’S UNNSC.  HE SUALLY QUOT OM THE GREAT PHILOSOPHER THROUGHOUT HIS LETTERS. THE VERY IA OF THE ETERNAL SOUL WAS, OF URSE, ILLUMED BY PLATO, AND PL RAN WH THIS, CREATG A PLATONIC THEOLOGY. IT’S IMPORTANT TO RELL THAT PL WAS A GREEK-SPEAKG JEW, BORN TARS (NOW TURKEY), PRIVATELY TED THERE BY GREEK-FLUENCED TUTORS—THE LATTER IS AN ASSUMPTN, BUT ONE THAT SEEMS TO MAKE SENSE, GIVEN HIS EDN, HIS MAND OF GREEK PROSE, HIS RANGE OF ALLN. HIS STAT AS ONE OF THE ELE IS EVINT THE FACT THAT HE “TRANSFERRED” TO THE AMY N BY GAMALIEL JESALEM AS A YOUNG MAN. ONLY THE CHILD OF A WEALTHY FAY WOULD HAVE BEEN SHIPPED TO A FAR-OFF UNTRY TO STUDY UNR A MAJOR SCHOLAR LIKE GAMALIEL, THE GRANDSON OF HILLEL—THE FAMO JEWISH SAGE. BUT WHAT MOSTLY DREW ME TO PL WAS HIS VISN OF EQUALY—NOT WHAT ONE UALLY THKS ABOUT WHEN ONE THKS OF PL.  INED, MANY IENDS WHO HEARD I WAS WRG ABOUT PL RAISED AN EYEBROW OR TWO, SAYG:  WASN’T HE A PATRIARCHAL MISOGYNIST WHO HATED ALL GAYS?MY ANSWER, VARIABLY, WAS NO! NO! NO!PL’S CHIEF IA WAS THIS, AS FOUND GALATIANS 3:28: “IN CHRIST THERE IS NEHER JEW NOR GENTILE, NEHER SLAVE NOR EE MAN, NEHER MALE NOR FEMALE. IN CHRIST, ALL OF THE ARE ONE.”  FOR ME, THIS IS THE KEY VERSE THE ENTIRE NEW TTAMENT.BOLDLY, PL ERASED THE MOST CCIAL BARRIERS OF HIS DAY. HIMSELF A JEW, A MEMBER OF THE TRIBE OF BENJAM, A PHARISEE BY AFFILIATN, HE TOOK THE GOOD NEWS (AS HE LLED ) TO THE WT, UNRSTANDG THAT IF THE WAY OF J WERE TO PROSPER, WOULD HAVE TO GO BEYOND THIS POWERFUL BOUNDARY. IN THIS, HE FOUGHT AGAST THE CHURCH JESALEM, LED BY JAM, THE BROTHER OF J, WHO WISHED ONLY FOR THE WAY TO REMA A KD OF HYPER-JEWISH SECT VOTED TO THE STRICT ADHERENCE TO THE LAW OF MOS. HAD JAM WON OUT OVER PL, CHRISTIANY WOULD SOON HAVE DWDLED TO A TY GROUP THE HOLY LAND, ONE THAT WOULD SOON BE OVERRIDN, OBLERATED BY TIME AND CIRCUMSTANC.NEEDLS TO SAY, PL CHALLENGED CLASS DIVISNS WHEN HE ERASED THE BOUNDARI BETWEEN SLAVE AND EE MAN. REMEMBER THAT HALF OF THE PEOPLE ONE MET THE ANCIENT WORLD WERE SLAV. PL WOULD HAVE GROWN UP WH A HOEFUL FULL OF SLAV WHO FETCHED WATER, BOUGHT FOOD THE MARKET, OKED AND CLEANED, RAISED THE CHILDREN, AND SO FORTH. MOST OF THE PEOPLE WORKG FOR PL’S FATHER HIS TENT-MAKG BS TARS WOULD HAVE BEEN SLAV.  AND SLAV WERE VISIBLE, NOT REALLY PEOPLE, HARDLY CREATUR POSSSN OF A “SOUL” OR— GREEK—PSYCHE. PL DIDN’T WANT TO SEE DIVISNS AMONG THE CLASS, BELIEVG THAT ENLIGHTENMENT (A WORD I PREFER OVER THE LS TERTG AND MISLEADG TERM “SALVATN”) WOULD E TO EVERYONE THE END, SLAV AS WELL AS EE MEN AND WOMEN.WHICH BRGS , CCIALLY, TO MEN AND WOMEN. PL HAD NO DOUBT THAT WOMEN WERE EQUAL TO MEN THE SIGHT OF GOD, THE MD OF CHRIST. THE WORLD OF EARLY CHRISTIANY WAS LARGELY FANCED AND LED BY WOMEN, CLUDG THE POWERFUL PHOEBE, LYDIA, AND PRISCILLA. PHOEBE IS SCRIBED AS A PRIDG OFFICER THE EARLY MOVEMENT, A AN, A DOMANT FIGURE. SHE ULD EASILY BE SEEN AS THE FIRST POPE, ALTHOUGH THERE WERE NO SUCH OFFIC AS THE CHURCH WAS NOT AN OFFICIAL BODY BUT A LOOSE AGGREGATN OF GATHERGS WH NO HARD L OR CLEAR THEOLOGY. INED, PL SENT HIS MOST IMPORTANT PIECE OF WRG, AN EPISTLE TO THE ROMAN GATHERG, THE POSSSN OF PHOEBE, THIS SPIRED WOMAN OF THE WORLD WHO TRAVELED WILY AND KNEW EVERY LEAR THE EARLY CHRISTIAN MOVEMENT. BUT WHAT ABOUT THE PATRIARCHAL PL WHO SAID WOMEN SHOULDN’T SPEAK CHURCH? THERE ARE TWO MENTNS OF THIS, ONE THE 14TH CHAPTER OF 1 CORTHIANS, ONE 1 TIMOTHY. THE FORMER IS WILY NSIRED A LATER ADDN, AN “TERPOLATN” BY EDORS. IN THIS SE, THE ASSERTN THAT WOMEN SHOULD BE SILENT WILDLY TERPTS THE FLOW OF THE PASSAGE, WHICH IS WHOLE WHOUT . AND THE FAMO REMARK IS NOT PRENT SEVERAL EARLY MANCRIPTS OF THIS LETTER. FURTHERMORE, THE JUNCTN NTRADICTS THE MA THST OF THE EPISTLE, WHERE ( 1 CORTHIANS 11:5) PL SAYS THAT WOMEN SHOULD “PROPHY AND PRAY” CHURCH. IT JT MAK NO LOGIL SENSE FOR PL TO FOLLOW WH A MAND FOR THEM TO REMA SILENT: THIS WAS AN EDORIAL HAND AT WORK, MUCH LATER. AND THE MATTER OF 1 TIMOTHY IS EASILY DISRD AS NOT SOMETHG WRTEN BY PL HIMSELF.PL ONLY WROTE SEVEN LETTERS THAT SURVIVE: ROMANS, 1 AND 2 CORTHIANS, GALATIANS, 1 THSALONIANS, PHILIPPIANS, AND PHILEMON. THE REMAG SIX LETTERS ARE “SCHOOL OF PL,” WRTEN MUCH LATER. TO ANYONE WHO READS GREEK, THE DIFFERENCE PROSE STYLE IS OBV—GARRY WILLS BURROWS TO THIS WH MON SENSE WHAT PL MEANT (2006). THE DIFFERENC BETWEEN THE TWO CLUMPS OF LETTERS IS PROFOUND: THEY E OM WILDLY DIFFERENT WORLDS, WH DIFFERENT UNRLYG ASSUMPTNS. A ANTIC EFFORT WAS UNRWAY ON THE PART OF SOME WH THE EVOLVG MOVEMENT TO KEEP THE PATRIARCHAL PRACTIC OF JUDAISM AND THE ROMAN WORLD PLACE. HENCE THE “PASTORAL EPISTL,” 1 AND 2 TIMOTHY, WHICH ARE VERY LATE ED AS ADDNS TO THE NEW TTAMENT NON. “PL SENT HIS MOST IMPORTANT PIECE OF WRG THE POSSSN OF PHOEBE, THIS SPIRED WOMAN OF THE WORLD WHO TRAVELED WILY AND KNEW EVERY LEAR THE EARLY CHRISTIAN MOVEMENT.” THERE IS ALSO THE PLITED MATTER OF PL’S SEXUALY. I TEND TO AGREE WH BISHOP JOHN SHELBY SPONG, A BRILLIANT THEOLOGIAN AND CHURCH LEAR, WHO ARGU THAT PL WAS “A RIGIDLY NTROLLED GAY MALE,” AS HE WR RCUG THE BIBLE OM FUNDAMENTALISM (1991). BE THIS AS MAY, PL WAS CLEARLY AT WAR WH HIS OWN BODY, TORMENTED BY THE IA IF NOT THE REALY OF SEXUAL SIRE, AND EAGER TO WHDRAW TO THE PANY OF HIS MALE PANNS:  LE, TIMOTHY, SILAS, AND OTHERS. HIS NFLICTED FEELGS ABOUT HIS OWN SEXUAL NATURE MAY ACUNT FOR THE “THORN HIS FLH” THAT HE WROTE ABOUT HIS SEND LETTER TO THE CHURCH AT CORTH. (2 CORTHIANS 12:7-9)IN MY VIEW, THE THENTIC PL WAS BATIVE, FIERCELY TELLECTUAL, PROBABLY PRSIVE, BI-SEXUAL OR GAY, A RADIL VISNARY WHO HAD A FIERY IMAGE HIS HEAD OF A NEW HEAVEN AND A NEW EARTH. HE HAD A VISN OF WHAT MEANT TO TAKE ON THE FULL MD OF CHRIST, AND THIS VOLVED EMPTYG HIMSELF OUT THOROUGHLY, TAKG UP THE CROSS, WHICH FOR HIM MEANT FOLLOWG THE PATH OF SELF-ABANDONMENT, UNG WH THE MD OF CHRIST, WHERE EVERYTHG—MALE AND FEMALE, SLAVE AND EE MAN, JEW AND GENTILE—FDS RENCILIATN UNY WH GOD THE ETERNAL MOMENT OF RURRECTN. JAY PARI
• UPDATED: CATHOLIC BISHOP: HOMOSEXUALY IS FE; SOME OF THE APOSTL MAY HAVE BEEN “GAY”

WAS J GAY? PROBABLY

He dared to suggt that possibily and was met wh disda, as though he were simply out to much reflectn and wh certaly no wish to shock, I felt I was left wh no optn but to suggt, for the first time half a century of my Anglin prithood, that J may well have been homosexual. What matters this ntext is that there are many gay and lbian followers of J – ordaed and lay – who, spe the church, remarkably and humbly rema s fahful members. Once unlocked, the msag not only cease to be hidn but they bee obv, glarg at the rear, who wonrs why such obv meangs had not been seen have suggted that that Pl was plagued by homosexual fears.

WAS THE APOSTLE PL GAY?

This is not a new ia, and yet until recent years, when homosexualy began to shed some of s negative nnotatns, was an ia so repulsive to Christian people that uld not be breathed official circl. When I did this for the first time, I was startled to see how much of Pl was unlocked and how eply I uld unrstand the power of the gospel that lerally saved Pl's I suggt the possibily that Pl was a homosexual person, I do not mean to be salac or tillatg or even to suggt somethg that many would nsir sndalo. The war that went on between what he sired wh his md and what he sired wh his body, his drivenns to a legalistic relign of ntrol, his fear when that system was threatened, his attu toward women, his refal to seek marriage an outlet for his passn-nothg else acunts for this data as well as the possibily that Pl was a gay 's relig tradn would clearly regard gay mal as aberrant, distorted, evil, and praved.

GAY J – WHO WAS THE BELOVED DISCIPLE?

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.

J AS AN OPENLY GAY MAN

Before, one might have thought that, given Mary's virgy, Joseph's attu was reflectg the ambigui of his stat the fay; but now seems more probable that we have here a classic example of the Frdian triangle: over-posssive mother, hostile father, gay have we known so ltle about all of this before? The Bible clearly shows how a gay liftyle is livg outsi of God's law:Romans 1:26-27New Internatnal Versn (NIV)26 Bee of this, God gave them over to shameful lts.

Intertgly, the homosexual muny feels that the tradnal “hetero-normative” J is a reflectn of heterosexual Christians who have read to J their own sexualy, while ignorg the possibily that J was a homosexual.

Six years later, gay playwright Terrance McNally wrote the play Corp Christi, which featured a gay J (named Joshua) and his “sexual adventur wh his 12 discipl” (“Was J Gay? The same year McNally’s play went up, Fnish scholar Martti Nissen released his book, Homoeroticism the Biblil World, judged by some to be the bt work yet published on the subject.

WERE ANY APOSTL GAY

Theodore Jenngs looks to liberatn and femist theologi to nstct a more “homocentric” gospel narrative his 2002 volume, The Man J Loved: Homoerotic Narrativ om the New Ttament. Typilly, the books beg by dispensg one way or another wh the five explic biblil junctns agast homosexualy (Levic 18:22; 20:13; Romans 1:27; 1 Corthians 6:9; 1 Timothy 1:10).

Demonstratg to their own satisfactn that there is nothg the New Ttament that necsat J’ heterosexualy, the scholars move on search of passag favorg J’ homosexualy, the “signals” that McCleary mentned.

This has fuelled speculatn that the early Church sanised the gospels, removg referenc to Christ’s sexualy that were not acrd wh the heterosexual moraly that wanted to promote” (“Was J Gay? Smh tied this speculatn regardg J’ homosexualy to his theory that the historil J was a charismatic magician Who baptized His discipl (ntra John 4:2) to His secret mystery cult.

WAS J GAY?—AN EXAMATN OF THE SECRET GOSPEL OF MARK

Acrdg to one particularly vic attacker, “J was never a nuch as the Christians sham but a gay lecher feigng to be a nuch by the help of his warrrs (discipl and other Christians)” [Atrott, 2002]. A fal quote om an anonymo agnostic reads: “[The Clement letter] mak referenc to the effect that J was unrstood to have engaged possible homosexual practic volvg the ‘rich young man’ mentned Mark’s Gospel.

THE (POSSIBLY) GAY, ELE APOSTLE WHO BELIEVED RADIL EQUALY FOR ALL'ALL OF THESE ARE ONE'PL THE APOSTLE IS OFTEN BRAND AS A PATRIARCHAL MISOGYNIST WHO HATED ALL GAYS. BUT DIG TO HIS LETTERS AND YOU'LL FD AN TENSE VOTN TO ERASG ALL FORMS OF OPPRSN.JAY PARIPUBLISHED APR. 20, 2019 11:22PM EDT PUBLIC DOMADURG THE PAST , IF NOT BEFORE, I’VE BEEN WRTLG WH AN ANGEL: PL THE APOSTLE. I’VE BEEN READG THE LETTERS OF PL TENSELY OM THE TIME I WAS A YOUNG MAN, DRAWN BY HIS WILD AND VISNARY SENSE OF REALY, HIS “VENTN” OF CHRISTIANY, HIS EXAMPLE AS A MAN WHO MOVED THROUGH THE WI SMOPOLAN WORLD OF THE FIRST CENTURY WHOUT THE SLIGHTT FEAR OF NSEQUENC. (IN THIS, HE’S VERY DIFFERENT OM ME AND, I SPECT, MOST OF !) AS EASTER APPROACH, I BEG TO THK ABOUT WHAT PL SAID WHEN HE URGED TO “TAKE ON THE MD OF CHRIST” [PHILIPPIANS 2.5], WHICH HIS THEOLOGY MEANS ENTERG PLETELY TO THIS SMIC SPIR SO THAT THE SPIR SELF BE PART OF . MY OWN SPIRUAL JOURNEY HAS BEEN A TEXTUAL ONE PART, LIVG THE GOSPELS AND LETTERS OF PL AS A REAR, DIGGG TO THE GREEK WORDS THEMSELV TO UNEARTH THEIR FULL MEANG. THIS WORK, MOST RECENTLY, HAS LED TO A SERI OF 21 LECTUR THAT I RERD SOME MONTHS AGO ABOUT J, PL, AND THE EARLY CHRISTIANS. AND I HAVE JT PUBLISHED THE DAMASC ROAD:  A NOVEL OF SAT PL.   IN THIS NOVEL, I WRE AS PL THE FIRST PERSON, UNTERG OR “RRECTG” HIS NARRATIVE WH THAT OF HIS TRAVELG PANN, LE, WHO WROTE THE GOSPEL OF LE AND, OF URSE, THE ACTS OF THE APOSTL, THE LATTER BEG AN ACUNT OF THEIR MISSNARY JOURNEYS THROUGH THE ROMAN WORLD—A JOURNEY THAT END WH THE MARTYRDOM OF PL ROME AROUND THE TIME OF THE GREAT FIRE OF 64 A.C.E.  LE’S OL-HEAD VIEW OF WHAT WAS HAPPENG STANDS (AT LEAST MY NOVEL) NTRAST TO PL’S MAD VISNARY RHETORIC, AS EMBODIED HIS LETTERS.  TO WRE THIS, I HAD TO SK TO THE PHYSIL AS WELL AS MENTAL GEOGRAPHY OF THE MEN, TRAVELG TO THE HOLY LANDS (WHAT I LL PALTE THE NOVEL, AS ALL OF THIS REGN WAS LLED ROMAN TIM), TO THE JORDANIAN SERT, TO ASIA MOR OR WHAT IS NOW TURKEY, TO GREECE AND ITALY. I FOLLOWED AS BT I ULD THE FOOTSTEPS OF PL, HOPG TO SUMMON THAT WORLD IMAG, TRYG AT ALL TIM TO REMD MYSELF HOW THE PLAC WOULD HAVE PLAYED ON THE FIVE SENS, WH S TGLG ATMOSPHERE OF HERBS AND SPIC, WILD FLOWERS, SH THE STREETS, YG BODI, BRILLIANT SUNSHE ON THE SEA, AND EVERGREEN FORTS AS EP AS ONE N IMAGE. THIS WAS AN TELLECTUAL JOURNEY AS WELL AS A PHYSIL ONE. LIKE PLATO, PL WAS A FOUNDG THKER THE WT. IN FACT, I BEGAN TO WRE THIS NOVEL AFTER READG AGA THROUGH THE DIALOGU OF PLATO—ALWAYS A TEXT I RETURN TO FOR SPIRATN AND BRACG MENTAL EXERCISE. I REALIZED HOW MANY OF PLATO’S IAS, EVEN PHRAS, HAD SUNK TO PL’S UNNSC.  HE SUALLY QUOT OM THE GREAT PHILOSOPHER THROUGHOUT HIS LETTERS. THE VERY IA OF THE ETERNAL SOUL WAS, OF URSE, ILLUMED BY PLATO, AND PL RAN WH THIS, CREATG A PLATONIC THEOLOGY. IT’S IMPORTANT TO RELL THAT PL WAS A GREEK-SPEAKG JEW, BORN TARS (NOW TURKEY), PRIVATELY TED THERE BY GREEK-FLUENCED TUTORS—THE LATTER IS AN ASSUMPTN, BUT ONE THAT SEEMS TO MAKE SENSE, GIVEN HIS EDN, HIS MAND OF GREEK PROSE, HIS RANGE OF ALLN. HIS STAT AS ONE OF THE ELE IS EVINT THE FACT THAT HE “TRANSFERRED” TO THE AMY N BY GAMALIEL JESALEM AS A YOUNG MAN. ONLY THE CHILD OF A WEALTHY FAY WOULD HAVE BEEN SHIPPED TO A FAR-OFF UNTRY TO STUDY UNR A MAJOR SCHOLAR LIKE GAMALIEL, THE GRANDSON OF HILLEL—THE FAMO JEWISH SAGE. BUT WHAT MOSTLY DREW ME TO PL WAS HIS VISN OF EQUALY—NOT WHAT ONE UALLY THKS ABOUT WHEN ONE THKS OF PL.  INED, MANY IENDS WHO HEARD I WAS WRG ABOUT PL RAISED AN EYEBROW OR TWO, SAYG:  WASN’T HE A PATRIARCHAL MISOGYNIST WHO HATED ALL GAYS?MY ANSWER, VARIABLY, WAS NO! NO! NO!PL’S CHIEF IA WAS THIS, AS FOUND GALATIANS 3:28: “IN CHRIST THERE IS NEHER JEW NOR GENTILE, NEHER SLAVE NOR EE MAN, NEHER MALE NOR FEMALE. IN CHRIST, ALL OF THE ARE ONE.”  FOR ME, THIS IS THE KEY VERSE THE ENTIRE NEW TTAMENT.BOLDLY, PL ERASED THE MOST CCIAL BARRIERS OF HIS DAY. HIMSELF A JEW, A MEMBER OF THE TRIBE OF BENJAM, A PHARISEE BY AFFILIATN, HE TOOK THE GOOD NEWS (AS HE LLED ) TO THE WT, UNRSTANDG THAT IF THE WAY OF J WERE TO PROSPER, WOULD HAVE TO GO BEYOND THIS POWERFUL BOUNDARY. IN THIS, HE FOUGHT AGAST THE CHURCH JESALEM, LED BY JAM, THE BROTHER OF J, WHO WISHED ONLY FOR THE WAY TO REMA A KD OF HYPER-JEWISH SECT VOTED TO THE STRICT ADHERENCE TO THE LAW OF MOS. HAD JAM WON OUT OVER PL, CHRISTIANY WOULD SOON HAVE DWDLED TO A TY GROUP THE HOLY LAND, ONE THAT WOULD SOON BE OVERRIDN, OBLERATED BY TIME AND CIRCUMSTANC.NEEDLS TO SAY, PL CHALLENGED CLASS DIVISNS WHEN HE ERASED THE BOUNDARI BETWEEN SLAVE AND EE MAN. REMEMBER THAT HALF OF THE PEOPLE ONE MET THE ANCIENT WORLD WERE SLAV. PL WOULD HAVE GROWN UP WH A HOEFUL FULL OF SLAV WHO FETCHED WATER, BOUGHT FOOD THE MARKET, OKED AND CLEANED, RAISED THE CHILDREN, AND SO FORTH. MOST OF THE PEOPLE WORKG FOR PL’S FATHER HIS TENT-MAKG BS TARS WOULD HAVE BEEN SLAV.  AND SLAV WERE VISIBLE, NOT REALLY PEOPLE, HARDLY CREATUR POSSSN OF A “SOUL” OR— GREEK—PSYCHE. PL DIDN’T WANT TO SEE DIVISNS AMONG THE CLASS, BELIEVG THAT ENLIGHTENMENT (A WORD I PREFER OVER THE LS TERTG AND MISLEADG TERM “SALVATN”) WOULD E TO EVERYONE THE END, SLAV AS WELL AS EE MEN AND WOMEN.WHICH BRGS , CCIALLY, TO MEN AND WOMEN. PL HAD NO DOUBT THAT WOMEN WERE EQUAL TO MEN THE SIGHT OF GOD, THE MD OF CHRIST. THE WORLD OF EARLY CHRISTIANY WAS LARGELY FANCED AND LED BY WOMEN, CLUDG THE POWERFUL PHOEBE, LYDIA, AND PRISCILLA. PHOEBE IS SCRIBED AS A PRIDG OFFICER THE EARLY MOVEMENT, A AN, A DOMANT FIGURE. SHE ULD EASILY BE SEEN AS THE FIRST POPE, ALTHOUGH THERE WERE NO SUCH OFFIC AS THE CHURCH WAS NOT AN OFFICIAL BODY BUT A LOOSE AGGREGATN OF GATHERGS WH NO HARD L OR CLEAR THEOLOGY. INED, PL SENT HIS MOST IMPORTANT PIECE OF WRG, AN EPISTLE TO THE ROMAN GATHERG, THE POSSSN OF PHOEBE, THIS SPIRED WOMAN OF THE WORLD WHO TRAVELED WILY AND KNEW EVERY LEAR THE EARLY CHRISTIAN MOVEMENT. BUT WHAT ABOUT THE PATRIARCHAL PL WHO SAID WOMEN SHOULDN’T SPEAK CHURCH? THERE ARE TWO MENTNS OF THIS, ONE THE 14TH CHAPTER OF 1 CORTHIANS, ONE 1 TIMOTHY. THE FORMER IS WILY NSIRED A LATER ADDN, AN “TERPOLATN” BY EDORS. IN THIS SE, THE ASSERTN THAT WOMEN SHOULD BE SILENT WILDLY TERPTS THE FLOW OF THE PASSAGE, WHICH IS WHOLE WHOUT . AND THE FAMO REMARK IS NOT PRENT SEVERAL EARLY MANCRIPTS OF THIS LETTER. FURTHERMORE, THE JUNCTN NTRADICTS THE MA THST OF THE EPISTLE, WHERE ( 1 CORTHIANS 11:5) PL SAYS THAT WOMEN SHOULD “PROPHY AND PRAY” CHURCH. IT JT MAK NO LOGIL SENSE FOR PL TO FOLLOW WH A MAND FOR THEM TO REMA SILENT: THIS WAS AN EDORIAL HAND AT WORK, MUCH LATER. AND THE MATTER OF 1 TIMOTHY IS EASILY DISRD AS NOT SOMETHG WRTEN BY PL HIMSELF.PL ONLY WROTE SEVEN LETTERS THAT SURVIVE: ROMANS, 1 AND 2 CORTHIANS, GALATIANS, 1 THSALONIANS, PHILIPPIANS, AND PHILEMON. THE REMAG SIX LETTERS ARE “SCHOOL OF PL,” WRTEN MUCH LATER. TO ANYONE WHO READS GREEK, THE DIFFERENCE PROSE STYLE IS OBV—GARRY WILLS BURROWS TO THIS WH MON SENSE WHAT PL MEANT (2006). THE DIFFERENC BETWEEN THE TWO CLUMPS OF LETTERS IS PROFOUND: THEY E OM WILDLY DIFFERENT WORLDS, WH DIFFERENT UNRLYG ASSUMPTNS. A ANTIC EFFORT WAS UNRWAY ON THE PART OF SOME WH THE EVOLVG MOVEMENT TO KEEP THE PATRIARCHAL PRACTIC OF JUDAISM AND THE ROMAN WORLD PLACE. HENCE THE “PASTORAL EPISTL,” 1 AND 2 TIMOTHY, WHICH ARE VERY LATE ED AS ADDNS TO THE NEW TTAMENT NON. “PL SENT HIS MOST IMPORTANT PIECE OF WRG THE POSSSN OF PHOEBE, THIS SPIRED WOMAN OF THE WORLD WHO TRAVELED WILY AND KNEW EVERY LEAR THE EARLY CHRISTIAN MOVEMENT.” THERE IS ALSO THE PLITED MATTER OF PL’S SEXUALY. I TEND TO AGREE WH BISHOP JOHN SHELBY SPONG, A BRILLIANT THEOLOGIAN AND CHURCH LEAR, WHO ARGU THAT PL WAS “A RIGIDLY NTROLLED GAY MALE,” AS HE WR RCUG THE BIBLE OM FUNDAMENTALISM (1991). BE THIS AS MAY, PL WAS CLEARLY AT WAR WH HIS OWN BODY, TORMENTED BY THE IA IF NOT THE REALY OF SEXUAL SIRE, AND EAGER TO WHDRAW TO THE PANY OF HIS MALE PANNS:  LE, TIMOTHY, SILAS, AND OTHERS. HIS NFLICTED FEELGS ABOUT HIS OWN SEXUAL NATURE MAY ACUNT FOR THE “THORN HIS FLH” THAT HE WROTE ABOUT HIS SEND LETTER TO THE CHURCH AT CORTH. (2 CORTHIANS 12:7-9)IN MY VIEW, THE THENTIC PL WAS BATIVE, FIERCELY TELLECTUAL, PROBABLY PRSIVE, BI-SEXUAL OR GAY, A RADIL VISNARY WHO HAD A FIERY IMAGE HIS HEAD OF A NEW HEAVEN AND A NEW EARTH. HE HAD A VISN OF WHAT MEANT TO TAKE ON THE FULL MD OF CHRIST, AND THIS VOLVED EMPTYG HIMSELF OUT THOROUGHLY, TAKG UP THE CROSS, WHICH FOR HIM MEANT FOLLOWG THE PATH OF SELF-ABANDONMENT, UNG WH THE MD OF CHRIST, WHERE EVERYTHG—MALE AND FEMALE, SLAVE AND EE MAN, JEW AND GENTILE—FDS RENCILIATN UNY WH GOD THE ETERNAL MOMENT OF RURRECTN. JAY PARI

As noted by Hendrick, “homosexual acts by J should be a non-issue for a historian, though one may appreciate eccliastil ncerns about the ntexts of the texts” (2003, p. Neverthels, as is dited by the brief biblgraphy above (and a quick search of), the homosexualy suated Secret Mark is very much an issue for several fluential wrers.

It is pure speculatn (and unter to what we know of the culture and history of the day) to somehow image the words to refer to homosexual behavr” (1999, emp. The historian Donald Akenson nsired Smh’s two books to be nothg more than “a nice ironic gay joke at the expense of all the self-important scholars who not only miss the irony, but believe that this alleged piece of gospel to the first-known letter of the great Clement of Alexandria” (as quoted Ehrman, p. It is certa, however, that those who are currently turng to the Bible for support of homosexualy are makg e of Secret Mark, even though the thenticy of the text provis no evince for the homosexual se.

UPDATED: CATHOLIC BISHOP: HOMOSEXUALY IS FE; SOME OF THE APOSTL MAY HAVE BEEN “GAY”

Moreover, if the letter uld be proved to be credible, and the “lost” scripture turned out to be origal, homosexual advot would rema whout biblil support for their e. Though the gospel wrers do not discs J’ sexualy specifilly, the whole of dive revelatn ttifi to the utter gradatn and sfulns of homosexualy (see Miller, et al., 2004), and to the absolute pury and slsns of Christ (2 Corthians 5:21; Hebrews 4:15). For almost the entire 2, 000 years of rerd Christian history, the apostle Pl’s nmnatn of all typ of homosexual practice was nsired an unqutnable fact of biblil teachg.