Did Jesus and John the Baptist Indulge in the Sins of Soddom and Gamorah?

[Proxima Centauri]

At the time of good, (intolerant) Queen Elizabeth the First of England the poet Christopher Marlow suggested the above. He was severely punished for this blasphemous heresy.
Is there any evidence whether or not this actually happened? Did Jesus and John the Baptist do (...er...) with each other?

:confused:

[penumbra]

Did Jesus and John the Baptist do (...er...) with each other?

Hmmm...I don't know, but I'm willing to bet Jebus and the "beloved disciple" did!!

:D

[Toto]

What's your source for this?

THE KILLING OF MARLOWE: FACT OR FAKE? (http://www.homeusers.prestel.co.uk/rey/chap1.htm)

At the end of May 1593, Christopher Marlowe, England's top poet-dramatist of the day, stood accused of atheism, blasphemy, heresy, illicit coining, treachery and treason. The punishment for such alleged crimes included being boiled alive, burning at the stake, or being hanged, drawn (i.e. disemboweled) and quartered. He was, in other words, in deep trouble.

Having been arrested under suspicion of just the heresy, he had been granted bail on 20th May, but was required to report daily to their Lordships of the Privy Council, (1) while this further 'evidence' was gathered. The informer's extremely biased (2) report now being complete, Marlowe faced immediate detention and torture, to extract a confession, whether guilty or not, unless some means of escape could be found. Had he simply fled, or gone into hiding, he would for the rest of his life have been pursued as a fugitive. A much better solution would certainly have been to fake his own death and to assume a new identity. As a secret agent of several years standing, Marlowe would have had both the experience and, as we shall see, the contacts to bring this about.

And indeed, just before the informer's report reached the Privy Council, word arrived that Marlowe was dead and buried, having been knifed in the face (and thus rendered less recognizable?) during a fracas involving three gentlemen at a house in Deptford. Plague was raging through London that summer, and the coroner's inquest and subsequent burial of the body, in an unmarked grave, had been completed within only 48 hours of the 'killing'. (3)

THE OPPORTUNITY

The cause of Marlowe's arrest in the first place was that two fragments of a paper containing "vile hereticall conceipts", (4) and allegedly having come from him, had been found in the home of his fellow playwright, Thomas Kyd. Suspected of having been involved in the display of an inflammatory anti-immigrant poster, Kyd had been arrested, taken to the Bridewell, and tortured. His rooms had been searched and the document found, which "he affirmeth that he had from Marlowe".



These vile heretical concepts are not detailed, but footnote 4 says:

4 BL Harley MS.6848 ff.188-9. These were in fact quite innocuous and could have been copied from a book which was in the library of John Gresshop, Marlowe's headmaster at Canterbury. See Dr. William Urry's Christopher Marlowe and Canterbury (1988) p.77.

[Toto]

OK, praise google.


Blasphemy (http://www.fattyboombatty.com/fullstory2002feb11alfredkorzybski.htm) {scroll down}

Blasphemy: Impious Speech in the West from the 17th to the 19th Century by Alain Cabantous, translated by Eric Rauth $29.50

. . . .

Atheists were of course blasphemers by definition, and we know from the charges against Christopher Marlowe that, like Theophile, they sometimes larded their tavern conversation with rather juvenile insults to religion - the Virgin was a whore, Christ was a bastard and St John was his bedfellow, and so on. It seems that one somehow needed to publicise the outrageousness of one's heretical opinions by talking in this manner.


In short, no evidence except some Elizabethan trash talk.

[Infidelettante]

I rise in defense of Sodom it being in no condition to rise on it’s own. These past millennia have not been kind to the city on the plain. I might say cruel but will settle for unfair. Yes, unfair for she is burdened with an intimate association with Sodomy and those who gravitate to the practice. I offer no sanction of them for it is their nature as it is the nature of the rose to bloom and of the river to flow.

But that nature has by vile and devious intent been brought to a semblance of evil and degradation. Oh shame, that so vital and pure a desire should now, twisted by bigotry and ignorance besmirch both Sodom and Sodomite alike. They are conspired against all these centuries by liars and lovers of scandal who when there is no grist for the mill throw in the miller.

Now first must the city be condemned. What is open and tolerant becomes wanton and graven. What is diverse and cosmopolitan becomes licentious and worldly. It is an open and welcoming city full of commerce and trade. It is made the demons plaything and the devils willing toy. Call out her sins. Bemoan her wickedness. Pray her destruction.

And now the players play.

Two by night have come. Who they be we know not for they have not as is our custom greeted the elders of the city at the gate of it. They abide yet unknown to us in the home of Lot who, though respected is a visitor here. Let those of some standing ask Lot to bring out the strangers that we might know them and ask of their well being and if they are treated with kindness and if they have eaten and if they are found wanting of anything pray tell them we will provide for them as is our custom.

Elders, those of standing return and bring ill news for Lot will not open his home to them but sends them away with curses and threats. They have left the offerings at the door of Lot but none comes to take them in. Lot is well liked in our city and his dealings are fair with those within. His ways are strange to us but there are many ways and all have shown him deference and have by word and deed made him and his welcome.

He has not a little enlarged his purse at our expense and yet our customs are as nothing to him. Others begin to ask what he has given to gain his ease. There is no small talk that the Elders have deep purses that yawn and gape. He is a basket of trouble and a straw of peace. Let him and his on the next sunrise be put out and pray let them return from where they came. We have no need of this constant annoyance. See it to an end and be done with it.

Lot, his daughters, his wife, his servants and all that were his are set out of the East Gate and admonished against returning to Sodom.

Wife, said Lot, you are a cold comfort to a chilled heart. I am set out of the city with but you and these few servants and your children who have learned from you the art of sucking the life out of things. Must you all complain at once. Take yours now and yours later and yours then. Surly you can manage to nag me through eternity if you plan a little.

I am to tell Abram what? That me and mine are cast out like moldy bread. No, like over ripe melons? Spoiled cabbage? Wormy meat? Hush, hush let me think, please only give me this, a reason, a tail, a story. They grew jealous of me and mine? No, he knows me and mine too well. They resented my wisdom and knowledge? No, he knows me too well. They are evil to the bone and I feared for the lives of my dear wife and children? Possibilities. Possibilities.

We had friends over, they arrived late, the men of Sodom banged the door and demanded to bang the visitors, we resisted, I offered them the girls, they left. I think the girls were too much for them. Next day we gathered up everything we owned and set out for home, it is good to see you again Abram, yes, yes it was most difficult for the girls. They don’t deal with rejection at all well you know. No, no don’t seek revenge on my account as a matter of fact I’m sure as we were just topping the hill I saw fire and brimstone, yes, I‘m sure it was fire and I think brimstone raining down just as we had prayed would happen, oh yes he is a powerful God, indeed he is, is there a place for the kids and me? Yes very sad we lost the dear lady off a very high cliff, no, no hope, devastated yes, yes and quite tired the long walk you see I think we can all fit just over here, out of the way, you’ll never notice us. Too bad about the Sodomites, yes I see what you mean, recompense and all. Justice and what not. Oh do tell me about your God again you had to leave Ur you said? Really? Who’d have thought. No, no, go on, go on.

JT

[Proxima Centauri]

Originally posted by Toto
What's your source for this?

THE KILLING OF MARLOWE: FACT OR FAKE? (http://www.homeusers.prestel.co.uk/rey/chap1.htm)



These vile heretical concepts are not detailed, but footnote 4 says:

Thanks Toto. Your link taught me quite a bit of history.

[boneyard bill]

I believe Morton Smith suggested that homosexuality was a part of the ritual of Jesus' sect. He based this on the "Secret Gospel of Mark" which is he claimed to have discovered in the Mar Saba monastery in Israel. Both the thesis and the gospel are controversial, but you can read more about it on this board in the threads dealing with Morton Smith and the Secret Gospel of Mark.

[zog]

From what i understand the allegations were probably just the imagination of a man thinking of what an athiest would say to satisfy his interrogator.

The allegation in itself is just mud slinging i believe

[Amos]

Originally posted by B.Shack
At the time of good, (intolerant) Queen Elizabeth the First of England the poet Christopher Marlow suggested the above. He was severely punished for this blasphemous heresy.
Is there any evidence whether or not this actually happened? Did Jesus and John the Baptist do (...er...) with each other?

:confused:

Hello Barbara, before you take that as fact the physical existence of Jesus and John as being two different people must be proven. According to my interpretation of the bible Jesus and John were just two different perspectives given by the same person. John
revealed insights from the netherworld of the subconscious mind (because that is where he was from) and Jesus told us how the conscious mind would see things after rebirth.

If the above is true Jesus and John did have intercourse with each other but I don't think that it was anal.

[Doctor X]

Sorry, Amos, but that is one of the funniest things I have read in a while.

If the above is true Jesus and John did have intercourse with each other but I don't think that it was anal.

--J.D.

[Amos]

Originally posted by Doctor X
Sorry, Amos, but that is one of the funniest things I have read in a while.



--J.D.

Well I am glad to have made your day but please considder the following: John was born from the netherworld which is the same place Jesus went for three days after crucifixion (it was also Jonah's hiding place). Johns parents were old as if they were from a previous generation. It was the place whence Mary came to receive the Annunciation and to which She returned. When John was beheaded he was silent to give the free will appearance and John was recalled at the foot of the cross as his favorite apostle because John and Mary were the driving forces behind this entire event while Jesus was given the final say over his action (the Catholic free will notion is based on this).

[Doctor X]

Amos:

John was born from the netherworld. . . .

I am afraid the text does not support that; both J the B and "the one Junior loved" are clearly "born from above"--anothen or "from above"--ek ano--ανωθεν/εκ ανω

(it was also Jonah's hiding place).

Jonah stayed in a fish--not sheol.

The rest is eisegesis rather than exegesis and does not, frankly, have any basis in the text.

--J.D.

[Amos]

Originally posted by Doctor X
Amos:



I am afraid the text does not support that; both J the B and "the one Junior loved" are clearly "born from above"--anothen or "from above"--ek ano--ανωθεν/εκ ανω



Jonah stayed in a fish--not sheol.

The rest is eisegesis rather than exegesis and does not, frankly, have any basis in the text.

--J.D.

J the B was born from old parents to indicate that the renewal also took place in the subconscious mind of Joseph (who still was the subject of renewal here), and this is what paved the way for a smooth journey in the conscious mind. It indicates that the melancholy of Joseph was involutional and not just a voluntary idea to get to heaven in a hurry. We can also say that John created harmony between the mind and the flesh (soul) because they were bosom buddies.

Catholics mythmakers used the Sacrament of Baptism to implant the rebirth of water that must accompany the rebirth of spirit.

Jonah was on a paid fare and while below the surface of the earth he felt guilty for the turmoil around him. This is a clear sign that his melancholy was involutionary and therefore he was swallowed up in his own turmoil as if by a whale. Notice that he, too, had the courage to run away fom God (religion) which is a necessary condition for salvation to take place. Hence, there is no salvation in churches but they only provide the environment for this melodrama to take place.

[Doctor X]

Amos:

J the B was born from old parents to indicate that the renewal also took place in the subconscious mind of Joseph. . . .

No. It is not in the texts. You can believe it, certainly, but you can not cite it. Someone may think Romeo and Juliet inspires homoerotic love, but Shakespeare did not write it that way!

Furthermore, it is not in Mk, or Mt, or Lk, so you cannot even argue it was a common theme.

Now:

Jonah was on a paid fare and while below the surface of the earth he felt guilty for the turmoil around him. This is a clear sign that his melancholy was involutionary. . . .

To quote Manuel: ¿Qué?

Whatever that means, it does not support your argument that Jonah went to Sheol or that Junior was swallowed by a fish!!

Look, Amos, with the tenderness shown by a favorite uncle to his niece just prior to him casting her down the stairs so he can claim the inheritence, I advise you to spend a little time with the literature. There are some great references in the Recommended Reading Section. I write that because you seem all over the place.

--J.D.

[Gothic_J]

its been suggested to me that jesus and all the 12 disciples were having fun. after all, love your fellow man.

its also been suggested that none of them existed. Im still pondering that one.

finally, Im told that david and jonathan were bi. odd how that never came up in bible school.

[Doctor X]

Bet You're Gay! No, I'm Not:

I tend to take a jaundiced view--maybe too much merlot--with some of these "historical details." Since we have, frankly, no uncontaminated historical documentation--I use "contaminated" to handle the Josephus-type stuff--and even the contaminated show diddly/squat. So where do people who make these conclusions get their information?

Now, I suppose someone can try to argue that . . . evidence suggests . . . that groups of men . . . in Palestine . . . often engaged in . . . but that is hardly conclusive!!

All Myths:

I must admit I tended to argue for the existence of a historical figure . . . of which we know less than diddly/squat. However, I have not read some of the recent stuff--referenced by other posters--that argue "it is all myth."

Nevertheless, the "best case" one could argue for is that Junior, his brother, and some of the more notable "merry men" existed like Peter.

What do we know about them? Not a hell of a lot. I think we can infer some things. IF Junior's brother, Peter and the rest of the Pillars of Jerusalem existed . . . they were not controversial. If anything, the Romans were efficient, and I cannot buy they would not stamp out the leaders of a threat.

Which brings us to one of the more uncomfortable problems with the whole death of Junior . . . why did the Romans not stamp everything out? As others have noticed, even if you accept everything in the NT it is hard to find what sort of threat he represented . . . without facing the problem of why not squish all of them.

Welcome to the forums.

--J.D.

[Secular Pinoy]

Originally posted by Doctor X
Which brings us to one of the more uncomfortable problems with the whole death of Junior . . . why did the Romans not stamp everything out? As others have noticed, even if you accept everything in the NT it is hard to find what sort of threat he represented . . . without facing the problem of why not squish all of them.Fredriksen wrote a pretty good solution as to why Jesus was the only one executed, while his followers were spared. I'm too lazy to pick up the book (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0679767460/internetinfidels) right now (just got home, Manila traffic can really sap the enthusiasm of even the most energetic of men), so I'll just copy+paste the quote from PKirby's site (http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/theories.html#fredriksen):Finally, a Jesus whose itinerary is sketched primarily not from the Synoptics but from John - a Jesus, that is, whose mission extended routinely not only to the Galilee but also to Judea, and specifically Jerusalem - can speak to the anomaly that has propelled this investigation, namely, that Jesus alone was killed as an insurrectionist on that Passover, but none of his disciples were. A repeated mission in Jerusalem, especially during the pilgrimage holidays when the prefect, too, of necessity, was there, explains how Caiaphas and Pilate would both already know who Jesus was and what he preached, and thus know as well that he was not in any first-order way dangerous. Just as the crowd's enthusiasm for Jesus as messiah accounts for the specific manner of his death, so Jesus' dual focus - Judea, especially Jerusalem in and around the Temple, as well as the Galilee - accounts for the high priest's and the prefect's familiarity with his mission, and thus explains why Jesus was the sole focus of their action.Peter Kirby went on to say [A]s Fredriksen argues, the point of the crucifixion as a mode of execution was the display for the crowds, and the eschatological fervor surrounding a specific prediction of immediate cataclysm would have been enough for Jesus to excite the imagination of the crowds. Fredriksen maintains that Jesus did not present himself as the Messiah but that such a claim was made for Jesus by the crowds in Jerusalem, which led to the expedient of Pilate to contain the situation by crucifixion.

[Doctor X]

Yet that quote really does not do what it says . . . if anything it undercuts itself. It does not explain why the Romans did not hunt them down.

To extend Peter's quote--a bunch of disciples hung up makes an even better display.

--J.D.

[Secular Pinoy]

Ah, then you just have to buy the book (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0679767460/internetinfidels) then, and support the Internet Infidels! :D