On Determining the 'Secret' Homosexuality of Scholars

[Secret Alias]

The idea is of course that Morton Smith is determined to be gay even though there is no positive evidence for this proposition. My question, if another scholar who is married or professes his opposition to homosexuality, discovers a 'gay' document pertaining to homosexuality in the early Church at some future time - is that more or less likely to be a forgery than an unmarried scholar? https://www.editorials360.com/2020/12/0 ... arian-mep/

I would assume that the argument runs something like a married scholar discovering a homosexual document is more reliable than an unmarried scholar. But assuming that someone found a gay document wouldn't that set in motion some suspicion regardless of marital status - especially if they published a study of the document? So basically ANY gay document is necessarily under suspicion of forgery REGARDLESS of the marital status because we know that Christianity was opposed to homosexuality. The unmarried status of Morton Smith just made the argument easier for critics.

I am leaving aside that the Letter to Theodore is not first and foremost a gay document of course. I would even argue the homosexuality was exaggerated to help disprove the document.

[mlinssen]

The idea is of course that Morton Smith is determined to be gay even though there is no positive evidence for this proposition. My question, if another scholar who is married or professes is opposed to homosexuality discovers a 'gay' document pertaining to homosexuality in the early Church at some future time - is that more or less likely to be a forgery than an unmarried scholar? https://www.editorials360.com/2020/12/0 ... arian-mep/

I would assume that the argument runs something like a married scholar discovering a homosexual document is more reliable than an unmarried scholar. But assuming that someone found a gay document wouldn't that set in motion some suspicion regardless of marital status - especially if they published a study of the document? So basically ANY gay document is necessarily under suspicion of forgery REGARDLESS of the marital status because we know that Christianity was opposed to homosexuality. The unmarried status of Morton Smith just made the argument easier for critics.

I am leaving aside that the Letter to Theodore is not first and foremost a gay document of course. I would even argue the homosexuality was exaggerated to help disprove the document.

That was an entertaining read. Odd translation issues, I reckon the source was in French

But, funny that you should ask. It all pertains to motive, and only motive - just as in ancient texts

Would Mark copy Thomas? Not because he would agree with him, of course, Thomas is an awkward text to start a religion with.
But would Mark copy Thomas, rip everything out of context and into his own, if that would serve his cause? Of course he would, and we don't even have to know said cause to be able to decide on that

Would a porn flic producer forge a Coptic text in order to embarrass Karen King or demonstrate that Grondin's translation is so very imprecise? I think not, I think his motive would highly likely be financially

Would a married scholar, fiercely opposed to homosexuality, discover a gay text? If it would magically turn out to be a forgery, for sure. The funny thing is that his motive could be exactly that, yet no one would inquire whether it is a forgery or not, and there he has inadvertently aided the homosexual cause!

Motive. The least addressed subject in this peculiar business of religiosity

[Secret Alias]

I've said this time and again. Sex is like the mysteries and the mysteries were sexual. You see that in the Gospel of Philip. You see that in the Patristic assault against the 'false gnostics.' You see the sexualized nature of the mysteries in the Catholic and Anglican rites. The Protestants de-mystified Christianity and so when confronted with an ancient text dealing with 'the mysteries' - they lose their shit. Sex is like the mysteries and the mysteries are always sexualized.

[Secret Alias]

And BECAUSE sexuality is mysterious (other than Jeffery Epstein and his houseguests who apparently used to have sex out in the open in front of everyone) you never know who is a pervert, who is monogamous, who is homosexual, who is straight. Barring actual evidence, you simply don't know who in scholarship is sympathetic or 'moved' toward homosexuality. You just don't know. Rock Hudson - a homosexual prostitute - was married as was Louis Mountbatten - a noted pedophile https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Louis_Mou ... from%20him (you can tell my wife watches a lot of Netflix). If Mountbatten uncovered a document in one of his campaigns that said Jesus was a military man who encouraged men to have sex with boys, I'd agree that'd be grounds for suspicions. But we have evidence that the intelligence services determined that Mountbatten was attending homosexual orgies and having sex with 8 - 12 year old boys. Nothing of the sort connects Morton Smith to homosexuality, prostitutes (male or female), pederasty, perversion of any kind. There simply is no evidence for Morton Smith's homosexuality. None whatsoever. Nor is the document he discovered 'homosexual' or a deviation from the typical attitude of Patristic texts to perversion or homosexuality.

This is what a prominent closeted-homosexual looks like:

Ron Perks, Mountbatten's driver in Malta in 1948, alleged that he used to visit the Red House, a gay brothel in Rabat.[106] Andrew Lownie, a Royal Historical Society fellow, wrote that the FBI maintained files regarding Mountbatten's alleged homosexuality.[107] Lownie also interviewed several young men who claimed to have been in a relationship with Mountbatten. John Barratt, Mountbatten’s personal and private secretary for 20 years,[108] has denied Mountbatten was a homosexual, claiming it would be impossible for such a fact to be hidden from him.[105]

The FBI file on Mountbatten, begun after he took on the role of Supreme Allied Commander in Southeast Asia in 1944, contains a claim by American author Elizabeth Wharton Drexel that Mountbatten had "a perversion for young boys".[107][109] Norman Nield, Mountbatten's driver from 1942–43, told the tabloid New Zealand Truth that he transported young boys aged 8 to 12 and was paid to keep quiet. Robin Bryans had also claimed to the Irish magazine Now that he and Anthony Blunt, along with others, were part of a ring that engaged in homosexual orgies and procured boys in their first year at public schools such as the Portora Royal School in Enniskillen. Several former residents of the Kincora Boys' Home in Belfast have asserted that they were trafficked to Mountbatten at his residence in Mullaghmore, County Sligo.[110][111] These claims were dismissed by the Historical Institution Abuse (HIA) Inquiry.[112][105][113] The HIA stated that the article making the original allegations "did not give any basis for the assertions that any of these people [Mountbatten and others] were connected with Kincora".

Mountbatten was an attractive man. Distinguished looking, sophisticated and extremely wealthy. New Testament scholars are too ugly to have sex without paying for it - and they're rarely flush with cash to make up with their boring personalities. So much for any sexualized conspiracy involving a sub-class of poor, ugly men. Pathetic.

[Achamoth]

Only someone who knows literally nothing about Christian practice would be shocked that a baptism was administered naked. Only a modern who sees porn everywhere would assume that "secret mark" depicts homosexuality.

[mlinssen]

Only someone who knows literally nothing about Christian practice would be shocked that a baptism was administered naked. Only a modern who sees porn everywhere would assume that "secret mark" depicts homosexuality.

There is absolutely nothing on that in the NT. And if there had ever been a moment where it should have been, it is in https://biblehub.com/acts/8-38.htm

Berean Literal Bible
And he commanded the chariot to stop. And they both went down to the water, both Philip and the eunuch, and he baptized him

[Secret Alias]

It's an open question whether individuals were baptized naked. Hard to know for sure. But if clothing was a sign of Adam's sinfulness then a return to nudity would symbolize restored purity wouldn't it? One of the principles of modern nudism.

https://www.edenrvresort.com/

[Secret Alias]

And the details from that Hungarian anti-gay party orgy are great

https://twitter.com/Baddiel/status/1334 ... 15488?s=09

[mlinssen]

It's an open question whether individuals were baptized naked. Hard to know for sure. But if clothing was a sign of Adam's sinfulness then a return to nudity would symbolize restored purity wouldn't it? One of the principles of modern nudism.

https://www.edenrvresort.com/

Not really hard to know - there's not a shred about clothing either with regards to baptism so we'd have to give the benefit of the doubt to the default situation of being dressed. In fact, baptism is an utterly non descript process to begin, and most certainly to end with.
If restoration to nudity were to symbolise purity, then why not simply get undressed and be done with it?

As a matter of fact, doing the wet t-shirt contest would perfectly mimic that, making your clothing semi transparent (provided you're dressed in thin white cloth), thereby demonstrating that baptism does render you somewhat naked ish

[Secret Alias]

But wet Tshirt contests are antithetical to early Christianity. Innocent nudity not so. I thought you were the Thomas guy:

His disciples said, "When will you appear to us, and when will we see you?"

Jesus said, "When you strip without being ashamed, and you take your clothes and put them under your feet like little children and trample them, then [you] will see the son of the living one and you will not be afraid."

I'd bet this community baptized naked.