From: hudson@athena.cs.uga.edu (Paul Hudson Jr)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Homosexuals anywhere are wrong
Date: 23 Jul 92 20:10:32 GMT
Distribution: na
Organization: University of Georgia, Athens

In article <4040@news.duke.edu> John_Graves@cellbio.duke.edu writes:

>Thanks Link for showing how one completely ignors what one doesn't want to deal
>with.  

My post dealt with  the point, I wanted to make:  that we cannot read our
culture and the connotations of our language into the New Testament.

>My point was that you can't explain away the love between Jesus and the Beloved
>Disciple, who some think was named John, by pointing out that others do the
>same thing, such as your Bedoin example.

And at the same time, you can't read homosexuality into a verse of Scripture
because of the connotations of English words.  Greek had many words that
can translate as "love" into English.  In English, love often carries a 
sexual connotation.  We have idioms such as "make love" and words such
as "lovers" which you used in your last message.  Of course Jesus and his
disciple loved on another, but that does not make them "lovers" in the sense
that we tend to think of the word, with sexual connotations.  You should not
read irrelevant English connotations into a translation of a Greek work.

>Jesus is known, commonly apparently, as having a special relationship with only
>one of the disciples.  In the Gospel of John, 21:20 (NRSV) - Peter, who 
>previously has just told Jesus that he Peter loves Jesus but to which Jesus
>does not say to Peter in return I love you, Peter turned and saw the disciple
>whom Jesus loved following them; he was the one who had reclined next to Jesus
>at the supper...  THE disciple who Jesus loved.  HE was the one.

"The disciple whom Jesus loved" is used as the title for the disciple who
wrote the book.  Those who were taught by John and those who followed after
them attributed this book to John.  The work contains many things that are
also similar to I John, which is also attributed to him.  maybe he did not
sign it out of humility.  I know a pastor who refuses to copywrite his work.
As long as the word is spread, it does not matter if he gets the credit.  
John does not name himself in the work, but simply refers to himself as the
disciple whom Jesus loved.

In the passage you mention about Peter, notice that Jesus did not refuse
to say that he loved Peter, and then say that he loved the beloved disciple.
Instead the author points out that Peter turns to this disciple, who is
described as elswhere in the epistle, as the disciple whom Jesus loved.

Also notice that Peter could not tell Jesus that he apage loved him. That
was the issue.  The Lord was not just repeating the same thing over and
over. He asked Peter, "Do you agape love me?"  twice.  Peter twice replied
"I phileo love you.  The third time Jesus asked, "Do you phileo love me?"
and Peter answered that he did.  And of course He also commanded him to
feed the sheep.  Notice hear are examples of different uses of the word love.
Agape love is not the same thing as sexal love.  Husbands are supposed to
agape love their wives, but we are also supposed to agape love our 
neighbor as ourselves.  Phileo is brotherly love, as in Philidelphia, city of
brotherly love.  

John's title did show that Jesus had a special relationship with him, but
it is also used as a title, and we must keep that in mind.  We should not
read into the passage that Jesus did not love Peter and that He only
loved THE disciple whom He loved.  And also, just because it is generally
acceptable in this culture to answer, "I love you" with "I love you, too"
we should not assume that it is always the same in other cultures.  Especially
in this case, when different words are translated as love into English.

[ Quite
>possible that the beloved disciple is the  young man of Mark 14:51 wearing
>nothing but the linen cloth.]  

I don't have my Bible with me, but I assume that may be the passage from
the "secret gospel."  If it is not I apologize for the following tangent.
What I don't get is how some of these people who are considered to be 
experts can conclude from looking at an 18th century copy of a manuscript
that it is a copy of Clement's writings.  It is just as fesible that 
some well-educated monk, who knew Greek simply studied his style, and maybe
memorized his works, they are about the size of New Testament epistles, so
this is very feasible, and wrote out a manuscript using Clementine termonology
and words that were in use at that time period.  Perhaps someone who
was a contemporary or who lived a few generations after wrote this manuscript.

And secondly, even if it were Clement's writing, why should his correction
of some gnostic slander be a basis for all this rediculous speculation.
So what if someone showed up in a linen cloth to be taught the truth.  From
what I have read the people of the day wore a linen undergarmet and an
outer garmet or mantle.  Maybe the linen cloth was the under garmet (perhaps
someone more familiar with coustoms and the language would know if this
could be a possibliblity.)  From what I have read, on a hot day, it 
would not be very unusual for men to work in their ephod.  David danced in
his ephod.  

>There is only ONE disciple who is discribed as laying his head on Jesus breast.

Yes, but at the dinner table, as we see from the context.

>They had a SPECIAL relationship, that is, unlike the relationship between Jesus
>and the other disciples.  Face it.

I don't disagree with that.  I do disagree with the implication that Christ
was sexually immoral.

Link Hudson.