You know, I'm starting to wonder now about the Beloved Disciple and about that incident with the fleeing naked male in the Gospels

>>18496743
There's a neurotic Jew on that board, Secret Alias, and he already debunked the homoerotic interpretations. Contemporary folk medicine practices including skin-to-skin contact for healing.

>>18496749
What's with the love shit. Would be curious if the word used is eros or something else

>>18496749
>Contemporary folk medicine practices including skin-to-skin contact for healing.
>I'm not molesting you it's divine healing
typical cult leader

>>18496753
It's not.
I'm pretty sure the word "eros" doesn't even show up once in the new testament, while in the LXX it turns up twice.

Benedict XVI Emeritus did a great encyclical on love, Deus Caritas Est.
He goes over the words we translate together as love and their implications at at some length.

Anyways if you want to see some really gay shit, Jonathan strips for David in the OT, he even undoes his own belt and hands it over.
Basically, their love for one another is reflected in Jesus' and John's own relationship.
Jesus likewise made a covenant with John, who loses his robe too.

1 et factum est cum conplesset loqui ad Saul anima Ionathan conligata est animae David et dilexit eum Ionathan quasi animam suam

And it came to pass, when he had made an end of speaking to Saul, the son of Jonathan was knit with the soul of David, and Jonathan loved him as his own soul.

2 tulitque eum Saul in die illa et non concessit ei ut reverteretur in domum patris sui

And Saul took him that day, and would not let him return to his father's house.

3 inierunt autem Ionathan et David foedus diligebat enim eum quasi animam suam

And David and Jonathan made a covenant, for he loved him as his own soul.

4 nam expoliavit se Ionathan tunicam qua erat vestitus et dedit eam David et reliqua vestimenta sua usque ad gladium et arcum suum et usque ad balteum

And Jonathan stripped himself of the coat with which he was clothed, and gave it to David, and the rest of his garments, even to his sword, and to his bow, and to his girdle.


>and the rest of his garments
>even to his sword

Now, to be clear I am 100 percent sure there was never any act of sodomy between David and Jonathan.
People who pretend there was are bad influences and ignore what the bible has to say about that.

David explicitly says his love for Jonathan is better than sex.
It's in line with classical Greek thought actually, that brotherly love and selfless giving are higher and more perfect forms of love than the carnal erotic sex kind.

But Jonathan is pretty clearly just getting naked in front of David here and it's hard to read that any other way.
It's an expression of total trust to me.

Sure, in our society we might think it's pretty gay for dudes to just hang out together butt naked.
But no homo is actually a real thing and some men are just so damn lightspeed straight that they just don't feel even a little self aware or defensive around other men's bodies.

>>18497151
The only problem is the Bible is a composite of many different works with different moralities

>>18497190
No it isn't.

The documentary hypothesis is retarded and has been effectively discredited since the late 70s.
Only dinosaurs and spiteful fedoras still peddle that garbage as if there is any kind of real consensus behind it.

>>18497216
>effectively discredited since the late 70s
I’m only an amateur but that hasn’t been reflected in any of my reading.

>>18497222
Dude just look at the wiki article, consensus collapse surrounding the DH has been an old story since before I was born.
Who exactly is recommending this kind of literature to you? You don't need to name names, just how they're related to you.

Let me ask you this, because I don't see a lot of people mention this problem.
If the Torah is a composite, as these theorists claim, it would be expected that other ancient texts would also be composites.
If there cannot be any established to fit that pattern, I would say that applying this standard to the OT alone would constitute special pleading.

For example, is the Illiad a composite text?
Did Homer just artfully weave a bunch of separate sources together, and if he did where is the evidence you say can be drawn from the text? Or were there multiple "Homers" as some have actually claimed?

Let me try and explain what I mean.

It's not off the wall to say Moses used traditionally oral sources known to the Israelites themselves to detail the events of Genesis and the patriarchs. Rather than the contrary that the Israelites forget literally everything, with Moses receiving absolutely everything through direct divine revelation.
And it's not going too far to say the details it includes after his death *in text* represent a kind of addendum someone who inherited his work added on. If you'd entertain the comparison, Frodo wrote the bulk of LOTR and may rightfully be considered it's author, but Sam finished it and provided a few details about things which transpired after Frodo sailed into the west. This question in particular was not lost on Tolkien. For the record, I believe Sam actually added more details and even subtle commentary to Frodo's own account, such that it can be hard to tell the difference.

But it is a stretch to say that Moses simply never wrote the Torah, is a literary invention, and somebody a few centuries later simply invented the whole thing by patching together a bunch of mutually incompatible purely hypothetical "yahwist" and "elohist" sources.

>>18497266
>it is a stretch to say that Moses simply never wrote the Torah, is a literary invention
Why?

>>18497270
There's simply not a good argument for that, is why.
People who have a reason to just treat it as a given, and teach other people to as well.

This is called, begging the question.
IE clearly the events in Exodus could not have happened, therefore Moses cannot be the true author of the Torah.

This is the implicit assumption of a dogmatic materialist.

So is the Illiad a composite work, and Homer was never actually real, or what?

Because certain people claim that literally Homer never actually existed.
I find that weird as hell. Lots of people from back in the day said Homer existed.

We're they all huffing paint?
Or are all the fedora tipping, enlightened by my own intelligence, types just on the money?

>>18497287
So is every unverifiable attribution of a text to a legendary figure real?

>>18497254
>Dude just look at the wiki article
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Documentary_hypothesis
>Some scholars, following Rendtorff, have come to espouse a fragmentary hypothesis, in which the Pentateuch is seen as a compilation of short, independent narratives, which were gradually brought together into larger units in two editorial phases: the Deuteronomic and the Priestly phases. By contrast, scholars such as John Van Seters advocate a supplementary hypothesis, which posits that the Torah is the result of two major additions—Yahwist and Priestly—to an existing corpus of work
>Some scholars use these newer hypotheses in combination with each other and with a documentary model, making it difficult to classify contemporary theories as strictly one or another
It sounds like there's been a loss of consensus around a specific model of the way in which the Torah is thought to be composite work, not a loss of consensus around the basic idea that the Torah is a composite work.

>>18497293
It's worth noting that these competing hypotheses are totally incongruent.
They're competing materialist headcanons.

To me, parsimony is more compelling.
I've heard many good defenses for a contemporary Mosaic authorship.

And regarding objections based on perceived incongruities, often I've found these takes are predominantly from those who aren't sufficiently catechized.
To this day, speaking personally, I've yet to see an advocate for this hypothesis advance a dilemma that I cannot answer.

Do you have a problem for me?

>>18497306
Not that anon but why did you make a false claim? You said that reading the Wikipedia article would show that the documentary hypothesis had fallen out of favour. Now, it is fair to say you object to it, but you said it was in fact deboonked.

>>18497309
No, the documentary hypothesis as advanced during the late 19th (and even before) and early 20th centuries has been thoroughly roasted. Everything I said about it's BTFO during the late 70s is true.

sns

I think it's remarkable that you're not willing to engage my position on the Illiad. Maybe you think you're the Hellenes, and Troy will simply fall if you just wait outside long enough. Too bad mighty Achilles refuses to fight for you.

>>18497315
The authors of the Iliad and the Odyssey are probably different people.

>>18497316
Can you realistically provide a solid argument that Homer never actually existed and the Illiad is a patchwork case invented many centuries after he was supposed to have lived?

>>18497319
Homer is just a name. We don't have any reliable biographical details about the authors of the Iliad and the Odyssey. He is not a character in the events of either text like Moses is. There was no mass enslavement of Jews.

>>18497322
Well, to my knowledge, you're right about Homer not featuring directly in any of his works. Though, from old readings of mine, I recall some reason to doubt he ever completely neglected to mention himself. Not going to take any time to justify that myself though, because that belongs to another time in my life.

But that doesn't mean the same logic isn't directly applicable to his works. His works not being autobiographical doesn't mean he, or those hypothetical individuals claiming his name, are suddenly free from the same modernist source criticism applied to Torah.

You saying Homer is just a name, presupposes the idea that there is no single man to be identified with that name.
A supposition which no antique author would testify to.

>There was no mass enslavement of Jews.
That sounds like you're trying to prove a negative to me.
Anyways, after the sack of Rome, I do remember some kind of mass enslavement happening.

>reliable
according to whom
because it seems to me like people who lived much closer to his life than you or I simply took it for granted
certain weird people deny Socrates existed too, and they're really weird to me because it's obvious the man was real.

>>18497337
Socrates and Jesus are obviously real people with relatively reliable historical attestation. Moses is more like Gilgamesh, I think. Possibly a real king, but heavily mythologised. I would also say that the Iliad is not a reliable description of the Trojan War, and that as a literary composition it derives from a long oral tradition.

You must pardon my low effort replies, and my failure to address each of your points - I'm quite tired at the moment

>>18497339
>Iliad is not a reliable description of the Trojan War

Are there any other "reliable" descriptions of this war that proto-fedoras said never happened, which you would accept?

>>18497343
No

>>18497346
Right.

Go to bed.

>>18497351
I don’t see what’s wrong with saying that. You can’t reconcile the metaphysics of Exodus and the Iliad.

>>18497371
And yet Troy actually did exist, which BTFO it's 19th century naysayers.

Metaphysics is not the pertinent question here. Not trying to reconcile the texts, I'm merely drawing parallels between the two which expose the documentary hypothesis and it's method as producing ridiculous conclusions like "Homer never really existed despite the universal classical witness that he did, a bunch of hypothetical Homers produced it instead because that's what makes most sense to me when I apply this anachronistic model" when applied to basically anything, not being limited to the bible im scope which is the only thing certain antagonists bother using it for and talking about. Instead of it being purely academic, it's used as a polemical weapon against a specific religion and for basically nothing else.

I'm still waiting for someone to raise a specific objection to the Mosaic authorship based on the DH ITT to address.

>>18497216
imagine saying any of this when the samaritan pentateuch exists, we know omhri existed unlike david and judah was nothing until years after the assyrian conquest
the dispute between samaria and judah created a composite
only protestants deny it, and they have to because accepting it destroy protestantism (sola scriptura) and fucks over the current government of israel

>>18497190
>different moralities
Such as?

>>18498226
>And yet Troy actually did exist
so?
USA exists but if in the future the only text describing it is that of a /pol/ meme describing how The Lord Kek descended to appoint Trump against The Swamp, you can be damn sure that nobody will say "USA existed becayse of this"
THEN once USA is discovered, no one will say "See! the KEK text is legit."

making theories about how and why the text was made is an entirely different question

File: IMG_20260427_201841.jpg (177 KB, 826x628)

177 KB JPG

>>18498483
>The Lord Kek descended to appoint Trump against The Swamp

>>18497337
>certain weird people deny Socrates existed too, and they're really weird to me because it's obvious the man was real.
There's a certain type of person who believes that if there's not rock solid evidence for a historical figure existing, they probably didn't.

>>18497287
>So is the Illiad a composite work, and Homer was never actually real, or what?
We don't know if Homer, or Laozi were individual or composite, or how much of "Plato" is Socrates, or Plato, or Plato's Socrates. To me their historicity doesn't matter. Their works are resplendent either way.

>>18496743
doubt
>Bart Erhman and Jacob Neuser believe evidence points to a forgery
>the guy who "found it" wrote books titled "Jesus the Magician" and "Paul the Possessed"
>no separate text of the secret gospel is known to survive, and it is not referred to in any other ancient source
>suspicious that an authentic ancient Christian text would be preserved only in a single, late manuscript
>ink and parchment unable to be tested

>>18499420
>the guy who "found it" wrote books titled "Jesus the Magician" and "Paul the Possessed"
Paul was possessed (by the holy spirit). Jesus was a magician, in the sense that he knew how to use consciousness, or the mind, to work miracles "out of thin air." Magic was much more common in earlier times than today.