The Historical Jesus III

[dejudge]

Euhemerism, and it's description has a chequered history, probably because Christians have used it to obfuscate since early Christianity.

Euhemerism is actually giving a mythical god human attributes - it is anthropomorphising a god; making it seem they had been real humans in the past. What Euhemerus did with Zeus and Uranus.

http://freethoughtblogs.com/carrier/archives/8161

http://www.bing.com/search?FORM=UP94DF&PC=UP94&q=euhemerism

Euhemerism --the theory that mythology has its origins in history, the gods being deified heroes of the past

People who argue that their Dead Obscure HJ did exist claim the myth/fiction accounts are mere embellishments of History and Biology.

People who argue for an Dead Obscure HJ using the Christian Bible are nothing more than modern Euhemerists.

One poster here have already admitted the LORD in the Pauline Corpus is indeed his Dead Obscure historical Jesus.

The character called by the NOMINA SACRA IU XU is a GOD in the Christian Bible.

 

[Mcreal]

http://www.bing.com/search?FORM=UP94DF&PC=UP94&q=euhemerism

Quote:
Euhemerism --the theory that mythology has its origins in history, the gods being deified heroes of the past

People who argue for an Dead Obscure HJ using the Christian Bible are nothing more than modern Euhemerists.

No !!!!!!!

Definitions like that muddy the waters!

The gods who are euhemerized (ie. anthropomorphized) remain deities in the narratives (ie. they remain deities in the stories; the myths).

And the people who first narrate those gods as humans are the 'euhemerists', not those who later try to assert that 'the gods really had been humans'.

 

[Leumas]

People who argue that Jesus of Nazareth was a figure of history are just "Euhemerists".

...
And the people who first narrate those gods as humans are the 'euhemerists', not those who later try to assert that 'the gods really had been humans'.

This whole empty bankrupt affair of modern day casuistry for Jesus' sake, is to wash and rinse the stench and stains of the insane insults to intelligence off of their ill begotten son of a ghostly 1/3 of a magical sky daddy who extolled a Sumerian coward above all humanity and yet could not make sure he had enough food so as to not have needed to resort to pimping off his half-sister wife twice to make riches off of her "beauty".

It is nothing but an attempt at laundering the Emperor's old invisible new clothing and peddling them off as new garments to fool a whole new generation of people who have started to increasingly recognize the fraudulent fake origins of the naked fairy tales.

 

[Leumas]

Once again you misunderstand my point.

Let us suppose ... <snip an explanation that basically boils down to... let's suppose the fairy tales are facts... the facts are too incredible to be made up... so the facts I supposed about fairy tales must be true as I supposed them>

In reply to the above all I can do is repeat

This is the most imbecilic illogic you have written so far.

....

You are rationalizing what you claim to have been a rationalization!!!

Do you understand that???

Your only source of information is the NT!!!!

You have no way of knowing what is what if it were not for the NT!!!!

Now you come along and CIRCULARLY UNREASON that the NT is wrong and the writers were wrong and hypothesize YOUR OWN VERSION OF EVENTS.

YOU ARE MAKING UP THINGS about made up things!!!

You are RATIONALIZING FAIRY TALES!!!
...

Every Jew that attended the religious service in the Synagogue knew the Bible well because the reading of the Bible was an important part of it.

This is so wrong on so many levels of ignorance of so many aspects of Israel and Judaism and history and sociology and anthropology of the time around 30 CE that all I can do is

<snip... more circular reasoning based upon assuming the veracity and reality of fairy tales compounded by argument from incredulity about how fairy tales couldn't possibly be made up fairy tales>

PS: In any case, it is a subject to reflexion why some of yours become so nervous for a simple idea without any important impact. With respect, your scepticism sometimes sounds similar to religious positions. It doesn’t support any slight contradiction. This worries me.

With all respect... the above highlighted statement is the most fatuous dimwitted poppycock.

By the way... I noticed that you very conveniently managed to evade answering the questions highlighted below...

Another modern myth making stratagem is to EQUIVOCATE left right and center.

By the above utter illogic we can argue that Adam must have also been a real historical human being.

By your above EQUIVOCATION we can argue for the historicity of every and all mythological and fictive characters ever.

The Jesus that you are arguing for is a pathetic nobody of a meaningless no one who did nothing and achieved nothing and was nothing.

There were and are billions of people like that throughout the history of humanity... proving the historical existence of a NOBODY is just as useless as proving the existence of anyone of the billions of humans who lived and struggled and suffered and succumbed to the millions of things that have been snuffing out the lives of billions of people for millions of years.

Julius Caesar and the other historical characters with whom you are trying to EQUIVOCATE the pathetic nobody you are arguing for, were not nobodies and they did things that changed history and the trajectory of the human race... for the better or worse.

Unless you want to argue that Jesus did change the history of human kind then you have no right to EQUIVOCATE him with people like Julius Caesar.

Is that what you are aiming at? Is this what you are wrangling for so incessantly and indefatigably? Is this what you want to prove.... that Jesus, the mere nothing of a man, did change the course of human kind?
...

 

[dejudge]

http://www.bing.com/search?FORM=UP94DF&PC=UP94&q=euhemerism

Euhemerism --the theory that mythology has its origins in history, the gods being deified heroes of the past

No !!!!!!!

Definitions like that muddy the waters!

Definitions do NOT muddy anything.

It is the complete opposite.

Definitions give the specific meaning of words to avoid confusion and to maintain clarity.

The gods who are euhemerized (ie. anthropomorphized) remain deities in the narratives (ie. they remain deities in the stories; the myths).

And the people who first narrate those gods as humans are the 'euhemerists', not those who later try to assert that 'the gods really had been humans'.

Jesus remains God of God, the Lord from heaven, God Creator and born of a Ghost in the NT.

Euhemerists claim Jesus called God Creator from heaven was really ONLY human.

 

[maximara]

In whose writing?

If you had READ the WHOLE post you would know the answer to that question.

 

[maximara]

But you are wrong again. The myths about the Christ don’t appear from the mere claim of the existence of Jesus. Myths are caused by the believe in the deeds and sayings of the gospels. I reject the idea of an historical Jesus. I put an insurmountable barrier on this point. I don’t know how my barricade can cause any mythical idea.
PS: In any case, it is a subject to reflexion why some of yours become so nervous for a simple idea without any important impact. With respect, your scepticism sometimes sounds similar to religious positions. It doesn’t support any slight contradiction. This worries me.

As I have said and demonstrated before "historical" has a huge range going from 'Jesus originally existed as a human being' to the 'Gospels are completely historically accurate'. Remsburg rejected the idea an historical Gospel Jesus but also felt there was just enough to point to a flesh and blood man somewhere behind the stories.

The term "Christ Myth" has been used to label so many things it is surprising the term has any meaning.

At best Jesus is "historical" in the way Robin Hood and King Arthur are "historical": a vague shadowy legendary character who very existence as a single human being is in question.

 

[Mcreal]

Euhemerists claim Jesus called God Creator from heaven was really ONLY human.

Yes; though many followers of Jesus claim that Jesus was both human and a deity.

Originally Posted by Mcreal

The gods who are euhemerized (ie. anthropomorphized; given human attributes) remain deities in the narratives (ie. they remain deities in the stories; the myths).

 

[Mcreal]

At best Jesus is "historical" in the way Robin Hood and King Arthur are "historical": a vague shadowy legendary character who very existence as a single human being is in question.

or

At best, Jesus is alleged to be "historical" in the way Robin Hood and King Arthur are alleged to be "historical".​

 

[GDon]

No !!!!!!!

Definitions like that muddy the waters!

The gods who are euhemerized (ie. anthropomorphized) remain deities in the narratives (ie. they remain deities in the stories; the myths).

And the people who first narrate those gods as humans are the 'euhemerists', not those who later try to assert that 'the gods really had been humans'.

No, the gods who are euhemerized did NOT remain deities in the narratives. The whole point of "euhemerism" is the idea that the gods in the myths were just men. Not god-men, just men. Carrier has bizarrely made up his own definition in order to match it to his theory. He has received a lot of flak on this in the past, and he will continue to receive it on this topic in the future. It is really strange that he gets it wrong. I looked at some other mythicists, and they seem to get the definition right.

Here is Dr Robert M Price, in Deconstructing Jesus, page 250 (my bolding):

[Paul Veyne] describes how thinkers of Greek and Roman antiquity, including Diodorus, Cicero, Livy, Pausanias, and Strabo, approached mythic figures such as Theseus, Herakles, Odysseus, Minos, Dinoysus, Castor, and Pollux: They readily dismissed the supernatural tales of their heroes' divine paternity and miraculous feats but doggedly assumed there must have been a historical core that had been subsequently mythologized. Their task as historians was to distill the history from the myth and to place the great figures where they must have occurred on the historical time-chart... The whole approach earned the name of Euhemerism, from Euhemerus who originated it. The idea was to assume that all ancient gods were glorified ancestors or historical culture heroes. Though no mundane, "secular" information about them survived, it had to be assumed that a genuine historical figure lay at the roots of the myths.​

See how Price notes that the ancient writers "readily dismissed the supernatural tales of their heroes' divine paternity and miraculous feats". That certainly doesn't describe the Gospels as the end product of euhemerizing. And Price correctly defines Euhemerisim as gods who were "glorified ancestors". Not "glorified god-men", which is a bit of an oxymoron.

And here is David Fitzgerald, mythicist (my bolding): http://www.nazarethmyth.info/Fitzgerald2010HM.pdf

Most people have never heard of the Greek mythographer Euhemerus; and so many might be surprised to find that they are Euhemerists on the subject of Jesus. That is to say, though they may not believe Jesus was the divine Christ that Christianity venerates as the Son of God and savior of the world, and may regard accounts of the miracles and wonders attending him as mere legendary accretion; nevertheless they certainly believe there had to have been a central figure that began Christianity. Perhaps he was just a wandering teacher, or an exorcist, an apocalyptic prophet or a zealot who opposed the Romans.​

Again, Fitzgerald notes that the end product of Euhemerism is just a man, perhaps a wandering teacher. But if you take Carrier's definition, the Gospels are the end product.

Even Acharya S gets the definition right!: http://freethoughtnation.com/rabbi-did-jesus-actually-exist/

... as concerns [Rabbi] Singer’s description of mythicists, in reality there are not two camps of mythicists, one which opines Christ is a myth through and through, and one that believes there’s “some guy” at the core of the story, to whose mundane biography were added fabulous fairytales. This latter camp is, in fact, called “euhemerist” or “evemerist,” not mythicist...

Despite his protestations against other “very biased” scholars’ conclusion without any real evidence that Jesus existed, [Rabbi] Singer claims again that no one can know what really happened but it is likely that such a person did exist. Hence, the rabbi is an evemerist, but he believes in this way only because there were plenty of apocalyptic preachers in the Levant during Jesus’s alleged era.​

Think also that Second Century apologists invoked the name of Euhemerus to show that the pagan gods were only men -- see my examples below. It wouldn't make much sense to have them claim "Your celestial gods are really men who ascended to heaven as gods". No, their claims were that Euhemerus showed that the pagan gods weren't gods at all, merely men.

Here are references to Euhemerus by Second Century Christian apologists:

Theophilus of Antioch: http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/text/theophilus-book3.html

And to speak of the opinions of the most atheistical, Euhemerus, is superfluous, For having made many daring assertions concerning the gods, he at last would absolutely deny their existence...​

The idea that Euhemerism can encompass the result of proposing "deified man-gods" along the lines of a Gospel Jesus is simply not found.

Here is Minicius Felix: http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/text/octavius.html

In like manner with respect to the gods too, our ancestors believed carelessly, credulously, with untrained simplicity; While worshipping their kings religiously, desiring to look upon them when dead in outward forms, anxious to preserve their memories in statues, those things became sacred which had been taken up merely as consolations...

Read the writings of the Stoics, or the writings of wise men, you will acknowledge these facts with me. On account of the merits of their virtue or of some gift, Euhemerus asserts that they were esteemed gods; and he enumerates their birthdays, their countries, their places of sepulture...​

Finally, here is pagan philosopher Plutarch on Euhemerus: http://penelope.uchicago.edu/Thayer/E/Roman/Texts/Plutarch/Moralia/Isis_and_Osiris*/B.html

[We should not be] opening wide the great doors to the godless throng, degrading things divine to the human level, and giving a splendid licence to the deceitful utterances of Euhemerus of Messenê, who of himself drew up copies of an incredible and non-existent mythology, and spread atheism over the whole inhabited earth by obliterating the gods of our belief and converting them all alike into names of generals, admirals, and kings, who, forsooth, lived in very ancient times...​

Claiming that the gods did not exist, being an atheist with respect to the Greek gods, THAT is what Euhemerus and the euhemerists are famous for. It is not taking a celestial deity and placing it in history as a god-man. Carrier is simply wrong in how he defines Euhemerism. It isn't fatal to his theory, but it should make you wonder if he is as sloppy towards other topics in his theory.

 

[Mcreal]

Here is Dr Robert M Price, in Deconstructing Jesus, page 250 (my bolding):

[Paul Veyne] describes how thinkers of Greek and Roman antiquity, including Diodorus, Cicero, Livy, Pausanias, and Strabo, approached mythic figures such as Theseus, Herakles, Odysseus, Minos, Dinoysus, Castor, and Pollux: they readily dismissed the supernatural tales of their heroes' divine paternity and miraculous feats, but doggedly assumed there must have been a historical core that had been subsequently mythologized. Their task as historians was to distill the history from the myth and to place the great figures where they must have occurred on the historical time-chart ... The whole approach earned the name of Euhemerism, from Euhemerus who originated it. The idea was to assume that all ancient gods were glorified ancestors or historical culture heroes. Though no mundane, "secular" information about them survived, it had to be assumed that a genuine historical figure lay at the roots of the myths.​

See how Price notes that the ancient writers "readily dismissed the supernatural tales of their heroes' divine paternity and miraculous feats" ... And Price correctly defines Euhemerisim as gods who were "glorified ancestors" ...

I essentially agree with the thrust of that, though would say

Price correctly defines Euhemerisim as gods who were portrayed as "glorified ancestors"​

To paraphrase you, GDon,

... "euhemerism" is where the gods in the myths become to be portrayed as men.​

They can continued to be portrayed as deities - as god-men - from the time what were previously mythical gods are anthropomorphized ie. euhemerized.

 

[Leumas]

At best Jesus is "historical" in the way Robin Hood and King Arthur are "historical": a vague shadowy legendary character who very existence as a single human being is in question.

or

At best, Jesus is alleged to be "historical" in the way Robin Hood and King Arthur are alleged to be "historical".​

As far as I remember anything about those fairy tales, Arthur and Robin Hood were still alleged to have been normal humans at least.

Jesus was alleged to have been an ill begotten son of a ghostly 1/3 of a sky daddy.

As far as I recall, no one claimed Arthur could cure blind people with his own spittle mixed with dirt from under his feet.

I don't think anybody claimed that Robin Hood flew around temple spires with the Devil.

Not a single allegation about Robin or Arthur having risen from the dead after their deaths and then having flown on a ship made out of clouds to outer space where they came from originally on a temporary basis to have some fun with humans.

I think a more apt historical character to compare HJ with is the extraterrestrial in the movie Predator.... but in Jesus' case he did not come to Earth to hunt humans as American dentists go to other continents to hunt lions.

No... the historical alien Jesus came to Earth as a sex-tourist much like many westerners go to Thailand or Fiji or Netherlands or Philippines or Brazil.

This historical alien Jesus also would provide a very natural and scientific explanation for all the magic and spittle curing and other shenanigans .... and of course... the promise of coming back to complete his bridegroom duties... but it seems his planet outlawed interplanetary sex-tourism and he couldn't come back again... well at least legally... which also explains his clandestine appearances every now and then.

I think my historical alien sex-tourist Jesus explains the NT a lot more PERFECTLY than any other historicist hypothesis... no?

 

[Mcreal]

Finally, here is pagan philosopher Plutarch on Euhemerus: http://penelope.uchicago.edu/Thayer/E/Roman/Texts/Plutarch/Moralia/Isis_and_Osiris*/B.html

[We should not be] opening wide the great doors to the godless throng, degrading things divine to the human level, and giving a splendid licence to the deceitful utterances of Euhemerus of Messenê, who of himself drew up copies of an incredible and non-existent mythology, and spread atheism over the whole inhabited earth by obliterating the gods of our belief and converting them all alike into names of generals, admirals, and kings, who, forsooth, lived in very ancient times...​

Claiming that the gods did not exist, being an atheist with respect to the Greek gods, THAT is what Euhemerus and the euhemerists are famous for. It is not taking a celestial deity and placing it in history as a god-man ...

Yes it is taking a celestial deity and placing it in history as a man, a man-god, or a god-man.

Carrier addresses Plutarch in his recent blog-post -

It has been asked, “Didn’t Plutarch discuss the theory of Euhemerus that all such tales are the mythification of past kings into current gods,” and therefore attest that “Euhemerus thought that earthly kings were the basis for mythical gods”? Not exactly. In On Isis and Osiris Plutarch surveys several competing theories as to who Isis and Osiris were or are, and in turn he describes each one and then rejects it, until he gets around to saying he supports the demonological theory (that they were never on earth but always celestial deities who began as lower ranking sky spirits later elevated to full godhood by their deeds).

One of the theories Plutarch describes and rejects is what we call the euhemerization theory. So context is key here: he is explaining why euhemerization is not believable. His reason? Because anyone who tries to claim celestial gods were once deified historical persons is doing exactly what Euhemerus did: making a fake history out of a supernatural story. Plutarch is not saying that euhemerizers are correct. He is saying they aren’t. So insofar as he would call them euhemerizers, that would mean precisely what Plutarch is saying is wrong with people who try to spin earthly histories for sky gods: euhemerizing is always fiction.

This is ironic, of course, because Plutarch himself gullibly accepts the euhemerization of Romulus and Hercules. He never realizes that he is doing for them what he condemns in On Isis and Osiris. Because he doesn’t know they were euhemerized (and never says they were; to do so would be to condemn their stories as fake). [Plutarch] thinks they were simply deified.

http://freethoughtblogs.com/carrier/archives/8161

 

[Craig B]

If you had READ the WHOLE post you would know the answer to that question.

Then if I have missed something, please be kind enough to give me the information.

 

[Craig B]

Yes it is taking a celestial deity and placing it in history as a man, a man-god, or a god-man.

Carrier addresses Plutarch in his recent blog-post -

He addresses others too in that same post.

Lastly, in modern times (e.g. the 19th century) some scholars (e.g. religious rationalists) liked the idea so much that they voluntarily swallowed the dupery pill, celebrating euhemerizing as “discovering” the real history of skygods, when in actual fact they well knew they, too, were making it all up. Only they used “speculation is as good as fact” as their excuse, rather than winkingly just outright ********ting everyone as Euhemerus himself originally did. But even then, they were still making it up. And indeed, doing so more in the tradition of Frankfurt-style ********tery: they didn’t even care whether what they were saying was true. It just worked for them. So why not?​

Is it from Carrier that you get your style of discourse, Mcreal?

Craig B is disingenuous. Craig B likes to misrepresent others and to use his misrepresentations to besmirch.

Craig B is at least a bit of a schmuck.

 

[Craig B]

Data is good. I'm glad you're glad.


Of course such a hypothesis/proposition needs more evidence than that.

The cult of Serapis, Osiris, Isis, and Horus was highly active in Asia Minor and around the Aegean Sea in the 1st and 3rd centuries. It was growing more than Christianity. There were various dimensions to it.

Christian churches took over Serapea. eg. the Red Basilica.

No. The evidence I am looking for is not evidence that Serapism existed, or that it had temples, ir that later religions took over these temples. We know all that.

The evidence I seek is that Paul, when he refers to "Christ", is alluding to Serapis, as you suggested is possible. What, in the specific allusions Paul makes to Jesus (the "data" referenced above), gives credence to your thesis? If we now have data, we might as well use them.

 

[Craig B]

Claiming that the gods did not exist, being an atheist with respect to the Greek gods, THAT is what Euhemerus and the euhemerists are famous for. It is not taking a celestial deity and placing it in history as a god-man. Carrier is simply wrong in how he defines Euhemerism. It isn't fatal to his theory, but it should make you wonder if he is as sloppy towards other topics in his theory.

Carrier is forced by the errors in his definition of Euhemerism to sustain his arguments with some extreme nastiness. He is unable to accept even the sincerity of those with whom he disagrees, and refers to them in very insulting terms.

Lastly, in modern times (e.g. the 19th century) some scholars (e.g. religious rationalists) liked the idea so much that they voluntarily swallowed the dupery pill, celebrating euhemerizing as “discovering” the real history of skygods, when in actual fact they well knew they, too, were making it all up. Only they used “speculation is as good as fact” as their excuse, rather than winkingly just outright ********ting everyone as Euhemerus himself originally did. But even then, they were still making it up. And indeed, doing so more in the tradition of Frankfurt-style ********tery: they didn’t even care whether what they were saying was true. It just worked for them. So why not?​

 

[Craig B]

No... the historical alien Jesus came to Earth as a sex-tourist much like many westerners go to Thailand or Fiji or Netherlands or Philippines or Brazil.

This historical alien Jesus also would provide a very natural and scientific explanation for all the magic and spittle curing and other shenanigans .... and of course... the promise of coming back to complete his bridegroom duties... but it seems his planet outlawed interplanetary sex-tourism and he couldn't come back again... well at least legally... which also explains his clandestine appearances every now and then.

I think my historical alien sex-tourist Jesus explains the NT a lot more PERFECTLY than any other historicist hypothesis... no?

I can't say I agree. One of the notorious features of the NT accounts, insofar as they purport to relate events, is that reference to sexual matters is almost entirely absent. Even the Pericope of the woman taken in adultery is regarded by many or most rationalist scholars as an interpolation. Peter, we are casually informed, had a mother in law, so he must have had a wife, but we are given no information on this or any other aspect of the disciples' marital lives.

I therefore think that your sex tourism thesis contains an element of speculative extrapolation of the available information, such as it is.

 

[Leumas]

No. The evidence I am looking for is not evidence that Serapism existed, or that it had temples, ir that later religions took over these temples. We know all that.

The evidence I seek is that Paul, when he refers to "Christ", is alluding to Serapis, as you suggested is possible. What, in the specific allusions Paul makes to Jesus (the "data" referenced above), gives credence to your thesis? If we now have data, we might as well use them.

The blinding light Paul experienced was Jesus the historic extraterrestrial sex tourist... this historicist hypothesis would explain everything including the glossolalia which is nothing but Paul repeating Jesus' alien language... you know like how one learns to speak a phew phrases in the language of one's lover.

Ah... and that would explain the mysterious disease Paul claimed he was afflicted with.

 

[Leumas]

I can't say I agree. One of the notorious features of the NT accounts, insofar as they purport to relate events, is that reference to sexual matters is almost entirely absent. ...

Seriously!!! I suggest you read the stuff below.

...
I therefore think that your sex tourism thesis contains an element of speculative extrapolation of the available information, such as it is.

No extrapolation at all... my hypothesis is almost a perfect fit of all the data points described in the chronicles of Jesus the extraterrestrial sex tourist... see the post quoted below.

...
Matthew 19:10-12

• 19:10 His disciples say unto him, If the case of the man be so with his wife, it is not good to marry.
• 19:11 But he said unto them, All men cannot receive this saying, save they to whom it is given.
• 19:12 For there are some eunuchs, which were so born from their mother's womb: and there are some eunuchs, which were made eunuchs of men: and there be eunuchs, which have made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven's sake. He that is able to receive it, let him receive it.

...

NSFW - Not suitable for Christian "Atheists"

More like God had a gay bdsm exercise for you. He got tied to a cross and tortured and humiliated a bit, while knowing full well that he'll be ok on Sunday, and being in control all the time (by virtue of being an omnipotent God.)

That's neither sacrifice, nor even suicide. It's what some people actually pay a dominatrix to do to them. And if God felt more like playing with some muscular and sweaty guys in the uniforms of an oppressive empire, hey, I'm not gonna judge

NSFW - Not suitable for Christian "Atheists"

Was Jesus Gay?​

[imgw=200]http://i.guim.co.uk/static/w-620/h--/q-95/sys-images/Guardian/Pix/pictures/2011/4/4/1301910349208/jesus-christ-gay-004.jpg[/imgw]​

Consider Mark 14:51-52 it does not specifically say he was sleeping with the almost naked lad who ran away when the soldiers came to catch them in the act perhaps, although the nakedness and following him with nothing but a linen cloth around his naked body lead one to raise an eyebrow or even gape a little.

14:51 And there followed him a certain young man, having a linen cloth cast about his naked body; and the young men laid hold on him:
14:52 And he left the linen cloth, and fled from them naked.​

However in The Secret Gospel Of Mark there is a very specific passage that elaborates further on the above episode and leaves very little to the imagination.

And they came to Bethany. And there was a woman there, whose brother was dead. And she came and fell down before Jesus and said to him: Son of David, have mercy on me. But the disciples rebuked her. And in anger Jesus went away with her into the garden where the tomb was; and immediately a loud voice was heard from the tomb; and Jesus went forward and rolled away the stone from the door of the tomb. And immediately he went in where the young man was, stretched out his hand and raised him up, grasping him by the hand. But the young man looked upon him and loved him, and began to entreat him that he might remain with him. And when they had gone out from the tomb, they went into the young man’s house; for he was rich. And after six days Jesus commissioned him; and in the evening the young man came to him, clothed only in linen cloth upon his naked body. And he remained with him that night; for Jesus was teaching him the mysteries of the Kingdom of God. And from there he went away and returned to the other bank of the Jordan.​

Also don't forget this eyebrow raising scene where Jesus takes off his clothes and puts a towel around him and then instead of using another towel with which to dry the feet of the disciples, he uses the towel that he "girded himself with".

John 13:4-5 He riseth from supper, and laid aside his garments ; and took a towel, and girded himself. After that he poureth water into a basin, and began to wash the disciples’ feet, and to wipe them with the towel wherewith he was girded.​

Also ponder this COZY scene which followed immediately after the naked washing of feet orgy.... where the disciple Jesus loved very much is laying on his breasts.

John 13:22-27

Then the disciples looked one on another, doubting of whom he spake. Now there was leaning on Jesus’ bosom one of his disciples, whom Jesus loved. Simon Peter therefore beckoned to him, that he should ask who it should be of whom he spake. He then lying on Jesus’ breast saith unto him, Lord, who is it? Jesus answered, He it is, to whom I shall give a sop, when I have dipped it. And when he had dipped the sop, he gave it to Judas Iscariot, the son of Simon. And after the sop Satan entered into him. Then said Jesus unto him, That thou doest, do quickly. ​

Ok…ok… the last highlight is a bit of a joke.

However, it can be seen that this "disciple whom Jesus loved" was a “special” disciple and Jesus' love for him was noteworthy because John keeps repeating it all the time.

And with all that naked washing of feet and drying with his loincloth and reclining on his bosom one cannot ignore the possibility of something not quite hunky dory going on there.

John 20:2 Then she runneth, and cometh to Simon Peter, and to the other disciple, whom Jesus loved, and saith unto them, They have taken away the Lord out of the sepulchre, and we know not where they have laid him.

John 21:7 Therefore that disciple whom Jesus loved saith unto Peter, It is the Lord. Now when Simon Peter heard that it was the Lord, he girt his fisher’s coat unto him, (for he was naked,) and did cast himself into the sea.

John 21:20-22 Then Peter, turning about, seeth the disciple whom Jesus loved following ; which also leaned on his breast at supper, and said, Lord, which is he that betrayeth thee ? Peter seeing him saith to Jesus, Lord, and what shall this man do? Jesus saith unto him, If I will that he tarry till I come, what is that to thee ? follow thou me.
​

Yet another "interesting" episode....Why the hell would the blind guy have to get naked to have his blindness cured?

Mark 10:49-51 And Jesus stood still, and commanded him to be called. And they call the blind man, saying unto him, Be of good comfort, rise; he calleth thee. And he, casting away his garment, rose, and came to Jesus. And Jesus answered and said unto him, What wilt thou that I should do unto thee?​

Here is another "interesting" episode (John 21:2-7).

Peter is fishing NAKED with the guys. One can only speculate why the hell he was fishing naked (nudist?), but it is also obvious the other guys were not naked.

Now, notice that Peter was not shy at all about being naked in front of the guys.... nor was he perturbed when a stranger from shore was talking to them telling them where to cast their nets to catch more fish.

What is strange is that none of the disciples recognizes the stranger for who he was. Only the "disciple whom Jesus loved" managed to recognize Jesus.... why?

This "special" disciple pointed out to Peter that it was Jesus and suddenly Peter scrambles to cover himself up and then jumps into the "sea" (which by the way is the size of a small lake and is freshwater not saltwater and can never have waves large enough to threaten any but the flimsiest of dinghies, but that is another issue).

One cannot help but wonder

• Why was Peter fishing naked?
• Why was he the only one naked?
• Why was he not shy being naked in front of his friends?
• Why was he not even circumspect in front of a "stranger" looking on from shore?
• Presumably if a stranger could see them and talk to them, then others could see them too, so why wasn't Peter bashful about his nakedness in front of any passersby?
• Why didn't anyone recognize the stranger except the "special" disciple?
• Why did Peter get so coy about being naked when he realized it was Jesus?

Did Peter know something about Jesus (who was supposed to be a guy afterall) that we are not explicitly told but are supposed to implicitly infer?

John 21:1-7

21:1 After these things Jesus shewed himself again to the disciples at the sea of Tiberias; and on this wise shewed he himself.
21:2 There were together Simon Peter, and Thomas called Didymus, and Nathanael of Cana in Galilee, and the sons of Zebedee, and two other of his disciples.
21:3 Simon Peter saith unto them, I go a fishing. They say unto him, We also go with thee. They went forth, and entered into a ship immediately; and that night they caught nothing.
21:4 But when the morning was now come, Jesus stood on the shore: but the disciples knew not that it was Jesus.
21:5 Then Jesus saith unto them, Children, have ye any meat? They answered him, No.
21:6 And he said unto them, Cast the net on the right side of the ship, and ye shall find. They cast therefore, and now they were not able to draw it for the multitude of fishes.
21:7 Therefore that disciple whom Jesus loved saith unto Peter, It is the Lord. Now when Simon Peter heard that it was the Lord, he girt his fisher's coat unto him, (for he was naked,) and did cast himself into the sea.
​

I have always wondered why Judas needed to point out Jesus with a kiss, couldn't he just point at him or even touch him on the shoulder?

Maybe the Sanhedrin arrested Judas as a sodomite and they offered him a deal to out Jesus as one too. Of course they could not just take his word for it, so they needed Judas to give Jesus a good passionate wet kiss and if Jesus participated and kissed back then that would be a good proof.

Do we have any evidence for that?

From here

Both Matthew (26:47–50) and Mark (14:43–45) use the Greek verb kataphilein, which means to kiss firmly, intensely, passionately, tenderly, or warmly. It is the same verb that Plutarch uses to describe a famous kiss that Alexander the Great gave Bagoas.​

Bagoas

Bagoas (Old Persian: Bagoi, Ancient Greek: Βαγώας Bagōas) was a eunuch in the Persian Empire in the 4th Century BCE, said to have been the catamite of Darius III, and later the Eromenos (Beloved) of Alexander the Great.​

catamite

In its modern usage the term catamite refers to a boy as the passive or receiving partner in anal intercourse with a man.[1]

In its ancient usage a catamite (Latin catamitus) was a pubescent boy who was the intimate companion of a young man in ancient Greece and Rome, usually in a pederastic relationship.[2] It was usually a term of affection and literally means "Ganymede" in Latin. It was also used as a term of insult when directed toward a grown man
​