>>19392961Mark was taking a bath in the river that flowed through the Garden of Gethsemane, put his clothes on when he heard the commotion of Christ being arrested, and then after arriving on the scene, was seized by the guards. They took hold of him by his cloth, which he ditched to flee arrest. Like most of the apostles, Mark tended to omit his own presence in his testimonies, describing himself as just 'a person' or 'a young man,' which is one of the reasons why there is on occasion confusion about who was present for what event. However, as Mark is the only one to comment on the young man who was seized by the guards before fleeing, everyone with two brain cells to rub together understands that logically, the young man must have been Mark himself.
Every scriptural scholar from every denomination, philosophy, and political faction throughout history, many of which hated each other enough to commit murder, agreed with this incredibly obvious and clear sequence of events. There is exactly one person, in all of history, who tried to argue that Christ was sodomizing a boy prostitute, and that was Jeremy Bentham.
>en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeremy_BenthamBorn in 1747, Bentham was a notorious atheist who promoted feminism, racial equality, divorce, and the decriminalization of sodomy. He also defended usury as an institution, and loudly advocated for the emancipation of the Jews. He never amounted to much in terms of his personal accomplishments, but he had his father's money and was willing to throw it around at all of the most radical causes of the day. Bentham was a bleeding edge liberal, ahead of his time in many ways, and proof of how far back postmodern cancer truly went.
So why did Bentham believe Christ sodomized a boy in Mark?
Well, he didn't. He just made it up. It's an argument he used against Christians in his own day to try and convince them to legalize buggery. Bentham is literally the first living example of the smuggie meme.
In conclusion: fuck off.
