Let's quote historians !

Christians fall into a serious Dilemma !! (Take it or leave it)

Christians often love quoting Islamic historians, whom many Muslim Academic Scholars don't give as much credits as Christians do... Example Christians love quoting Ibn Ishaq or at-tabari etc..whom do at an extend carry academic work and information however also  many of their works is not Authentic. Note  from a historical & Academic point on much of there  literature information has been taken from unknown sources such a jews ( bani Israel ) or other sources extremely unreliable.

NOTE THEY WERE HISTORIANS !!!!! Throughout time Many historians have written many biographies or reports this doesn't mean we have to accept everything?? This is where scholars differentiate what is true and what is false... Yet Christians insist that all said by Ibn Ishaq or at-tabari is authentic and true... !

Let's play the same game on Christians since They like quoting historians and they accept everything what they says, let's do the same and find what OTHER GOSPELS WHICH THEY CALL APOCRYPHA SAYS.., knowing these  hypocrites two faced animals will go back on there words and say we don't accept what those books say, well we can say the same about the historians you show us right? Let's focus on a gospel called the  Secret gospel of Mark !!

---------------------

Was Jesus whom Christians pray to and take for being there saviour, a homosexual? Early written works say YES

Secret gospel of Mark (as I shall call it) is one of several apocryphal gospels that circulated in the early centuries of the Christian era. These alternative accounts of Jesus’ life range from a few verses to entire books. Some, such as the Gospel of Thomas and the Gospel of Mary Magdelene, have received much attention, but most are obscure and known only by New Testament scholars. Secret Mark is unique among these in that it claims to be an expanded version of the canonical gospel of Mark, not an independent gospel. It contains two passages, otherwise unrecorded in the gospel accounts—the first fitting between Mark 10:34 and 10:35 and the second in the middle of Mark 10:46. Fragment 1 reads:

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.

-------------------------------------

Thus from the above this explains to us about the naked young man, could he be the same man found in the current revised gospel of mark.. 

A young man, wearing nothing but a linen garment, was following Jesus. When they seized him,he fled naked, leaving his garment behind.

(Mark 14:51-52)

scholars move on in search of passages favoring Jesus’ homosexuality, the “signals” that McCleary mentioned. Unfortunately for them, biblical references to support their political thesis are few and circumstantial. Most are vague and focus on men whom Jesus “loved,” such as Lazarus (John 11:36), the Rich Young Ruler (Mark 10:21), John (John 21:20), and the “beloved disciple” (John 20:2). Love in these contexts is interpreted as homoerotic love. Further evidence is supposedly found in Jesus’ healing of the centurion’s servant in Luke 7:1-10. Because the text says the servant was “dear to him,” it is alleged that centurion and his servant were gay lovers. That Jesus healed him is presented as proof that He condoned their homosexual relationship (cf. Horner, 1978; Jennings, 2003).

These arguments are supplemented by the censorship hypothesis to which Tatchell alluded: “Large chunks of Jesus’s life are missing from the Biblical accounts. This has fuelled speculation that the early Church sanitised the gospels, removing references to Christ’s sexuality that were not in accord with the heterosexual morality that it wanted to promote” (“Was Jesus Gay? Missing…,” 1998). Some scholars believe that the original gospel accounts of Jesus’ life contained homosexual references not found in the canonical gospels that we possess.

----------------------

So now that we have quoted ancient early apocrypha gospels where Jesus is classed as a homosexual would any Christians accept that as authentic?? If not why do you expect us to accept anything u show us from HISTORIANS??

That's double standards....

SHAME SHAME