Was Jesus gay?

[DragonStryk72]

Some scholars believe he was. Not that if reflects badly upon His teachings.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisf...s-gay-probably

No. There is absolutely no way to prove it conclusively, and I get just plain sick of this crap. I'm for gay marriage, but not every famous person in history was gay, and you are dumbing down the entire side trying to prop this sort of crap up.

[DragonStryk72]

Okay, so here we go, from the article:

Those last words of Jesus would not let me escape. "When Jesus saw his mother and the disciple whom he loved standing near, he said to his mother, 'Woman behold your son!' Then he said to the disciple. 'Behold your mother!' And from that hour the disciple took her to his own home."

So then, why isn't his conviction that Mary is incestuous? Both stood with him, so what's the exact difference in the leap of "logic"?

That disciple was John whom Jesus, the gospels affirm, loved in a special way. All the other disciples had fled in fear. Three women but only one man had the courage to go with Jesus to his execution. That man clearly had a unique place in the affection of Jesus. In all classic depictions of the Last Supper, a favourite subject of Christian art, John is next to Jesus, very often his head resting on Jesus's breast. Dying, Jesus asks John to look after his mother and asks his mother to accept John as her son. John takes Mary home. John becomes unmistakably part of Jesus's family.

Okay, where to begin: Ever heard of Brotherly Love? I know, all love not for a woman has to be gay or incestuous love for your children (please note the sarcasm of that), but stick with me here. What if John was simply his best friend?

The Last Supper proves nothing, as it was painting done by Da Vinci in the Renaissance, somewhat after the events of the New Testamen, but only by 1400 years, so clearly a mistake anyone could make

Really? Jesus was so great a guy that he pawned a gay man off on his mother? Isn't ever so slightly more likely that he was trying to make sure his mom was taken care of? Why does it prove anything about Christ's sexuality?

Jesus was a Hebrew rabbi. Unusually, he was unmarried. The idea that he had a romantic relationship with Mary Magdalene is the stuff of fiction, based on no biblical evidence. The evidence, on the other hand, that he may have been what we today call gay is very strong. But even gay rights campaigners in the church have been reluctant to suggest it. A significant exception was Hugh Montefiore, bishop of Birmingham and a convert from a prominent Jewish family. He dared to suggest that possibility and was met with disdain, as though he were simply out to shock.

Uh, yes, he was unmarried, and while not a common occurrence in those days, did happen for reasons other than homosexuality. There is no biblical evidence thus far to support this assertion, and at least the Mary Magdelene line of thought was less of a leap.

After much reflection and with certainly no wish to shock, I felt I was left with no option but to suggest, for the first time in half a century of my Anglican priesthood, that Jesus may well have been homosexual. Had he been devoid of sexuality, he would not have been truly human. To believe that would be heretical.

That does not make him gay, and screw this guy for talking down to all the asexual humans out there. Yes, that's right, they exist. People who just aren't into sex, and this guy apparently says they're human. But of course Christ gave him permission to judge.... oh wait.

Heterosexual, bisexual, homosexual: Jesus could have been any of these. There can be no certainty which. The homosexual option simply seems the most likely. The intimate relationship with the beloved disciple points in that direction. It would be so interpreted in any person today. Although there is no rabbinic tradition of celibacy, Jesus could well have chosen to refrain from sexual activity, whether he was gay or not. Many Christians will wish to assume it, but I see no theological need to. The physical expression of faithful love is godly. To suggest otherwise is to buy into a kind of puritanism that has long tainted the churches.

Intimacy is completely different than you are projecting it to be. It does not necessarily mean a relationship of a sexual nature, and even less so back in those days. It is modern day that has narrow the scope of that word, and since the Bible is some 2000 years old, we're kinda gonna have to learn that they didn't speak the language, or in the same style, as we do know.

Whether he refrained or not is beside the point of there being no evidence of Christ's sexuality. Here's one: Why would God have made him gay? Let's go with this for a moment: At the time, women were stoned to death for adultery, as were homosexuals. So why, for the love of God, would He have made Jesus contrary to the overwhelming majority of humans that exist? Why do something to where, if Christ, in human form errs, he's fucking dead, with no martyrdom, no Christianity, and his teachings being struck down?

All that, I felt deeply, had to be addressed on Good Friday. I saw it as an act of penitence for the suffering and persecution of homosexual people that still persists in many parts of the church. Few readers of this column are likely to be outraged any more than the liberal congregation to whom I was preaching, yet I am only too aware how hurtful these reflections will be to most theologically conservative or simply traditional Christians. The essential question for me is: what does love demand? For my critics it is more often: what does scripture say? In this case, both point in the same direction.

No, it does not. It does not point there, unless you pervert the words of the Bible for your own purposes. You are hurting your congregation by twisting the facts of the Bible to suit your personal worldwide, and presenting it as substantiated. This aids no one, and brings negative attention.

Whether Jesus was gay or straight in no way affects who he was and what he means for the world today. Spiritually it is immaterial. What matters in this context is that there are many gay and lesbian followers of Jesus – ordained and lay – who, despite the church, remarkably and humbly remain its faithful members. Would the Christian churches in their many guises more openly accept, embrace and love them, there would be many more disciples.

If it is immaterial, then why bring it up? Why post an article on the web for the world to consume? Why try to teach it to your parishioners? You completely bury the good message at the end with all the crap that comes before it.

[gabosaurus]

Gabby, do you need him to be classified as gay for some reason or other?

Not at all. This is more of a "devil's advocate" thread than anything else.
There are multiple threads claiming multiple things about Muhammad. Truth is, none of that can be proven. Just as it can't be proven whether Jesus was gay.
So what is the purpose of the threads? Mostly a need to express hate and derision.

There is even a comedy line about the subject:
"Jesus knew he had one night left. So who does he spend it with? A dozen guys! And how do they spend it? Washing each other! Come on people, how much proof do you need?"

Not that I believe it personally. But some people do.

[Voted4Reagan]

Not at all. This is more of a "devil's advocate" thread than anything else.
There are multiple threads claiming multiple things about Muhammad. Truth is, none of that can be proven. Just as it can't be proven whether Jesus was gay.
So what is the purpose of the threads? Mostly a need to express hate and derision.

There is even a comedy line about the subject:
"Jesus knew he had one night left. So who does he spend it with? A dozen guys! And how do they spend it? Washing each other! Come on people, how much proof do you need?"

Not that I believe it personally. But some people do.

so why would you put forth and advance this "Theory" about Jesus being gay?

are you doing it to simply anger and inflame conservatives or those that are devout in their Christian Faith? if so you have proven you are nothing more than a TROLL.

Try advancing an idea that can be proven rather then the preposterous inciteful piece of crap you just tried to put forward as FACT.

All you continue to do is prove the assertions of many of us here... that Liberals hate christianity and will stoop to any level to degrade the Christian Faith.

I would guess you are against Christmas trees in school as well....right?

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

There are multiple threads claiming multiple things about Muhammad. Truth is, none of that can be proven. Just as it can't be proven whether Jesus was gay.
So what is the purpose of the threads? Mostly a need to express hate and derision.

You are crazy coming off with that kind of talk.. Many of the accusations made against Mohammad have been proven with historical /documented facts including mohammad's own recorded words! Yet you ignorantly lie and say -NONE- of that has been proven. You lie about this just like a muslim does. Quite often Mohammad is CONVICTED BY HIS OWN RECORDED WORDS, THAT IS UNLESS YOU CALL THE KORAN A BOOK OF LIES! DO YOU? -TYR

[Thunderknuckles]

I think Gabby just pulled off an epic chain yanking

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

I think Gabby just pulled off an epic chain yanking

Actually here past record of posts here prove that she is stupid enough , gullible enough and/or crazy enough to believe the crap she posts . After all, she supports and defends muslim murdering scum that deliberately murder innocent women and children! She is currently doing that on another thread here now! Maybe she does want to yank our chains also but I have no doubt that she is crazy enough to believe her own shat..-Tyr

[NightTrain]

I think Gabby just pulled off an epic chain yanking

Yup.

However, I think most of you are missing the big picture here :

Gabby got two degrees from So Cal. It's very prestigious, you know.

I think it would be a safe bet to let her do the thinking for us, from now on.

[aboutime]

Yup.

However, I think most of you are missing the big picture here :

Gabby got two degrees from So Cal. It's very prestigious, you know.

I think it would be a safe bet to let her do the thinking for us, from now on.

Degree's mean nothing anymore. Anyone, anywhere, at any time can get all the Degree's they want. Right here Online.
And for those who actually took part in college, and earned their degree's.
Still no big deal if they must mark their hands, and feet with "R" and "L". Book Educated Degree's do not mean the
recipient is Smarter than anyone else. Gabby is the best example of that falsehood.

Just look at all of the bragging celebrities who occupy Hollywood, with degree's in Entertainment. And who also think they are
smarter than average Americans who HONESTLY earned their degree's without selling their soul.

[Trigg]

Not at all. This is more of a "devil's advocate" thread than anything else.
There are multiple threads claiming multiple things about Muhammad. Truth is, none of that can be proven. Just as it can't be proven whether Jesus was gay.
So what is the purpose of the threads? Mostly a need to express hate and derision.

There is even a comedy line about the subject:
"Jesus knew he had one night left. So who does he spend it with? A dozen guys! And how do they spend it? Washing each other! Come on people, how much proof do you need?"

Not that I believe it personally. But some people do.

I was going to write and tell everyone to calm down, gabby is just trying to get a rise out of everyone.

Sure enough that was the case.

as far as the "claiming" things about muhammad. It's in black and white that he married a young girl. That is hardly in dispute.

[aboutime]

I was going to write and tell everyone to calm down, gabby is just trying to get a rise out of everyone.

Sure enough that was the case.

as far as the "claiming" things about muhammad. It's in black and white that he married a young girl. That is hardly in dispute.

Trigg. Yeah. Most all of us know Gabby is just a juvenile with a keyboard. And it's so much fun helping her prove how dumb she is, but pretends to be otherwise.

She can't help it. The tests all failed.

[revelarts]

Some scholars believe he was. Not that if reflects badly upon His teachings.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisf...s-gay-probably

no, he wasn't.

Jesus said in his own words and challenged the Jewish leaders of the day to find ANY sin in him. They would have LOVED to have shown ANY SIN in Jesus. They were constantly looking for an excuse to make Jesus look bad before the people (same as now). Homosexuality was a capitol offense, punishable by stoning. the Pharisees where trying to use things like his disciples (not even him) picking grain on the Sabbath day. And Jesus healing on the sabbath, not paying taxes and being touched by a woman of ill repute as an excuse to accuse him of sin.

The scholar's an idiot.
Is the scholar gay? i'm just speculating based on his writing youknow. it'd have no affect on his teaching i'm sure.

And then he supposedly get this idea from the the Book of John.
I'd bet $100 bucks that he/they DO NOT believe that Jesus was God in the flesh. Which the same book of John CLEARLY teaches, without daydreaming on the study to reach the conclusion. I'd bet there is a list as long as my arm of the things Jesus plainly said and did that they do not believe. But this 7/8 arse speculation they assume to be "true".

This portion of John comes to mind, Jesus speaking to the Jewish "scholars" of the time:
John 8
⁴³ Why is my language not clear to you? Because you are unable to hear what I say. ⁴⁴ You belong to your father, the devil, and you want to carry out your father’s desires. He was a murderer from the beginning, not holding to the truth, for there is no truth in him. When he lies, he speaks his native language, for he is a liar and the father of lies. ⁴⁵ Yet because I tell the truth, you do not believe me! ⁴⁶ Can any of you prove me guilty of sin? If I am telling the truth, why don’t you believe me? ⁴⁷ Whoever belongs to God hears what God says. The reason you do not hear is that you do not belong to God.” ⁴⁸ The Jews answered him, “Aren’t we right in saying that you are a Samaritan and demon-possessed?”
⁴⁹ “I am not possessed by a demon,” said Jesus, “but I honor my Father and you dishonor me.⁵⁰ I am not seeking glory for myself; but there is one who seeks it, and he is the judge. ⁵¹ Very truly I tell you, whoever obeys my word will never see death.”

⁵² At this they exclaimed, “Now we know that you are demon-possessed! Abraham died and so did the prophets, yet you say that whoever obeys your word will never taste death. ⁵³ Are you greater than our father Abraham? He died, and so did the prophets. Who do you think you are?”
⁵⁴ Jesus replied, “If I glorify myself, my glory means nothing. My Father, whom you claim as your God, is the one who glorifies me. ⁵⁵ Though you do not know him, I know him. If I said I did not, I would be a liar like you, but I do know him and obey his word. ⁵⁶ Your father Abraham rejoiced at the thought of seeing my day; he saw it and was glad.”

⁵⁷ “You are not yet fifty years old,” they said to him, “and you have seen Abraham!”
⁵⁸ “Very truly I tell you,” Jesus answered, “before Abraham was born, I am!”


the scholar is an idiot.

As far as it not affecting his teachings. well we see above one teaching it affects pretty badly. Jesus is saying that he has no sin. OH Yeah and the whole point of his coming was he was suppose to be the Sinless Sacrifice for the sins of all mankind. the one who would do what we cannot do, live a sinless life.
Being gay kinda messes that whole thing up some doesn't it? Homosexuality being a sin along with all other sex out of heterosexual wedlock.

Jesus was a sinless sacrifice to take away the sins of the world, in ...
OH it's the book of John again
chapter 1:
²⁹ The next day John (the baptist) saw Jesus coming toward him and said, “Look, the Lamb of God, who takes away the sin of the world!

The apostles say that he was without sin and was the perfect spotless sacrifice. That makes our forgiveness before God possible.
So, yes, it kinda does mess up the primary teachings of Christianity as well.

It's just wrong on every level Gab.

And frankly it a low politically motivated slur on the character of Jesus. By people that really don't care for his teachings or those that try to follow Jesus with some sincerity.

[Robert A Whit]

Some scholars believe he was. Not that if reflects badly upon His teachings.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisf...s-gay-probably

That is one of the dumbest words ever invented.

Why don't you ask if Jesus was a homosexual?

I find no evidence to support him being a homosexual.

Gay is happy. Show me a happy homosexual.

[KarlMarx]

Some scholars believe he was. Not that if reflects badly upon His teachings.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisf...s-gay-probably

Jesus said "I came to fulfill the Law (of Moses) and the Prophets"... Mosaic law forbids homosexuality....

So to answer your question.. NO

[Robert A Whit]

Degree's mean nothing anymore. Anyone, anywhere, at any time can get all the Degree's they want. Right here Online.
And for those who actually took part in college, and earned their degree's.
Still no big deal if they must mark their hands, and feet with "R" and "L". Book Educated Degree's do not mean the
recipient is Smarter than anyone else. Gabby is the best example of that falsehood.

Just look at all of the bragging celebrities who occupy Hollywood, with degree's in Entertainment. And who also think they are
smarter than average Americans who HONESTLY earned their degree's without selling their soul.

I believe that degrees do matter to employers.
As to the worth of the human being, I agree with you.

Also, I have never claimed to hold a degree so those who have accused me of trying to show up as being superior need to knock that crap off.

Gabby has tried to put me down as well. She needs a dose of human being syrup.

That is the stuff that you drink to become fully human.