I read an interesting article suggesting that Jesus might've been gay. If you google it, there are serious academic books about the subject. Homoeroticism and same sex love has existed in many cultures on all continents throughout history, often where the concept of homosexuality itself did not exist - it was frequently an accepted part of male behaviour. If you read up on the subject, there are quite a few mentions of the discovery in 1958 of an excised part of St Mark's gospel: "And the youth, looking upon him [Jesus], loved him and beseeched that he might remain with him. And going out of the tomb, they went into the house of the youth, for he was rich. And after six days, Jesus instructed him and, at evening, the youth came to him wearing a linen cloth over his naked body. And he remained with him that night, for Jesus taught him the mystery of the Kingdom of God". http://www.petertatchell.net/religion/jesus.htm It's far from clear, admittedly, but there's a suggestion of homoeroticism in the language of this quote - the sensuously described linen cloth worn over an emphatically naked body, the two remaining overnight. The beseeching, the intimacy, the talk of love: the two clearly enjoy each other's company. Or were Jesus and Mary Magdalene lovers? If so, why is this not mentioned in the Bible? Jesus certainly liked the company of men. I'm not suggesting gay orgies with the disciples (though historically this cannot be ruled out), but homoeroticism may well have played a part in Jesus' relationship with his disciples. It's unrealistic to imagine these men, spending so much time in each other's company, would not have had sexual desires and urges. Jesus as we know was a gentle, sensitive man, rebelling against the authority of a domineering father - and with the long hair and sandals, he was, let's face it, slightly effete. Here's an analysis from another article which puts the case quite well: "Jesus reversed traditional behavior. He did things that are termed passive or womanly, dishonorable in male society. He washed his apostles' feet. He preached, 'Blessed are the meek.' Jesus urged men to give up power. He presented a radical model of being a man." http://www.salon.com/feature/1998/04/cov_10feature.html The lack of any explicit information about Jesus' sexuality and personal relationships means this question will likely never be answered. But, it does seem quite possible that homosexuality may have played a part in the life of Christ. So, I'm trying to encourage a serious and grown up debate about whether Jesus might've been a fudge shunter.
the article failed to mention the details of the manuscript; how old is it supposed to be? Unless it was among the very earliest manuscripts (which is doubtful otherwise it would be more well known) it wouldnt be an acceptable representitive of the original. The gospels have been copied and translated more than any other work ever. If this manuscript was written after the second century (which it almost certainly would have had to been, otherwise it would be among the most famous) you have to remember that by that time ther were countless copies distributed over a wide area. which means that unless this copy is unique, it's almost certain that passage would have turned up in other contemporary copies.
First, it's true that one can't rule it out. If one is like me and see's Jesus as a spiritual seeker who found what he was looking for, it might be said he chose that path because he was gay, as it might have been an acceptable way to not get married as would be expected of a Jewish man. That's just an idea though. I'd doubt that Jesus was having orgies with his disciples, given that though in many cultures homosexuality (or homosexual acts, anyways) was more widespread (most notably the Greek, and it was tolerated in Rome), the Jews did not see it that way. In fact, I'd guess that they'd be more against it what with the Roman conquers being in town. If they allowed it, then the natural stance for those in a hostilly occupied country would be to reject it. Plus, there's the whole Soddom and Ghemorrah thing, and other scriptural references. On the other hand, maybe Jesus just was far more interested in God than with women. There IS more to life than sex, you know, especially for a mystic. As far as him acting effeminate, well, he may simply have just been trying to break down borders between people. By the way, the long hair and sandals remark was stupid. Everyone wore sandals (or no shoes at all) back then, and Jesus likely had short hair, despite the common rendering of him in art. I recall hearing that Jewish men of the time did not have long hair. And hey, what's this about him rebelling against a domineering father? You mean God, or Joseph? All in all this is the most pointless line of inquiry I've seen with regards to Christianity, or any religion. Who cares, right?
technically, it is only an abomination to "lie with another man" Jesus never said anythign about sexual orientation anyways...that was all OT and Paul [if im not mistaken, might have been another letter]
The Bible says that it is a sin for a man to lay with another man as with woman. It also says that a man and a woman should only have intercourse in the missionary position. So as long as two men don't have intercourse in the missionary position, they're not lying together as a man would with a woman, and they should be fine. Plus I seem to recall something later in the Bible about Jesus saying that Levitical law no longer applies.
i tried my darndest on google, but the best i could come up with is "Love your neighbour as you love yourself"....but then you can also use the whole "how come the rest of Levictial Law isnt enforced/adhered to?" way as well...
i think another reason this post isnt getting the response as expected is cause the peole here know what to expect when entering a thread like this, and thats unessecary flaming for only stating their, often well known, point of view... i do think this thread has raised some good questions, and its nice to see its civil, but i think many of the people here are sick of it IMHO
Yeah, but even if you look at it that way it doesn't explain why the religiuos establishment of the time didn't make an issue out of it.
Well that's probably one of the most logical conclusions I've read in a long time. Gay sex in the missionary position is a bore anyway. Why risk boredom AND purgatory at the same time?
mainly its Paul i think, Jesus never stressed anytghin out of Levi, infact he said "let he who is without sin cast the first stone" and later in Romans [i know its paul so im contradictiong myself] paul claims [indirectly] that Jesus cleansed the food, yet Paul still stresses the "abomination of homosexuality"..... i just plain dont follow Paul
Jesus was a twin, and his twin brother was libertine homosexual. They were the bastard sons of Tiberius Julius Abdes Panthera, a Roman archer who was transferred to the rhineland in 9AD. In other words, Mary (miriamne) had twins from an adulterous relationship with a Roman soldier. JC was Yesu'a ben Panthera, and his brother was Judas, later known as Judas Khrestus. Judas ben Panthera/Khrestus was documented as taking young boys/men into his lodgings overnight to teach them the way of God. He was also a beligerent alcoholic. Because they were twins, stories of the two were confused by the centuries later "church fathers" who were renowned intellectual flea-brains who neglected to check chronolgy, parentage, and authenticity, the same as it is today.
