What was Jesus' Sexuality?

I would hope that you understood that my comments are not a matter of definition at large, but the sum effect in practice of the terms discussed, as they relate to salvation as christians. Why make the point that other blasphemes may be forgiven, but not blaspheme against the holy spirit, unless there was something about the qualities of each that are different. In a world of condition, it takes two. People may take offense at remarks directed against the gods or conditions they have affection for, but the gods do not.

 

Amen! I think the recent exchange confirms that. I thank God every night that I'll be judged by Him rather than by my fellow "Christians".

 

I think you're probably right.

 

Thank you, brother. I apologize likewise, for misjudging you. This is Christianity at it's best at work, and is far more important than the topic we've been debating. I can be quite an asshole when I put my mind to it.

For non-Christians who are following the discussion, note the abrupt change in tone from nasty to forgiving. Why did this happen? I'd give credit where credit is due: to Jesus and the Holy Spirit. Without Jesus' teachings that we should love our enemies and be forgiven our trespasses as we forgive those who trespass against us", would the conflict have come to such an amicable resolution? I doubt it. Without the Holy Spirit, would we have seen the light. Again I doubt it. I'm constantly amazed at the workings of the Spirit in healing wounds and bringing people together. It blows my mind and takes my breath away.

 

Okay. Explain 1 Cor 6:2 and 3.

 

Do those passages impress you as relevant? Paul was addressing divisions in the Church at Corinth. These particular passages address lawsuits that apparently members of that church were bringing against each other, instead of resolving the matters in house. I don't think he is suggesting that "saints" rather than God will have the last word on our sins and forgiveness--at least I hope not. Besides, are we to regard all of our fellow Christians today as "saints"?

 

interesting question, so i always thought.
it does seem to get a lot of people upset, though.
really, what does it matter.
jesus is unknown to us from age 12 until he was 30. maybe he had a life.
as a pagan, i don't believe in the divinity of jesus, but i think he was a groovy guy.
too bad his message of love got all fucked up by paul.....but that's another story...paul had issues.
as to whom yeshua ben joseph slept with, or didn't, i don't give a rat's ass.
why should anyone?

 

I can't see any kind of higher meaning for saints than the oftsaid "set aside ones," or yeah, christians; saints, chosen, holy, 'agia, whatever. No worse than the ones back then I guess.

That particular incident may have been limited to Corinth, but that doesn't limit what paul said. I don't doubt God will be the judge but He has always used men to do his work, no?

 

Bikerdude, interesting, your thing between jesus and paul. Care to expand that thought?

 

jesus was a really cool guy.
he devoted the last three years o his life spreading a message of love and forgiveness.
paul took that message and built a political organization, a church on it.
the irony is that by prostituting jesus' message of love into a religion, paul created the most evil and murderous, misogynistic, racist and homophobic institution in human history.
poor jesus...first he got scred by the romans, and then by paul.

 

Obviously you have not studied Paul's work. Paul continued the work of Jesus pretty much exactly as Jesus instructed him to. It is the people who twist the Bible into their own purposes, which has been going on for about 4000 years, that cause the problems. If we actually practiced what Paul wrote in his work, we would not have any of the problems you list.

I am thinking about looking up the word scred, but I don't believe there is such a word. It sounds like the slang that a teenager would use. A teenager would not have had the time yet to properly read and understand the Bible.

 

theres probably noting written about him from those ages cos he was probably to hard ta keep track of ,cos jesus was a gypsy.so he was probably on the move all the time.an ya! he was one cool dude. jesus rocked!

 

i have read paul extensively.
he was a misogynistic homophobe.
jesus never said anything about women being quiet in church, and he never condemned queers...paul did both.
and dude...jesus could not have instructed paul about anything. jesus was dead.
paul was a great politician..he was even able to con people to believe that he met a dead man on the road to damascus...a dead man that 'saul of tarsus had never met.

and...the bible is a collection less than 2000 years old, not 4000.

 

Since I'm not a fundamentalist nor a fan of Paul, I tend to limit passages like this to their immediate context.

 

Ah, I see. You and I will never agree on this one. Jesus rose from the dead and is alive and well today, and I speak to Him every day. Sometimes He talks back to me.

The writings of Moses, the first 5 books of the modern Bible which include the Jewish law, are roughly 4000 years old. The Jewish leaders have been twisting them for their own selfish gain for almost that length of time.

 

Actually, I'm not sure Paul said anything about women being quiet in church either ( http://godswordtowomen.org/Preato2.htm), and I think his alleged "homophobia" may have been limited to cultural context. Passages usually cited to support his alleged homophobia are 1 Corinthians 6:9, 1 Timothy 1:10, and 1 Romans: 27-8. Corinthians, which is mainly about divisiveness in the church at Corinth leading to lawsuits, contains a laundry list of activities, including malakoi and arsenokoitai. The meaning of those terms is still debated among Bible scholars. Malakoi means soft, as in "what did you go into the desert to seek? A man clothed in soft raiments?" If malakoi means "gay" we might translate this as "a man in drag". John Wesley translated it as morally weak. Xenophon, in praising Socrates for not being one, seemed to mean he was a stand up guy. Arsenkoitai, a word apparently coined by Paul, literally means "man bedder", which would seem to refer to homosexuality. It might be that the two terms, taken together, refer to homosexuals who are "top" and those who are "bottom". But we don't know for sure. Timothy repeats the use of those terms, in the context of another list of immoral practices. But many scholars believe Timothy is pseudographic, and it raises the same issues as Corinthians. Romans seems to be a a clearer attack on practices which are homosexual, both male and female. The main question is whether, in cultural context, it condemns all practices which we consider homosexual today, or addresses lustful or promiscuous relationships, especially in the context of temple prostitution. After all, the epistle is primarily concerned with adultery, and the cult of Attis and Cybele was quite the rage in Rome at the time. But of course homosexual (and heterosexual) lust and promiscuous sex are not exactly absent from our own society.

 

While I find nothing offensive about question posed, I think it doesn't account for an important fact. Sexuality is a reproductive strategy, not a state of being.

 

Not for Jesus CHrist sexuality was an irrefutable state of mind. I wish I was 33 again.

 

Here is another issue where antiquated terms give sinister impressions. We do not have lustful relationships. We have a relationship with our parasympathetic and sympathetic autonomous nervous systems. "lust" itself is a nervous response to stimuli, not an evil plague. It's desire is for us but we must learn to master it. Things become perverse when they are not applied to their proper function. Sex for the sake of sex, is a substitution attempted, for love, the satisfaction of desire, to ease pressure.

Our function is creation, procreation is a shadow of that function.

 

I'm beginning to understand why my original post provoked such controversy. If there are others who use the words "sexuality" and "lust" as you do, we're speaking a different language. When I use the term "sexuality", I'm referring to "1 the sum of the physical, functional, and psychological attributes that are expressed by one's gender identity and sexual behavior, whether or not related to the sex organs or to procreation.
2 the genital characteristics that distinguish male from female.

Mosby's Medical Dictionary, 8th edition. © 2009, Elsevier."

By that definition, there is nothing controversial or blasphemous about saying Jesus had sexuality. My understanding is the reverse of yours. Sexuality is a state of being, close to or synonymous with sexual orientation--not a strategy. Strategy implies planning. A person may be sexually attracted to somebody by virtue of their innate sexual orientation, but "strategy" implies a conscious decision to have sex or want to have sex with somebody. "Lust", as I understand the term, goes farther:
"uncontrolled or illicit sexual desire or appetite; lecherousness." I think it can be, and should be, controlled. Saint Paul's descriptions in Romans 1 could hardly be improved upon: "burn with passion for each other". I think lust is a form of idolatry, so it would make sense for Paul to talk about it in a letter on that subject.