What was Jesus' Sexuality?

Rats! Just when I was getting ready to put my two cents worth into Chopa's thread "Jesus was a homosexual?" it was closed. I'm not quite sure why it was closed --possibly because the responses were getting personal or the OP simply posted a link to Wikipedia. So on that theory, I'd like to raise a similar topic: "What was Jesus' sexuality?'

It's hard enough to prove that Jesus existed (I believe He did), let alone come to definite conclusions about His sexuality. If we believe Sam Brown and The DaVinci Code (which I don't) He was not only hetero but married and a father. The Gnostic Gospel of Philip says that Mary Magdalene was the disciple he loved most and that he often kissed her on the (manuscript gap). The Gospel of Thomas, which also didn't make the canon, suggests that Jesus favors unisex. Peter asks Jesus to send Mary away because women are unworthy. Jesus replies:“…every woman that becomes male will enter the kingdom of heaven.” He also suggests that the opposite is also true: “When you make the two one, and when you make the inmost as the outermost and the outer as the inner and the above as the below, and when you make the male and female into a single unity, so that the male will not be only male and the female will not be only female…then surely you will enter the kingdom.” On the other hand, there is the "Secret Mark" (also non-canonical), that suggests a possible homosexual thing between Jesus and the risen Lazarus. And some have construed John's claim to be the disciple "whom Jesus loved most" to suggest that something similar might have been involved there--at least on John's part. But all of this is speculative. We can say that the manuscripts are a kind of Rorschach onto which we can project our own needs and interests.

 

no strait guy wears a robe

that's all i'm saying.

 

I found that thread that was closed , and this one , nothing more than stirring up a pot of crap . It's wrong , it's ignorant and lacks respect for peoples beliefs . Perhaps if it was posted in another category that's one thing . To post it in this one is disrespectful , offensive , wrong and I believe malice and hate was its intent . People have a right to believe what they want . We need more respect for others in this world , and that includes Christians . Would you say the same nonsense about Moses in A Jewish forum ? Or Muhammad in An Islamic forum ? Of course not , yet it's okay to disrespect people who believe in Jesus right ?

To me it's like coming to another persons house and taking a big shit on their living room floor . It's disrespectful , and wrong !

 

Why does it matter so much to people ??

 

I try to be objective, but...yeah. What you said. Where did the idea even come from?

 

LEAVE JESUS ALONE HE IS A HUMANN

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kHmvkRoEowc"]LEAVE BRITNEY ALONE! - YouTube

 

There are no marriages in heaven. Sex is for biological procreation. There is a oneness of spirit that can be had between individuals that exceeds in joy, in my estimation any sexual oriented activity, that is not dependent on touch or biological differences. You could call it, making love all day.

The male, female references, I think, involve creative principle and polarity. How to flesh this out so to speak. The man looks at a woman and instead of regarding her as a sexual object, he regards her with his feminine nature, that is nurturing, comforting. The woman looks at him not as a sexual object but with her male sense of provident responsibility. I know this probably sounds kinda dull and unintuitive but;

I don't think jesus talked much about sex because from the position of communion, it is irrelevant. The persistent joy of that state does not call upon desire.

Nice call okiefreak

 

As the OP, I find your reaction interesting. "It's wrong, it's ignorant and lacks respect for people's beliefs." What is the disrespect? To suggest that Jesus might have been a sexual being? Most humans are. I hope you realize that my main point is that we don't know Jesus' sexuality, and that to speculate about it reveals more about us than about Jesus. I posted this in response to the previous closed post that Jesus might have been gay--a suggestion often made, but with little support. So what exactly is your problem with it? As for the alleged malice and hate, none was intended. I'm a Christian and did not intend malice and hatred toward my Lord, Savior and role model. People raised the issue, so I think it's appropriate to deal with it as objectively as possible. What's the problem? If political correcthink gets this shut down, I think the pretensions to free and open discussion are pathetic.

 

you guys got it all wrong. Jesus didnt want believers.

he wanted beehiver..

See he would take his penis and stick it in a beehive and heal himself.. Then he tried to get other people to do it with him.. the nonbeehivers wouldnt do it.
But Jesus got 12 his friends to beehivers..
Isaiah 7:15
He will eat curds and honey when he knows enough to reject the wrong and choose the right.

 

Last time we had a thread like this certian points where raiesd, as they have been here, that he may not have existed, may have been a crazy person, may have been more earthly than made to appear - in a relationship with Mary, possibly kids

But why are these ideas met with less objections than if he was gay?

That is, The real question is not why is it offensive but why is it so offensive? The ideas that he wasnt even real, made up, some crazy person or very hypocritical are met with less reaction. But dare to suggest he was gay and the shit hits the fan.

Even though the signs are there, an empathetic, possibly unmarried at a time when everyone was married young, sensitive male with a comforting disposition. Doesnt mean he was, but does suggest the possibility.

The message itself, Do unto others a lot more considered, nurturing, feminine than the more confrontational, more macho, an eye for an eye

Why is it such a big deal, why does the main opposition to homosexuality come from established organized religions. Whats the REAL reason? Whats faith got to do with sex, the two subjects shouldnt have anything to do with each other

 

OkieFreak -

Perhaps if you refer to the actual scripture from The Bible, therein will lie your answer. To look for true understanding of what and who Jesus was during his time on Earth, it can only be found in the actual scripture in The Bible. From my understanding, you will not find the truth in books like those you have mentioned; only will you find the truth through studying The Bible. What do you mean when you say "didn't make the canon", or "non-canonical"? I have just recently started studying The Bible from a scientific perspective, and the book makes sense when you view it from a scientific perspective.

 

He was probably too busy to start any relationship. Jesus himself felt he had no place to rest his head because the state of the world was something other than what he was used to. Since his life was priestly, I would say he was probably born a eunuch or what we now call asexual.

Also, since Jesus was a human I don't see why he couldn't have a best friend or a favorite. He did after all live a human life. David is said to have a very close friend and many assume it was sexual but I think that's a cynical view on friendship to say that no close friends can exist without it being sexual.

 

He obviously didn't have a sexuality, because sex is a sin. Come on guys

 

_____________________________________________________________

I've already stated " my problem" with it . If you really have to ask this absurd question , then nothing I say will help you understand this .

If you're a " christian " as you've stated and believe that Jesus Christ is your " lord and savior " , then how can you speak such blasphemies against his name ? Surly you see this conflict ? If you're " Christian " then you know the bible is God's word , and that Christ's life was a open book . And the new testament with Jesus own words and teachings , are in direct conflict with the nonsense , garbage and unsubstantiated blasphemies that you and the o.p. of the first closed thread are throwing out there .

As A " christian " then you believe that Christ died for your sins . You believe that his blood washed you clean . Jesus was the sacrificial lamb , he was more than flesh . He was God on earth . He knew his role on this earth , as he stated it to the disciples many times , that the son of man would be put to death . He knew he was here to die .

And if you as a " christian " believe that his blood washed you clean , then how could you suggest that his blood was tainted , corrupt , dirty and unclean ? To suggest that he was married to Mary , or had a homosexual relationship with Lazarus is complete and utter nonsense . If you read your bible then this becomes clear and evident .

He was the sacrificial lamb , sent to die for a corrupt world . (John 3:16) The only salvation and hope man had , and he knew his time was short. His blood had to remain pure and uncontaminated . He had to be above temptation in the material world . He did this by not only being man in flesh , but God in spirit . This is the very essence of what Christianity is based on .

 

The average Christian is a straight maleor female, and homosexuality repulses most straight males, and has been the target of Christian belief for thousands of years. You can read in the Bible about Sodom and Gomorha being destroyed because of homosexuality, and also Romans chapter one says that homosexuality is a result of rebellion against God. Christians believe Jesus was without sin, and most of them believe homosexuality is a sin 10 times as bad as murder. So telling a bunch of Christians Jesus was a homosexual kind of is like coming home and finding a dog turd on your living room floor. Although it could be an interesting debate, it is likely to end in a bunch of jerks flaming each other.

It's interesting that the Bible says homosexuality is sin, because in another spot it says all people are sinners. So if a gay person is a sinner, and I am also a sinner in some other form, then I can't possibly consider myself to be better than the gay person. Jesus probably hung out with gay people regularly, he never hung out with the popular crowd. But I don't believe He was gay, because he was without sin.

One of the things I found offensive in the other post is the way the title was worded, "Jesus was a homosexual?" with just a wikipedia link. If it were titled "Was Jesus a homosexual?" witha link and some discussion it would have invited a more civil debate. It appeared to be made to invite flaming.

 

Faith shouldn't have anything to do with sex, and I certainly agree that speculation about Jesus' sexuality is misplaced, since (a) it's impossible to go beyond mere speculation about the matter; and (b) speculation about the matter raises questions about why anyone would want to do that. Early on, when I started posting on Hip Forums and mentioned I was Christian, I got posts: "Jesus was gay". I gather that was supposed to put me in my place somehow, but it didn't, because I knew that people making the assertion were just blowing wind out their asses. Was the Buddha gay? He was supposed to have been compassionate too, and seems to have hung out mostly with guys. One interesting thing about Jesus is that his movement attracted women. There are a number of non-canonical sources, especially the Gospels of Philip and Mary, indicating that women like Mary Magdalene and Salome played important roles among the disciples at a time and place where the status of women was comparable to what it is in Saudi Arabia today. Who, after all, were the first to find that Jesus was not in the tomb? Who did He make His first appearance to. One reason the disciples were sent out two by two to do their preaching is probably that it was scandalous for women to be out and about without a male escort.

One thing that is notable about Jesus' teachings on homosexuality is their total absence. Paul had a lot to say on the subject, but Jesus said absolutely nothing. Many of Jesus' teachings are compassionate, and as you say "nurturing". Does that make Him suspect? In our culture, probably yes, but that's one of the reason's our culture is so fucked up. The notion that feminine male=gay, masculine male+hetero is a stereotype that's out of touch with reality.

Why is it such a big deal, you ask, and why does the main opposition to homosexuality come from established religions? Because they are Bible thumpers, and the Old Testament and the New Testament contain passages that seem to condemn certain forms of homosexuality. I've argued elsewhere that most of these seeming condemnations appear to be associated with shrine or temple prostitution, pederasty, and lust in some form, in the context of a culture in which sex was associated with domination by people of unequal status. The idea of a loving relationship between same-sex persons of equal status is not directly addressed in the Bible, except possibly in the approving passages about David and Jonathan. But such distinctions go over the heads of semi-literate preachers and their flocks.

 

Perhaps if I refer to the actual Scripture I'll find the version of Jesus approved by the clerics who gave us the Canon. Do you not understand the concept of the Christian Canon. These are the manuscripts selected by church councils from a wide variety of "gospels" and writings claiming to be by apostles and eyewitnesses to the life of Jesus. What you refer to as the "actual scripture from the Bible" is what church fathers chose to accept as inspired. I don't expect to find answers to Jesus' sexuality in either the Canon or the non-canonical writings. I seriously doubt that The Bible makes sense from a scientific perspective unless you really stretch the hell out of The Bible or science.

 

It's a free country. You can take a fundamentalist view if you like. Many do. I think you're wrong, that your views do much harm in the world, cause the true message of Jesus to get lost, and help to discredit Christian belief by portraying it as an intolerant body of unquestionable dogma. To me that is true blasphemy. Your statements indicate to me that you are semi-literate, since if you could read well you'd know that I didn't "suggest" anything, except that any consideration of Jesus' sexuality is purely specualtive. Read you Bible again, and open your heart and mind.

 

Idk if Jesus is gay, but have you ever heard the theory that homosexuality is basically do to institutions like the Christian Church repressing peoples sexuality, and trying to turn people into celibate monks.

Our sexual energy was suppressed by the priests, men and women were separated into monks and nuns. Celibacy seemed oh so holy, so of course that makes sex look like sin.

Men and women repressed their sexual urges for each other, and sooner or later that energy started moving in the other direction. If you can't make love to women, then your going to start making love to men, and vice versa.

Just like the whole thing with the Catholic Priest. If you you can't stick your hoho-dilly in a women's chacha, then your just gonna end up sticking it in a little boy.. =O

 

The only blaspheme is of the holy spirit. You can't blaspheme the name of jesus. If we had not first crucified those who's sexual preferences is different from our own, we would not now be casting lots for the garments of their lives.

As a disciple of christ I believe no such thing. He said his words were not his own but those of the father. He claim to be like his father, not in fact the father. Jesus was subject to the same forces that the rest of gods kingdom is. Jesus was not a sacrificial lamb, but the lamb of god, the symbol of innocence. The symbol of the crucifixion is the symbol of accusation, jesus was hung on the cross to bear unspeakable suffering on the strength, not of his deeds, but common accusation. The message of the resurrection is that it is not true, god's son cannot be convicted by false accusation, but we certainly do suffer for it.

I don't think he did, those are your words, about tainted, corrupt, dirty and unclean blood. Another name for satan is the accuser.

The very essence of christ teaching is love, that we love god and one another, not that we believe that he was special.