Was Jesus Gay? And Other Offbeat Theories About Him

rjmrjmrjm

Gone But Not Forgotten
(ACCOUNT RETIRED)
Joined
Feb 25, 2004
Messages
1,377
Reaction score
24
Points
54
Rrose Selavy said:
Christianity and the Roman Catholic Church - who produce Popes - are of course two different things.

Any resemblance between the two is purely coincidential.
Exactly WHAT I SAID!


rjm said:
I'm sorry but can we be more specific when we attack religious bodies. I assume you mean the Roman Catholic Church, other denominations have different views of homosexuality and it would not do to tar everyone with the same brush.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
rjm, so really in terms of the true meaning of Christianity, is it fair to say that it isn't really a big deal if JC was gay?
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Dr Poo said:
rjm, so really in terms of the true meaning of Christianity, is it fair to say that it isn't really a big deal if JC was gay?
Would he not have been above and beyond mere sexuality? A bit like Michael Jackson........
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Entia non multi said:
The Virgin Queen said:
there was a female pope you know...
IIRC she gave birth mid way through a service...
the versoin of the myth I heard was that it was during a papal presesion. Neither are true :)
 

lopaka

Gone But Not Forgotten
(ACCOUNT RETIRED)
Joined
Sep 17, 2001
Messages
2,017
Reaction score
49
Points
79
Conners said:
Would he not have been above and beyond mere sexuality? A bit like Michael Jackson........
Wow. From the Messiah to the Bishop of Rome to Wacko Jacko...

Magdelene Is Not My Lover
She's Just A Girl Who Claims That I Am The One
But The Kid Is Not My Son
She Says I Am The One, But The Kid Is Not My Son


:D
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
lopaka said:
Conners said:
Would he not have been above and beyond mere sexuality? A bit like Michael Jackson........
Wow. From the Messiah to the Bishop of Rome to Wacko Jacko...

Magdelene Is Not My Lover
She's Just A Girl Who Claims That I Am The One
But The Kid Is Not My Son
She Says I Am The One, But The Kid Is Not My Son


:D
*does the moonwalk*

*falls over*
 

rjmrjmrjm

Gone But Not Forgotten
(ACCOUNT RETIRED)
Joined
Feb 25, 2004
Messages
1,377
Reaction score
24
Points
54
Dr Poo said:
rjm, so really in terms of the true meaning of Christianity, is it fair to say that it isn't really a big deal if JC was gay?
I believe this to be true personally, although the major-orginisations would probably dispute this.

Indeed, Jesus being gay would not affect my religious belief at all. It would however further deteriorate my belief that orginised religion is willing to accept truths and appologise and change for the better.
 

Pshaw13

Gone But Not Forgotten
(ACCOUNT RETIRED)
Joined
May 11, 2004
Messages
109
Reaction score
6
Points
34
Rubbish

Jesus was a Jew and the Jews at that time believed that a man lying with a man was an abomination. Jesus preached against sexual immorality and the Jewish idea of sexual immorality included homosexuality.

That we can read sexual intent into scripture shows how unnaturally obsessed with sex we have become.
 

rjmrjmrjm

Gone But Not Forgotten
(ACCOUNT RETIRED)
Joined
Feb 25, 2004
Messages
1,377
Reaction score
24
Points
54
Unnaturally obsessed by sex. Nature, basically is sex.

I can't see what you mean.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
It was also normal for a jewish man to be married by the time he was thirty in those times I believe.
 

chockfullahate

Gone But Not Forgotten
(ACCOUNT RETIRED)
Joined
Oct 29, 2001
Messages
418
Reaction score
8
Points
49
and who is to say he wasn't? (married that is)
 

austen27

Gone But Not Forgotten
(ACCOUNT RETIRED)
Joined
Nov 9, 2001
Messages
1,187
Reaction score
11
Points
69
Re: Rubbish

Pshaw said:
Jesus was a Jew and the Jews at that time believed that a man lying with a man was an abomination. Jesus preached against sexual immorality and the Jewish idea of sexual immorality included homosexuality.

That we can read sexual intent into scripture shows how unnaturally obsessed with sex we have become.
As I understand it in the ancient world the idea of homosexuality as such didn't exist (as some one else has said the word "homosexual" is a 19th century German medical term) - what mattered much more was who did what to whom. With out going into too much detail, taking was considered much worse than giving. What you did defined you more than who you did it too.

The Methodists are fairly enlightened on sexual matters - the Anglaicans still haven't made their minds up.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Re: Rubbish

Pshaw said:
Jesus was a Jew and the Jews at that time believed that a man lying with a man was an abomination. Jesus preached against sexual immorality and the Jewish idea of sexual immorality included homosexuality.

That we can read sexual intent into scripture shows how unnaturally obsessed with sex we have become.
Actualy there's an argument that Levidicas says something else entirly (for instance the language much of the bible comes to us in has on specific word for difrent genders.)
 

lkb3rd

Gone But Not Forgotten
(ACCOUNT RETIRED)
Joined
Jul 19, 2004
Messages
296
Reaction score
7
Points
34
"You maybe have to be gay to read the signals and to see things and research things which other people wouldn't," he added.
he's using his biblical "gaydar" is the assertion
:lol:
 

decipheringscars

Gone But Not Forgotten
(ACCOUNT RETIRED)
Joined
Jul 1, 2004
Messages
508
Reaction score
66
Points
44
Latecomer alert!

From the OP:
Prof. Smith points to a fragment of manuscript he found at the Mar Saba monastery near Jerusalem in 1958 which he says alludes to Jesus having a homosexual relationship with a youth he raised from the dead. The fragment shows that the full text of St. Mark, Chapter 10 (between verses 34 and 35 in the standard version of the Bible) includes the following passage:

"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".
The current issue of Biblical Archaeology Review has an article on this manuscript from the Mar Saba library.

There's doubt as to its authenticity. The "manuscript" is actually handwritten in the back pages of a book from the 18th century (if I recall correctly - but it's fairly recent), purportedly a copy of a letter from - I want to say Clement, but I could have my saints mixed up - some saint in the 2nd century (I can check tonight when I get home and post the details tomorrow). In that letter, the writer quotes from the "secret" or "mystical" gospel of Mark, which he describes as a longer version of the gospel.

So basically, you have:

--in the 2nd century, a church father quotes a passage from one version of a gospel (there were many versions) in a letter.
--in the 18th(?) century, someone transcribes that letter into the back pages of a book.
--in the 20th century, Smith finds this book, photographs the relevant pages and publishes his find.

The jury's out as to whether Smith found a copy of an actual letter, or if it's some kind of forgery.

I'll check again tonight and post again tomorrow.

FWIW, whoever mentioned the idea that Jesus was asexual - this is what I've always found the majority of the Church to believe. The idea is that (1) he was too focused on his mission to bother with sex; and (2) as God Incarnate, he couldn't go producing offspring, now, could he?

There's actually general scholarly agreement that the man Jesus did exist, and was crucified by the Romans; it's all the details beyond that where the opinions diverge. (Incidentally, the gospels themselves - despite their polemics - give a clue as to why he was crucified... The "thieves" who were crucified with him. "Theif" or "bandit" was a derogatory term used by the Romans for political insurgents. I'm sure there were more than just the three of them...)

I'm part of a group that's trying to work out a possible reasonable (and hopefully tentative) position our Church (Episcopal) can take on homosexuality, in the wider context of human sexuality in general. I can say that it's not easy for the church to just decide to take a particular stance. It's not a simple matter at all, but I won't start peeling that onion here.
 

decipheringscars

Gone But Not Forgotten
(ACCOUNT RETIRED)
Joined
Jul 1, 2004
Messages
508
Reaction score
66
Points
44
Sorry, forgot to check up on that article last night. I'll try to remember tonight. I owe you folks those details...
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
I'm part of a group that's trying to work out a possible reasonable (and hopefully tentative) position our Church (Episcopal) can take on homosexuality, in the wider context of human sexuality in general. I can say that it's not easy for the church to just decide to take a particular stance. It's not a simple matter at all, but I won't start peeling that onion here.
It would be fasinating to hear your Church's arguments for one position or the other. Please post if you are willing and have the time. Cheers .
 

decipheringscars

Gone But Not Forgotten
(ACCOUNT RETIRED)
Joined
Jul 1, 2004
Messages
508
Reaction score
66
Points
44
The "Secret Gospel of Mark" found at Mar Saba

OK, so I'm a bit late in looking this up, but here's some of the relevant portions of the article, written by Scott Brown and appearing in Biblical Archaeology Review, Jan/Feb 2005, Vol. 31 No. 1:

(p. 44 BAR)...This gospel passage was rediscovered in 1958 by Morton Smith, who was a respected professor of history at Columbia University. While cataloguing manuscripts in the tower library of Mar Saba, a Greek Orthodox monastery in the Judean wilderness, Smith photographed an 18th-century copy of a Greek letter ascribed to the second-century church father Clement of Alexandria. The author of this letter describes a 'more spiritual' version of Mark's gospel and quotes two passages from it. So Smith did not find a gospel manuscript but, rather, a letter by Clement of Alexandria, which is the only text we have of the Secret Gospel of Mark.
...No sooner had Smith published his discovery than scholars began to debate whether it might be a forgery, some even suspecting Smith himself. Recent evidence, however, tends to exonerate Smith...
(p. 47)...The only evidence we have for the Secret Gospel is the manuscript Smith discovered in Mar Saba in 1958. This 18th-century copy of a letter of Clement of Alexandria, addressed to a man named Theodore, was scrawled on three blank end-pages of a book by Isaac Voss published in 1646. The letter recounts how the evangelist Mark composed a longer, 'more spiritual' edition of his gospel for advanced believers in Alexandria, and how the heretic Carpocrates (125 C.E.) stole a copy of this gospel and revised it for his own purposes. Evidently, Theodore had heard about the adulterated version of the raising of the young man from the dead and wrote to Clement to find out whether Mark actually wrote it. Clement quoted the relevant passages 'word for word' as proof that the true 'mystic gospel' (a more accurate translation than 'Secret' Gospel) did not contain the words 'naked man with naked man' and other statements that Theodore found disturbing.
(p. 47-48)...Smith believed that the key to understanding the Secret Gospel is the linen sheet that the young man put on seven days after he was raised from the dead. Taking this material to be a baptismal garment, Smith argued that the raising and instruction of the young man was part of the baptism liturgy in Alexandria. Many scholars followed Smith this far, but bid him adieu when he claimed the excerpt ws evidence that the historical Jesus performed magical baptisms in which a disciple united with Jesus' spirit and the two ascended mystically into God's (heavenly) kingdom, there experiencing freedom from the Law of Moses, which applies only to the lower world. Smith's further speculation that 'Freedom from the law may have resulted in completion of the spiritual union by physical union' - that is, sex between two men - had an enormously negative effect on the reception of the Secret Gospel.
The article continues to discuss the scholarly debate over whether what Smith found was genuine. Apparently very few scholars have seen the manuscript (which Smith returned to its place in the library; I'm not sure why it should be so hard to go look at it there). Also significant: "No other ancient documents mention the Secret Gospel, and the one that does (the letter of Clement copied into the Voss book) is relatively modern. Most importantly, the letter lacks significant copying errors, which you would expect of a text with a lenghty history of scribal transmission (p. 60)."

The current scholarly opinion varies, but seems to fall into 3 major categories: (1) The Secret Gospel did exist and consisted of Marcan additions to his own earlier (canonical) gospel; (2) the Secret Gospel was an earlier version of the canonical one; and (3) the Secret Gospel is a 2nd-century imitation of Mark (the article says most scholars are in the third category but the author is in the first).

Also worth noting is that there is, in the canonical version of Mark, a "certain young man" dressed in "a linen sheet upon his naked body" who tries to follow Jesus upon his arrest (Mark 14:51-52). The story from the "Secret Gospel" is supposed to be set in between portions of Mark where Jesus asks his disciples if they are able to drink from his cup or undergo his baptism - meaning are they able to face martyrdom like he would/did. The man in linen showing up at the point of Jesus' martyrdom (and trying to follow him to it) fits in with that theme.

So there it all is. The article in BAR (they don't seem to publish their articles online that I can find...) was focused on the Secret Gospel as testimony to the location of a Bethany where John the Baptizer baptized, but many of the details in the article were quite relevant to our discussion!
 

Mighty_Emperor

Gone But Not Forgotten
(ACCOUNT RETIRED)
Joined
Aug 18, 2002
Messages
19,433
Reaction score
138
Points
129
First openly gay Episcopal bishop says he's falsely accused of suggested Jesus was homosexual

By Tim McCahill, Associated Press Writer | April 5, 2005

CONCORD, N.H. -- The first openly gay Episcopal bishop said Tuesday he is being falsely accused of suggesting Jesus might have been homosexual.

The allegations arose from Web log comments posted after Bishop V. Gene Robinson's remarks at a Feb. 13 forum on sexual issues at Christ Church in Hamilton, Mass.

"(Jesus) lived a very untraditional lifestyle," Robinson told The Associated Press. "Which is not to say that I in any way asserted that he was gay, or anything about his sexual orientation."

Robinson told the New Hampshire Union Leader he is "being flooded with angry messages" because of his forum comments. He said he was making the point that the nuclear family is a relatively new idea and that, even for his time, Jesus apparently led a nontraditional life.

"What I recall is that the question was trying to get me to say that Jesus affirmed the nuclear family as the only way a family can be," Robinson said. "I was just pointing out that you best check Scripture again before you use the life of Jesus to try to pronounce a blessing on that."

Recordings from the forum are on the church's Web site.

"Interestingly enough, in this day of traditional family values and so on," Robinson says in one of the recordings, "this man that we follow ... was single as far as we know; who traveled with a bunch of men, although there were lots of women around; who had a disciple who was known as 'the one whom Jesus loved'; who said my family is not my mother and father, my family are those who do the will of God -- none of us like those harsh words. That's who Jesus is, that's who he was, at least in his earthly life."

Robinson married and had two daughters before accepting his own homosexuality. He has lived for years with his male partner.

"I happen to think the traditional family is a wonderful thing. I'm a product of it," Robinson said at the forum. "I dearly love my family, and I love my own family, with my own two kids. It just looks a little nontraditional. But this Jesus, when you ask who is Jesus, he was not terribly mainstream, was he?"

David Virtue, who runs what he describes as an orthodox online Anglican news service, apparently was the first to accuse Robinson of suggesting Jesus was gay.

"He is a person who wants the Anglican Communion to recognize the conservatives in the Episcopal church as the real Anglican Communion in the United States," Robinson said. "That's his goal, and he is willing to write and say almost anything to achieve that goal."

Virtue responded that Robinson's forum comments were part of the "gay agenda" that would end up splitting the worldwide Anglican Communion.

"They're all pushing the envelope as far as they can," said Virtue, who is based in West Chester, Pa.

The Episcopal Church, with 2.4 million members, is the U.S. branch of the 77 million-member Anglican Communion, which traces its roots to the Church of England. The church has been roiled by controversy since Robinson's ordination in 2003.

------

On the Net:

Christ Church: http://www.christchurchhw.org
Source
 

AlchoPwn

Public Service is my Motto.
Joined
Nov 2, 2017
Messages
2,298
Reaction score
3,416
Points
154
Wikipedia has a few thoughts on the matter:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sexuality_of_Jesus

As for the answer, I think that as Jesus was clearly homosexual, given his namby pamby effeminate doctrine, the fact he never married and hung out with 12 guys while not wearing pants. As such, if Mary Magdelaine was the Holy Grail, then his homosexual partners mush have been producing holy shit.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

bob61

Devoted Cultist
Joined
Oct 17, 2017
Messages
158
Reaction score
167
Points
44
Jesus wasn’t gay , he was god & the son of god ( I can only marvel at the mystery of the holy trinity ) & the word of god condemns homosexuality
 

ramonmercado

CyberPunk
Joined
Aug 19, 2003
Messages
50,073
Reaction score
23,467
Points
284
Location
Eblana
Jesus wasn’t gay , he was god & the son of god ( I can only marvel at the mystery of the holy trinity ) & the word of god condemns homosexuality
But what about the disciple that Jesus dearly loved?
 

Cochise

Never give up, never surrender
Joined
Jun 17, 2011
Messages
5,675
Reaction score
6,429
Points
284
When we get up there and people are having to account for themselves to St Peter, I wonder if they televise the interviews. It would beat the heck out of The Apprentice.

It is possible to love people without having a sexual attraction. Although the concept is now pretty much lost, since most people only seem to be able to evaluate things by sex or money. I love my dog but I don't want to have sex with it.
 
Top