Jesus the gay fetishist

[trencacloscas]

Even when I was a convinced Christian, I could never digest these odd acts of the Jesus portrayed in the NT. Well, the Gospel of John is pretty awkward by all standards, isn't it?

Then took Mary a pound of ointment of spikenard, very costly, and anointed the feet of Jesus, and wiped his feet with her hair: and the house was filled with the odour of the ointment. (Jhn, 12:3)

This hellish, stomach-revolting passage, was always a trouble for me. You'll find some explanations about Hebrew customs and habits, but it's still a nightmare when you relate it to a supposed Saviour and paragon of virtue. Why he allows such a cruel humiliation from a woman, to wipe his feet with her hair? So much he despised women? Just as much as the rest of his contemporaries in that patriarchal community?

He riseth from supper, and laid aside his garments; and took a towel, and girded himself. After that he poureth water into a bason, and began to wash the disciples' feet, and to wipe [them] with the towel wherewith he was girded. Then cometh he to Simon Peter: and Peter saith unto him, Lord, dost thou wash my feet? Jesus answered and said unto him, What I do thou knowest not now; but thou shalt know hereafter. Peter saith unto him, Thou shalt never wash my feet. Jesus answered him, If I wash thee not, thou hast no part with me. Simon Peter saith unto him, Lord, not my feet only, but also [my] hands and [my] head. Jesus saith to him, He that is washed needeth not save to wash [his] feet, but is clean every whit: and ye are clean, but not all. [...] If I then, [your] Lord and Master, have washed your feet; ye also ought to wash one another's feet. For I have given you an example, that ye should do as I have done to you. Verily, verily, I say unto you, The servant is not greater than his lord; neither he that is sent greater than he that sent him. If ye know these things, happy are ye if ye do them.

He washes the feet of the apostles. For me this always meant a great suspicion of homosexual behaviour in Jesus, but anyway he didn't humiliate himself to the point of wiping their feet with his hair. And that makes a profound difference. He didn't wipe women's feet, and maybe he was stating subtlety that women were way inferior to men and he wouldn't perform humility to that extreme.

Gospels are only fables and lies, of course. But even to this respect, pagans were far superior and more humane. Check Homer and the passage of the return of Odysseus, when the old servant Euriclea washes his feet. Comparisons only would make good hearts blush.

What do you think about the whole thing?

[Overcomer]

Even when I was a convinced Christian, I could never digest these odd acts of the Jesus portrayed in the NT. Well, the Gospel of John is pretty awkward by all standards, isn't it?

Again, if you didn't have a personal relationship with Christ, you weren't a Christian. Roman Catholics teach that being a member of the Roman Catholic Church constitutes being a Christian, but it doesn't. A person who takes up pew space in a church and gives some credence to a belief system is a Christian in name only.

If you were ever a real Christian, you would have know Jesus personally. Since you now say he doesn'tt exist and that Christians who think he does are delusional, then this clearly shows that you were never a Christian as you cannot say that someone you were once in a relationship with doesn't exist and never did. That would make YOU delusional.

You're an ex-Roman Catholic, but that doesn't mean you were ever a Christian. Kindly refer to yourself correctly as an ex-Catholic. That would be accurate.

Then took Mary a pound of ointment of spikenard, very costly, and anointed the feet of Jesus, and wiped his feet with her hair: and the house was filled with the odour of the ointment. (Jhn, 12:3)

This hellish, stomach-revolting passage, was always a trouble for me.

Hellish? Stomach-revolting? You have a strange idea of hell and your stomach gets upset easily! What's hellish and stomach-revolting is nailing a man to a cross and allowing him to die slowly and agonizingly, suffocating to death from his own bodily fluids and in extreme pain. Yet, that's just what Christ allowed the Romans to do to him and he did it out of love that you and I and humankind might have eternal life with him in heaven

You'll find some explanations about Hebrew customs and habits, but it's still a nightmare when you relate it to a supposed Saviour and paragon of virtue. Why he allows such a cruel humiliation from a woman, to wipe his feet with her hair? So much he despised women? Just as much as the rest of his contemporaries in that patriarchal community?

You're making a mountain out of molehill and exaggerating the custom beyond common sense. Foot washing was not a cruel humiliation in that society. Bear in mind that different cultures have different traditions. What may seem strange to you and to me may be perfectly normal and well-received in the country of its origin. Such is the case with foot washing in the Ancient Near East. It was perfectly acceptable.

And saying Jesus despised women is ridiculous and isn't indicated in this passage or any other in the Bible. In fact, the opposite is shown by Christ's interaction with the Samaritan woman at the well. He defied Jewish custom that dictated that a Jew not speak to a Samaritan and a Jewish man not speak to a woman he didn't know. Jesus did not discriminate against women in the Gospels.

Yes, it was a Hebrew custom to wash people's feet. Why? Because people wore sandals in the dusty hot lands of the Middle East. Therefore, their feet got very dirtry. Washing people's feet was a form of hospitality, not a means used to humiliate the person doing the foot washing as you suggest. Nor was it a job relegated to women. Both men and women did it.

Please note that Jesus did not make this woman wash his feet. She did it out of love. It's a beautiful act, not the ugly one you insist upon making it. And the ritual is a foreshadowing of what's to come when Christ was crucified and oils and perfumes were used to embalm his body. Therefore, it has a spiritual connotation as well as a practical one. And Jesus responded to this woman with love and appreciation. You left that part out.

Nard was extremely expensive. It cost the equivalent of a day of labour for the average man. And, given the fact that no one wore deodorant in those days as they trudged around that hot land, perfumes were often used to cover the smell of sweaty people.

And I'm sorry if I have offended your delicate sensibilities by mentioning body odour, tren!

He washes the feet of the apostles. For me this always meant a great suspicion of homosexual behaviour in Jesus, but anyway he didn't humiliate himself to the point of wiping their feet with his hair. And that makes a profound difference. He didn't wipe women's feet, and maybe he was stating subtlety that women were way inferior to men and he wouldn't perform humility to that extreme.

Oh, give me a break! A suspicion of homosexual behaviour indeed! That's just silly. As I said, foot washing was something done all the time everywhere for a practical reason and as a courtesy to guests in one's house. It had nothing to do with one's sexual proclivities.

As for Christ washing his disciples' feet, that was an act of humility that he performed to model to them the appropriate attitude they should have toward others. He wanted them to know that he wasn't too good to wash another person's feet and that they were to serve others in humility as he had served them. As Jesus said, he had come to serve, not to be served (Matthew 20:28.).

As for not using his hair, did it ever occur to you that maybe his hair wasn't as long as a woman's? Mary's would have been down to her waist while Christ's was probably no longer than shoulder-length. And did it ever occur to you that he had more towels than Mary had? Let's use common sense here, shall we?

Gospels are only fables and lies, of course. But even to this respect, pagans were far superior and more humane.

No the Gospels are NOT fables and lies. You merely think they are. There is great historical and archaeological evidence to support the accuracy of Scripture, but you refuse to read and consider it because you don't want the Bible to be true and you don't want to admit you're a sinner and you don't want God to be real. You made a telling statement in another thread in which you said you didn't recognize sin. Well, that's your problem. If a man doesn't recognize that he's a sinner, he doesn't recognize that he needs a Saviour. Acknowledging sin is the first step, but you don't want to take it. That's your choice. But please have the courtesy to quit trying to justify your choice by making a mockery out of Jesus and the Bible and the Christians who love God and His Word with nonsensical posts like this one. If you want to criticize the Bible, then at least have the decency to present an intelligent argument.

As for pagans being far superior and more humane, again, that's a personal opinion on your part. When I read about pagans throwing their babies into a fire to appease an idol, THAT shows that they were not superior or more humane than the Jews.

What do you think about the whole thing?

I think the whole thing is foolishness. All you have done here is reveal your hatred of Christianity, showing that you are willing to sink so low as to make a big deal out of a simple custom performed by countless people in countless Middle Eastern lands, trying to use it to discredit the Bible and malign Christ. Sorry, but the entire thrust of your post is just silly and, as such, carries no weight.

P.S. I forgot to mention that the reason Jesus didn't wash the feet of any women in the passage you quoted was because there were no women present at that particular gathering. Therefore, you cannot deduce from it the idea that Jesus would never have washed a woman's feet. Given the fact that he willingly gave up his life for both men and women, I think he deemed women just as important as men and therefore wouldn't have had a problem washing their feet.

And, lastly, I apologize for losing my temper with you, tren I don't mind responding to legitimate concerns about the Bible, but facetious ones like yours irritate me.

[trencacloscas]

Again, if you didn't have a personal relationship with Christ, you weren't a Christian.

Overcomer, you don't know me now and you didn't know me then. Please stop your childish claims. I guess I feel then like you feel now, but that doesn't change things. If I wasn't Christian then, those who call Christians now are 100 times less in number. As I told you before, there is no possible "relationship" with Jesus, because a relationship requires at least two, and as Jesus doesn't exist, there cannot be a relationship.

By the way, were you raised within the protestants? Well, then that's the reason because you defend protestants. But as a protestant you are not Christian, would say a Catholic in the same way you say Catholics are not Christians. See? The same arguments. Christ only produces this kind of religious internal fights and allegations through the ages...

What's hellish and stomach-revolting is nailing a man to a cross and allowing him to die slowly and agonizingly, suffocating to death from his own bodily fluids and in extreme pain.

Exactly. To adore a corpse hanging from a cross is pretty disgusting in itself.

You're making a mountain out of molehill and exaggerating the custom beyond common sense. Foot washing was not a cruel humiliation in that society. Bear in mind that different cultures have different traditions. What may seem strange to you and to me may be perfectly normal and well-received in the country of its origin. Such is the case with foot washing in the Ancient Near East. It was perfectly acceptable.

Probably that religion that only seems normal in the Near East should never get out of where it was imagined, shouldn't it?

Yes, it was a Hebrew custom to wash people's feet. Why? Because people wore sandals in the dusty hot lands of the Middle East. Therefore, their feet got very dirtry. Washing people's feet was a form of hospitality, not a means used to humiliate the person doing the foot washing as you suggest. Nor was it a job relegated to women. Both men and women did it.

Would you please point me throughout the whole Bible, one single passage where a woman's feet are washed, please? Maybe there is one or two, I don't know, I'm just curious...

And Jesus responded to this woman with love and appreciation. You left that part out.

When servants practiced fellatios on sultans, they used to show appreciation back too.

Please note that Jesus did not make this woman wash his feet. She did it out of love. It's a beautiful act, not the ugly one you insist upon making it.

I don't know. A gentleman wouldn't accept such thing easily (not the washing, I mean the hair wiping). It sounds to me pretty ugly not coming from a lover. Just an opinion.

And I'm sorry if I have offended your delicate sensibilities by mentioning body odour, tren!

Nope. That wasn't my point at all. It's the act itself what I consider disgusting. A man adoring a woman's feet is an act of sheer finesse. The other way round seems to me rather awkward and chauvinistic. Perhaps only my impression, that's why I'm commenting it in the first place.

As for Christ washing his disciples' feet, that was an act of humility that he performed to model to them the appropriate attitude they should have toward others. He wanted them to know that he wasn't too good to wash another person's feet and that they were to serve others in humility as he had served them.

Of course, I get the idea, though the metaphore still seems to me quite disgusting. Anyway, the part "the servant is not greater than his lord; neither he that is sent greater than he that sent him" is a curious thing to put after these events...

As for not using his hair, did it ever occur to you that maybe his hair wasn't as long as a woman's? Mary's would have been down to her waist while Christ's was probably no longer than shoulder-length.

But this is just an invention of yours... Where in the Gospels is this stated?

And did it ever occur to you that he had more towels than Mary had? Let's use common sense here, shall we?

Yeah, but probably Jesus had something that Mary hadn't: a beard. And why Mary had not towels at home? Common sense, you say...

I forgot to mention that the reason Jesus didn't wash the feet of any women in the passage you quoted was because there were no women present at that particular gathering.

That's logical, because Jesus won't accept women apostles

There is great historical and archaeological evidence to support the accuracy of Scripture,

Didn't see such thing, but I guess this is discussed elsewhere.

As for pagans being far superior and more humane, again, that's a personal opinion on your part. When I read about pagans throwing their babies into a fire to appease an idol, THAT shows that they were not superior or more humane than the Jews.

Surely, especially when you are showing the pagans portrayed in your Bible. Greeks and Romans show more.

I think the whole thing is foolishness. All you have done here is reveal your hatred of Christianity, showing that you are willing to sink so low as to make a big deal out of a simple custom performed by countless people in countless Middle Eastern lands, trying to use it to discredit the Bible and malign Christ. Sorry, but the entire thrust of your post is just silly and, as such, carries no weight.

Surely this post isn't sillier that your "relationship" with somebody who doesn't exist. Anyway, what are you doing in this forum if you are not interested in debating anything but your own prejudice? As you know everything, through your protestant haughtiness, you don't need to discuss anything or even listen to the people, right? Sorry to say, but that kind of intolerance is typical from a Christian.

[sin_is_fun]

I think as follows

1.Christianity must have been the offshoot of the mitra religion.

2.Luke,john,mathew they might have never existed.

3.Writings attributed to them must have been written by somebody else.Laterday christians named it after the characters in those writings.

4.so in all probablity such incidents never happened.

If this is the case what does those writings infer about the writer?His religious fervour,anti-feminism, 1st century culture and values or artistic imagination?

I think it reflects the prevailing culture in that era.Must have been a common practice in that era.Nothing more,nothing less.

[foshizzle]

I'm not sure why you don't think the authors of the Gospels are factual.

There are no known competitors for authorship, there's no reason to doubt them being the authentic authors. They were unlikely, pointless people; there was no reason to "lie" and say you were them. Much more prominent were Mary, Peter and James, but Mark and Luke weren't even among Jesus' twelve. Matthew was, but he was a former tax collector (absolutely abhored by the people at the time). After Judas Iscariot, he would have been the most infamous person to claim authorship over. There's simply no reason to assume the authors lied.

John is the only exception (and interestingly, the only gospel who's authorship is questioned). It's a question of whether it was John the apostle, or John the Elder (both mentioned by Papius in his writings). Granted that exception, the early testimony is unnanimous that it was in fact John the Apostle that wrote it.

Concerning how we know it was them, again, the oldest and most important author to take into consideration was Papius. (125 AD). He specifically affirms that Mark had carefully and accurately recorded Peter's eyewitness observations. He even says "Mark made no mistakes and didn't include any false statements." He said the same of Matthew.

I also found a good article a while back dealing with this subject.

http://graceandknowledge.faithweb.com/papias.html

[LillSnopp]

If you were ever a real Christian, you would have know Jesus personally. Since you now say he doesn'tt exist and that Christians who think he does are delusional, then this clearly shows that you were never a Christian as you cannot say that someone you were once in a relationship with doesn't exist and never did. That would make YOU delusional.

Does this not mean that anyone claiming to be a Christian after Jesus death (say 100 years), could not possible be one, as Jesus is, as you know, Dead?

It seems to me thats what your saying.

[foshizzle]

After you've read countless posts over the subject of Christianity, if you truly think that's what he was saying, I feel sorry for you.

[LillSnopp]

This made me thinking (if your wondering about my futhre smattering)...

This would mean that anyone claiming to be a Christian, is committing falsehood. All these people in Church walking around claiming to know Jesus (which is Dead), and all the priest whom help people trough spreading the word of Jesus (which is dead), and tell them that you only need to know him to be saved (still Dead). I dont know anyone that is two thousand years old, i could even tweak my admittance (i would re-think my statement)to one thousand years....

Even if we would accept the atrocity of necrophilia, no dead Jesus has ever been found. I admit, perhaps there is a secret cult, managing to find the True cadaver of Jesus Christ, and commit fornication on him. (skeleton that is) This, would make them Christians. But thats a streetch.

Any thoughts ?

[foshizzle]

This made me thinking (if your wondering about my futhre smattering)...

This would mean that anyone claiming to be a Christian, is committing falsehood. All these people in Church walking around claiming to know Jesus (which is Dead), and all the priest whom help people trough spreading the word of Jesus (which is dead), and tell them that you only need to know him to be saved (still Dead). I dont know anyone that is two thousand years old, i could even tweak my admittance (i would re-think my statement)to one thousand years....

I'm guessing what you meant to say was, "This made me think...", but that's just an assumption. Correct me if I'm wrong.

Now, i'm going to /assume/ that this post was meant for humor, and you don't actually believe this.

Christianity is not about having a personal relationship with Jesus Christ (or letting 'Jesus in your heart', says the watered down version). It's about accepting the fact that Jesus Christ was the Son of God, came to Earth to inform it's people, and was crucified to allow those who offered their lives in servitude to God a 'bridge', if you will, into eternal salvation. Jesus, God, the Holy Spirit, they're all one. It's called the Trinity, in which each entity is it's own, but the same. In this way, people say things such as, "have a relationship with Jesus Christ."

I'm guessing you already know this, and know the entire thing (as this is but a smidgeon of the actual process), so I won't continue onto any more details.

Even if we would accept the atrocity of necrophilia, no dead Jesus has ever been found. I admit, perhaps there is a secret cult, managing to find the True cadaver of Jesus Christ, and commit fornication on him. (skeleton that is) This, would make them Christians. But thats a streetch.

I'm not sure where 'relationship' and 'necrophilia' join. Having a relationship with a person isn't quite the same as having sexual practices with their corpse.

Also, of course no cadaver of Christ will be found; he isn't dead.

[LillSnopp]

I'm guessing what you meant to say was, "This made me think...", but that's just an assumption. Correct me if I'm wrong.

I was thinking about saying something else, and change my mind. How nice of you to point it out, as its great relevance to this topic would be cluttered.

Now, i'm going to /assume/ that this post was meant for humor, and you don't actually believe this.

Depends, I assumed you needed to have a personal relationship with Jesus Christ (se further down).

Christianity is not about having a personal relationship with Jesus Christ (or letting 'Jesus in your heart', says the watered down version). It's about accepting the fact that Jesus Christ was the Son of God, came to Earth to inform it's people, and was crucified to allow those who offered their lives in servitude to God a 'bridge', if you will, into eternal salvation. Jesus, God, the Holy Spirit, they're all one. It's called the Trinity, in which each entity is it's own, but the same. In this way, people say things such as, "have a relationship with Jesus Christ."

I think you are the only Creationist i ever spoken to that have said that.

I'm guessing you already know this, and know the entire thing (as this is but a smidgeon of the actual process), so I won't continue onto any more details.

You know, i have a really hard time reading the Bible nowdays, because its such a boring book, full of aLogical statements and so forth. So i prefer not hearing anything more about it.

I'm not sure where 'relationship' and 'necrophilia' join. Having a relationship with a person isn't quite the same as having sexual practices with their corpse.

One of them would be. Especially if they really believe him to be Christ.

Also, of course no cadaver of Christ will be found; he isn't dead.

Oh Yeah, he resurrected with his Body. Wonder where it went- I mean, all this talk about spirituality, yet, the body is flesh.