"Was Jesus Gay? Probably"

[Miles]

.

The disciple whom Jesus loved is referred to, specifically, six times in the book of John.

John 13:23-25
23 Now there was leaning on Jesus' bosom one of his disciples, whom Jesus loved.
24 Simon Peter therefore beckoned to him, that he should ask who it should be of whom he spake.
25 He then lying on Jesus' breast saith unto him, Lord, who is it?

__________________________

John 19:26-27
26 When Jesus therefore saw his mother, and the disciple standing by, whom he loved, he saith unto his mother, Woman, behold thy son!

27 Then saith he to the disciple, Behold thy mother! And from that hour that disciple took her unto his own home.

__________________________

John 20:1-2
The first day of the week cometh Mary Magdalene early, when it was yet dark, unto the sepulchre, and seeth the stone taken away from the sepulchre.

2 Then she runneth, and cometh to Simon Peter, and to the other disciple, whom Jesus loved, and saith unto them, They have taken away the Lord out of the sepulchre, and we know not where they have laid him.

__________________________

John 21: 7
7 Therefore that disciple whom Jesus loved saith unto Peter, It is the Lord. Now when Simon Peter heard that it was the Lord, he girt his fisher's coat unto him, (for he was
naked,) and did cast himself into the sea.

__________________________

John 21: 20-23
20 Then Peter, turning about, seeth the disciple whom Jesus loved following; which also leaned on his breast at supper, and said, Lord, which is he that betrayeth thee?
21 Peter seeing him saith to Jesus, Lord, and what shall this man do?
22 Jesus saith unto him, If I will that he tarry till I come, what is that to thee? follow thou me.
23 Then went this saying abroad among the brethren, that that disciple should not die: yet Jesus said not unto him, He shall not die; but, If I will that he tarry till I come, what is that to thee?

__________________________

John 21: 24
24 This is the disciple which testifieth of these things, and wrote these things: and we know that his testimony is true.

As for which disciple Jesus was in love with, in the Wikipdia article: "Disciple whom Jesus loved"; the main candidate is none other than John himself

"Some scholars have additionally suggested a homoerotic interpretation of Christ's relationship with the Beloved Disciple, although such a scriptural reading is disputed . . . . Tilborg suggests that the portrait in the Gospel of John is "positively attuned to the development of possibly homosexual behaviour". . . .

The relationship between Christ and John was certainly interpreted by some as being of a physical erotic nature as early as the 16th century (albeit in a "heretical" context) - documented, for example, in the trial for blasphemy of Christopher Marlowe, who was accused of claiming that "St. John the Evangelist was bedfellow to Christ and leaned always in his bosom, that he used him as the sinners of Sodoma". In accusing Marlowe of the "sinful nature" of homosexual acts, James I of England inevitably invited comparisons to his own erotic relationship with the Duke of Buckingham which he also compared to that of the Beloved Disciple. Finally, Francesco Calcagno, a friar of Venicefaced trial and was executed in 1550 for claiming that "St. John was Christ's catamite".

Dynes also makes a link to the modern day where in 1970s New York a popular religious group was established called the "Church of the Beloved Disciple", with the intention of giving a positive reading of the relationship to support respect for same-sex love."

However, based on John 11:5: "Now Jesus loved Martha and her sister and Lazarus", and John 11:3 "Therefore his sisters sent unto him, saying, Lord, behold, he whom thou lovest is sick." some scholars feel Lazarus of Bethany is a better candidate,

Others, through a bit of tap dancing, have proposed that the beloved disciple was originally Mary Magdalene

Or, Jesus's beloved disciple may have been "a priestly member of a quasimonastic, mystical, and ascetic Jewish aristocracy, located on Jerusalem's prestigious southwest hill, who had hosted Jesus' last supper in that location"

Whatever the case, none of these scholars seem to have denied a homosexual connection with the Beloved Disciple. Even today there are those who believe Jesus was gay.

"Was Jesus gay? Probably"
.............by Paul Oestreicher

I preached on Good Friday that Jesus's intimacy with John suggested he was gay as I felt deeply it had to be addressed.

Jesus was a Hebrew rabbi. Unusually, he was unmarried. The idea that he had a romantic relationship with Mary Magdalene is the stuff of fiction, based on no biblical evidence. The evidence, on the other hand, that he may have been what we today call gay is very strong. But even gay rights campaigners in the church have been reluctant to suggest it. A significant exception was Hugh Montefiore, bishop of Birmingham and a convert from a prominent Jewish family. He dared to suggest that possibility and was met with disdain, as though he were simply out to shock.

After much reflection and with certainly no wish to shock, I felt I was left with no option but to suggest, for the first time in half a century of my Anglican priesthood, that Jesus may well have been homosexual. Had he been devoid of sexuality, he would not have been truly human. To believe that would be heretical.
source

SO, what do you, members of Debating Christianity and Religion, think? Jesus: likely gay or not?


.

[PinSeeker]

I'm not claiming that John "should have used different words."

I didn't say, nor did I actually think, you were. The insinuation of that possibility is what I was commenting on, in addition to what I or anyone else might think he "should have" said.

I'm willing to accept that John used exactly the words he intended, no matter what he meant.

Fine, I agree. Yeah, I'll put it this way -- Yes, John wrote it, and he said what he meant, and he meant what he said. And like I said, God is the ultimate Author of Scripture, and using John as the conduit, said what He meant and meant what He said. Sure.

You are, however, saying that the words John used cannot mean that Jesus loved his disciple romantically.

Yes, I am. The mere thought is ridiculous, for the reasons outlined thoroughly.

The corollary to that is that if John had intended to write that Jesus loved his disciple romantically, he would have to have written it differently. How would he have written it?

Okay, fair statement and fair question. I think he would have used language very similar to the language Moses used -- "went into," and "knew," as specified in a previous post, or at least the situation Moses describes in Genesis 29 between Jacob and Leah and Jacob and Rachel. Leah's eyes were weak, but Rachel was beautiful in form and appearance, Moses writes, and this was why Jacob was attracted to Rachel and wanted her for his wife rather than Leah. Yes, Moses actually says, "Jacob loved Rachel." But for anyone to then say "Well there ya go; love is love, and the connotation is exactly the same in John 13:23, 19:26, 20:2, 21:7, and 21:20..." ('the disciple whom Jesus loved') "...as it is in Genesis 29:18" ('Jacob loved Rachel') is, quite frankly, ridiculous. The context is very different, and it doesn't require great powers of discernment to see that.

I'll also say this. Paul talks in Romans 1 about God giving people up to their own dishonorable passions because of the sinfulness of women exchanging natural relations for those that are contrary to nature, and sinfulness of men likewise giving up natural relations with women and being consumed with passion for one another (Romans 1:26-27). So if one were to look at those passages in John in the way that you're suggesting is possible, then they're really (whether they realize it or not) saying John was referring to himself as "the disciple whom Jesus was consumed with passion for" and in so doing, saying that Jesus sinned in this passion that he "felt" for John. Well, as I said before, we know that Jesus did not sin, so all of this is really quite impossible.

How did you come to that conclusion?

See above.

Your original argument was based on a difference between agape and eros.

That was just for starters, really, because others brought up the idea of eros and equated it (tried to, anyway) with the Greek actually used in those passages and forced it (again, tried, or suggested the possibility, anyway) into John's immediate context.

Is that still a basis for your argument?

It was never the "basis," but, as I said, merely a starting point and addressing others where they were at the time. Whether they still are or not I don't know, but at this point, that's irrelevant, really.

Grace and peace to you.

[Miles]

I believe many Christians will tell you that being gay is not a sin. Acting on same-sex desires (whether it be out of homosexuality or bisexuality some sexual curiosity) is when sin comes in. So even if Jesus were gay, you may have to take it a step further to prove that he acted on it. I think it's conceivable that he didn't act on any sexual desires given the fact that even heterosexuals are not allowed to act on all heterosexual desires, like lusting after a man's wife, or having sex outside of marriage, etc.

I have no interest in proving "he acted on it."

Here's one part of the article that I disagree with:

Had he been devoid of sexuality, he would not have been truly human. To believe that would be heretical.

It seems the pastor is not familiar with human 'asexuality' where there's little to no sexual attraction.

I agree.

In my view, there is just too much preoccupation on this gay and straight thing. ONce we get away form that then perhaps we'll realize that sexuality is much more broad than we ever imagined.

What is "this gay and straight thing"?


.

[AgnosticBoy]

What is "this gay and straight thing"?

The "thing" refers to attempts at trying to justify which sexual orientation is Godly or moral. It just seems that every discussion about sexual orientation is framed around that issue. Either way, there isn't enough data for me to draw any conclusion on Jesus's sexuality, although I'd say that there is enough data to show that he wasn't supposed to act on it, even if he was gay.

[Miles]

What is "this gay and straight thing"?

The "thing" refers to attempts at trying to justify which sexual orientation is Godly or moral.

Okay.

It just seems that every discussion about sexual orientation is framed around that issue. Either way, there isn't enough data for me to draw any conclusion on Jesus's sexuality, although I'd say that there is enough data to show that he wasn't supposed to act on it, even if he was gay.

Especially if it was "having sex with another man as with a woman. It is a detestable sin."

Personally, I think god's denunciation of homosexual sex while still accepting homosexual attraction is a matter of repressed homosexual yearnings.



.

[Tcg]

ONce we get away form that then perhaps we'll realize that sexuality is much more broad than we ever imagined.

That realization is ancient history. Those who are aware of the Kinsey Reports written in the late 40s and early 50s know that sexual orientation is a sliding scale with heterosexuality and homosexuality at the extreme poles. Most humans fail somewhere in-between and are at times sexually attracted to both sexes.

This of course is an uncomfortable reality for many religious, but there is no reason to presume Jesus didn't fit this reality as well and fall somewhere between heterosexual and homosexual. As well as the disciple Jesus loved, he also had a special relationship with Mary Magdalen.

If Jesus was sexually active, it would not be surprising if that fact was hidden at the time and even more so certainly not written about in the books promoted to the canon.


Tcg

[AgnosticBoy]

[Replying to Tcg in post #136]
Dr. Alfred Kinsey was before his time in many respects, but there are more things that could be added to his views such as, human asexuality. Human asexuality is not on his scale and neither is pansexuality. In fact, one form of sexuality that the Bible allows while Western culture forbids it, is the non-monogamous expression of love, i.e. polygamy or polyamory.

[JehovahsWitness]

... one form of sexuality that the Bible allows while Western culture forbids it, is the non-monogamous expression of love, i.e. polygamy or polyamory.

Yes polygamy was permitted for a while, but Jesus bought his followers back to the original edenic standard for mariage of one man one woman.

POLYAMORY

the practice of engaging in multiple romantic (and typically sexual) relationships, with the consent of all the people involved.

NOTE It seems to me that "polyamory" refers to consensual sex outside of marriage. If so the bible has never condoned sexual activity outside of godly marriage.


JEHOVAH'S WITNESS






RELATED POSTS

What was the marital status of Hebrew concubines?
viewtopic.php?p=404640#p404640

Is the bible practical for modern living?
viewtopic.php?p=1015833#p1015833

To learn more please go to other posts related to...

WOMEN, SEX And... MARRIAGE

[Difflugia]

Yes polygamy was permitted for a while, but Jesus bought his followers back to the original edenic standard for mariage of one man one woman.

That almost certainly had far more to do with Gentile Christianity's adherence to Greek and Roman customs than anything Jesus said. The only time an even oblique reference to monogamy is attributed to Jesus is when Matthew 19:5 has him quote Genesis 2:24 from the Septuagint. The Greek reads, "the two shall become one flesh," while the Hebrew (at least the Masoretic text we now have) reads, "they shall become one flesh."

[JehovahsWitness]

Yes polygamy was permitted for a while, but Jesus bought his followers back to the original edenic standard for mariage of one man one woman.

That almost certainly had far more to do with Gentile Christianity's adherence to Greek and Roman customs than anything Jesus said. The only time an even oblique reference to monogamy is attributed to Jesus is when Matthew 19:5 has him quote Genesis 2:24 from the Septuagint. The Greek reads, "the two shall become one flesh," while the Hebrew (at least the Masoretic text we now have) reads, "they shall become one flesh."

Regardless what his sources, Jesus refering first to Eden said two in Matthew 19:5, so two becomes the Christian standard.



JW

[Difflugia]

Regardless what his sources, Jesus refering first to to Eden said two said in Matthew 19:5, so two becomes the Christian standard.

Your assertion of cause and effect here may be a bit forced.

First, it's not even explicit in Matthew 19:5 that Jesus is speaking of monogamy; the debate there is about divorce. The text applies equally well to single or plural marriage. Second, if we accept that Jesus did, in fact, say what Matthew claims, he almost certainly quoted Torah in Hebrew and one might expect that he did so accurately. Matthew then replaced his words with the corresponding translation from the Septuagint (it's word-for-word). Third, Christian polygamy has been argued back even to the early church, usually hinging on whether the admonition in the Pastoral Epistles that church officers be "husband of one wife" applies to the whole congregation. If Matthew 19:5 were understood as even a probable attempt to address monogamy then there would have been no need to parse anything from the epistles.

If Matthew's Jesus were intending to make a clear statement in support of monogamy, it seems weird that nobody noticed it as such for hundreds of years.