"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?


.

[JehovahsWitness]

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.

I made no assertion of cause and effect, quite to the contrary I said "regardless of his sources". In other words, Christian policy is established by the Christian leader, if Jesus said it (which he did) then it becomes Christian law. In short if Jesus said, "I'm just making this up as we speak and pulling this next rule ot of thin air" it would STILL be the source if Christian standard. If he made up the number two, because he happened to see two cups on the table in front of him, it would still be two for a marriage. Why? Because he said so.



JW

[PinSeeker]

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.

I think -- I think -- I agree with Difflugia, here (that it's a bit forced). But whether it's really "forced" or not is really irrelevant. It may take a bit more care, but in reading Genesis again... ... particularly the following, it should be easy to see:

• Genesis 2: God created the female Eve from the male Adam and gave her to him as his "helper" -- God actually did this for Adam, and gave him one wife.

• Genesis 4: specifically verse 17, where Lamech (the fifth generation from Adam) took two wives -- there was no command or even "allowing" -- neither explicit nor implicit -- from the Lord. It happened that Lamech took two wives, yes. But just because something is documented in the Bible does not necessarily constitute any sanction for or "allowing" of that thing. I'm sure there will be disagreement, but in taking two wives, Lamech obviously went against God's plan and sinned. We know this because what happened next, in Genesis 6 (Genesis 5 is a genealogy), particularly in verse 5, where we read, "The LORD saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every intention of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually."

• Genesis 6: God resolved to "re-create," and gave Noah (who had one wife, female, of course, and his sons each had one wife, females all) specific commands to follow, particularly to take with him on the ark one male and one female of all animals. This is actually a re-establishing with Noah the covenant of life, originally made with Adam.

• Genesis 12-17: Abram had one wife (female), Sarai (subsequently Abraham and Sarah, of course). Hagar was given to Abram by Sarai, not God, and it's very significant that this did not happen until Genesis 16 -- AFTER God had made His covenant with Abram in Genesis 13 and 15 and before re-establishing it upon Abram's repentance early in Genesis 17. There is no sanctioning or "allowing" of this action by Sarai or of the indulgence taken by Abram. In addition, God has mercy upon Hagar as a result and blesses her through it and not Sarai or Abram. So Sarai and Abram sinned, because they did not trust in the Lord to provide a child but instead took it upon themselves to rectify the situation. Abram repented of his sin in Genesis 17 (verse 3; he "fell on his face" before God, and this was effectual for Sarai also) and God subsequently renewed His covenant with Abram, promising him that he would be the father of many nations, renaming him Abraham, and finally promising Abraham a son through Sarah and promising to establish His covenant through Isaac, the child of the promise.

• Genesis 18 & 19: Sodom and Gomorrah. I trust no explanation is needed here.

So, monogamy -- heterosexual monogamy -- was always God's plan from the very beginning. And having said all this, the mere fact that Jesus, in Matthew 19:4-6, refers specifically to Adam does in fact (among other things) indicate God's endorsement of only heterosexual monogamy as His "standard." With that, then, although that may not be exactly how he stated it, I agree with Jehovah's Witness. One day, all will be set right again. When God returns in the Person of Jesus Christ.

Grace and peace to all.

[AgnosticBoy]

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

Even if we restrict the number of people in a marriage, but that is not the same thing as restricting the number of marriages. A polygamist can abide by the two person marriage standard by having multiple marriages, with two people in each.

As for the "one flesh" part, I'm not sure why you don't look at that as a process that can occur more than once in a lifetime. I'm sure we can agree that the process can occur multiple times when a widowed person remarries. I'm not sure why it's so far-fetched for it to happen when polygamy is involved.

[JehovahsWitness]

Even if we restrict the number of people in a marriage, but that is not the same thing as restricting the number of marriages. A polygamist can abide by the two person marriage standard by having multiple marriages, with two people in each.

Wouldn't one have to have more than one marriage partner at the same time to be a polygamist?

As for the "one flesh" part, I'm not sure why you don't look at that as a process that can occur more than once in a lifetime. I'm sure we can agree that the process can occur multiple times when a widowed person remarries. I'm not sure why it's so far-fetched for it to happen when polygamy is involved.

Yes but when one's marriage mate dies the marriage ends and the surviving mate is single again. When they remarry they are marrying for the second time but they do not have two mates at the same time.

[Difflugia]

I made no assertion of cause and effect, quite to the contrary I said "regardless of his sources". In other words, Christian policy is established by the Christian leader, if Jesus said it (which he did) then it becomes Christian law.

The bolded part is the cause and effect I meant. I'll agree that what Jesus said should be binding on Christians, but Matthew 19:5 doesn't establish monogamy.

Though various commentators through the centuries have used Genesis 2:24 and its quotation in Matthew 19:5 as prooftexts for monogamy, neither verse unambiguously establishes monogamy in either Hebrew or Greek. Arguments among Jewish scholars that we know about (Talmud, Mishnah, Qumran scrolls) hinge on the meaning of "one flesh." An equivalent Christian argument invokes 1 Corinthians 6:16; if a (presumably married) man can become "one body" or "one flesh" with a prostitute, then the description in Genesis 2:24 of becoming "one flesh" with one's spouse has nothing to do with not becoming "one flesh" with anyone else (that's what the independent prohibition against adultery is for). According to that interpretation, each person should repeatedly pair with a spouse to become one flesh, regardless of how many spouses there are. By that view, the Greek translation of Genesis 2:24 would be a prohibition against group sex, even within a polygynous marriage.

Taken as a whole, I'm inclined to think that regardless of what Jesus thought, Paul thought of marriage as a monogamy in the Greek or Roman style, though he never explicitly said so. To the extent that Paul's implied understanding of doctrine should carry weight, Christians should be monogamous.

On the other hand, the argument that God's design for marriage was "originally" monogamous is completely unpersuasive. God has never been shy about commanding the minutest details about what He expected in any sphere and showed a distinct willingness to smite those that disagree. Since there are laws circumscribing what is acceptable in plural marriage (no mother and daughter at the same time, for example), then I can't accept that God's acceptance of any marriage within the rules as less than complete. Nowhere is polygamy treated as undesirable or viewed askance. Saying that God was grudging in His acceptance seems to me the equivalent of "thou shalt not steal, but if thou stealest anyway, makest thou sure that it's not too much."

Another thought that gets a bit beyond T&D is that there are indications that the first few chapters of Genesis show relatively late Babylonian influence and may actually have been composed later than the stories of the patriarchs. With the exception of the king, Babylonian society appears to have mostly practiced monogamous marriage. If that's the case, then Genesis 1-3 may reflect later, more cosmopolitan and urban sensibilities than were common when the stories of the patriarchs were composed. God's "original" plan, then, may have been polygamous, but the Israelites later found such to be largely distasteful.

[AgnosticBoy]

Even if we restrict the number of people in a marriage, but that is not the same thing as restricting the number of marriages. A polygamist can abide by the two person marriage standard by having multiple marriages, with two people in each.

Wouldn't one have to have more than one marriage partner at the same time to be a polygamist?

A polygamist would have more than one marriage partner, but he can also have multiple marriages. I honestly don't see anything in your comment here that shows that to be inconsistent with a 2 person marriage.

As for the "one flesh" part, I'm not sure why you don't look at that as a process that can occur more than once in a lifetime. I'm sure we can agree that the process can occur multiple times when a widowed person remarries. I'm not sure why it's so far-fetched for it to happen when polygamy is involved.

Yes but when one's marriage mate dies the marriage ends and the surviving mate is single again. When they remarry they are marrying for the second time but they do not have two mates at the same time.

I thought initially you were assuming that the "one flesh" process could only happen once in life, but now you're assuming that you have to be single to fulfill the process. Either way, my point about widows shows that the process can take place multiple times in someone's lifetime. But they also don't have to be single since the Bible also mentions that someone can become "one flesh" with a prostitute. And we know of course, that it doesn't take being single to sleep with prostitutes since even married guys can do it.

Keep in mind, that I'm sorta debating with one hand behind my back here because I haven't relied on the OT. If we bring in the Old Testament then the debate would most likely be over once we factor in the definition of adultery, God helping polygamous relations, etc. I'm really trying to be nice here

[PinSeeker]

I'll agree that what Jesus said should be binding on Christians, but Matthew 19:5 doesn't establish monogamy.

Well, yes, what Jesus said is "binding" on Christians; I'm glad you agree with that (though I never would have thought your opinion on this to be otherwise). But actually, everything He said (His commandments, anyway) is applicable all humans, and all are (will be) ultimately held to account.

Too, I would readily agree that Matthew 19:5 doesn't establish monogamy. To my immediate knowledge, I don't think anyone has claimed that. At least not me. I have only said His statement in Matthew 19:5 affirms it.

Though various commentators through the centuries have used Genesis 2:24 and its quotation in Matthew 19:5 as prooftexts for monogamy, neither verse unambiguously establishes monogamy...

Agreed. But they both are affirmations of the establishment of monogamy as God's ordering of nature, which He did from, say, a 40,000 foot view in Genesis 1 -- the very beginning -- and from a close-up view regarding mankind in Genesis 2. The one verse that can possibly be pointed to as the earthly establishment of heterosexual monogamy is Genesis 2:18. Actually we could say that about that whole passage from verse 18 to verse 24, but particularly verses 18 and 22:

• "Then the LORD God said, 'It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him a helper fit for him.' And the rib that the LORD God had taken from the man he made into a woman and brought her to the man."

It should be easily noted that 1.) the helper for the man is a woman, and 2,) there is only one helper.

Verse 24 is just a final declaration of the act of the establishment of heterosexual monogamy. And like I said, Jesus, in Matthew 19:5, affirms it by quoting Genesis 2:24.

Taken as a whole, I'm inclined to think that regardless of what Jesus thought, Paul thought of marriage as a monogamy in the Greek or Roman style, though he never explicitly said so. To the extent that Paul's implied understanding of doctrine should carry weight, Christians should be monogamous.

Yes, I agree. But Paul was an evangelist. As such, he was speaking to unbelievers also, even regarding marriage. His epistles were addressed to the churches in Rome, Corinth, Ephesus, Galatia, Colossae, and Thessalonica, etc., but applicable to everyone.

On the other hand, the argument that God's design for marriage was "originally" monogamous is completely unpersuasive.

To some, yes, for sure. But this is more due to a preconceived notion and resulting intractability more than anything else. Like I've said -- repeated, actually -- still a man hears what he wants to hear and disregards the rest (sang, actually... Paul Simon and Art Garfunkel).

Grace and peace to you.

[AgnosticBoy]

Though various commentators through the centuries have used Genesis 2:24 and its quotation in Matthew 19:5 as prooftexts for monogamy, neither verse unambiguously establishes monogamy...

Agreed. But they both are affirmations of the establishment of monogamy as God's ordering of nature, which He did from, say, a 40,000 foot view in Genesis 1 -- the very beginning -- and from a close-up view regarding mankind in Genesis 2. The one verse that can possibly be pointed to as the earthly establishment of heterosexual monogamy is Genesis 2:18. Actually we could say that about that whole passage from verse 18 to verse 24, but particularly verses 18 and 22:

• "Then the LORD God said, 'It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him a helper fit for him.' And the rib that the LORD God had taken from the man he made into a woman and brought her to the man."

It should be easily noted that 1.) the helper for the man is a woman, and 2,) there is only one helper.

Verse 24 is just a final declaration of the act of the establishment of heterosexual monogamy.

I see a classic problem in your view which is mixing description with prescription. Yes, Genesis chapter 2 gives an account or describes one man and one woman but that doesn't necessarily make that a prescription any more than the 2 being naked (and many other characteristics of the story) being a prescription for public nudity. You obviously need more than just a description to establish a prescription otherwise people would have to follow all of it or become selective on which to follow.

You claim that the time period that the story occurs at, i.e. occurring from "the very beginning", makes it a prescription. I can buy that to an extent seeing that Jesus used the same thinking to answer a question about divorce. However, I don't agree with applying that line of thinking to prescribe anything beyond the point of divorce because Jesus never did that. Had he applied that line of thinking, i.e. pointing to the conditions of that time, to bring back or establish how marriage was supposed to be then he would also have to require public nudity, to have no kids, to have no marital roles, and all other conditions that were present in the beginning. We clearly don't find out about much of those things until after Genesis chapter 2, and Jesus left those in place.

Now even if going by "the beginning" was a way of establishing a prescription, it's certainly not the only way. Other ways are going by God's law and going by an all-good God's actions. There is where I find plenty of evidence to show that God did not intend for marriage to be monogamous. If God intended for marriage to be monogamous, then why do we find 'adultery' based on the marital status of the woman instead of the marital status of the man, as well? In other words, the married man can sleep with (marry) additional woman and it not be adultery just as long as those additional women belong to no other man. Such terms are what you find in polygynous societies. The meaning is further clarified by how it is enforced which is where you find God's actions where he judges kings for trying to take the wife of another man, but does nothing when a man takes an unmarried women to be his second wife. Also, why do we find God blessings (not just financially, but also through offspring) polygamous families? Why help Rachel and Leah, TWO women, become impregnated by ONE man? (Genesis 29:30-33).

[PinSeeker]

I see a classic problem in your view which is mixing description with prescription.

Weeeeeellllll of course you do. LOL! Grace and peace to you, AB.

[Difflugia]

Too, I would readily agree that Matthew 19:5 doesn't establish monogamy. To my immediate knowledge, I don't think anyone has claimed that. At least not me. I have only said His statement in Matthew 19:5 affirms it.

Let me rephrase that. Matthew 19:5 doesn't address monogamy; it's about any marriage, whether monogamous or not.

It should be easily noted that 1.) the helper for the man is a woman, and 2,) there is only one helper.

The first helper. God, for whatever reasons, didn't think Adam needed a second, as many of the patriarchs needed. One could just as persuasively argue (and some try) that we should all be vegetarian because the only foods God gave Adam were plants of the Garden.

As I said, it's possible that a late author of Genesis 2 influenced by Babylonian (or Egyptian; they were culturally monogamous) thought God should be a monogamist, but even then, the God described in the rest of Genesis was not. If modern source criticism has any validity, then Genesis 2:24-25 and 4:17-24 (Lamech and his two wives) were by the same author (the Yahwist) and if inerrantists are correct, then they were both written by Moses. Nowhere in the Old Testament is polygamy disparaged, but is treated without comment as the status quo. If we are to accept that the Petateuch is to be taken as a theologically unified whole, then there's no indication that polygamy isn't God's preferred state of marriage.

The Old Testament God isn't given to simply looking the other way when things aren't done the way He wants them. There are too many rules about polygamous marriage to think that He didn't really want things that way. According to Leviticus 20:14, if a man marries a mother and daughter at the same time, the Israelites are supposed to burn all three of them to death. That's not the rule of Someone that hasn't put much thought into how He wants marriage to be.

On the other hand, the argument that God's design for marriage was "originally" monogamous is completely unpersuasive.

To some, yes, for sure. But this is more due to a preconceived notion and resulting intractability more than anything else. Like I've said -- repeated, actually -- still a man hears what he wants to hear and disregards the rest (sang, actually... Paul Simon and Art Garfunkel).

Considering how interwoven polygamy is into the narrative of Israel's history and your suggestion that it might be reversed by overinterpreting a single verse, I might humbly suggest that you've got things exactly backwards.