"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?


.

[Miles]

... sex outside the marriage contract need not involve a prostitute.

Did I say sex outside the marriage contract need involve a prostitute?

If you didn't think it did then why cite 1 Cor 6:16 explaining why "sex outside of that marriage contract is presented in scripture as unlawful and immoral"?

"2. Sex outside of that marriage contract is presented in scripture as unlawful and immoral ( 1 Cor 6:16)"

[Because the biblical principle is applicable whether sex is with a prostitute or not.

But as applied to the "or nots" it's trivial because its introductory phrase, which is not the heart of the message, already acknowledges them: "The Scriptures say, 'The two people will become one.”

So verse 16 is not addressing the "or nots" (none prostitutes). The whole message starting with verse 15, acknowledges the nature of the body and then goes on with the admonition not to join it with prostitutes, and continues in verse 16 to explain the consequences of doing so.

Verse 16 has nothing to do with the "or nots," only with prostitutes.

1 Cor 6:15-16
15 Surely you know that your bodies are parts of Christ himself. So I must never take what is part of Christ and join it to a prostitute!

16 The Scriptures say, “The two people will become one.” So you should know that anyone who is joined with a prostitute becomes one with her in body.

Its only reason for being applicable to only prostitutes is because that's all it's talking about, and to hijack it as a means to show that it's more than that, "Sex outside of that marriage contract is presented in scripture as unlawful and immoral" is ludicrous.


.

[PinSeeker]

Jesus refers directly to the establishment of the institution of marriage, and it was established by God the Father, as shown previously, as heterosexual and monogamous.

You've asserted this repeatedly, but never shown it.

You're welcome to your opinion. The passage around and including Genesis 2:24-25 is clear.

As I said, Laban [Lamech] is the first person to practice polygamy, and is obviously sinful in doing so.

Neither Lamech's polygamous marriage nor any other in the Bible is ever described even obliquely as sinful, so what makes it obvious to you?

As I said, Lamech's polygamous marriage is documented in Genesis 4, and immediately afterward in Genesis 6 (again, Genesis 5 is a genealogy), we see that many others followed in Lamech's polygamous footsteps (6:2) and God condemned these actions (along with probably a whole lot of others) as "wicked" in Genesis 6:5 and resolved "make an end of all flesh" and subsequently re-establish the covenant of life with Noah (6:13). The examples we see in Abraham with Hagar in Genesis 16 and in the case of Sodom and Gomorrah in Genesis 18-19 show us the same thing.

The same argument has been (I think just as incorrectly) made for vegetarianism. Genesis 1:29 and 2:16 "show" that God "established" an exclusively vegetarian diet for human beings. Is every biblical description of eating meat also describing sin?

Maybe that argument has been made, but I would hold it to be in error. All things (foods) are blessed to us in Christ now. But what I would say is that what we see in the lives of Adam and Eve before the Fall in Genesis 3 -- and, relevant to this particular subject Genesis 2:16 ("You may surely eat of every tree of the garden...") -- gives us a picture of what the New Heaven and New Earth will be like. We will, after Jesus's return and the Judgment, be vegetarians once again. And that's not because eating meat now is sinful, really, but eating meat involves death (of animals), and as was the case before the Fall in Genesis 3, there will be no death in the New Heaven and New Earth.

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...

Who's doing that? Certainly not me, despite your opinion. As I said, My proof text, if you want to call it that, it really the first 19 chapters of Genesis. In truth really much more than that, but that should be enough to get one well on his/her way, anyway.

Then you should be able to find a verse (or pericope as a whole) that disparages polygamy somewhere in those 19 chapters.

That you don't accept it is not an issue for me; it is what it is.

Grace and peace to you, Difflugia.

[Difflugia]

You're welcome to your opinion. The passage around and including Genesis 2:24-25 is clear.

Since rabbis have been arguing over exactly this for at least 1700 years, I suspect that your clarity is illusory. I recall the same attitude a while ago when we were discussing the Philippians 2 "kenosis hymn." Where experts see many facets to debate and discuss, you seem to think that they're being silly.

As I said, Lamech's polygamous marriage is documented in Genesis 4, and immediately afterward in Genesis 6 (again, Genesis 5 is a genealogy), we see that many others followed in Lamech's polygamous footsteps (6:2) and God condemned these actions (along with probably a whole lot of others) as "wicked" in Genesis 6:5 and resolved "make an end of all flesh" and subsequently re-establish the covenant of life with Noah (6:13). The examples we see in Abraham with Hagar in Genesis 16 and in the case of Sodom and Gomorrah in Genesis 18-19 show us the same thing.

You're reading all of that into the text yourself. Genesis 6:2 neither mentions nor implies polygamy, but is about the mixing of natural and supernatural beings. The problems with Hagar are neither described as nor implied to be because of polygamy. The story of Sodom and Gomorrah doesn't even mention marriage. You're just finding unrelated conflicts in the Bible and saying, "There you go! Polygamy!"

Maybe that argument has been made, but I would hold it to be in error. All things (foods) are blessed to us in Christ now.

You mean he doesn't just tolerate us eating everything because he knows we will anyway? What about the obvious clarity of Genesis 1:29???

But what I would say is that what we see in the lives of Adam and Eve before the Fall in Genesis 3 -- and, relevant to this particular subject Genesis 2:16 ("You may surely eat of every tree of the garden...") -- gives us a picture of what the New Heaven and New Earth will be like. We will, after Jesus's return and the Judgment, be vegetarians once again. And that's not because eating meat now is sinful, really, but eating meat involves death (of animals), and as was the case before the Fall in Genesis 3, there will be no death in the New Heaven and New Earth.

This is just as fanciful as your argument against polygamy; it's neat and has a kind of theological beauty to it, but it's not based on anything that's actually written in the Bible.

Then you should be able to find a verse (or pericope as a whole) that disparages polygamy somewhere in those 19 chapters.

That you don't accept it is not an issue for me; it is what it is.

Of course.

[PinSeeker]

You're welcome to your opinion. The passage around and including Genesis 2:24-25 is clear.

Since rabbis have been arguing over exactly this for at least 1700 years, I suspect that your clarity is illusory.

God created Eve for Adam and made her his wife. There was no other female made from him or given to him. Ergo, the establishment of marriage and its heterosexual monogamous nature. "Illusory?" I think not, but again, you're welcome to your opinion.

I recall the same attitude a while ago when we were discussing the Philippians 2 "kenosis hymn." Where experts see many facets to debate and discuss, you seem to think that they're being silly.

No, I wouldn't necessarily call those "experts" silly, but just wrong.

As I said, Lamech's polygamous marriage is documented in Genesis 4, and immediately afterward in Genesis 6 (again, Genesis 5 is a genealogy), we see that many others followed in Lamech's polygamous footsteps (6:2) and God condemned these actions (along with probably a whole lot of others) as "wicked" in Genesis 6:5 and resolved "make an end of all flesh" and subsequently re-establish the covenant of life with Noah (6:13). The examples we see in Abraham with Hagar in Genesis 16 and in the case of Sodom and Gomorrah in Genesis 18-19 show us the same thing.

You're reading all of that into the text yourself.

Nope. Again, polygamy has just been mentioned, and immediately afterward God sees "that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every intention of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually." So by any modicum of rational understanding, polygamy is included in that "all." Who the Nephilim of verse 4 were is uncertain and can't really be speculated about. There must be significance to it; otherwise the Holy Spirit would not have written it (through Moses). The text says they were "mighty men of old," probably signifying that they were warriors of some kind. At any rate, it's really just offered as a time marker and kind of an aside, really. The sinfulness and wickedness of all men (except Noah), including but not limited to polygamy, is what is in view here.

...6:2 ... is about the mixing of natural and supernatural beings.

Nope. See above.

The problems with Hagar are neither described as nor implied to be because of polygamy.

She was given to Abram by Sarai for the purpose of giving him a son. I agree that polygamy and what went on between Abram and Hagar were different things, but the sin is basically the same: unfaithfulness to the marriage covenant which was made in the case of Adam and Eve, Abram and Sarai, and every man and his wife by and with God is unfaithfulness and adultery.

The story of Sodom and Gomorrah doesn't even mention marriage. You're just finding unrelated conflicts in the Bible and saying, "There you go! Polygamy!"

Agreed, but unnatural relations, i.e., men with other men -- homosexuality is what I was getting at here. We have been talking about sexual sin... or at least I have. Polygamy and homosexuality are both in that same boat (along with many other types of sexual sin).

All things (foods) are blessed to us in Christ now.

You mean he doesn't just tolerate us eating everything because he knows we will anyway?

LOL! All things are blessed to us in Christ in this life. And Jesus Himself declared all foods clean (Mark 7:18-19) There is a much greater significance to this; it is indicative of the great truth that the Gospel is opened up to all people now, whereas before Jesus's coming, it was only for the Israelites and no other nation. The principle is similar; we can now partake of anything (not just what was declared clean in the Old Testament) with thankfulness to God for providing and cannot be denounced for anything for which we have given thanks. Therefore, whether we eat or drink, or whatever we do, we are to do all for the glory of God (1 Corinthians 10:30-31).

What about the obvious clarity of Genesis 1:29???

Like I said, Genesis 1 (and 2, and part of 3) was before the Fall. Adam and Eve were vegetarians. There was no sin and there was no death before the Fall, and it will be this way again in the new Garden, the New Heaven and New Earth. The Garden of Eden in Genesis 1-3 gives us a glimpse into what the renewed Garden will be like.

But what I would say is that what we see in the lives of Adam and Eve before the Fall in Genesis 3 -- and, relevant to this particular subject Genesis 2:16 ("You may surely eat of every tree of the garden...") -- gives us a picture of what the New Heaven and New Earth will be like. We will, after Jesus's return and the Judgment, be vegetarians once again. And that's not because eating meat now is sinful, really, but eating meat involves death (of animals), and as was the case before the Fall in Genesis 3, there will be no death in the New Heaven and New Earth.

This is just as fanciful as your argument against polygamy; it's neat and has a kind of theological beauty to it, but it's not based on anything that's actually written in the Bible.

Like I said, you're welcome to your opinion. But to say it's not based on anything that's actually written in the Bible is... well, silly. You can certainly say it's not properly based on anything that's actually written in the Bible; like I said, you're welcome to your opinion. But it is very much based on quite a lot that's actually written in the Bible. I do agree, though, that there is a great neatness and indeed a beauty to it all.

Then you should be able to find a verse (or pericope as a whole) that disparages polygamy somewhere in those 19 chapters.

That you don't accept it is not an issue for me; it is what it is.

Of course.

Yep, cool. Grace and peace to you, Difflugia.