"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?


.

[2timothy316]

As Strong's concordance explains their usages in John.

agapaō:
"of persons
to welcome, to entertain, to be fond of, to love dearly"

phileō
φιλέω philéō, fil-eh'-o; from G5384; to be a friend to (fond of (an individual or an object)), i.e. have affection for (denoting personal attachment, as a matter of sentiment or feeling;

My emphases. Both of which are applicable to homosexual attachment.


.

I have both of these types of love for men and I'm a man. I am both fond of and have affection for my father. I also have personal attachment to him. Yet the idea of having sex with him doesn't interest me at all. Other homosexuals that love in this way doesn't make everyone that loves that way homosexual. This is a logical fallacy called hasty generalization. The rush to conclude that Jesus was gay based on feelings everyone has with no other supporting evidence.

What you'd have to prove is that these types of love are unique to homosexuals only and you have not done that, nor can you.

I don't have to prove bupkis.

You MUST show that Jesus had a sexual desire towards John. Not just a love of him.

First of all, I MUSTN'T do anything. Secondly, if you're under the impression I've said as much please quote me.

Said as much to what?

That "Jesus had a sexual desire towards John. Not just a love of him"


.

Did you started this thread with the title "Was Jesus Gay? Probably". So there is your quote. You ARE saying that Jesus had a sexual desire toward someone of the same sex right? What other impression am I supposed to be getting here? Do you even know what you're debating anymore?

[Miles]

As Strong's concordance explains their usages in John.

agapaō:
"of persons
to welcome, to entertain, to be fond of, to love dearly"

phileō
φιλέω philéō, fil-eh'-o; from G5384; to be a friend to (fond of (an individual or an object)), i.e. have affection for (denoting personal attachment, as a matter of sentiment or feeling;

My emphases. Both of which are applicable to homosexual attachment.


.

I have both of these types of love for men and I'm a man. I am both fond of and have affection for my father. I also have personal attachment to him. Yet the idea of having sex with him doesn't interest me at all. Other homosexuals that love in this way doesn't make everyone that loves that way homosexual. This is a logical fallacy called hasty generalization. The rush to conclude that Jesus was gay based on feelings everyone has with no other supporting evidence.

What you'd have to prove is that these types of love are unique to homosexuals only and you have not done that, nor can you.

I don't have to prove bupkis.

You MUST show that Jesus had a sexual desire towards John. Not just a love of him.

First of all, I MUSTN'T do anything. Secondly, if you're under the impression I've said as much please quote me.

Said as much to what?

That "Jesus had a sexual desire towards John. Not just a love of him"


.

Did you started this thread with the title "Was Jesus Gay? Probably". So there is your quote.

In as much as none of this makes any sense I suggest you rephrase it so that it does. In the mean time I'm not going to waste my time guessing.

I await your correction.


.

[2timothy316]

[Replying to Miles in post #52]

You've lost me. But that seems that was your intent as your assertion in the tread title is indefensible. So rather than try to defend it you've turned to be being confusing.

[JehovahsWitness]

To put my earlier explanation in a much more concise and blunt way, you are wrong because wayyiqtol isn't imperfect.

I didn't say "wayyiqtol" (vav-consecutive) is imperfect. I said...

IS THE NEW WORLD TRANSLATION JUSTIFIED IN USING THE PHRASE "FELL IN LOVE" RATHER THAN LOVED IN GENESIS 24:67?

Yes. The verb love (ahab) used in Genesis 24v67 is in the Hebrew imperfect tense.

Your analysis of the Hebrew here is wrong

See below...

[Difflugia]

The quotation of Harlaoanu notwithstanding, I'm pretty sure you're reading Gesenius backwards and Gesenius is saying what I was trying to say in my original, longer explanation. I hope I can prove that to you.

Here's a larger selection from the section of Gesenius that you quoted that includes his examples:

§ 49. The Perfect and Imperfect with Wāw Consecutive [I've been writing vav-consecutive, but I'll henceforth use waw-consecutive to match Gesenius—Diff.]

1. The use of the two tense-forms, as is shown more fully in the Syntax (§§ 106, 107, cf. above, § 47, note on a), is by no means restricted to the expression of the past or future. One of the most striking peculiarities in the Hebrew consecution of tenses is the phenomenon that, in representing a series of past events, only the first verb stands in the perfect, and the narration is continued in the imperfect. Conversely, the representation of a series of future events begins with the imperfect, and is continued in the perfect. Thus in 2 Kings 20:1, In those days was Hezekiah sick unto death (perf.), and Isaiah ... came (imperf.) to him, and said (imperf.) to him, &c. On the other hand, Isaiah 7:17, the Lord shall bring (imperf.) upon thee ... days, &c., 7:18, and it shall come to pass (perf. וְהָיָה) in that day ...

In Hebrew, the qal imperfect form of the verb, yiqtol, is normally used for present and future tense. While "imperfect" usually means "imperfect past" in languages like Greek and German, that's not what it typically means in Hebrew. Gesenius is saying that in Hebrew, a series of sequential events in the past tense is represented by a verb written as past-tense, followed by verbs written as though they were in the future tense and connected with waw.

Genesis 24:62-67 is a long, unbroken sequence of past-tense events connected by waw-consecutive verbs. The initial verb in the sequence is in verse 62, "And Isaac came, coming from Beer-lahai-roi...." The verb "came" is in the qal perfect form. Each of the following eighteen (I'm eyeballing) verbs that aren't participles or infinitive constructs in vv. 62-67 is in the "imperfect" yiqtol form with a waw-consecutive.

This "yiqtol with a waw-consecutive" is often called wayyiqtol to distinguish it from unmodified yiqtol, but Bible Hub uses the term "consecutive imperfect" for this. The verb is written in its imperfect conjugation, but translates as past tense with no indication of completion or incompletion. This kind of past tense is often referred to as "narrative past tense." English doesn't have an explicit conjugation for this, but Greek does: aorist.

From this standpoint, go back and read the examples that Gesenius himself gave. A construction with a "perfect" verb followed by "waw-imperfect" verbs is translated entirely in the past tense. One that begins with "imperfect" and is followed by "waw-perfect" verbs is translated entirely in the future tense. As far as I can tell, Harlaoanu just made the same mistake you did.

You objected earlier to my use of verbs in Genesis 1 as examples, but I only used those because they're the first ones one comes to in the Bible and did so to avoid being accused of cherry-picking. You can pretty much crack the Old Testament anywhere you want and you'll find the same sort of construction, so feel free to look for a series of verb conjugations that contradicts what I've said. I doubt you'll find one, but then again, Hebrew's weird enough that I'm not absolutely positive you won't.

At the risk of cherry-picking, however, I'd like to point out an interesting and (I think) illustrative example, go to the last verse of Joshua, 24:33. It reads:

And Eleazar the son of Aaron died [perfect]; and they buried [waw-imperfect] him in the hill of Phinehas his son, which was given [perfect, but this is an adjectival clause attached to "hill"] him in the hill-country of Ephraim.

The first verse of Judges begins with a verb in waw-imperfect, meaning that it is a grammatical continuation of Joshua:

And it came to pass [waw-imperfect] after the death of Joshua, that the children of Israel asked [waw-imperfect] of Yahweh, saying [infinitive], "Who shall go up [imperfect] for us first against the Canaanites, to fight [imperfect] against them?" And Yahweh said [waw-imperfect]...

Note that the verbs "go up" and "fight" are "imperfect" without a waw-consecutive. They're translated in the future tense. Each of the waw-imperfect verbs is translated in the past tense. There's also no indication that the actions should be considered incomplete in the Greek sense of "imperfect past."

[JehovahsWitness]

The verb love (ahab) used in Genesis 24v67 is in the Hebrew imperfect tense.

Each of the following eighteen (I'm eyeballing) verbs that aren't participles or infinitive constructs in vv. 62-67 is in the "imperfect" yiqtol form with a waw-consecutive. ... The verb is written in its imperfect conjugation, but translates as past tense with no indication of completion or incompletion.

Emphasis MINE.

That is the only point I wanted to come back to. Now that is done I'll wish you an excellent weekend,






JW

[Difflugia]

The verb love (ahab) used in Genesis 24v67 is in the Hebrew imperfect tense.

Each of the following eighteen (I'm eyeballing) verbs that aren't participles or infinitive constructs in vv. 62-67 is in the "imperfect" yiqtol form with a waw-consecutive. ... The verb is written in its imperfect conjugation, but translates as past tense with no indication of completion or incompletion.

Emphasis MINE.

That is the only point I wanted to come back to. Now that is done I'll wish you an excellent weekend,

JW

I get that you think that should be the last word, but once again, it's hard for me to tell if you're agreeing or disagreeing with me. I don't understand what you think your emphasis should mean. It really sounds like you're disagreeing with me, but I'll be hanged if I can figure out what you're disagreeing with.

Do you still think that a specifically wayyiqtol conjugation of ahev imparts some meaning that would justify "fell in love" in a non-paraphrastic translation? That's what this post was arguing, right?

[Menotu]

[Replying to Miles in post #1]

"The word “arsenokoitai” shows up in two different verses in the bible, but it was not translated to mean “homosexual” until 1946....In the English where it says “Man shall not lie with man, for it is an abomination,” the German version says “Man shall not lie with young boys as he does with a woman, for it is an abomination....So we went to 1 Corinthians to see how they translated arsenokoitai (original Greek word) and instead of homosexuals it said, “Boy molesters will not inherit the kingdom of God...“The first time homosexual appears in a German translation is 1983.” To me that was a little suspect because of what was happening in culture in the 1970s.
I also have a 1674 Swedish translation and an 1830 Norwegian translation of the Bible. I asked one of my friends, who was attending Fuller seminary and is fluent in both Swedish and Norwegian, to look at these verses for me. “Do you know what this says?!” and I said, “No! That’s why you are here!” She said, “It says boy abusers, boy molesters.” It turns out that the ancient world condoned and encouraged a system whereby young boys (8-12 years old) were coupled by older men. Ancient Greek documents show us how even parents utilized this abusive system to help their sons advance in society. So for most of history, most translations thought these verses were obviously referring the pederasty, not homosexuality! ”

https://um-insight.net/perspectives/has ... the-bible/

An interesting read for those interested. While some may trust the bible, we shouldn't trust those that have edited it (aka flawed people not without bias) as it's all been written with a specific political and sociological bent.

[2timothy316]

.....most translations thought these verses were obviously referring the pederasty, not homosexuality! ”

Nope. There are other scriptures that are quite clear about what acts the Bible is specifically condemning.

"For their females changed the natural use of themselves into one contrary to nature, likewise also the males left the natural use of the female and became violently inflamed in their lust toward one another, males with males, working what is obscene and receiving in themselves the full penalty, which was due for their error." - Romans 1:26, 27

The word 'homosexual' doesn't have to be in the verse to condemn the act of sex with the same sex. Arren with Arren. Arren means man. Not boy or youth.

[JehovahsWitness]

.....most translations thought these verses were obviously referring the pederasty, not homosexuality! ”

Nope. There are other scriptures that are quite clear about what acts the Bible is specifically condemning.

"For their females changed the natural use of themselves into one contrary to nature, likewise also the males left the natural use of the female and became violently inflamed in their lust toward one another, males with males, working what is obscene and receiving in themselves the full penalty, which was due for their error." - Romans 1:26, 27

The word 'homosexual' doesn't have to be in the verse to condemn the act of sex with the same sex. Arren with Arren. Arren means man. Not boy or youth.

I would add that the bible's focus is not on homosexuality (which is defined as being sexually attracted to a member of one's own biological sex) it condemns homosexual ACTS. Which is why Paul translated directly from the Hebrew (literally man-"bedder"/layer with men) to refer to the sexual act between two men rather than mere "attraction".

Arguably, he was deliberately shedding the limitations that might have been imposed by using any of the existing Greek words, in favor of making a compound noun, from the the verb itself (action).



JW