"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?


.

[Difflugia]

Do you have any documentation to prove that?

To the extent that rabbinic oral tradition as recorded in the fifth or sixth century reflects that of first century Judaism^*, nobspeople is correct:

GEMARA: The Gemara infers from the mishna’s wording that if he already has children he may neglect the mitzva to be fruitful and multiply, but he may not neglect the mitzva to have a wife. This supports what Rav Naḥman said in the name of Shmuel, who said: Even if a man has several children, it is prohibited to remain without a wife, as it is stated: “It is not good that the man should be alone” (Genesis 2:18).

And some say a different version of the inference from the mishna: If he already has children, he may neglect the mitzva to be fruitful and multiply and he may also neglect the mitzva to have a wife. Shall we say this is a conclusive refutation of what Rav Naḥman said that Shmuel said? The Gemara responds: No, it means that if he does not have children he must marry a woman capable of bearing children, whereas if he has children he may marry a woman who is not capable of bearing children. A practical difference between a man who has children and one who does not is whether he is permitted to sell a Torah scroll in order to marry a woman capable of having children. This is permitted only for one who does not yet have children.

—Yevamot 16b:16-17

^* It's generally assumed that it more-or-less does, but it depends both on how accurately one thinks rabbinic oral tradition was preserved and how unified Babylonian and Palestinian traditions were.

[JehovahsWitness]

Do you have any documentation to prove that?

To the extent that rabbinic oral tradition as recorded in the fifth or sixth century reflects that of first century Judaism^*, nobspeople is correct:

GEMARA: The Gemara infers from the mishna’s wording that if he already has children he may neglect the mitzva to be fruitful and multiply, but he may not neglect the mitzva to have a wife. This supports what Rav Naḥman said in the name of Shmuel, who said: Even if a man has several children, it is prohibited to remain without a wife, as it is stated: “It is not good that the man should be alone” (Genesis 2:18).

And some say a different version of the inference from the mishna: If he already has children, he may neglect the mitzva to be fruitful and multiply and he may also neglect the mitzva to have a wife. Shall we say this is a conclusive refutation of what Rav Naḥman said that Shmuel said? The Gemara responds: No, it means that if he does not have children he must marry a woman capable of bearing children, whereas if he has children he may marry a woman who is not capable of bearing children. A practical difference between a man who has children and one who does not is whether he is permitted to sell a Torah scroll in order to marry a woman capable of having children. This is permitted only for one who does not yet have children.

—Yevamot 16b:16-17

^* It's generally assumed that it more-or-less does, but it depends both on how accurately one thinks rabbinic oral tradition was preserved and how unified Babylonian and Palestinian traditions were.

Age you suggesting this document alludes or refers to. ...

1. age anywhere (the point under discussion was whether an unmarried man in his early thirties would have been seen an anomalie in first century Palestine)
2. the marriage customs of first century working class men
3. Wasn't written hundreds of years after the period we are talking about




JW

[nobspeople]

Do you have any documentation to prove that?

To the extent that rabbinic oral tradition as recorded in the fifth or sixth century reflects that of first century Judaism^*, nobspeople is correct:

GEMARA: The Gemara infers from the mishna’s wording that if he already has children he may neglect the mitzva to be fruitful and multiply, but he may not neglect the mitzva to have a wife. This supports what Rav Naḥman said in the name of Shmuel, who said: Even if a man has several children, it is prohibited to remain without a wife, as it is stated: “It is not good that the man should be alone” (Genesis 2:18).

And some say a different version of the inference from the mishna: If he already has children, he may neglect the mitzva to be fruitful and multiply and he may also neglect the mitzva to have a wife. Shall we say this is a conclusive refutation of what Rav Naḥman said that Shmuel said? The Gemara responds: No, it means that if he does not have children he must marry a woman capable of bearing children, whereas if he has children he may marry a woman who is not capable of bearing children. A practical difference between a man who has children and one who does not is whether he is permitted to sell a Torah scroll in order to marry a woman capable of having children. This is permitted only for one who does not yet have children.

—Yevamot 16b:16-17

^* It's generally assumed that it more-or-less does, but it depends both on how accurately one thinks rabbinic oral tradition was preserved and how unified Babylonian and Palestinian traditions were.

And from my understanding (never having claimed to be an expert) there are other sects of Judaism one could follow where a single man in his thirties may not be strange. Which is one of the reasons I said 'probably', much to the chagrin of some.
I've heard people say that Jesus being married or gay would invalidate his 'bride of the church' and other types of ideals. I have yet to see any 'why's' to these ideals make logical sense, but then again, religion and logic aren't the best of friends.

[Difflugia]

Age you suggesting this document alludes or refers to. ...

1. age anywhere (the point under discussion was whether an unmarried man in his early thirties would have been seen an anomalie in first century Palestine)

Not any age (I'm guessing that's what you mean), since I doubt that prepubescent boys were expected to be married. Considering that marriages in antiquity were typically teenage affairs, however, I am comfortable expecting that the Talmudic discussions would apply most definitely apply to someone in his thirties. Unless, of course, you have some documentation that you think demonstrates otherwise?

2. the marriage customs of first century working class men

If they were working-class, Jewish men, then yes.

3. Wasn't written hundreds of years after the period we are talking about

The oral traditions underlying the records form an unbroken chain which dates, according to the rabbis, to hundreds of years before the time of Jesus. If you have some documentation that would indicate that this is untrue or that such tradition was ignored in first-century Palestine, I'm sure that we'd all love to see it.

[JehovahsWitness]

I am comfortable expecting that the Talmudic discussions would apply most definitely apply to someone in his thirties.

I don't recall asking about your level of comfort, debate involves the presentation of facts and as yet I see no reference to age in anything you present.

Your post amounts to an incidental comment of a 17th century Rabbi on perpetual celibacy, which was never an issue. If you wish to suggest the there was an oral tradition that imposed early marriage for non-rabbonic first century men which is reflected in the Misnah, the very least you can do is produce the passage in the Mishnah.

A paragraph about how to choose a suitable wife does not suffice as it has no bearing on when (ie what age) a man should marry.


JW

[Tcg]

[Replying to Miles in post #1]

We have no records of any sexual activity by Jesus. He could have been asexual, bisexual, homosexual, or heterosexual. He may have remained celibate no matter what his orientation. Of course as we have seen with JWs, Baptists, Catholics, and others, the sexual sins of religious leaders can easily be denied and covered up.

There is no reason to believe we have the full story about many aspects of Jesus' activities. He and his followers were trying to reform a religion they wanted to take control of. It would be easy for them to keep inconvenient details of Jesus' life secret just as we see today some JWs, Baptists, Catholics and others do for their leaders and members.


Tcg

[Difflugia]

I don't recall asking about your level of comfort, debate involves the presentation of facts and as yet I see no reference to age in anything you present.

The only reference to age at all in the argument is your desperate, hail Mary attempt to imply a loophole in historical Jewish tradition that just isn't there. Unsupported assertions, even when couched in leading questions, are worth exactly nothing. If I may share a sentiment offered so recently in this very thread, I hope asking you to back up your statement with facts wasn't to [sic] upsetting an experience for you.

Your post amounts to an incidental comment of a 17th century Rabbi on perpetual celibacy, which was never an issue.

Perpetual celibacy? The quoted passage clarifies that one shouldn't be celibate even after having children. The discussion is in the context of procreation, but says that even after the commandment to procreate has been completed by fathering two male children, the commandment that every man have a wife is still in effect. A man that already has children is no longer required to have a fertile wife, but is commanded to have a wife nonetheless.

If you wish to suggest the there was an oral tradition that imposed early marriage for non-rabbonic first century men which is reflected in the Misnah, the very least you can do is produce the passage in the Mishnah.

I've not only suggested it, but your protestations notwithstanding, I supported it with exactly what you're asking for now. If you're going to assert that a general exhortation that every man should marry somehow doesn't yet apply to man in his thirties, it's up to you to support it, especially after making such big deal about your opponent's unsupported (yet much more reasonable and, as it turns out, much more accurate) assertions.

What's baffling to me is that you didn't even bother to look it up yourself before making the assertion.

The Gemara notes: Rav Huna conforms to his standard line of reasoning, as he says: If one is twenty years old and has not yet married a woman, all of his days will be in a state of sin concerning sexual matters. The Gemara asks: Can it enter your mind that he will be in a state of sin all of his days? Rather, say that this means the following: All of his days will be in a state of thoughts of sin, i.e., sexual thoughts. One who does not marry in his youth will become accustomed to thoughts of sexual matters, and the habit will remain with him the rest of his life.

Rava said, and similarly, the school of Rabbi Yishmael taught: Until one reaches the age of twenty years the Holy One, Blessed be He, sits and waits for a man, saying: When will he marry a woman? Once he reaches the age of twenty and has not married, He says: Let his bones swell, i.e., he is cursed and God is no longer concerned about him.

Rav Ḥisda said: The fact that I am superior to my colleagues is because I married at the age of sixteen, and if I would have married at the age of fourteen, I would say to the Satan: An arrow in your eye, i.e., I would not be afraid of the evil inclination at all. Rava said to Rabbi Natan bar Ami: While your hand is still on your son’s neck, i.e., while you still have authority and control over him, find him a wife. What is the appropriate age? From sixteen until twenty-two, and some say from eighteen until twenty-four.

—Kiddushin 29b:17-19, 30a:1

Did you catch that? Some say that one could marry as late as twenty-four and probably still be OK.

A paragraph about how to choose a suitable wife does not suffice as it has no bearing on when (ie what age) a man should marry.

I think you've misunderstood the crux of the quoted passage. Perhaps you should read it again.

[JehovahsWitness]

Did you catch that? Some say that one could marry as late as twenty-four and probably still be OK.

Was there a part of non-rabbinic you are having a problem grasping?

If the Mishnah has a tradition it lies with the oral teachings of the Pharisees, that by definition existed seperate from the working classes that had neither the opportunity, the time nor the means to follow their numerous rules and religius contraints. Citing a Rabbinic directive that dates from more than a century after Jesus walked the earth does little but to illustrate the thinking of an elite class long after the period under discussion.

Furthermore the Gemara developed over time and arguably only extended its widescale influence in the post temple era . The rabbinic academies (from which you quote ) took on added prominence with the complete restructuring of the Jewish system necessitated by said destruction so there is no reason to believe that ordinary Jewish man of the first century distanced himself from the historic culture that had existed for the Hebrews for millenia*.


* A man only qualified for temple service from'the age of 30 (see Num 4:30)

[Difflugia]

Was there a part of non-rabbinic you are having a problem grasping?

Was there a part of documentation that you are having a problem grasping? You've backed up nothing you've said with anything other than your own incredulity.

If the Mishnah has a tradition it lies with the oral teachings of the Pharisees, that by definition existed seperate from the working classes that had neither the opportunity, the time nor the means to follow their numerous rules and religius contraints.

What definition is that? You're trying to argue that Pharisaic Judaism, a temple-based sect from Jerusalem, had no bearing on first-century, Palestinian Judaism by definition? Find some documentation that a thirty-odd-year-old, unmarried Jewish man was the norm despite the provided evidence to the contrary.

Citing a Rabbinic directive that dates from more than a century after Jesus walked the earth does little but to illustrate the thinking of an elite class long after the period under discussion.

You just said that the traditions of rabbinic Judaism are based on Pharisaic traditions, which by definition were coincident with Jesus in both time and place. Which is it?

Furthermore the Gemara developed over time and arguably only extended its widescale influence in the post temple era .

So, argue it then. As you so aptly put it yourself, debate involves the presentation of facts and I see nothing but unfounded assertions.

The rabbinic academies (from which you quote ) took on added prominence with the complete restructuring of the Jewish system necessitated by said destruction so there is no reason to believe that ordinary Jewish man of the first century distanced himself from the historic culture that had existed for the Hebrews for millenia*.

Aside from the intervening exile from and repatriation to the holy land, you mean? Second Temple Judaism was by definition less than six-hundred years old at the time of Jesus. Unless you're going to argue that Jesus was a Samaritan, there is "no reason to believe that ordinary Jewish man of the first century" was influenced more in daily life by a pre-Persian form of Judaism that, on top of everything else, you haven't shown to have the values you want in the first place.

Your only argument is that maybe the only traditions for which we have evidence didn't apply to Jesus and that despite such evidence, it was perfectly normal for a first-century Jewish man to remain unmarried at least until his thirties. You keep using the phrase "working class" as though people that worked for a living started their families later than those that were either educated or wealthy. Do you have any documentation that justifies such a distinction?

* A man only qualified for temple service from'the age of 30 (see Num 4:30)

Which verse applies to when a man should get married? I'm looking, but I don't see it.

[JehovahsWitness]

Was there a part of non-rabbinic you are having a problem grasping?

Was there a part of documentation that you are having a problem grasping? You've backed up nothing you've said with anything other than your own incredulity.

Thus far I have made no claims to back up. I am simply challenging the assertion that a working class man in his early of thirties would have been such a cultural anomalie in rural first century Palestine, as to give rise to questions as to his sexual orientation.

All that has been produced to support the above position is rabbinnic directives from the Mishnah which (it is a matter historical fact), was finalized two centuries after the focus of our discussion.

Mishna, also spelled Mishnah ... systematically compiled by numerous scholars (called tannaim) over a period of about two centuries. The codification was given final form early in the 3rd century AD by Judah ha-Nasi.

source: https://www.britannica.com/topic/Mishna

While granted based on preexisting ORAL traditions, those very traditions separated those that observer them from the masses. To argue that which made a class different was adopted by the majority thus rendering that very class no different is both illogical and historically problematic.

Pharisees, ...a philosophical sect. "Perisha" (the singular of "Perishaya") denotes "one who separates himself," or keeps away from persons or things impure, in order to attain the degree of holiness and righteousness required in those who would commune with God

Source : http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/artic ... -pharisees

The documented development of Judaism and the progressive influence of the rabbincal schools after and to degree as a consequence of, the destruction of the temple system raises serious doubt on the legitimacy of your claim.

“The destruction . . . in 70 C.E. had made the reconstruction of the entire fabric of religious life an urgent necessity.” - Talmudic scholar Adin Steinsaltz

The bible documents Jesus numerous confrontations in the matter of pharisicitcal oral traditions. While reportedly accused if everything from gluttony to blasphemy, questions about his singleness in general and his sexual orientation in particular were glaring in their absence. (Those that propse this was an omission of editorial bais do well to present somthing other then baseless conjecture).


JW