"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 appreciate your opinion, but 'agape' and 'eros' are vastly different concepts. There's more to it than this, of course, but 'eros' -- as directly opposed to 'agape' -- is not transcending in any way, and it's really self-indulgent. Grace and peace to you.

I'm not sure what you imagine that means, but if Jesus the Beloved Disciple in the same way that Isaac Rebekah in Genesis 24:67, then Jesus was gay.

Interesting. So, let's try to put that in the context of -- and this would be very appropriate -- what Paul says about how men should love their wives in Ephesians 5. The language Moses used when the obvious context was sexual intercourse was either of the following:

• "knew," as in Genesis 4:1 (where Adam knew his wife Eve, subsequently conceived and bore Cain), Genesis 4:17 (Cain knew his wife), and Genesis 4:25 (Adam knew his wife Eve again and she bore Seth)

...and:

• "went into," as in Genesis 16:4 (where Abram went into Hagar) and Genesis 29:23 (where Jacob went into Leah)

Genesis 24:67 is entirely different. What's said there is that Rebekah she became Isaac's wife, and he loved her. The context is that it was not just a one-time event, as in sexual intercourse, and far, far more than sexual attraction. Rather it tells us about how he treated Rebekah -- because he had taken her as his wife -- from that time forward. And it's in that context that we can make that connection to how Paul says husbands should treat their wives... what they should do for them:

• "Husbands, love your wives, as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her, that he might sanctify her, having cleansed her by the washing of water with the word, so that he might present the church to himself in splendor, without spot or wrinkle or any such thing, that she might be holy and without blemish. In the same way husbands should love their wives as their own bodies. He who loves his wife loves himself. For no one ever hated his own flesh, but nourishes and cherishes it, just as Christ does the church, because we are members of his body. 'Therefore a man shall leave his father and mother and hold fast to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh.' This mystery is profound, and I am saying that it refers to Christ and the church. However, let each one of you love his wife as himself" (Ephesians 5:25-33).

So what you say here... Well, I disagree. Yeah no.

Grace and peace to you.

[Miles]

Dear Miles,

Your OP post does not provide any undeniable proof in support of your private interpretations.

You're right, it doesn't. Now what?


.

The Post sees references to the (male) disciple whom Jesus loved, and asks whether "love" (Greek=agape) here refers to erotic love, or sexual attraction. But of course the same Greek verb occurs elsewhere in John (only verses where the same Greek root are presented):

Now Jesus loved Martha, and her sister, and Lazarus. (Joh 11:5 NAS)

Now before the Feast of the Passover, Jesus knowing that His hour had come that He should depart out of this world to the Father, having loved His own who were in the world, He loved them to the end. (Joh 13:1 NAS)

Any theory of homosexuality must contend with the following facts:

a) Jesus clearly 'loved' others, both Martha, her sister, and Lazarus, and "His own who were in the world". It is the same verb. Did he have erotic feelings for Martha, her sister, Lazarus, and ALL of his disciples? One could conclude, "Yes". But why should we accept this? Just because it is astonishing and will win readers because readers like astonishing things?

b) The Greek term "agape" elsewhere in the N.T. does not have erotic connotations: when Paul writes of "love" in 1 Corinthians 13 he is clearly not referring to erotic love.

"Love" in English has a a wide range of meaning: I can say I love my male partner in one breath, and I love Sushi in the next.

Conclusion: the "gay argument" is linguistically challenged, depending on English translations and selective reading.

But it was a good exercise in linguistics, so thank you.

You might have a point, were it not for the fact that it's overshadowed by John's repetitive pronouncements:

The

"disciple whom Jesus loved"
"disciple whom Jesus loved"
"disciple whom Jesus loved"
"disciple whom Jesus loved"
"disciple whom Jesus loved"
"disciple whom Jesus loved"

Which is an excessive and certainly unnecessary reaffirmation of the fact. If this love was simply "philia" love, true friendship love, it wouldn't have to be mentioned more than once or at most twice, but SIX times? Nope, this is "eros" love. A personal infatuation and special attraction to another person.

.

Interesting POV - thanks for providing it.
It makes me wonder: was this exactly what Jesus said or was it what the writer wanted to portray? In other words, did Jesus have same-sex love for this man, of did the writer WANT readers to think this?

In light of 2 Timothy 3:16
All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness,

Why would you ever question its legitimacy?


.

[Difflugia]

The language Moses used when the obvious context was sexual intercourse was either of the following:

A description of romantic love, whether hetero- or homosexual, doesn't require a specific description of intercourse. Isaac loved his wife. In Genesis 29:20, Jacob's seven years of labor seemed like mere days because of the love (, agapan) he had for Rachel, whom he loved (, egapesen) more than Leah. Samson loved Delilah. Amnon loved ( again) his beautiful sister Tamar so much in 2 Kingdoms (2 Samuel) 13:1 that he was described as "sick" in verse 2 and he raped her in verse 14.

Unless you're trying to argue that none of these uses was intended to include what we call romantic love, then your vocabulary-based proof fails. If that is, in fact, what you're trying to argue, then you'll have to do better than your bare assertion. Agapao is used in such varied contexts that to exclude its use for romantic love and desire, you'd have to deny that the concept of romantic love is even present in the Old Testament. A theological argument is fine, but splitting hairs over "whom Jesus loved" in Greek is a linguistic one and as such, it's incorrect. Not only does the LXX contain multiple instances where romantic love should be obvious (to anyone without a theological ax to grind, anyway), it completely lacks any use of , which is what you're claiming John would have exclusively used if he meant a romantic, homosexual love. The closest we get is in the LXX of Ezekiel 16, which refers to Jerusalem's metaphorical, illicit lovers as (erastai). Since that's clearly meant as a pejorative term and John probably wasn't equating Jesus with a harlot, the suggestion that his lover would necessarily be referred to as (erastes) would be dubious at best.

Genesis 24:67 is entirely different. What's said there is that Rebekah she became Isaac's wife, and he loved her. The context is that it was not just a one-time event, as in sexual intercourse, and far, far more than sexual attraction. Rather it tells us about how he treated Rebekah -- because he had taken her as his wife -- from that time forward.

And nobody is arguing that a gay Jesus would necessarily think of his beloved disciple as just a booty call. Jesus may have loved the beloved disciple the way Isaac loved Jacob, the way Jacob loved Esau, or with the love that David and Jonathan shared. On the other hand, it may also have been the deep, romantic love that men feel for their wives or the gross, rapey, power-imbalanced kind of lovesickness that Amnon felt for his super-attractive half-sister. I think we can safely rule out the last one contextually, but I don't see any non-speculative way to distinguish between the others.

I personally don't think that John meant to portray a gay Jesus, but that's based on my speculation that John was writing theological fiction (whether Jesus was real or not) and a gay Jesus doesn't fit with John's theological and political messages. Once again, though, that's not a linguistic argument, but an exegetical one.

So what you say here... Well, I disagree. Yeah no.

Disagree all you like, but you're disagreeing despite the text and its use of language rather than because of it.

[nobspeople]

Dear Miles,

Your OP post does not provide any undeniable proof in support of your private interpretations.

You're right, it doesn't. Now what?


.

The Post sees references to the (male) disciple whom Jesus loved, and asks whether "love" (Greek=agape) here refers to erotic love, or sexual attraction. But of course the same Greek verb occurs elsewhere in John (only verses where the same Greek root are presented):

Now Jesus loved Martha, and her sister, and Lazarus. (Joh 11:5 NAS)

Now before the Feast of the Passover, Jesus knowing that His hour had come that He should depart out of this world to the Father, having loved His own who were in the world, He loved them to the end. (Joh 13:1 NAS)

Any theory of homosexuality must contend with the following facts:

a) Jesus clearly 'loved' others, both Martha, her sister, and Lazarus, and "His own who were in the world". It is the same verb. Did he have erotic feelings for Martha, her sister, Lazarus, and ALL of his disciples? One could conclude, "Yes". But why should we accept this? Just because it is astonishing and will win readers because readers like astonishing things?

b) The Greek term "agape" elsewhere in the N.T. does not have erotic connotations: when Paul writes of "love" in 1 Corinthians 13 he is clearly not referring to erotic love.

"Love" in English has a a wide range of meaning: I can say I love my male partner in one breath, and I love Sushi in the next.

Conclusion: the "gay argument" is linguistically challenged, depending on English translations and selective reading.

But it was a good exercise in linguistics, so thank you.

You might have a point, were it not for the fact that it's overshadowed by John's repetitive pronouncements:

The

"disciple whom Jesus loved"
"disciple whom Jesus loved"
"disciple whom Jesus loved"
"disciple whom Jesus loved"
"disciple whom Jesus loved"
"disciple whom Jesus loved"

Which is an excessive and certainly unnecessary reaffirmation of the fact. If this love was simply "philia" love, true friendship love, it wouldn't have to be mentioned more than once or at most twice, but SIX times? Nope, this is "eros" love. A personal infatuation and special attraction to another person.

.

Interesting POV - thanks for providing it.
It makes me wonder: was this exactly what Jesus said or was it what the writer wanted to portray? In other words, did Jesus have same-sex love for this man, of did the writer WANT readers to think this?

In light of 2 Timothy 3:16
All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness,

Why would you ever question its legitimacy?


.

Because I can
Because I don't believe it to be God breathed
Because I don't allow books to be used to prove themselves true
Because I don't believe it's God word as many do

[PinSeeker]

Disagree all you like, but you're disagreeing despite the text and its use of language rather than because of it.

Rest assured, Difflugia, I think precisely the same of you, my friend. Precisely.

And not only that, but that you're taking it wholly out of context with/from the rest of Scripture. So be it.

Having said that, though, we do know that Jesus, because He was human, was tempted in every way that we are, but resisted all temptation and remained -- because He is God in the flesh -- without sin. This is what qualifies Him as the Mediator between God the Father and man. Now, that He was "tempted in every way we are" does not mean He experienced all the exact same particular temptations that anyone who ever walked this planet did. One might say that, but, well, just speaking personally, I can name a lot of particular sins that other people obviously have been tempted by and even acted upon -- homosexuality is surely one -- that I've never been tempted by. We're all different in the respect that we have particular weaknesses, but we're all the same in that, because of the human condition, we are tempted. So to say that Hebrews 4:15 says Jesus was tempted by any one or every particular sin is a ridiculous thought. Hebrews 4:15 is an all-encompassing statement on the general frailty of the human heart and its deceitfulness and susceptibility to be drawn away from holiness and toward sin.

In addition, we also know (from Jesus) that the two greatest commandments (because they encompass the whole Law) are, in order, to love -- agapa -- the Lord (our) God with all (our) heart, soul, and mind. and to love -- agapa -- (our) neighbor... and that means everyone, even those who we may consider enemies... as (ourselves). Aside from the fact that Jesus fulfilled both of these perfectly, we can focus on the second of these, and easily and readily surmise that what is surely not being said here in Matthew 22 is that we all should... "feel"... the deep, romantic love that men feel for their wives for... everyone, or even for ourselves. That surely is not the commandment; such a thought of any kind, speculative or otherwise, is surely utterly and completely ridiculous.

I personally don't think that John meant to portray a gay Jesus, but that's based on my speculation that John was writing theological fiction...

LOL! At least you acknowledge your "speculation"... Again, grace and peace to you.

[Difflugia]

Disagree all you like, but you're disagreeing despite the text and its use of language rather than because of it.

Rest assured, Difflugia, I think precisely the same of you, my friend. Precisely.

That should be easy enough for you to demonstrate. Instead of "the disciple whom Jesus loved (egapa)," what phrase would John have used if he meant that Jesus loved the disciple in a romantic way? Is there an example of such usage anywhere? If not, why would John use the word or phrase that you select? If the phrase were "the wife whom Jesus loved," what differences would there be (aside from gendered words)?

Here is a searchable Greek-English Septuagint if you think that has relevance (I do).

And not only that, but that you're taking it wholly out of context with/from the rest of Scripture. So be it. Grace and peace to you.

I'm not sure what you mean by "context" here. I'm looking at Koine usage in "the rest of Scripture" to determine the possible meanings of John's phrase. What is the context that you think I should be examining, but am not?

[Difflugia]

In addition, we also know (from Jesus) that the two greatest commandments (because they encompass the whole Law) are, in order, to love -- agapa -- the Lord (our) God with all (our) heart, soul, and mind. and to love -- agapa -- (our) neighbor... and that means everyone, even those who we may consider enemies... as (ourselves). Aside from the fact that Jesus fulfilled both of these perfectly, we can focus on the second of these, and easily and readily surmise that what is surely not being said here in Matthew 22 is that we all should... "feel"... the deep, romantic love that men feel for their wives for... everyone, or even for ourselves. That surely is not the commandment; such a thought of any kind, speculative or otherwise, is surely utterly and completely ridiculous.

I agree. The same word for "love" is, however, also used in contexts that mean romantic love. Lacking other contextual clues (as we do in John), how should one discern the difference?

LOL! At least you acknowledge your "speculation"... Again, grace and peace to you.

I didn't consider that much of an admission and wouldn't think it a surpise. We have too few data about the historicity of any of the Gospels for anything other than speculation. Someone claiming differently is what ought to be funny and surprising.

[PinSeeker]

Disagree all you like, but you're disagreeing despite the text and its use of language rather than because of it.

Rest assured, Difflugia, I think precisely the same of you, my friend. Precisely.

That should be easy enough for you to demonstrate. Instead of "the disciple whom Jesus loved (egapa)," what phrase would John have used if he meant that Jesus loved the disciple in a romantic way?

Yeah see above. It's not about a particular phrase that John "should have used" -- which really would be an indictment placed upon God, since He (by the Holy Spirit) is ultimately the Author of all Scripture, including John's Gospel -- but rather the context, including John's immediate context both in those particular passages and in his Gospel as a whole and the general context of Scripture as a whole. Now, this is a rhetorical question, so no answer needed, as I'm conveying a far-reaching message here -- transcendent, really, because it's God's message, as we see in John 3:16 ("God so loved the world...", right?): Biblically speaking, what does it mean to be loved? What does it mean for God to love us, and what does it mean for us to love each other? That should be more than sufficient.

And not only that, but that you're taking it wholly out of context with/from the rest of Scripture. So be it. Grace and peace to you.

I'm not sure what you mean by "context" here.

Oh, my.

I'm looking at Koine usage in "the rest of Scripture" to determine the possible meanings of John's phrase. What is the context that you think I should be examining, but am not?

I think what I said above is quite sufficient. I get that you don't. I'll leave it at that.

We have too few data about the historicity of any of the Gospels for anything other than speculation. Someone claiming differently is what ought to be funny and surprising.

You're certainly not alone in holding that opinion. And it's not funny. And not surprising. Yes, one needs a bit more than a brain and "eyes" to be able to "claim" differently. Just a bit. Well, you may ask, just what is that "little bit more"? Well:

• Isaiah says the eyes of the blind must be opened, the ears of the deaf unstopped -- then shall the lame man leap like a deer, and the tongue of the mute sing for joy. (Isaiah 35)

• Paul says God has mercy on whomever He wills, and He hardens whomever He wills, so then it depends not on human will or exertion, but on God, who has mercy. (Romans 9)

• Paul also says it is God, Who is rich in mercy, because of His great love, even when we folks are dead in their trespasses, makes folks alive together with Christ -- by grace they are saved. (Ephesians 2)

• And Peter says it is God Who causes some to be born again to a living hope through the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead. (1 Peter 1)

• In short, as Jesus says, to His disciples (and by extension us) when posed with the question of who can possibly be saved, "With man this is impossible, but with God all things are possible." (Matthew 25)

Grace and peace to you, Difflugia.

[Difflugia]

Yeah see above. It's not about a particular phrase that John "should have used" -- which really would be an indictment placed upon God, since He (by the Holy Spirit) is ultimately the Author of all Scripture, including John's Gospel -- but rather the context, including John's immediate context both in those particular passages and in his Gospel as a whole and the general context of Scripture as a whole.

That's not my question. I'm not claiming that John "should have used different words." I'm willing to accept that John used exactly the words he intended, no matter what he meant. You are, however, saying that the words John used cannot mean that Jesus loved his disciple romantically. 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? How did you come to that conclusion? Your original argument was based on a difference between agape and eros. Is that still a basis for your argument?

[AgnosticBoy]

"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[/indent][/indent]



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


.

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.

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 actually know someone at my school who is not attracted to girls or guys. He's a nerd, always on the computer (perhaps he's attracted to the computer - objectum sexuality?)

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.