How human was Jesus?

[nobspeople]

Some say Jesus was a man, some say he was a god, some say he was a god-man (some may say he was something else altogether).
But let's focus here on the man/god part.

For discussion:
how much of a physical and mental human being was jesus? Did he get tired? Sick? Did he laugh at 'jokes' or things he say that was funny? Did he have DNA? Did he have gas? Was his hearing and sight perfect, or less than perfect (by human standards)? Did he dream? Was he nursed as a baby? Was he a troublesome teen, challenging parental authority? Was he attracted to the opposite sex? Same sex? Was he asexual?
Or was he, physically, perfect in every possible, measurable way?
Or was his simply a husk physically, only needed to house 'a deity' or 'god'?

What led you to your decision?

[bjs1]

The concept of Jesus having a homosexual relationship with the Beloved Disciple is likely false and probably comes mostly from writing 21st century western culture onto a 1st century Semitic narrative.

Considering that paintings of Jesus and his beloved disciple go back many hundreds of years, almost all of which depict Jesus in an extraordinarily close and caring disposition toward the disciple, the concept of Jesus having a homosexual relationship with him is quite old and highly likely. SO, exactly what gave painters throughout history the notion that Jesus was in love with a particular disciple? How about:

John 21:20
Peter, turning around, *saw the disciple whom Jesus loved following them; the one who also had leaned back on His bosom at the supper and said, "Lord, who is the one who betrays You?"

John 13:23
There was reclining on Jesus bosom one of His disciples, whom Jesus loved.

John 19:26
When Jesus then saw His mother, and the disciple whom He loved standing nearby, He *said to His mother, "Woman, behold, your son!"

John 20:2
So she *ran and *came to Simon Peter and to the other disciple whom Jesus loved, and *said to them, "They have taken away the Lord out of the tomb, and we do not know where they have laid Him."

John 21:7
Therefore that disciple whom Jesus loved *said to Peter, "It is the Lord." So when Simon Peter heard that it was the Lord, he put his outer garment on (for he was stripped for work), and threw himself into the sea.

Yes, this is an example of writing modern (or perhaps personal) ideas onto an ancient narrative.

The Greek word for love in these passages is agape, which is the love of God or the universal love for people. There is nothing romantic or sexual in that word. Certainly agape could be applied to a romantic love. All six forms of the word love could be applied to husband/wife relationship. However, there is nothing in the word agape to denote romantic or sexual love. It is about as far away as we can get from that while still talking about love. I assume you are not suggesting that all kinds of love are sexual love.

To use the word agape to refer to sexual or romantic love is an extreme form of eisegesis

Ever see Jesus depicted in such a loving way with any other disciple? I haven't. So why would a guy (Jesus in this case) single out someone of the same sex to be affectionate with if they didn't have homosexual feelings toward them? If you saw some guy cuddling another guy as depicted above and read that he loved him what would you think? So, it isn't just me who sees Jesus as being homosexual, but scores of past painters who saw fit to depict the two in just that way, and to the exclusion of Jesus ever having a similar relationship with anyone else.

We could discuss the specific scene depicted in all of these pictures, but they all appear to be painted during the Renaissance or later. Since they were all produced more than a millennium after the life of Christ, they clearly cannot be evidence of an actual sexual relationship.

[Miles]

The concept of Jesus having a homosexual relationship with the Beloved Disciple is likely false and probably comes mostly from writing 21st century western culture onto a 1st century Semitic narrative.

Considering that paintings of Jesus and his beloved disciple go back many hundreds of years, almost all of which depict Jesus in an extraordinarily close and caring disposition toward the disciple, the concept of Jesus having a homosexual relationship with him is quite old and highly likely. SO, exactly what gave painters throughout history the notion that Jesus was in love with a particular disciple? How about:

John 21:20
Peter, turning around, *saw the disciple whom Jesus loved following them; the one who also had leaned back on His bosom at the supper and said, "Lord, who is the one who betrays You?"

John 13:23
There was reclining on Jesus bosom one of His disciples, whom Jesus loved.

John 19:26
When Jesus then saw His mother, and the disciple whom He loved standing nearby, He *said to His mother, "Woman, behold, your son!"

John 20:2
So she *ran and *came to Simon Peter and to the other disciple whom Jesus loved, and *said to them, "They have taken away the Lord out of the tomb, and we do not know where they have laid Him."

John 21:7
Therefore that disciple whom Jesus loved *said to Peter, "It is the Lord." So when Simon Peter heard that it was the Lord, he put his outer garment on (for he was stripped for work), and threw himself into the sea.

Yes, this is an example of writing modern (or perhaps personal) ideas onto an ancient narrative.

And you know this to be the case because? Sorry, but this requires historical-comparative linguistic evidence rather than your say-so.

The Greek word for love in these passages is agape, which is the love of God or the universal love for people.

Actually, it isn't. There are (agapa) and (phile). See my comments below.

There is nothing romantic or sexual in that word. Certainly agape could be applied to a romantic love.

Then agape can denote romantic love after all.

All six forms of the word love could be applied to husband/wife relationship. However, there is nothing in the word agape to denote romantic or sexual love.

See your comment above.

To use the word agape to refer to sexual or romantic love is an extreme form of eisegesis

No more so than any homophobia that may be lurking behind your "defense" of Jesus here

Ever see Jesus depicted in such a loving way with any other disciple? I haven't. So why would a guy (Jesus in this case) single out someone of the same sex to be affectionate with if they didn't have homosexual feelings toward them? If you saw some guy cuddling another guy as depicted above and read that he loved him what would you think? So, it isn't just me who sees Jesus as being homosexual, but scores of past painters who saw fit to depict the two in just that way, and to the exclusion of Jesus ever having a similar relationship with anyone else.

We could discuss the specific scene depicted in all of these pictures, but they all appear to be painted during the Renaissance or later. Since they were all produced more than a millennium after the life of Christ, they clearly cannot be evidence of an actual sexual relationship.

Why is that? Do you honestly not believe any of the explications of scripture you currently listen to today? And, believe it or not, but homosexuality does not have to involve sexual behavior. It can just as well be limited to romantic attraction and/or sexual attraction. --Look it up--


Consulting Strong's Concordance concerning John 21:20, John 13:23, John 19:26, and John 21:7 we find "love" was derived from (agapa)

Lexicon :: Strong's G25 - agapa
(agapa)

and as noted in

Outline of Biblical Usage
of persons
to welcome, to entertain, to be fond of, to love dearly

Now considering how some of these verses describe what was happening.

" the one who also had leaned back on His bosom at the supper"
"There was reclining on Jesus bosom"

There's more than just welcoming and entertaining going on here. Far more likely is meant to describe Jesus being fond of or loving dearly. Which in the case of an interaction between two unrelated men would most likely describe a homosexual attachment. Particularly when Jesus isn't said to treat anyone else like this. EVER!



Then we have John 20:2, which reads in part "So she *ran and *came to Simon Peter and to the other disciple whom Jesus loved," where Strong's doesn't find as the original Greek word, but (phile), whose Outline of Biblical Usage is noted as:

I to love
II to show signs of love
III to be fond of doing

Disregarding III because it's meaningless in the context, I and II include the sub-usages "to like," "to treat affectionately" and "to kiss."

All in all, as described in the Greek language, in verse, after verse, after verse, Jesus had a very special loving affection for this disciple, which he does not have with anyone else, and which not only I see but many painters have seen as well. So, I believe the odds highly favor Jesus's homosexuality, although it really shouldn't be a big deal anyway, should it? After all, we are all god's children, even the heterosexuals.

.

[The Nice Centurion]

REASONABLE ANSWER 2. Was Bucky a "beloved disciple" of Captain America? If so, then I'm betting the Captain was a homosexual. Just betting, mind you. Not claiming.

,

Cap is a Super Soldier with a military grade, and a Superhero, member of the Avengers. No Teacher, Guru or religious leader. He could not have a "disciple" Not beloved, nor unbeloved. The termini for a Superheros young Partner is "sidekick"!

Further, Bucky was a minor. Cap would have been a Pedophilian Homosexualist if he abused Bucky.
Which is unlikely. Not only do his different girlfriends (Sharon Carter, Bernie Rosenthal er cetera) Show hin as a straight man, but also someone out of his many enemys would have suspected or found out and used this as anti-american propaganda! (Shudder !)

Of course, perhaps Baron Heinrich Zemo found out and this was his reason to supposedly kill Bucky at the end of world war II.
Perhaps his knowing too was the reason for also capturing later Rick Jones, Caps post world war sidekick.
https://marvel.fandom.com/wiki/Heinrich ... Earth-616)

[bjs1]

The Greek word for love in these passages is agape, which is the love of God or the universal love for people.

Actually, it isn't. There are (agapa) and (phile). See my comments below.

Ephili is used in John 20:2. It is another Greek word for love that does not denote sexual or romantic love. Eros, the Greek word that does mean sexual or romantic love, is not used in any of these passage.

There is nothing romantic or sexual in that word. Certainly agape could be applied to a romantic love.

Then agape can denote romantic love after all.

On its own, no. It can be applied to romantic love.

The word "black" can be used to describe a kind of bear. However, the use of the word "black" does not automatically mean that a person is writing about a bear.

Unless you are saying that agape always means romantic or sexual attraction, then this is special pleading and eisegesis in its most extreme form.

Why is that? Do you honestly not believe any of the explications of scripture you currently listen to today?

May I assume that you also believe that Jesus was white and had long hair?

And, believe it or not, but homosexuality does not have to involve sexual behavior. It can just as well be limited to romantic attraction and/or sexual attraction. --Look it up--

Hence I repeatedly said "romantic or sexual relationship." However, I am curious: what specifically are you claiming was going on?

[JehovahsWitness]

The concept of Jesus having a homosexual relationship with the Beloved Disciple is likely false and probably comes mostly from writing 21st century western culture onto a 1st century Semitic narrative.

Considering that paintings of Jesus and his beloved disciple go back many hundreds of years, almost all of which depict Jesus in an extraordinarily close and caring disposition toward the disciple, the concept of Jesus having a homosexual relationship with him is quite old and highly likely.

• Jesus lived THOUSANDS not hundreds of years ago and there are no painting of him dating from his day. If artistes have chosen to illustrate bible scenes, their interpretation remains entirely subjective.

• Since when does "extraordinarily close and caring disposition towards" anyone necessitate sexual attraction. Most parents are "extraordinarily close and caring" towards their children, does this mean the majority of parents desire to have sexual intercourse with their children.

• Homeosexuality remains an anomaly and in the absence of information to the contrary remains a statistically unlikely conclusion for any man; there is no reason why Jesus of Nazareth need be an exception to this rule.

• It is extraordinary in this day and age of so called enlightenment that there are still those with the archaic view that hetrosexual men cannot have affection for each other without being labels "gay" .

RELATED POSTS

Was Jesus secretly gay?
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 77#p768477

Do references to Jesus particular "love" for one of his disciples indicate homosexuality?
viewtopic.php?p=1020158#p1020158

[Miles]

The Greek word for love in these passages is agape, which is the love of God or the universal love for people.

Actually, it isn't. There are (agapa) and (phile). See my comments below.

Ephili is used in John 20:2.

According to Strong's Concordance, not for the word "love" as it appears in the verse is it.

There is nothing romantic or sexual in that word. Certainly agape could be applied to a romantic love.

Then agape can denote romantic love after all.

On its own, no. It can be applied to romantic love.

Who says so? Please cite your source.

Why is that? Do you honestly not believe any of the explications of scripture you currently listen to today?

May I assume that you also believe that Jesus was white and had long hair?

Are Jesus's skin color and hair length described anywhere in the Bible? If not, then your point here is moot; However, Jesus's relationship with his beloved disciple is described.

"the disciple whom Jesus loved"

"one of His disciples, whom Jesus loved."

"the disciple whom He loved"

"the other disciple whom Jesus loved"

"that disciple whom Jesus loved"

And, believe it or not, but homosexuality does not have to involve sexual behavior. It can just as well be limited to romantic attraction and/or sexual attraction. --Look it up--

Hence I repeatedly said "romantic or sexual relationship." However, I am curious: what specifically are claim was going on?

Sheesh! I give up.

Have a nice day.


.

[Miles]

The concept of Jesus having a homosexual relationship with the Beloved Disciple is likely false and probably comes mostly from writing 21st century western culture onto a 1st century Semitic narrative.

Considering that paintings of Jesus and his beloved disciple go back many hundreds of years, almost all of which depict Jesus in an extraordinarily close and caring disposition toward the disciple, the concept of Jesus having a homosexual relationship with him is quite old and highly likely.

• Jesus lived THOUSANDS not hundreds of years ago and there are no painting of him dating from his day. If artistes have chosen to illustrate bible scenes, their interpretation remains entirely subjective.

As is every explication of scripture concocted about him today and for hundreds of years in the past.

• Since when does "extraordinarily close and caring disposition towards" anyone necessitate sexual attraction. Most parents are "extraordinarily close and caring" towards their children, does this mean the majority of parents desire to have sexual intercourse with their children.

I see the fact that the disciple is unrelated to Jesus has eluded you. And, I never said his "extraordinarily close and caring disposition towards" the disciple necessitated sexual attraction.

• Homeosexuality remains an anomaly and in the absence of information to the contrary remains a statistically unlikely conclusion for any man; there is no reason why Jesus of Nazareth need be an exception to this rule.

And there's no reason Jesus cannot be an anomaly, particularly when his relationship with his beloved disciple is one of an extraordinarily close and caring disposition, which Jesus is not said to have had with anyone else on Earth, and is noted four other times in the Bible. There must have been some reason the writer of John reinforces this aspect of Jesus life so many times. My guess is that it truly qualified as cultural anomaly, just as you characterize homosexuality.

• It is extraordinary in this day and age of so called enlightenment that there are still those with the archaic view that hetrosexual men cannot have affection for each other without being labels "gay" .

It is when the relationship is described as it is in the Bible.

"There was reclining on Jesus bosom one of His disciples, whom Jesus loved." and
"Peter, turning around, *saw the disciple whom Jesus loved following them; the one who also had leaned back on His bosom at the supper"

Which is never mentioned to have occurred with anyone else.

.

[brunumb]

[Replying to Miles in post #17]

There is no doubt that Jesus loved his disciples as he loved everyone. But the passages you have quoted clearly show that there was something special involved in this one case. Why else make the distinction and highlight it so frequently. There is more to this than meets the eye and that may be discomfiting for some believers.

[JehovahsWitness]

I see the fact that the disciple is unrelated to Jesus has eluded you.

And how is that relevant?

• It is extraordinary in this day and age of so called enlightenment that there are still those with the archaic view that hetrosexual men (who are not blood releatives) cannot have affection for each other without being labeled "gay" . One can love another like a brother without that person actually being one's brother.

[JehovahsWitness]

• It is extraordinary in this day and age of so called enlightenment that there are still those with the archaic view that hetrosexual men cannot have affection for each other without being labels "gay" .

It is when the relationship is described as it is in the Bible.

Everyone in bible times was gay? Straight men can of course love each other without being sexually attracted anywhere EXCEPT in the bible? What is the basis for this special pleading, ad hoc made up rule? Can you point to anything that is NOT based on an ignorance of the language of scripture and /or of the customers and mores of the times?