"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]

Too, I would readily agree that Matthew 19:5 doesn't establish monogamy. To my immediate knowledge, I don't think anyone has claimed that. At least not me. I have only said His statement in Matthew 19:5 affirms it.

Let me rephrase that. Matthew 19:5 doesn't address monogamy; it's about any marriage, whether monogamous or not.

My two cents:

Matthew 19:5
For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife,[singular] and they two shall be in one flesh.

.

[JehovahsWitness]

I thought initially you were assuming that the "one flesh" process could only happen once in life ...

No, not necessarily. The bible does not prohibit widows /widowers remarrying.

But they also don't have to be single since the Bible also mentions that someone can become "one flesh" with a prostitute.

If either were not single that would violate the numerical limit imposed by christian law; notice the context of the passage you allude to.

1 CORINTHIANS 6:16

Do you not know that anyone who is joined to a prostitute is one body with her? For “the two,” says he, “will be one flesh.”

[AgnosticBoy]

My two cents:

Matthew 19:5
For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife,[singular] and they two shall be in one flesh.

.

Many would say that Matthew 19:5 is prescribing monogamy if they look at it in isolation. However, you have to keep in mind that it's only speaking about the man's first marriage in which case only one wife is involved. That's why the word "wife" is singular. It doesn't mean that this has to be the guys only marriage, of course. If you consider this passage in isolation, then you can't answer questions like if there's an exception to the rule, or what happens if one spouse dies, or if someone commits adultery, do you still cleave to your one and/or first wife in those cases? And it certainly doesn't cover if a man can start a second marriage (polygamy) after his first marriage. All of these issues are answered in other areas of the Bible, and plenty of those areas point to polygamy.

Jesus use of Matthew 19:5 was not to show monogamy, but his purpose was to provide an explanation about divorce. He used the passage to show that what God joined together, man should not separate by allowing divorces.

[AgnosticBoy]

But they also don't have to be single since the Bible also mentions that someone can become "one flesh" with a prostitute.

If either were not single that would violate the numerical limit imposed by christian law; notice the context of the passage you allude to.

1 CORINTHIANS 6:16

Do you not know that anyone who is joined to a prostitute is one body with her? For “the two,” says he, “will be one flesh.”

Well even a married man sleeping with a prostitute still amounts to two people. Your argument seems to imply that that a woman sleeping with a married man is equivalent to that woman sleeping with the guy and his wife. Obviously, that's not the case.

[Miles]

My two cents:

Matthew 19:5
For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife,[singular] and they two shall be in one flesh.

.

Many would say that Matthew 19:5 is prescribing monogamy if they look at it in isolation. However, you have to keep in mind that it's only speaking about the man's first marriage in which case only one wife is involved. That's why the word "wife" is singular.

Why? Why should I have reason to keep in mind that it's only speaking about the man's first marriage when there's no indication I should? Not that it couldn't be interpreted to include serial marriages, that is, marriages taking place after being widowed or the victim of adultery, but I fail to see any indication it also refers to Polygamy. Of course if you have verses that do, please share.

Jesus use of Matthew 19:5 was not to show monogamy,

Failing to show it refers to going beyond monogamy, i.e. showing polygamy, one is stuck with the singular interpretation of exclusively referring to monogamy.


.

[AgnosticBoy]

Many would say that Matthew 19:5 is prescribing monogamy if they look at it in isolation. However, you have to keep in mind that it's only speaking about the man's first marriage in which case only one wife is involved. That's why the word "wife" is singular.

Why? Why should I have reason to keep in mind that it's only speaking about the man's first marriage when there's no indication I should? Not that it couldn't be interpreted to include serial marriages, that is, marriages taking place after being widowed or the victim of adultery, but I fail to see any indication it also refers to Polygamy. Of course if you have verses that do, please share.

Matthew 19:5 refers to the man's first marriage due to the fact that it says that he's leaving his parents' house. Even if it were not referring to a man's first marriage, my other points coming to play when that is still possible that there can be an exception to that rule. It could just as easily read "cleave to you wife [or wives]". Now of course it helps to make that exception known in the same statement but that's not always done. For instance, take a look at Matthew 19:6 where Jesus answers that no divorce is allowed. Jesus doesn't mention the exception to that rule until he was further questioned by the Pharisees (Matt. 19:7-9). In fact, that exception clause is not even mentioned in the other gospels where they record the same conversation Mark 10, and Luke 16:18). So the point is that you have to take into account all of the details on marriage because exceptions to rules may be mentioned in the totally separate area or at a later time.

For example, if the topic was on monogamy and Jesus bought up Matthew 19:5 and explained nothing further, then I would have been like the Pharisees and pressed him further. I would be asking why did the God approve of polygamy and then Jesus would have clarified or explained that there was an exception to Matthew 19:5 or something along those lines.

Jesus use of Matthew 19:5 was not to show monogamy,

Failing to show it refers to going beyond monogamy, i.e. showing polygamy, one is stuck with the singular interpretation of exclusively referring to monogamy.
.

In my interpretation which squares with all or most of the data, Matthew 19:5 refers to a two-person marriage and not monogamy. It does not say how many marriages someone can have at one time, so when it leaves that detail out that's certainly opens the door to a polygamist having multiple marriages at the same time, with two people in each marriage. Again to confirm that this scenario is allowed would take looking at all of the data on marriage as opposed to just going by one passage.

[JehovahsWitness]

But they also don't have to be single since the Bible also mentions that someone can become "one flesh" with a prostitute.

If either were not single that would violate the numerical limit imposed by christian law; notice the context of the passage you allude to.

1 CORINTHIANS 6:16

Do you not know that anyone who is joined to a prostitute is one body with her? For “the two,” says he, “will be one flesh.”

Well even a married man sleeping with a prostitute still amounts to two people. ....

Not if he also has previously had sex with his wife. The principle being that the sexual act creates an intimate and permanent bond or contract that should only have two people in it. A married man (or woman) that has sex with someone outside that two party contract at any time is violating the above, even if they do so outside of the physical presence of their partner. In short only two in a bed still brings a third party into the arrangement if one is married.


Pauls whole point is that to join what is already dedicated to someone with another is unlawful. He uses marriage to illustrate his argument as to why a consecrated Christian cannot commit spiritual immoraity. He is not saying that sex with a prostitute brings her too into a consecrated relationship but rather catagorizes such an act as an act if immorality.

1 CORINTHIANS 6:16 - NWT

Do you not know that your bodies are members of Christ?+ Should I, then, take the members of the Christ away and join them to a prostitute? By no means!

[Revelations won]

To whom it may concern,

I find it rather amusing to see the various ideas extracted from 1 Corinthians 6:16. May I suggest that it might be very helpful to view a broader and deeper observation of what Paul is really talking about when you examine carefully the following:

1 Corinthians 6:
9 Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind,
10 Nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God.
11 And such were some of you: but ye are washed, but ye are sanctified, but ye are justified in the name of the Lord Jesus, and by the Spirit of our God.
12 All things are lawful unto me, but all things are not expedient: all things are lawful for me, but I will not be brought under the power of any.
13 Meats for the belly, and the belly for meats: but God shall destroy both it and them. Now the body is not for fornication, but for the Lord; and the Lord for the body.
14 And God hath both raised up the Lord, and will also raise up us by his own power.
15 Know ye not that your bodies are the members of Christ? shall I then take the members of Christ, and make them the members of an harlot? God forbid.
16 What? know ye not that he which is joined to an harlot is one body? for two, saith he, shall be one flesh.
17 But he that is joined unto the Lord is one spirit.
18 Flee fornication. Every sin that a man doeth is without the body; but he that committeth fornication sinneth against his own body.
19 What? know ye not that your body is the temple of the Holy Ghost which is in you, which ye have of God, and ye are not your own?
20 For ye are bought with a price: therefore glorify God in your body, and in your spirit, which are God's.

Kind regards,
RW

[Miles]

Many would say that Matthew 19:5 is prescribing monogamy if they look at it in isolation. However, you have to keep in mind that it's only speaking about the man's first marriage in which case only one wife is involved. That's why the word "wife" is singular.

Why? Why should I have reason to keep in mind that it's only speaking about the man's first marriage when there's no indication I should? Not that it couldn't be interpreted to include serial marriages, that is, marriages taking place after being widowed or the victim of adultery, but I fail to see any indication it also refers to Polygamy. Of course if you have verses that do, please share.

Matthew 19:5 refers to the man's first marriage due to the fact that it says that he's leaving his parents' house. Even if it were not referring to a man's first marriage, my other points coming to play when that is still possible that there can be an exception to that rule.

Then cite the verse that proclaims a possible exception that would allow polygamy. Otherwise you're just and we can close our discussion here.


.

[PinSeeker]

Let me rephrase that. Matthew 19:5 doesn't address monogamy; it's about any marriage, whether monogamous or not.

I agree with this, actually. Well, it doesn't directly address monogomy, or heterosexuality, for that matter. But indirectly... that's a different story. 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. So yes, indirectly, monogamy and heterosexuality is addressed. And... well, affirmed, reinforced.

The Old Testament God isn't given to simply looking the other way when things aren't done the way He wants them. There are too many rules about polygamous marriage to think that He didn't really want things that way.

That's an excellent point, Difflugia, and I wholeheartedly agree, except that I would phrase the end of your statement a little differently -- or clarify a bit. Let's look at an unrelated subject... * Lord forgive me for bringing this up.* Okay, here goes... ...that we can then extrapolate a general principle from and apply it with equal validity:

There is the concept/practice of slavery in the Bible, is there not? Well yes. We first see the concept of slavery at the beginning of Exodus (1:13). At the end of Genesis, you will remember that the Israelites had fled the drought/famine and placed themselves into the hands of Pharoah and the Egyptians -- really under Joseph, who providentially had been sent ahead of the Israelites and was there to redeem Israel. In this way, Joseph was a "type" -- a foreshadow -- of Jesus, the real Savior to come. Well Joseph eventually died, of course, and over time, slavery in Egypt changed into the kind of slavery Americans automatically think of -- race-based, personhood-robbing, chattel slavery. As Exodus 1:13 says, the Egyptians ruthlessly made the people of Israel work as slaves. Well, God raised up Moses and eventually used him to free the Israelites from this slavery -- brought them out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of slavery (Moses was another "type" -- foreshadow -- of Jesus, the real Savior to come. So quite obviously, God never approved of slavery but rather freedom -- redemption and freedom from slavery is the very theme of the entire Bible. But, you might say, even after the Exodus, there was slavery among the Israelites. Well, yes there was; the Israelites brought back with them from Egypt the concept of slavery. But God stepped in -- with His Law -- and said, in effect, "Okay, if you're going to have slavery, here's how it's going to be instituted, rather than how the Egyptians instituted it upon you when you were in captivity." He decreed that, if employed lawfully, slavery would be a redemptive, freedom-giving institution, which we see most clearly in God's prescription that a slave was to serve six years and in the seventh was to be freed and at no cost. The point being -- sorry for the long explanation -- slavery, properly practices according to God's Law, was, again, a redemptive, freedom-giving institution.

So no extrapolating this concept to marriage, God obviously did not establish anything other than heterosexual monogamy, and certainly never did, does not, and never will approve of anything other than heterosexual monogamy; Genesis 1-19 is very clear, as I explained very clearly in post 142 viewtopic.php?p=1026010#p1026010. As I said, Laban is the first person to practice polygamy, and is obviously sinful in doing so. So yes, the concept/practice of polygamy existed (from Laban onward), but in the same vein regarding the practice of slavery, God did not (to your point) look the other way, and He did (to your point) make many rules about polygamous marriage, the reason being, in the same vein, "Okay, if you're going to do this, here's how you're going to do it; it will be redemptive and life-giving."

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.

I might humbly suggest that you've got things exactly backwards.

Nope. But noted.

the argument that God's design for marriage was "originally" monogamous is completely unpersuasive.

LOL! Yeah, you've voiced that opinion two or three times now. Noted.

Grace and peace to you, Difflugia.