"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?


.

[Menotu]

.....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

As you quoted, it said 'most', not all. Beyond that, the quote obviously isn't the original and thus, untrustworthy. Unless, you believe it's written directly by God. Which it isn't. It was written by men, edited and translated by other men, throughout history with political, social and economical bents. There's no getting around that.
One can gleam whatever biasness you want from whatever translation you want to prove your point (to yourself). For those that wish to live that way, it is, of course, their choice.
No one alive or dead can (or has been able) to know what any deity means - its not possible unless we, as a species, has to ability to know all things. Which we don't. The absolute best we can do it attempt to make sense of it and let those who want to live by it (or not) make their own decisions. Ultimately, they're responsible for their own lives.
When we use a religious book to try to make others live their lives the way we think they should be, we limit the precious 'free will' we try to support. Which means, we're hypocrites.

[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.

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

As you quoted, it said 'most', not all. Beyond that, the quote obviously isn't the original and thus, untrustworthy. Unless, you believe it's written directly by God. Which it isn't. It was written by men, edited and translated by other men, throughout history with political, social and economical bents. There's no getting around that.
One can gleam whatever biasness you want from whatever translation you want to prove your point (to yourself). For those that wish to live that way, it is, of course, their choice.
No one alive or dead can (or has been able) to know what any deity means - its not possible unless we, as a species, has to ability to know all things. Which we don't. The absolute best we can do it attempt to make sense of it and let those who want to live by it (or not) make their own decisions. Ultimately, they're responsible for their own lives.
When we use a religious book to try to make others live their lives the way we think they should be, we limit the precious 'free will' we try to support. Which means, we're hypocrites.

This forum is not for discussing the authority of the Bible or defending if it is true or not.
viewtopic.php?f=38&t=11496
viewtopic.php?f=38&t=3168

[Menotu]

.....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

As you quoted, it said 'most', not all. Beyond that, the quote obviously isn't the original and thus, untrustworthy. Unless, you believe it's written directly by God. Which it isn't. It was written by men, edited and translated by other men, throughout history with political, social and economical bents. There's no getting around that.
One can gleam whatever biasness you want from whatever translation you want to prove your point (to yourself). For those that wish to live that way, it is, of course, their choice.
No one alive or dead can (or has been able) to know what any deity means - its not possible unless we, as a species, has to ability to know all things. Which we don't. The absolute best we can do it attempt to make sense of it and let those who want to live by it (or not) make their own decisions. Ultimately, they're responsible for their own lives.
When we use a religious book to try to make others live their lives the way we think they should be, we limit the precious 'free will' we try to support. Which means, we're hypocrites.

This forum is not for discussing the authority of the Bible or defending if it is true or not.
viewtopic.php?f=38&t=11496
viewtopic.php?f=38&t=3168

This forum is for debating, which is what most seem to do here. How one wishes to debate is up to them.

[2timothy316]

This forum is for debating, which is what most seem to do here. How one wishes to debate is up to them.

Yet it is not meant for what you are wanting to debate. The Bible if it is true and it's authority are off the table.

[Menotu]

This forum is for debating, which is what most seem to do here. How one wishes to debate is up to them.

Yet it is not meant for what you are wanting to debate. The Bible if it is true and it's authority are off the table.

I never said it needed debated. It was a statement part of a larger whole.

[2timothy316]

This forum is for debating, which is what most seem to do here. How one wishes to debate is up to them.

Yet it is not meant for what you are wanting to debate. The Bible if it is true and it's authority are off the table.

I never said it needed debated. It was a statement part of a larger whole.

Beyond that, the quote obviously isn't the original and thus, untrustworthy.

This is the bases for your debate and because of that, your argument is void. If you want to debate without the Bible then there are other forums for that. Here the Bible is the highest authority no matter if you call it trustworthy or not. You'll have to use as your reference if you want your argument to be taken seriously. Otherwise, an argument without Bible support is just ranting personal opinion.

[Menotu]

This forum is for debating, which is what most seem to do here. How one wishes to debate is up to them.

Yet it is not meant for what you are wanting to debate. The Bible if it is true and it's authority are off the table.

I never said it needed debated. It was a statement part of a larger whole.

Beyond that, the quote obviously isn't the original and thus, untrustworthy.

This is the bases for your debate and because of that, your argument is void. If you want to debate without the Bible then there are other forums for that. Here the Bible is the highest authority no matter if you call it trustworthy or not. You'll have to use as your reference if you want your argument to be taken seriously. Otherwise, an argument without Bible support is just ranting personal opinion.

If you want, not participate in conversations where one wants to forgo the bible. That's your option which you're free to exercise. Besides, one can believe what they want from the bible.
But I wonder why we're not using the original text in these discussions? Could it be because we believe the current view is the right one, not challenging the book that was written by men and edited by other men? Or that we're lazy?
Or that some of us want to feel superior and not allow challenges to our precious, precious beliefs?
Or a combination of all of that?
At any rate, it seems that, like Christianity, if you're not bowing down to it, kissing its biblical rear end, you have no purpose.
So be it.

[2timothy316]

If you want, not participate in conversations where one wants to forgo the bible. That's your option which you're free to exercise.

I don't care for participating in debates without the Bible. That is why I choose this forum as its purpose is, "The purpose of this subforum is to have a place to freely engage in debates on Christian theology with the basic assumption that the Bible can be used as a primary reference without the need to defend its authority. Responses to topics with "but first you have to prove that the Bible is true" is not allowed here." viewtopic.php?f=38&t=3168
If you do not agree to these terms then you might want to go to a forum that suits you. When you're ready to debate with more than just your opinion by using the Bible as your reference then came back and we will debate as long as you wish. I warn you, come prepared. This forum is a couple of lvls above the C&A forum.

[nobspeople]

[Replying to Miles in post #1]

There's a lot of talk about this in some circles. There's a lot of issues with the word love in the english language as I'm sure you know. Someone can love someone else without any sexual attraction. So maybe we should look at the sexuality of Jesus, if we can, based on the bible (and any other written works which may not be included in the bible). From what little I've seen, those 'excluded' books tend to paint (at least from the few I've seen referenced) the teenage Jesus as a brat, to say the very least.
Not sure what else those may (or may not) say about Jesus's sexuality, which would be futile since we don't even know about our own sexuality fully.
Was he gay? Maybe. I'd even say probably(?) based on the limited biblical references. I wonder, if he wasn't, what went through his head about women, especially through puberty (as we all that have gone through it know how the pubescent mind works).
That being said, I don't know if it would really matter to the grand scheme of things as the original text doesn't mention homosexuality, specifically.

[JehovahsWitness]

Was he gay? Maybe. I'd even say probably(?) based on the limited biblical references.

And which bible references lead you to such a conclusion?






JW