"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]

As Strong's concordance explains their usages in John.

agapaō:
"of persons
to welcome, to entertain, to be fond of, to love dearly"

phileō
φιλέω philéō, fil-eh'-o; from G5384; to be a friend to (fond of (an individual or an object)), i.e. have affection for (denoting personal attachment, as a matter of sentiment or feeling;

My emphases. Both of which are applicable to homosexual attachment.


.

I have both of these types of love for men and I'm a man. I am both fond of and have affection for my father. I also have personal attachment to him. Yet the idea of having sex with him doesn't interest me at all. Other homosexuals that love in this way doesn't make everyone that loves that way homosexual. This is a logical fallacy called hasty generalization. The rush to conclude that Jesus was gay based on feelings everyone has with no other supporting evidence.

What you'd have to prove is that these types of love are unique to homosexuals only and you have not done that, nor can you.

I don't have to prove bupkis.

You MUST show that Jesus had a sexual desire towards John. Not just a love of him.

First of all, I MUSTN'T do anything. Secondly, if you're under the impression I've said as much please quote me.

If you think that love = sexual desire then I'm so sorry you think that way.

If I did I rather doubt you are.


.

[Miles]

As Strong's concordance explains their usages in John.

agapaō:
"of persons
to welcome, to entertain, to be fond of, to love dearly"

phileō
φιλέω philéō, fil-eh'-o; from G5384; to be a friend to (fond of (an individual or an object)), i.e. have affection for (denoting personal attachment, as a matter of sentiment or feeling;

(My emphases.) Both of which are applicable to homosexual attachment.


.

I am curious what kind of attachment these phrases would not be applicable for. One can “be found of” or have a “personal attachment” to a grandparent or a daughter or a dog or a painting or a song or a car or a shady place under a certain tree or chocolate. Do you consider all of these to be sexual love?

Personally, no I don't, but where it involves people and given the appropriate situation, that doesn't mean they can't be, does it.

Also, there is a specific Greek word for romantic or sexual love (eros). If the author of John meant to convey sexual love, why would he not use that word?

Perhaps he would, and perhaps he wouldn't if he wanted to conceal the fact.

The obvious answer seems to be that he did not wish to convey romantic love.

But both agapaō and phileō can well imply it. (See post 26 for definitions.) Particularly when it's repeated, and repeated, and repeated, and repeated, and repeated. The sextuple emphasis is quite meaningful.

There existed a . . .

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

Other than a desire for controversy, why do you continue to hold your position?

Because I find it quite reasonable. As for why, please read my previous posts.



.

[bjs1]

I am curious what kind of attachment these phrases would not be applicable for. One can “be found of” or have a “personal attachment” to a grandparent or a daughter or a dog or a painting or a song or a car or a shady place under a certain tree or chocolate. Do you consider all of these to be sexual love?

Personally, no I don't, but where it involves people and given the appropriate situation, that doesn't mean they can't be, does it.

It does not mean that these ideas can’t be included romantic love. It does mean that applying these ideas to specifically romantic love without other compelling explanations (as you have done in this thread) is unreasonable.

Also, there is a specific Greek word for romantic or sexual love (eros). If the author of John meant to convey sexual love, why would he not use that word?

Perhaps he would, and perhaps he wouldn't if he wanted to conceal the fact.

So the author brought it up and wanted to conceal it? Do you genuinely not see the problem with the reasoning?

[Difflugia]

This is a marvellously entertaining discussion, but neither side has quite made the point that they would like to.

Miles' assertion was is that Jesus was probably gay, but has so far supported that the language of John is consistent with Jesus being gay.

On the other hand, neither has the opposition successfully supported the contrary assertion, that Jesus was probably not gay. Instead, they have insistently and repeatedly shown that it's not impossible that Jesus was straight. Though that would be an awesome title for a sermon, I'm pretty sure they were hoping for something a little stronger.

The Greek word for having a sexual love for a person is eros. So lets see if that word or a form of it is used to describe Jesus love for John was sexual.
Lets take your quoted scriptures and see what Greek word was used...

John 19:26-27 uses the word ēgapa for love.

[...]

From the word philos, to be a friend to and have affection for a person. Can be used to describe the love a close friend or a cherished object.

Also, there is a specific Greek word for romantic or sexual love (eros). If the author of John meant to convey sexual love, why would he not use that word?

The obvious answer seems to be that he did not wish to convey romantic love.

This position isn't as strong as you'd like it to be. The Septuagint (which pretty much defines the Greek of Hellenistic Judaism) uses forms of agapao to represesent romantic (and presumably sexual) attachments as well as the love between siblings or close friends. The author of John didn't use eros for the same reason that the Septuagint doesn't. I don't know what that reason is, but it doesn't matter; the Koine of Judaism routinely used agapao in situations that in context could only mean romantic love. If the context is ambiguous, then agapao is ambiguous.

To find examples, I used the highly rigorous method of CTRL-Fing through the ASV Old Testament looking for "love" and then looking up the corresponding verses in Greek. In Genesis, the most common word for "loved" is ἠγάπησεν, egapesen (aorist [narrative past] tense of agapao).

Isaac egapesen Rebekah (24:67), Isaac egapesen Esau (25:28), Rebekah egapesen Jacob (25:28), and Jacob egapesen Rachel (29:18). Since Rebekah and Rachel both conceived children soon after being "loved" by their husbands, I think we can safely assume that those feelings included at least some amount of sexual attraction. It's also worth noting that Shechem egapesen Dinah after he apparently raped* her.

According to John, Jesus expressed similarly worded love for Martha, Lazarus, and the "beloved disciple." The only other information we have about his relationship with any of the three (or two; there are good arguments that Lazarus himself was the beloved disciple) is contextual. The "beloved disciple," for example, was spooned up in Jesus' bosom at the last supper (John 13:25). After the resurrection in the final scene of John's gospel, the same disciple was so happy to see him that he leaned back onto Jesus' muscular, yet warm and supple chest (21:20).

The only difference that I found while looking is that fileo is used in the Isaac/Jacob/Esau story to refer to the feeling that Isaac has for properly prepared food. It seems that Isaac absolutely loved him some good stew.

*As an aside here, I notice that the Septuagint refers to Dinah as a parthenos after Shechem "lay with her and humbled her." I can't remember if that was ever mentioned in the Isaiah 7:14 virgin/young woman discussion.

[JehovahsWitness]

GENESIS 24:67

After that Isaac brought her into the tent of Sarah his mother. Thus he took Rebekah as his wife; and he fell in love with her, and Isaac found comfort after the loss of his mother.

A NOTE ON THE SEPTUAGINT Hebrew had several words for love. AHAVASH being most frequently. According to strongs #157 it refers to having "affection for (sexually or otherwise)". Other Hebrew words include hesed: affection and kindness, and raham - compassion, brotherly love. The translators of the Hebrew bible used AGAPE over 300 times to refer to God's selective and exclusive love for Israelite people and also for the love the Shulamite maid had for her shepherd boy. One might conclude that the meaning implied is thus ambiguous but this, imho, would be misleading.


DID ISAAC FALL IN "SEXUAL ATTRACTION" WITH REBECCA?



Categorizing love as sexual or nonsexual is a bit like colour coding it. We all do it but in reality there is no such thing as "black love" and "white love", "straight love" or "gay love"... there is only LOVE, a deep feeling of warmth and concern. Granted , when feelings of warmth and affection are inseparable from a strong desire to have sex with the object of said affection we call it sexual or erotic love; thus colloquially the two terms (sexual attraction and love) become inseperable but they are not. Arguably the translators of the Septuagint understood that affection may or may not be accompanied by sexual attraction. When the bible says Isaac "fell in love with Rebbecca" what is it saying? He was certainly physically attracted to her, whether it was from when he first saw her climb down off her camel or it grew with time (when he learned she could cook like his mother), but the verse is essentially saying he grew to be deeply attached to her, that he had warm feelings of concern for her, that he came to "agape" her.

In short, AGAPE isn't in reality ambiguous (it means affection) but just as in Christian usage AGAPE it may or may not signal friendship or admiration, AGAPE may or may not be accompanied by sexual attraction. So where does that leave us with Jesus sexuality? Right where we started, with a Greek word (eros) that would arguably settle the issue available but never mentioned in scripture, and a dependence on context to dictate what "agape" of itself, cannot.



JW

To learn more please go to other posts related to...

LOVE, SEX And... MARRIAGE

[Miles]

I am curious what kind of attachment these phrases would not be applicable for. One can “be found of” or have a “personal attachment” to a grandparent or a daughter or a dog or a painting or a song or a car or a shady place under a certain tree or chocolate. Do you consider all of these to be sexual love?

Personally, no I don't, but where it involves people and given the appropriate situation, that doesn't mean they can't be, does it.

It does not mean that these ideas can’t be included romantic love. It does mean that applying these ideas to specifically romantic love without other compelling explanations (as you have done in this thread) is unreasonable.

I disagree.

Also, there is a specific Greek word for romantic or sexual love (eros). If the author of John meant to convey sexual love, why would he not use that word?

Perhaps he would, and perhaps he wouldn't if he wanted to conceal the fact.

So the author brought it up and wanted to conceal it? Do you genuinely not see the problem with the reasoning?

No I don't. I find it quite likely that John wanted to reveal Jesus's feelings for him(?)---most likely a matter of pride, I would guess---while not jeopardizing Jesus's relationship with his followers. "I want everyone to know how much Jesus really loved me, but not so as to raise any doubt about his purity." Or, the scribes who passed along the book of John and Jesus's feelings thought it best to tone them down so as to avoid any question about Jesus's unusual love. Hence, we have "agapaō" and "phileō" rather than "eros." Who knows? But whatever the case, it's obvious that Jesus' love of the disciple was indeed unusual. Unusual enough that John was prompted to say it six times. Under normal circumstances once would have sufficed, don't you think? Of course it would. But no, John felt it such an incredibly special love that it deserved to be told and retold, and retold, and retold, and retold, and retold. And what kind of love between two men could have been so incredibly special to merit such emphases other than one between homosexuals?


.

[Difflugia]

He was certainly physically attracted to her, whether it was from when he first saw her climb down off her camel or it grew with time (when he learned she could cook like his mother), but the verse is essentially saying he grew to be deeply attached to her, that he had warm feelings of concern for her, that he came to "agape" her.

The verse doesn't say that. You (helped by the translators of the NWT) are saying that. There is no "fell in," "grew to," or "came to" in the text. It says that Isaac loved Rebekah. If you think the author meant that Isaac and Rebekah went into the tent and chastely talked into the wee hours of hopes, fears, and dreams, then there's nothing to specifically say that's not what happened. There's no particular reason to think that is what happened, but it's not impossible.

In short, AGAPE isn't in reality ambiguous (it means affection) but just as in Christian usage AGAPE it may or may not signal friendship or admiration, AGAPE may or may not be accompanied by sexual attraction.

It's "not ambiguous," but "may or may not" mean a number of different things? You do know what "ambiguous" means, right?

[bjs1]

I am curious what kind of attachment these phrases would not be applicable for. One can “be found of” or have a “personal attachment” to a grandparent or a daughter or a dog or a painting or a song or a car or a shady place under a certain tree or chocolate. Do you consider all of these to be sexual love?

Personally, no I don't, but where it involves people and given the appropriate situation, that doesn't mean they can't be, does it.

It does not mean that these ideas can’t be included romantic love. It does mean that applying these ideas to specifically romantic love without other compelling explanations (as you have done in this thread) is unreasonable.

I disagree.

Also, there is a specific Greek word for romantic or sexual love (eros). If the author of John meant to convey sexual love, why would he not use that word?

Perhaps he would, and perhaps he wouldn't if he wanted to conceal the fact.

So the author brought it up and wanted to conceal it? Do you genuinely not see the problem with the reasoning?

No I don't. I find it quite likely that John wanted to reveal Jesus's feelings for him(?)---most likely a matter of pride, I would guess---while not jeopardizing Jesus's relationship with his followers. "I want everyone to know how much Jesus really loved me, but not so as to raise any doubt about his purity." Or, the scribes who passed along the book of John and Jesus's feelings thought it best to tone them down so as to avoid any question about Jesus's unusual love. Hence, we have "agapaō" and "phileō" rather than "eros." Who knows? But whatever the case, it's obvious that Jesus' love of the disciple was indeed unusual. Unusual enough that John was prompted to say it six times. Under normal circumstances once would have sufficed, don't you think? Of course it would. But no, John felt it such an incredibly special love that it deserved to be told and retold, and retold, and retold, and retold, and retold. And what kind of love between two men could have been so incredibly special to merit such emphases other than one between homosexuals?


.

I understand that you disagree. You will clearly hold to your position regardless of evidence.

Personally, I don’t buy into conspiracy theories. You are free to make up a relationship between Jesus and John and then assign your secret meaning to John’s words. You can hold to a conspiracy theory about how all-powerful scribes came along, changed John’s words, destroyed all knowledge of the original wording, and perfectly covered their tracks so that no one knew the change was ever made.

As long as you hold to conspiracy theories like this we will never see eye to eye. I honestly don’t understand why you don’t view such things as laughable. I understand people having different worldviews. I get holding various forms of theism and non-theism. I just don’t get the obsession with conspiracy theories. Go well.

[Miles]

I am curious what kind of attachment these phrases would not be applicable for. One can “be found of” or have a “personal attachment” to a grandparent or a daughter or a dog or a painting or a song or a car or a shady place under a certain tree or chocolate. Do you consider all of these to be sexual love?

Personally, no I don't, but where it involves people and given the appropriate situation, that doesn't mean they can't be, does it.

It does not mean that these ideas can’t be included romantic love. It does mean that applying these ideas to specifically romantic love without other compelling explanations (as you have done in this thread) is unreasonable.

I disagree.

Also, there is a specific Greek word for romantic or sexual love (eros). If the author of John meant to convey sexual love, why would he not use that word?

Perhaps he would, and perhaps he wouldn't if he wanted to conceal the fact.

So the author brought it up and wanted to conceal it? Do you genuinely not see the problem with the reasoning?

No I don't. I find it quite likely that John wanted to reveal Jesus's feelings for him(?)---most likely a matter of pride, I would guess---while not jeopardizing Jesus's relationship with his followers. "I want everyone to know how much Jesus really loved me, but not so as to raise any doubt about his purity." Or, the scribes who passed along the book of John and Jesus's feelings thought it best to tone them down so as to avoid any question about Jesus's unusual love. Hence, we have "agapaō" and "phileō" rather than "eros." Who knows? But whatever the case, it's obvious that Jesus' love of the disciple was indeed unusual. Unusual enough that John was prompted to say it six times. Under normal circumstances once would have sufficed, don't you think? Of course it would. But no, John felt it such an incredibly special love that it deserved to be told and retold, and retold, and retold, and retold, and retold. And what kind of love between two men could have been so incredibly special to merit such emphases other than one between homosexuals?


.

I understand that you disagree. You will clearly hold to your position regardless of evidence.

Personally, I don’t buy into conspiracy theories. You are free to make up a relationship between Jesus and John and then assign your secret meaning to John’s words. You can hold to a conspiracy theory about how all-powerful scribes came along, changed John’s words, destroyed all knowledge of the original wording, and perfectly covered their tracks so that no one knew the change was ever made.

As long as you hold to conspiracy theories like this we will never see eye to eye. I honestly don’t understand why you don’t view such things as laughable. I understand people having different worldviews. I get holding various forms of theism and non-theism. I just don’t get the obsession with conspiracy theories. Go well.

Sorry that you can't tell the difference between a conspiracy and a possible coincidence, particularly when no conspiracy was even hinted at. (Miles: "I find it quite likely that . . . . Who knows?") People who might come to the same conclusion need not conspire to do so.

con·spir·a·cy
/kənˈspirəsē/
noun
noun: conspiracy; plural noun: conspiracies

a secret plan by a group to do something unlawful or harmful.
the action of plotting or conspiring.

My emphases.


Have a good day

.

[JehovahsWitness]

The verse doesn't say that. You (helped by the translators of the NWT) are saying that. There is no "fell in," "grew to," or "came to" in the text. It says that Isaac loved Rebekah.

IS THE NEW WORLD TRANSLATION JUSTIFIED IN USING THE PHRASE "FELL IN LOVE" RATHER THAN LOVED IN GENESIS 24:67?


Yes. The verb love (ahab) used in Genesis 24v67 is in the Hebrew imperfect tense. Hebrew verbs are basically in two forms, perfect describing completed actions, and imperfect describing on going or repeated ones. Concerning the imperfect form James Washington Watts wrote in his work A Distinctive Translation of Genesis, Grand Rapids, Michigan (1963), pp. 129 :

“If the context indicates a single act or state, the force is progressive. The action is pictured in the process of development. In such case the primary idea of the verb in English is not sufficient to convey its full meaning. The addition of an auxiliary like ‘proceed’ or an adverb like ‘gradually’ is needed if the translator sees an occasion for bringing out the full force.

In other words, while leaving the verb in the English past simple (loved) might indeed imply a continued state, it arguably doesn't convey the full force of the verb in the imperfect (paal). Saying "he started to/proceeded to love her" is awkward and somewhat unnatural in English but ..."he fell in love with her" (implying he kept right on loving her (continuous) from an implied staring point, is easy to understand and apparently much more fitting to the original grammar.






JW


Did Isaac fall in ... "sexual attraction" with rebbeca?
viewtopic.php?p=1020230#p1020230