"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?


.

[Difflugia]

Thus far I have made no claims to back up. I am simply challenging the assertion that a working class man in his early of thirties would have been such a cultural anomalie in rural first century Palestine, as to give rise to questions as to his sexual orientation.

That's a fascinating and creative interpretation of what constitutes a claim, but if your questions have implied answers, then you are, in fact, making a claim. If your questions are as open-minded as you're implying, then I've answered them with the documentation that you asked for, even accounting for the multiple times you've shifted the goalpost.

This seems to be a favorite rhetorical tactic of yours (having used it in many, many, many arguments), but you can't have it both ways. If you're just asking questions, then you've received answers and documentary evidence in spades. If, on the other hand, you're asserting that the most definitive written discussion of Jewish theology and practice in existence didn't apply to Jesus for some reason, you've made a positive claim for which you've thus far only offered conjecture in lieu of any documentary support.

[JehovahsWitness]

Thus far I have made no claims to back up. I am simply challenging the assertion that a working class man in his early of thirties would have been such a cultural anomalie in rural first century Palestine, as to give rise to questions as to his sexual orientation.

That's a fascinating and creative interpretation of what constitutes a claim, but if your questions have implied answers, then you are, in fact, making a claim.

Any claims I have subseqently made I have provided documentation for. See above.

The fact of the matter is that, then as in now, there existed a great difference between the privileged elite and the working classes. And while there is every reason to conclude girls married young due to the cultural emphasis on childbearing, Hebrew tradition involved (for all but the elite) learning a trade and being in a position to pay a bride price and support a family. It is not perhaps without significance that both Jesus and John the Baptist began their public ministry around the age of 30, the age Priests began temple service. It seems unlikely that such a privileged avenue of service had no effect on the age a man was considered mature enough for serious responsabilities.

In any case , without being dogmatic, it seems reasonable to conclude, that given the culture at the time a man in his early thirties would not be such an anomally that his sexual orientation would have been called into question.



JW

[Difflugia]

Any claims I have subseqently made I have provided documentation for. See above.

You've justifed that the Mishnah began being compiled during the first century and was completed early in the third, roughly the same frame as the composition and compilation of the New Testament.

You've justified that the Pharisees considered themselves "apart" from "the masses." You've extended this in apparent justification of your contention that your common sense as a twentieth-century Christian trumps rabbinic tradition when determining the norms of Palestinian Judaism in the first century.

You've justified that the shift from Second Temple Judaism to rabbinic Judaism occurred largely because of the destruction of the Temple. This could probably go without saying. You seem to be relying on this fact alone, however, to support the assertion that marriage standards of accepted age shifted in such diametric opposition that, while Jesus was unremarkable as a bachelor in his thirties, the Talmud describes a twenty-one year old bachelor as "cursed."

To put it generously, your body of evidence is somewhat thin.

The fact of the matter is that, then as in now, there existed a great difference between the privileged elite and the working classes. And while there is every reason to conclude girls married young due to the cultural emphasis on childbearing, Hebrew tradition involved (for all but the elite) learning a trade and being in a position to pay a bride price and support a family.

You probably should have looked that up. In the first century, the ketubah as bride price was an agreement that in case of divorce, the husband would pay his wife 200 zuzim (equivalent to 50 "sanctuary shekels" used to pay the Temple tax). In practice, it served as a disincentive against divorce rather than against marrying young.

It is not perhaps without significance that both Jesus and John the Baptist began their public ministry around the age of 30, the age Priests began temple service. It seems unlikely that such a privileged avenue of service had no effect on the age a man was considered mature enough for serious responsabilities.

Perhaps it's not. Do you have any evidence to support this interesting speculation?

In any case , without being dogmatic, it seems reasonable to conclude, that given the culture at the time a man in his early thirties would not be such an anomally that his sexual orientation would have been called into question.

You haven't offered enough evidence for a reasonable conclusion, but it does seem a reasonable guess. It also seems a reasonable guess to imagine that first century cultural norms valued and encouraged young marriages to the point that a thirty-year-old bachelor was anomalous. If we have to choose between the two, every shred of evidence offered thus far would lead us to conclude the latter as you've offered nothing but repetitions of your guess itself to support the former.

Perhaps you'd like to tell me again how reasonable and logical your guesses are?

[JehovahsWitness]

To put it generously, your body of evidence is somewhat thin.

And yours is non existent.

The question is: Is there evidence that the attitudes of third century religious elite was so unversally accepted amongst the general populace in Jesus day, that a single man in his early thirties would have been viewed as suspect?

You have offerted no evidence to support the supposition that this was indeed the case. You have simply produced the documentation that raises the question.

The fallacy of begging the question occurs when an argument's premises assume the truth of the conclusion, instead of supporting it.

RELATED POSTS

What is the fallacy of equivocation?
viewtopic.php?p=1020274#p1020274

[nobspeople]

[Replying to JehovahsWitness in post #104]

Is there evidence that the attitudes of third century religious elite was so unversally accepted amongst the general populace in Jesus day, that a single man in his early thirties would have been viewed as suspect?

Maybe you should first define what constitutes 'evidence' specifically, and why, as it doesn't mean the say thing to everyone, from what I've seen provided on this site.

[Revelations won]

Dear Miles,

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

The last account of Christ’s early life poor to his 30th year was at age 12. The only statement from scripture in the intervening years from youth to 30 is:

“Luke 2: 40 And the child grew, and waxed strong in spirit, filled with wisdom: and the grace of God was upon him.”

“Luke 2:
52
And Jesus increased in wisdom and stature, and in favour with God and man."

You have made a private assumption and speculation that by age 30 Christ was not married. There is no verified evidence to support your claim.

Since Christ was “filled with wisdom: and the grace of God was upon him.” “52
And Jesus increased in wisdom and stature, and in favour with God and man. There is no basis for your interpretation presented.

Inasmuch as Christ was and is our exemplar it would appear that he was in all probability married.

Kind regards,
RW

[nobspeople]

[Replying to Revelations won in post #107]

Inasmuch as Christ was and is our exemplar it would appear that he was in all probability married.

I've seen people argue, biblically, that there was no way he could have been married as his 'bride' was 'the church' and being married would have been in direct violation with that message/job. To me it didn't make a whole lotta sense unless one were to dive deeply in to what their definition of 'bride' and 'marriage' was. Fascinating that what is written by several people of one man can cause such discourse and conjecture!

[Difflugia]

Dear Miles,

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

That's not what probably means.

[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?


.

[gadfly]

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.