Gay Jesus

[Daniel]

David suggested starting a thread about the possibility that Jesus was gay on another thread. So I thought, well, why not? Sorry David, if I am stealing your thunder.

To start things off, I thought we might have a look at a text that was discovered by Morton Smith in 1958 (the year I was born!) at Mar Saba Monastery, located 12 miles south of Jerusalem, which contains the following passage and is called The Secret Gospel According to Mark. What's interesting about this text is how it has been ignored since Morton wrote about it in the 1960's.

They came to Bethany. There was one woman there whose brother had died. She came and prostrated herself before Jesus and spoke to him. "Son of David, pity me!" But the disciples rebuked her. Jesus was angry and went with her into the garden where the tomb was. Immediately a great cry was heard from the tomb. And going up to it, Jesus rolled the stone away from the door of the tomb, and immediately went in where the young man was. Stretching out his hand, he lifted him up, taking hold his hand. And the youth, looking intently at him, loved him and started begging him to let him remain with him. And going out of the tomb, they went into the house of the youth, for he was rich. And after six days Jesus gave him an order and, at evening, the young man came to him wearing nothing but a linen cloth. And he stayed with him for the night, because Jesus taught him the mystery of the Kingdom of God. And then when he left he went back to the other side of the Jordan.

An interesting article on this Gospel can be found here:

http://www.spiritrestoration.org/Church/All%20About%20Church%20Articles/The-Strange-Case-of-the-Secret-Gospel-of-Mark.htm

Wikipedia has this to say, among other things:


The theory of a homosexual Jesus in Secret Mark
An alternative and more controversial understanding, first implied by Morton Smith, one that also considers these mysterious figures to be the same individual, is that this figure is Jesus' beloved, whom Jesus loves and thus desires to bring back to life. The presence both at the tomb, and the arrest, being indications of the strength of the romance, and an implicit sexual undertone is sometimes taken to be implied by taught him the mystery of the kingdom of God. Such a theory also implies that the beloved disciple, mentioned in the Gospel of John (and whom the other disciples wonder if he may ever subsequently die), is in fact this individual (who is usually taken to be John), and may in fact be Lazarus (who, after escaping death, one may wonder whether he may die again).
Clement specifically chooses these passages to counter the Carpocratians' claim that their copy of the text even contains the phrase gymnon gymn?, which means naked man with naked man, indicating an explicitly sexual relationship. While Clement's purpose is to contest such a claim, it is clear, from the fact that he feels he needs to, that the passages were even then, not long after having been written for the first time, being interpreted as indicating a romantic or erotic connection between Jesus and the youth. It is significant, therefore, that Clement does not attempt to contest the implied relation, merely objecting to claims of a lack of chastity, i.e. rejecting the idea they had sex in favour of they fell in love.
These different interpretations provide a neat explanation of many of the more mysterious isolated parts of the gospels as part of a single thread, either one of homosexual romance, or alternately of mystic esoteric initiation. The vast majority of Christians categorically reject the Gnostic nature of the teachings of Jesus as presented in Secret Mark; additionally, the idea that Jesus expresses a sexuality or homosexual nature is upsetting to many Christians.

For the whole nine yards see here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secret_Gospel_of_Mark

Wikepedia also notes that Morton Smith believed that JC gave the young man a secret initiation, which was not sexual in nature.

One wonders: how can he determine that?

A lot has happened since this text was discovered and written about. And while it would certainly be timely to have more scholarship concerning the matter, conservative theologians have every reason to ignore and suppress such an endeavor. It's much too inconvenient.

The idea of a gay Jesus is provocative, to be sure. It's doesn't rock my boat at all, but I can imagine why it would make the heads of evangelicals spin around like Linda Blair' s in the Exorcist. They think they own the guy.

[Bearnabas]

Wow, thanks Daniel.

It's nice to think that Jesus was gay. He never married, we don't hear of him having a date, hanging out with a woman--except those Marobingian texts (ala Da Vinci Code) where he marries Mary Magdelene.

I wonder if we would like to know that he knew love--love for another person--because it is so human to know love. And without it, can Christ be human. Yes, he experienced gobs of agape all over the pages, but eros? We want to know that he loved another human being and that this human being brought him happiness in a personal way--least I think so.

I also have always liked John's reference to the beloved disciple. I always thought it was John. I like that it was Lazarus, perhaps, since Laz never married either and Jesus loved him so much.

When I read John and come across those "disciple Jesus Loved" passages, I often wonder why a writer would dare talk about himself in that way, since Christ loved everyone. How arrogant for him, especially if these gospels got around, to think that (like sons of thunder earlier) he was "special" to the master. Still, if he meant more, then that's really nice. Jesus hung around with 12 men, never married, took care of his mother... there's a good case. The reason it never comes to light though, probably, is because Jesus has to appeal to all those married "evangelicals" which dominate the church right now.

I mean, all those single male figures in the Bible as their role models, and most churches haven't a clue how to reach out to singles? It makes you wonder if we haven't gotten a weird spin on being christian nowadays that, as LadyinRed has said on another thread, requires one to be married to fit into a church....

Nice that Jesus might break so many molds....

[Daniel]

Here's an interesting book that Dr. White wrote a blurb for.

http://www.jesusinlove.org/newbook.php

What if Jesus knew how it feels to be queer?

Surprising answers come in Jesus in Love, a novel that re-imagines Christ’s legendary life as an erotic, mystical adventure in first-century Palestine. Jesus has today’s queer sensibilities and sexual sophistication as he lives out the Christian story in this novel of spiritual and sexual awakening.

Readers can relate to the struggles he faces: He feels like his real self is both male and female. He falls in love with people of both sexes. Society doesn’t understand him.

Here' Mel's blurb.

“In imagining a Jesus who really lived, laughed and loved, Kitt Cherry has broken through the stained glass barrier. Don’t be afraid. This is not a prurient look at the sex life of Jesus, but a classic re-telling of the greatest story ever told, the story of a truly human Jesus and those truly human women and men who lived, laughed and loved with him. Read JESUS IN LOVE and you will feel His Spirit reaching out to you, inviting you to live, laugh and love with him as well.”
—Rev. Mel White, founder of Soulforce and author of Religion Gone Bad: The Hidden Dangers of the Christian Right

Don't you just love google? Let your fingers do the walking!

[Alecto]

So, COMPLETELY off topic, the pride alliance at my school was filed in with "cultural groups". So, whenever a bunch of those groups wanted to co-sponsor an event, we'd be invited to join them. One such idea was a winter holiday thing, and how different cultures all do different things etc. We were like "umm....it's not even like...Thanksgiving when you're supposed to dramatically come out. What could we do for gay Christmas? 'Dear Gay Jesus...'". So, the topic title made me giggle, and I thought I'd share that with you all.

[scott snedeker]

Who better than one of us to survive humanity's crucible to learn and teach unconditional love

[u-dog]

Africans imagine Jesus Black and Swedes imagine him as blond and blue-eyed Asians picture him as Asian even though they all know that he was a Semite. So why not us? The Gospels seem to go way out of their way to tell us nothing about Jesus' sexuality. Is that because he didn't HAVE a sexuality? Not if he was truly human. Is it because they intend for us ALL to be able to imagine that he was one of "US" ? I think so, since that is the whole point to his incarnation, crucifixion, and resurrection.

I have always wondered why the Pharisees (who were always looking for something to trip Jesus up) never mention the fact that He, a prominant Rabbi, wasn't married. That would have been a big problem, yet no one seems to notice. hmmm....

[dsdrane]

Daniel, my Sweet, you can steel my thunder whenever you want.

Especially when you have scads more information than I do.

The secret gospel you bring up was mentioned to me awhile back by my (gay) priest, but busy lives have kept both of us from digging further. I will make sure he sees this thread.

U-d's point is a good one. I always thought it was laughable to depict Jesus as Björn Borg, but of course it makes sense that we would see ourselves in Christ. The difference for us is that we know he wasn't blonde and blue-eyed, but we don't know he wasn't gay, bi-, or pan-.

Does anyone know if some fun-loving person out there has actually started a "movement" (for lack of a better word) regarding this? I can't imagine more fun than rendering the fundies into a sputtering, head-rotating seizure by telling them their savior was a 'mo...or at least part 'mo.

It makes me giddy at the thought.

:weee: :smashy:

[keltic63]

Does anyone know if some fun-loving person out there has actually started a "movement" (for lack of a better word) regarding this? I can't imagine more fun than rendering the fundies into a sputtering, head-rotating seizure by telling them their savior was a 'mo...or at least part 'mo.

It makes me giddy at the thought.

:weee: :smashy:

are you kidding??? heads spin at the suggestion that Jesus and Mary Magdalene had a thing going on! :lol:

[tpdncr4christ]

brings up a good point. If we are going to discuss the possibility of Jesus being gay, shouldn't we also discuss the other what-if's, like what if He was secretly married to Mary Magdalene, or what if He was just pure and untouched his whole life?

I've had discussions with my friends before about the latter and I'd say, "He is a male, He is human, surely had would have fallen for someone," And they say, "But He is God on earth, He is so much cooler than that, sex never even crossed His mind."

It's all so confusing, seeing as though it happened two thousand years ago, and most of the information is corrupted or lost. What a fun treasure hunt.

[u-dog]

aparently didn't want us to know anything about Jesus sexuality, because they say NOTHING about it.

Jesus WAS God but he was also FULLY HUMAN. If he was fully human and male? THEN SEX CROSSED HIS MIND !!... probably about every 7 minutes for his whole adult life.

All we can surmise about Jesus is that whatever he did with his sexuality (and Matthew, Mark, Luke and John Ain't tellin) ... was in perfect obedience to God's will for him. that is the nature of Jesus' moral perfection, that he is perfectly obedient. Could Jesus have been gay? sure! Could he have been straight? Sure! Could he have been married? sure! Can we know for sure either way? NOPE.

Why?

Cuz it ain't important for us to know that.

[BrentRichards]

Could Jesus have been gay? sure! Could he have been straight? Sure! Could he have been married? sure! Can we know for sure either way? NOPE.

Why?

Cuz it ain't important for us to know that.

This posting endorsed by Hal Lee Lujah. Well said as always, U-Dog!

I have to be a good evangelical here, and say that I cannot bring myself to take any of these dozens of "secret/lost gospels" even a little bit seriously. Sorry, I don't mean that to be dismissive or offensive regarding this posting, I just feel the need to state my opinion bluntly on this one. The fact is, I don't need to find evidence that Jesus was gay. The real gospels are enough ... they tell me that he welcomed ALL of the outcasts, and that means little gay me, too!

[BrentRichards]

Re-reading my post, I'm thinking, "Oh, man, that's gonna draw fire." Sorry! I don't mean to start a fight!

[Daniel]

Not from me BrentRichards.

I started this thread- to put it simply- to see where people's heads are at on the topic. BTW- Udog's other salient point was that wwe tend to see Jesus as 'ourselves', whatever that is. Seeing JC as gay would seem par for the course, would it not?

That said, I'm fascinated by Gnostic texts- again- for the simple reason that they didn't make it into the approved canon. Being a curious fellow, and not being one to gulp hook line and sinker someone else's established view, I think it's a good thing to be curious about such things. The way I see it, we gain a great deal more by asking questions that we do by asserting that there are only so many answers. ;)

[davidb]

Why am I going directly to scene in Talladega Nights where Ricky Bobby leads the prayer to "Tiny Baby Jesus" at the dinner table? ;)

[u-dog]

Brent,

I'm so with you on the whole Gospel thing, I don't I personally need any more gospels. In fact... do we really NEED Matthew? I so totally GET the other three, but Matthew has always been a mystery to me. what say we just dump him ?

;)

[Pablo Rafael]

Brent,

I'm so with you on the whole Gospel thing, I don't I personally need any more gospels. In fact... do we really NEED Matthew? I so totally GET the other three, but Matthew has always been a mystery to me. what say we just dump him ?

;)

Oh no! Are you Protestants at it again!? :eek: Don't throw out any more books of the Bible. You already got rid of the Greek Old Testament books and we Catholics just barely stopped Luther from getting rid of James (and Hebrews). So just keep your hands off! :mad:

Seriously though, good comments you guys have made. We don't need to know anything about the sexuality of Jesus. It would probably be a distraction to the Gospel message. (It is fun, however, to bring up the possibility of a gay Jesus and watch the reaction from the religious conservatives.) :D

Tu Amigo, Pablo

[dsdrane]

Seriously though, good comments you guys have made. We don't need to know anything about the sexuality of Jesus. It would probably be a distraction to the Gospel message. (It is fun, however, to bring up the possibility of a gay Jesus and watch the reaction from the religious conservatives.) :D

Tu Amigo, Pablo

...and not just for schadenfreudic reasons; it's also to prove the point that many people assume heterosexuality unless there is proof to the contrary (and they require a lot, normally, right kids?)

I bet my Common Prayer book (and I just got it and I like it a lot, just so you know I'm serious) that, if you asked your garden variety Fundie or even a non-Fundie, if Jesus was straight, they'd either say "yes" or they'd say "well, he wasn't gay, if that's what you mean!"

And they, too, have nothing to go on.

It doesn't matter if Jesus was gay, what matters is that no one can prove that he wasn't...but, if we tried just for fun, I feel there is more (however circumstantial) evidence for it than against it.

As far as the whole gospel thing is concerned, the Bible is not a book; it's a library. In fact, it's a library in Kansas where books were chosen or rejected by those in a position to do so centuries ago.

M'kay...?

[BrentRichards]

Oh no! Are you Protestants at it again!? :eek: Don't throw out any more books of the Bible. You already got rid of the Greek Old Testament books and we Catholics just barely stopped Luther from getting rid of James (and Hebrews). So just keep your hands off!

Don't look at me! I'm okay with Matthew! And I LOVE the Revelation, which Luther also wanted to lose.

Besides which, this Protestant has actually READ the Apocrypha (Ooooo ... how impressive is that :rolleyes: ) ... egad, I just used a smiley. I never do that. Time to quit.

[u-dog]

I think that it was Calvin who wanted to lose the Revelation. And I for one am glad that James and Hebrews made the cut. I was only joking about Matthew. We should keep him... if only for the wisemen and the slaughter of the innocents! But I do LOVE Mark, Luke, and John way better.

[BrentRichards]

We always said that one of the greatest evidences of Calvin's wisdom was that he didn't preach/write commentary on Revelation. I thought Luther advocated losing it, but that's off the top of my head, and it wouldn't be the first time I was wrong (GASP!).

[BrentRichards]

Fan of John, myself, just for the record.

[u-dog]

Me too! you wanna go out sometime? You can lie with your head in my lap in a meadow by the lake and I'll read passages of "The Institutes of the Christian Religion" Sounds dreamy huh?

[revtj]

Highly recommentded reading :

Jesus Acted Up: A Gay and Lesbian Manifesto by Robert Goss. This was my 'bible' for about 3 years and I was blessed to take a seminar from him in seminary. He does not claim Jesus was gay, but he explores who the Christ is for Queers in liberation context.

The Man Jesus Loved: Homoerotic Narratives from the New Testament by Ted Jennings, the first who could find a publisher to risk such a subject...he does not maintain that Jesus was gay but he explores the secret Gospel of Mark & the boy in the garden who was left naked at Jesus' arrest in the canonical gospel of Mark.

I do not believe a substantial case can ever be made that Jesus was gay (or straight, for that matter...) because 'gay' is a constructed self-definition that simply did not exist in biblical times.

But Jesus was "Queer" in that he did not follow Jewish (or Roman) tradition and marry (...or did he?) and establish a male household with as many wives and male & female servants as he could afford. This could be because he was A. Poor (very likely so) B. Of ignoble birth, such as a Samaritan (I accept this as true, but it's debatable of course) C. A rebel against cultural norms (well, yeah...) D. A wanderer (well, yeah again, but wanderers often took their households with them on camels in caravans...) E. A monastic (an Essene? or some odd Jew like John the Baptist?) F. Mentally ill (OK, that one pisses people off, but by today's standards, he gets at least 2 of the DSM-IV disorders.

The one thing he most certainly WASN'T is the fundamentalist-conservative prototype of Falwell, Robertson, et. al., a suburban dad with 1 wife and 2.5 kids who went to a mega church and was a CEO...Jesus is so far away from that! Makes you wonder where they get it from?? He lived an ALTERNATIVE LIFESTYLE for his time/place in history.

FUN topic, thanks ya'll!

[dsdrane]

Agreed. This is not only more to the point, it's more damning to the fundies' weltanschauung.

[Two, count 'em, two compound German nouns in this thread...so far!]

[ah, ah, ah!]

[BrentRichards]

Me too! you wanna go out sometime? You can lie with your head in my lap in a meadow by the lake and I'll read passages of "The Institutes of the Christian Religion" Sounds dreamy huh?

I'm not even sure how to take that ...

Can we make it the Heidelberg Chatechism?

[u-dog]

I love the Heidelburg catechism. Its my fave. so... the Heidleburg Catechism and a Movie then? :D


((actually, all kidding aside, the Heidelburg Catechism IS my favorite reformation document. That anti gay passage? IT was added later!! sometime in the 20th century.))

[BrentRichards]

I love the Heidelburg catechism. Its my fave. so... the Heidleburg Catechism and a Movie then? :D


((actually, all kidding aside, the Heidelburg Catechism IS my favorite reformation document. That anti gay passage? IT was added later!! sometime in the 20th century.))

Yup ... big thanks to Jack Rogers on that one (he's where I first heard that) ...

[BrentRichards]

I love the Heidelburg catechism. Its my fave. so... the Heidleburg Catechism and a Movie then? :D


((actually, all kidding aside, the Heidelburg Catechism IS my favorite reformation document. That anti gay passage? IT was added later!! sometime in the 20th century.))

Really it should be Heidelberg and beer, shouldn't it?

[u-dog]

I should have acknowledge that. Jack was my source for that information too. but the person who introduced me to the Heidelberg was Paul Capitz a church history and reformation theology professor at United Seminary in the Twin Cities. Very smart and captivating GAY GUY !!

[Progo35]

The problem with using documents found in 1958 from the 15th century to make the Jesus was gay argument is that no theologian in the world would argue for placing the authority of an extra-Biblical document over a 1st century document that has undergone the rigors of cannonization.

Also, the "disciple Jesus loved" reference could mean many things, it could mean that John was Jesus' best friend. I do think that one of the problems in our culture is that we tend to assign romance to love so much that we ignore the importance of strong friendships, "Phillia" love.

[Progo35]

Clarification: I thought that in one of the posts it said that this document was written in the 15th century, but I think I misread it, so I would ammend the previous statement by saying that most Biblical scholars think that the Gnostic gospels were written in the 2nd century, after those that were cannonized.

[Progo35]

That's what we learned in Gordon's Old Testament HLT, and the problem for me is that I have felt exasperated over what I feel is the secular left's campaign to discredit Christianity in any way that it possibly can so that it will not perpetuate the policies it associates with Christianity. The reason for this is that there has been a ton of controversy recently over students expressing their faith on school grounds, such as the recent story on a valedictorian that told her classmates that they could find salvation in Jesus Christ. Many people felt that that statement should have been censored to protect seperation of church in state, even though the statement was protected by the 1st Ammendment. That is kind of outside this forum's focus on whether or not Jesus was gay, but that is what I associate that position with. No offense to those who are open-mindedly exploring this issue: please go forward in love.

[Progo35]

I'm not saying that such policies are the result of gay rights, I just feel that they are being exploited by the secular left to the point that the issue has become too associated with one political position or the other.

[Progo35]

I hope that it's clear where I'm coming from here...I'm not trying to discourage this discussion or be offensive. As people above said, it really doesn't MATTER.

[alakazoom87]

So obsessed with sex and sexual orientation that you have gone this far?

Christ died for our sins. He was the perfect sacrifice! There was no sin Him. He did not lust for anything, which includes homosexual relations.

[keltic63]

Does anyone know if some fun-loving person out there has actually started a "movement" (for lack of a better word) regarding this? I can't imagine more fun than rendering the fundies into a sputtering, head-rotating seizure by telling them their savior was a 'mo...or at least part 'mo.

It makes me giddy at the thought.

:weee: :smashy:

are you kidding??? heads spin at the suggestion that Jesus and Mary Magdalene had a thing going on! :lol:

So obsessed with sex and sexual orientation that you have gone this far?

I rest my case.

alakazoom87, did you read all of this thread? did you understand that WE are not the ones who came up with this idea? do you understand that there are existing documents, extra-canonical gospels, etc. that indicate this may be the case? did you understand that most of us in this discussion were exploring a "what if?" situation?


perhaps I should start a new thread: "what if alakazoom87 is gay?" exhibit a: he likes hanging around the gays & lesbians at soulforce. ;)

[alakazoom87]

Well, basically my foot is in my mouth. I saw that one of you guys said that it would be nice if Jesus was gay, and that threw me over the edge. Sorry all.

[u-dog]

Originally Posted by alakazoom87
So obsessed with sex and sexual orientation that you have gone this far?

I have absolutely no "need" for a gay savior so don't get me wrong. Whatever kind of Jesus God sent to us is the one I want, BUT...

If Africans can envision Jesus as Black and Asian Christians can envision Jesus as Asian and Lutherans can envision Jesus as a blond blue eyed Nordic hunk? Then I can envision him as gay if that helps me to feel closer to my savior. And to do so does NOT make me obsessed with sex or sexual orientation. it just makes me human. (in the good sense)

[BrentRichards]

Well, basically my foot is in my mouth. I saw that one of you guys said that it would be nice if Jesus was gay, and that threw me over the edge. Sorry all.

Wow. Thanks for saying that!

[tpdncr4christ]

So obsessed with sex and sexual orientation that you have gone this far?

Christ died for our sins. He was the perfect sacrifice! There was no sin Him. He did not lust for anything, which includes homosexual relations.

there is a play out there written about Jesus as if it was modern day, located in Texas, the city of Corpus Cristi. In the play all twelve deciples, as well as Jesus are flamming homosexuals. It is a horrible play... that guy is so obsessed with sex and sexual orientation that he wrote a play. Just thought I should share... We think it's funny...

There is also the theory He was ET...

[tdogg]

Jesus was also human, and he had normal and natural human physiological traits and characteristics. One of those is the common erection, void of any real stimulation. So, that said, why would it be far-fetched to think of the possibility that Jesus was gay? In the grand scheme of things, I don't see why it would matter if he were gay or straight. He choose to remain celibate (as far as we know, do we really know that for sure???) or at least perfect in God's eyes, according to the current Bible we are familiar with.

I'm not shocked or turned off by the possibilty. He certainly hung with questionable folks (questionable to other people), his love was all-encompassing, and he was very compassionate and gentle. It would only make him more of a Savior in my opinion. I'm with u-dog, don't NEED a gay savior, but hey, why be vehement in the denial of the possibilty??

[Pablo Rafael]

So obsessed with sex and sexual orientation that you have gone this far?

Christ died for our sins. He was the perfect sacrifice! There was no sin Him. He did not lust for anything, which includes homosexual relations.

The original conversation started on the thread about the book
Sex and the Single Savior by Martin (I can't remember the first name.) This thread started as a spin-off from that thread. It is an excellent book. The author doesn't try to bring forth evidence that Jesus was gay, he explores how people look at Jesus and perceive Him according to their own viewpoints. Often times I don't agree with many liberal theologians because they seem to me to often discount all of Scripture. The author of this book does not to that. He has a liberal bent, but has a reverence for the Word of God.

I totally agree that Jesus was the pefect Lamb of God whose death and resurrection has won for us eternal life. However, I don't believe that healthy sexual desire is a sin. Your comment seems to hearken back to the puritanical idea that all desire is dirty and should be suppressed. I think if Jesus were straight and had desires for women or if he were married, that would be fine. I also think if he were gay, that would be OK. We know that he was perfect and His desires were on accordance with God's will whether they were heterosexual or homosexual.

And when are the people who post here obsessed with sex? In fact that topic seldomly comes up. Just beacuse most of us are LGBT doesn't mean we engage in or talk about sex all the time. (I'm sure there are others like me who haven't sex for so long we don't even remember how it is done. :D ) These forums are for people who have a LGBT orientation or or sympathetic to those of us who do. Our society is saturated with heterosexual references. (Ex: picture of wife on desk, mentioning wife's name in conversation, a quick kiss in public, girlfriend & boyfriend holding hands, etc.) These things are not all about sex. How come the moment a gay person mentions being gay, straight people automatically think it is a conversation about sex? In fact this thread didn't even mention the topic until you brought it up.

Tu Amigo, Pablo

[Progo35]

I don't understand your criticism-where did I go "this far"

[BrentRichards]

The original conversation started on the thread about the book
Sex and the Single Savior by Martin (I can't remember the first name.) This thread started as a spin-off from that thread. It is an excellent book. The author doesn't try to bring forth evidence that Jesus was gay, he explores how people look at Jesus and perceive Him according to their own viewpoints. Often times I don't agree with many liberal theologians because they seem to me to often discount all of Scripture. The author of this book does not to that. He has a liberal bent, but has a reverence for the Word of God.

I totally agree that Jesus was the pefect Lamb of God whose death and resurrection has won for us eternal life. However, I don't believe that healthy sexual desire is a sin. Your comment seems to hearken back to the puritanical idea that all desire is dirty and should be suppressed. I think if Jesus were straight and had desires for women or if he were married, that would be fine. I also think if he were gay, that would be OK. We know that he was perfect and His desires were on accordance with God's will whether they were heterosexual or homosexual.

And when are the people who post here obsessed with sex? In fact that topic seldomly comes up. Just beacuse most of us are LGBT doesn't mean we engage in or talk about sex all the time. (I'm sure there are others like me who haven't sex for so long we don't even remember how it is done. :D ) These forums are for people who have a LGBT orientation or or sympathetic to those of us who do. Our society is saturated with heterosexual references. (Ex: picture of wife on desk, mentioning wife's name in conversation, a quick kiss in public, girlfriend & boyfriend holding hands, etc.) These things are not all about sex. How come the moment a gay person mentions being gay, straight people automatically think it is a conversation about sex? In fact this thread didn't even mention the topic until you brought it up.

Tu Amigo, Pablo

Exactly! Thank you Pablo!

If anyone is obsessed with sex, it's that part of the Christian world that practically equates sin with sex ... as if it were the only, or at least the worst kind of sin.

[Progo35]

Saying that the people here are discussing this because they're obsessed with sex is way off, people are considering this issue as the gay community, just like I might speculate about what certain passages on disability mean.

[scott snedeker]

Okay I'll 'fess-up

I AM OBSESSED WITH SEX!::lol::lol::lol:

But then that is the true nature of one like me who has the spirit of a satyr living within him!:D:D:D

Fortunately I'm a pagan or I'd be in trouble:rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:

I honor God by living true to the natural desires and drives he gave me:good::good::good:

[Freespirited]

It is so much easier to fabricate the character, or in this case the sexuality of someone who is already dead, then it is to validate and accept the real events that person lived!! no one knows for sure who Jesus was, no one heard his voice, no one ever knew him personally, for anyone to even assume he was this or that!


I am not much of follower or a scholar about Jesus, but I do respect and value his teachings, and that is all the truth I need to know about him!!



LEANDRO

[alakazoom87]

I think if Jesus were straight and had desires for women or if he were married, that would be fine. I also think if he were gay, that would be OK. We know that he was perfect and His desires were on accordance with God's will whether they were heterosexual or homosexual.

Why would it be fine?

I'm looking up some Biblical reasons on why I think it would be demented for Christ, the Creator of the Universe, to partake in sexual relations with any one of His creations. I'll get back to you guys soon, (its 12:30am).

[u-dog]

Why would it be fine?

I'm looking up some Biblical reasons on why I think it would be demented for Christ, the Creator of the Universe, to partake in sexual relations with any one of His creations. I'll get back to you guys soon, (its 12:30am).

We wait with baited breath! (gotta stop eating those nightcrawlers... yuck!)

[Daniel]

I do not believe a substantial case can ever be made that Jesus was gay (or straight, for that matter...) because 'gay' is a constructed self-definition that simply did not exist in biblical times.

But Jesus was "Queer" in that he did not follow Jewish (or Roman) tradition and marry (...or did he?) and establish a male household with as many wives and male & female servants as he could afford.

Astute obervation revtj!

My own mullings go towards the idea that what the Carpenter taught about love and loving is very queer indeed. His teachings turn everything inside out. Love those who hate you? That's a tall order.


I'm looking up some Biblical reasons on why I think it would be demented for Christ, the Creator of the Universe, to partake in sexual relations with any one of His creations. I'll get back to you guys soon, (its 12:30am).

I've never forgotten the time I was in Concert Choir during my undergraduate days at Evangel, and the director came in at the start of rehearsal and asked if anyone had ever had sexual feelings for Jesus.

That was a queer moment. ;)

[BrentRichards]

We wait with baited breath! (gotta stop eating those nightcrawlers... yuck!)

Tangent ... recently learned that the correct expression here is "bated breath" ... short for "abated" ... as in "gasp!"

[Me] <-- Language Geek

[scott snedeker]

you mean U-dog didn't need to eat those worms after all!----wait till HE finds out!:lol:

[BrentRichards]

you mean U-dog didn't need to eat those worms after all!----wait till HE finds out!:lol:

Yeah, bummer, huh?

[u-dog]

Tangent ... recently learned that the correct expression here is "bated breath" ... short for "abated" ... as in "gasp!"

[Me] <-- Language Geek

Can you say "PUN" ?:rolleyes:

[Gregory_de_Bois]

Here's an interesting book that Dr. White wrote a blurb for.

http://www.jesusinlove.org/newbook.php



This book seems cool. I mean God is not only masculine, cause that would not make sense. That would go against everything. I mean the Holy Spirit is described in the feminine, there are Hebrew words for God which are feminine, and God in Micah(?) is described as both the gentle fire that purges metals (masculine) and the soft soap that cleanses the cloths (feminine). I think it would make sense that Jesus has both natures (masculine and feminine) in him. I personally don't think that he ever engaged in sexual relationships, not that I wouldn't worship him if he had, I just don't think he did. I guess it just doesn't matter to me. Jesus was God. Jesus was awesome. He was revolutionary; He was loving. His sexual orientation is not going to change my love for him, or rather his for me.

BTW- up until the past couple centuries, Christians would often describe the love between the soul and God as erotic. I would remind you that erotic does not necessarily mean sex. Yeah.

Namaste,

GS Kolbjorn

[BrentRichards]

Can you say "PUN" ?:rolleyes:

Sure ... but up until a couple days ago I couldn't say "bated breath" ... I thought "baited" was correct ... if odd.

[tdogg]

Why would it be fine?


It would be fine for those who love Jesus just as he is, and knows he loves them just a they are.

Why wouldn't it be fine?

Maybe a new thread??? In your imagination, what does Jesus look like? Act like? Speak like?

[u-dog]

This book seems cool. I mean God is not only masculine, cause that would not make sense. That would go against everything. I mean the Holy Spirit is described in the feminine, there are Hebrew words for God which are feminine, and God in Micah(?) is described as both the gentle fire that purges metals (masculine) and the soft soap that cleanses the cloths (feminine). I think it would make sense that Jesus has both natures (masculine and feminine) in him. I personally don't think that he ever engaged in sexual relationships, not that I wouldn't worship him if he had, I just don't think he did. I guess it just doesn't matter to me. Jesus was God. Jesus was awesome. He was revolutionary; He was loving. His sexual orientation is not going to change my love for him, or rather his for me.

BTW- up until the past couple centuries, Christians would often describe the love between the soul and God as erotic. I would remind you that erotic does not necessarily mean sex. Yeah.

Namaste,

GS Kolbjorn

But the young folks on this forum are Such a tremendous blessing to me. They are NOt always right but they are always beautiful and fine. They make me want to do my best to continue to change the world for them, but at the same time they relieve me of the silly notion that I have to change it for them... because they are so capable of changing it for themselves.

Thanks Greg, Jenn, Austin, Brian and all the others.

[alakazoom87]

It would be fine for those who love Jesus just as he is, and knows he loves them just a they are.

Why wouldn't it be fine?

Maybe a new thread??? In your imagination, what does Jesus look like? Act like? Speak like?

I mean, why would it be fine if while Christ was here on this planet that he had sexual desires for women?

[u-dog]

I mean, why would it be fine if while Christ was here on this planet that he had sexual desires for women?

Zoom,

A bedrock belief of the Christian movement is that Jesus was fully human and fully divine.

Fully human means that he was by definition a sexual person and had desire for SOMEBODY probably women but who knows? If he did not have desire, passion, love, of some sort then he wasn't a real human... just a God dressed up in flesh --- and the whole Christian understanding of redemption by the sacrifice of the sinless human crumbles. The Church rejected that pale and pathetic understanding of the Christ back in the 2nd Century.

I don't understand why you seem to equate sexual desire with sin but it is JUST PLAIN WRONG.

Jesus was not perfect because he was a Eunuch! He was perfect because he was PERFECTLY OBEDIENT to the call of God upon his life.

[tdogg]

I mean, why would it be fine if while Christ was here on this planet that he had sexual desires for women?

I do not find anything unpleasant or problematic with the thought that Jesus had sexual desires for anyone - men or women. Why? Because I don't. Because I do not feel that having sexual desires is sinful or wrong. It's a natural part of existence. I think sexual desire is an amazing blessed gift to be treasured and cherished.

So, how do you feel about it Alakazoom87? Not an accusation, I'm genuinely curious to find out more about you and how you feel about things. So you think it would be wrong for Jesus to have had human sexual desire?

[pnggrad79]

Since we have chased all kinds of rabbits on this thread, I thought I would throw my "rabbit" in there for everyone to "chew" on.

What about this? Sex is and was created by God. I believe that the feelings and intimacy shared in the act of sex is but a picture, a prototype of the feelings and intimacy God feels for us. I would like to stretch it a little further and suggest that our life in heaven or the afterlife, will be similar to the intimate feeling we have for our partner, husband, wife now. Actually I think it will be the ultimate orgasm.

I agree with whoever said that if Jesus was gay, who cares? The point is that we don't know, and won't know until we reach the place where we are reunited with God and know all things. For right now, I feel like God created sex for us to enjoy and feel what He feels for us. I don't think He really cares who we express it for, or to, but to just express it.

Maybe that makes me liberal, or whatever. I don't care. I could be wrong, but I don't think I am really.

Any thoughts?

:)

[tdogg]

Well said pnggrad. I agree totally with you on this one. :agree:

[tpdncr4christ]

Since we have chased all kinds of rabbits on this thread, I thought I would throw my "rabbit" in there for everyone to "chew" on.

What about this? Sex is and was created by God. I believe that the feelings and intimacy shared in the act of sex is but a picture, a prototype of the feelings and intimacy God feels for us. I would like to stretch it a little further and suggest that our life in heaven or the afterlife, will be similar to the intimate feeling we have for our partner, husband, wife now. Actually I think it will be the ultimate orgasm.

I agree with whoever said that if Jesus was gay, who cares? The point is that we don't know, and won't know until we reach the place where we are reunited with God and know all things. For right now, I feel like God created sex for us to enjoy and feel what He feels for us. I don't think He really cares who we express it for, or to, but to just express it.

Maybe that makes me liberal, or whatever. I don't care. I could be wrong, but I don't think I am really.

Any thoughts?

:)

I believe that lots of the old old Pagan churches believed that the orgasm was the highest for of prayer, but I'm not certain... Maybe Scott could fill us in? Or it could be a different pagan, I don't really know...

[u-dog]

I believe that lots of the old old Pagan churches believed that the orgasm was the highest for of prayer, but I'm not certain... Maybe Scott could fill us in? Or it could be a different pagan, I don't really know...


That would certainly explain why people shout "O G-D, O G-D, O G------D !!!" :eek:

[tpdncr4christ]

That would certainly explain why people shout "O G-D, O G-D, O G------D !!!" :eek:

So, it took me a second to understand what you were saying... I said it out loud just to try and make sense of it, and my mom walked by. So I'm at the computer chanting, OGD OGD OGD OGD... Now she must really think I'm insane...

Just thought I should share.

[Gregory_de_Bois]

That would certainly explain why people shout "O G-D, O G-D, O G------D !!!" :eek:

Thank you for making my day. I just started bursting out in laughter. My family has already witnessed my insanity.:D:cool:

[scott snedeker]

I believe that lots of the old old Pagan churches believed that the orgasm was the highest for of prayer, but I'm not certain... Maybe Scott could fill us in? Or it could be a different pagan, I don't really know...

Many of the rituals in ancient pagan faith are celebrated with sex.:pray: And Yes orgasm is a spiritual experience and deepest connection with the spirit of the Earth. :pray:

Because sex led to pregnanacy and creation of a new being, orgasm was considered the life energy that started it all. It was a beautiful blessing from the Goddess/ Earth spirit. You could argue today that even artificial insemination requires the male to climax at some point!:lol:



Holy days like Beltaine in the spring (around May 1) Samhain (around Oct )
were blessed with a sexual orgy lasting a week. Can you imagine the anticipation? Woof!

"Oh sweet mystery of life! I've finally found you!"


Thankfully pagans are not the only ones who consider lovemaking holy, But we probably have the easiest time embracing it as the design and will of our creator. :D:D

As to whether I think Christ had sexual desire upon which he acted, the reponse is a resounding YES! Of course! He was a man who felt love for his fellow human beings without barriers. My opinion as to his divinity only slightly differs from mainstream christianity. For me Love and the Spirit of the Earth are one and the same. He was in better connection with Love unconditional in a brutal era of human history than anyone described since. I believe such a person would be so whole that no part of his humanity would go unexpressed. I think it is very likely that he made love to another man at some point.:love::love:

[d_pedr]

What does it matter what Jesus's sexuality was?

He was a member of minority groups which were looked down on just being who is was.

Concieved out of wedlock.
A rebel against the national religion.
A teacher, who taught better than all the official teachers.
A Jew, a nation looked down on more than most by the occupying Romans.

In all that he showed more love to more people in his life than we could in several.
He had a listening ear; a caring nature; healed people - not just physically, but by givin peace of mind.

As part of God, he knows more intimacy than we can even immagine.

I'm sure that if he was in the world today, as a sensitive man, he would be assumed gay.

I just know that I love him, he loves me just as much as he loves so many others.

Paul in his letters said 1Cor9:22b 'I have become all things to all men so that by all possible means I might save some.' (NIV)
If Paul could say this how much more was Jesus like this. He would fit in as much in a gay nightclub, as he would taking 'afternoon tea' in the Roman Bathhouse in Bath.

If you haven't seen it take a look at Rembrandt's painting 'The Return of The Prodigal' The father's left hand is like that of a man, whereas the left is more like that of a woman. http://www.northchristianchurch.com/prodig2.jpg - can someone make this a link, or does it happen automatically?


So if it helps any of us to think of Jesus as gay, or straight, or a-sexual, or whatever. That's fine. He will be, to us, what helps each of us move that next small step closer to him, but somehow he does this without changing - if that makes sense.

love and hugs

[scott snedeker]

prodigal son

I see the two hands of the father did you also notice that the son's left foot is bare but the right is shod. Nothing says human and vulnerable like the sole of a bare foot.

[Dash]

What does it matter what Jesus's sexuality was?

He was a member of minority groups which were looked down on just being who is was.

Concieved out of wedlock.
A rebel against the national religion.
A teacher, who taught better than all the official teachers.
A Jew, a nation looked down on more than most by the occupying Romans.


I don't know if I ever shared this here...but, oh well... It was inspired by a blog that denied the validity of a gay identity:

My remarkable invalidity identifies the Christ in me
Who was the trash of Nazareth conceived in an unwed womb;
The outcast and alien, the unkosher,
Consorter with sinners and disgusting Samaritans,
Lover of hookers and toucher of the unclean,
Ever dissatisfied with those who knew the Law,
Sabbath-breaker, wine-maker,
Unmanly pillow for his dearest friend's head.

The righteous cannot identify the appeal I have for Him
Who loves me more than their filthy rags.
All their lawful sobriety and perfect chastity
Have become an unbearable brass clamoring,
And the poverty of their Christlessness
A shocking nudity among the wedding guests.

[Daniel]

It's good. Very very very very good.

[Zerbie]

Wow, Dash!!!

:love:

[dsdrane]

My remarkable invalidity identifies the Christ in me
Who was the trash of Nazareth conceived in an unwed womb;
The outcast and alien, the unkosher,
Consorter with sinners and disgusting Samaritans,
Lover of hookers and toucher of the unclean,
Ever dissatisfied with those who knew the Law,
Sabbath-breaker, wine-maker,
Unmanly pillow for his dearest friend's head.

The righteous cannot identify the appeal I have for Him
Who loves me more than their filthy rags.
All their lawful sobriety and perfect chastity
Have become an unbearable brass clamoring,
And the poverty of their Christlessness
A shocking nudity among the wedding guests.

:applause::award::cookie::love:

[BrentRichards]

Very beautiful Dash ... and very apt!

[rainbow7]

Wow, there is a lot of energy in this discussion! Is anyone familiar with "Sexuality and the Jesus Tradition" by William Loader (NT prof at Murdoch U. in Australia.... or either of William Phipps' books,
"The Sexuality of Jesus" and "Was Jesus Married?"

Polly

[nmwolfboy]

Dash, that is beautiful. :flower: :love: :flower2: Thanks for sharing it!

Pax :dove:
scott

[u-dog]

Wow, there is a lot of energy in this discussion! Is anyone familiar with "Sexuality and the Jesus Tradition" by William Loader (NT prof at Murdoch U. in Australia.... or either of William Phipps' books,
"The Sexuality of Jesus" and "Was Jesus Married?"

Polly


I've read them! Phipps makes the argument that as a Rabbi it would have been a total scandal for Jesus to be unmarried. He suggests that it is curious that the Pharisees who were always looking for stuff to use against jesus... never mention that he is not married. hmmmm....:confused:

[paulee]

I am reading every replay and there are good pionts, but there is only one thing comes to my mind, What would the christin right would think about this?....lololololol.... I see red puffy cheeks and steam coming out of their ears and the cries of the gays have no right to degrade jesus like that. OH MY LORD!!!! a mass movement againt the gays............not another one....NNNNNNNNOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!! How many for this year.......sorry I lost count I think it's 9,872 and still counting!!!!!!!!!!


I guess people do not see jesus having sex, A god having sex!!!!! To have sex is human and for a god to have sex is degrading, they are better than a human a mere human......

guys I have a hard time writing I hope it is readable ty
paul

[rainbow7]

I guess people do not see jesus having sex, A god having sex!!!!! To have sex is human and for a god to have sex is degrading, they are better than a human a mere human......


paul


I don't believe Jesus could have been fully human and fully divine unless he experienced sexual feelings. I understand our sexuality to be a gift from God, so it's hard for me to divorce the sacred from the erotic. That we are sexual beings reflects that we are created in God's image. It's only when we misuse the gifts God has entrusted to us that there's anything degrading about sex.

Polly

[Daniel]

I've read them! Phipps makes the argument that as a Rabbi it would have been a total scandal for Jesus to be unmarried. He suggests that it is curious that the Pharisees who were always looking for stuff to use against jesus... never mention that he is not married. hmmmm....:confused:

Makes a lot of sense.

I've often wondered what the culture that Jesus inhabited might look like today, and modern Jewish Orthodoxy probably fits the bill. If you're in you 30's and not married, well, there's something wrong with you. ;) :lol:


I guess people do not see jesus having sex, A god having sex!!!!! To have sex is human and for a god to have sex is degrading, they are better than a human a mere human......


It is curious, isn't it? We seem to expect the Christian God to be 'pure' and 'chaste' (and his priests), as if sex and lovemaking is the most dirty thing in the world. It's interesting to me that the Catholic Church rejected anything resembling Gnosticism, but this kind of thinking strikes me as very gnostic in origin.

Very Manichaean stuff.

Sex, Flesh (material world) and the Devil is Bad, but Spirit is Good.

I think one thing is clear: how we think about Jesus and sex has less to say about him than it does about us.

[u-dog]

It is curious, isn't it? We seem to expect the Christian God to be 'pure' and 'chaste' (and his priests), as if sex and lovemaking is the most dirty thing in the world. It's interesting to me that the Catholic Church rejected anything resembling Gnosticism, but this kind of thinking strikes me as very gnostic in origin.

Very Manichaean stuff.

Sex, Flesh (material world) and the Devil is Bad, but Spirit is Good.

I think one thing is clear: how we think about Jesus and sex has less to say about him than it does about us.

Not so odd when you consider that those ideas PERMEATED the culture in which Christianity took root. There was no way really that Christianity wouldn't get polluted by that kind of gnostic dualism even when it rejects the core and substance of Gnosticism itself.

If it hadn't been for the "anchor" of Jesus' Semitic background and the sensible, down to earthiness of Judaism ... Christianity would have been totally seduced and destroyed rather than merely tainted by some really silly ideas!

[Gregory_de_Bois]

My remarkable invalidity identifies the Christ in me
Who was the trash of Nazareth conceived in an unwed womb;
The outcast and alien, the unkosher,
Consorter with sinners and disgusting Samaritans,
Lover of hookers and toucher of the unclean,
Ever dissatisfied with those who knew the Law,
Sabbath-breaker, wine-maker,
Unmanly pillow for his dearest friend's head.

The righteous cannot identify the appeal I have for Him
Who loves me more than their filthy rags.
All their lawful sobriety and perfect chastity
Have become an unbearable brass clamoring,
And the poverty of their Christlessness
A shocking nudity among the wedding guests.

:'(:):):love:

Okay. I am printing that out and putting it in with my other collection of amazing quotes. It's going up on my door as we speak (or write).

[sailaway58]

I guess it seems natural to think about Christ as gay on this site, but it doesn't seem likely.
We don't know much about Joseph but my understanding is if he died before Christ was a man it would not be unusual for Christ to be unmarried.
I have nothing to back that up though.
I don’t believe in ghosts and it seems to me the only people that see them believe in them already. (Just wait, I’m going somewhere)
Conservative Christians are often accused of taking the subject homosexuality and because they believe it is wrong they search for scripture to support their view. I’ll give you that but to find gay Jesus I think is a result of the same kind of search.
The man Jesus was subject to the same temptation as we face today.
If being Gay is not a choice or not a sin then the sin of lust would be the same for either side of the rainbow. I agree that sexual desire is not sin but lust is adultery, a sin.
The question to me is not was Christ gay but how did he keep his heart pure when tempted?
I ask this, how do you present yourself before the Lord with a pure heart? My guess we do it the same way, reading his word, thinking on what is right and pure, seeking him in our quiet times and resting in his grace.
I’ll have to admit that so far the hardest thing for me to say out loud is being gay is not a sin. I think I believe that but it is a little over my comfort zone. Any way I don’t think gays like carpentry, at least not in Indiana and Jerusalem. ;)

[antonyh]

I guess it seems natural to think about Christ as gay on this site, but it doesn't seem likely.
We don't know much about Joseph but my understanding is if he died before Christ was a man it would not be unusual for Christ to be unmarried.
I have nothing to back that up though.
I don’t believe in ghosts and it seems to me the only people that see them believe in them already. (Just wait, I’m going somewhere)
Conservative Christians are often accused of taking the subject homosexuality and because they believe it is wrong they search for scripture to support their view. I’ll give you that but to find gay Jesus I think is a result of the same kind of search.
The man Jesus was subject to the same temptation as we face today.
If being Gay is not a choice or not a sin then the sin of lust would be the same for either side of the rainbow. I agree that sexual desire is not sin but lust is adultery, a sin.
The question to me is not was Christ gay but how did he keep his heart pure when tempted?
I ask this, how do you present yourself before the Lord with a pure heart? My guess we do it the same way, reading his word, thinking on what is right and pure, seeking him in our quiet times and resting in his grace.
I’ll have to admit that so far the hardest thing for me to say out loud is being gay is not a sin. I think I believe that but it is a little over my comfort zone. Any way I don’t think gays like carpentry, at least not in Indiana and Jerusalem. ;)

OK...we all know that Jesus was not gay. He slept with Mary Magdalene and wanted her daughter to be the head of the church (or was that Mary herself). This was the secret of the Holy Grail, the very thing that Leonardo DaVinci protected through the Priory of Sion. They made a movie about it called the Da Vinci Code.:lol:

[u-dog]

I guess it seems natural to think about Christ as gay on this site, but it doesn't seem likely.
We don't know much about Joseph but my understanding is if he died before Christ was a man it would not be unusual for Christ to be unmarried.
I have nothing to back that up though.
I don’t believe in ghosts and it seems to me the only people that see them believe in them already. (Just wait, I’m going somewhere)
Conservative Christians are often accused of taking the subject homosexuality and because they believe it is wrong they search for scripture to support their view. I’ll give you that but to find gay Jesus I think is a result of the same kind of search.
The man Jesus was subject to the same temptation as we face today.
If being Gay is not a choice or not a sin then the sin of lust would be the same for either side of the rainbow. I agree that sexual desire is not sin but lust is adultery, a sin.
The question to me is not was Christ gay but how did he keep his heart pure when tempted?
I ask this, how do you present yourself before the Lord with a pure heart? My guess we do it the same way, reading his word, thinking on what is right and pure, seeking him in our quiet times and resting in his grace.
I’ll have to admit that so far the hardest thing for me to say out loud is being gay is not a sin. I think I believe that but it is a little over my comfort zone. Any way I don’t think gays like carpentry, at least not in Indiana and Jerusalem. ;)

Sailaway!

Thanks for being here! You are great!

I don't think that Jesus was "probably" gay either. There is nothing like evidence for that. However, there is nothing in the Gospel accounts that would preclude him from being gay either. So if it helps gay Christians to think about the savior as gay... God bless them (us...me...whatever) You are exactly right when you say that what is important is how Jesus managed to be fully human (including sexual identity and desire) but managed to be pure and sinless in his life before God. scripture gives us no clue but faith tells us that he was. It seems likely that Jesus was either married or celibate.

Now... about gay carpentry! I beg to differ. I made a cutting board AND a shoeshine box in woodshop in eighth grade and LOVED IT. Mom and Dad were really pleased with them on Christmas morning too!!! Measure twice, cut once? That is SO me. I could have been a carpenter. I bet there are WAY MORE gay carpenters in Indiana AND Jerusalem then you think!

Dave

[keltic63]

Any way I don’t think gays like carpentry, at least not in Indiana and Jerusalem. ;)

have you seen my Demo in the DR (http://www.soulforce.org/forums/showthread.php?t=3292) and You Dirty little man..... (http://www.soulforce.org/forums/showthread.php?t=3317) threads??? huh? well have you? :p

[wmanion]

I was always taught that Jesus was all things to all men in order to meet their need. Each relatiohship with Christ is a personal one and he meets us at the point of our need. If Swedes need a Blue eyed Christ, and African-American's need a black Christ, and gay folk need a gay Christ to enhance the relationship that they have with Christ..then so be it. He is all, the beginning and the end. It is not about sex, it is about identifying with a saviour that knows our hearts and knows our needs. As far as the writings of Christ, if he is truly the same yesterday, today, and forever, the revelations inspired and written about him are just as important as they were in the first century, the second, and the inspired writers of great insight and inspiration today. Just my two cents...dang, inflation has made that a nickel.

Bill

[BruceChris]

So Christ should be all things to all people, or at least be someone that we can identify well with. And we are all made in God's image, so God must have well over 6 billion images. I like those basic ideas.

We should all love, respect, and honor God and Jesus, but to me that certainly does not mean that we should see them as incomprehensible, terrifying, and, well, actually not to be thought of as being capable of seen, or comprehended in ANY way.

Me, I have always thought that God may be powerful and incomprehensible beyond belief, but that He's the kinda guy that would drink a beer, or ride a Harley with me.

And Bill, when you consider that a penny in George Washington's day was worth more than a dollar is today........

Peace and Love, Bruce Chris

[sailaway58]

have you seen my Demo in the DR (http://www.soulforce.org/forums/showthread.php?t=3292) and You Dirty little man..... (http://www.soulforce.org/forums/showthread.php?t=3317) threads??? huh? well have you? :p
Great, Gay do it yourselfers, just when I thought I might find a new customer base. You just couldn't be happy with wallpaper and drapes. Yet another stereotype bites the dust.:confused:

[sailaway58]

I understand the idea of Jesus all things to all people. What I hear implied and don't agree with is that only a gay Jesus could relate to gay people. That is very superficial. Jesus was not a prostitute but related pretty well to Mary. He did not live in a promiscuous way but the woman at the well found him approachable and understanding. He is not all things to all people because he was what we are (for me a heterosexual husband, father and grandfather. For my wife he was not a woman, mother, etc…)
You might ask me to understand orientation in a new way. Well if I have to be Gay to do that we will live worlds apart.
The human experience consists of so much more than whom we are sexually attracted to, but I think we can both understand sexual attraction.
God loved and understood all of us before he walked on earth as Christ. He understood us so much that he designed a way for eternal life because he knew we could not keep the law.
When Paul said I am all things to all people he was talking about cultural differences.
The expression, “when in Rome”.
As Christians we must be culturally relevant to reach those around us with the message of Gods love for us. Our underlying desire should be the same as evangelical brothers and sisters, get the message that God loves all of us and has prepared a way for eternal life by the death and resurrection of Christ.
I think I am rambling now.

[u-dog]

I understand the idea of Jesus all things to all people. What I hear implied and don't agree with is that only a gay Jesus could relate to gay people. That is very superficial. Jesus was not a prostitute but related pretty well to Mary. He did not live in a promiscuous way but the woman at the well found him approachable and understanding. He is not all things to all people because he was what we are (for me a heterosexual husband, father and grandfather. For my wife he was not a woman, mother, etc…)
You might ask me to understand orientation in a new way. Well if I have to be Gay to do that we will live worlds apart.
The human experience consists of so much more than whom we are sexually attracted to, but I think we can both understand sexual attraction.
God loved and understood all of us before he walked on earth as Christ. He understood us so much that he designed a way for eternal life because he knew we could not keep the law.
When Paul said I am all things to all people he was talking about cultural differences.
The expression, “when in Rome”.
As Christians we must be culturally relevant to reach those around us with the message of Gods love for us. Our underlying desire should be the same as evangelical brothers and sisters, get the message that God loves all of us and has prepared a way for eternal life by the death and resurrection of Christ.
I think I am rambling now.

sailaway,

I don't think that any of us, more or less orthodox, Christian Gay people would disagree with you here. jesus doesn't HAVE to be gay to be my savior! He's my Lord and savior regardless. Its just helpful to imagine that he COULD have been. I don't think that Jesus being gay is the most likely possibility... but it IS a possibility... and that's enough for me :)

[Steven E. Webster]

Some thoughts on this topic:

Artists have imagined Jesus as African, Native American, Asian, and, yes, female, as well as gay. The historical Jesus was none of these (in all liklihood), but these artists have expressed a truth that Christ transcends all of these categories. We have depicted Jesus as a blond, blue-eyed northern European for too long, after all (consider the Werner Salman portraits that hang in so many Protestant churches!).

Did Jesus HAVE to be married as some scholars argue? I doubt it. A good scholarly case can be made for Jesus being a kind of vagabond itinerant preacher during his ministry, not someone who was a "family man" or who had the financial resources to be a family man.

Simply because one can make a generalization about Jewish culture and marriage, does not mean that that generalization will apply to all Jews in all times--there was incredible diversity in Judaism at the time of Jesus. Jesus himself refers to "eunuchs"--not necessarily literally castrated men, but men who never-the-less choose not to marry. He seemed to acknowledge that they were atypical, but not non-existent.

Steven Webster

[archyboi]

This is a great topic and scanning through the posts I notice an ommission of rigorous biblical scholarship so may I take a moment to present some facts, please.

This is a summation of a lecture topic in a Post-Graduate course of study I took in summer 2003 PSR GTU Summer Session. John Shelby Spong was the course professor.

In considering the relationship of Jesus to Mary Magdalene one must confront 4 important biblical facts.

1. In all the Gospels and some Pauline Epistles the person of Mary Magdelene is presented and distinguished from Mary the mother of Jesus or the mother of James -- Jesus' brother. It is assumed from the Roman Latin that the place modifier must indicate a locale of origin and this has been unquestioned since the great divide from Judaism 1,900 years ago.

The proof is that there is a town of Magdala that supposedly she grew up and one can see the bed in which she slept in childhood. This isn't true. That town didn't exist until 250 years AFTER the death of Jesus. It is a tourist trap for the foolish to promote this myth. There are no records or artifacts that date to contemporary Jesus when he was alive. So this modifier is not authentic.

The Gospels and the Pauline materials were orginally written in Greek. One would naturally deduce that there must be some Greek meaning for "Magdalene". There isn't. None what so ever. What about a Greek appoximation of an Aramaic word? No, again.

What other language might there be some congruency? Well, obviously Hebrew. If the locale modifier is false as previously show to be so, then one would drop it and have "Magdal." Hebrew has vowel approximations but no written vowels, so that would yield "MGDL."

Is there a Hebrew word for "MGDL?" Indeed there is! "MGDL" means: "The Tower." When combined with a person's name it becomes an honorific of great distinction and should be read "Mary, The Pillar of the Community."

2. In every case when Mary Magdalene is mentioned she is always stated first before even Mary the mother of Jesus or the mother of James. Obviously she was a woman of such good repute that a very patriarchal society considered her to be worthy of great distinction.

3. Mary Magdalene is the first to see the "risen" Christ and in John is looking for "her lord" an honorific used to refer to a husband.

4. In Luke and Matthew Mary Magdalene and others are stated to have "Followed after Him." In that culture at that time no woman "followed" after a man unless she was either a prostitute or wife. This is where the Catholic derivative of Mary Magdalene being a reformed hooker with a heart of gold comes from.

Now take your pick: Wife or Whore?

Personally, I don't believe Mary, The Pillar of the Community was a common whore.

She most likely was Jesus' wife. The evidence is compelling.

As much as I like the idea of Jesus having been gay I just don't think he was. For more evidence you should read Dr. Jeanne Reames' paper on the sexuality of Alexander the Great, it is anachronistic and a non sequitor to call men of those times Gay, Homosexual or Bisexual it's also oxymoronic to do so. This in no way invalidates Gay, Homosexual or Bisexual persons and in a weird way it affirms us today -- read Jeanne's paper to find out why. Her paper also roundly refutes any person who misconstrues Lev 18:22 & 20:13 to have any bearing what so ever to modern peoples today. It's truly great.

I will post it on the next posting plate. Everyone agrees to Dr. Reames' requirements for copyright terms as stated at the end of her paper.

Take it for what it's worth.

--kev

[archyboi]

Alexander III (Known as ‘The Great’), Born August, 356 BCE–Died February, 323 BCE
Alexander’s Sexuality
by Jeanne Reames-Zimmerman, PhD
Original Academic Paper: March, ©1999 | Last updated: December 17th, ©2004
Downloaded August 22nd, 2007
http://pothos.org/alexander.asp?paraID=42&keyword_id=12&title=Sexuality


Introduction
The study of homoeroticism in ancient Greece has been the subject of serious study for the past 20 years since Sir Kenneth Dover's groundbreaking (and still seminal) work, Greek Homosexuality (1978, now in a 1989 revised edition).

Other important work in monograph form includes Marilyn Skinner's Sexuality in Greek and Roman Culture (2004), James Davidson's Courtesan's and Fishcakes: the Consuming Passions of Classical Athens (1998), John Winkler's The Constraints of Desire (1990), and David Halperin's 100 Years of Homosexuality (1990). Yet none of these mention Alexander much, if at all.

One study that did was Daniel Ogden's "Homosexuality and Warfare in Ancient Greece" from Battle in Antiquity (1996). Ogden's paper collected a wide variety of ancient citations for many Greek cultures, not just Athens, and gave due attention to variations on the Athenian model, particularly with regard to military practice—all of which made it a very valuable contribution to the ongoing scholarly discussion. Nonetheless, I found his analysis of Alexander somewhat uncareful and would caution readers on that score.

My remarks here address particularly the nature of Alexander's relationship with his lifetime friend and chiliarch, Hephaistion Amyntoros. Despite Mary Renault's romanticized, fictional portrayal of Bagoas in The Persian Boy, it was Hephaistion who enjoyed Alexander's primary affective attachment—this, regardless of any sexual involvement. Hephaistion, not any of Alexander's three wives, was the king's real "significant other". For more information on Hephaistion himself, please visit my website Hephaistion - Philalexandros.

Was Alexander the Great gay?
Let me turn to one of the "hot" modern questions about Alexander. Was Alexander the Great gay?

No. I say no, not because he had no relationships with men and boys but because our term "homosexual" and "gay" are inappropriate terms for antiquity. Some may feel this to be splitting hairs. It is not. Language shapes us and the way we see the world. The ancient Greeks had no word that corresponded quite to our term "homosexual"—hence my preference for "homoerotic".

The problem is that people on both sides of the modern argument insist on looking at the question as if Alexander and Hephaistion lived now. But they didn't. They lived then. And they thought about it all differently from the way we do. Too many people insist on filtering facts through the beliefs and customs of their own society (or religion or political agenda), and don't see that people in other places and times really can think differently about very basic things, including sex.

In general, the model for homoerotic attachments in antiquity was that of elder erastes (lover, pursuer, and active participant) and younger eromenos (beloved, pursued and passive participant). Individuals did not switch roles as the mood struck, and at least in Athens, coeval partnerships were frowned on. This summarizes the widely accepted "Dover Model," also called the penetration model, and should disqualify Alexander and Hephaistion who, Curtius tells us (3.12.16), were coevals. [Note that aetas does not mean the exact same age, merely the same stage of life and for reasons I won't go into here, Hephaistion was probably the elder by a year or so.]

Yet the model above is a largely Athenian pattern based on Athenian evidence. … And it's quite the mistake to assume that Athenian norms held true in other Greek city-states. Evidence suggests that in Macedonia, pairs could be coevals, particularly among the adolescent Royal Pages (Arr. 4.13.3). There was still likely a small age difference, and an erastes-eromenos pattern was apparently maintained. Nonetheless, it was possible for two young men of roughly the same age to be sexually involved without that attachment being frowned upon. Thus, an affair between Alexander and Hephaistion cannot disqualified, as a strict reading of Athenian model would suggest.

Women
In modern studies, Alexander has been both portrayed as homosexual, and defended from such "allegations". One side accepts a reputed disinterest in women, while the other tries to deny it. Neither gives proper attention to Alexander's circumstances or to the ancient social realities.

Alexander was on an extended campaign which kept him constantly moving. Furthermore, relationships between men and women in ancient Greece and Macedonia, particularly within the upper classes, differed radically from those of today, and the polygamy of the Macedonian royal house would have been different yet again from that of a private family in the Greek south. So the fact that Alexander's primary affective relationship might have been with another man is not only unsurprising, but perhaps predictable. [For Macedonian royal polygamy, see William Greenwalt's "Polygamy and Succession in Argead Macedonia", Arethusa 22 (1989) 19-45.]

Alexander had three wives (Roxane, Stateira, Parysatis) and perhaps two mistresses (Barsine, Pankaste/Kampaspe), and there is suggestion that he had occasional assignations as well. [Plut. Mor. 180f = 760c; it is amusing that it is Plutarch who relates this tale, despite that author's valiant attempt to paint Alexander as a paragon of Greek sexual morality in chapters 21-22 of the Alexander.]

The simple truth is that a liking for women need not be false in order of an equal liking for men to be true. As typical of his era and culture, Alexander seems to have liked both.

Hephaistion
Let us return now to the question of what involvement, if any, Alexander had with his life-long friend, Hephaistion.

Our three Greek historians (Arrian, Diodorus and Plutarch) never term him erastes or eromenos, only philos or malista timomenos. Alexander himself calls him philalexandros (friend of Alexander). Curtius and Justin use only amicus, never amans. The only implication of a sexual relationship or use of the term eromenos for Hephaistion occurs in late sources or those of dubious authorship. [Ael. VH 12.7, Epic. Dis. 2.12.17-18, Diog. Epistles 24, and Luc. Dial. Dead 397.]

So while we do have evidence that it was possible, in Macedonian society, for young boys of roughly the same age to form attachments to one another which included a sexual expression, there is no indisputable evidence for such an attachment between Alexander and Hephaistion.

The evidence that does exist is circumstantial only. Personally, I find it perfectly convincing, but I do think we must acknowledge that we cannot state with certainty that Alexander and Hephaistion were lovers, either as young men, or continuing throughout their lives.

Circumstantial Evidence
But let us turn to this circumstantial evidence. First, and perhaps most important, is the literary comparison made between their friendship and that of Achilles and Patroklos, which 4th century Greece assumed to have had a sexual side. [For mention of Achilles and Patroklos as lovers in material with which Alexander himself was probably familiar, see Pl. Sym. 180a, TGF F135-36 (Aeschylus' Myrmiddons), and Aesch. Tim. 1.141-42.]

The problem with this bit of circumstantial evidence is that we cannot be sure when the comparison came about. Was it used in Alexander's own lifetime by Alexander and Hephaistion themselves? Certainly Alexander cast himself as Achilles! But was Hephaistion also cast as Patroklos at the time, or was this done later by the poetasters?

Much depends on what one makes of Arrian's story (1.12.1) that Hephaistion laid a wreath on Patroklos' grave at Troy, as Alexander laid one on Achilles'. Arrian gives this as a logomena—a mere story: "They say …". The tale was not, apparently, found in Arrian's chief sources (Ptolemy and Aristobulos). It is difficult what, or how much, to make of it. Did Arrian include it as part of a complicated flattery for his patron, the emperor Hadrian (who, as we recall, loved the youth Antinoos)? Certainly, others in Alexander's train were compared to figures in the Achilles legend (most notably old Lysimakhos as Phoenix). As Cohen has pointed out, these Homeric tales were living reality to the Macedonians. [Ada Cohen, "Alexander and Achilles--Macedonians and 'Mycenaeans", in The Ages of Homer: A Tribute to Emily Townsend Vermule (1995).]

So while we need not let skepticism completely overwhelm us, I'm afraid the verdict on the veracity of the Achilles/Patroklos pastiche must remain "unknown."

Hephaistion's Significance
Perhaps a safer allusive comparison is found in Curtius (7.9.19) wherein a certain young Euxenippos is compared to Hephaistion and found wanting in virility. While Curtius' use of conciliatum does not have to mean "beloved," that seems to be the thrust of the passage (pun intended). Euxenippos was a pretty boy who had caught the king's eye. (Alexander would hardly be the first Macedonian king to have a fling with one of his Pages.) This makes the boy's comparison to Hephaistion particularly suggestive. Has the king's current eromenos been set beside his old flame and come off the worse for the comparison? I believe this passage makes far more sense if we assume a romantic affair at some point between Alexander and Hephaistion.

Finally, Hephaistion's death and Alexander's grief is, itself, an indication of Hephaistion's significance to the conqueror. If Alexander is understood to be mourning a spouse (or spouse-equivalent), the severe nature of his mourning is far more comprehensible—and proves, in fact, not to be abnormal or pathological at all, contrary to much ancient and modern opinion. Yet, again, Alexander's bereavement is not proof of a sexual relationship between the two; it only proves, or at least suggests, that Hephaistion occupied the central emotional place in Alexander's life.

We must remember that the two of them had been friends at least nineteen years, if we accept Mieza as the terminus ante quem for their meeting. During much of this, they would have have lived in close quarters on campaign and no doubt seen one another daily when not away on independent missions. Nineteen years is longer than many modern marriages.

Whatever the truth of their sexual involvement, their emotional attachment has never been seriously questioned. In the Nicomachean Ethics, Aristotle speaks of the true friend as the "second self" (1170b) and postulates there is only one special friend (1171a). At least some of his teachings seem to have made an impression on his student! [For further comment on Alexander's bereavement, see now "The Mourning of Alexander the Great," Syllecta Classica 12 (2001) 98-145.]

Conclusion
Finally, I would like to point out that whatever one chooses to believe about Alexander's sexual relationship with Hephaistion, it would be quite reductive to characterize it solely as an affair of the gonads.

Greek philia included a level of friendship that was particularly intense, one which is sometimes difficult for us now to grasp. In our societies, friendship all too often exists on the boundaries of other relationships—those with our family or lovers. For the Greeks, though, such was not the case, and perhaps they were richer for it.

In short, our models of friendship are not consonant with theirs, and in these ancient societies where homoerotic desire was freely, sometimes emphatically, expressed, intense friendship might well develop a sexual expression even while that expression was not the focus of the friendship, or even thought of as particularly characteristic of it.

Thus, it would be inappropriate to refer to the friend as "lover" except in very specific circumstances, as such would fall short of encompassing the whole. Alexander's choice of philalexandros for Hephaistion said far more about the nature of his affection than calling him merely eromenos.

Article submitted to pothos.org by Dr. Jeanne Reames-Zimmerman, Department of History, University of Nebraska at Omaha. © Dr. Jeanne Reames-Zimmerman.

The material here is based on "An Atypical Affair? Alexander the Great, Hephaistion, and the Nature of Their Relationship", by Dr. Jeanne Reames-Zimmerman, The Ancient History Bulletin 13.3 (1999) 81-96. The material may not be reproduced without permission from the author. This pothos.org article was fully revised on 17th December 2004.

________________________________________

Additional Note from the Author

I have found portions of this article very selectively quoted to support political or social positions that I do not support—which, in fact, I may find disquieting. If such quotes are within fair-use rights, I can hardly forbid them. And it's not disagreement or differing opinion that disturbs me—it's the use of my own words to justify modern political agendas with which I don't agree that disturbs me. … Particularly when it's not made clear that I don't subscribe to them.

Homosexuality and gay rights are topics that evoke strong feelings. Therefore let me be extremely clear where I stand: I am in support of civil rights for gays and lesbians, up to and including marriage. Anti-gay writings that quote me in support of their positions do not reflect my own opinions, and I do not believe that current research into ancient Mediterranean sexuality is driven by a 'gay agenda'. Like any good historical research, it's driven by a quest for the truth, insofar as we can know it, and pursued by scholars of all affective-sexual orientations. By the same token, however, gay rights activists who would overdraw the parallel and claim Alexander as a gay hero, refusing to recognize differences between now and then, are equally without historic basis. Please allow the historic truth to be duly complicated, as it so often is.

Also, please note that these are my opinions and may not reflect that of other authors on www.pothos.org.

Written by Jeanne

[scott snedeker]

This is a great topic
As much as I like the idea of Jesus having been gay I just don't think he was.

--kev

I think if Jesus were to walk the Earth today that he would be a Radical Faerie. I think of His example as love without boundaries. Making love to men would be only one of many expressions

[archyboi]

HAHAHA!

Contrarian! She makes your case.

I love you, Scotty.

--kev

[scott snedeker]

HAHAHA!

Contrarian!

I love you, Scotty.

--kev
I read your post but not the papers. I personally just draw a strong parallel between two patently nonjudgemental views with a hermeneutic of love

[Daniel]

http://www.towleroad.com/2008/01/barack-obama-ur.html

http://www.smh.com.au/news/national/gay-jesus-play-blasted-by-bishop/2008/01/19/1200620272704.html


Gay Jesus Play Stirring Up Controversy in Sydney
"Pro-family" and religious groups are incensed over the Terrence McNally play Corpus Christi, which is set to open in Sydney which features a gay Jesus Christ who is seduced by Judas, and who performs a same-sex marriage for two of his apostles.

The Sydney Morning Herald reports: "The Anglican Bishop of South Sydney, Robert Forsyth, questioned the integrity of Corpus Christi and expressed his outrage at the 'unhistorical and untrue' depiction of the son of God and some of his disciples as homosexual. 'It is deliberately, not innocently, offensive and they're obviously having a laugh about it,' he said. 'It's historical nonsense and I wouldn't want to go and see it. Life's too short.' Australian Family Association spokeswoman Angela Conway said the play's creators had committed "a big enough crime" by neglecting to treat Christianity and Christian believers with more sensitivity. 'The ideas are offensive and really border on blasphemous. It's just completely fanciful and self-obsessive,' she said."

The play is timed to open for Sydney's Gay & Lesbian Mardi Gras, at the New Theatre in Newtown on February 7.

Its director, Leigh Rowney, told the paper he welcomes the controversy: "I would be surprised if people bothered to protest outside the New Theatre … but if they did, bring it on. I think [the play] humanises [Jesus Christ] in a way Christians might find difficult because we like to believe God and the son of God are ultimately divine and above all of us. I wanted this play in the hands of a Christian person like myself to give it dignity but still open it up to answering questions about Christianity as a faith system."

It's not the first time the play has created an uproar. A fatwa death threat was issued by the Shari'ah Court of the UK when it opened in London in 1999 and in New York as well.

Go Mr. Rowney!

[Unmasked]

Luther advocated the loss of James, Jude, and Revelation. Eucebius, the first historian of the church, advocated the loss of those three plus Hebrews and some others.

[Daniel]

Luther advocated the loss of James, Jude, and Revelation. Eucebius, the first historian of the church, advocated the loss of those three plus Hebrews and some others.


...this post isn't intended for another thread? Because, for the life of me, I can't figure out what it has to do with this thread.

Please clarify.