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/Chu...el-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.

[keltic63]

Originally Posted by dsdrane

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.

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

[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]

Originally Posted by u-dog

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]

Originally Posted by 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 ?

Oh no! Are you Protestants at it again!? 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!

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.)

Tu Amigo, Pablo

[dsdrane]

Originally Posted by Pablo Rafael

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.)

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]

Originally Posted by Pablo Rafael

Oh no! Are you Protestants at it again!? 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 ) ... 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!).