Was Jesus Gay?

[robtex]

the artilce keeps saying that since the Bible says he was not hetro therefore he must be homo. That is just poor use of logic. The Bible in and of itself is a loose collection of ideas and phrases and have always been interpreted in many many ways leading to the hundreds of Christian sub-sections that exist today. As far as the marriage thing listed in section one if one accepts (as Christians do) that Jesus is the son of God and a part of the holy trinity how moral would it for him to have taken a bride knowing that he was part of the trinity (as opposed to a common man) and / or that he was slated for cruxifiction for mans sins and would ascend into heaven leaving behind a grieving widow? In section two the entire section illustrates the arguement that Jesus didn't comment on homosexuality therefore he is one. I don't think he comment on incest either but I wouldn't go as far as to say that since he didn't comment on it he was a practicner of incest. Section three just lost me...but again it reiterated (again) that since he didn't bring up his sexual orientation that he was gay....First off, about 10-20 % of the population is gay and if we didn't know his sexual orientation odds are he would be hetro over homo. Also, since he was a part of the trinity ideally his sexual orientation may have been none..as in not applicable.....divine-part-of-trinity-not staying on earth kind of not applicable Section 6 I wonder where he got that part about Mark from .....if you have a source (bible chapter) please post but even so be with him doens't mean sex......could be interpreted that way....if you wanted Jesus to be gay....On section 9...who is jonathan....does anybody know what chapter he is in? rest of chapter say same ideal if you can't prove he isn't gay than obviously he is which is a logical fallacy.....on chapter four if poor relationship with father led to an increased rate of homosexuality there would be more homosexuals than hetros which is not true...high divorce rate coupled with mom getting custody=absentee father.....

 

[ilgwamh]

"""""the artilce keeps saying that since the Bible says he was not hetro therefore he must be homo. """"""""

You are OFFICIALLY challenged to show where this pheonomeon occurs throughout the article.

Vinnie

 

[robtex]

Vinne, ...the phrasing is actually qouted as "more probable than not" that Jesus was a homosexual in the conculsion which is given a percentage of 60 %. But two times in the article and if/than conculsion is presented of if he is not proven hetro than he is a homo. They are:

Section 3 " . Not only should Jesus' sexual orientation be seen as open, but his stance on homosexuality should be viewed as open to and accepting of until demonstrated otherwise."

Section 11: section c of the summary: qoute ". If granted certain psychological causes in childhood can lead to homosexuality, Jesus fits them like a glove."


I went to a Bible resource and punched in homosexuality and found this:

qoute "Corinthians 6:9-10 (NIV): "Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters, nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God."

the source link for that is

http://www.bible.com/answers/ahomosex.html--it is the new internation version of the Bible..that passage is not in the king James version of the Bible.

I want to say for the record that I do think homosexuality is sinful or evil..just replying to the article presented and saying that I feel that the logic of it is skewed.

 

[Medicine*Woman]

*************
M*W: I've read sources that allude to Jesus being homosexual, and others have posted some citations. Personally, I think Jesus was more evolved than the general human race of the time. In that, I believe that the more evolved we become, the more androgynous we become. Before that can happen, the human race would at some point be bisexual, then would come androgyny. It's not evil, and I believe it's a state of higher evolvement. Of course, the true knowledge about sexuality wes suppressed and hidden by the early church since they viewed our sexual nature to be equal to death. Quite the opposite. Our sexual nature equals life. One must really research the truth about sexuality before the early church fathers removed all references to the Vestal Virgins and Temple Prostitutes (the "mariams" which means "rebellious woman"). In the days of early Christianity when it was part of Judaism, the High Priestesses of the Temple were considered "rebellious," in a sexual connotation. [Mary: The Unauthorised Biography, by Michael Jordon, Weidenfeld and Nicolson, London, 2001]

 

[robtex]

*************
I believe that the more evolved we become, the more androgynous we become.
That was an interesting reply MW but it brings up a question...if evolution, in its process improves a species ablity to cope within its enviorment and survive as a speciies longer...how can androgyny which conflicts with reproduction, be an evolutionary process? I am not aruging....just asking.....

About the Michael Jordon book "uanuthorized book of Mary" is that referring to Mary the mother of Jesus?...I have read somewhere that Mary, mother of Jesus, wrote books for the Bible and they were excluded from the Bible.....

 

[Medicine*Woman]

*************
I believe that the more evolved we become, the more androgynous we become.
That was an interesting reply MW but it brings up a question...if evolution, in its process improves a species ablity to cope within its enviorment and survive as a speciies longer...how can androgyny which conflicts with reproduction, be an evolutionary process? I am not aruging....just asking.....
*************
M*W: I believe that humanity is evolving toward perfection. That perfection I believe will evolve us toward one race, one color, one ethnic group, one gender. When this occurs, there will be no need for sexual reproduction, because god working through humanity will have stamped out all diseases, so our bodies won't decay. In fact, we may not even need our bodies then because we may be pure spirit. That makes sense to me because we've needed our bodies for physical evolution. When perfection comes, we may not need our physical bodies. Fortunately, this won't be happening in our lifetime, so sexual activity is still possible.
*************
About the Michael Jordon book "uanuthorized book of Mary" is that referring to Mary the mother of Jesus?...I have read somewhere that Mary, mother of Jesus, wrote books for the Bible and they were excluded from the Bible.....
*************
M*W: The book starts out about the mother of Jesus but continues on to include all the Marys (mariams) referenced in the Old and New Testaments. "Miriams" were titles and not names. Same goes for Joseph, Josephus, Martha and others were "titles." This book is very interesting, because it describes these given "titles" as "occupations." I've read elsewhere where Joseph and Josephus were like "mayors" of a region. "Martha" is similar to "Mary," but apparently "Martha" is more of an initiate than a "Mary." The title "Mary" or "Mariam" or "Maryam" means "rebellious women from the tower (or temple). Essentially, they are described as being "vestal virgins" or "temple prostitutes." Apparently, these definitions mean the same thing. As I understood it, they were high priestesses and were deemed to be "rebellious" because they were sexually enlightened and/or promiscuous. That's exactly why MM was referenced as being a "prostitute." In those days, however, they didn't consider these pagan sexual goddesses to be bad as they were serving a higher purpose.

What I learned from this book was that early Christianity was truly pagan in nature. The early church fathers of course suppressed the truth and banished the books that told of these pagan practices. I've read in a number of books that MM wrote some texts that were hidden somewhere under the Vatican. The church has always known but won't admit anything about these documents. It is now believed by several religious scholars that MM may have written the Gospel of John as well as Revelations, both which have been credited to John the Divine. There is also speculation that MM may have been called "John, the beloved disciple."

In reality, Mary the mother of Jesus, played a much lesser role in Jesus' life. The church twisted the "occupation" of the BVM from "prostitute" to the "perpetual virgin." After all, their dying-demigod-savior just couldn't be born of a prostitute, so they rewrote the truth about temple prostitutes and turned them into perpetual virgins. I find it curious that at the crucifiction we have been told about all the Mary's and Martha's being there by the cross. Why would Jesus, if he were God, have all those temple prostitutes hanging around him? Also, if John the Divine was at the cross, and MM was there also, there's a possibility that they are one and the same, but it was written as if they were two distinct people.

I believe the grand lie is suppressed because MM may have been the most powerful woman (person) in the NT. There is also some talk about Jesus being HER initiate. She knew Jesus and may have been his wife. I believe this to be so. She also wrote several texts about their lives, children and travels to France. Some of this is coded in Revelations. The phrase "seven heads" refers to Septimania in southern France. The "dragon" must be the church. I need to reread Revelations in this light.

We know for sure that MM was a real historical person. Her writings claim that she knew Jesus. I think this is evidence that Jesus did, in fact, exist. There are more suppressed documents, possibly hidden in France, that prove Jesus wasn't the messiah. The RCC got an injunction to forbid any digging in the area on church property, and believe me, in France there is a LOT of church property. Those huge cathedrals in France were built over ancient pagan sites and dedicated the cathedrals to the temple prostitutes or the Marys.

Ultimately, the title of Mary refers to "out of the sea from which all life evolved." (marine, maritime, etc.). You may want to check out www.rennes-le-chateau.com for more information on the hidden secrets of MM or read Bloodline of the Holy Grail by Laurence Gardner.

 

[ilgwamh]

Vinne, ...the phrasing is actually qouted as "more probable than not" that Jesus was a homosexual in the conculsion which is given a percentage of 60 %. But two times in the article and if/than conculsion is presented of if he is not proven hetro than he is a homo. They are:

Neither one of those instances show that.

Section 3 " . Not only should Jesus' sexual orientation be seen as open, but his stance on homosexuality should be viewed as open to and accepting of until demonstrated otherwise."

Even heterosexuals can be open to homosexuality. You seemed to have missed the purpose of section three which argues that Jesus usurped all manner of traditional values and goes from there. A quotation:

Why would Jesus nullify the Torah (food laws--Mk 7:19), traditional family values (he even urged people to leave their families), traditional and customary religious observations ("I will destroy this temple, cleansing the temple, anti fasting, eating on the Sabbath, etc) yet remain strictly conservative in regards to homosexuality? Most of Jesus intensification of the law concerns behavior in relation to one another. Certainly then Jesus would be more concerned with how two people treat one another, rather than which sex they are (which the sections on women and children demonstrate).

I suggest actually reading the article rather than proof-text hunting things out of context.

Section eleven also does nto do what you accuse it of. It is merely one small part of a long cumulative argument which the article notes.


[qoute] "Corinthians 6:9-10 (NIV): "Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters, nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God."[/quote]

I am not sure how Paul's thoughts are relevant to the thesis? Also, what exactly Paul meant by "homosexual offenders" is not known. He may not have meant "any same sex relations" as most currently assume. We have to argue for what Paul meant, not uncritically assume in light of modern ideology and custom.

Vinnie