Jesus Was Obviously Gay

page: 1
5
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join

posted on Apr, 25 2013 @ 06:52 PM
link   
After many years of contemplating the contents of the Bible I have come to the eventual conclusion that Jesus was gay because;

He loved, and would do anything for, all men.

He surrounded himself with men, loving one in particular 'Then Peter, turning about, seeth the disciple whom

Jesus loved following; which also leaned on his breast at supper, and said, Lord, which is he that betrayeth thee?'

He rode into Jerusalem on an ass.

He raised Lazarus.

He was 30 and unmarried at a time when the marital age would have been much younger.

He had his mother look after his partner upon his death, "When Jesus saw his mother and the disciple whom he loved standing near, he said to his mother, 'Woman behold your son!' Then he said to the disciple. 'Behold your mother!' And from that hour the disciple took her to his own home."


According to the US Biblical scholar, Morton Smith, of Columbia University, a fragment of manuscript he found at the Mar Saba monastery near Jerusalem in 1958, showed that the full text of St. Mark chapter 10 (between verses 34 and 35 in the standard version of the Bible) includes the passage:

"And the youth, looking upon him (Jesus), loved him and beseeched that he might 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 instructed him and, at evening, the youth came to him wearing a linen cloth over his naked body. And he remained with him that night, for Jesus taught him the mystery of the Kingdom of God".


Heterosexual, bisexual, homosexual: Jesus could have been any of these. We cannot be sure from Biblical writings which. The homosexual option simply seems the most likely. The intimate relationship with the beloved disciple certainly points in that direction.




posted on Apr, 25 2013 @ 06:55 PM
link   
That's BS.



posted on Apr, 25 2013 @ 06:55 PM
link   
reply to post by christina-66
 


So in your eyes, "love" has to have a physical and sexual meaning to it?????



posted on Apr, 25 2013 @ 06:56 PM
link   
reply to post by christina-66
 


IF he was gay does that change the message he brought?

I predict a hail of gunfire from the Christian community in this thread... hope you brought a vest!

*dives behind a rock*

Incoming!!!

edit on 25-4-2013 by Akragon because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 25 2013 @ 06:57 PM
link   
Veracity of your statement aside, I fail to see the relevance. Does the sexual orientation of Jesus undermine the lessons he taught in the Bible?

ETA: I see Akragon already asked that question. Great minds think alike!
edit on 25-4-2013 by AfterInfinity because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 25 2013 @ 06:57 PM
link   
reply to post by IndieA
 


Can you demonstrate to me that it's bs? My op is slightly tongue in cheek - but actually I can pull out many legitimate references that make it a distinct possibility.

Now - can you quote me ANY text, anything at all, that proves beyond reasonable doubt, that he was straight?



posted on Apr, 25 2013 @ 06:58 PM
link   
Scholars said the same thing about Superman- As we all know this was also proven incorrect.



posted on Apr, 25 2013 @ 06:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by christina-66
reply to post by IndieA
 


My op is slightly tongue in cheek - but actually I can pull out many legitimate references that make it a distinct possibility.



Where will you be pulling from?

Somewhere gay?



posted on Apr, 25 2013 @ 06:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by Akragon
reply to post by christina-66
 


IF he was gay does that change the message he brought?


Only to the person interpreting the message, if they were brought up to hate gay people then yes.

OP it makes sense, and not in a bad way like some of the reactions seem to make it out to be.

Like Jesus being straight makes it any less crap?



posted on Apr, 25 2013 @ 07:00 PM
link   
reply to post by christina-66
 


I noticed you failed to include cultural references and context. You didn't put a whole lot of effort into it, did you? A lot of vague allegations and loose quotes with a final defensive flourish to make up for the lack of concentration in the main body of your post. What gives?



posted on Apr, 25 2013 @ 07:00 PM
link   
Your post says far more about you and your mind than it does the 2000 year old Christ.



posted on Apr, 25 2013 @ 07:01 PM
link   
reply to post by seeker1963
 


As I said - I'm slightly tongue in cheek. But....I can pull out a myriad of quotes that certainly puts his so-called heterosexuality in doubt.

Can anyone who claims this is bs identify any passage from the bible (or from any of the texts omitted from the bible) that specifies he's straight.

It actually DOES matter - given the treatment the homosexual community has been subjected to by the church over the centuries.



posted on Apr, 25 2013 @ 07:01 PM
link   
reply to post by yourmaker
 


His message was not "crap"... but im not going to get into an argument over it...

believe what you will....

There is another side to this issue... Jesus was called Rabbi... and as far as I know to be considered a Rabbi one has to be married.

I could be wrong though...

edit on 25-4-2013 by Akragon because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 25 2013 @ 07:02 PM
link   
I guess Jesus could be "gay" in a joyful manner. When I read the bible or any other religious text, like the Quran, I always picture Jesus to be more asexual. Where the character has no sexual relationship with anyone.



posted on Apr, 25 2013 @ 07:05 PM
link   
Speaking theologically; you would have to refer to the original Aramaic (or more specifically, the language of the time of writing the Bible verses you quote) writings and which context "love" was written.

In English, we encompass the word love to have many different meanings and is pretty inclusive. Whereas in other languages, different forms of love appear in different contexts.

Me thinks you created a poorly constructed satire in your thinking here.

I love cars is not the same as I love mankind. English is efficient in many manners but it is all about context. Interesting read nonetheless and surely, as I am assuming, provoking (even if poorly researched).



posted on Apr, 25 2013 @ 07:06 PM
link   
reply to post by AfterInfinity
 


Looking for a light hearted debate...that's what gives.

I actually know the Bible pretty well.....and have been vexed by it for most of my life. The OT is demonic....and the NT is simply a biography with little to no spiritual teaching whatsoever.

And no - there is no need for historical or cultural context because this is supposed to be the word of God....the all knowing, all powerful, creator of us, the universe, and everything.....perfect in every way.



posted on Apr, 25 2013 @ 07:07 PM
link   

These fragments were found in a letter seemingly written in the late second century by Clement of Alexandria to an unknown Christian named Theodore. Clement wrote in response to questions Theodore had sent him regarding a heretical gnostic sect called the Carpocratians. This sect is known from Irenaeus and Eusebius, and was characterized by its belief in metempsychosis, or transmigration of souls. Carpocratians believed that a soul could not be liberated until it had experienced all aspects of earthly life—including all aspects of sexual activity. Theodore had asked Clement about some of the scripture they were using to justify their actions, particularly some passages from Mark’s gospel. Clement responded by explaining that there were actually three versions of the book of Mark circulating in Alexandria: the canonical version, used by “those who were being instructed,” the secret version, reserved for those “who were being perfected,” and the Carpocratian version. According to Clement, Mark wrote his gospel in Rome, where he spoke directly with the apostle Peter. After Peter’s death, Mark moved to Alexandria, bringing with him his research notes. There, he “composed a more spiritual gospel” by expanding his original gospel to include mystical truths for the spiritual benefit of enlightened Christians (the orthodox congregation in Alexandria over which Clement presided also tended toward gnosticism). This secret gospel was then stolen by a rogue elder in the church and given to Carpocrates, who added to it his own “blasphemous and carnal doctrine.” Theodore needed to know how to distinguish genuine Mark from the corrupted version, which they used to legitimize their sexual license. Apparently, Carpocrates had strengthened the innuendo in Fragment 1 by adding “naked man with naked man,” a phrase Clement assured Theodore was not in the original text (1.67-68).


Sorry for the wall of text, but they were rather detailed about the examination, as you can see, and I didn't want to leave too much out. It's mainly concerned with speculation that Carpocrates had modified the original text for philosophical reasons. Speculation, certainly, but so is Jesus' homosexuality:


Tatchell’s quote illustrates that the argument for Jesus’ homosexuality finds its strongest support, not in Scripture, but in its silence. Homosexual advocates argue that the absence of any explicit commentary on Jesus’ sexuality ought to remove the ancient assumption that He was heterosexual.


www.apologeticspress.org...

Make of it what you will, but I thought I'd play the Devil's Advocate and present the case for the defense. Proof positive that I am fully capable and willing to play both sides of the field for objectivity's sake.
edit on 25-4-2013 by AfterInfinity because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 25 2013 @ 07:07 PM
link   
I'm gonna guess OP is gay and looking for validation. Just the way it reads to me.



posted on Apr, 25 2013 @ 07:07 PM
link   
reply to post by christina-66
 



and the NT is simply a biography with little to no spiritual teaching whatsoever.


How can you say that, and still claim to know the bible?

can you honestly say there is no spiritual knowledge in the gospels?




posted on Apr, 25 2013 @ 07:09 PM
link   
reply to post by howmuch4another
 


Ummmmm.......no I'm not.





 
5
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join