Was Jesus Gay?

Originally posted by bogomil
It wouldn't surprise me, if Mary, the mother, was expected to be a perpetual virgin by some christians. Most of the religions I'm familiar with have an ascetic faction.

As far as I know, it's just the Roman Catholics and Eastern Orthodox that stick with the perpetual virginity of Mary -- most Protestants are indifferent to the issue, because they don't have the "Mariology" aspect and matters which are superfluous (or viewed as being so) to our relationship to Jesus aren't things that most spend much time on.

I know, you have some personal uncertainty on Calvin and privately I prefer to have steady relationships. But I honestly doubt, if there are any trans-mundane negative consequences from sexuality without 'cheating'.

Not sure how Calvin fits in there, sorry. But I think that many people, Christian or not, would agree that wonton lasciviousness bears some negative connotations, whether unwanted pregnancy, risk of sexually transmitted disease, instances of emotional distress and so on. I've seen studies that point to the level of self esteem being connected to the level of promiscuity, particularly among women, and that is disturbing.

We all want love, and the love of one other person in a committed relationship (married or otherwise) is a desirable thing, both as individuals, and within society. That, I think, is the unfortunate piece of the whole "gay marriage" issue in the United States -- I understand why many people are offended by the notion, but it comes down to two people who love each other wanting to be in a committed relationship, which seems like a good thing, all around.

reply to post by TupacShakur


Wow like I said I'm obviously not Christian but I still think he existed... not as the son of God but he existed all the same. The resurrection? Crap. Most of it? Crap. However, to say he probably didn't exist is just plain silly.

Besides you obviously missed my point but if you want to keep endorsing trollololol threads then be my guest. I personally think its sad.

reply to post by adjensen


Adjensen

Your source goes on to state that gay and lesbian rabbis are clouding the water a little ................. sorry try putting that down 2000 years ago.

You don't mention the Temple Police who had spies everywhere and were kept very busy stoning anyone who tried putting a toenail outside the rigorous rules imposed in those days. If Jesus was a mere low grade Rabbi what do you think they would have done to him for upsetting the businesses selling offerings and his claim the Temple was his Father's house. You have to move past the effervescent image Christianity pops up and take him back to whom he was, a Jew (possibly extremely high ranking) in occupied times with numerous enemies - and no he was never a carpenter. Had he been normal joe public, he wouldn' have lasted three years.

Originally posted by Lynda101
If Jesus was a mere low grade Rabbi what do you think they would have done to him for upsetting the businesses selling offerings and his claim the Temple was his Father's house. You have to move past the effervescent image Christianity pops up and take him back to whom he was, a Jew (possibly extremely high ranking) in occupied times with numerous enemies - and no he was never a carpenter.

Well, what little evidence there is for Christ is centered in the Bible and early Christian writings, and they seem to be pretty consistent in the view that he was just an itinerate Rabbi, whose main line of work was something else, and carpenter seems an sensible choice, as that was Joseph's line of work. He obviously had no permanent synagogue that he was posted to, or the stories would have centered on that place, rather than him wandering all over Judea. The conservative source that I cited specifically says that itinerate Rabbis need not be married.

What you're offering is merely speculation (unless you've an ancient source, and if so, please post the reference) on who he was that is inconsistent with what little proof there is, and you're offering that up in order to back a belief that is even more unlikely -- that he was secretly married.

As for the whole Temple incident, put it in context. "What do you think they would have done to him"? Well, they killed him a short while later, so I'm not sure what you were expecting them to do. Why didn't they do it on the spot? Again, in context, Jesus had the mob's support at that point (you know, all those "Hosannas" and stuff,) and one would assume that such a group would be mighty pleased to see the money grubbers in the Temple tossed out on their ear. So, if the authorities would have arrested him at that moment, they'd have been risking their own lives, which they opted not to do. Better to wait for the middle of the night just before the Passover.

But, again, that's all spelled out in the Bible for you to read if you like.

Originally posted by adjensen

Originally posted by Lynda101
If Jesus was a mere low grade Rabbi what do you think they would have done to him for upsetting the businesses selling offerings and his claim the Temple was his Father's house. You have to move past the effervescent image Christianity pops up and take him back to whom he was, a Jew (possibly extremely high ranking) in occupied times with numerous enemies - and no he was never a carpenter.

Well, what little evidence there is for Christ is centered in the Bible and early Christian writings, and they seem to be pretty consistent in the view that he was just an itinerate Rabbi, whose main line of work was something else, and carpenter seems an sensible choice, as that was Joseph's line of work. He obviously had no permanent synagogue that he was posted to, or the stories would have centered on that place, rather than him wandering all over Judea. The conservative source that I cited specifically says that itinerate Rabbis need not be married.

What you're offering is merely speculation (unless you've an ancient source, and if so, please post the reference) on who he was that is inconsistent with what little proof there is, and you're offering that up in order to back a belief that is even more unlikely -- that he was secretly married.

As for the whole Temple incident, put it in context. "What do you think they would have done to him"? Well, they killed him a short while later, so I'm not sure what you were expecting them to do. Why didn't they do it on the spot? Again, in context, Jesus had the mob's support at that point (you know, all those "Hosannas" and stuff,) and one would assume that such a group would be mighty pleased to see the money grubbers in the Temple tossed out on their ear. So, if the authorities would have arrested him at that moment, they'd have been risking their own lives, which they opted not to do. Better to wait for the middle of the night just before the Passover.

But, again, that's all spelled out in the Bible for you to read if you like.

Well, he was a pretty snazzy dresser.

I give him 2 ssnapssss. *snap* *snap*

Not very likely that Jesus even existed. If he did exist, the Jesus bible myth was likely based on the REAL persona of Apollonius of Tyana:

home.iae.nl...

So, his "gayness" is unlikely (and irrelevant.)

What is interesting is the fact that many gay people want to believe that every famous person must have been gay -- I guess to make them feel better about themselves. Many blacks do the same thing. They think Jesus was black, Moses was black, and even probably think Einstein was black!

Hey, maybe Jesus was gay AND black!