WAS JESUS GAY?

PETER TATCHELL questions the sexuality of Jesus Christ

Was Jesus queer? We don't know. But it is a possibility that cannot be ruled out. One version of St. Mark's gospel - which is still the subject of academic dispute - alludes to Jesus having a homosexual relationship with a youth he raised from the dead.

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".

The veracity of this manuscript is hotly contested by other Biblical scholars. This comes as no surprise. The revelation of a gay Jesus would undermine some of the most fundamental tenets of orthodox Christianity, including its rampant homophobia.

But even if the text is genuine, does this ambiguous, elliptical passage offer evidence of Jesus's homosexuality? It is hard to say. The precise nature of the relationship between Christ and the youth is not spelled out. Sexual relations are suggested but not explicitly stated.

The Morton Smith document is, in fact, irrelevant to the vexed issue of Christ's sexual orientation. What we can say for certain is that the standard, accepted Biblical narrative gives us no information at all about Jesus's sexuality.

This absence of firm information does not, of course, mean that we can take it for granted that Christ was heterosexual. Far from it! The lack of information about his erotic inclinations begs more questions than it answers.

The truth is that we simply don't know whether Jesus was straight, gay, bisexual or celibate. There is certainly no evidence for the Church's unspoken presumption that he was either heterosexual or devoid of carnal desires. Since nothing in the Bible points to Christ having erotic feelings for women, or relationships with the female sex, the possibility of him being gay cannot be discounted.

In the absence of any evidence - let alone proof - that Jesus was heterosexual, the theological basis of Church homophobia is all the more shaky and indefensible. How can established religion dare denounce homosexuality when the founder of its faith was himself a man of mysterious, unknown sexuality who could, for all we know, have been homosexual?

The Bible tells us that Jesus was born a man and therefore presumably had male sexual feelings. It would have been more or less impossible, biologically, for him not to have an element of erotic arousal - even if only having the normal male response of waking with an erection.

The above are desperate lies and are sick fantasies.

Jesus fulfilled the Law and is without sin. The law stated that a man lying with another man is an abomination to God. Therefore Jesus did no such thing.

Once again Pacific throws stones from very dubious sources yet rejects the weight of reliable scholarly and historical evidence that show the lies he perpetuates.

there's an interesting article on Tatchell on www.lightforthelastdays.co.uk

Once again, scarletsv7.9 throws stones and runs away.

you're a liar, you lie about what scripture teaches, you perpetuate lies, and I'm here to give people the truth to spoil your little fun

Where's the proof? It's pointless having a conversation with you because you throw stones and run away.

Learn what scripture teaches and be humble.

you're a liar, and have been rattled because I've taken your lies out of the darkness and poured light on them so that everyone can see what a liar you are

Throw those stones, scarletsv7.9, throw those stones and run away.

The Lord Jesus spent the night with a dead man, naked but for a loin cloth. That night and all other nights, He poured light into the life of all - Jews, women, slaves, homosexuals. Jesus was a God of Love.

I ain't going anywhere I enjoy shining a light on you so that everyone can see what a liar you are. If you're alleging Jesus was gay contrary to all the evidence then clearly you are a liar that can't be trusted on any other subject with ease.

Read the Bible, for in it contains the way of light and wisdom.

Where is your proof???

WAS JESUS MARRIED?

A QUICK FACT SHEET

SUGGESTIVE EVIDENCE

1. The marriage of Jesus Christ is a taboo subject because most Christians regard it as an impious suggestion. They think this way because marriage implies sexuality, and sexuality is defiled in Christian dogma. A married Christ is rejected for theological reasons, not because of historical facts which may disprove the thesis.

2. While the New Testament "appears" to be silent on the subject, it was not until late in the 2nd Century, that any Christian leader denied that Jesus Christ was married. Justin Martyr and Clement of Alexandria believed that a married Jesus was inconsistent with His role as the Savior of the world, not that marriage would have Him sinful, but rather, that His mission was too demanding and heavenly to allow Him the opportunity for marriage.

3. All later references in the Patristic writings show the Church Fathers following the same pattern: they deny that Jesus was married based upon the supposed silence of the Scriptures and doctrinal problems which were inconsistent with the Church's dogma (e.g. a celibate priesthood, the ritual defilement of seminal emissions, etc.).

4. There was a 2nd Century tradition among various heretical sects which taught that Jesus was married. Clement and others may have been reacting to those movements.

5. Although he didn't say one way or the other, Irenaeus' Doctrine of Recapitulation supports the notion of a married Savior. With a style similar to the Druids, Irenaeus, another 2nd Century leader, taught that Jesus Christ symbolically entered every critical stage of human existence and sanctified it. Since family life, including sexuality, is central to our lives, it seems logically consistent with the mission of a Savior to redeem and sanctify this aspect of our experience, as well.

6. In their dispute with Augustine, the Celtic Pelagians argued that the Atonement of Christ cancelled Original Sin. If Original Sin was, as Augustine argued, a sexually transmitted disease of the soul, then Christ has reversed the process and made it a transmitter of healing, health, and virtue.

7. In keeping with the Creeds of the Church, the offspring of Christ would not have represented a "divine race". The Creeds teach that Christ had two natures: one human and one divine, without mingling and without confusion. Since procreation is a human function, we can reasonably say that the children of Jesus would have been just as human as any other human being.

INDIRECT EVIDENCE

1. Jewish customs of Jesus' day required married Rabbis. Unmarried men were considered a curse to Jewish society. Jesus would not have had much credibility as a leader had He not been married. Although Jesus was a non-conformist and had many conflicts with Jewish tradition, His parents, Joseph and Mary, were not. The Bible says that they were careful to perfectly obey the laws of their people. It also says that Jesus was "subject unto them". Since Jewish culture practiced arranged marriages and early marriage, as well (a Jewish boy was marriageable at age 16), it is reasonable to assume that Jesus' parents would have performed their parental duties faithfully and arranged a bride for the young Jesus. There are 18 silent years in His life (12 - 30). The Gospel of John tells us that there were many other things which Jesus did which have not been recorded.

This point is important because it shifts the weight of presumption. Given the cultural milieu in which Jesus lived and the supporting Biblical evidence, the burden of proof lies with those who do not believe Jesus was married. They must show why Jesus and His parents would have been derelict in their civic responsibilities and not contracted a marriage.

2. According to Josephus, descendants of the House of David felt a moral obligation to perpetuate their line, never knowing which one among their descendants would be the chosen Messiah. Jesus may or may not have known who He was, but regardless, He lived as a normal person until called by the ministry of John the Baptist.

DIRECT EVIDENCE

1. Hippolytus, a Christian leader from the late 2nd Century, was followed by Origen in the 3rd Century in saying that the Song of Solomon was a prophecy of a marital union between Christ and Mary Magdalene. Although they believed Mary was symbolic of the Church, nevertheless, the notion presupposed a real, albeit a spiritual (meaning non-sexual), marriage between Mary and Jesus.

2. There are hints scattered in the Gospels of a special relationship between Jesus and Mary. If she is the same Mary of Bethany in John 11, then we can explain why Martha arose to greet Jesus and not Mary. Some scholars say she was sitting shiva according to Jewish custom. "Shiva" was when a woman was in mourning. Married women were not allowed to break-off from their mourning unless called by their husbands. In this story, Mary does not come to Jesus, until He calls her.

· At the Resurrection, when Mary meets Jesus in the Garden, there is a degree of intimacy (see the Aramaic here) which one would expect between lovers, not friends.

· The Greek word for "woman" and "wife" is the same. Translators must rely upon the context in deciding how to translate it. Sometimes, the translation is arbitrary. When Mary is referred to as a "woman" who followed Jesus, it can just as easily be translated as "wife".

4. The story of Mary with the alabaster jar anointing the feet of Jesus is cited by some scholars as the most direct witness to their marriage. It is in all four Gospels and was a story in which Jesus gave express command that it be preserved. This ceremony was an ancient one among many royal houses in the ancient world, which sealed the marital union between the king and his priestess spouse. We find it mentioned briefly in the Song of Solomon. Although we may not understand its significance, Jesus and Mary knew exactly what they were doing. To be the valid Messiah, He had to be anointed first by the Bride. They were by-passing the corrupt Jewish establishment.

There is more support for the marital status of Jesus. However, it involves a discussion of the Old Testament prophets which would be too tedious to undertake, here. It is important to realize, however, that belief in a married Jesus does not require any more faith than a resurrected Jesus. And if you know where to look, you can find just as much biblical evidence for both.

More misrepresentation, dubious sources and lies from the proven liar that is Pacific.

Through Jesus, we all had a chance and all had salvation.

Do not deny the evidence of our Lord God Jesus Christ, for his kin still walk among us today.

you are a proven liar and blasphemer

Beware blaspheming against God or Jesus by hurling around unproven mockery and doubt amongst his followers.

Jesus was a living, walking, breathing God who died for our sins. His kin that walk the Earth today, including his non-related followers, owe him love, debt and recognition.

The Secret Book of Mark is actually quite interesting, along with the reasons for why it was taken out of the bible.

That's not true. Leviticus forbids Jews from "lying with a man as with a woman". This is in the context of temple prostitution - widespread amoungst the local gentiles.

Seeing as a man lacks a vagina it is difficult to see how a man could lay with a man as with a woman. It's a physical impossibility.

If buggery is the problem then surely the bible would spell this out clearly.

Biblical scholars simply cannot agree on the meaning of this ritual command. Most Xians are happy to eat shellfish, rabbit, pork etc so why should this be of any greater significance?

BTW Peter Tatchell is a total knob and I wouldn't listen to a word the bobble headed pencil necked tw@t has to say.

I used to think the same, tbh.

However, his attempted "arrest" of Mugabe showed real courage and nerves of steel. He did something that the international community couldn't muster up the courage to do.

Hmmn one smack in the mouth by a russian skin head and he went crying like a big girl's blouse asking the Russian police to protect him. No courage. No Nerves of steel. Just cowardice and legs of jelly.

He seems to want to lower the age of consent below 16. He's an apologist for pedophillia and genuine gays should distance themselves from him IMHO. The man's a disgrace.

You've got an ego the size of a planet. You haven't shone light on anything. Just spout a load of sh1t.

indeed, yet this doesn't stop Pacific "the liar" quoting and trusting him as a source

http://www.wps6.co.uk/~dev_lfld/view_page....amp;menu_id=231

you ignoramus, Christians are not under the food laws due to Peter's vision in Acts
indeed we are not under Law but under Grace and Christ has freed us of much of the Law due to his work and sacrifice

You're definitely sounding rather desperate here scarlets. You continually accuse Pacific State of being a liar and call it all sick and disgusting. It sounds rather like a child that cannot argue his / her case and so just throws a tantrum instead.

You never see scientists exhibiting this kind of emotional reaction when someone questions a favourite theory ...

Here is what the New Testament says about Jesus

(1) Jesus was a bisexual (Rev. 1:13)

(2) Jesus was a racist (Mk 7:27)

(3) Jesus was a child-killer (Rev. 2:23

(4) Jesus murdered his enemies (Lk. 19:27)

(5) Jesus ordered the killing of apostates (John. 15:50-7)

(6) Jesus deliberately taught in parables so nobody can understand him (John. 16:25)

(7) Jesus used offensive nicknames (Matt. 23:17, Lk 11:40)

(8) Jesus was a repentant sinner (Matt. 3:13, Mk 1:4)

(9) Jesus ignored a Gentile woman (Matt. 15:23-25)

(10) Jesus upheld the Law (Matt. 5:17-20, 23:23), so why did he break the Sabbath?

He has come to save us and provide us with a blueprint for morality.

This comes from an Islamic website. Islam reveres Jesus as a prophet but not as God incarnate.

He was flawed, but he did have a good message most of the time.

scarlets, as mentioned in another thread, please do not call other posters liars in future or you may find your posting rights suspended.


How you conduct yourself on this forum will decide that.

In 1950s sc-fi movies they do.

But maybe that's not really a good example?

Why? Did Peter eat what was deemed unclean?

The point is that it was God showing Peter that the ways of the gentiles were not unclean for the gentiles. Peter didn't start eating Pork but rather entered into the house of the Gentile.

28 And he said unto them, Ye know how that it is an unlawful thing for a man that is a Jew to keep company, or come unto one of another nation; but God hath showed me that I should not call any man common or unclean.

And that would include shirtlifters. The ritual cleanliness of Leviticus only ever applied to the Jews.

Scarlets, I'm afraid that your article, "The Gay Road to Liberation or Facism" from the website "Light for the Last Days" is little more than a pack of fundie lies and misrepresentation.

According to the US state department (http://www.state.gov/g/drl/rls/hrrpt/2003/27856.htm), in Holland



What "Light for Last Days" seems to have done is taken the fact that somebody having sex with a child below 12 is prosecuted under a different law that somebody having sex with a child aged between 12 and 16 and twisted this to pretend that the age of consent in Holland is 12. So either "light for last days" is lying or the US Department of State is lying. Which do you think it is?

Any further comments like this from scarlets will result in a temporary (at least for now) suspension of posting rights.

So when I stood up at the last conference and said:

"They call me mad, I'll show them who's mad. You can't stop me now. No one can."

... it wasn't appropriate?

I just assumed that "Muhahahahaha!!!!" was a bit excessive.

I suspect activating the "Destructo-Ray" was the excessive part.

Ad hominem.

Hypocrite

[quote name='scarlets79' date='Mar 19 2008, 03:10 PM' post='1022557']
The above are desperate lies and are sick fantasies.

Jesus fulfilled the Law and is without sin. The law stated that a man lying with another man is an abomination to God. Therefore Jesus did no such thing.

There are excerpts of the gnostic texts which state jesus was in some kind of relationship with Mary magdalene.We don't know whether it was sexual or not.What is known is that mary magdalene has been badly slandered by the RC church for reasons still to be discovered.

I beg to differ with you scarlets on your point....that could be applied to organ transplants too.

do you consider "lay" to mean congress on a sexual,or a genetic level(the mixing of genes)
The genetic interpretation also makes sense if you apply it to why pigs/camels etc are "unclean" and should not be eaten.
There may well be something in the genetic make-up of these animals which is hazardous in large doses.


Leviticus in modern day terms would probably read as follows:
"AND GOD SAID,KEEP YOUR NOB CLEAN...WASH PROPERLY,GO EASY ON THE BIG-MACS COZ THEY'LL MAKE YOU FAT.....oh AND ONE LAST THING,......DON'T touch the car!!!....you've seen me drive it,but you ain't passed your driving test and it's potentially very dangerous(with reference to the HIDDEN,or occult)

we're constantly trying to put off the inevitible.chopping and changing organs to stay alive IS NOT adhering to gods law really is it??...he designed us/the planet/the universe in equilibrium.......and we're buggering things up to be brutally frank.

when jesus said to one of his disciples he was "not of this world"
do we talk aliens from outer space??

or is it another level of existence outside of this physical realm...a macro-being if you will??

two different interpretations from the same script.We've all come to blows over which one is right,and nobody knows for sure,so why fight over it??......

we'll have to see.

I hope he's right.I really do.
Our royal family claim to have lineage from the house of david.They also have the constitutional title of defender of the faith.

Let's pray they ARE the real deal.We've got some BAAAAD SHEEET GOIN DOWN!!

This all has to be taken with a HUGE pinch of salt,small pieces of scripture can EASILY be taken and manipulated into what people choose to make of it.

I've seen this on a couple of conspiracy vids too.
There's one michael tsarion video(who I agree with on a lot of issues),where he quotes from revelation in PAST tense,when the particular item IS YET TO COME.

I've done a lot of research into the prophetic works of the bible,nostradamus,mother shipton and edgar cayce to name a few,and although there are a few discrepancies in dates,the events correlate EXACTLY.

By the way RIP Arthur C Clarke,another prophet there..

he already TOLD you that WE ARE,VERY SOON,GOING TO HAVE A DIRECT MILITARY CONFRONTATION BETWEEN THE US AND RUSSIA.......AND HE CONFIRMS THE EXISTENCE OF NIBIRU......JUST TAKE A LOOK AT THE FILM 2010 AGAIN.

THIS TIME DO IT WITH YOUR EYES WIDE OPEN.

New Testament Bombshells About Flawed Jesus, Could he really have been a bisexual racist childkiller?

Sounds like a good basis for the next Mel Gibson movie (you'd have to make Jesus English though).

Pacific State please can you stop starting this derogatory threads about Jesus -- no one is asking you to believe in him or accept him - but I do and I am all up for debate about Jesus - but this is just taking the piss

I am presenting different versions of what Jesus means to different people.

Why should it be that you and scarletsv7.9 could be the only ones allowed to mention what he means to you?

you're presenting lies and distortions. why? why do you hate Jesus so much?

There are hundreds of different Christian sects with thousands of different beliefs about what Jesus stood for and what he didn't.

You present, I contend, a born-again version of his life.

Jesus came out with a lot of good stuff. He also came out with a lot of bad. He is not as bad as his father.

you present lies and distortions about Jesus. Why? Why do you hate a man who preached for us to love our neighour as ourself?

That's the problem with a programming script - it can't accept shades of grey as well as black & white.

Could you tell me why there are hundreds of different Xian sects with thousands of different beliefs about Jesus and his somewhat lunatic father?

Jesus was gay, deal with it.

You're presenting lies and distortions. Why? Why do you hate Jesus so much?

Jesus is here, he's queer, get used to it, scarletsv7.9.

An absolute pathetic waste of time thread.

You must be

1) homophobic

or

2) Hate Jesus, like scarlets

by claiming Jesus is gay you are showing yourselves to be liars

By denying Jesus is gay, you are denying Scripture.

you clearly do not understand scripture and seek to twist it, add to it, and take away from it just like the serpent did in the Garden of Eden. We know your game, you would do satan proud but you don't fool the people that walk in light.
I suspect you are angry because I rattled your atheistic worldview

Another ad hom from the bot.

I quoted from a Christian website. I was using their interpretation of scripture.

I suspect you aren't angry because that feeling hasn't been programmed into you yet.

You are free to mention what he means to different people - it is the aggressive manner in which you are presenting it