Was Jesus gay?

Aroddo

Emperor
Joined
Feb 8, 2011
Messages
1,127
Location
Sauerkrautistan

Link to video.
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/belief/2012/apr/20/was-jesus-gay-probably


Was Jesus gay? Probably
by Paul Oestreicher, an Anglican priest in the UK
Spoiler :

I preached on Good Friday that Jesus's intimacy with John suggested he was gay as I felt deeply it had to be addressed

Preaching on Good Friday on the last words of Jesus as he was being executed makes great spiritual demands on the preacher. The Jesuits began this tradition. Many Anglican churches adopted it. Faced with this privilege in New Zealand's capital city, Wellington, my second home, I was painfully aware of the context, a church deeply divided worldwide over issues of gender and sexuality. Suffering was my theme. I felt I could not escape the suffering of gay and lesbian people at the hands of the church, over many centuries.

Was that divisive issue a subject for Good Friday? For the first time in my ministry I felt it had to be. Those last words of Jesus would not let me escape. "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."

That disciple was John whom Jesus, the gospels affirm, loved in a special way. All the other disciples had fled in fear. Three women but only one man had the courage to go with Jesus to his execution. That man clearly had a unique place in the affection of Jesus. In all classic depictions of the Last Supper, a favourite subject of Christian art, John is next to Jesus, very often his head resting on Jesus's breast. Dying, Jesus asks John to look after his mother and asks his mother to accept John as her son. John takes Mary home. John becomes unmistakably part of Jesus's family.

Jesus was a Hebrew rabbi. Unusually, he was unmarried. The idea that he had a romantic relationship with Mary Magdalene is the stuff of fiction, based on no biblical evidence. The evidence, on the other hand, that he may have been what we today call gay is very strong. But even gay rights campaigners in the church have been reluctant to suggest it. A significant exception was Hugh Montefiore, bishop of Birmingham and a convert from a prominent Jewish family. He dared to suggest that possibility and was met with disdain, as though he were simply out to shock.

After much reflection and with certainly no wish to shock, I felt I was left with no option but to suggest, for the first time in half a century of my Anglican priesthood, that Jesus may well have been homosexual. Had he been devoid of sexuality, he would not have been truly human. To believe that would be heretical.

Heterosexual, bisexual, homosexual: Jesus could have been any of these. There can be no certainty which. The homosexual option simply seems the most likely. The intimate relationship with the beloved disciple points in that direction. It would be so interpreted in any person today. Although there is no rabbinic tradition of celibacy, Jesus could well have chosen to refrain from sexual activity, whether he was gay or not. Many Christians will wish to assume it, but I see no theological need to. The physical expression of faithful love is godly. To suggest otherwise is to buy into a kind of puritanism that has long tainted the churches.

All that, I felt deeply, had to be addressed on Good Friday. I saw it as an act of penitence for the suffering and persecution of homosexual people that still persists in many parts of the church. Few readers of this column are likely to be outraged any more than the liberal congregation to whom I was preaching, yet I am only too aware how hurtful these reflections will be to most theologically conservative or simply traditional Christians. The essential question for me is: what does love demand? For my critics it is more often: what does scripture say? In this case, both point in the same direction.

Whether Jesus was gay or straight in no way affects who he was and what he means for the world today. Spiritually it is immaterial. What matters in this context is that there are many gay and lesbian followers of Jesus – ordained and lay – who, despite the church, remarkably and humbly remain its faithful members. Would the Christian churches in their many guises more openly accept, embrace and love them, there would be many more disciples.


In short, Oestreicher reasons that Jesus wasn't devoid of sexuality, or else he wouldn't be human. To believe that would be heretical.
And the bible hints to disciple John being Jesus lover, so Jesus might as well have been gay.

And let's be real: Jesus surrounded himself with cute male disciples all the time and the bible never mentions how aresome Jesus was with the women.
Unlike Muhammed, who was apparently a sex addict, adulterer and pedophile.

Time to convert?
 
From the article:

The intimate relationship with the beloved disciple points in that direction. It would be so interpreted in any person today.

Because, of course, "today" should be the standard for all things historical.

Because, of course, sexual love is the only kind of love we can imagine being a strong kind of love, today.

I feel sad for anyone who has to pull the whole of, not just Christianity, but any major historical phenomenon through the relatively small orifice of sexuality.
 
well, yes! of course! they certainly didn't call it "gay" in those days.
Even americans called gays living together as being in a "Boston Marriage" barely 100 years ago.
 
In short, Oestreicher reasons that Jesus wasn't devoid of sexuality, or else he wouldn't be human.

Hope his saying so didn't offend any asexual people who might have been in his congregation.
 
There's really no way tgo know, but I don't think so. It's a very annoing peculiarity of western cultures to sexualise everything and assume that two men who are close are giving it to each other.
I do however suspect that our Lord and Saviour had a foot fetish.
 
There's really no way tgo know, but I don't think so. It's a very annoing peculiarity of western cultures to sexualise everything and assume that two men who are close are giving it to each other.

Indeed.

BTW, it's an interesting topic for discussion when the Anglican Church ceased to be an actual church and became a social club / charity / NGO.
 
I dunno. Jesus seemed to believe in binary sexes, which means that (if he were gay) he didn't have much insight into the topic.
 
Sex in general certaintly didn't seem to be an important topic for Jesus to talk about. Maybe it was because some things were better left unspoken, maybe he had some rather more important topics on his mind.
I mean, why would anyone care which sex someone else prefers?
 
Despite the thread being ludicrous, that some member of the church of England (?) considered it a good idea to argue that Jesus had sexuality cause he was also man (and citing the new testament as proof) is rather one of the dumbest arguments i've had the bad luck to read. The new testament does indeed name Jesus as an entity which (according to that source) got a human body specifically so as to be crucified as a human, ie to actually feel human pain. Obviously the testament did not mean that Jesus was just a man. Otherwise that whole, you know, 'god' minor plot going on in that series of books would not really have much to stand on.

So while this thread is bad, that priest is more of a horrible joke :/
 
Is it in any way relevant what the other person in the video was wearing?

mK5roP1yZ6ahI26lwmitl4g.jpg


I do think there is a large element of irony in the notion that Christianity without the gay bashing, and specifically the thoughts and actions of Jesus, is perhaps more characteristic of homosexuals than heterosexuals. That gays might have a greater ability to love their fellow man in a proper Christian manner than many heterosexual Christian males do. That Christianity is actually the antithesis of the macho he-man image. That if anything, it would promote males to be more effeminate and compassionate of others than they typically are.
 
I do think there is a large element of irony in the notion that Christianity without the gay bashing, and specifically the thoughts and actions of Jesus, is perhaps more characteristic of homosexuals than heterosexuals. That gays might have a greater ability to love their fellow man in a proper Christian manner than many heterosexual Christian males do.

^Do you even think at all before posting some of the stuff you do?
Personally, as someone who is agnostic, and also as someone who is not really christian in any way, I still find your above post to be pretty depraved.
 
Makes about as much sense to wonder if Jesus was gay as wondering if Hercules might have been gay. I know that this is going to offend some people, but mythical characters are for the most part wrapped around in stories meant to embelish the character. I'm sure that a guy named Jesus existed and did some of the stuff attributed to him, but if we went back in time to examine his life, it would likely be completely different than what's actually attributed to him. You know what happens to stories about religious legends, the story changes when passed from person to person and things get changed and added.. usually to make the religious icon look better, more virtuous, and more amazing.

For all we know Jesus was a Chinese traveller who settled in Palestine and opened a carpentry business, then got executed due to a misunderstanding. The Jesus we talk about and the Jesus who existed are likely two completely different people. By wondering if Jesus was gay, you are talking about the Jesus we talk about today - who is not gay, and not the Jesus who was actually alive and around - who might have been gay.

This conclusion comes to me from a completely non-religious point of view, so don't get upset that I'm blaspheming.
 
Makes about as much sense to wonder if Jesus was gay as wondering if Hercules might have been gay. I know that this is going to offend some people, but mythical characters are for the most part wrapped around in stories meant to embelish the character. I'm sure that a guy named Jesus existed and did some of the stuff attributed to him, but if we went back in time to examine his life, it would likely be completely different than what's actually attributed to him. You know what happens to stories about religious legends, the story changes when passed from person to person and things get changed and added.. usually to make the religious icon look better, more virtuous, and more amazing.

For all we know Jesus was a Chinese traveller who settled in Palestine and opened a carpentry business, then got executed due to a misunderstanding. The Jesus we talk about and the Jesus who existed are likely two completely different people. By wondering if Jesus was gay, you are talking about the Jesus we talk about today - who is not gay, and not the Jesus who was actually alive and around - who might have been gay.

This conclusion comes to me from a completely non-religious point of view, so don't get upset that I'm blaspheming.

Don't you drag Herakles into all this :mad: ;)

Anyway, keep in mind that thousands of early christians were killed (often literally by lions) just so as to not say some words against what they deemed was a god. So yeah, while it may be funny to say Hercules was gay etc, it is not the same with a figure who is seen as a God to a great many people. And then it is not the same when some clown who is a member of a 'church' says this sort of thing. I mean that priest is not only an idiot, but he is also either utterly devoid of any ability to think what the christians in his own country think of Jesus, or he aimed exactly to cause more issues (and that the very noble newspaper published his views would rather signify the latter as being closer to the truth).

Its cool to not believe in christianity. It is also cool (in my view) to not think that any person recorded in human history was a god or even linked to a god. But it is really dickish to say crap when your own career was paid for by the people who supposedly base their piece of mind on their own image of Jesus. That all is why i don't regard this priest-person to be worth the title or the 30 silver coins he was given already ;)
 
Herakles was gay. Or bi anyway. Hylas was his male lover.
 
Was Jesus gay?

Counterquestion:

Does it matter?
 
Herakles was gay. Or bi anyway. Hylas was his male lover.

Trying to determine the sexuality of Greek gods/heroes is like playing Russian roulette, except that instead of dying, you're just mildly annoyed at the pervert who invented the pantheon.
 
Back
Top Bottom