Was Jesus gay?

Post Reply New Topic

I wholeheartedly concur. It's wrong to want everything to be about sex, or to always try to bring it down to the denominator or sex. Whether you're gay or straight, a preoccupation with sex tells us a lot about your character. It would be no less disgusting if a heterosexual person with a mind in the gutter.

even if he wasn't, you know he was thought to be by his classmates being all wafer thin, fair skinned, those piercing blue eyes and the way he could walk on water. Oh and the fact that he didn't like to have sex with girls.

Even though some gnostic scripture says he was married to Mary, it also stated he adoration and affection for his fellow man. He was really close to Judas, and would often partake in kissing him on the mouth.

I already made the Was Jesus Autistic thread.
It received mixed reviews.

It's in very poor taste to compare oneself to God.

Where is this suspected-of-autism stuff going to end?

Sounds like Jesus really let you down. Classmates? Are you talking about his disciples, or is that just cheekiness?

Jesus lived a very simple life and did receive any formal education that we know of. His kiss for Judas was on the cheek and not remotely sexual. Fair-skinned & blue-eyed the historical Jesus wasn't. Being born in the Middle East, he would have resembled a Middle Easterner; dark hair, eyes, and complexion. I don't mind gays but I do have a beef with ignorant people.

Well, I'm not religious.
In essence, I'm an anti-religious fanatic.
And I try to look at such observances objectively, you know?
I have a theory on avatarism, that states most of the individual[s]
have autistic/schizophrenic thinking patterns that steer them in perhaps
that direction?
I'm not trying to be disrespectful to you or your beliefs.

(Assuming that Jesus had actually existed in the first place), I don't think Jesus even had a sexual preference. His main concern was preaching and converting people to God, or whatever. Also, he mentioned nothing about homosexuality. He probably wasn't even aware that it existed.

But if Jesus really did turn out to be gay, I'm sure Christians all over the world would have a field day with that .

He preached on marriage without considering homosexuality though:

Matthew 19:3-6 KJV
(3) The Pharisees also came unto him, tempting him, and saying unto him, Is it lawful for a man to put away his wife for every cause?
(4) And he answered and said unto them, Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female,
(5) And said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh?
(6) Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder.

Mark 10:2-9 KJV
(2) And the Pharisees came to him, and asked him, Is it lawful for a man to put away his wife? tempting him.
(3) And he answered and said unto them, What did Moses command you?
(4) And they said, Moses suffered to write a bill of divorcement, and to put her away.
(5) And Jesus answered and said unto them, For the hardness of your heart he wrote you this precept.
(6) But from the beginning of the creation God made them male and female.
(7) For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and cleave to his wife;
(8) And they twain shall be one flesh: so then they are no more twain, but one flesh.
(9) What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder.

BTW these are two account of the same events from two different perspectives, which is historically valid. Notice the overlap? As for His existence, even Jews don't doubt that; they just reject Him for who He claimed to be. Confer John 17.

But why is it that in Matthew's account, Jesus doesn't mention Moses, but he does in Mark's account? If they were both there at the time, surely they would have both heard the exact same thing and thus have made exact same accounts.

So what if Peter's memory emphasized the relation to the Torah and Matthew's omitted it? Eyewitness recollection of events, speeches, lectures, is hardly ever verbatim. Claiming that the exact same words must be used is nonsense. Besides, where you see that, it is often a sign of copying another person's work and not of genuine recordings.

huh? why am i quoted on this? i'm saying that the bible purposefully leaves jesus asexual...meaning no sexual preference at all (incase you thought asexual meant really really gay or something). most likely he would have looked like a ken doll down there if the authors could have their way.

and for me to believe in him, i'd need more corroborating evidence than just the bible. maybe some reproducible results somewhere if possible? i don't believe in him because he most likely didn't exist in the capacity described in the bible and most likely he was just a man selling off his brand of messiah to everyone just like a lot of others were at the time.

http://www.exitmundi.nl/bible/web-conte ... rists.html <-a good article on that point.

The Resurrection, Christian Martyrdom, et al. See: http://www.tektonics.org/lp/nowayjose.html

Jesus did kiss Judas in the Garden of Gethsemane.

There is no record of Jesus ever kissing a girl.

Even today this custom remains, not necessarily with the Europeanized Jews, but with the Arabs and other semitic cultures of the middle east.

Matthew 26:48-49 KJV
"(48) Now he that betrayed him gave them a sign, saying, Whomsoever I shall kiss, that same is he: hold him fast."

(PNT commentary) Mat 26:48-49 Gave them a sign. A kiss; a common method of salutation among intimate friends. A sign was needful to point Jesus out to the soldiers. Such a traitorous kiss was the depth of depravity--enmity under the guise of friendship.

"(49) And forthwith he came to Jesus, and said, Hail, master; and kissed him."




In the middle east, both today and 3000 years ago as well as in between, kissing has been comparable to shaking hands in European cultures.

lucky is the least likely of answers? there were most likely dozens of messiahs from the period to have been attached to and constantine was raised up with the christ myth and that's how it really started being propagated...the holy roman empire.


as far as unlikelihood....my page provides that there were other messiahs and they did gain pre-eminance over jesus for a while but what really solidified christianity as a religion was constantine's conversion. and as far as the legitimacy of that....just look up the donatists.




from a moral standpoint, i think the donatists have a very good point and i agree with their viewpoint of ex opere operantis. i'd say you seem like you would too but i doubt you have any actual morals of your own..just what you're spoonfed by others.


but anyways, the point is that christianity didn't miraculously spread. constantine had a christian mother and was introduced to it from birth and most likely kept it hidden until such a time when he was in position to make a move towards public conversion (what a new and ground-breaking idea: lying to the people about what you really believe...sounds like politics hasn't changed at all in the thousands of years).