Was Jesus Christ a homosexual?

Post Reply New Topic

If there were enough of that in the Gospels, be real, St Paul would have had no need to include so much on the value of charity in his Antioch letters to churches. It was St Paul, who some say was an actual Gnostic, who put the supreme value on charity, not Jesus. Jesus put the value on repenting and living a moral life. That's not saying he didn't value charity, he just valued adherence to the Law above all else and would cast you out if you didn't adhere. But we do have to keep St Paul in mind when we are talking Christianity. There is no reason to be as extreme as Jesus.

Yeah, but was 'HE' being extreme or sarcastic out of frustration with what he perceived as lesser minds...and ways of heART IN being....he was human after ALL..:)

Yes.. if one takes the Gospel of Thomas literally.. Jesus was a severe man in what can be seen as literal hate for one's family.. as well as literal promotion for war...

But was he being concrete or metaphorical in saying that..

That.. we will never KNOW FOR SURE.. for one thing.. as truly there is NO WAY TO PROVE THOSE ARE HIS WORDS PER THE IMPERFECTION OF ORAL TRADITION same as is the situation with the historical man Socrates.. but truth lives on no MATTER WHO METAPHORS IT.. TRUTH IS TRUTH FOR THOSE WHO are ABLE TO discern it.

There is no human with REAL sense who believes they are the ONLY son of GOD or the LAST WORD of GOD in truth.. and the only folks who I know who would even suggest such a ridiculous thing are psychopathic SELFISH leaning folks who cannot see that rational TRUTH SEEKING thinking folks can see through LIES LIKE THAT as clear as a glass of unadulterated water.

If Jesus was a real man, and I DO MEAN REAL MAN, he would never fear someone disagreeing with his opinions and would never fear changing his mind and moving ahead in the evolution of his existence as is AND HE CERTAINLY WOULD BE CONFIDENT ENOUGH IN HIS SELF NOT TO PUT HIS SELF OVER OTHERS AS SOMEONE BETTER THAN ANYONE ELSE.. AS REAL Men or WOMEN need not fear others at all, in this way, WHEN THEY ARE TOTALLY SECURE IN THEIR HUMANITY WITH GOD AS MOTHER NATURE TRUE PER ALL THAT IS AS IS.

But still to live is to learn and only a REAL FOOL, nah, not one who plays the fool, DOES NOT realize who their master TRULY IS PER MOTHER NATURE TRUE THAT IS ALL THAT IS infinitely more wise than 'tHey'....AS TRUE GOD AS IS NOW.

You could say the difference between the Gnostic and someone who is strictly part of Judaism is the Jew puts the value on the law while the Gnostic will think about other possibilities, like forgiveness of sins and charity.

Jesus pretty much was a very conservative minded Jew if you really look at what is written about what he told people. He was even stricter than the Jews in the synagogues in Jerusalem and he criticized them for abandoning part of the commandments.

Honestly, overall, the whole bible is screwy, old testament and new, and truly it's amazing that anything good per Universal Truth is in there at all, considering how selfish and greedy patriarchal ways of rule can be.

I would rather, overall, go over 'theRE' to the TAO BOOK to learn my Universal truths, after all, the Universal human truths that are related IN those Universal human truths are in the New Testament, anyway, already, IN PART, without all the tribal patriarchal BS, that is still in the OT AND NT UNFORTUNATELY ENOUGH still, and IT is not likely going to leave it either, through the admonishment of THREAT IN ILLUSORY FEAR of burning in hell to change one word of BS to control the herd, overall, as originally designed as such BY PSYCHOPATHIC LEANING CONTROLLING SUBJUGATING religious and political leading FOLKS, back in the day and to day.

But unconditional love IN PEACE for all others is unconditional love IN PEACE for all others, and as long as that is what is practiced in my Catholic church to the exclusion of all ways of hate, I will continue to go there, as even Taoists can get really violent in other ways but words, in that culture.

We as human beings have the potential to evolve as loving creatures greater and greater in just one life through natural change in neuroplasticity of mind in PRACTICING, PRACTICING, AND PRACTICING A PERFECT PRACTICE of Unconditional Love and that is MORE THAN WORDS ALONE OR MAN AS one.

It is effort and that TRUE HUMAN Freedom of Unconditional Love is NOT withOUT cost of trial and ERROR.

A goal can NOT be attained of perfection IN THIS WAY but a perfection of practice is possible.

MY LIFE IS PRACTICE AND I FOR One UNCONDITIONALLY love it this way never with a goal in mind but PRACTICE.

AND that is the way I love all others too AS PRACTICE OF UNCONDITIONAL LOVE.

JOHN 3:16, FOR EXAMPLE, taken literally IS BOTH psychopathic leaning leader generated BS and WILL NEVER BE ANYTHING BUT EMPTY SHELLS OF WORDS without A PRACTICE, PRACTICE, PRACTICE OF unconditional love with all others too.

When you think in terms of the Torah and Mosaic Law, it makes much more sense. Basically you get this idea of an ordered society, don't lie, swear, steal, kill. Get married and don't cheat on your partner. Have lots of kids and you will benefit. Which foods are the wisest to eat? It's basically a survival manual.

Just because Paul had written extensively about charity, that means Christ probably didn't? I'm sorry, but I'm not seeing the logic in your argument.

Actually, the author of John never specifically refers to the beloved disciple by name, nor does he imply that he is the beloved disciple. That figure is always referred to simply as the disciple that Jesus loved.

It's hard to pinpoint how John the son of Zebedee became the beloved disciple over the years. I think it had something to do with the belief that both the fourth gospel and Revelation were written by that John (who would have been an illiterate Gallilean fisherman and probably unable to even write in Aramaic, let alone in highly literate Greek). Because it was evident even in early times that Revelation was written after the destruction of the temple in Jerusalem around 70 AD, it was thought that John, alone of the original apostles, died a natural death at a ripe old age on the isle of Patmos. Which was taken as a sign of his being especially favored by Jesus. Since modern scholarship suggests that neither book was written by that John, and that the gospel may have even followed Revelation in chronology, there's little evidence to support any particular person as being the beloved disciple. Or that any of them were especially favored. Even conservative Biblical scholars now doubt authentic Johannine authorship of the gospel of John, to the point that it's being more and more common to refer to it simply as "the Fourth Gospel".

There are some who now believe that John was killed relatively shortly after the crucifixion, along with his brother James. Possibly even before Stephen who is traditionally honored as the first Christian martyr.

Was he celibate? Paul wrote a great deal about celibacy in the letters that are generally agreed to be his own works. He recommends that as the preferred lifestyle for followers of the early church, as like many of his co-believers of the time, he believed that Jesus' return was imminent. Does he ever refer to Jesus as being celibate? Honest question, as I can't remember every single passage in his letters.

While it's true that Paul never knew Jesus in life, he had dealings with Peter and other original disciples, and with James the Just, Jesus' own brother. Surely he would have known something about Jesus in life.

Makes sense to me.

One would need to establish as fact that this Jesus character actually existed, BEFORE one should make statements regarding his alleged sexual behaviour.
Since this has not been done, I will refrain from commenting.

I'm not a biblical scholar, so don't quote me on this, but wasn't Jesus a rabbi at some point, and isn't it true that a rabbi is required by Jewish custom to have a wife?

In Jesus' time, Judaism was controlled by priests till the Romans leveled the Temple, destroyed Jerusalem, and deported most of their population. Only after did the Rabbis (which I believe only means teacher) become the official religious authorities, and bound by rules.

I see. Thanks.

I choose 'something else' in the poll. I don't think we have enough information to know. The bible never mentions Jesus's wife or him being married. Then again, it never mentions he was unmarried either. Inconclusive.

Actually, I recall him saying he had been celibate, as John the Baptist had been. Though his disciple Peter was described as having a mother-in-law, which would not be possible if he were not married.