In thinking that Jesus may possibly have been Gay?

[nativitywreck]

I suggested this in another thread and the effect was like a fart at a funeral; it cleared the room!
It's not so far fetched though. He was 33 when he died, and never married. I would imagine that in the year Dot most people were married by the age of 18, so that is one confirmed bachelor.
And then there is the 'tache'n'beard, the sandals and the twelve guys he hung with..

Ooh, I missed a quality ruck.

Thru, your recent post was pretty offensive to LRD. She'd only just made a remark that showed her deep respect for her faith and christ's divinity. Then you went right in there and told her she doesn't "get" exactly that.

You have some nerve to accuse her of disrespecting your faith position. With the distance o one who doesn't care about the issue, I'd say LRD's attitude comes across as rather more christian than your own.

And now you'll be offended, and I shall go to bed.

[whooo, I have divine predictive powers ... ]

Happy Christmas.

Garlic,, yeah I know all that. It's so late now, but I will get DH to respond. The entire understanding of Jesus' deity is that is was asexual in the scriptures. If you're the Son of God, stands to reason, you ain't got time to mess about getting involved in romantic relationships. There is nothing in the Bible to suggest that Jesus was involved with people in a romantic/sexual way. My point is, you can't impose on a text what isn't there already. It's just supposition in that case.

I know that. I have already said it several times, both in this thread, and to you.

If you read my posts, you might know this too.

I am offended as you belittled my husband's life-work. Don't be impressed, I don't care. I'm sure you know far more about it than he does - why not.
I simply suggested (if you read my post) that a bit of prior reading wouldn't go amiss before engaging in such contentious debate. Yes, I objected to you suggesting my husband has a "little MA" and that he hardly knows anything at all.

I suggest you also respect people's faith about this and understand why they might find the suggestion of their god being gay/straight or anything sexual at all. Not because sexual is bad, but because sexual is primarily human.

You think you have an understanding of people's faith but it's not the type of faith that a lot of people have.

I'm sorry I offended you by speaking that way about your husband. I admit I was fired up because of the tone you took with the OP initially, and then by what you said about the Bible.

I do find it very offensive when people suggest that they can reduce something so complex - and I strongly believe Bible study is complex, even if you are an atheist and only interested in aspects of Bible study that do not have to do with personal faith - to something that is, by comparison to thousands of years of devout and brilliant writing, a tiny, tiny piece of knowledge: one person's study.

I don't think you 'simply suggested' that prior reading wouldn't go amiss. Actually, you told the OP (IIRC) that she came across as 'ridiculous and ill-informed' if she didn't study Hebrew and Aramaic.

It is really hard not to feel that you were deliberately being patronizing there, especially since you then admit you don't know these languages either, but your ex boyfriend does. It's as if you're trying to make us all feel small, but you don't actually have the knowledge to add to the debate yourself, which does rub me up the wrong way. If you were interested in real debate or real knowledge, you'd start telling us things that hadn't already been said on this thread, or adding new viewpoints. But you just seem to want everyone to shut up.

I have never pretended to an understanding of anyone else's faith. In fact I've been quite tentative about explaining my own, because to me it is very hard to understand, very precious and very mysterious.

Garlic - I had to laugh at you saying LRD's attitude comes across as more "Christian" than my own. What exactly do you understand as "Christian"???? She was also quite rude about my husband's MA btw. Or are you just using an ad hominum argument against me to supposedly weaken my position?

Happy Christmas you two anyway. And thanks for the sparring match.

I may have been rude about your husband's MA but you have been rude to the OP, me, my faith, and the book that is considered holy in my religion.

I don't think it's especially funny and honestly, if this thread shows me anything it's that I'm not very easily offended by jokes about my religion.

LRD - seriously - it's late now. Yes, we've all gotton over-heated the last hour and exaggerated a bit. Bible is complex, we agree. (But my husband does have a good grasp of the main and essential parts.)
I was hard on the OP and back-tracked - you saw that, so why go on???
I'm not usually this direct, but the subject matter of the thread wound me up a lot yesterday and I got myself all in a tizz about it Not because I'm against gays or sex, but because it just seemed unnecessary to debate to me, a detraction from the key stuff. If I was patronising, I'm sorry. I was offended and upset.
But I love what you said about your own faith. I would encourage you to explore it. Life's too short to be tentative. You might offend people on the way but we're all adults and we all need to take it in the spirit it's intended and be prepared to battle it out and shake hands at the end.

So here's my hand... Will you offer yours?

LRD - what is your religion? It's not clear from what you say. Sorry for asking. I haven't offended any holy book - not mentioned any other than the Bible and then it was to defend it.

Thru, my question about the not having time issue would be this: according to christians themselves the ministry of Jesus lasted but a few years. Very little if anything is written about the years between his early childhood (covered in the bible) and the beginning of his public life as a preacher.

Surely if there was a Jesus he must have been doing something all those years? He must have done things, interacted with people, had relationships with others. At the very best you could claim that these were all of a non- sexual nature - but we all know that relationships need not be less close simply because they lack a sexual component. I personally would argue that being fully human includes the experience of human sexuality in some sense; maybe not in the sense of romantic love, which I understand is a concept that only really caught on in later periods.

My point, though, is this: I suppose we may safely assume that Jesus would have formed close relationships over the course of his life, sexual or not (I hope nobody is going to claim that their deity is anti social?). You could hence either argue that he maintained these throughout his life or that he dumped those close to him at the beginning of his ministry. The latter option doesn't make him sound particularly pleasant, certainly not in a way befitting an all loving god. The former, which IMO is supported by descriptions of Jesus' relationships, would mean that, yes, he would have had time to spend with people he loved - which could just as well include sexual aspects as it could discussions about current affairs.

As an atheist, I don't feel particularly affected by this. FWIW I'm not even certain whether there was ever one particular Jesus and if so how much of what is written about him is in fact historically accurate. However, I do think it's a really wonky argument you're trying to make there and that an appeal to authority won't really improve it at all.

Thanks.

I do explore my faith. I study it every day. What I realize is that the more I study, the more I'm stunned by how much people have written and thought about it all. And you don't have to be a believer to be fascinated by it all. I think the millions of writers and artists and workers who've been motivated by religion deserve to be studied with deep respect, even by people who don't believe. I feel very strongly that it's only honest to recognize how little we know. And if we have faith, we maybe see things differently, but IMO we should still be awed at the human scale of response to God, as well as by God itself. That's why I mind so much about the knowledge thing - it's like looking back at the past and saying 'ah, but I know everything you knew'. We don't, and we can't.

Anyway, I don't know if that makes sense but that's how I feel.

I can see you were upset and offended and I know what that feels like, even if I don't share the cause, so I hope you are ok.

It's good of you to make peace and I'm grateful. If your DH does have insights I'd be interested and I'm sure everyone else would too.

Cross-posted, sorry, just seen your last thru.

I did say earlier in the thread - I'm C of E.

The reference to the Bible I may have already explained, but I was offended by the claim of deep knowledge of the Bible - I think 'we see through a glass, darkly' is the phrase that comes to mind. I'm not comfortable with the idea of something knowing the depths of the Bible. I accept though that it sounds like you used the phrase quite casually and I read too much into it.

Notadude - love your ideas. But, we have to work with what we have. the rest is supposition. Yes he probably had friendships but the mainstream thinking on this is that they were not sexual. The jews punished people for having sexal relations outside marriage with either sex. It was considered against God's laws. In the Bible we are repeatedly told Jesus was "without sin". Therefore, had he had ANY relationships sexually as an unmarried man he'd have been considered to be sinning. For him to have this reputation as sinless, he can't have had any sexual relationships, unless they were furtive and secret, which would have made him a liar and hypocrite. There needs to be a consideration of Jewish society at the time when we think of this. It's not like today where anything goes. It was very rigid. This is why I believe it's unlikely that Jesus has any type of sexual relations. It would have been uncovered and his ministry exposed as a lie. These were the days where they stoned people to death for "fornicating" and "adulterating".

notadude - Jesus does say a bit about what he expected of his disciples by way of treatment of old friends and family. He tells them they will from now on be each other's family, and he himself says that he will have even less of a home than wild animals, be even more apart from society.

I think the idea is that he had to leave his community in order to reach out, but he was sad - desolate even - about it. It is seen as a mirror of the casting out of Adam and Eve from Eden by some, and therefore possibly as much about showing him symbolically taking on human suffering, as a kind of psychologically-realistic lifestyle choice.

I think, though, that if his childhood friends were settling down with families, it would have been a natural time to leave that community, too.

thru - but Jesus did many things that were considered sinful. Touching the dead?!

LRD - I'm so sorry I was so rude. I came out fighting a bit cos I was upset by the thread. I never meant to offend. I was trying to convey how my DH has studied his whole life and been in ministry etc to give weight to what I was trying to argue. I didn't think too much how I used it. Sorry again and thanks for being cool about it.

LRD - true he did. Also hanging with "undesirables". It's sooooooo late now. Will talk tomorrow more. Dying of fatigue here. Night all.

I was rude too. I'm really sorry. It was snide to comment like that.

Honestly, get me on a normal day (and maybe not the middle of the night ... are you struggling to sleep or are you not in the UK?), and I promise, I am fascinated by anyone who knows anything about theology.

I should admit at this point that before I married DH, I used to try to talk to other people of his religion (he's Russian Orthodox), and they constantly told me I had to go study more before I could ask any question - I'm afraid I was reminded of that and reacted badly! I wish I knew more about the early Church. My DH is hoping to do an MA at some point on Byzantine history, but sadly he's not so keen on church stuff as I am.

Good night.

LRD, I'm familiar with these parts you're quoting (I think; I'm assuming that you're referring to the bit where Jesus tells his followers to leave their families and communities. There's also the bit in Luke where he's supposed to have said that whoever follows him must hate their family; I've personally always thought that was a pretty crass choice of vocabulary.)

I have actually always understood that to be comparable to the bit in the Quran where the new muslims are told not to choose non-believers as their friends, i.e. as an act of self-imposed differentiation among a new group of believers still building up its internal cohesion, an identity thing.

From that POV I'm not convinced that these verses would necessarily include total separation from all loved ones. Needless to say, though, I'm not an expert on biblical or quranic exegesis (though I've studied both texts).

I don't know the Luke quotation - hate seems a pretty strong word, yes. If you find it can you let me know where it is?

It could be like the bit in the Quran. I'd never thought of that interpretation but it is very practical in terms of new religions getting an identity.

But then, wasn't the whole point seeking out non-believers and making them into disciples? The way I understand it, what's sad is that Christ and his disciples leave their communities (and yes, I'm sure you're right that doesn't mean all their loved ones - Mary followed Christ, obviously), because they know they've already done that bit of work.

I am mainly trying to find explanations that avoid the 'Jesus - not a very nice man' theory.

Sorry ... mixed up, you know that bit - can you tell me the reference?

And the other bit, yes, I was referring to 'the foxes have holes, and the birds of their have their nests, but the Son of Man hath not where to lay his head'. FWIW, in medieval England this verse is the basis for a short poem which seems to suggest Christ as a lover.

It's Luke 14:26 I think.

I'm not sure whether self-separation necessarily means not being able to reach out, actually. Certainly a proselytising religion would have to do so by definition. IMO that doesn't necessarily mean breaking ties with everyone completely; in my mind it's more of a re-definition of your group identity, i.e. primary identification with a community of believers rather than with a peer group, kinship group or whatever may have been before. Or that's how I have always looked at it, anyway.

Yes, that makes sense.

Thanks for the Luke ref - it is pretty harsh, isn't it?!

AnotherMincepie "hackmum I don't understand your points either"

OK, I'll try again. You said, as if definitively, that the Gospels were written about 30-60 years after the occurrence of the events I described. I said that was contentious and that some historians said it was much later. You seemed to take umbrage at that remark and said that many historians didn't dispute the dates. I said that many historians did. I'm not quite sure where the difficulty is.