Meet the Other Phone. Protection built in.

Meet the Other Phone.
Protection built in.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

In thinking that Jesus may possibly have been Gay?

340 replies

nativitywreck · 17/12/2011 15:20

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..

OP posts:
worldgonecrazy · 19/12/2011 11:40

Everything you ever wanted to know about camels and rope here

I don't think it matters if Jesus was or wasn't gay. As a biblical scholar and Jewish holy man - a priest of Melchisideck - Jesus would have been required to study the Kaballah (and I don't mean the Madonna version). If he was unmarried then it would certainly have been of note. However, being married/unmarried has absolutely nothing to do with someone being homosexual, after all there are plenty of homosexuals and bisexuals who are in marriages, happy or otherwise.

My own personal belief is that, if Jesus did exist, then he was married to Mary Magdalene. This in no way lessens his alleged Divinity. If it does then it is saying that marriage/sex are somehow dirty and impure. This belief that sex is impure does not make sense to me - after all why would a God who believed sex to be impure make it the only way that the human race could reproduce and have the blessings of children?

AnAirOfHope · 19/12/2011 12:01

I think its ok to question religion and Jesus is there to be questioned - its not the first time or the last is it!

I fine the thread intreasting. Was he married, did he have children, brothers and sisters, was he related to David?

I would love to find the answers.

PigletJohn · 19/12/2011 12:08

I've also heard the view, from a Jewish scholar, that from reading the gospels it's obvious that Jesus was married. He was a Jewish Rabbi, and they're almost always married. How can you advise people on how to live their lives, and their families, if you haven't experienced it? To be unmarried would have been so exceptional and surprising that it would have been mentioned and explained.

MillyR · 19/12/2011 12:37

I was brought up to believe that Jesus was gay.

I was taught that it naturally followed on from him being fully human and fully God at the same time, and that John was his beloved disciple, they loved each other the most, he lay against Jesus' breast at a key moment in the gospel.

I don't think that the fact Jesus experienced transcendent love was a reason not to experience other forms of love. There was no reason for him to weep when Lazarus died if he did not experience the love of friendship (not suggesting a gay element here), and the love of friendship is different to transcendent love.

Homosexuality (in its modern usage) is understood as romantic and/or sexual love for a a person of the same gender. Although I understand that there are different greek words for different kinds of love, I think that John as beloved can still be translated as romantic and a very close bond.

Some Christians believe he was gay and some don't. I don't think it is flippant to ask about that. It is an important part of some people's beliefs (although I am no longer a Christian myself) because it presents to some people a blending of masculine and feminine qualities, which they believe is closer to the nature of God.

redrubyshoes · 19/12/2011 12:51

The Bible was written many years after the events took place. Liken it to the BBC giving a 'live' account from the Battle of Agincourt.

It has been written and rewritten and retold from one side only.

LRDtheFeministDragon · 19/12/2011 13:01

worldgone 'This in no way lessens his alleged Divinity. If it does then it is saying that marriage/sex are somehow dirty and impure.'

I don't think that follows. There's a theological view I've come across, which I like very much, that says that sex is a glimspe of divine love, as are all kinds of loving relationship. The Song of songs is supposedly ane xample of this. I don't think therefore that you have to conclude that sex is impure, to believe Christ didn't have sex. But I think that it would just have seemed very limited compared to divine love.

I like Milly's argument that Christ did not only experience transcendent love, though - I've not thought of that one in the context of sex before.

AnotherMincepie · 19/12/2011 13:02

Not so much Agincourt, more similar to the BBC relating events from WW2, since parts of the Bible were written 30-60 years after events. It has been re-written in language we can understand, but the original texts are still there to relate back to. And of course any Christian scholars of the Bible want to know accurately what it said, not to mention believing it would be sinful to change it and make it incorrect.

LRDtheFeministDragon · 19/12/2011 13:15

Not 'any' Christian scholars, mincepie. Only scholars who are Biblical literalists.

slug · 19/12/2011 14:53

Mark 6:3 and Matthew 13:55-56 He had some brothers apparantly

TheLordJesusChrist · 19/12/2011 15:09

I'm not gay and I wasn't married either. The love I have is for mankind and has nothing to do with sex Smile

hackmum · 19/12/2011 15:19

AnotherMincepie: "since parts of the Bible were written 30-60 years after events"

Or more probably 80-100 years after events.

We read the gospels in English, translated from the Greek. Jesus, if he existed, spoke Aramaic. Combine the fact that the gospels were written many years after Jesus and his contemporaries had died with the fact that we're reading a translation of a translation, then you have to wonder how much anything in the gospels resembles historical fact.

seeker · 19/12/2011 15:21

Which bits of the Bible were only written 30 years after the events?

AnotherMincepie · 19/12/2011 15:28

LRD why would wanting to translate the Bible accurately make anyone a "Biblical literalist"? That's to do with interpreting the writings, not the scholarship of keeping accurate recordings and translations of them Confused

TheRuderBarracuda · 19/12/2011 15:30

Thanks for clearing that up JC. One quick question before you go: Where the frick have you been for the past 2,011 years huh? We could have done with a lot more divine intervention down here what with all the wars and genocides and stuff. Free will hasn't worked out so well. Perhaps a bit of benign dictatorship is in order? A more hands on approach? Just sayin' like.

hackmum I've always understood the earliest possible date for Mark (it was Mark they thought the earliest wasn't it and John as the latest?) was about 80 - 100 years too.

TheRuderBarracuda · 19/12/2011 15:32

AMP Only a Christian literalist would believe it would be sinful to change (or rather interpret) the Bible in any way e.g. slavish observance of the letter of the law as opposed to the spirit of the law. Something which Jesus himself fought against with the Pharisees.

AnotherMincepie · 19/12/2011 15:33

There's a calendar here of when the various books of the Bible were written. The New Testament was written between 60s A.D. and 90s A.D.

Jesus lived to the age of 33, so 60 A.D. would be approx 27 years after his death, and 100 A.D. would be approx 67 years after his death.

TheLordJesusChrist · 19/12/2011 15:33

Smile I'm always here. Benign dictatorship would be too easy Wink

AnotherMincepie · 19/12/2011 15:36

Just to clarify, I was referring to scholars translating the Bible, not about those who interpret what it means. I'm not a Biblical literalist myself FWIW, but if I was given the job of deciphering the original Biblical texts I'd do my best to ensure I was translating the writers' meaning accurately. Anyone wanting to find out what God was saying through the Bible is going to want to know as accurately as possible what was written, so they can then go on to interpret it in good faith.

hackmum · 19/12/2011 15:39

AnotherMincepie: the link you give is to the Christian Apologetics and Research Ministry site, so not an entirely impartial source. Christians have a vested interest in believing the gospels were written soon after Jesus's death. Historians try to be more objective about it.

LRDtheFeministDragon · 19/12/2011 15:42

mincepie - I didn't say it would? Confused

I was picking up on your claim that Christian scholars would believe it 'sinful' to change the Bible. Hundreds and thousands of Christian scholars have worked to change the Bible - because they didn't believe the version they had was literally the complete and correct Word of God.

I'm no scholar, but I am Christian and it doesn't bother me or my Christian DH at all that we have different views of what books the Bible contains - I don't think his church are 'sinful' because they accept different books, and he doesn't think mine are. Sin doesn't come into it IMO.

Aside from that plenty of Christian scholars I have read have accepted that there are many different ways of interpreting the Bible, some literal and some not, many of which interpretations contradict each other.

TheRuderBarracuda · 19/12/2011 15:47

JC We're just like one giant game of Sims to you aren't we? Grin

hester · 19/12/2011 16:00

I don't think there's anything offensive per se about discussing what Jesus' life may have been like, including his intimate relationships. I think that would be a very interesting discussion, done intelligently and sensitively.

I do think it's a futile exercise to try to fit what we know of Jesus' life into our modern constructs of 'gay' and 'straight'. Even if he was married, even if he sexual activity with men, it's still a stretch to ascribe a sexual identity to him.

If you believe that Jesus was the son of god, then of course pointing to his love for certain men is kind of beside the point, because he loved all men and women.

And if you are gay, as I am, then you probably get a bit tired of homosexuality being used as a cheap laugh, or a way of poking the finger at somebody, then when you object being told, "But there's nothing wrong with being gay!". No, there isn't, and it isn't intrinsically comic either.

So I don't find the OP highly offensive, but I do think she missed an opportunity to start a really interesting conversation.

TheLordJesusChrist · 19/12/2011 16:00

Grin TheRuderBarracuda

Actually I am Sad that you should say that. You are my hands, my mouth, my love and it is up to all of you to care for and help each other Smile It would be all too easy for it to be just one big game of Sims. That's not what My Father intended. You are responsible for yourselves and the choices that you make. I have shown you the way and it's up to you whether or not you choose to follow it.

Abitwobblynow · 19/12/2011 16:03

Hmmmmm.... firstly, you cannot read the gospels as, er, gospel. Thomas Acquinas, especially, got his knickers in a knot over the virgin birth. Actually, Mary was more likely to have either had consensual relations or been raped by a Roman soldier. The true hero of the nativity story is Joseph. He saved Mary from certain stoning for adultery.

Think on this: Jesus was a Jew, a rabbi. It was most unlikely for rabbis of that age NOT to be married.

There is speculation that his first miracle (turning water into wine) was AT HIS OWN WEDDING.
Also, that Mary Magdalene was his wife, not a prostitute, and that she (and her power) got written out of the gospels at a later date.

The Nicene Creed is a political document, agreed at the Council of Nicea.

By the way, I am a history graduate, not a religious nut. When we got to the part of our syllabus which covered religion I thought, yawn, prepare to be bored. It was the most fascinating part. Religion, control over religion = money and POWER.
PS even then and this was before all the right-on hoo haa, Mohammed came over as a disgusting deeply unholy human being. When he preached, he converted about 100 people, mostly women and slaves. Then he made it a political movement (dar-al-Islam, dar-al-Harb) waging war and killing people who didn't agree with him, then claiming he was doing God's work, is when that monotheism spread. Let's see if this gets censored. It is fine to write dispassionately on, eg, the Nicene Creed and Mary, but not on the other faith. Dispassionate reporting of facts not allowed!

SirCliffRichardSucksEggsInHell · 19/12/2011 16:17

St Paul wrote his accounts around 30 years after Jesus' death and he was also in contact with many of the original apostles including Peter, although Paul never actually met Jesus himself.

Peter also wrote some accounts of his time with Jesus but these did not form part of the Bible as they largely consisted of letters much the same as Paul's.

The NT is written in Greek and many attempts have been made to translate it as close as possible to the original Koine Greek, which has led to it being revised as scholars discover more about this language. Hence the trouble with certain meanings and words.

John's Bible is thought to have actually been written by John himself and this is the most detailed of the 4 gospels when it comes to Christ's life. However there are scholars who also debate whether he did write it or not - so that's still out with the jury I suppose. The reason it is thought that John wrote it is because it is written in the first person. Stephen Harris in 'Understanding the Bible' dates this gospel to around 80 years after Jesus' death.

This source on the meaning of the word eunuch in the Bible is interesting as there does appear to be some confusion over what Jesus meant when he said the quote in Matthew 19:12 which is why many scholars argue that he meant homosexual men.