Was Jesus Christ a homosexual?

Post Reply New Topic

Reading the Bible recently, I noticed that Jesus wife wasn't mentioned. I looked it up, and apparently it is a belief of Christians that he wasn't. According to the bible, he had close relationships with many prostitutes, yet I cannot find a christian who thinks it likely that he had sex with them. What explains this? Was Jesus homosexual? If so, I think it would be redemptive gesture for christianity if christian authorities would be honest and up front about this. This could also make it easier for the high proportion of preachers who are LGBT to come out of the closet and be less bigoted towards other LGBT's.

Back then they didn't have the concept of sexuality as we have today. They had words to describe the acts, but not the sexuality. Maybe Jesus was asexual, or maybe he found his mission/priesthood more important than marriage? There are celibate priests today as well.

A Mythological character; not supported to have existed in any other Historical document other than the Bible, yes. Homosexual? Unlikely.

only 2 options in the poll?
i'd say (assuming he existed in the first place), all of them, except the first two.

actually, in canonical holy scripture, there are several mentiones of jesus' wives (yup, plural); but those books were kept out of the bible, for several reasons.

point being: jesus was married, had several wives as well as a collection of concubines and casual encounters.
some sources even mention maria as being one of his wifes (yeah, he married his mother; isn't cristianity great?)

It is well known that Jesus and John were lovers.

If Jesus had any romantic or sexual liaisons, the Patriarchy most likely edited those parts out to maintain their subjugation of women.

As far as "John the Beloved" is concerned, it is only John who refers to himself that way. None of the other writers seems to have acknowledged this claim.

John comes across only as a self-absorbed fanboy with a vivid imagination.

Or it could have been the fact that he was celibate?

Just because someone is celibate does not make them gay. This seems like a homophobic thing to think in all honesty.

From A historical and cultural perspective, it is next to impossible that if Jesus was not married, as a 33 year old man, at least at some point in his life that anyone would take him serious in a STRONGLY patriarchal society AT that time in human history.

Ha! Ha! If one thinks it's hard for SOME folks to be gay now IN PUBLIC OR PRIVATE PRACTICE, then, IN EARLY JEWISH DAYS, it was a POTENTIAL death sentence, as it still is now, in some areas of the world.

IT IS THE 'LITTLE FACTS' ABOUT HUMAN HISTORY and culture LIKE THIS THAT LITERALLY MAKE IT IMPOSSIBLE TO LITERALLY BELIEVE ANYTHING IN THE BIBLE AS HARD COLD FACTS.

However, human beings, as socially cooperative social animals, as A REQUIREMENT TO GET THE JOB DONE FOR SURVIVAL, PER MOTHER NATURE TRUE aka god too, not substantially different than a dog or wolf 'in to the woods' (current Disney Movie reference, along these lines too), MUST SHARE INFO and subsistence stuff for the greater good of the species or potentially die.

So yeah, the bible is only A big human social cooperative effort to try to make the social group work as is then for survival, and while not perfect, it worked good enough THEN whenever then was to get some of 'us', at least in part, where we are now.

But to not understand that GOD AKA MOTHER NATURE TRUE IS in a constant state of flux for change, is to potentially not understand that suggesting that NO WORD CAN BE ADDED TO THE ONLY WORD OF GOD; Muhammad is the last prophet of GOD; or Jesus is the only son of GOD is truly 'ret*d' and GOD PER MOTHER NATURE TRUE AS IS, IS all about change, not 'ret*d' stuff, OVERALL, PER WHAT IS NOW.

AND YEAH, GOD IS all about biodiversity too, which too, is the essence of change too, and homosexuals are ALL about that CHANGE too.

And anyone who suggests they (homosexuals) are not a natural part of GOD'S NATURAL diversity, whether or not if the man Jesus truly existed, and was living in the 'closet' married to a 'nice' Jewish lady, or WAS A widower or whatever, IS NOT TO KNOW GOD @ALL.

ALL In JUST my opinion of course. :)

My first response was absolutely NO but then I thought, who knows? What we have about Christ wasn't even written by the man himself so who knows? Great mystery.

Let's supposed there's an ounce of truth to the Gospels and Jesus did exist. Based on what they tell us, he was an outsider from a very pious family in the boondocks, as in, far from the glittery temple in Jerusalem, so he approached matters with quite a provincial mindset.

If this was the case, he was married and most likely had children.

He surrounded himself with fishermen these were roughly the ancient equivalent of tough, backward rough necks or sailors, who could have frequented prostitutes. He might have spent a lot of time trying to keep such folk inline and saw that his priestly duties were to help this class of people stay true to the law, as in, no adultery, and since many of them struggled with poverty and disease, we see a focus on these topics in the Gospels.

The Gospels pretty much tell the tale of someone who grew up in the country with country values challenging those who grew up in the cities, a classic theme in Biblical literature.

If this is indeed true, Jesus would have been what we call homophobic, and he would have tried to get others to turn from all adulterous behavior.

ANA once again you post your thought bubbles without bothering to research. Jesus was essentially a apocalyptic preacher who encouraged everyone to give up their home lives and leave family friends and loved ones to prepare for the imminent apocalypse. So essentially for the time period where we have evidence of his life 30 to 33 he was bound up in getting ready for the end and had little time for anything else, commanding others to do like wise. So this more than explains any of the characteristics you have alluded to

Any and all claims that Christ had been married is looked upon by legitimate Biblical scholars as suspect at best.People who endorse either a married or gay Jesus have some sort of agenda they are pushing.

There is so little written about Jesus' life except for the first two years and last two or three years of his life. Outside canonical writing, there are gnostic gospels about Him that are interesting, but got left out of the Bible. So, the question remains about why he was unmarried when being so was against Jewish laws for a rabbi and most other Jewish men. The Secret Gospel of Mark https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secret_Gospel_of_Mark is considered by some to suggest a certain homosexuality of Jesus and John. But, the Gospel of Philip suggests a less-than-secretive relationship between Jesus and Mary Magdalene. Is it possible that Jesus was simply as asexual (or bisexual) as some people are today? It appears in these gnostic writings that the Apostles themselves were just as curious about Jesus' intimate life as we are now. My guess, if I had to choose, would be the idea of Jesus and Mary being intimate if not married. If they were married, it would have been undertsandable to avoid mentioning His wife and any possible children in the same way that celebrities today say little about their family details. In the case, He knew his ultimate demise and would have wanted to protect his family (as he did with his Apostles) from any guilt by association.

From what we read in the Gospels, that doesn't seem to be the case. Jesus did not write the Revelation. He preached in the way a rabbi from the sticks would. He gathered people around, most likely had one of his disciples read the Mosaic Law out loud and he warned people not to sin. He was from the provinces and the culture there revolved around kindness and hospitality so he demanded people be kind and generous to the unfortunate or sick and promised rewards in the afterlife to anyone suffering a wretched existence so they might feel comfort. Typical small town Jewish culture at the time. They didn't trust the big city synagogues and frowned upon what they considered to be liberal policies. The priests in the cities were allowing divorce and remarriage and these country rabbis despised that.

Some of his followers were from Capernaum, a fishing town, so he tried to get people to eat a lot of fish in order to help them eek out a better living as fishermen and there was a fish centered culture thinking it was healthy, sea air was healthier than that in the city. Think of The Mediterranean diet and the health benefits of living near this sea. Same kind of thinking with this early sect. They chose the Fish as their symbol because it represented a healthy lifestyle and healers were thought to embody God at the time and were thus, seen in the eyes of the populous, as being in direct connection with God.

It was very common for country Jews to be married back then, too, even the Holy rabbis, so it is very unlikely Jesus was unmarried if he did, in fact, exist in somewhat the way he is depicted in the Gospels.

Isn't it enough to appreciate the teachings of Jesus without also having to imagine romantic entanglements behind them?

There may well have been such terms. But even if you could identify the two thousand year old Latin, Greek or Aramaic terms they may well simply not "map" well into modern terms.
In the same way that all the fuss about Mary being a "virgin" makes little sense when you consider that the Roman definition is "young woman". (Rather than "sexual novice".)

Jewish marriages were not really considered to be romantic at the time. Keep in mind, romance is a Latin concept, it comes from the word Roman. Jewish culture was different. Marriage was a way to fulfill the Mosiac Law but you could not divorce and remarry because adultery went against the law. So, Jesus would have been dead set against any adulterer and most likely a married man.

Homosexuality was seen as idol worshiping or adultery by Jews, each against the Law, so they preached against both of these.