A New Discovery Questions Jesus Christ's Sexuality...

[swerve]

A link to a media report on the discovery:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencet...Jordan-cave-change-view-Biblical-history.html

Thanks for the link!!!

I found that to be a VERY interesting article...

Although -- having now seen one or the images -- I'm not sure how ANY two people are going to be able to agree on a meaning...

It was ALSO interesting to hear that a SEALED book WOULD be found prior to his 2nd coming...

 

[figjam]

In the KING JAMES version of the Bible -- Mark 14:51 discusses finding Jesus PRIOR to his crucifixion...



MODERN DAY religions explain this away very easily...

But RECENTLY -- NEW Codices (ancient manuscripts in book form) were discovered in Jordan that talk about the crucifixion and the first couple of decades FOLLOWING the crucifixion...



I ALSO found THIS interesting from the article...



Source: http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/belief/2011/apr/04/jesus-gay-man-codices

The IMPLICATIONS of this find would be WAY TOO TRAUMATIC for MODERN DAY CHRISTIANITY -- So, I believe, as the article infers, NOTHING will come of it...

I grew up in a very Christian (REAL christians) family and being an INQUISITIVE kid by nature -- always WONDERED why he didn't have a boyfriend or girlfriend -- my mothers EASY response was the he, being PART of the FATHER, didn't NEED any EARTHLY love -- or something SIMILAR to that -- I kind of forget...

What are YOUR thoughts???

Quote: "MODERN DAY religions explain this away very easily" As do you.... You seem to have made up your mind. What are you asking this for?

 

[swerve]

Quote: "MODERN DAY religions explain this away very easily" As do you.... You seem to have made up your mind. What are you asking this for?

I haven't explained anything...

I haven't stated an opinion one way or the other...

And what I was asking -- was for other people to contribute THEIR thoughts...

It's called a DISCUSSION...

 

[opinterph]

Moderator Notice

This thread has been moved from the Hot Topics forum to Religion, Spirituality & Philosophy. Please keep in mind that this is a no flame zone.

 

[Kulindahr]

What an intriguing concept...

Unlike modern religion -- I've always thought of human sexuality as a POSITIVE attribute...

This would put the often chastised "bi-sexual's" into a much more enlightened class...

Actually there's a fairly deep theological argument that Jesus had to be bi.

I haven't explained anything...

I haven't stated an opinion one way or the other...

And what I was asking -- was for other people to contribute THEIR thoughts...

It's called a DISCUSSION...

Dis cussion, dat cussion; do it together for a concussion.

 

[FirmaFan]

It is as significant a finding to discover that Jesus was gay as it was to discover Dumbledore was gay.

 

[kallipolis]

It is as significant a finding to discover that Jesus was gay as it was to discover Dumbledore was gay.

Significance is hardly the issue when we do not know whether Jesus was gay, or for that matter whether a character from the Harry Potter book series should be considered significant for anything.

 

[FirmaFan]

Significance is hardly the issue when we do not know whether Jesus was gay, or for that matter whether a character from the Harry Potter book series should be considered significant for anything.

Until such time that evidence can be provided to support the historical existence of either figure, both are just as significant as any other fictitious character.

 

[jwa007]

What would Jesus' sexuality matter? I know Paul endlessly condemned anything and everything that moved in his lifetime, but who cares what Paul says?

Jesus laid down some very righteous teachings and ideas about how to live life and what we should strive for.

Stripped of all the hocus-pocus, which I'm fairly certain did not occur, the gospels have some good messages in them. I don't think it matters one whit if Jesus was all about the cock or not. The teachings are what is important here, above the crucifixion/resurrection or virgin birth or miracles or anything else.

Since, in all the teachings, Jesus never said "Thou shalt not put that rod in thy staff" then if you want to imagine he was slipping the hot beef injection up Peter's poop chute or laying some pipe in that fine twinkish Mark, go for it dude, enjoy.

 

[Kulindahr]

What would Jesus' sexuality matter? I know Paul endlessly condemned anything and everything that moved in his lifetime, but who cares what Paul says?

You are aware that Paul was a total women's libber, right?

 

[jwa007]

You are aware that Paul was a total women's libber, right?

Not really, I always saw him as a bit of a misogynistic little porker. But who knows, I'm not always right. I realize he saw some women as equal in the ministry of Christ.
But it matters little to me. I'm more interested in what this teacher Jesus had to say than I am in the post-hallucination rantings of a 'shroom afficianado.

 

[hotatlboi]

You are aware that Paul was a total women's libber, right?

Yeah that's why he forbid them from speaking in church or going out without a veil.

 

[kallipolis]

Yeah that's why he forbid them from speaking in church or going out without a veil.

In the first century a Jewish woman was obliged to keep her head covered, as a sign of her self respect, in accordance with Jewish tradition. Any Jewish woman not wearing a head covering was immediately identified as a prostitute.

Woman were obliged to remain silent in the synagogue, again in accordance with Jewish tradition. Paul of Tarsus was simply reaffirming those traditions that most Jews respected, and observed.

The Palestine of the first century was a patriarchal society where the male ruled the roost. Women were respected for their roles as wife, mother and house keeper.

Retrospective views of Jewish society of some two thousand years ago, that attempt to project the freedoms accorded women today, into the distant past are irrelevant and serve no useful purpose.

We should recall that in the United States women were not granted the right to vote until well into the twentieth century.

In the workplace women in America and other Western countries are still paid well below the salary paid to a man.

Woman's rights is work in progress, even in the United States.

Or, even this:

There is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus

~Paul of Tarsus, Letter to The Galatians 3:28

 

[kallipolis]

Not really, I always saw him as a bit of a misogynistic little porker. But who knows, I'm not always right. I realize he saw some women as equal in the ministry of Christ.
But it matters little to me. I'm more interested in what this teacher Jesus had to say than I am in the post-hallucination rantings of a 'shroom afficianado.

Jesus of Nazareth was as counter-cultural as one could become, for a Jew of the first century and made his beliefs very clear in the case of The Fallen Woman, accused of adultery whom he saved from being stoned to death.

The Samaritan Woman, at the well is another story that easily identifies Jesus as revolutionary, in speaking alone with a Samaritan woman whom most Jews despised as renegades.

Martha, and Mary were close friends of Jesus (see John 11), and he went out of his way to reciprocate their friendship, as a brother would do.

It is significant that Jesus entrusts a woman - Mary Magdalene - with the most crucial message of his mission—the message of his triumph over death. While Simon Peter and John are at the tomb per John 20, Jesus does not appear to them. Rather, Jesus chooses to appoint a woman as his witness despite the fact that the testimony of a woman was of no account to those within Jewish culture.

 

[Telstra]

if Jesus was gay,
It would be funny how billions of people worship a gay boy.

 

[Adrock-JD]

If someone believes that Jesus was God taking human form then his sexuality was probably null and void.

On the other hand, no one really knows what happened 2000 years ago except from what may or may not have been recorded. They didn't have spell check when they kept copying and translating these ancient scrolls. They were also most likely heavily biased by the churches they worked for at the time.

Embelishment and flat out changes cannot be ruled out. Along with probably many deletions of tons of text and oral stories passed down that just didn't suit the powers that be of those days.


I don't think anything can be proved or disproved at this point.

Jesus is an icon. James Dean is an icon. Both have been suspected of being gay or bisexual. Both have been turned into legends after their deaths.

Millennia from now, future civilizations may assume that Mt. Rushmore was a holy place with heads of gods carved in granite. They would be wrong, but we won't be around to correct them.

 

[Kulindahr]

Not really, I always saw him as a bit of a misogynistic little porker. But who knows, I'm not always right. I realize he saw some women as equal in the ministry of Christ.
But it matters little to me. I'm more interested in what this teacher Jesus had to say than I am in the post-hallucination rantings of a 'shroom afficianado.

Um, I'm talking about the Paul of the New Testament -- who are you talking about???

 

[Kulindahr]

Yeah that's why he forbid them from speaking in church or going out without a veil.

The first, it isn't certain that he did, but if so, he was continuing tradition; the second -- are you aware of the impact that had in the place to which he wrote that letter? A veil in public marked a woman as noble or wealthy enough to socialize with them.

This is the guy who appointed women as elders, commended them as the best people in one church, apparently included a woman among the apostles, and approved of a man-woman team as the first 'theological seminary'.

 

[Kulindahr]

Jesus of Nazareth was as counter-cultural as one could become, for a Jew of the first century and made his beliefs very clear in the case of The Fallen Woman, accused of adultery whom he saved from being stoned to death.

The Samaritan Woman, at the well is another story that easily identifies Jesus as revolutionary, in speaking alone with a Samaritan woman whom most Jews despised as renegades.

Martha, and Mary were close friends of Jesus (see John 11), and he went out of his way to reciprocate their friendship, as a brother would do.

It is significant that Jesus entrusts a woman - Mary Magdalene - with the most crucial message of his mission—the message of his triumph over death. While Simon Peter and John are at the tomb per John 20, Jesus does not appear to them. Rather, Jesus chooses to appoint a woman as his witness despite the fact that the testimony of a woman was of no account to those within Jewish culture.

If it had been a man caught with another man, would Jesus' judgment have been any different?

I suspect they grabbed a woman because in their view He gave women unwarranted status and recognition -- it fits the pattern of various ways He was "tested".

But if they'd caught two men together, given the way they argued over things they probably would have still been arguing over which man to drag to Jesus when He came riding into the city in triumph.

 

[kallipolis]

1.
If it had been a man caught with another man, would Jesus' judgment have been any different?
2.
I suspect they grabbed a woman because in their view He gave women unwarranted status and recognition -- it fits the pattern of various ways He was "tested".
3.
But if they'd caught two men together, given the way they argued over things they probably would have still been arguing over which man to drag to Jesus when He came riding into the city in triumph.

1.
I believe that Jesus would have been consistent by applying the same principle; that of inviting the accusers, who believed that they were guiltless of sinful behaviour, to cast the first stone ........... Jesus understood that gender is not the crucial factor when human flaws are under the spotlight.

2.
There is no doubt that Jesus was being tested by the woman's accusers, when reminding the accusers that no one is above God's laws; especially those who believe that they were holier, than the accused woman as a result of their masculine gender.

3.
I rather suspect that had the accusers discovered two men engaged in sexual relations they would have turned a blind eye, and chosen to forget the incident.