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

[ronboy]

Just a reminder to all in this thread.....

This is a NO FLAMES zone. Please do not make personal comments about other Jubbers in this forum.

If you notice someone being abusive, please report it to a moderator.

Thank you.

 

[mbamike]

There are a number of theories about Jesus' sexuality. Just google "was Jesus gay" and you will get lots of opinions.

The most intriguing to me is the DNA argument. The author states that since Jesus did not have an earthly father, he did not have any "Y" chromosomes. Therefore, he should have been born a female. However, we know he had a penis because he was circumcised according to the Jewish custom.

Then the author goes on to use several passages to demonstrate that Jesus showed feminine attributes. He suggests that Jesus was an intrasexual.

Originally Posted by kallipolis: 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.

I agree. The adultery laws applied only to married women. They were to protect the husband's "property rights" since women were considered property at that time. Men could fool around as long as it was not with a married woman or someone equal in social status.

So, if two men were seen having sex, the accusers would have just looked the other way.

 

[hotatlboi]

In the first century a Jewish woman was obliged to keep her head covered

Exactly.

Which is why this is yet another example of the HUMAN authorship of the Bible.

It makes sense that HUMANS could not move past the prevailing misogyny common among other HUMANS of the period.

It would not make sense for a perfect, superior, all knowing deity to not be able to move past this backward human failing.

 

[kallipolis]

Exactly.

Which is why this is yet another example of the HUMAN authorship of the Bible.

It makes sense that HUMANS could not move past the prevailing misogyny common among other HUMANS of the period.

It would not make sense for a perfect, superior, all knowing deity to not be able to move past this backward human failing.

Free will ensures that homo sapiens can be ignoble, or noble.

We human beings are a flawed bunch.

It would appear that you have overlooked my contribution on the authorship of Holy Scripture. Let me assist you:

http://www.justusboys.com/forum/showthread.php?t=343930

 

[TX-Beau]

Your contribution on the authorship of Holy Scripture is bupkiss to someone who doesn't believe.

We certainly can dismiss the idea that god had anything whatsoever to do with your scripture unless you can give as a compelling reason not to - a reason that doesn't come solely out of YOUR faith.

 

[Kulindahr]

Exactly.

Which is why this is yet another example of the HUMAN authorship of the Bible.

It makes sense that HUMANS could not move past the prevailing misogyny common among other HUMANS of the period.

It would not make sense for a perfect, superior, all knowing deity to not be able to move past this backward human failing.

1. Except by your own statement, this being would then have no followers.

2. Except that Paul did move beyond it.

 

[lambdaboy]

I have no idea if there even was a Jesus but I will tell you one thing.

Any Jewish male back then not married at 33 would have been stoned to death.

 

[kallipolis]

I have no idea if there even was a Jesus but I will tell you one thing.

Any Jewish male back then not married at 33 would have been stoned to death.

Really? Would you care to offer us a credible citation to support your assertion.

In my many years of research into the history of the Jewish, and Christian scriptures I have never once encountered such a custom.

 

[hotatlboi]

1. Except by your own statement, this being would then have no followers.

You make that argument a lot and it's utter nonsense. There are many places in the Bible where god/Jesus articulates standards of conduct that he wants from his followers that may not be what they always do.

2. Except that Paul did move beyond it.

he may have been progressive on the issue for his time, but he clearly didn't view women as equals as those examples illustrate.

 

[Kulindahr]

You make that argument a lot and it's utter nonsense. There are many places in the Bible where god/Jesus articulates standards of conduct that he wants from his followers that may not be what they always do.

Just giving you your own reasoning.

he may have been progressive on the issue for his time, but he clearly didn't view women as equals as those examples illustrate.

Let's see -- he appointed women elders and he told all Christian women to dress as nobility. And this shows he didn't see women as equals... how?

Paul was more progressive on women's issues than nineteenth century America -- but that doesn't matter to you. You keep on demanding that God either nuke human brains, overriding free will, on having no followers at all by pushing on issues you yourself recognize no one would pay attention to.

 

[hotatlboi]

Paul was more progressive on women's issues than nineteenth century America -- but that doesn't matter to you.

That's right.

Because the Christian religion does not regard Paul's words as just a comparatively enlightened position from a MAN of his time. If that was all it was, I could possibly agree.

But no, it regards them as the inspired words from a perfect deity with perfect morality.

So it doesn't matter if he was better than 19th century America. The fact is that if I judge ANY position on women's rights (20th or 21st century or whenever) to be morally superior, then I am forced to conclude that a superior morality exists than that which was supposedly given to a man by a perfect being. This presents a contradiction, namely that said being cannot have had a perfect morality, cannot be perfect, and probably doesn't exist at all since the description given was clearly not accurate.

 

[Kulindahr]

That's right.

Because the Christian religion does not regard Paul's words as just a comparatively enlightened position from a MAN of his time. If that was all it was, I could possibly agree.

But no, it regards them as the inspired words from a perfect deity with perfect morality.

So it doesn't matter if he was better than 19th century America. The fact is that if I judge ANY position on women's rights (20th or 21st century or whenever) to be morally superior, then I am forced to conclude that a superior morality exists than that which was supposedly given to a man by a perfect being. This presents a contradiction, namely that said being cannot have had a perfect morality, cannot be perfect, and probably doesn't exist at all since the description given was clearly not accurate.

You really need to get off the binary kick and stop looking at the Bible the same way the fundamentalists do. The Bible itself contradicts that approach, so it's really ridiculous to do it. And merely the fact that there is a NEW Testament (Covenant) following an OLD one says that approach is wrong.

 

[Spensed]

Ah yes, but for St Paul and the Christian Church the emancipation of women could have taken centuries.

 

[hotatlboi]

You really need to get off the binary kick and stop looking at the Bible the same way the fundamentalists do.

Nearly all modern versions of Christianity regard Paul's words as inspired by God, not just fundamentalists.

 

[Kulindahr]

Nearly all modern versions of Christianity regard Paul's words as inspired by God, not just fundamentalists.

"Inspired" doesn't mean "dictated as the final word like they were a recipe book". In fact, Paul's own writings make that plain: it's about principles, not static details.

You're doing the latter, just like the fundamentalists.

 

[hotatlboi]

"Inspired" doesn't mean "dictated as the final word like they were a recipe book".

No but it means that the basic ideas and content came from the divine.

I have to reject that because of how demonstrably non-divine they are.

 

[Kulindahr]

No but it means that the basic ideas and content came from the divine.

I have to reject that because of how demonstrably non-divine they are.

So, telling first-century women that they are the equals of any other women and to act that way is "demonstrably non-divine"?

Fascinating.

 

[ZmercTheDuke]

Hehe, kind of find it funny, you dont see FACTS and religion in same sentence often. Who cares if jesus was gay or he wasn't. Even if he was, why does it matter, doesnt change anything. Didnt even think there was enough proof to even show whether or not he existed in the first place, let alone him being gay