The Original Gay Porn Community - Free Gay Movies and Photos, Gay Porn Site Reviews and Adult Gay Forums

  • Welcome To Just Us Boys - The World's Largest Gay Message Board Community

    In order to comply with recent US Supreme Court rulings regarding adult content, we will be making changes in the future to require that you log into your account to view adult content on the site.
    If you do not have an account, please register.
    REGISTER HERE - 100% FREE / We Will Never Sell Your Info

    To register, turn off your VPN; you can re-enable the VPN after registration. You must maintain an active email address on your account: disposable email addresses cannot be used to register.

Jesus the Homosexual: Evidence From the Gospels

mbamike

A Total Bottom
Joined
Nov 19, 2008
Posts
15,504
Reaction score
328
Points
63
I don't put much faith in mainstream religions. So, I do a great bit of reading on the Internet to learn more about other interpretations of the Holy Scriptures and the history behind them.

I found the article below during one of my reading excursions. It is controversial, but interesting also.

I am neither a theologian nor a linguist. I know there are guys on this site more educated in such subjects then I, so I would like your opinion on this article. Thank you for your input.


Jesus the Homosexual: Evidence From the Gospels
By Harry H. McCall at 6/04/2012

Jesus is created / redacted in each of the Gospel author’s mind to give credence to their own story of Jesus which – for them – would have trouble standing on its own merits. Thus in Matthew’s Gospel, Jesus is the New Moses and his life is set in a Roman Palestine context that mimics Israel in Egypt complete with the killing of the toddlers to Jesus even being taken down to Egypt by his family so – like Moses and the Israelites – Jesus comes out of Egypt.

In Mark the theme is the Messianic Secret where the author of this Gospel portrays Jesus was working signs and wonders, but then demanding neither his disciples nor anyone to tell what they have seen Jesus do (So, if no historian recorded any miracle Jesus did, it’s because Jesus himself made them swear not to tell anyone!).

In Luke, Jesus follows the template of Elijah and emulates many of the events of this famous prophet of the Hebrew Bible such as the well-known parallel being 2 Kings 1; 9-12 to Luke 9: 51 -56 (Fire from Heaven) and Luke 4: 16; 7: 11 – 17 to 2 Kings 1: 17 – 24 (The Healing the Widow’s Son).

The author of the Fourth Gospel (or generally known as John) is not only well versed in the allegorical meanings (much like the Jew Philo of Alexandria, Egypt), but more importantly this author uses Greek philosophy to legitimize Jesus’ life as divine. There are no earthly virgin birth accounts here (as in Matt. and Luke), but Jesus is the eternal divine logos or Word which - as with Greek philosophical Neo-Platonism - always has been.

Jesus in the Gospel of John is now far removed from the highly Jewish themes in the Synoptic Gospels as the Jesus of the Fourth Gospels never speaks in parables, but is well versed in Hellenistic Greek and Classical philosophy. The author of this Gospel has reinvented Jesus (apart from the Torah Jew of the Synoptic Tradition) to function much like a educated Classical Greek teacher complete with a school of students called μαθητὰς (disciples).

However, the Greek social culture redacted in this Gospel does not stop with just Greek philosophical terms, but as in Greek society, the author of the Fourth Gospel has the older Jesus take a younger lover or what was both well-known and common in Greek culture as Pederasty (the courting by an older male of a younger male entering puberty until his late teens). While Jesus enjoys a close relationship with his handpicked twelve apostles, the Fourth Gospel lets the reader know that Jesus has indeed chosen a young lover τὸν μαθητὴν ὃν ἠγάπα ὁ Ἰησοῦς (the disciple Jesus loved (ἠγάπα = Imperfect, indicative, Active, 3 singular) who is said to lie (ἀνέπεσεν) on top of Jesus’ body (κόλπῳ) at the Passover Supper.

[A note on English translations: To tone down the erotic nature, English translations tend to paraphrase John 13: 23: “the disciple, whom Jesus loved, was reclining next to him.” (New International Version); “The disciple Jesus loved was sitting next to Jesus at the table.” (New Living Translation); “One of his disciples, whom Jesus loved, was reclining at table close to Jesus,” (English Standard Version) and even the King James Version, “Now there was leaning on Jesus' bosom one of his disciples, whom Jesus loved.” But either these versions paraphrase the Greek with a totally new inoffensive non-erotic meaning or – like the King James Version - gives the impression this disciple was simply resting his head on the chest of a reclining Jesus.]

[Note on ἠγάπα (Agape Love): Though Christians claim that agape is used only as spiritual or divine love, this claim cannot be supported in the Bible or more in precisely the LXX (Septuagint). In the story of The Rape of Tamar by her brother Amnon in 2 Samuel 13, we are told in 13: 1 that “… καὶ ἠγάπησεν αὐτὴν αμνων υἱὸς δαυιδ.” "and Amnon the son of David loved (agaped) her". Here agape is used for the love of lust which would finally lead to rape. Thus, likewise, Jesus’ love for this one special disciple could just as well be one of sexual lust.]

[Note on κόλπῳ (torso): The English translation of just where the beloved disciple was lying on Jesus’ body is highly paraphrased from this disciple simply reclining next to Jesus to lying on Jesus’ breast. However, the Classical Greek Dictionaryof Liddell, Scott, and Jones (Oxford University Press, 1968) gives the first definition of κόλπος either as bosom or lap. The second definition places κόλπος in the genital area between the legs as in the vaginal area in women. In the LXX, it can be used for a position of sex intercourse as with Abraham and Hagar: "...ἐγὼ δέδωκα τὴν παιδίσκην μου εἰς τὸν κόλπον σου..." (I have given my maid into your bosom) (Genesis 16: 5).]

To emphasize the homo-social background of this event, two of the Synoptics even have Jesus giving orders to Peter and John to seek out a gay man: “And He said to them, “When you have entered the city, a man will meet you carrying a pitcher of water; follow him into the house that he enters. “And you shall say to the owner of the house, ‘The Teacher says to you, “Where is the guest room in which I may eat the Passover with My disciples?”’ “And he will show you a large, furnished upper room; prepare it there.” (Luke 22: 10 -12 = Mark 14: 13 – 15) In first century Palestine, only women carried water from a well (Genesis 24; 11; John 4: 7) and any man doing a woman’s job would be consider effeminate; thus making it easy for his disciples (John likely being gay himself) to locate him. The fact that Luke adds phase “τῷ οἰκοδεσπότῃ τῆς οἰκίας” (to the master of the house) gives the reader a second homo-social indication that this house is occupied by two men or gay lovers that Jesus likely had met on an earlier occasion in Jerusalem. Thus for the conservative Christian, the Passover Meal (Last Supper) was celebrated in a gay couple’s home where Jesus could be at sexual ease with his disciples and to express openly his affections for the special disciple he loved (ἠγάπα).

Of all the four Gospels, the Fourth Gospels is the only one to use the phrase “ὃν ἠγάπα” or “whom he loved” four times: John 13: 23, 19: 26, 21: 7 and 21:20 with only 20: 2 (now redacted) for the tomb of the dead Jesus to read “ὃν ἐφίλει or the Aorist of the Greek root for fellowship or brotherly love: φιλία.

Interestingly, the Gospel of John even goes as far to tell its Greek readers that Jesus’ own disciples were shocked to find Jesus alone talking to a woman: “…καὶ ἐθαύμασαν (astounded) ὅτι μετὰ γυναικὸς ἐλάλει•…” “…and they were astounded / shocked that He had been speaking with a woman…” (John 4: 27) (Notice the context that the disciples had no way of knowing if this woman was a Samaritan or not. They simply saw Jesus talking to a woman and were shocked!)

Finally, the following two verses in Mark add nothing to the Passion Narrative and are oddly out of place: “A young man was following Him, wearing nothing but a linen sheet over his naked body; and they seized him. But he pulled free of the linen sheet and escaped naked." (Mark 14: 51 – 52) However, if we consider the logical conclusion that of the twelve disciples Jesus took with him to the Garden and then the three disciples Jesus carried even further with him into the Garden (Peter, James and John), Jesus’ final hours were likely spent in both prayer and in the arms his lover, be it John or a thirteenth person (unnamed youth) wearing a loose fitting garment over his naked body covered with a "linen sheet" providing easy sexual access and comfort for a deeply troubled Jesus.

Harry McCall
 
People who want Jesus to be gay friendly are just as guilty usually as people who want Jesus to be gay condemnatory of projecting what they want to see on the scripture,

No one knows what Christ actually said, because he never wrote one little bit of scripture, and it's far more likely that ancient Jews were just as homophobic as advertised, than accepting and tolerant.

It doesn't matter anyway because we don't live two thousand years ago and the only thing that's important is what Christians and their churches are saying now - and as I've said myriad times, if you think they are wrong in their homophobia, why aren't you off talking to them about it, no one in here is going to say that Christians should stop being haters.
 
Fairy tales are a matter of ones willingness to imagine. Harry McCall's imagination may well be aroused daily by his visits to the off beat forums on this site, where members are able to imagine everything that their everyday existence denies them.

Had Jesus' enemies..and there were many...possessed evidence that he was homosexual, even a paedophile we can be certain that they would have used this to indict him before The Sanhedrin. No such indictment was presented to The Sanhedrin.

What we can understand is that The Word, made flesh loves each of us, and invites us to love, one another.

John 13:34

Jesus, speaks:

“A new command I give you: Love one another. As I have loved you, so you must love one another. 35 By this everyone will know that you are my disciples, if you love one another.”
 
He definitely misinterprets the man with the pitcher leading to the owner's house. Not just women, but slaves carried pitchers of water, so it could be read as a slave leading them to his owner's house.
 
He definitely misinterprets the man with the pitcher leading to the owner's house. Not just women, but slaves carried pitchers of water, so it could be read as a slave leading them to his owner's house.

Harry McCall's well calculated mis-interpretations are much more numerous.

That's for the pedantic personality to ponder over.
 
The five incidents mentioning the "beloved disciple" --all in John chapters 13 thru 21 --come from the disciple himself. Following the incident on the shore, "what is it to you", the author says:" It is this same disciple who attests what has been written. It is in fact he who wrote it, and we know that his testimony is true." Each of the incidents is contrary to or omitted by the other three gospels and are often inherently improbably. Curiously, each of them is designed to show that the beloved one was closer to and more important than Peter. Each shows Peter in a bad or embarrassing light to some degree.
In the first three gospels, it is unspecified who asks who will betray. But in John, Peter ask the beloved disciple to ask Jesus who will betray.
At the crucifixion the men sensibly disappear, and in the three gospels, the women watch from afar. But in John, improbably, the soldiers allow the women and the disciple to stand at the very bottom of the cross and Jesus talks with them. He adopts John as his brother, saying Mother behold your son, son behold your mother.
When they hear of the resurrection, Peter and the beloved run to the tomb, but the disciple rushes ahead and is first to see Jesus gone.
They go to Galilee and are on the lake and see a man on shore, but only the beloved disciple recognizes him and tells Peter. When Peter sees who it is, he, being naked wraps his coat around him and jumps into the water.
Jesus give Peter the keys, but when Peter asks what of this man (disciple) Jesus says What is it to you. And then, we are told this disciple wrote it.
So, in all the incidents, written by the disciple, he says he was the one Jesus loved and he is careful to put Peter in second place or looking foolish.
Historically the apostle John was regarded as the author, (but now few scholars would agree.) so, John was regarded as the beloved disciple. I think it is unlikely that the author intended to say of himself "it is he who wrote it and we know his testimony to be true." I think it is more likely that the disciple had written a few pages containing the beloved incidents, that the author had access and incorporated those incidents into the larger gospel and in that context said we know his testimony to be true.
Is seem clear to me that the beloved disciple exaggerated his own importance both to Jesus and to the events. Invented parts, such as being at the cross--not something the soldiers were likely to allow, and not something the disciple would have wanted to do, implicating him in the crime of Jesus.
 
Ugh I don't know why so many gay people try to redeem and adhere to the homophobic Abrahamic religions. There are countless actually gay deities across the board in world religions. You have tons of gay Gods in Greco Roman religion, you have Tu Er Shen in China who is the God of male homosexuality and yet still these Western gays still try to cling to Christianity. SMDH.
 
Clearly overlooked by one poster here, therefore bears repeating:

John 13:34

Jesus, speaks:
“A new command I give you: Love one another. As I have loved you, so you must love one another. 35 By this everyone will know that you are my disciples, if you love one another.”
 
Clearly overlooked by one poster here, therefore bears repeating:

John 13:34

Jesus, speaks:
Again this doesn't take away from the homophobic verses in the Bible either or the other more problematic quotes from Jesus and his father the Canaanite war god Yahweh.

I don't get it instead of trying to mold Jesus into a Hellenic gay God. Why not worship and actual Gay God. The Romans even had a God of Homosexuality Antinous. Besides that there were many Gods that had gay affairs like Zeus, Apollo, Poseidon, Hermes, Dionysus. The Erotes were even Gods associated with male love.
 
^

Love is the central theme of the Christian message. Love God, love our neighbour.

Matthew 22:36-40

36 “Teacher, which is the greatest commandment in the Law?”

37 Jesus replied: “‘Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.’[a] 38 This is the first and greatest commandment. 39 And the second is like it: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’ 40 All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments.”
 
Since he begins with the proposition that the Gospel stories were invented to serve agendas, so much as speaking of "evidence" from them is an empty concept: for there to be evidence, they have to be history.


That said, he flat out lies about the content; for example:

"While Jesus enjoys a close relationship with his handpicked twelve apostles, the Fourth Gospel lets the reader know that Jesus has indeed chosen a young lover τὸν μαθητὴν ὃν ἠγάπα ὁ Ἰησοῦς (the disciple Jesus loved (ἠγάπα = Imperfect, indicative, Active, 3 singular) who is said to lie (ἀνέπεσεν) on top of Jesus’ body (κόλπῳ) at the Passover Supper."

He claims that this has "erotic" content, which is precluded by the use of ἀγάπη (agápe). His argument ignores not just language but culture.

In essence, he is shredding the text exactly the way fundamentalists do, just with different premises.
 
Ugh I don't know why so many gay people try to redeem and adhere to the homophobic Abrahamic religions. There are countless actually gay deities across the board in world religions. You have tons of gay Gods in Greco Roman religion, you have Tu Er Shen in China who is the God of male homosexuality and yet still these Western gays still try to cling to Christianity. SMDH.

Here is another example of the approach this author uses: that truth isn't relevant, just choosing what you want from a smorgasbord, based on one's own presuppositions.

The Bible is no more homophobic than it is pro-slavery; it can be twisted to make it so, but that is a result of cultures misusing it to support their own bigotry.
 
Again this doesn't take away from the homophobic verses in the Bible either or the other more problematic quotes from Jesus and his father the Canaanite war god Yahweh.

Nothing but speculation supports the conjecture of Yahweh as a tribal war god -- and nothing at all supports him being a Canaanite one.

I don't get it instead of trying to mold Jesus into a Hellenic gay God. Why not worship and actual Gay God. The Romans even had a God of Homosexuality Antinous. Besides that there were many Gods that had gay affairs like Zeus, Apollo, Poseidon, Hermes, Dionysus. The Erotes were even Gods associated with male love.

Of course you don't get it; you're stuck in the "what makes me feel good" approach to religion. Some people are interested in truth. Your "alternatives" aren't even in the running as candidates for being real.
 
Yet strangely it's the first casualty of most Christian politics.

And of a great deal of theology.

There's a recent book on the matter, an approach to Christology which demands that Jesus be central to all theology, and thus that love be central. That insistence isn't new, but it has been neglected by much of Christianity ever since Rome got the church involved in politics. Taken seriously, it leads to questioning whether Christians who get involved in politics as a way of restricting what others do have any claim to being Christians at all.

So far, every response to it that I've read throws out love as central right from the start.
 
What can be established from the Gospels is that Jesus would not put up with the homophobic churches and Christians of today, just as He wouldn't put up with a lot of other crap Christians do in His name.
 
Here is another example of the approach this author uses: that truth isn't relevant, just choosing what you want from a smorgasbord, based on one's own presuppositions.

The Bible is no more homophobic than it is pro-slavery; it can be twisted to make it so, but that is a result of cultures misusing it to support their own bigotry.
The Bible is homophobic as well as being pro slavery. The Bible in it's verses definitely cast homosexuality in a negative light even demanding death for homosexuals. As for slavery the Bible regulates slavery and not once is slavery ever condemned.

Nothing but speculation supports the conjecture of Yahweh as a tribal war god -- and nothing at all supports him being a Canaanite one.



Of course you don't get it; you're stuck in the "what makes me feel good" approach to religion. Some people are interested in truth. Your "alternatives" aren't even in the running as candidates for being real.

Actually the consensus among modern historians is that Yahweh was originally a deity found in the polytheistic Canaanite religion. The latter Hebrews who were also polytheists in their early history worshiped him among a plethora of other Gods. To the ancient Canaanite people he was considered one of the 70 sons of El Elyon and Athirat aka the King and Queen of the Canaanite pantheon. Any historian will tell you that Hebrew monotheism is derived from earlier Canaanite and Hebrew polytheism.

No I am stuck in the logical approach to religion. As a sensible person I pick Gods that are benevolent and who have my best interests in mind. As for the running candidates for being real. There is as much scientific proof for my Gods as existing as there is your Canaanite war god and any other deity out there. In fact the Biblical conception of your god is riddled with historical and scientific inaccuracies. There is just as much scientific evidence for your god existing as there is for these other Greek deities to which there is none so really any scientist and historian would tell you that all of these gods are in the same category when it comes to being real or not. Besides that I know many Hellenic polytheists who are reviving ancient Greco Roman religion as well as other polytheistic traditions the Abrahamic cults stamped out due to their religious persecutions. I even have friends who are Canaanite polytheists many of them even of semetic backgrounds who know the polytheistic origins of the Bible.
 
The Bible is homophobic as well as being pro slavery. The Bible in it's verses definitely cast homosexuality in a negative light even demanding death for homosexuals. As for slavery the Bible regulates slavery and not once is slavery ever condemned.

Why you continue to believe these two lies I don't know. But I'll remind you: the Bible is definitely not pro-slavery, and it doesn't even mention homosexuality. The first merely takes reasoning skills to recognize, the second requires knowing that they didn't even have the concept of homosexuality, so they couldn't have written about it.

Actually the consensus among modern historians is that Yahweh was originally a deity found in the polytheistic Canaanite religion. The latter Hebrews who were also polytheists in their early history worshiped him among a plethora of other Gods. To the ancient Canaanite people he was considered one of the 70 sons of El Elyon and Athirat aka the King and Queen of the Canaanite pantheon. Any historian will tell you that Hebrew monotheism is derived from earlier Canaanite and Hebrew polytheism.

No, the consensus is that Yahweh was the top deity from the start. The first association with anything Canaanitic is identifying Yahweh as El, the head of the Canaanitic pantheon.

That's probably where you're confused, because "El" was less a specific deity than an ascription of power to whatever local deity was considered supreme, almost more of a title than a name. When the term "YHWH El(ohim)" is first used, it is specifying which El is being talked about, namely the Hebrew El, who only later is revealed as not merely the supreme but the only El.

I know where the "seventy sons of El" bit comes from, but that is before any mention of Yahweh, and in context it isn't clear whether it is a son assigned to Israel or the chief deity taking Israel for himself and assigning all the other nations to seventy sons. Given the use of the name Yahweh once it comes around, the latter is more likely, but Yahweh isn't actually even mentioned in the source.

No I am stuck in the logical approach to religion. As a sensible person I pick Gods that are benevolent and who have my best interests in mind. As for the running candidates for being real. There is as much scientific proof for my Gods as existing as there is your Canaanite war god and any other deity out there. In fact the Biblical conception of your god is riddled with historical and scientific inaccuracies. There is just as much scientific evidence for your god existing as there is for these other Greek deities to which there is none so really any scientist and historian would tell you that all of these gods are in the same category when it comes to being real or not. Besides that I know many Hellenic polytheists who are reviving ancient Greco Roman religion as well as other polytheistic traditions the Abrahamic cults stamped out due to their religious persecutions. I even have friends who are Canaanite polytheists many of them even of semetic backgrounds who know the polytheistic origins of the Bible.

Logically, one has to decide if any proposed deities even have any claim to being worthy of worship. What you've described is the subjective smorgasbord approach I already noted. Any deity described as part of creation is logically excluded from consideration as no different in essence than we are -- just another part of the universe. So all the Greek and Roman and the vast majority of other claimants are logically rejected right off. History is only relevant to tell us whether claimants are ascribed attributes qualifying them for consideration at all; science is irrelevant because is has nothing to say on the subject by its very nature.

What people may be reviving is also irrelevant; the question is one of truth, and if their claimant doesn't meet the logical requirement for true deity of being greater than the universe, not part of it, then they're plainly not interested in truth (or logic).

Hence, your response here serves to confirm what I said: your approach is entirely subjective; it chooses on emotional criteria without even asking if the selected target claimant to deity deserves the appellation to begin with.


note: I once encountered a system wherein the "Earth deity" was regarded as a local emissary of the actual creator-deity; if a claimant is specified as having such a relationship to actual deity, it's in the running not on its own, but under the aegis of the actual claimed creator-deity.
 
That's probably where you're confused, because "El" was less a specific deity than an ascription of power to whatever local deity was considered supreme, almost more of a title than a name. When the term "YHWH El(ohim)" is first used, it is specifying which El is being talked about, namely the Hebrew El, who only later is revealed as not merely the supreme but the only El.

Correct............................................
 
Back
Top