An interesting article related to Paul being gay:
http://www.nytimes.com/1991/02...irs-fury.html?src=pmI'm skeptical of this article, but not entirely dismissive. However, one thing sparks my curiosity. It's this quote:
quote:
Re-reading the Bible with that notion in mind was "a religious experience," Bishop Spong said. Nearly half of the books in the New Testament are attributed to St. Paul or his disciples.
Other Bible authorities, however, said that it would be wrong to draw conclusions from the text that St. Paul was either a mysogynist or someone filled with self-loathing.
Father Wetzel, of Episcopalians United, said that St. Paul's attitudes toward women were merely a reflection of the dominant Jewish culture of his time. "In the context of his day, St. Paul was rather liberal," he said.
If Paul had been struck with any spark of divinity, would he not have been content to be merely "liberal" toward women? Wouldn't he have been their champion, don't you think? And if you say he was chained by his milieu, then of what good is divinity?
Regarding Jesus, an unmarried man in Palestine at 33 years old would have raised eyebrows. He was ordinary in so many ways, e.g. being a carpenter. His friends were common folk, fishermen and such. Surely, for 15 years or so, yentls were introducing him to Nice Jewish Girls. Did not god make us male and female, to the whole that can only be made of two halves?
I'm not saying Jesus was homosexual. So what if he was?
But what if he was? What if he was simply asexual? What if he had a thing for Mary Magdelene? Whatever else he might have been, he was a man, and the Gospels speak nothing of his attraction to women.
What sort of man would he have been, given his indifference to women? I hear the Christians say Jesus was fully man, fully God. I wonder. Why would he not have done what almost all men do and at least have had a girlfriend?
"And thou, most delightsome, shall be mine snugglebunny". Nooooooooo, none of that.
The question remains open.
nsns