Skip to main content

I know we've talked about this but this is a better written story:

"Jordan battles to regain 'priceless' Christian relics" http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-12888421

but even more fascinating is that the book seem to indicate that the character named jesus was gay: http://www.guardian.co.uk/comm...esus-gay-man-codices

as a skeptic, there isn't much to go on here so it's way early to proclaim this as the "gospel truth."

but the question is: what if these book do portray jesus as a gayfer? what would that do for/against your faith?
Original Post

Replies sorted oldest to newest

The same link characterizes the apostle Paul thusly:

"The classically educated Paul, who was himself gay...."

The writer offers absolutely no documentation, no evidence to support this.

This kind of speculative tripe is not unusual coming from bogus historians who are ever looking for something sensational to enhance their reputations. The Jonathan/David-as- homosexuals allegation is flimsy as it can be, depending for its credibility on the assumption that any strong love between men must be erotic instead of filial.

Scarcely worth even noticing.
Homosexuals have continuously and are still outraged when they are told that the Bible condemns homosexuality. They continue to attempt to rewrite scripture to mean what it doesn't. They continue to try and exclude homosexuality as the sin of Sodom and Gomorrah and the reason for those cities destruction. They continue to attempt to exclude Romans 1:27 or say it means something totally different.

With all that why should anyone be surprised at attempts to rewrite that Jesus was Gay? Fact is that Homosexuality is no more a problem with God and the Church and any other sexual sin by heterosexuals. Homosexuality will not send a person to hell but it also is listed as a sin, as not being natural. Just like other sins of lying, stealing, adultery, anger and murder they are all considered sin and subject to God's Judgment. Everyone sins, everyone as a function of being human. Some people attempt to please God or feel they can by living a "perfect" life but being human no one can do this.

It is for the reason that no one can fulfill God's requirements that Jesus Christ came. God provided a one time perfect sacrifice for Sin in Christ.
Jenn- HAHAHAH.. that was beautiful.

Unob - i first heard about this idea, the gayness of the christ, when i was in highschool in the early 80s.
there was never any proof back then either, just someone trying to get their name in the paper.
but, i'll answer. it would make no difference to me at all.
at no point in the bible does it hint that jesus had sex with anyone. so gay or straight, it doens't matter. chaste is chaste, no matter if you prefer the thought of mary or mark.


gbrk- i always felt that the sins of sodom and gomorrah went a little beyond homosexuality. the group of people show up at the door demanding the strangers be turned over so the crowd could "know" them.
that's not just homosexuality. that's abuse and rape.
homosexuality would be if they 2 angels came forth into the city and were met at the gate by a man in a short sequined robe and a tiara sewn into his turban and high heeled sandals saying " well, hello sailor!"
these guys just wanted to bend them over and teach them who ran the town, not try to get dates for the prom.
i'm not even going to go into the vileness that the rightious Lot commited by tryign to save himself and the two strangers by letting the crowd have his virgin daughters instead. that's sick and evil. and exactly how did he know his daughters had never known a man? was he assuming, or was he checking?
the whole story of soddom and gomorrah is a poor example of goodwill and love and justice on god's part.
quote:
Originally posted by CageTheElephant:
What's the point ...Unob?
I know...somewhere there is an intellectual point?
No "baiting"...I'm sure.

Of course not, he wouldn't do that.
Besides, I'm sure Jesus was gay.

Dictionary.com
gay
   /geɪ/ Show Spelled [gey] Show IPA adjective, -er, -est, noun, adverb
–adjective
1.
having or showing a merry, lively mood: gay spirits; gay music.
An interesting article related to Paul being gay: http://www.nytimes.com/1991/02...irs-fury.html?src=pm

I'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
quote:
Originally posted by Not Shallow Not Slim:
An interesting article related to Paul being gay: http://www.nytimes.com/1991/02...irs-fury.html?src=pm

I'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

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

At that time it wasn't unusual for a man 35 or 40 to be single.
It was a different culture you're trying to compare with todays
standards.

Paul wasn't in an everyday business, you can't comprehend what he had to do
and think about. He was knocked off his horse, and spoken to by the person
who he was out to kill, and turns out to be God.

Your innuendos are insulting to the people, their life style and the new
life style they adopted to carry out the work they were very serious about.

In that day, Jewish men were different in their manner and thinking than you.
Your trying to paint a picture of Jesus and all concerned with a biased mind.


.
quote:
Originally posted by Not Shallow Not Slim:
An interesting article related to Paul being gay: http://www.nytimes.com/1991/02...irs-fury.html?src=pm

I'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


a couple of things popped into my head as i read this.
first was, " exactly.. what if? would it really matter?"
second was " would that make Paul a Peter puffer?
third was " LOL omg ROFLMAO HAHAHAHA Snugglebunnies!HAHAHAH"

and i realized, the question does remain open, and not really all that relevent.

i needed a chuckle tonight. thank you nsns.

tonights reading suggestion:
Christopher Moore: Lamb.
quote:
Originally posted by beternU:
The Jonathan/David-as- homosexuals allegation is flimsy as it can be, depending for its credibility on the assumption that any strong love between men must be erotic instead of filial.

Scarcely worth even noticing.


you are exactly right, better. the evidence may exist but the writers of the article i mention don't give us much to go on.

but as a thinking man, you must aslo be jsut as critical of all the other gospels. after all, Nazareth and Bethlehem have been shown to not even exist during the time the jesus supposedly was there so the whole story appears to be a fiction.

but, still, what if?
quote:
Originally posted by Unobtanium:
you must aslo be jsut as critical of all the other gospels. after all, Nazareth and Bethlehem have been shown to not even exist during the time the jesus supposedly was there so the whole story appears to be a fiction.

but, still, what if?

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

Bethlehem and Nazareth didn't exist at the time? where did you get that?????


.
quote:
Originally posted by INVICTUS:
quote:
Originally posted by Unobtanium:
you must aslo be jsut as critical of all the other gospels. after all, Nazareth and Bethlehem have been shown to not even exist during the time the jesus supposedly was there so the whole story appears to be a fiction.

but, still, what if?

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

Bethlehem and Nazareth didn't exist at the time? where did you get that?????


.
Out of a bottle.lol
quote:
Originally posted by GSman:
quote:
Originally posted by INVICTUS:
quote:
Originally posted by Unobtanium:
you must aslo be jsut as critical of all the other gospels. after all, Nazareth and Bethlehem have been shown to not even exist during the time the jesus supposedly was there so the whole story appears to be a fiction.

but, still, what if?

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

Bethlehem and Nazareth didn't exist at the time? where did you get that?????


.
Out of a bottle.lol


I was digging a hole to bury a dead bird, and I found some golden tablets that said that very thing, so it must be true.
quote:
Originally posted by INVICTUS:
quote:
Originally posted by Unobtanium:
you must aslo be just as critical of all the other gospels. after all, Nazareth and Bethlehem have been shown to not even exist during the time the Jesus supposedly was there so the whole story appears to be a fiction.

but, still, what if?

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

Bethlehem and Nazareth didn't exist at the time? where did you get that?????


Unobtainium has not kept up with archaeology. Nazareth has been well documented to have existed at the time of Jesus:

<<<Recently, a Christian Arab shopkeeper in Nazareth discovered what appear to be the remains of a large Roman bath complex dating from the time of Jesus. If this discovery is confirmed, it will turn many of our current ideas about Nazareth on their heads. It may be that Nazareth in the time of Christ was a major Roman garrison town, rather than a sleepy village.>>>>


<<<Freund, of the Maurice Greenberg Centre for Judaic Studies at Hartford University in Connecticut, says the discovery means that historians will have to rethink the place and significance of Nazareth in the Roman empire and consequently the formative experiences of Jesus. It has been assumed that the Nazareth of 2,000 years ago was a poor Jewish village on the periphery of the empire, where local families inhabited caves on the hillside that today contains the modern Israeli-Arab city. On this view, the young Jesus would have had little contact with the Romans until he left Nazareth as an adult; his father, Joseph, one of many craftsmen in the town, may have worked on a Roman palace at nearby Sephori.

But the huge scale of Shama's bathhouse suggests that Nazareth, rather than Sephori, was the local hub of military control from Rome. The giant bath could only have been built for a Roman city or to service a significant garrison town. That would mean Joseph and Mary, and their son Jesus, would have been living in the very heart of the occupying power. This is likely to have huge significance for New Testament scholars in their understanding of Jesus's later teachings.>>>

Links:



[url=http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2003/oct/22/research.artsandhumanities]http://www.guardian.co.uk/worl...ch.artsandhumanities
I have to disagree with you beternu. I have found no documented proof that this story can be validated by independent archaeologist. What you posted is all assumption. Nazareth is a tourist town for those that are caught up in the myth of Jesus. The towns people know what they have and they are constantly claiming to have some sort of "from the time of Jesus" attraction. This was just another one of those.

If you have any real proof or evidence please post it. I would really like to see it. As I said I have searched and found nothing. The Church claims to have proven that the town of Nazareth was a well established town, but I want to see something independent and separate from those that stand to benefit financially from such claims.
quote:
Originally posted by DarkAngel:
I have to disagree with you beternu. I have found no documented proof that this story can be validated by independent archaeologist. What you posted is all assumption. Nazareth is a tourist town for those that are caught up in the myth of Jesus. The towns people know what they have and they are constantly claiming to have some sort of "from the time of Jesus" attraction. This was just another one of those.

If you have any real proof or evidence please post it. I would really like to see it. As I said I have searched and found nothing. The Church claims to have proven that the town of Nazareth was a well established town, but I want to see something independent and separate from those that stand to benefit financially from such claims.


Dr. Richard Freund, a professor of archaeology at the University of Hartford, is a heavily credentialed archaeologist who has studied the findings at Nazareth. I posted to a link that describes his findings. Do you dispute Greund's qualifications? As an academician, he knows that what he publishes is subject to peer review. This is not a person who is to be dtaken lightly, as you seem to be doing. Would you rather hear from Richard Dawkins on the subject?
quote:
Originally posted by DarkAngel:
I have to disagree with you beternu. I have found no documented proof that this story can be validated by independent archaeologist. What you posted is all assumption. Nazareth is a tourist town for those that are caught up in the myth of Jesus. The towns people know what they have and they are constantly claiming to have some sort of "from the time of Jesus" attraction. This was just another one of those.

If you have any real proof or evidence please post it. I would really like to see it. As I said I have searched and found nothing. The Church claims to have proven that the town of Nazareth was a well established town, but I want to see something independent and separate from those that stand to benefit financially from such claims.
Good grief Dark nagel I’m stunned that an anticipatory breech of your own sanity imagines any of us believing intellectuals are atall entertained by the suggestion yours provides any authority with which a conclusion that Nazareth or Bethlehem existed.
quote:
Originally posted by beternU:
quote:
Originally posted by DarkAngel:
I have to disagree with you beternu. I have found no documented proof that this story can be validated by independent archaeologist. What you posted is all assumption. Nazareth is a tourist town for those that are caught up in the myth of Jesus. The towns people know what they have and they are constantly claiming to have some sort of "from the time of Jesus" attraction. This was just another one of those.

If you have any real proof or evidence please post it. I would really like to see it. As I said I have searched and found nothing. The Church claims to have proven that the town of Nazareth was a well established town, but I want to see something independent and separate from those that stand to benefit financially from such claims.


Dr. Richard Freund, a professor of archaeology at the University of Hartford, is a heavily credentialed archaeologist who has studied the findings at Nazareth. I posted to a link that describes his findings. Do you dispute Greund's qualifications? As an academician, he knows that what he publishes is subject to peer review. This is not a person who is to be dtaken lightly, as you seem to be doing. Would you rather hear from Richard Dawkins on the subject?


You apparently misunderstood my post. I never said he was not credentialed. I said the article you posted was all speculation, or rather assumption. The problem is I can't find a follow up since 2003 when this story was published that shows the data authenticating the bath house as originating in Jesus time. No peered reviewed paper. This alone could change the current understanding that Nazareth was only a small fishing village with a handful of people. It's been eight years since the article was written. Where is the carbon dating he was going to do?

And no I would not like to hear what Richard Dawkins has to say about it either. You said that it had been well documented. I only ask for you to direct me to where you got that information, because the story you provided has no documentation. I can't find any at all.

"Freund, of the Maurice Greenberg Centre for Judaic Studies at Hartford University in Connecticut,"

Once again I would like to see a paper he has had peer reviewed independent of Religion. Does it exist? I spent about an hour looking for it. With the internet being what it is today it shouldn't take that long to find something substantial about a discovery this huge if it had been proven true.

Hey I was just asking for your source for the claim you made. Don't have one? That's fine. We will just move on.
quote:
Originally posted by CrustyMac:
BeternU,

I have some slivers from the cross that Jesus was crucified on, and two three four threads from His robe. Would you like to purchase?


If my standards for credibility were as flimsy as yours, I might consider your silly offer.

If it is so obvious to you that Nazareth did not exist at the time of jesus, then put something up that substantiates that.
quote:
Originally posted by JimiHendrix:
quote:
Originally posted by GSman:
quote:
Originally posted by INVICTUS:
quote:
Originally posted by Unobtanium:
you must aslo be jsut as critical of all the other gospels. after all, Nazareth and Bethlehem have been shown to not even exist during the time the jesus supposedly was there so the whole story appears to be a fiction.

but, still, what if?

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

Bethlehem and Nazareth didn't exist at the time? where did you get that?????


.
Out of a bottle.lol


I was digging a hole to bury a dead bird, and I found some golden tablets that said that very thing, so it must be true.

_________________________________
Real cute Jimbo.
Did you come up with that one all by your selfums? Smiler

Keep Marching Against Dummies,
Skippy Cool
quote:
Originally posted by beternU:
quote:
Originally posted by CrustyMac:
BeternU,

I have some slivers from the cross that Jesus was crucified on, and two three four threads from His robe. Would you like to purchase?


If my standards for credibility were as flimsy as yours, I might consider your silly offer.

If it is so obvious to you that Nazareth did not exist at the time of jesus, then put something up that substantiates that.


If you travel through Catholic churches in Europe, you will find enough "pieces of the true cross" to fill up a forest. You will also find gallons of the "blood of Jesus". And they are all "real".
quote:
Originally posted by beternU:
quote:
Originally posted by CrustyMac:
BeternU,

I have some slivers from the cross that Jesus was crucified on, and two three four threads from His robe. Would you like to purchase?


If my standards for credibility were as flimsy as yours, I might consider your silly offer.

If it is so obvious to you that Nazareth did not exist at the time of jesus, then put something up that substantiates that.


I'm on your side. A shopkeeper in Jerusalem sold me the slivers, and I found the threads attached. How about it?

Add Reply

Post

Untitled Document
×
×
×
×
Link copied to your clipboard.
×