and he chose to say nothing whatsoever about it.

It was all over the Roman empire, and all those Romans knew that it had been around forever. Somehow Jesus felt the need to teach us about kindness and humility rather than gay-bashing.

Absolutely true.

Your point is well put.
It has filled in a little gap in my thinking. Thanks.

Well put and right on the nail!

That part of the bible wasn't translated correctly.

I'm not sure Jesus would have known much about the Greco-Roman homeland and culture. Palestine was a complete backwater, and Jesus a peasant without access to television, radio, or newspapers who didn't know Greek or Latin. A good comparison might be a Native American born in the 1860s in a Navajo community in New Mexico and her understanding of life in Washington, DC, or New York City.

My reading of the NT suggests that Jesus would have been tolerant and non-judgmental, but I don't think we can ascribe that to his being culturally sophisticated.

I need to read the NT again but i hate reading scriptures and jesus should already know that about me. I never saw him as a secret combination handshake guy at the very least. This much i am pretty sure about the guy.

Yes, but according to Christians, Jesus is the Lord God omnipotent, creator and savior of heaven and earth. He knows when sparrow falls from a tree. I am fairly sure he understand every culture that has ever existent, knew everything about homosexuality - and still chose to say nada. That's if he ever existed in the first place, which I highly doubt

Wasn't Jesus the one who taught that anyone rejecting his teachings would go to ... ya' know ... hell?

No. According to Jesus the thing that qualified people for hell was greed and cruelty. He explicitly stated that right belief was not even a part of the equation. Right behavior- of the tolerant and forgiving type- was all that mattered.

What about this verse? It seems to contradict your statement.

John 3:36 - He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting life: and he that believeth not the Son shall not see life; but the wrath of God abideth on him.


I take that as "You'd better believe me or my daddy will get you."


However, as LW points out below about the checkered past of John, who knows.

Jesus didn't say jack about a lot of important things. It's futile trying to read between the lines. If God had definitive opinions about things, surely He could figure out how to communicate more clearly. The Bible seems to be clear about divorce, but apparently believers pick and choose homosexuality to be more important. Go figure.

Jesus was born within walking distance of Sepphoris which was a Greek town. Herod Antipas lived in Galilee and was Greek in lifestyle.The wife of Herod's steward was a follower. One of the apostles, Philip, was likely Greek antennas he had a Greek name. I think we can be reasonably sure Jesus was aware of homosexuality and I am sure it existed among Jews too although probably not as openly.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 03/07/2020 09:56PM by bona dea.

If he was the Son of God, or God made manifest in the flesh, then he knew everything about everything.

It seems everybody wants to worship or deny Him, or reconfigure Him according to their own predilections. Example: Some people argue that the Jews were so habituated to the heroic, Messianic conqueror image of the OT they couldn't accept him as the Suffering Servant and atoning sacrifice. So we've had "gentle, mild Jesus" for 2,000 years, many people overlook his omnipotent sovereignty (i.e. Lordship). Some people want Him Black, or Western/Anglo-Saxon, or gay, or Eastern, "just a prophet," or transcendental--even a worker of magik!

I guess the most popular Jesus in Western culture is the "take it or leave it (and Him) 'good teacher." Posters on this Board know I take Him for much more than that, so I go to the source. So what does He say about the judgement of souls? Many things and they cover both belief (faith) and works (personal behavior). There is this, from the Sermon on the Mount:

"Not everyone who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but the one who does the will of my Father who is in heaven. On that day many will say to me, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and cast out demons in your name, and do many mighty works in your name?’ And then will I declare to them, ‘I never knew you; depart from me, you workers of lawlessness' (Matthew 7:21-23 ESV).

The "will of the Father" can be found in John 6:39.

How'd you like to throw THAT verse at a GA or apostle!

But "going to the source" requires looking at the history of the particular gospels, and the Gospel of John has a checkered history to say the least. It's reasonable to say that you accept certain principles on faith, but there is a contradiction between doing that and insisting on investigating the historical facts.

Does magic have more power if you spell it with a "K" ?

Good question, Dave. Perhaps I was trying to be too precise.

"Magic" can apply to any kind of alteration of apparent reality, both the entertainment and the occultic types. I use it strictly in reference to "illusionists," the rabbit-from-the-hat entertainer.

"Magik" is an archaic spelling, and applies to occultic practices. It's a system of spiritual belief, whereby a person attempts to control temporal reality by the manipulation of spiritual forces or beings. JuJu ("Voodoo") and Wicca, for example.

Incidentally, I don't think there's a record of Jesus condemning magik in the Gospels. But it's certainly inconsistent with Christian faith and practice.

caffiend Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

> Incidentally, I don't think there's a record of
> Jesus condemning magik in the Gospels. But it's
> certainly inconsistent with Christian faith and
> practice.

If Jesus said nothing about something that is now "certainly inconsistent with Christian faith and practice, that raises questions about the validity of "Christian faith and practice"--at least as far as Christianity is supposed to be related to Jesus.

You are inadvertently suggesting, as many do, that subsequent Christian thinkers are as authoritative as Jesus. I would contend that Jesus should be allowed to speak for himself and everyone else should shut the hell up. He is, after all, God.

>> "Does magic have more power if you spell it with a "K" ?"

About the same as when you spell it with a "8 Ball".

Just to be clear... the OP is completely incorrect.

The Bible makes it very clear about homosexual behavior, in the OT and the NT.

Nothing against gays, but I can't stand by and listen to people say that the Bible says this and that, when it's not true at all...

I had enough of that from the Mormon church.

Jesus saw it as a sin, just like any other sin. Just because he didn't address it directly (but it was addressed later by Paul), doesn't mean it was ok.

But you are misconstruing what slskipper said. Slskipper wrote that "Jesus knew all about homosexuality and he chose to say nothing about it."

You are correct that there are several verses in the NT that speak of homosexuality as a sin, but there is nothing in the four gospels that puts such sentiments in Jesus's mouth. So the point stands: Jesus (almost certainly) knew homosexuality existed and there is no evidence he ever said anything about it.

--or condoned it. This is called, "Arguing from silence," that is, the Bible (or other authority) is silent. (This is a major plank in the "gay Jesus" hypothesis.) I gather Queen Victoria said nothing about lesbianism. Can we infer she approved of it? Was ignorant of it? Or practiced it?

For that matter, Jesus said nothing about ped*rasty or bestiality. Or UFOs, or quarks, or quantum mechanics.

Edited to circumvent restricted word use



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 03/07/2020 11:15PM by caffiend.

We don't know what Jesus thought about homosexuality because he never addressed the subject.Since he didn't mention it that does imply that it wasn't that high on his list of priorities though.

No, that is not correct. To say that Jesus said nothing about homosexuality is to suggest that Jesus said nothing about homosexuality.

The rest is the interposition of one's own prejudices into silence. Some may read that as pro-gay, others as anti-gay, still others as meaning that Jesus didn't really care. But for my money none of those positions logically follows from Jesus's silence.

I disagree.Nothing new there. I'd didn't say he necessarily supported it, just that his silence IMPLIES that it wasnt a top priority.Implies is not the same as certainty. We don't know his innermost thoughts of course and he may have said something that wasnt recorded. However, as far as we know, he didnt see fit to preach about it.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 03/08/2020 09:53AM by bona dea.

I intended that post not as a reply to yours but as a response to caffiend's. I will try to reposition it.

Thank you for clarifying. Misplaced posts happen all the time and it can be confusing.

This time posted where it should be, in reply to caffiend's post.

---------

No, that is not correct. To say that Jesus said nothing about homosexuality is to suggest that Jesus said nothing about homosexuality.

The rest is the interposition of one's own prejudices into silence. Some may read that as pro-gay, others as anti-gay, still others as meaning that Jesus didn't really care. But for my money none of those positions logically follows from Jesus's silence.

Luke Skywalker didn’t know Leah was his sister.

While it is true that Jesus never said anything about homosexuality (certainly it's not written in the NT if he ever did), I'm not so sure the silence meant support for the practice.

Keep in mind that the NT Jesus was a very judgmental and (sometimes) contradictory character. Beyond what poster Caffeined said above, there is text in the NT indicating that Jesus disapproved of divorce and (from modern interpretation) mastaurbation ("If your hand causes you to sin, it is better to cut it off).") His contradictoriness comes in when he states that he has come to fulfill the Law, not change it, while at the same time changing it (for example about inherited sin causing blindness found in John Chapter 9 or how to treat an adulteress also found in John). Given all of that, I find it hard to believe that Jesus' (apparent) silence on homosexuality means that he condoned the practice.

I agree that he may not have supported it, but it doesn't seem as if it was his top priority.

Imaginary characters can know whatever you want them to know.

Did jesus know about hetrosexuality ?

If Jesus didn't know about homosexuality before, you can bet he did after the Romans got through with him.

So he wasn't an unblemished lamb worthy of sacrifice?

He would have been turned away from BYU.

Even if he wasn't gay, the long hair and robe would do it. Then he turned water into wine. That would eliminate him too.

If you do not know me, I lurk here a lot, but rarely post these days. I do have a question about this one, though: Maybe not completely on point, but what do you make of Matthew 19:11 & 12? Yes, I realize that homosexuals are not eunuchs, but I’ve always found this interesting. Christ in the New Testament really does not seem to care much about sex and sexuality. IIRC some of his New Testament statements even seem to have overruled the “multiply and replenish” commandment.

He advocated for the pure in heart, He advocated men to cut off their hands if it offended them. He said it was a sin to lust after a women and you'd go to hell. I don't see any evidence that he was at all nice to the gays? He wasn't particularly respectful to women, pharisees, mixed race peoples, or folks with money. He wasn't a very 'nice' person, but had strong opinion and was unflatteringly Jewish.

But remember he used parables because he knew that he had a diverse crowd.

The new testament was written many years later by what Mathew Mark Luke and John remembered decades before. It's more likely that culturally sexual things were a taboo subject, just like they are today, They just weren't talked about openly when women and children were present.

macaRomney Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> The new testament was written many years later by
> unknown anonymous authors each with their own self-serving and contradictory agenda.

Fixed it for you.

Nailed it! Thank you dogblogger.

John the beloved. Enough said.

Jesus was the first don't ask don't teller of modern times.

The Bible mentions unicorns 9 times and cats zero, which tells you everything you need to know about the Bible.

Well, I'm not an expert on jesus or homosexuality....but I did watch the uncut version of "Caligula" a couple weeks ago for the first time.

Wasn't everyone Roman uncut?

Paul was a Jew and a Roman (citizen) so I think there is reason to doubt the unedited status of ALL Romans

But MOST Romans, I could agree with assuming an unmutilated status.

All men are mortal??

Thanks for the clarification.

To be clear, I'm a never-mo and Southern Baptist living in the Morridor.

It depends on how you read Jesus's words about Marriage and your interpretation of them. If you take a more literal interpretation it is only about adultery.

If you take a more translative interpretation it is talking about anything considered immoral outside marriage.

This immorality would be defined by what the Jews defined as immoral out of marriage.

Last I checked, according to the Jewish Laws which Jesus seemed to be well aware of, homosexual acts was something that was distinctly listed as against them.

It depends on how one interprets the verse. If one sees Jesus as God, then he was also the one that gave those commandments in the Old Testament and was very aware of them.

Some things he spoke against but the laws pertaining to that were things he never countered either.

This doesn't condemn homosexuality in our normal lives with reality but I don't see the Bible or Jesus condoning it either.

I think there are some that are so desperate to believe in Christianity but at the same time are also wanting to do certain things or acts (and it's not just the ones listed in this thread, it could be many other things such as the desire to say that they should marry 12 year old girls, or claim Judas was actually the more righteous of the apostles, or other things) that they try to make some sort of excuse regarding the Bible that probably isn't really all that logical sometimes.

Logically speaking, if we take the words literally (as translated in English in the KJV and a few others Bible translations) rather than translatively, we still have a similar problem.

Jesus did not speak about homosexuality, but he knew Jewish law and what it said and did not counter it either.

The subject is more complicated and multifaceted than many are comfortable with. For resources to think more carefully on some of these questions, I would recommend Robin Scroggs' "New Testament and Homosexuality." In a nutshell, his analysis is that "arsenokai" and "malakoi" of first-century Palestine were in relationships rather a long way from modern egalitarian same-sex relationships.

Agreed, an argument from silence is not a strong one, but it remains part of how we try to think through emphases and priorities in the Gospels' Jesus' preaching.

In Judaism, Reform Judaism has been ordaining gay rabbis for over thirty years, and Conservative Judaism for over ten. Within Orthodoxy there is some movement and struggle with the issue. What was the opinion in Jesus' day? Well, just as we wish to be careful what assumptions we overlay on NT sources, we can't just automatically assume our guesses are correct on how Jews interpreted their (our) own traditions and texts. The Torah, speaking from within a highly patriarchal structure, can be read as "Men, don't treat another man the way one treats a (mere) woman." If we question Torah's patriarchy, numerous other questions follow. (Which I recognize is something some use as cause to insist on upholding patriarchy)

Well put. I would add "the canonical Gospels' Jesus' preaching"; most Christians aren't familiar with the non-canonical Gospels, if they are aware of their existence at all (I certainly wasn't, until my early 20s, despite going to church my whole life. For a church that claims to uphold anything truthful, Mormons aren't very concerned with truth).

How do we know that he wasn't homosexual?

I'm willing to bet he was... he hung around with guys

most of the time and had some close female friends too.


I think the possibility exists. I wonder if anyone else

has considered the same thing ?

I don't think there's any way to know Jesus' sexual orientation or even marital status. But you wouldn't be the first to have noticed that "the beloved disciple" did seem to be regarded by the other disciples as a whole lot closer to Jesus than the rest of them were.

Although politically appealing to some, the "Gay Jesus" hypothesis remains an outlier, eisegetical position.

It is possible but there is no way to know without more info. BTW, even though he had a lot of male followers, there were many women too. Several Marys, Solome, Joanna Magdalene are mentioned. They were important too. It wasn't a male only group.Most of the followers of either sex were not mentioned by name anyway.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 03/12/2020 06:30PM by bona dea.