We don’t know a lot about Jesus, but we know a heck of a lot about same-sex erotic behavior in the Greco-Roman world, of which Palestine was a part. I am not an expert in this field by any stretch of the imagination, so feel free to correct any misstatements.
“Sexual orientation” wasn’t really a concept that was understood by the ancients. Many people engaged in homosexual behavior, but a host of factors including age, position, frequency, perceived gender identity, and heterosexual relations make it difficult to label people as “gay” even if we know quite a bit about their sex lives, as with some Roman emperors. So even if Jesus had left a diary this would be a difficult question.
Personally, I think the argument “Jesus was what-would-now-be-labeled-as-gay” is a reasonable hypothesis, even if all we have are a few stereotypes. But equally, he could have lost his beloved wife and six children to an outbreak of cholera at the age of 29, snapped, and began his preaching career.
The only reason it could conceivably matter is because it would be ironic given the later church’s position on homosexuality, but:
Most of the anti-gay Christian doctrine is down to the writings of Paul and friends; there’s no evidence that Jesus cared one way or the other.
The contemporary discussion is oddly disproportionate to church dogma. Compare the outcry against adultery (nil), and the medieval church’s pronouncements against sodomy (strong, but not the Greatest Eeeevil Ever, and like most of the sexual behavior not strongly voiced until several hundred years of Christianity had gone by).
So: Jesus, gay? Maybe. Unsolvable. Nothing to do with Christianity, anyway.
You are talking about GREEKS or ROMANS. They were wealthy, prosperous people who turned to same-sex relationships, I’m sure, for the exact same reason that our society (rather, our urban society) is warming up to homosexuality now. It must be something instinctual (i mean indirectly, such as part of an overall relaxation toward sexuality associated with prosperity). I am certain that the people living in Judea, living through rather miserable political predicaments, did not hold anything close to such views. In fact, if those cultural attitudes can be inferred, it suggests that a lack of Jesus’ part to say things pro or against homosexuality meant that he wasn’t harboring some deep secret himself. Such quiet I would only expect in a society where being gay did not matter.
Probably not very many in our culture but then in other cultures males hug and sometimes kiss one another on the cheek. Doesn’t say anything about sexual orientation.
I fail to see how this is any indication of homosexuality.
This is a joke I’m sure. I think the preferred drink back then in that area of the world was wine not beer. Again, nothing to do with sexuality.
God may have been absent part of the time but where was Joseph?
Yep, I see a caring compassionate male and I immediately think to myself “flaming queer” :rolleyes:
Ok, you got me there, I find it completely unnatural for a human being not to desire or persue a sexual relationship of some kind.
(of course, M.M. is rumored to have been a love interest, but AFAIK the church still officially and fervently denies this), and spent most of his time surrounded by men.
Consider it based on what evidence? Unfortunately the OP hasn’t given us many valid reasons to speculate about Jesus’ sexual orientation.
The Beloved Disciple does send up a red (pink?) flag. This was Jesus – he loved all his disciples and all his enemies and everybody else. Why single out one disciple as “the disciple whom Jesus loved” unless their relationship was, you know, really special?
Er, no, I am talking about the Greco-Roman world, not just the upper-class rulers of same, though I find your “decadence leads to homosexuality” argument fascinating and would like to subscribe to your newsletter.
The writings we have from the first century are by and large products of people who were educated and / or functioning within the Roman Empire, whatever their culture of origin. Just because Jesus wasn’t Greek or Roman doesn’t mean we can ignore those cultures when trying to understand his life.
On another note, that line about “I will make you fishers of men” is a little clearer if Jesus was recruiting for Team Gay.
I have heard from a fairly respectable media source (can’t remember which, but nothing like The Sun or News of the World) that there is a reasonable theory that in some cases the term “washing a persons feet” was a euphemism for the sexual act. That claim did though say it wasn’t used that way in all cases. (and since Jesus washed the feet of all his disciples on occasions that would be quite an orgy).
I’m not sure if that is a valid interpretation of “washing feet” in some biblical passages, or if this is considered a minor (even crackpot) idea that it is used as such a euphemism.
Decadence? Where the hell did you read decadence? I said prosperity. Prosperity leads to homosexuality, which is one facet of a general loosening regarding sex. Harsh conditions lead to the opposite, to sexual repression. I think you will see the pattern quite effectively if you look at our modern world. (Wealthy blue coasts vs economically-stagnant red states, wealthy America vs empoverished/war-torn Middle east, upper-middle class hippies vs… i dunno but you get the idea).
I will wager anything that the predicament of Jesus’ middle east, which was war-torn and subordinated by empire (hell, that’s a big reason Jesus’ doomsday cult took effective root) pushed people’s attitudes more toward the anti-sex mode (or at least definately not toward the who-cares-which-gender-you-sleep-with mode).
As so often seems the case with these kinds of surprising interptretations, this one simply doesn’t make any sense at all in the context of the passage; it doesn’t just say “Jesus washed the disciples’ feet (nudge, nudge, knowhatimean)”, it says:
There’s no way you can replace the term ‘washing feet’ with a sexual act and have it still make any kind of sense at all.
