Jesus was Gay, Oh Yeah!

Jesus was Gay, Oh Yeah!

by Liv | Published on March 9th, 2006, 3:10 pm | Religion

If there is a God, then this must be true. I just found out Jesus was gay. Yes. I was stunned too. No this isn't satirical, this is fact.

"And the youth, looking upon him (Jesus), loved him and beseeched that he might remain with him. And going out of the tomb, they went into the house of the youth, for he was rich. And after six days, Jesus instructed him and, at evening, the youth came to him wearing a linen cloth over his naked body. And he remained with him that night, for Jesus taught him the mystery of the Kingdom of God".


cc

Yep that sounds gay to me. My oh my wouldn't Phelps just flip his lid if he knew this? Maybe, just maybe the reason we don't hear about Jesus's relationships in the bible, is because he was, maybe... GAY???? Edited out over years, and years? Is it so far of a stretch to think that in the same era of Roman & Greek sexuality, eunuchs, and prostitution- it would have been completely acceptable for Jesus to be gay?

"Behold how he loved him!" (John 11:36)

[Guest]

If there is a God, then this must be true. I just found out Jesus was gay. Yes. I was stunned too. No this isn't satirical, this is fact.

"And the youth, looking upon him (Jesus), loved him and beseeched that he might remain with him. And going out of the tomb, they went into the house of the youth, for he was rich. And after six days, Jesus instructed him and, at evening, the youth came to him wearing a linen cloth over his naked body. And he remained with him that night, for Jesus taught him the mystery of the Kingdom of God".


cc

Yep that sounds gay to me. My oh my wouldn't Phelps just flip his lid if he knew this? Maybe, just maybe the reason we don't hear about Jesus's relationships in the bible, is because he was, maybe... GAY???? Edited out over years, and years? Is it so far of a stretch to think that in the same era of Roman & Greek sexuality, eunuchs, and prostitution- it would have been completely acceptable for Jesus to be gay?

"Behold how he loved him!" (John 11:36)

Do you want that translated in Greek or Hebrew so you can make up your own mind?

[JQPublic]

It's not the traffic this site has problems with, its the lack of people responding. But, no actually I found this quite interesting.... I never really thought of it.... but think about it. It was common back then to have sexual relations with the same sex. It would have been abnormal for him to exclude homosexual activity during this time. Deductive reasoning leads you to the most likely scenario, which is that Jesus, while not Gay... did have homosexual relationships.

That's truly dumbfounding, and probably the reason the Vatican won't let anyone near their archives.

Really? So after 3000 years, all of a sudden homosexuality was historically popular?

[Guest]

It's not the traffic this site has problems with, its the lack of people responding. But, no actually I found this quite interesting.... I never really thought of it.... but think about it. It was common back then to have sexual relations with the same sex. It would have been abnormal for him to exclude homosexual activity during this time. Deductive reasoning leads you to the most likely scenario, which is that Jesus, while not Gay... did have homosexual relationships.

That's truly dumbfounding, and probably the reason the Vatican won't let anyone near their archives.

How much do you know about theology?

[Guest]

It's not the traffic this site has problems with, its the lack of people responding.

Yes because there are so many religious treasures in the South

[Liv]

Good Video Speech on the subject.

[Pastorstephen]

wow, you really pulled that one out of its context. The scripture is surrounded by scripture for a reason.

[IgnoranceIsBliss]

Mar 10:34-And they shall mock him, and shall scourge him, and shall spit upon him, and shall kill him: and the third day he shall rise again.

Mar 10:35-And James and John, the sons of Zebedee, come unto him, saying, Master, we would that thou shouldest do for us whatsoever we shall desire.

Supposedly, the 'lost' passage in question is supposed to be in between these two verses. Doesn't really fit now, does it?

I think it's all made up.

[IgnoranceIsBliss]

Yep that sounds gay to me. My oh my wouldn't Phelps just flip his lid if he knew this? Maybe, just maybe the reason we don't hear about Jesus's relationships in the bible, is because he was, maybe... GAY????

Jesus was perfect, having no lust for the flesh (at all). Tell me, did he marry these boys this 'passage' suggests he had sexual relations with? Is that not fornication? Is Jesus not perfect? Aye, that he is.

Sodomy is described as an abomination...The perfect God would not be committing these sins.

I believe Jesus was not capable of eros love.

Edited out over years, and years?

More likely added in.

Its not legit.

Is it so far of a stretch to think that in the same era of Roman & Greek sexuality, eunuchs, and prostitution- it would have been completely acceptable for Jesus to be gay?

Were not those exact things perceived by Jesus Christ as sin?

"Behold how he loved him!" (John 11:36)

Yes, and if you were to speak at your fathers, or a close friends funeral and said "I loved them" I could pin you with incest, or accuse you of being a lesbian? Jesus loved Lazarus... (but he wept because the people had no faith...


Jhn 11:34-And said, Where have ye laid him? They said unto him, Lord, come and see.

Jhn 11:35-Jesus wept.

Jhn 11:36-Then said the Jews, Behold how he loved him!

Jhn 11:37-And some of them said, Could not this man, which opened the eyes of the blind, have caused that even this man should not have died?

...but Jesus had philia love for Lazarus. How a father might love a son.

[The Rain King]

[
...but Jesus had philia love for Lazarus. How a father might love a son.

Books are so wasted on some people. You would think that if they could teach sign language to a gorilla...

HTF do you know Jesus and Laz weren't both a little "tele-tubby"?

[SouthernFriedInfidel]

...but Jesus had philia love for Lazarus. How a father might love a son.

Uh, yeah. Look, that story of Lazarus from the Gospel of John holds some real interesting implications in my mind -- but not this silly "gay" stuff.

Early on in the story, Jesus gets told that Lazarus -- his good friend -- is dying of some unnamed illness. And how did Jesus react to this news? He sat and waited. Yeah... that's friendship there! Let this guy you "love" suffer however long it takes and die, THEN go to work a miracle.

And what's the whole thing about raising this guy from the dead? His family had been going through mourning for four whole days. Jesus comes along and makes him alive again... but that only means he'll have to die all over again later on. Who'd want to go through that crap TWICE? Cause no one ever says that Jesus raised Lazarus up to take him up to heaven. Some friend!

Bottom line for me: This story makes Jesus look like a cynical manipulator of peoples' emotions. And to put someone you "love" through this sort of experience, just so it could be used as a "sign" of his power, is to have no clue what "love" really means.

[SouthernFriedInfidel]

wow, you really pulled that one out of its context. The scripture is surrounded by scripture for a reason.

Greetings, Stephen. Welcome to 'boring. I've had a glance over your website, and I hope you'll have time to come along here and chat over things from time to time.

Your blog says that you're willing to answer any question about the Bible. Hang around here long enough, and you'll get plenty of good practice on that, dealing with the local heathens.

Cheers!

[IgnoranceIsBliss]

HTF do you know Jesus and Laz weren't both a little "tele-tubby"?

How don't I know you're not flat-out stupid? Your pointless comments are getting a bit annoying.

[IgnoranceIsBliss]

Early on in the story, Jesus gets told that Lazarus -- his good friend -- is dying of some unnamed illness. And how did Jesus react to this news? He sat and waited. Yeah... that's friendship there! Let this guy you "love" suffer however long it takes and die, THEN go to work a miracle.

He (Jesus) wished to test the faith of his people, that is why he waited. He had his own, divine intentions.

John 11:4-When Jesus heard [that], he said, This sickness is not unto death, but for the glory of God, that the Son of God might be glorified thereby.

And what's the whole thing about raising this guy from the dead? His family had been going through mourning for four whole days. Jesus comes along and makes him alive again... but that only means he'll have to die all over again later on. Who'd want to go through that crap TWICE? Cause no one ever says that Jesus raised Lazarus up to take him up to heaven. Some friend!

Glorification. All I can really say. Lazarus would have gone to Abraham's Bosom, then to heaven...(after death)

Bottom line for me: This story makes Jesus look like a cynical manipulator of peoples' emotions. And to put someone you "love" through this sort of experience, just so it could be used as a "sign" of his power, is to have no clue what "love" really means.

If they had had faith, Lazarus would not have died. He knew Lazarus was dead...

John 11:11-These things said he: and after that he saith unto them, Our friend Lazarus sleepeth; but I go, that I may awake him out of sleep.

John 11:13-Howbeit Jesus spake of his death: but they thought that he had spoken of taking of rest in sleep.

Referring to 'sleep' may imply the death was painless.

[The Rain King]

HTF do you know Jesus and Laz weren't both a little "tele-tubby"?

How don't I know you're not flat-out stupid? Your pointless comments are getting a bit annoying.

Now, now, WWJD ? A lot of your own comments seem pointless, nonsensical, and sometimes vindictive, to me. You know Jesus and Laz were strictly hetero, but you think "sleep may imply painless death. Why don't you know the latter? Why is God so crystal clear on the one, but not on the other?

You respond to a logical query with a piece of scriptural doggerel and the seem amazed when no one swallows it whole without any reservations. And do you really think most of haven't waded through the same text you quote over and over and found it wanting? Most of us have a better idea of who really wrote that stuff than you "experts". The biggest oxymoron ever is a Biblical scholar. You read what you want and then discard everything that doesn't fit.

[Liv]

Bottom line is God is a homo....

God made man in his image, and since many men are gay... then it only would be "logically" & "faithfully" to proclaim god is "partially" gay too.!!!

[IgnoranceIsBliss]

Bottom line is God is a homo....

God made man in his image, and since many men are gay... then it only would be "logically" & "faithfully" to proclaim god is "partially" gay too.!!!

Men are also imperfect, as God cannot be duplicated. If that were the case, however, we would not be alive. "God must be a terrorist since many men are terrorist...."

[IgnoranceIsBliss]

Now, now, WWJD ?

He'd probably do the same thing. I don't know if you've read the Bible, but Jesus was quick to silence those who spoke nonsense.

A lot of your own comments seem pointless, nonsensical, and sometimes vindictive, to me.

Thats because you're blatantly ignorant, and I believe you intend to stay that way. Sure I'm not always right, but that doesn't mean I'm always wrong.

You know Jesus and Laz were strictly hetero, but you think "sleep may imply painless death. Why don't you know the latter? Why is God so crystal clear on the one, but not on the other?

Because God is consistent and everlasting.

God calls homosexuality an 'abomination'. Why would he practice it, when he has forbidden it? He made himself very clear, if you know of the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah.

You respond to a logical query with a piece of scriptural doggerel and the seem amazed when no one swallows it whole without any reservations.

You're so right, RK. Plus, you're really cool.

Why don't we throw out the history books?

The Civil War?

It never happened! I refuse to swallow that 'historical' doggerel!

And do you really think most of haven't waded through the same text you quote over and over and found it wanting?

Because you didn't want to want it, because you're stubborn, and because you're blissfully in love with your sin.

Most of us have a better idea of who really wrote that stuff than you "experts".

I don't have an idea.

I have facts. The Holy Spirit wrote the Bible.

You read what you want and then discard everything that doesn't fit.

Can you show me, please, where I've done such?

Don't try to use that useless, made-up 'scripture' either (the one Liv presented).

[shannon]

"God must be a terrorist since many men are terrorist...."

EXACTLY!!!!

Finally someone who gets it....

[IgnoranceIsBliss]

"God must be a terrorist since many men are terrorist...."

EXACTLY!!!!

Finally someone who gets it....

Riiiiiiiiiiight. Lets hope he runs a plane into your house.

[Liv]

Riiiiiiiiiiight. Lets hope he runs a plane into your house.

You could say "he" allowed the 9/11 plans to fly into the twin towers....

so I'd say, you're not far off....

Axis of Evil.... Amen.

[IgnoranceIsBliss]

You could say "he" allowed the 9/11 plans to fly into the twin towers....

so I'd say, you're not far off....

Axis of Evil.... Amen.

Thats right, if there wasn't a God everyone would have to be responsible for their own actions.

God allows free will. Anything done by the sin of man is a direct consequence of sin itself.

[A Person]

And now we're back to good old Epicurus

Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able?
Then he is not omnipotent.
Is he able, but not willing?
Then he is malevolent.
Is he both able and willing?
Then whence cometh evil?
Is he neither able nor willing?
Then why call him God?

[SouthernFriedInfidel]

I have facts. The Holy Spirit wrote the Bible.

You read what you want and then discard everything that doesn't fit.

Can you show me, please, where I've done such?

Well, calling the statement "The Holy Spirit wrote the Bible" a fact is a pretty good indicator that you're deluded, either on your own or through being misled.

[RebelSnake]

I don't have an idea.

That's the first thing you've said that's made any sense at all.

I have facts.

Somehow I don't think your definition of "fact" would stand up under scrutiny.

Thats right, if there wasn't a God everyone would have to be responsible for their own actions.

Bingo!! Man you're on a roll. That's twice you got it right. Everyone is responsible for their own actions.