Jesus never preached against homosexuality. Neither is there a verse in the bible that forbids homosexuality. The English Bible has been changed by peoples ignorance, hatred, and selfishness from what I have come accross when reading the Bible in its original languages. This is especially true in regards to homosexuality. Remember, the Prophet Jeremiah said this: “…ye haveperverted (hafak - to change) the words of the living God, of the LORD of hosts our God.†(Jer. 23:36KJV) Also, if you go to the website homosexualeunuchsandthebible.com, it will answer all the verses that Christians use to condemn homosexuality by going back to what the Hebrew and Greek says.
Also, the verse you quoted from the book of Romans does not forbid homosexuality. Romans is often quoted as scripture that forbids
relations between persons of the same sex. But Romans is actually referring to idolatry. It says the people “…changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image (idol) made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and four-footed beasts, and creeping things.†These people glorified and worshipped their idols of man, birds, four-footed beasts, and creeping things. It also says these idolaters “…changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature (created thing, idol) more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen.
In Romans 1:26-27 it says: “For this cause God gave them up untovile affections path-e at-i-mi-as-(dishonorable experiences/afflictions) : for even their women did change met-e-laks-an - (made different) the natural use into that which is against nature: And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman,burned in their lust - (they burned in desire/anger) one toward another, men with men working that which is [unseemly] as-che-mos-oon-en- (to make ashamed), and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.†The Greek word met-e-laks-an means: to make different, change. It does not mean “to exchange, change one for the other,†as the NIV translates this word. It says the women changed the natural use, and the men left the natural use of the woman. God intended mankind to be sexual creatures, this is the natural use of the body. The women changed the natural use of the body by living a chaste celibate life because of idolatrous beliefs. Likewise, the men left the natural use of the woman by abstaining from them, thus afflicting (pathe) their bodies. Timothy said these pagans were: Forbidding to marry, and commanding to abstain from meats, which
God hath created to be received with thanksgiving of them which believe and know the truth. (1 Timothy 4:3 KJV). All this and more about what the Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek Bible says concerning homosexuality is at the website homosexualeunuchsandthebible.com.
[quote=“Amaelamin”]
The statement that Jesus ‘may’ have been homosexual can be proved negative by the message he brought forth. Reguardless of whether or not you believe the bible to be ture one must take time to consider the fact that Jesus spent his time preaching the word of god (aka the bible)
Romans 1:18-32 talks about unnatural acts verses 26 and 27 are quite specific in Both God and Jesus’ perspectives on Homosexuality " For even their women exchanged the natural use for what is against nature. Like wise also the m,en, leaving natural use of the woman, burned in their lust for one another, men with men committing what is shameful, and recieving in themselves the penalty of their error which was due (NKJV)
NOw taking in to account that Jesus was the son of God and this was God’s word we can now conclude that Jesus was NOT homosexual. I will also point out that his not the only passage in the bible that states God’s disdain for homosexuality.
Enoch, isn’t there some pretty clear verses in the Old Testament stating that it is wrong for a man to lie with another man? Lev 18:22 “'Do not lie with a man as one lies with a woman; that is detestable.” This is a fairly long list of all the people that is is unnacceptable to have sex with…neighbors wife, animals, wife’s sister, close blood relatives, etc. Is this text somehow mistranslated? It seems pretty clear here that the Bible says it is wrong to engage in homosexual sex…
Androgenous perhaps, much in the way a tree is “bi-sexaul.” But, as pertains to being homosexual, I don’t think he would be promoting “the marriage” between God (Husband) and the Church (Wife) if He was. However, in the relationship between the Church (of mankind), one can see that both genders are implied, and yet that just illustrates how the Wife has her own masculine counterpart (or side), as does the Husband.
Imaginary Man, yeah. Sodom and Gomhora were said to have entertained homosexual behavior, and that was one of the many reasons God decided to destroy them.
I highly doubt Jesus the man was a homosexual. I think it much more likely that he and Mary Magdalene hooked up, if not married, and the Church did a massive cover-up. For some reason, our society is hell-bent on thinking everyone gay, whether they are or not, and people spend years of their lives studying this single concept. Books on whether Beethoven, Shakespeare, Hitler, Newton, etc…
But Jesus?
That’s just kinda stupid … in my ultimately uninformed opinion.
I wasn’t really talking about Sodom and Gemhora as the point in that story has often been said to be about acting properly as hosts (the concept of guest and host being very important in middle eastern cultures)… really i was just talking about what seems to be a pretty specific precept listed in Leviticus
“Thou shalt notlie withmankind, as with womankind: it is abomination.â€
(Leviticus 18:22 KJV). The Hebrew literally says this:
(ve-et-za-kar lo tish-kab mish-keb-e ish-ah to-e-vah hiv). A word for word translation is “Male, not, you will rape (as) the raping (plural of persons) of a woman, error, it is.†A good translation would be: “You shall not rape a man as those who rape a woman, it is a error.†The Hebrew word mish-keb-e is in the plural costruct form, and that is why it is translated as “those who rape†above. This verse is actually forbidding the gang rape that was done to punish and humiliate. The Bible does give some examples of this. In Judges 20:22-25 it says the men of Gibeah surrounded the house of a inhabitant of that city, and gang raped the citizen’s daughter and his foreign guest’s concubine. The men of Sodom likewise wanted to gang rape the two guests of Lot to humble and humiliate them.
Also, as I put before, my website at homosexualeunuchsandthebible.com answers all the verses in the Bible that supposedly forbid homosexuality. I go from the Hebrew and Greek Bible.
Who cares if Jesus was gay?.. If he was, more power to him. To me, just about any evidence you can drudge up is inconclusive because the bible itself is not very credible. Historians believe it to have been written 40 years after the death of Jesus. By that time it would’ve just been hearsay…
Sounds like you need a history lesson, mate. Try ‘A short history of CHristian thought’ by Linwood Urban. If you do, you might avoid embarrassing errors like those you have made above.
I don’t know… That’s just what some historian on the history channel said one day on the program “History Vs. Hollywood” talking about the passion of Christ. Maybe not all historians believe that, but seemingly at least some do…
“Jesus Christ ruling figure of Christianity, born in Bethlehem, to a peasant family between eight BC and four AD. We know very little about Jesus’ life, the first record of his life was written some forty years after his death.”
Oh ok. So, Mr Corpuscule, ‘the bible was written 40 years after the death of Jesus’ was it ?
Now that is interesting. I wonder what St. Jerome would have to say about that. Or for that matter, the Jewish rabbis who compiled the OT in the 80s B.C.
But no, you’re right, you don’t need a history lesson…
Jesus could very well have been homosexual, bisexual, heterosexual, asexual, all of the above, or any combination.
However, I’d say the chances are he was gay are increased by the evidence. He was a philsopher. He was of a nurturing nature. He appears to have had platonic relationships with the women in his life and his male friends were unemployed.
Seriously, I’m always surprised at the surprise of the public when a man of God is exposed as being homosexual. If you wanted to pick a person to minister you’d want someone that wouldn’t be seen as a threat to take the affection of the wives from their husbands. You’d also want someone of a nurturing nature. The options appear to be obscenely ugly or gay.
Probably a better candidate from the Bible for being gay would be Paul. If you read his letters to Timothy it doesn’t take much imagination to see a pissed queen ranting on womankind.
