Was Jesus Gay?

[jiminski]

I am fairly sure that Jesus was a short, bald, married, gay, Asian woman.

[Snorri1234]

No idea if he was gay but from a historical perspective it is extremely unlikely that he was unmarried.

ahahahahahahahhahaha he takes Dan Brown seriosuly what a joke

ahahahhahhahahhahha you don't have a clue do you?

Snorri, have you ever studied the New Testament? Have you even read the thing?

No what I was talking about was that comic boy wasn't referring to Dan Brown novels.

[Napoleon Ier]

Do you want to give a credible reference then?

[Snorri1234]

Do you want to give a credible reference then?

Not really. I'm not saying Jesus was married. But that there is a chance since it was unlikely for a jew to be unmarried in that time.

[freezie]

The obvious answer, for a third person point of view is: We shall never know.

How would you? Have you talked to Jesus about his sexual orientation? I sure bet you haven't.

Therefor, he could either be ( like EVERY other humans I know of, I don't know of, I doubt of their existances or would not like to see them alive ):

1) straight
2) gay
3) bi


I would take the bet on straight, although he could have been one of the other and had hide it. Like many hides themself even today.


I think there is no other logical answers to this question. We shall never know.


P.S: This post is in no way made to offense any religion, but if you want to haunt me for that..Go ahead. I'll just laugh it off.

[freezie]

No idea if he was gay but from a historical perspective it is extremely unlikely that he was unmarried.

In an entirely non-Dan Brown conspiracy bollocks sense, yes this is true.

Dan Brown simply plaguerised earlier works and it was a fictional book
Holy Blood and its follow up actually do contain some interesting stuff despite the over zealous conclusions they tend to leap towards, its a case of seperating the wheat from the chaff.

Holy Blood and Holy Grail is a very good book

Not so much if you're a historian... Mainly due to being a fantasised, critically non-researched conclusion-then-argument piece of trash. The Xtrabasco school of cut-and-paste non-history at its best!

We're talking about skittles! I doubt he would see those books for their histories values.

[comic boy]

No idea if he was gay but from a historical perspective it is extremely unlikely that he was unmarried.

ahahahahahahahhahaha he takes Dan Brown seriosuly what a joke

Oh really and exactly where did I say that ?
Put up or shut up please !

[heavycola]

'But I tell you, do not resist an evil person. If someone strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also.'

But which cheeks?
Face = nice moral precept. Ass = gay BDSM.
All depends on one's interpretation of the bible.

[comic boy]

'But I tell you, do not resist an evil person. If someone strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also.'

But which cheeks?
Face = nice moral precept. Ass = gay BDSM.
All depends on one's interpretation of the bible.

Now answer my previous question, if you are going to lie then please be prepared to back it up.

[C4]

Neither, Jesus never existed

[Grooveman2007]

Neither, Jesus never existed

No. No. Jesus did exist. It's just a question of his divinity.

[suggs]

Another ludicrously laughable thread, good work.
THERE WILL NEVER BE ANYWAY OF KNOWING, DONUT FACE.

[daddy1gringo]

For once I agree with Suggs. Sort of. The thread is pointless. It all depends with what set of beliefs you start with about who Jesus was/is, and about what the Bible is. And we have been over and over them in more threads than I can count.

If you start with the Christian set, of course he was not gay. As the perfect Lamb of God, to be the sacrifice for the sins of the whole world, he kept the whole law, which was extremely clear on the issue.

If you start with a secular set of assumptions, you can believe any damned thing you want, because there is no way to know what, if any, things written about him, either in the Bible or outside of it, are true.

[unriggable]

Neither, Jesus never existed

No. No. Jesus did exist. It's just a question of his divinity.

Eh, not really. The first account of him was written around 75 AD, forty years after his X-ifiction. It would be stupid to think that he was doing the things he did and nobody would write about it for decades. Besides, how many genuine written accounts are there of him? Four? That could easily have been collaborated, just like the Great Wall of China Hoax.

[Ryan32]

ur sick bastards

[C4]

Eh, not really. The first account of him was written around 75 AD, forty years after his X-ifiction. It would be stupid to think that he was doing the things he did and nobody would write about it for decades.

That's a good point.

[greenoaks]

Eh, not really. The first account of him was written around 75 AD, forty years after his X-ifiction. It would be stupid to think that he was doing the things he did and nobody would write about it for decades.

That's a good point.

no its not.

writing things down was expensive, there was no printing press. you needed to find someone who could write - quite rare in those days.

most people could not read. no point, not much to read in those days.

so people tradionally passed the stories on orally.

[Guiscard]

Eh, not really. The first account of him was written around 75 AD, forty years after his X-ifiction. It would be stupid to think that he was doing the things he did and nobody would write about it for decades.

That's a good point.

Its not. If we treat it with a non-religious bias (which we should) then the existence of Jesus is just as 'proven' as the existence of just about any historical figure of antiquity. There really is no point arguing that he simply did not exist. It is taking a conclusion and working out the argument, not the other way around. A bit of an affront to historical practice, really. As for what he actually did, that's another matter.

[unriggable]

Eh, not really. The first account of him was written around 75 AD, forty years after his X-ifiction. It would be stupid to think that he was doing the things he did and nobody would write about it for decades.

That's a good point.

no its not.

writing things down was expensive, there was no printing press. you needed to find someone who could write - quite rare in those days.

most people could not read. no point, not much to read in those days.

so people tradionally passed the stories on orally.

Not at all, keep in mind how many records the Romans kept, surely he would go down as being on their death row, but he wasn't. Not to mention he was a rabbi, he was literate, and most likely there were people when he spoke who were able to write, his name was too circulated for there not to be any sources, come on. He was like the Criss Angel of his day, he got executed because of an entire town, yet you're going to tell me not one of them could write?

Besides, those that did write the stories were fully aware of what was going on while it was happening, yet they didn't write for forty years or more. How does that make any sense?

FYI, the word Christ was around before Jesus, it's not his name. The word Jesus was around before Jesus was born, it means the lord saves. Sounds a lot like a fabrication to me, but that's just my opinion.

[mr. incrediball]

erm... wasn't jesus married?

[Twill]

Why this thread wasn't locked a month ago I will never know.

The number of borderline and obvious attacks on various religious groups is not on.

If you want to start a real discussion on if Jesus existed or not, do so in a new thread (well done for pulling this out of the mire towards the end though).

There is too much chance of this going way off into bigot land and so I shall help you not go down that path.

Thread locked
Twill