Magdlyn

Paul. Not Peter. Peter ( Greek: Cephas or pebble) is part of the myth.

Asha'man

You might also want to examine Did Jesus Live 100 B.C.? by G.R.S. Mead. This book suggests that Jesus was actually stoned to death around the year 70BCE, according to Jewish writings. The gospels are then a heavily edited re-telling of a badly remembered story.

Personally, I’m leaning towards the purely mythical Jesus hypothesis. But Mead’s proposal is an interesting one for those that insist there must have been a real preacher named Jesus somewhere at the beginning of the story.

Arvel Joffi

I don't find the question itself ridiculous at all. If you pick any random person throughout history, there will be X% percent chance that that person is gay, bi, straight, impotent, nymphomanical, etc. Other than the possiblity that Jesus may not have existed at all, there is no reason that he should be exempt from this.

Here's the ridiculous part: expecting an answer on that particular question about a period, region, and person so poorly documented. The question is nothing more than fodder for armchair philosophy. Personally, I get a kick out of the idea of modern Christianity being based on a misunderstood, 2000-year-old travelling gay circus.

Magus55

Unless of course the option that He is God is introduced, whereby "gay" wouldn't apply to Him. Jesus was sinless, God forbid homosexuality, which would mean if Jesus were God, He couldn't be gay.

Crucifiction

In order to introduce the option that he is God into the debate, you must do the following:

1. Prove the Christian God exists
2. Prove the Christian God could not be homosexual were he to incarnate into the flesh
3. Prove the existance of a historical Jesus
4. Prove that the historical Jesus was God

If not, then it is pointless to intoduce it into this debate. IMO, this whole DEBATE is pointless without the verification of a historical Jesus, but it is interesting to speculate on.

EDIT: Completely OT; but if God COULDN'T be gay, he'd not be omnipotent.

Vorkosigan

Not an issue here, as you know. In any case, Secret Mark is a forgery, and evidence of Jesus' sexuality being scant, the topic is more interesting for its shock value than for any ability to generate useful data.

cajela

I'm with PHF, I think it's funny. I completely accept its pointlessness, except to annoy some people. Often a worthwhile goal.

But what would be really cool, would be for some new ancient dead sea scrolls to turn up with lots of evidence that Jesus really existed, and at the same time, was preaching tolerance for homosexuality. Or better yet, was gay. Maybe a love letter to John. Watch the fundies squirm. Evidence at last! But no, it must be fake! I'd love to see that.

Magus55, I can't believe that one who claims to be as educated in the bible as you doesn't know the difference between John the Baptist and John the best beloved disciple.

IamMoose

I don't agree with the above . Surely it is possible to discuss a hypothesis? Well, it would have to be or we'd never have advanced anywhere in life. And people discuss characters on novels. I believe that one can discuss Jesus even if one doesn't even believe that he existed.

Sorry if I missed the point.

Sparrow

Of course the hypothesis can be discussed. It's not necessary to prove the points listed, it's only necessary to assume them for the purposes of discussion. I'm not convinced Jesus Christ existed, but I'll happily discuss the idea under the assumption that he did.

It seems plausible to me that there could have been teachings of the early church that later church leaders thought was wrong or inappropriate to the time that have been suppressed. What's most interesting to me in the whole lost letter episode has nothing to do with the sex, but the blatant admission that there are teachings which were true which must not be proagated or even admitted to. I wonder what might be found in the Vatican Library?

Of course if the story of Jesus intiaiting the youth, wearing nothing but a cloth, then spending the whole night with him is taken at face value, then a new light shines on certain behaviors of the modern Catholic Church.

Is claiming that Jesus was completely non-sexual the same as saying that he was omni-impotent? If so, then perhaps the existence of Viagra is proof of his existence.

Zeda

God also says that murder is wrong, but it seems to be a common pratice with him especially in the OT. Thus, the rules dont apply to him, and him saying homosexualitly is wrong, wouldnt make it wrong for him.

However, I doubt that Jesus was gay, I think it much more likely that he was asexual, as are many people today.