“Had he been devoid of sexuality, he would not have been truly human.”
Yuck. Asexual people are NOT less human. This statement is as bad as the homophobic views he is contesting.
I think you misunderstand the theology of what he is trying to say.
He is trying to address the ignorance the church has had of issues of sexuality. I can’t speak for Canon Oestreicher but I suspect having read some of his works previously that he would agree that for some people their “sexuality” is asexual. However, asexual people are aware of others sexuality.
I think he is saying that the belief of the Christian church is that Jesus was God made man, made truly human. He is surmising that if God intended Jesus to experience the full range of human emotions including love, suffering, temptation, desire, anger etc etc then it is more likely that Jesus would have identified with a sexuality which included sexual desire.
He is not saying asexual is less human or less important, just that in the trinity experiential scenario where Jesus becomes truly human – its more likely that he would experience sexuality. To me this makes sense.
Its an honourable and thought provoking view
Er. Asexual people are human therefore an asexual experience is JUST as human and full an experience. If you’re arguing that asexual isn’t the usual experience and God wanted Jesus to experience what most people experience then that experience is NOT exclusive homosexuality.
We clearly are not going to agree on this.
I may be misunderstanding the issues of asexuality, and will admit it is something I personally have not experienced – nor have I met anyone who has sought to discuss such issues with me.
However, my understanding (please do correct me if I am wrong) is that asexual people do not have sexual desires. This does not make them any less valuable, human or worthy – it does mean they do not experience something that other humans do. I believe the Canon is saying God wanted Jesus to experience all emotions that humans can encounter. He has not said Jesus was gay, just it is (to him – and largely to me) the most logical explanation. That is not devaluing asexual people, merely expressing an opinion that Jesus probably was gay – but may have been bisexual or possibly heterosexual. Thats my reading of Scripture too.
We probably disagree. I do not feel anyone asexual has any less value – and Jesus sexuality does not change his ministry to me
Asexual people are indeed human.
But Jesus is a fictional character, whose inventor we don’t know.
You may as well try to analyse the character or Lucky Santangelo – the star of the Jackie Collin’s blockbuster ‘Lady Boss’.
No. Jesus is a historical person, found in references in contemporary Roman documents. At the time, there were many Messiah-candidates, amongst them Aesop, for instance. Jesus of Nazareth was one of them.
What can be argued is whether he was God’s representation on earth, the Messiah, or just an “ordinary” person, queueing up for the title for some reason or the other. Also, seeing the historical, human Jesus, he would not have seen the Messiah as someone who’d suddenly be God’s son, but one who had come to free the Jewish people from the Roman rule.
‘Contemporary Roman documents’? Which?
Jesus was NOT the son of ‘god’
OH I would well believe that there was some mentally ill carpenter who claimed to be the messiah (similar to those religious crazies who hang around train stations these days) around 2000 years ago.
But the idea that he was actually the son of some fictional ‘god’ is truly absurd and ridiculous.
Jesus is not a fictional character. I am not Christian. And I do not deny the fact that Jesus existed. It is a historical fact that Jesus existed.
The debate is whether or not Jesus was the “Christ” which has nothing to do with whether or not he exited.
…no. it is absolutely NOT an historical fact. The bible and gospels written hundreds of years after he supposedly lived are the only places we find mention of this man. There is no historical mention or even contemporary mention. See my comment below for further comment. I’m not going to boil my cabbage twice for anyone never mind a fictional deity…
@XYL – God you talk a load of argumentative drivel – the point isnt about WHICH sexuality – but SEXUALITY ITSELF…
A far more likely explanation is that Oestreicher, like many people, is simply unaware that asexuality exists, in which case his understanding of human sexuality is in doubt, making his claims to be able to make deductions about somebody’s sexuality based on scant historical references all the more questionable.
I was about to post this exact thing, but hey! You beat me to it.
Asexuality is still a form of sexuality. Its a sexuality of no desire.
Your an animal. Sex is a part of that. But attraction and the need or desire for sex is an individual thing. Its one of the differentials that make us individuals.
He didnt say ‘asexual’ – he said ‘devoid of sexuality’…which is right…
Sexuality IS a part of the human experience…even for Asexuals in that they are then defining their sexuality as being APART from sexual activity…
“Jesus was most likely gay, but it is immaterial”
From what I see of “christians”, anything Jesus said, did, or preached is immaterial to them, they seem much more interested in the persecution and bigotry of the old testament. Most “christians” do not know the core message of their own religion alas, but prefer to use it as an excuse for their small minded prejudices.
The likes of Skinner is case in point of a basket case loser who has found some small semblance of acceptance in society for his madness by saying “religion told me to” whoitho9ut really understanding the real message of their Jesus.
I currently work for a development charity part time and as a chaplain to a hospital.
It saddens me and hurts me that there are some people who call themselves Christians who behave in such a damaging and callous way to other people. Their vindictive words hurt LGBT people, LGBT Christians and many other Christians who see the torment caused by the unscriptural approaches of some extremist people.
Its not the actions that I see in the Bible of what Jesus would teach, it lacks love, compassion, neighborlinesses and honesty.
I agree with Archbishop Tutu when he said “If God, as they say, is homophobic, I wouldn’t worship that God.” and when he says homophobia is a ‘crime against humanity’ and ‘every bit as unjust’ as apartheid’.
Was Jesus gay? – I have no idea, its something I have pondered and I can see why it could be seen as a possibility.
I agree there is a lack of knowledge of the core tenets of the faith both inside and outside the church. We try to change it.
It rarely gets me anywhere, but I refuse to sit back and see my faith and the Christ I know and love hijacked by blinkered people who present an intolerant and wholly offensive point of view. I’ve argued until I’m blue in the face, but I’ll continue to do so because LGBT people deserve better. I don’t see these ignorant people as being the majority or ‘true’ Christians at all. It’s bigotry, pure and simple.
I also wonder if St Paul had homosexual feelings? Again, it doesn’t really matter, but it’s a possibility.
I love my Cabbage Patch Doll.
Unlike your ‘Christ’ I know that my cabbage patch doll exists.
You need to wake up and realise that your ‘God’ is unproven and unproveable and that you appear rather thick if you expect people to take your religious beliefs seriously.
Frankly, it doesn’t bother me if other people don’t believe in ‘my’ God as I’m not out to convert anyone. I don’t expect anyone to agree with me or see life from my point of view, but I really do object to being called ‘thick’ by someone who has never met me and doesn’t know me.
If you don’t agree with me fine, but don’t resort to cheap insults please.
@Pat H He always does that, when he’s not suggesting that we should all be thrown to the lions. I’d suggest ignoring him, but I’m well aware that I’m incapable of it myself.
well, actually, it does matter with St. Paul since that would make him as hypocrite closet case criticising other gays. Jesus never said anything about gays.
Was Jesus gay?
I think the more pertinent question is ‘Was Jesus real?’
And i think the answer to that is a definite ‘no’.
Christianity and religion in general is poisonously bigotted, monstrous, murderous and hateful .
no sensible LGBT person should have ANYTHING to do with organised religion.
dAVID – I had a discussion with an acquaintance recently in which I stated I knew of no contemporary historical records of Jesus. I was told that there were plenty of records. I asked for some references. So far the has been little more in the way of response than the rustle of tumbleweed.
there are accounts, but they are very few and far between.
Accounts – I am sure there are accounts of a carpenter named Jesus of Nazareth who lived in Jeruisalem 2000 years ago.
But the whole mythology of him being the messiah is complete and utter bull.
The character of Jesus as a the son of ‘god’ is completely fictional.
………You will have a long wait. If anything of the nature you describe is produced, stack it neatly in your WC because that is the worth of it…toilet paper. No such person ever existed except in the mind of Constantine the Great Roman Emperor circa 334.
It depends what you mean by “Jesus”. If you mean someone of that name who may have been a religious preacher at the turn of the first milennium then the answer is… maybe. There’s very little evidence. Could be, could not be. If you mean the guy who all those fanciful myth stories about virgin births and healing miracles and improbable feats of catering are told about, then clearly the answer is no.
Of course I should state that Lambeth and York would struggle to harm Canon Oestricher as he is retired. Perhaps that why he feels able to speak so openly now.
I would also say, watch this space – there are plans to further challenge some of the hurtful and wrong comments made by Archbishops and Bishops in the name of the wider church. I welcome the words of the Archbishop of Wales and Bishop of Salisbury in recognising their call to support and meet the needs of all humans. I am shamed by the actions of other senior leaders in their, frankly grotesque, comments about human sexuality.
“It saddens me and hurts me that there are some people who call themselves Christians who behave in such a damaging and callous way to other people. Their vindictive words hurt LGBT people, LGBT Christians and many other Christians who see the torment caused by the unscriptural approaches of some extremist people.”
I sincerely hope that attitudes like yours in your church have wide resonance than the barbarity of those who seem only happy when they have a witch hunt. Its refreshing to hear your comments on this site.
Well spank my a**e and call me Daisy, he is saying something that many of us have thought for a very long time. Imean, why else would he (Jesus) surrond himself with 12 men and 1 good time girl?
This is really going to get the CofE and others in a flap now isn’t it?
Wonder how long before he is fired from his role for making this statement?
They can try and fire him or move him, but that will spark a backlash against the hierarchy they would not wish to unleash.
I am one of hundreds of ordained priests within the Anglican church who are working in various ways to challenge the hurt and damage that is caused by some (with what I regard as) wrong theology.
If Canon Oestreicher is reprroached in any way by Lambeth or York then they will face consequences.
Okay, Now I know why the Anglican church in Ghana has collapsed totally.
So their revs else where believe that when ever you see men only then there is the taint of homosexuality.
I have said here before that, I dont care what somebody chooses to be. some like grape fruits and others like Apples. But dont take it to the absurd limits.
I think it’s safe to say more thought has been expended on the matter by others than by you.
I think it simply means that whoever the author (or authors) of the bible were, may have been gay.
Fictional characters (which is what Jesus is) are the creation of their author.
Seeing as we don’t know the name of the human being who invented the character of Jesus, then it is virtually impiossible to understand his motives, in the creation of the fictional ‘Jesus’ character.
You seem to have a poor understanding of the nature of oral traditions, on top of a complete blind intolerance of religion. I could also argue with you about the importance of authorial intent, but I have a dissertation to write.
At some point some writer (or writers) of fiction put pen to paper and created the bible.
They would have been documenting the oral tradition.
The bible is a work of fiction (inspired by the oral tradition) which was written by human beings.
I cannot understand why your comments have received such a negative reaction. ‘a complete blind intolerance of religion’ is an admirable trait and one which should be encouraged.
@Rachel Intolerance is never an admirable trait, and I’m slightly sickened that anyone could think so.
She wasnt a ‘good time girl’….havent you read the Davinci Code!? lol
I really don’t care, Im not a christian but I do believe Jesus existed and attempt to live my life by the example he gave as recorded in the new testament.
May I ask how you define ‘christian’ then? Beacuse I believe the same, and yet I do call myself a (frustrated, mostly non-denominational) christian
Im actually pre-dominantly wiccan which has 2 main teachings
1. Ayn ye harm none do what ye will (as long as your not hurting anyone do whatever you want.
2. The threefold law (do unto others which you wish done to yourself, because karma returns your actions kindly or others to the multiple of 3) so if you cause someone hurt, you will be hurt by someone else three times as much.
The rest of the teachings revolve around cherishing the earth which gives life and sustains it so you should do as much as you can to sustain it as well – humans are to protect the environment and creatures in it.
There may be many different routes (religions) but as long as you follow them well you will all reach the same destination (Heaven). I draw upon other religions for further guidance on how to act.
As for Jesus I believe he was a man, a great man but alas still man and “son of god” is not a title, but a metaphor for a man with so much virtue that he could be considered the perfect creation.
Thank you for your response :) Your beliefs seem very similar to mine, except on the Jesus front. I’ve always respected Wicca as a religion, your words have only strengthened that.
Thank you that really means a lot to me. I know that if you shake a tree hard enough rotten apples will drop out, its just a shame that the rotten apples seem to be given the strongest voice. I have found that a lot of religions at their core are very similar to each other.
I hope that one day that mainstream religions drop the “my way or the highway to hell” threat.
“attempt to live my life by the example he gave as recorded in the new testament.”
But the character of Jesus as depicted in the bible was created by several writers (we now only use 4 gospels, whereas 12 were actually written).
And which version of the bible do you try to live your life by?
It has been edited so many times over the centuries that how do you know which is the correct version.
Dunno why dAvid is getting all the thumbs down from people, his views are as important as those of you who claim to be living by the example ‘Jesus’ set. I’d sooner hear the views of someone who actually lived rather than some character cobbled together from a mix of different faiths and mythologies simply to become some behemoth. Christianity is to civilization what McDonalds is to humanity’s wellbeing- a bad idea that just won’t f–k off.
Partly because he’s extremely antagonistic and intolerant about it, partly because he feels the need to post his opinions several times as new threads, rather than getting it over and done with in one comment.
It is a possibility that this will have many christians running and screaming from churches everywhere – because in their puritanical minds, this could not possibly be the case.. and this very brave and analytical priest should be burned at the stake. (or perhaps stoned ) !!
I think he should be praised highly for his interpretation and no one really knows what the truth is.. but it holds a very good point.
If religion is your thing, gay, straight or otherwise – it should not deter you from your love of god and whatever fulfills your life.
Personally I am not religious but think that more people should look at this and ask themselves – have they any proof to say Jesus was straight – there again have they any proof he was gay… Paul Oestreicher may well have found something overlooked or brushed a side.
But when it comes down to it , does it really matter, what Jesus’ or another person’s sexual orientation is – Well it shouldn’t !!!!
For you religious people try “Love thy neighbou
This is probably my last comment on here for the moment (I came across this article by chance) as I have meetings to go to.
However, I agree entirely with you that the primary concern of Christians should be to love their neighbours. Its sad that some Christians do not understand what this means, or who their neighbours are.
I agree Canon Oestericher should be congratulated for his thought provoking and challenging comments. It will probably upset some Christians, for what it is worth I agree with him.
I hope this challenges more Christians to examine their own consciences and speak out about the truth of loving their neighbours, recognise that includes gay people and speak out in love and support to and for them.
There’s no evidence he wasn’t gay..
We’ve got as much right to think he was gay. Straights don’t own him and why shouldn’t he be one of us.
Afterall being gay is natural and some people would say God made him that way.
2 postive stories from Anglicans in 2 days…What’s going on here?… and also this really funny story about a group of Catholic nuns campaigning for homosexuality (gay marriage??)
if you read it they were reprimanded for focusing on economic injustice, improving healthcare and ending poverty and they dared to stay silent about homosexuality and abortion.
…don’t know what you were thinking when you said it was a funny story about nuns campaigning for homosexuality. The story, had you actually read it or understood what it said was about the naza! pope threatening a group of nuns because they worked for those in poverty and IGNORED the fight against abortion and gay marriage……He actually wants them to drop their charity work entirely and concentrate on the fight against abortion and Marriage equality. Do get your facts right as shoddy work like yours only serves to diminish the legitimacy and veracity of everyone elses comments.
While John claims to be the beloved disciple himself at the end of the Gospel, some experts claim that that was added to the story later, and the beloved disciple was someone else. Maybe the youth in the Garden or tomb. Certainly the one referred to in John as having a cuddle with Jesus at the last supper.
Judas was clearly a spurned lover of Jesus.
He’s gotten a bad press.
I’m sure in the original version of the bubull Jesus was a cheating b”sta”rd who broke Judas’s heart by arranging weekly gangbangs with the other disciples.
Or so Lady Gaga would have you believe.
The church itself would like not to believe this. Even it is true.
Makes a mockery of their teachings and faith.
Jesus’s sexuality has been talked about for centuries. Look at many art works for e.g.
I think society has kept the blind fold on for too long and now it is coming off with regards to Jesus and Christianity.
Truth will prevail.
Don’t pay too much attention to art works though as they usually portray Jesus as white and blonde. Don’t think he was from Sweden though?
Methinks the Abrahamic cult freaks and bigots are sorely regretting their fight with us “queers”. Well they were warned we wouldn’t be walked on and our bandwagon of truth is gathering unstoppable momentum. however we must remain vigilant and take care not to hit the buffers too soon….
I suggest an all out campaign of full page ads and radio spots. There is plenty of money sloshing around in the pink pocket books and we should ask some of our richest GLBs to contribute a weekends spending to such a project.
Jesus was a gay, Jesus was a gay!
Jesus is a fictional character, so it is indeed immaterial.
These religious people are very, very strange.
IMagining what fictional characters got up to in the sack is a sign of mental illness.
Then again this guy is a priest so we can only expect delusion from him.
Yet there is more evident for the existence of Jesus Christ, that there is for say Julias Cesar the roman empire.
People are entitled to their opinion no matter what it is they believe, however just because that makes you feel uncomfortable does not mean you should belittle them for their choice in life.
Jesus is not fictional, however even if he was What better example to folllow thatn a life of love and serving others
No. There is most comprehensively NOT more evidence for the existence of Jesus than for Julius Caesar. That’s just a silly myth put about by the christian lobby. Caesar’s life and conquests are supported by masses of actual, real, archaeological and literary evidence. We even have the books that he himself wrote, and letters written both to him and about him by contemporary Romans such as Cicero. For Jesus we have the mythological accounts of the new testament – which is not contemporary, doesn’t agree on most specifics and contains little more than wish-fulfilment fantasies designed to make already written hebrew and hellenistic religious prophecies appear to have been realised. And a handful of dubious throwaway references from classical historians seventy odd years later. That’s it. That’s LITERALLY it as far as the Jesus character goes.
There MIGHT have been a real, historical person (or, more likely, several real persons concatenated into one by the storyteling) to whom all the syncretistic, highly derivative religious prophecy-fulfilment stories accreted. But if there were such people then we know next to nothing about them, because all the stories are so obviously a re-hash of traditional ancient religious myth. Virgin births, gods having children, resurrections, king-sacrifice, vicarious punishment and forgiveness, twelve disciples, healing miracles… these sorts of things go back to Egyptian myth and beyond. When you strip away all this, the best you could say about Jesus, IF he really existed, is that he really existed. And possibly was some kind of apocalyptic preacher. Not that he was kind and loving. Not that he actually said any of the lines later authors wrote for him. Not that he was gay or straight.
And given that the concept of deities is childish and ridiculous, certainly not that he was one.
Spot on, VP.
“Yet there is more evident for the existence of Jesus Christ, that there is for say Julias Cesar the roman empire.”
Are you British? How old are you?
I only ask to find out how long our education system has clearly been failing.
History isn’t your strong point is it? Every think of actually GOING to school?
Anglican101 – back to your history books – please ignore that one book where Je$us gets the starring role. Only 2 or 3 people wrote of your ‘guy’ and even then there are doubts to authenticity. So in response to your comment, you can believe anything you like (no digs) but beware that intelligent people KNOW differently.
….There is extensive contemporary history and information about J Caesar as there is about an earlier, much earlier figure Alexander the Great. There is NO contemporary evidence for the man Jesus of Nazareth. Don’t you think it telling that in his supposed 33 yeqar lifespan that there is no mention of him whatever. No contemporary accounts for instance of the ruk in the Temple or the feeding of thousands with practically nothing. One would imagine that a feat like that would gain a notoriety that would transcend religion and be part of the history of the ancient world, yet no mention whatever. The only mention of him occours almost 300 years after his supposed murder and only then by a small group of religious freaks in the backstreets of Rome.. To be frank the evidence for King Arthur of Camelot holds more water than this tripe.
BTW… what ever happened to the ten commandment tablets that were given to another ejit from the “holy land” not once but twice…
…………One would think that something handed over by the “god” dude himself would be protected and preserved for all time yet not a grain of sand even exists of these to artifacts yet we have fragments of for example the Rosetta Stone or numerous other very ancient artifacts.
What is galling about religion and the Abrahamic cults versions in particular is that it professes to be the truth yet it is an entire, and not even plausible, fiction.
I call it autistic academic analysis… completely out of touch with reality, except the likelihood that even poor people can scrape up the money to support this sting operation.
The “Christ” of the church may well be fictional in many respects. However, the Jesus of history was not fictional however much you might like him to be.
The Jesus of history is nothing more than a jewish carpenter from Jerusalem who had a mental illness which convinced him that he was the messiah.
I believe he was simply a charismatic with a great PR department. Yes, I believe Jesus existed. So did Jim Jones. So did David Koresh. Not much difference except in longevity.
Jesus was not a fictional character, no matter how much you would like to believe it. There are Roman records verifying his existence.
Afraid not Sue, no not one! You can believe this, some very clever and dedicated people tried very hard to find verifiable evidence of the “jesus” of the new testament and found, nothing. Check it out and if you do find something verifiable and not manufactured at a much later time by the christians let us know?
Dear me, have I wasted my time taking a non-faith theology degree, or did you just want to patronise me?
Read The Non-Christian Sources about Jesus in The Historical Jesus (Theissen and Merz, SCM Press)
Theology, whether about Jesus or Gilgamesh, is another example of autistic academic analysis…. pure speculation
There is reference to Jesus in the historical works of Josephus, a reference which was added years after Josephus died, as was the custom in the early church’s attempt to unify its doctrine.
“a non-faith theology degree” is not a degree in archaeology, so yeah, it was a waste of time in this case.
….Who exactly do you think you are trying to fool with your “non Faith Theology degree bullsh!t.
Anyone coming out with such drivel leaves themselves open to a lot more that being patronised, pet. Your suggested reading list is about as infantile as anyone could imagine even an xtian who believes there are mysterious Roman records knocking about that verify the existence of a fictional character…. WOULD YOU CARE TO PROVIDE SOME EVIDENCE OF THESE RECORDS AND WHERE ONE CAN PERUSE THEM. tHAT I WOULD PAY A FORTUNE TO SEE..
Which Roman records are those?
dAVID, a word of warning: Do not upset the slash fans.
If you have a look on the internet, you’ll find that Jesus/Judas is extremely popular. Now that’s what I call ‘imagining what fictional characters got up to in the sack’.
I have always valued Paul Oestreichers work in strengthening human rights and recognising the value of seeking wholeness for all.
Some of you may find the words of this sermon he preached in Coventry Cathedral in 2007 interesting:
And this is news how, exactly? Leonardo Da Vinci knew it when he painted the Last Supper. John is painted with a very effeminate face or as a woman. This is all semantics though as the whole thing is merely mythology and fable cobbled together by Constantine the Great in the fourth century at the behest of his neurotic and controlling wife….
Citation needed. Also explanation.
Constantine the great decided that his coming Battle would be greatly helped if like all other ancient rulers he had a religion of his own and a “god2 that would be clearly on his side so he was persuaded by his wife who was a member of a small jewish sect in the backstreets who followed the personality cult of a Galilee preacher who had been murdered by the Roman at the behest of the Jewish hierarchy as he was, to put it mildly, rocking the boat (no pun) and causing a fuss they could do without. The rest is all cobbled together by the said Conty and his missus and hey presto we have a new religion. Oh bye the way, Old conty won the battle. i can’t remember who it was against and too lazy to look it up but you can do that yerself…..
Ah, I thought you might mean something like that. The early church that condemned the deification of Hadrian’s lover predated Constantine’s conversion by two centuries. Christianity was already around, largely being thrown to the lions that dAVID is so fond of.
By the time of Constantine, the administration of the Roman Empire was falling apart.
On the other hand, the early church was highly organized with administrative centers at Constantinople, Damascus, Jerusalem, and North Africa under the authority of Rome.
Constantine and his wife clearly saw the need for such an efficient administration, and they did what they had to do to in order to take over this prosperous religious operation; they proclaimed christianity as the official state religion.
Which version of the buybull is used in the Anglican cult.
When was it edited into its current form, and who edited it.
The buybull is the greatest con job in history.
it is a badly writtten, piece of fiction which was written to give meanint to desert dwelling illiterate peasants who lived in the middle east thousands of years ago.
Anyone who thinks the buybull has any relevance to 21st century life is clearly a bit ill.
By bullybull I think you refer to the bible. Depending on your location I think you will find either the ESV or the NIV or sometimes the KJV being used with in the wider anglican church.
It is not consider fiction in anyway by most people, infact it is taken as a historical document and an accredited source of the history of Israel and the wider aera at that time
“It is not consider fiction in anyway by most people, infact it is taken as a historical document and an accredited source of the history of Israel and the wider aera at that time”
I think you have a skewed perspective of what amounts to “most people” and it’s frightening that you think that the bible is an “accredited source of the history of Israel and the wider aera [sic] at that time”.
It’s been rewritten so many times (and translated from one language to another to another), that the bible can not possibly be “accredited source” of anything, except the history of itself and Christianity.
It’s a mishmash confection. A cultural anthology. The old testament was compiled in the later centuries BC by jewish patriarchs with very strong political and cultural agendas. The new testament was compiled in the third and fourth centuries AD with strong cultural and religious agenda, primarily by Irenaeus and Athanasius, and their editorial methodology rejected considerable amounts of material. That there are some bits keyed in to actual historical events is unsurprising, but that doesn’t mean it’s all historically accurate. Most of it simply isn’t, and even the bits that are are still shot through with propagandistic fictions and myth stories.
And, of course, we know that there’s no such thing as gods, ghosts, daemons, witches and the like, so we can automatically discard those bits.
“infact it is taken as a historical document ”
The bible is a “historic document”? Since when and by who, and who accredited it?
So genesis is “historical” is it?
I suggest you get an education before you bander this nonsense about in public.
The bible is written with a tone of authority and pretends to be an historical document, but it is no such thing.
There may well have been a historical person called Jesus, whose life was fictionalised by the writers of the bible who turned him into something he was not. It is true that at the time of Jesus’s life there were many small cults and preachers who had their followers and several stories about virgin births and resurrections.
This is all just so much puff and nonsense. One might as well speculate on whether Achilles or Hamlet or Sherlock Holmes or Mr. Sulu from Star Trek was gay. The most this is is an exercise in literary criticism, a fun distraction for a book club to while away an evening.
Yes, it’s nice that this Oestreicher man is a decent, tolerant human being. Though that’s not really deserving of a plaudit since it’s just about the minimum we should expect of a human being these days. But even if the Jesus character was an embittered homophobic straight man with a string of wives and mistresses that wouldn’t make a bilnd bit of difference – it’s still just an ancient myth, there are still no gods or ghosts or supernatural monsters, and homosexuality is still perfectly harmless, morally neutral and fine.
“This is all just so much puff and nonsense. One might as well speculate on whether Achilles or Hamlet or Sherlock Holmes or Mr. Sulu from Star Trek was gay.”
Just a small point, but Mr. Sulu from Star Trek was gay (and still is!) :)
That’s kind of why I chose him!
Mr Sulu is a fictional character who had no ‘life’ apart from the writers efforts and the actor who played him on the set of the ‘starship Enterprise’. That the actor who played Mr Sulu is gay is hardly relevent, Mr Sulu is still and will always be a work of fiction, just like “jesus”. Work of fiction never existed, never, not real, made up, fiction. Jesus? Not straight, not gay, just not real.
Funny you should mention George Takei (Mr. Zulu).
He was born on this day, April 20, 1937.
I repeat, slash fiction. It’s the basis of a thriving community.
Whilst it amuses me to think that right wing christian fundamentalists everywhere will be choking on their morning coffee reading this, it’s pointless to speculate on the sexuality of someone who if you do believe the gospels is long past telling anyone, and who never went on record to express a preference one way or another.
Granted he hung out with 12 men a lot, but he was hardly Liberache.
I am sure if this interpretation and view is true then it does not follow that Jesus wandered around the Holy Land in the contemporary equivalent of cropped tops, with bleached blonde hair and lots of glitter!
No LGBT person needs to fit to stereotypes – and I am sure the Gospel message suggests that Jesus would be unlikely to contemplate adopting stereotypical imagery. He liked to challenge etc.
Was Jesus gay? I don’t know, maybe.
Does it matter? No
If he was, would he be effeminate? I don’t know, probably not.
I can see a rich new vein of Christian iconography opening up here!
I can see a great cartoon competition possibly opening!
I think Gilbert and George must’ve done something like that by now, not to mention Pierre and Gilles…
While we can’t be sure that Jesus really existed, we can be sure that he was Jewish. We worked in his father’s business, he didn’t leave home until he was thirty and his mother thought he was god.
No we can be sure that ‘jesus’ never existed. You can be sure that it is a work of fiction. Christianity is about money, power and control, nothing more and nothing less. In the past anyone who opposed it was killed, that’s love isn’t it? Now it manifests its madness by making gay people the object of its unreasoning hate. Time to grow up and throw off the shackles of cult once and for all.
Was he? Wasn’t he? Who really gives a flying ****! Why put any focus on the sexuality of a mythical figure of 2000 years ago when we have real examples of how humans should treat each other who have lived within our lifetime. Think Mandela, MLK, even Diana – it’s their contribution to hmanity what counts, and nothing more. Putting the focus on figures of 2000 years ago who in today’s society would probably be considered deranged and completely out of step with society.
Putting the focus on figures of 2000 years ago who in today’s society would probably be considered deranged and completely out of step with society, is plain bonkers! (Typo)
Whether a historical Jesus existed or not, the practice of taking into a widowed mother into the disciple’s home when he (the eldest son) died denotes a recognised kinship and close familial tie, typical of Judaic family structure. This supports a relationship between Jesus and John (even parallel to that of David and
Jonathan)…otherwise she would have gone to the household of her next-eldest son (and she had more children)
On that basis alone it would be hard to refute the idea.
She had more children? You seem sure of this though you question whether Jesus actually existed. Curiouser and curiouser.
there is passing reference in the bible to additonal siblings i believe
My point was Adam is unsure of whether Jesus existed but he is sure he had siblings. WTF? Doctor Who couldn’t concoct a plot like that.
He sounds kinda like a christian is supposed to be
everybody has had some same sex feelings, they do make this planet go round don’t they so, I would attempt to think having really only these, maybe Mary or Mary, was so unpleased about his being internationally famed oddly enough, anything like creating her own ignored misery there, about holding some, i.e.denying any male contact in reproducing, is also another issue to scandalize into misinterpretation, (not that this is a huge disadvantage to Anglican spiritual codes of conduct with all due hahrcasm), what on earth was in the last supper SHE served? And they ran off into the sunset together? However poignant her sons fame went with humanist peace loving healing ways forwards, anti barbaric and open to use, it’s a bit tragic. THE END. (oh no it’s not).
I have no idea what you’re trying to say. Did you try use Google translate on this?
“everybody has had some same sex feelings”
I have to disagree there, that’s like saying every gay person has had sexual feeling for the opposite sex!
As for the rest..what are you talking about?
We’re not really that sure if Jesus even existent.
This goes in the “Dumbledore is gay, and other stories” section.
I agreed with this right up untill the point when you told me I wasn’t human. -_-
Thanks. Thanks a bundle.
Who said you were not human?
Good luck to him, if more priests where like him it would make the church a much nicer and more progressive force.
The church has always been a force of hatred.
Why change thousands of years of tradition?
That’ll annoy the Jesus/Judas shippers. Probably not a lot, though.
The naked Jesus that we see on the cross would have been a hot piece of stuff,.
He clearly looked after his body and appearance (well before he got nailed to a cross – or was that some weird fetish he had).
You could say he was well hung.
Hung like a donkey in fact.
Where’s YOUR messiah now dumb@ss?
Actually dAVID, it was a hideous form of corporal punishment. Probably one of the most prolonged and painful ever conceived, and suffered by may thousands until much more recently than you might think. Hilarious stuff.
Yes, but luckily ‘Jesus’ never existed, so I have no sympathy for the pain suffered by fictional characters.
Your obsessed with Jesus. You think about him more than christian fundies think about bum sex.
Also you’re completely missed the point about proving the existence of historical figures. If he did exist – and I’m not saying he did, atleast not in the typical portrayal – then there record that that exists today comprises exactly the kind of artifacts that you would expect from any figure of that epoch. Or did you expect photos? you know, like the ones we have of Plato and Alexander the great.
Pink News could you investigate what has happened to your rating system. I and others have noticed recently that when one gives a thumbs down it can add up to five thumbs up and vice versa…. There is comment on this page that has 16 unexplained down thumbd and when i attempted to give it a thumbs up it added another 3 thumbs down???Please fix this mess of a comment page .these expanding arrows are also a problem…
I have noticed similar things and some slightly different e.g. when you thumb someone up (or down) and there is no alteration in the total score. I presume this is because between the time the screen was loaded and I reach a conclusion on the comment I want to thumb up/down that others have also thumbed and the impact on the scores is cumulative.
I guess it depends how often your windows refresh.
Thats my logical explanation – but would be interested to hear from PN point of view.
Last year archaeological discoveries were made in Jordan that are believed to be additional writings of around the time of Christ
Some have said that they are new codices.
There is at least one new parable, that of the two young men. There are clear echoes of the relationship between David and Jonathan, for Jesus speaks of one young man having his soul “knit with the soul” of the other, and loving him “as his own soul”.
There is also a new epistle from Paul which seems to favourably mention homosexual relationships.
And which fiction writer wrote the epistle from St Paul – because the bible is a work of fiction after all.
There is not ‘god’.
There was no ‘Jesus’.
There is no afterlife.
You do accept that don’t you?
I accept you believe that, dAVID
I do not share your views.
I accept you are aggressive about this (as the wording of your reply to my comments indicates).
My role is not to persuade one way or another, although if someone wishes to discuss issues related to my faith in a calm manner then I am more than prepared to do so.
You have reached your conclusions as to what you believe and don’t believe, it appears from your approach to this discussion. Who am I to try and persuade you otherwise?
I disagree. I also find your aggressive unnecessary (and before you fire back at me about some Christians being aggressive and wrong – I agree – however, I support you in your orientation, I am gay myself).
We disagree on the issue of faith, and your attitude and approach to the issue. We probably agree on a great deal more.
Thank you for your contact.
It was an interesting find Andrew, but I doubt it will carry much weight with conservatives who are more likely to dismiss it as heretical and continue with their literal interpretation of the Old and New Testament. Unfortunately, it’s this blinkered literal understanding that is used to undergird the prejudice towards LGBT people. Very sad.
Who gives a f–k? I don’t. The sooner the Christian church is eradicated along with other religions the better for all humanity.
Maybe you don’t care.
I’m not that bothered – although I find it interesting.
Some people clearly do.
Just because you are not interested – does not mean that others should not be able to discuss it.
Doesn’t this canon know about the Secret Gospel of Mark? It indicates that Jesus was having sex with a youth in the Garden of Gethsemane just before the Romans arrested him. The notion that Jesus was homosexual goes back at least to Xavier Mayne’s (Edward I. Stevenson’s) “The Intersexes: A History of Similisexualism as a Problem in Social Life,” discussed in John Lauritsen’s and my book “The Early Homosexual Rights Movement (1864-1935).” Personally, I doubt there ever was a man named Jesus, probably a composite figure created out of other myths circulating at the time, including from Hinduism and the Egyptian myth of Osiris.
Again who cares.
The gospels along with the rest of the buybull is a work of fiction.
The fictional character of Jesus could be f*king Moses for all I care.
He’s still a fictional character.
Oooh I see a hornets nest brewing on the horizon here! *grin*
No – I think you mean a ‘crown of thorns’ – that Jesus character was a right kinky devil.
I think most people view Jesus in the same manner that they view their pets: perennially chaste and pure, so Jesus is always seen as non-sexual. Nothing cited from the Bible can be used as proof of any historical fact as the Bible is a work of fiction. The Twelve Apostles/John the One He Loved thing is weird considering the subject matter, I’ve always thought so, but maybe the authors were just clueless. I do like that it lends some ambiguity simply because it causes conservative Christians psychotic episodes just to broach the possibility. http://caballoblue.com/vampiresblog/2012/04/02/ill-be-damned/
Clearly you’ve never met my cats. Or, I repeat, slash fans.
The story of Jesus in the Bible is (along with the rest of the Bible) so the claim is obviously not true
Even if it was true, he would have been asexual. Also, asexual does not mean less than human.
Which Bible do you/did you study, Lumi?
You seem very blinkered and judgemental in your views.
Okay, think of it like a novel then since the story and characters are fictitious. He’s still asexual.
I doubt he would have been gay either since the Bible says many anti gay things.
Read these sites for me
God Is Imaginary
Skeptics Annotated Bible
The Bible has very little to say about homosexuality.
Where it does make comments of note it compares it to eating shellfish – something I happily do. So stone me!
I don’t need to read Bible hate websites – I have spent plenty of time studying theology (12 years) and preaching to have dealt with most concerns (both within the church and from outside).
The overall message of the Bible is love your neighbour. As a gay Christian leader thats what I aim to do, and try to improve upon.
Andrew, you’re wasting your time on this one with a logical argument, there’s clearly a mental health issue here, or a learning difficulty at best.
Will I must say you jump to mental health issues and disability very quickly to anyone you don’t like.
I work with people with Learning Disabilities and non of them even understand ignorance nor accept it so stop using that as your put down to anyone who comes out with anything stupid.
You wanna try that again when you are sober, pet.
Or had the psychiatric help she needs. Did you see the bollox she was spitting out about trans people? Shocking.
Transpeople are the ones that need psychiatric help
“Transpeople are the ones that need psychiatric help”
Yeah, you keep saying that. You’re just white trash with no education, and now you’re a bigot. good for you. But saying the same fascist line over and over again just means you’re mad, not right.
Now run along, a raccoon is eating your trailer.
No, Lumi, YOU need help. And an eduction. You’re a vile woman.
It certainly seems you have some anger issues and resentment that ought to be addressed.
There seems to be a lack of perspective on your approach to a number of issues.
Your black and white views on religion and transgender issues seem ill informed and based on personal prejudice rather than a balanced consideration of facts.
I have no doubt some religious people have hurt you. That is wrong and should never have happened. It does not follow that all religious people will hurt you. Perhaps you need to address your fears as well as your anger and resentment.
Your transphobia is concerning and may be a symptom of your underlying anger.
I think you should talk this through with someone.
Seriously, the “evidence” given here is nonsense. Does no one understand the history and social context of the time in which Jesus lived? Men and women did not hang out in groups like they do now. Men hung out with other men (visit almost any country in the middle east – even now, this hasn’t changed much). The fact that he “loved” his friend, didn’t mean they were sleeping together.
Sheesh. And even if he was, fine. But nothing here suggests that.
The most sensible comment on this subject on this whole page! What intrigues me is the number of intelligent people who doubt that Jesus even existed. There is overwhelming evidence for his historical existence for anyone who takes the time to check it out. The real issue is was he just a human being?
Y’all have to have a look at this piece by George Carlin…enjoy
Christians will die if this is true when they finally, or if ever, they meet him.
The pun was intended.
My God…this Jesus guy has a lot to answer for…..its so sad….
Well said! (Brave and honest man to raise the issue – even though its actually moot – the church is happier with moats than moots…lol)
Jesus was a Gay Vampire¡
Don’t you mean Zombie…?
Josephus described Jesus as follows:
“At this time, too, there appeared a certain man of magical power, if it is permissible to call him man, whom certain Greeks call a son of God, but his disciples the true prophet said to raise the dead and heal all diseases.
His nature and form were human; a man of simple appearance, mature dark skin, small stature, three cubits high (about five feet) hunchbacked, with a long face, long nose and meeting eyebrows, so that they who see him might be affrighted, scanty hair with a parting in the middle of his head, after the manner of the Nairites, and an undeveloped beard.”
And to quote Hopper:
This description was edited by Christians in the fourth century to read as follows:
” … Ruddy skin, medium stature, six feet high, well grown with a venerable face, handsome nose, goodly black eyebrows with good eyes so that the spectators could love him, with curly hair the color of unripe hazelnuts, with a smooth and unruffled, unmarked and unwrinkled forehead, a lovely red, blue eyes, beautiful mouth, with a copious beard the same color as the hair, not long, parted in the middle, arms and hands full of grace … ”
If you read anything else by Josephus, you’ll understand the guy would never write anything this flattering about anyone.
(Both of these passages are quoted directly from A Criminal History of Mankind by Colin Wilson, 1984, 2005, pages 215 and 216.)
This would confirm Isaiah 53:
‘There was nothing in his beauty to attract us to him’.
Only his words. And his miracles.
And his offer of eternal life.
No wonder he was regarded as nothing.
And the Pharisees despised him.
As does this Canon, by so abusing him.
………….”.And his offer of eternal life.” (sic). That sentence right there is the nub of the whole ridiculous religion thing. The fear of Death and the sure knowledge that when you are dead you are most definitely dead.
Isaiah? The supposed prophecies of someone living in the 8c BC? What has that got to do with anything?
Asexuality is not ‘devoid of sexuality’ – it’s much more complex than that, as indeed all sexuality is. On balance, I think the Canon’s comment is helpful – historically, most of the churches have suppressed the whole issue of Jesus’ sexuality, which has enabled them to promote a really toxic view of all sexuality and has damaged untold millions of lives as a result.
Jesus wept (literally).
This is such junk.
Jesus had compassion for his mother and his closest disciple on the cross.
Yet even his death is twisted by this liberal sh*te.
Nothing is sacrosanct anymore.
This is deeply offensive to 90% of worldwide CHristians.
And grounded on nothing.
“This is deeply offensive to 90% of worldwide CHristians.”
Then they need to get over it.
“And grounded on nothing.”
Funny that, all religions are grounded on nothing. Religion is a form of acceptable superstition, they have no basis in fact or reality. Great if you want to believe, that’s your choice, but the reality is you have to accept criticism/analysis of something that is not proven or based in fact.
So get over the “tears of Jesus” crap and grow up James.
…”And grounded on nothing.” well it is in keeping with the rest of the whole Abrahamic cults bullsh1t then, isn’t it.
If the Christian churches would “more openly accept, embrace and love” their gay and lesbian followers, he writes “there would be many more disciples”.
Judging from the comments here, I think articles like this one need a big headline at the top that says “HE’S NOT BEING HOMOPHOBIC”. Apparently it’s too much for some people to read the full article and understand that Oestreicher is supporting gay rights and offering an interpretation of the story of Jesus wherein He is potentially homosexual, with the explanation that any kind of love, so long as it is faithful and genuine, is holy. :)
Remember, this was 2000 years ago. Women were not allowed to even speak in public, let alone travel around preaching with a single man. Given the culture at the time, male disciples were Jesus’ only option.
‘It is immaterial’. You bet. Christians have had historically very little interest in Jesus’ actual experiences and values, as far as they can be discerned. They prefer the supernatural tosh about ‘Christ’ invented by St Paul, which is actually what Christianity is. Jesus would certainly be pretty baffled by it, if not outraged.
I think Paul Oestreicher has been inhaling too much incense or sipping
too much holy wine — back off Brother Paul
“Do homosexuals love their mothers?”
Does your mother love you?
(Do you know who she is?)
“Were he devoid of sexuality, he would not be truly human.”
Great (I’m asexual). :P
But other than that minor objection, I think he makes a good point. The Bible can be read as Jesus being gay, and in the end, should it really matter? Homosexuality is no better or worse than heterosexuality, just rarer. It bears no relevance to the life Jesus lead, or to his teachings. (:
is anyone who lives in the real world actually bothered? personally I don’t give a flying f…- couldn’t give the same for anyone else’s sexuality – it should be private – between you and whoever you happento be f…… at the time. Why do we all keep responding and giving credence to all these sad religious creeps?
if God is gay, why Sodom and Gomorrah?
This article is utter rubbish, just completely loony ravings. This man does not know what he is talking about.
There is nothing in the gospels that suggests Jesus was homosexual. If he had been it is obvious that the Jewish leaders who regarded it as a crime against their laws would have denounced him for it. It is impossible that theywould have ignored such an easy way of getting rid of him. The gospels say that Jesus had a close and special relationship with Mary of Magdala. While this was not necessarily consummated, it does prove beyond any doubt that Jesus was heterosexual.
I can’t help feeling that the lady who recently commented that you lot need to be sectioned under the Mental Health Act was correct in her judgement.
Why is it that you people always call other people’s views a “rant” ?
It is such an overused ploy and it only reveals that you haven’t got any intelligent arguments.
I think the gay fanatics are rather given to ranting actually. That and a lot of malicious personal abuse.
I don’t think its that interesting a point by her to be honest – shutting down debate simply cause it may rile conservative church members is not a good enough reason to silence people from expressing their views…
A wise comment. This website only exists to stir up silliness and hysteria.
it’s interesting that she should try to do that…esp. since she calls herself a christian activist..