Did JESUS CHRIST have a GAY relationship with Apostle JOHN?

Question

"In the Gospel of John, the disciple John frequently refers to himself in the third person as 'the disciple whom Jesus loved'." 4 One might argue that Jesus loved all of his followers in a non-sexual way. Thus to identify Jesus' love for John in a special way might indicate a sexual relationship. The disciple was "the" beloved. He was in a class by himself.
During the Last Supper before Jesus' execution, the author(s) of the Gospel of John describes how the "beloved" disciple laid himself on Jesus' inner tunic -- his undergarment. See John 13:25 and 21:20. Robert Goss, assistant professor of comparative religion at Webster University in St. Louis, LA, noted that Jesus and the beloved disciple: "... eat together, side by side. What's being portrayed here is a pederastic relationship between an older man and a younger man. A Greek reader would understand." 5 Jesus appears to have loved all of his male and female followers in a close, trusting, non-erotic manner.

During the crucifixion, in John 19:26-28, Jesus is described as seeing his mother and an unidentified man: "the disciple standing by, whom he loved." Again, Jesus probably loved all of his 12 or 70 disciples in a non-sexual manner. But this particular disciple is identified as "the" disciple who Jesus loved. That might indicate a special intimate relationship with one special disciple.
The late Morton Smith, of Columbia University reported in 1958 that he had found a fragment of a manuscript which at the Mar Saba monastery near Jerusalem. It contained the full text of Mark, chapter 10. Apparently the version that is in the Christian Scriptures is an edited version of the original. Additional verses allegedly formed part of the full version of Mark, and were inserted after verse 34. It discusses how a young man, naked but for a linen covering, expressed his love for Jesus and stayed with him at his place all night

"J Richards" suggested that Mark 7:14-16 shows that Jesus approves of homosexual acts. The critical phrase reads: "There is nothing from without a man, that entering into him can defile him..." Richards suggests that Jesus gave great emphasis to this teaching, directing it to everyone. Richards suggests that the sentence refers to dietary laws and also extends to "blood transfusions, medication, organ transplants, and artificial insemination" and to homosexual acts as well

Answer 1

It is entirely possible; I, however, do not believe it to be the case. I agree that Jesus was definately married, no Jewish man of his age would have been so respected had he not been married. The bible can be interpreted to however the reader chooses to see it. Along with its many, many flaws, gaping holes of lacks of information allowing anything to be taken from it is one of them. However, it makes me sick to see the amount of homophobia that has presented itself in response to this question. So what if you think homosexuals are going to hell? It's still not affecting you. It's never going to. You should be more concerned with the amount of hypocrisy in that bible you claim to know backwards and forwards.

Answer 2

No, because Jesus taught that a man would leave his parents and marry his wife and the two would become one. What God has joined together let no man pull apart. He was talking about male and female. Also God created Adam and Eve, not Adam and STEVE! As for the apostle John, he was very close to Jesus. He was the youngest apostle and would do anything for Jesus. Jesus even told him to take care of his mother Mary at his death. Men can have a very endearing relationship with one another. Homosexuality is condemned in the Bible. Jesus spoke about the good things men should do to one another. Doing these gross acts with the same sex would not have been preached by Jesus nor performed by Jesus. He was not a hypocrite.

Answer 3

Jesus was an Essene rabbi and was almost certainly married. However, Jews of his time were not hysterically homophobic as modern Christians generally are.


According to the Dead Sea Scroll, "The Messianic Rule," (1QSa,I, 9-11); "At the age twenty years old, a youth shall be enrolled (in the Community) to enter upon his allotted duty to raise a family and to be joined to the Holy Congregation. He shall not lay with a woman before then for he does not yet know the difference between good and evil." Thus, you see that a youth of 20 years of age had to marry and assume the duty to raise a family in order to be "joined to the Holy Congregation."

From the above texts we see that within both Pharisaic Sadducean Judaism, and Qumronic Essene Judaism, as represented by the Talmud and the Dead Sea Scroll texts of Qumron, EVERY Jewish young man was married to a Jewish young woman by the time they were sexually active no matter what their true sexual orientation was. In fact, the signing of the prenuptial documents, the ketubah, was part of a child's coming of age (B'nai Mitzvah) ceremony.

Although both the Qumronic community and the Priestly element of Sadducean Judaism were obsessed with sexual purity and seminal emissions, yet, one cannot find specific references to homosexuality as being a prohibited activity for Jews in any of their sectarian writings. It seems that the married Essenes lived in the cities, near the walls, while, possibly, those who had already raised their families, were widowed, or were no longer married lived at the community at Qumron.

In a closely knit religious community of this kind, true homosexuality, wherein two persons of the same sex live together in a committed, sexually active relationship, is usually accepted without fanfare or public notice. Snide remarks might be made but the relationship is usually just ignored.>

Answer 4

No of course not, it is merely a misunderstanding of the early language and twisting them into mans sick sexual opinoins.
It has largely stated when homosexals with no real defence of thier perverse life style and for some reason not wishing to merely admit it is a sin and that they perfer to live that way, they have attacked the bible and its meaning to try and justify thier way of life.

Answer 5

Fcuking Atheist Republicans!

Answer 6

Gay would be with the sex probably, He could still be intimate with other men, like a best friend or brother. We don't hug enough anymore. What's up with this guys? I think men are afraid people will think they are gay so they do not get into close contact with the same sex anymore. Come on, group hug.

Answer 7

You were right when you said that Jesus loved all of his male and female followers in a close, trusting, non-erotic manner.

Answer 8

who gives a fig what robert gross, mortan smith or j. richards says?? Does holy writ say that?? God will not be called down to serve man's purposes...men are only men and as such man's purposes are not sacred

Answer 9

No of course not they were like brothers as Jesus said we all should be

Answer 10

I think it's very similiar to the Bush/Cheney relationship