Jesus Was Gay, "Or At The Very Least" Queer, Professor Says.

Dr. Reverend Bob must have never read the bible! Otherwise he would have read this:

Genesis 19:4,5 "Before they had gone to bed, all the men from every part of the city of Sodom-both young and old-surrounded the house. They called to Lot, "Where are the men who came to you tonight? Bring them out to us that we may have sex with them."

Jude 7: "In a similar way, Sodom and Gomorrah and the surrounding towns gave themselves up to sexual immorality and perversion. They serve as an example of those who suffer the punishment of eternal fire."

a reply to: TheChrome
Who is this mythical Reverend "BOB" that seems to be the attention seeker/taker from the OP post? Why does this person not do its own thing without ITS minions obfuscating or commandering another's platform.

originally posted by: CharlieSpeirs
Well I'll be damned (pun intended)...

I was looking more for a conspiracy to make a thread about...
& came across (pun intended) this little gem...

I thought it would be right up ATS' alley (pun intended)...

Please be civil (pun intended).

I don't think you understand how puns work.

With that being said, Jesus likely engaged in gay activities, but they were commonplace around his time. In fact, if he were to travel forwards in time to the 21st century, he'd think we're strange for being so restrictive of what our society deems acceptable sex. Back then, men would bang men; it wasn't weird or taboo. It's actually pretty well documented. Most men would have wives, but they'd also have sex with men. Sexual deviance which we would consider extreme, such as sexual relationships with children, was also somewhat common. Pretty much anything that we consider grossly sexually deviant behavior was socially acceptable and unregulated, mostly because men hadn't yet twisted the word of god to vilify every kind of sex besides heterosexual sex in wedlock. That being said, having gay sex doesn't make a person gay. To be gay you have to fantasize about sex with the same sex and have no interest in sex with the opposite sex; being gay is not a choice. If you fantasize about both sexes, then congrats, you are bisexual! Most people are bisexual to some extent.

In all actuality, there is nothing naturally wrong with homosexuality. Sex serves an evolutionary purpose beyond reproduction in humans. For us, sex is often an act of bonding with another person, be they men or women. Most of the time we don't have sex to make babies; we do it because it feels good and releases all of these chemicals that encourage us to trust and bond with our partner. In more extreme cases of sexual deviance (rape, BDSM, child sex), sex is used as a weapon; a means of self empowerment through exerting dominance over another person who is often helpless.

a reply to: Okeyd57

i think one issue with a lot of American Christianity... is that it is based on "sola scriptura"... and traces itself back only to the 1500s as a reaction against Catholicism. The scriptures were never meant to be interpreted on their own, but by the Church... which at the time was the 5 sees consisting of what we call the Orthodox Catholic Church. see this quote from Augustine:

"Neither in the confusion of paganism nor in the defilement of heresy, nor in the lethargy of schism, nor yet in blindness of Judaism is religion to be sought; but among those alone who are called Catholic Christians, or the Orthodox, that is, the custodians of sound doctrine and followers of right teaching."
-St Augustine, On True Religion, chapter 5

They forget that Catholicism (see of Rome) broke away from Orthodoxy, and the Reformers probably made a mistake and should have reverted back to Orthodoxy (but by that time the Eastern Church was practically in a different world). The issue with Protestantism (which is what a lot of US Christians are born into and all they know - not their fault) is that everyone and anyone can set themselves up to interpret scripture as they wish. Its insanity really since it was the Church itself that decided with God's help what consisted of scripture according to Holy Tradition. It is the Church that interprets.

So you end up with all these crazy ideas circulating, that if people had the background of Holy Tradition and the Early Church Fathers and Councils - they would know are heretical and to be discarded.

With regards to John being the beloved disciple... if you know the scriptures you'll also know that John and James (sons of Zebedee) were related to Christ... his close cousins. John was one of those that believed in Jesus to the end. Combine his faithfulness with the fact that he was a blood relative... of course he was beloved. It probably is also one reason that Christ gave the care of his mother Mary over to John at the cross, and gave John to Mary

Jesus came to fulfill the law...and establish a new covenant by his blood, and if you read the law... what we call homosexual behavior was an abomination. So he could not have been the Savior and have been engaging in those things. Its a ridiculous notion really.

originally posted by: vethumanbeing
a reply to: TheChrome
Who is this mythical Reverend "BOB" that seems to be the attention seeker/taker from the OP post? Why does this person not do its own thing without ITS minions obfuscating or commandering another's platform.

You mean the Reverend "Bob" quoted by the OP? Do you mean commandering or commandeering? Think before you speak, and do not bloviate with extraneous jargon.

originally posted by: destroydestroydestroy

Destroydestroydestroy: I don't think you understand how puns work.

With that being said, Jesus likely engaged in gay activities, but they were commonplace around his time. In fact, if he were to travel forwards in time to the 21st century, he'd think we're strange for being so restrictive of what our society deems acceptable sex. Back then, men would bang men; it wasn't weird or taboo. It's actually pretty well documented. Most men would have wives, but they'd also have sex with men. Sexual deviance which we would consider extreme, such as sexual relationships with children, was also somewhat common.

Not sure Rabbis *Jesus was one* (originally of the Jewish faith teachings) engaged in homosexuality. Not sure simple sexual pleasure of the flesh played a part either. This was more a Greco-Roman Pagan idea form. It is sort of like twisting the notion (true) Spanish/Mexican Catholic patriarchs can and do take the virginity of their own 11 or 12 year old daughters in order to teach them how to behave regarding sexual contact with a suitor or potential husband; (who better than your own father).

originally posted by: TheChrome

originally posted by: vethumanbeing
a reply to: TheChrome
Who is this mythical Reverend "BOB" that seems to be the attention seeker/taker from the OP post? Why does this person not do its own thing without ITS minions obfuscating or commandering another's platform.

You mean the Reverend "Bob" quoted by the OP? Do you mean commandering or commandeering? Think before you speak, and do not bloviate with extraneous jargon.

Well, YES ;BOTH: Commandeering (a battalion) or/and Commandering (just a single LOUD voice blowhard over the top who is speaking to Its INNER SELF (thinking it is god) such as Patton or MacArthur/Monty doing the right thing). Speak before I think! and not obliterate by obfuscating any content intended (not being clear) as any jargon extraneous as to confuse or confound on purpose (any other recognized as being so done BY OTHERS I will not take the blame for). Back to my question who is the mythical Bob, a unicorn I could tame and possibly breed to a Pinto Pony? There are such things bred known as four legged Z-donks (donkey/zebra). What is a bloviate other than something you seem to personally identify with? Is it a life form?

a reply to: destroydestroydestroy

Your whole post was just speculation. Your trying to say that somehow everyone was accepting of homosexuality which is wrong. You must be confusing Hebrews with Romans. Romans were accepting of it not Hebrews like at all. That's the whole point of the bible to not act like a Babylonian/Roman heathen. Hebrews strive to be the complete opposite of Romans and Roman thinking. That's why America and the western nations are new Rome and will be the last head of the beast that will be defeated.

originally posted by: NavyDoc

originally posted by: JohnnyCanuck

originally posted by: ketsuko
And if you must believe Jesus was what you must believe Him to be ... whatever. The blacks have been doing it in their own churches for quite some time.

...cuz we all know that Christ was a white guy...LOL

[Eddie Izzard] From Oxford. [Eddie Izard]

I quote myself to explain the reference I used.



One of my favorite comedians.

originally posted by: Kromlech
Homosexuality is a sin, according to God. And Jesus "sinned not." SO, there you go.

Homosexuality is a sin, according to a bunch of people who wrote a bunch of books thousands of years ago for a different society.

No one today knows exactly who Jesus was and what he did. Books written of him, decades after his death, do not count either. Sure, Jesus was a Jew who mostly adhered to Jewish practices, but no one knows if he truly never sinned...

a reply to: daaskapital

The books may have been written by men. But they were followed does not matter who wrote it they followed the commandments. That's the whole point Jesus followed EVERY SINGLE COMMANDMENT. The mental gymnastics people are going thru to somehow want Jesus to be a sinner is retarded he wouldn't be Jesus if he was a sinner that's the point. Hebrews are of a different cloth they do not tolerate lawlessness and Jesus was even worse, he despised lawlessness. And do you know what adultery is? It is lawlessness does not matter if it was a man or a woman. Jesus like LORD YHWH was asexual and that's it there is no argument. Jesus saw EVERYONE as hiz family and children. Last time I checked people don't usually like having sex with their family members.

originally posted by: NavyDoc

originally posted by: NavyDoc

originally posted by: JohnnyCanuck

originally posted by: ketsuko
And if you must believe Jesus was what you must believe Him to be ... whatever. The blacks have been doing it in their own churches for quite some time.

...cuz we all know that Christ was a white guy...LOL

[Eddie Izzard] From Oxford. [Eddie Izard]

I quote myself to explain the reference I used.

One of my favorite comedians.

Thanks for the explanation...makes sense now!

originally posted by: christophoros
a reply to: daaskapital

The books may have been written by men. But they were followed does not matter who wrote it they followed the commandments. That's the whole point Jesus followed EVERY SINGLE COMMANDMENT. The mental gymnastics people are going thru to somehow want Jesus to be a sinner is retarded he wouldn't be Jesus if he was a sinner that's the point. Hebrews are of a different cloth they do not tolerate lawlessness and Jesus was even worse, he despised lawlessness. And do you know what adultery is? It is lawlessness does not matter if it was a man or a woman. Jesus like LORD YHWH was asexual and that's it there is no argument. Jesus saw EVERYONE as hiz family and children. Last time I checked people don't usually like having sex with their family members.

Mate, you can have a go at me for allegedly wanting Jesus to be a sinner, but you're the one putting ideologies and your own opinions and interpretations into his mouth.

Yeah, Jesus was a hardcore Jew who upheld the laws. That makes it even more retarded then, for there to be an entirely different religion based around him as the messiah and son of God, when he did not meet all the requirements and told his followers to uphold all the laws (which Christians do not do).

Jesus was at the very least, a Jewish man who got around teaching a strict interpretation of Judaism to people in the region.

a reply to: destroydestroydestroy

I'll be damned (to hellfire)

Up ATS' alley (obvious)

Be civil (like the partnership)

Came a-cross (subtle)


My puns were fine.
Your comprehension was lacking

I don't get it. Did a Harvard professor just confirm the existence of Jesus Christ?

originally posted by: chrisss
I don't get it. Did a Harvard professor just confirm the existence of Jesus Christ?

No, it was a Yale grad that professed to be Christ in the material.

So it's ok to be Gay right? I am just kidding! Folks don't fall for this. This is propaganda to divide We The People, between the rebel flag, the shooting in SC, the Supreme Court decision on Gay marriage. While all of this is going on, no one was watching our criminals in Washington passing TPP under fast track. Our Congress just handed over the United States and most of it's power to the global corporation. One of the clauses in this Bill allows the world corporations to sue our government if they don't follow their agenda's, the rest of TPP is top secret and the public is not allow to see it. I believe TPP is more important than what a gay professor has to say about Jesus. Who cares what this professors has to say, it is his " opinion" nothing more. This is how propaganda media works and many of you fell for it again. Our country is being destroyed by the globalist and many of you are only interested in what the right hand is doing, while the left hand is undermining your intelligence and freedoms.

originally posted by: christophoros

The books may have been written by men. But they were followed does not matter who wrote it they followed the commandments. That's the whole point Jesus followed EVERY SINGLE COMMANDMENT.

Do you have even a scriptural citation to support this statement? Or just your own POV on who you believe jesus to have been?

The mental gymnastics people are going thru to somehow want Jesus to be a sinner is retarded he wouldn't be Jesus if he was a sinner that's the point.

Jesus, was according to scripture, sent here by "god" to partake in the human experience so that "god" may better understand his subjects. Jesus can't understand what it is to be human if he isn't subject to sin. Therefore the mental gymnastics to try and paint reality in opposition to itself as well as scripture is mind boggling.

Hebrews are of a different cloth they do not tolerate lawlessness and Jesus was even worse, he despised lawlessness. And do you know what adultery is? It is lawlessness does not matter if it was a man or a woman.

Are you really trying to convince others or just yourself, that the 1stC Hebrews of Judea are some sort of super humans that were immutable to everything that the rest of the world took part in? They were human beings, not cut from any different cloth. Just read the OT for some prime examples of double standards and sexual improprieties.

Jesus like LORD YHWH was asexual and that's it there is no argument.

That's it and there's no argument huh? Sure, unless you've actually read the scripture that is. See, the whole poing of "god" sending his only begotten son to Earth to live as a flesh and blood human was so that he (god) could experience humanity through ole Yeshuah. That means all the temptations and sins of the flesh are up for grabs, including sexuality. You also have to understand the fact that for Jesus to be called "teacher" by his followers, he would have had to have been a Rabbi and to be a Rabbi, he would've had to have been married, requiring him to partake of a woman so no... not remotely asexual and based on historicity of 1st C Judea, there is a hell of an argument against what you're saying.

Jesus saw EVERYONE as hiz family and children.

And you're basing this off of what exactly?

Last time I checked people don't usually like having sex with their family members.

They do in the old testament. It's rife with incest and all sorts of sexual improprieties. true story.

originally posted by: Informer1958
So it's ok to be Gay right?

Yep, you are 100% correct on that point.

Unless of course you are an uneducated homophobe.

a reply to: peter vlar

He could have married and had children as that wouldn't be a sin. And I'm not going to argue whether he was a sinner or not that's basic stuff. He felt tempted to sin but he never sinned that was the human experience.