Friday, February 19, 2010
Was Jesus Fruity?
Ladies and Gentlemen, Boys and Girls-especially the boys, consider the question I put forth to you below. For I come not to bear false witness but only to suggest a cleansing- a re-working if you will, of the mental picture you may have carried with you these past years.
“Was Jesus Gay?”
A shocking interrogative?
Then consider the statement “Jesus Was Gay”.
Even more unbelievable?
Perhaps, but consider the picture. If a young man in his early thirties cavorted through the countryside today with a dozen men by his side, wearing light-weight cotton robes with sandal-clad feet- what might you think? Hippies?
Take it step further by seeing these men bathe in a lake together, laugh together, possibly dance together, certainly dine together and even sleep together under one roof-what would enter your mind?
The “Solid Gold Dancers?”
To say nothing of the addition of the occasional young woman who lingered with the troupe as well as taking part in many of the activities mentioned.
Can you say “Fag Hag?”
Suggesting a “Divine” Homosexual streak within God's son is not such an unusual statement. It's not meant to blaspheme any more than suggesting Richard Simmons, Elton John, Rupert Everett, George Smitherman and Scott Thompson are Gay- or me for that matter. Although most of them are I have been told.
There is all manner of information suggesting that “Jesus Was Gay”. Poor Christ. Dan Brown (The Da Vinci Code) had him married to Mary Magdelene, living in southern France, when of course anyone in their right mind knows that only a Gay man would consider the South of France- what with climate among other things, taken into consideration.
So is there any mention in the “Gospels” about this? Firstly, one must keep in mind that the Gospels as we see them today in that book-The Bible, were chosen by mortal man and mortal “straight” men at that. Well, there may have been the occasional Gay man sitting around the table but he wasn't going to upset the straight apple cart! Many chapters of the bible were eliminated- especially those that defeated the purpose of an organized, all- controlling religion led by men.
Two of the most interesting are the Gospel of Philip and a section of the Lost Gospel of Mark. The Gospel of Mark is an edited version of the original.
No, I don't think God reached down and ripped out a few of the verses of the original like a Monty Python skit. It was probably authorized by “men of faith”. Like “Men with Brooms”. Men who wanted- no needed, to win. Men with a “heavenly” purpose.
In the Gospel of Philip a verse actually alludes to the fact that perhaps Dan Brown was right about Jesus marrying Mary. It says “ …there were three who always walked with the Lord. Mary- his Mother and her Sister and Magdalene- the one who was called his companion.” Of course for centuries many in the church hierarchy (read: men) considered Mary Magdalene a “slut” because she worshipped the “sandals” Jesus walked on. As heterosexual men of the day were want to do, they classified many women in this unfortunate category so they wouldn't get the chance to vote or head a major corporation as many females dreamed of doing in early Galilee.
It has been suggested that this passage in Mark 7:14-16
“There is nothing from without a man that entering into him can defile him” suggests rampant homosexuality is fine with the Lord.
That's not in the bible you say!
Have a peek.
Of course like any good Christian knows, the Bible was written and presented error-free even though it was a bunch of “good old boys” sitting around a table possibly sloshed on cheap beer and wine who decided during the party, which Gospel was “in” and which Gospel would be “cast onto the cutting room floor”. A free mind would realize that most words and thoughts contained in the Holy Vessel are open to interpretation. For instance, ancient Law suggests that the “defile him” passage permits the indulgence of certain food and the non-partaking of other food.
So, could Mark 7:14-16 really suggest that Jesus thought Gay Sex was fine with him?
Perhaps it suggests that something as simple as popping a Smartie Candy had the approval of The Son of God.
Mark 14:51-52 also paints a picture that Jesus may have cavorted with scantily clad young men. When he was taken into custody one of his “friends” appeared to be suitably dressed for a “clothing optional” beach or Turkish Bath.
King James says that the young man in question “…had a linen cloth cast on his naked body”.
The size (of the cloth!!) is not mentioned nor the location the cloth covered.
The description continues saying guards were only able “… to grab his cloth and the man ran away naked.”
So what in the name of the Mount of Olives was going on? Hmmmm.
A “Daddy” complex?
One of the “stories” in the Lost Gospel of Mark states the following about the raising of a young man from the dead by Jesus:
“…And going in immediately where the young man was, he stretched out a hand and raised him up, holding his hand. Then, the man looked at him and loved him and he began to call him to his side that he might be with him. And going from the tomb, they went to the house of the young man. For he was rich. And after six days, Jesus instructed him. And when it was late, the young man went to him. He had put a linen around his naked body, and he remained with him through that night. For Jesus taught him the mystery of the kingdom of God.
I think that is all self-explanatory. Although, I have never heard it called “the mystery of the Kingdom of God” before!
In The Gospel of John, John himself says he is “… the disciple (man) whom Jesus loved”. Apparently the original Greek word for “love” was Agape and it meant “unconditional love”. The original Gospels were scribed in Greek.
John was like all men. One or two quick ones and he's off to the bars to “Boast and Brag”.
He should have kept his big mouth shut!
So what about Same Sex Marriage? Of course it's a normal, everyday happening across the true north strong and free and so far institutions have not crumbled. Society has not melted. Perversion is still not the order of the day. We even have the “harperites” in power for goodness sake! How un-Liberal is that?
In Matthew 8:5-13: and Luke 7:2 there is a description of a Roman Centurion asking for the Saviour's assistance. It seemed his “boy toy” was ill. Centurions were allowed to have male companionship in those days but were not allowed to “break bread” or anything else with the ladies while in the service of Caesar.
Much the same rules were inflicted on the Greeks and 300 Spartans (what a Fabulous Movie!) during battle, who figured if the guy with the spear standing to the right of the guy with the sword was totally in love with the guy with the sword, the guy with the spear would fight all the harder to ensure the guy with the sword didn't get in harm's way. Of course, from time to time Greek Kings would tell the “guys” to give the women a little “pleasure” now and then to increase the male population and populate future armies for future wars with Thessaly-if nothing else.
So back to the Centurion and his love slave, Christ healed the lad, possibly sympathizing with the couple's predicament.
What a guy!
So, whether Jesus was Gay or “possibly” Gay-that's the question. Maybe he was even bisexual. That's a story for another time. All this surmising just goes to show that anything is possible and most things are open to interpretation, depending what side of “Gaydom” you reside on.
Now about the persecution of Homosexuals Jesus was specific. During the Sermon on the Mount, (Charleton Heston was there- too bad we couldn't ask him about it!) Christ was selling a single passage to Heaven for anyone who was “cast upon” or “persecuted”.
Gee, Liberace is in Heaven after all!
Posted by Rob Reid at 3:29 PM