It's amazing what pops up when I Yahoo search! If this piece has been posted before, forgive me. I did a search in this forum and got an error message "Gay" was to short for the minimum 4 letter word search and "jesus gay" just plain whacked the server! lol Must be a baptist!


Was Jesus gay?
Missing Fragments from St. Mark's Gospel
published by: http://www.globaltown.com Feb.1998

Most people claim it would not affect their religious beliefs if historians discovered that Jesus was gay, according to a phone poll on London's Talk Radio on Sunday 14 December. Fifty-one percent said revelations of Christ's homosexuality would not affect their religious belief; 49 percent said it would.
The phone vote was part of a debate on the James Whale Show. which asked the question: "Was Jesus Gay?". In the hot seat was Peter Tatchell of OutRage!.
Tatchell noted that one version of St. Mark's gospel --which is still the subject of academic dispute-- alludes to Jesus having a homosexual relationship with a youth he raised from the dead.
According to the U.S. Biblical scholar, Morton Smith, of Columbia University, a fragment of manuscript he found at the Mar Saba monastery near Jerusalem in 1958, showed that the full text of St. Mark chapter 10 (between verses 34 and 35 in the standard version of the Bible) contains a passage which includes the following text. --
"And the youth, looking upon him (Jesus), loved him and beseeched that he might remain with him. And going out of the tomb, they went into the house of the youth, for he was rich. And after six days, Jesus instructed him and, at evening, the youth came to him wearing a linen cloth over his naked body. And he remained with him that night, for Jesus taught him the mystery of the Kingdom of God".
Tatchell says there is scant information about Jesus's sexuality: "We don't know for sure whether Jesus was straight, gay, bisexual or celibate. There is certainly no evidence for the Church's presumption that he was heterosexual. Nothing in the Bible points to him having desires or relationships with women. The possibility of a gay Christ cannot be ruled out.
"Since there is no proof of the heterosexuality of Jesus, the theological basis of Church homophobia is all the more shaky and indefensible.
"Jesus was born a man and therefore presumably had male sexual feelings. But there are no references in the gospels to his sexuality. Large chunks of Jesus's life are missing from the Biblical accounts. This has fuelled speculation that the early Church sanitised the gospels, removing references to Christ's sexuality that were not in accord with the heterosexual morality that it wanted to promote", said Peter Tatchell.

reference this paper on the secret Gospel of Mark
Original piece is here

The links don't work

That aside, obviously I think this "addition" to the gospel of Mark is a forgery. Our earliest manuscripts of the text have never shown any indication that there were parts left out. And to only now find a fragment that supposedly suggests something, would be pretty amazing.

But the article is correct in one aspect - the Bible is silent on Jesus' sexuality. Again, I obviously think he was heterosexual, and most likely celibate (though that last one may be up for debate).

I thought he loved Mary Magdalene.

That's odd. I went in to edit the links and while they worked in the preview, they're now showing a lot of ##### in the url field.

I found this on a quick search on google...

Was Jesus gay?



"Behold how he loved him!" (John 11:36)

"It's fabulous," exulted Brian, my bearded gay friend. "I get to be Jesus at the Easter Fetish performance party. First I'm laid out on a pink marble slab, with only a wisp of loincloth about me. Then -- hallelujah! Resurrection!"

"You're too short," I muttered. "I'd be better." (The best part I ever got in six Catholic pageants was Bartholomew, the geeky apostle.)

"Oh stop," Brian continued. "Listen -- slowly, I rise, for my very favorite part: 12 handsome men -- the apostles -- march in and kiss me all over my body."

"Why do you have to make everyone queer?" I blurted. "Last week you said Hillary was a dyke. This week you're homo Jesus."

"Tsk-tsk. You're acting so straight."

"I am straight."

"I'm sorry, but ... Jesus was gay. He's been in the closet for 2,000 years. But now he's out and he's glorious. My performance is historically valid."

"Brian, you didn't learn anything about Jesus at synagogue. I studied Biblical texts in grad school."

"Jesus was a fag. Case closed. Get used to it." A pause. "I read it on the Web."

"History isn't a computer-game fantasy, Brian. It's real."

I stomped home. As a classics nerd -- I adore ancient alphabets, mysterious cuneiform, fragments of shriveled papyrus -- Brian's invert revisionism pissed me off. I'll destroy his queer notion, I decided -- I'll prove that he's wrong! I can translate the Bible from the original tongues, but --

I don't own a computer.

"Hey, honey? Can you help me?" I begged my modem wife. "I need to research something on You-Hoo."

"Yahoo!" She winced. "What is it?"

"Brian says there's some dribble on his computer about Jesus being gay."

My wife brachiated through files; she tapped in keywords. Her Mac box spewed horrible sounds, like a robot grinding its teeth ...

Three entries fizzed into view. Two listings were irrelevant, and Mormon -- they've invaded cyberspace like it's the new Utah, have you noticed?

"Click, click." I pointed at choice No. 3.

My wife snapped open a posting, titled, "Was Jesus Gay? Missing Fragments from St. Mark's Gospel."

We bumped heads, leaning forward together. Our eyes bulged. The text claimed that a scholar from Columbia University named Morton Smith found manuscript fragments in a monastery near Jerusalem in 1958 that were allegedly excised from the original Mark. The lost and found passage says:

"The youth, looking upon him (Jesus), loved him and beseeched that he might remain with him ... they went into the house of the youth ... And after six days, Jesus instructed him and, in the evening, the youth came to him wearing a linen cloth over his naked body. And he remained with him that night, for Jesus taught him the mystery of the Kingdom of God."

"They did it!" giggled my wife.

"It's not explicit," I said. "But it doesn't sound like my Confirmation."

My wife's an ex-lesbian with the same "outing" fervor as Brian. She shrieked, "2,000 years of oppression! What hypocrites!"

"Quiet!" I bellowed, clutching my throbbing skull. "Civilization is crashing in front of me -- I need to concentrate!"

I pedaled my Schwinn to the library; I flung myself into the stacks. I know Dewey's decimal system like I know my own name -- I found Smith's thesis, "Secret Mark," in less than two minutes.

The "evidence," I discovered, was less concrete than the Web site insinuated. Indeed, the path meandering from Morton's fragment to the original Gospel is so labyrinthine it would give Borges a wet dream.

Follow this, if you dare: The "Secret Mark" passages are scribbles penned in the endpapers of a 17th century book. They're enclosed in a text that identifies itself as a copy of a letter sent from Clement of Alexandria (circa A.D. 185) to "Theodore." In the letter, Clement identifies "false passages" in the heretical Carpocratian Gospel of Mark. The all-nighter with the eager almost naked youth episode is authentic, claims Clement, because it's included in an expanded Markan Gospel that was revealed to advanced parishioners of the Alexandrine Church.

As you untie this Gordian knot, you realize its plausibility has more holes than Peter's fishing net. Errors, rumor, innuendo and forgery have had 1,600 years to chew on the manuscript's veracity. Adding to the murk is the fact that only Morton Smith has seen the manuscript -- the monastery archives have been mysteriously closed ever since.

I bicycled home, eager to telephone some theology wonks. I knew they'd be happy to leap into the bully pulpit in this New Testamental debate.

First, Columbia University: the lair of the antichrist himself.

"I'm sorry," said the secretary. "Morton Smith died in 1993."

"Drat," I muttered. "The gadfly is gone."

Next call: University of California-Berkeley's director of religious studies --

"This is Birger Pearson."

His voice was lugubrious, weighed down by eons of knowledge. A bottomless, philosopher's groan, buried in the solitary search for Truth.

"Is the Morton Smith discovery authentic?" I asked.

"His position regarding the letter fragments has been entirely discredited in scholastic circles. And ... he had a vested interest in maintaining ... that position."

"You mean ... Morton Smith was gay?"

"Yes."

"What about Jesus' sex life?"

"That is something that cannot be absolutely known. It is a conundrum that will never be solved."

"Yeah, but ... what's your guess?"

"In Matthew 19:12, Jesus says, 'There will be eunuchs, which have made themselves eunuchs for the Kingdom of Heaven's sake. He that is able to receive it, let him receive it.'"

"Yikes! You think Jesus was celibate?"

"Yes."

The next scholar I interviewed was Dr. Walter Wink, a member of the esteemed research contingent "The Jesus Seminar." His 11 books express his political concerns. For example, in "The Powers" trilogy he examines social institutions and the evil and good they perform.

Wink also discredited Morton Smith's fragment, describing him as "a closeted gay -- due to his time period -- who became a bitter atheist. There's speculation that 'Secret Mark' was his way of getting revenge on the church."

When queried about Christ's passion and lust, Wink proposed that "Jesus might have been like Ralph Nader, an individual with relentless drive who sublimated all his sexual desires because he was totally preoccupied with the Kingdom of Heaven."

It began to dawn on me: Closeted Morton sees Jesus sleeping with youths, activist Walter regards him as Naderesque, contemplative Birgen embraces a celibate Messiah -- is Jesus just a mirror where we glimpse our idealized self?

I ate lunch hurriedly -- two sardine sandwiches. Like other ex-mackerel snappers, I always eat fish when I feel sinful. A guilty return to the no-meat-on-Friday penance.

Fortified, I returned to my examination of Jesus' libido. I telephoned William Hagan, my advisor in grad school. He's a former Jesuit who is now happily married (to a woman).

"Hi, Bill. I never asked you -- do you think Jesus had sex?"

"Absolutely. The Gospels indicate that Jesus was intimate with Mary Magdalene. She anoints him after his death -- then, Jesus appears to her first, after the Resurrection. Jesus says, 'Mary, don't touch me now!' This implies a physical relationship. I believe they had children, too. There's a sect that still claims blood lineage from Jesus and Magdalene."

"Wow, Bill, thanks. But ... uh ... do you think Jesus was gay, too?"

"Never heard of that theory."

The queer Jesus notion felt lonely and limp; no straight male scholar was willing to touch it. It took a woman, Mary A. Tolbert from the Pacific School of Religion, to stir vital life back into the proposition.

Dr. Tolbert maintained, "There are problems regarding the authenticity of Morton Smith's letter, but ... it sounds like Clement, stylistically."

"You mean ... Jesus did it? He performed a gay act?"

"Homosexuality's a concept that didn't exist in Biblical culture."

"Elucidate, please," I sniffed, pretentiously.

"Sexual relations," she explained patiently, "weren't based on gender preference. Sex only happened between 'dominants' and 'submissives.'"

"You're saying -- 'tops and bottoms' preceded hets and gays?"

"A free man could have sex with a woman, a slave, or a boy. That would be natural."

"So ... You're saying -- Jesus was a 'dominant' stud?"

"No, Jesus reversed the traditional behavior. He did things that are termed passive or womanly, dishonorable in male society. He washed his apostles' feet. He preached, 'Blessed are the meek.' Jesus urged men to give up power. He presented a radical model of being a man."

"So ... was he gay or not?"

"I told you -- the concept didn't exist."

When I hung up the phone, my eavesdropping wife asked, "She's a feminist, right? What'd she say?"

"She thinks Jesus can't be gay and he can't be straight, but his behavior indicates he's a 'bottom.'"

"Oh!" My wife laughed. "Is that what he meant when he said, 'Turn the other cheek'?"

"Pig," I snorted. "I'm going back to the library."


Last time I was there, I forgot to comb the shelves in the "Gay and Lesbian" section. This time, I scanned those tidy rows for the early 200s -- Philosophy & Religion.

A bold title snagged my glance: "Jesus Acted Up" by Robert Goss. This manifesto lists scholars who subscribe to the gay Jesus theory. Hugh Montefiore, for example, an Anglican trailblazer who shocked Oxford in 1967 when he informed a conference of his opinion. And, Robert Williams, author of "Just As I Am: A Practical Guide to Being Out, Proud, and Christian," with its spicy chapters like "Jesus Had a Penis," "Jesus the Sissy" and "God Likes to Party."

I telephoned Dr. "Bob" Goss the next morning; he's assistant professor of comparative religion at Webster University in St. Louis.

"Why," I asked, "are all the U.S. scholars who claim Jesus is gay also gay themselves? Why can't I find a straight academic who agrees with you?"

He snorted. "There's a tremendous amount of homophobia in U.S. religious departments. Scholars fear our position will lead to professional suicide."

"OK," I continued. "You think Jesus was gay, so -- who's the boyfriend? Is it John, the 'beloved' apostle?"

"The Gospel never defines John as the 'beloved' -- that's just a theory. I believe the 'beloved' disciple was Lazarus."

"The guy Jesus raised from the dead?"

"Yes. Lazarus also receives the 'sexual baptism' in Morton Smith's document."

"Wait a minute, Bob. That Morton thing is vague."

"Oh, come on. A man who loves you comes into your bedroom and spends all night naked with you? That's a clear indication, I think."

"OK, OK. But what about the accepted Gospels? Anything there?"

"John 19:26-28. Jesus is dying on the cross, and it says, 'When Jesus saw his mother, and the beloved disciple standing by, he said to his mother, "Woman, behold thy son!" Then he said to the disciple, "Behold thy mother!" After this, Jesus knew all things were accomplished.' When my own lover died of AIDS, the identical thing happened. He said, 'Take care of my lover. Take care of my mother.' Gay men who've been through this, we intuit the intimacy between Jesus and 'the beloved.'"

"Gosh. Sorry. Anything else?"

"At the Last Supper, the 'beloved' lies on the inner tunic of Jesus -- that's the undergarment. They 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."

"Oh my. Like Plato's 'Symposium' -- Socrates and Alcibiades?"

"Exactly. Jesus lived in a Hellenistic society. Men entered a mentoring relationship with older men, in the pederastic model of learning."


I can't tell Brian he's wrong, because maybe he's not. Jesus has the flexible strength of all great heroes in literature; he represents myriad things to innumerable people. Wannabe-celibates can bind their restraint to the eunuch passage in Matthew. Heteros can enjoy suggestions that Magdalene and Messiah were frisky. Gays get two choices: Jesus, the radical bottom or the penetrating mentor. There's enough innuendo to satisfy everyone.

A sexually ambiguous Jesus is perfect, really. Everybody can claim him; no one is excluded. He's the ideal leader, ironically, for a sexually tolerant religion. Unfortunately, few of his followers see him as anything other than their own libidos writ large.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Very curious that the place of the texts is now closed. It does make a lot of sense though... A lot of the ancient scribblings are lost or hidden yet... Not to mention when the bible was put together there were other gospels that were nicely left out because they didn't fit the image of the faith.

I don't think the concept of heterosexual/homosexual as a personal orientation existed in Rome-occupied Judaea.

I love how this missing part of the bible comes out coincedently at exactly the same time the idea of homosexaulity is in debate.

Tommorrow someone will find a missing chapter of Genesis that states that God created evolution on the 8th day.

What er ya sayin!?

JESUS is NOT!! Gay!

Really, I thought they were left out because they were all known to be late 2nd century texts, while the four gospels left in can be traced to the 1st Century (though John may be early 2nd century).

Secret Mark isn't really new. Morton Smith published about it in 1973 IIRC. What to make of it is still in debate. Gnostic addition for the more conservative scholars; victim of textual purges for the more liberal scholars.

JESUS LOVES US ALL!

It may not have existed in any legal sense and it may not have existed to the Roman occupiers but you can bet your bottom dollar the concept existed to the occupied Jews.

I'm just trying to say that its funny that this "missing piece" of the bible shows up now...when Gay rights are a hot debate.

People always seem to want God or Jesus or whoever fit their agenda. The blacks want a black Jesus. The Gays want a gay Jesus and so on. The only historical text that gives us any depth to the man is the New Testament. But we would rather throw that out and make it up as we go. I do know that the scriptures say, "He fulfilled the law", and, "He always did the Fathers will" etc... And I think we know what the Law said regarding the homosexual issue, so I do not need to inflame anyone here. That should give us a clue that Jesus would not have been homosexual.

^^^Then, by golly, I want an atheistic Jesus.

Some people want to believe the da vinci code theory....if some people want to believe Jesus was gay, we'll soon see some interesting 'discussions' ... sooner or later...

hee hee

Was Jesus gay? -Communal living with 12 hairy dudes Jesus...gay?

Yes! Flaming Gay!

Richard Simmons -broadway musical -french poodle -San Francisco mango margarita -"evangelical in the closet" -potpouri -Bravo Channel- Boy George -Gay!

I saw him on Cristopher Street the other day, he looked super cute with his new boytoy Bruno!

Jesus you go girl...you fabulous Diva you!

AND QUEEN OF QUEENS TOO! HAHAHAHAHA!

Perhaps he swung both ways

Regarding the concept of heterosexual/homosexual as a personal orientation:



What makes you say that? I was under the impression that the concept didn't arise until the Industrial Revolution.

The real question here is, "Did Jesus actually exist?"....There is more evidence that he is gay than there is that he actually existed - Da Wolf

Oh jewgotta 'splain that one Lucy!
How is there more evidence jesus was gay, than there is that jesus existed so as be, and be gay!?

OKay, so i shoulda said that there was as much evidence that Jesus was gay and that he existed - there is absolutely no contemporary evidence that he ever existed! - Da Wolf

As someone else said, Secret Mark is not new. I recall mentioning this elsewhere at least two years ago on several sites. It is a heavy topic though and so usually overlooked by believers. Fortunately, I do have some of it preserved which is a good thing as I have been finding of late that many of the sites I had saved with translations of texts are no longer available.

This was written by Clement to Theodorus:

As for Mark, then, during Peter's stay in Rome he wrote an account of the Lord's doings, not, however, declaring all of them, nor yet hinting at the secret ones, but selecting what he thought most useful for increasing the faith of those who were being instructed. But when Peter died a martyr, Mark came over to Alexandria, bringing both his own notes and those of Peter, from which he transferred to his former book the things suitable to whatever makes for progress toward knowledge.

Thus he composed a more spiritual Gospel for the use of those who were being perfected… and, dying, he left his composition to the church in Alexandria, where it even yet is most carefully guarded, being read only to those who are being initiated into the great mysteries…

To you, therefore, I shall not hesitate to answer the questions you have asked, refuting the falsifications by the very words of the Gospel. For example, after ,"And they were in the road going up to Jerusalem," and what follows, until "After three days he shall arise," the secret Gospel brings the following material word for word:

"And they come into Bethany. And a certain woman whose brother had died was there. And, coming, she prostrated herself before Jesus and says to him, 'Son of David, have mercy on me.' But the disciples rebuked her. And Jesus, being angered, went off with her into the garden where the tomb was, and straightway a great cry was heard from the tomb. And going near Jesus rolled away the stone from the door of the tomb. And straightway, going in where the youth was, he stretched forth his hand and raised him, seizing his hand. But the youth, looking upon him, loved him and began to beseech him that he might be with him. And going out of the tomb they came into the house of the youth, for he was rich. And after six days Jesus told him what to do and in the evening the youth comes to him, wearing a linen cloth over his naked body. And he remained with him that night, for Jesus taught him the mystery of the kingdom of God. And thence, arising, he returned to the other side of the Jordan."

After these words follows the text, "And James and John come to him," and all that section. But "naked man with naked man," and the other things about which you wrote, are not found.

Anyone familiar with luke might find interest in this Theodorus character.

I know its of topic but why do you feel his celibacy is debatable?

^Because there's no clear-cut evidence that Jesus either was or was not married. He may very well have had a wife and engaged in sexual relations. I personally think he was celibate, but honestly, it makes no difference to me whether he was or was not.

Not to shoot myself in the foot here but.... The Gospel Hoax: Morton Smith's Invention of Secret Mark (After I take out that bullet my pinky toe aint never gonna curl right again! I just knows it! )



Via Amazon.com hereFrom Publishers Weekly
Secret Mark" is the name given to a portion of a document allegedly uncovered in 1958 on a trip to the monastery of Mar Saba, located near Jerusalem. Purportedly written by Clement of Alexandria to someone called Theodore in the late second or early third century, the document was discovered by Morton Smith, at the time assistant professor of history at Columbia University. Secret Mark caused a stir in the academic community, as it alludes to a homosexual relationship between Jesus and Mark, and casts doubt on the authenticity of portions of the canonized gospel of Mark. Carlson is interested, not just in the authenticity of Secret Mark, but in the issue of historical hoaxes in general. His task is made difficult in that the Mar Saba documents are no longer available for inspection, so he depends on the photographs supplied by Smith. Carlson concludes that Secret Mark is indeed a hoax, and contains clear signs of a 20th-century provenance. Moreover, he points directly at Smith as the perpetrator of the fraud. Utilizing sound historical and linguistic methods, Carlson presents a convincing case for Smith's authorship of Secret Mark. While readers unfamiliar with the critical apparatus scholars use to evaluate ancient texts will find the book challenging, Carlson's presentation of the evidence strongly supports his views. (Nov.)

If God created sex, then he would have had to know that some of the same sex would be attracted to each other. Now being God, he could have created sex any way he/she wanted. ie. touch fingers together, touch noses, ect. God didn't have to create male or female body parts.
So assuming God was thinking ahead on this, wouldn't it be normal for some of those of the same sex to be sexually attracted to each other?
If God made sex, why would there be rules to it? If it were just for procreation why did he make it pleasurable?
Was Jesus gay? It's really a funny question. I'd say he was a swinger! An opportuinist! Why not?
I think it's all just biological. Niether right or wrong it just is. Always has been, always will be.
In life there's only one way to know if you will like something or not.

Kid: "Hmm, I wonder if I would like the feeling of pouring gasoline on myself and then lighting myself? Well, there's only one way to find out!"

*WHOOOSH*

Kid: "NO!, I don't like this! It's not what I thought it would be like! Turn me off!"

Sometimes, you just have to assume that you're better off not finding out, or using common sense to realize that even if you do, it's not correct anyway.

OK it is interesting that you would use a fire analogy! But you are correct, for some it would be too late.
What you seem to say here is homosexuality is not correct. Correct?
But that's an opinion based on your beliefs.
For some, experimintation is the only way to find out what they like.....ie food. How do you know you like brussel sprouts until you taste them? They smell like the dogs yard. So what do you do? Just like anything else a roller coaster....you might like it, you might not, but untill you try it you have no idea what it's like.
Was Jesus Gay? Who knows? Who Cares? What does it really matter 2000 + years later!
People are gay today, and will be gay forever. If you believe in a heaven, do you not think gay people would be there? Even if they became born again?

So gheysecks is just like setting yourself on fire?



PS: I had to spell it "gheysecks" because of the spam filter.

Everyone knows that Jesus was gayer then little Richards underpants....

HA MAYBY HE WAS BI... I love this it has to piss of the religous people.

Gasoline metaphors aside, those that question homosexuality or damn it for that matter, need consider their own sexuality first. Which is oddly never in question in the minds of those that would to judge gays or bisexual people. What makes one "feel" straight!? What makes them attracted to someone of the opposite sex!?

There you have it! The exact same natural feelings that attend Gay's and bisexual desires. So then, to indict gays as being un-natural or against gods will, is to indict the same nature, the same god that made people straight! And to invoke a line from a bible, written by jewish patriarchs , as having dominion over the nature god imbued his creation with, as a cause to discriminate against the gay/bi-sexual community, is to promote man made ignorance and discrimination. Besides that, there was a reason for the insertion of that prohibition into the scriptures. First of all homosexuality was a factor in society even then. (duh) And, prohibiting g a y s e x and advocating straight sex insured the continuation of the family seed, or name. As an expansion of the tribes would ensue with an increase in population through straight sex/breeding! If anyone knows anything about the context of society in those times, they know that a patriarchal rule depends on breeding males to continue the family line.

If it is a sin for man to lay with man then god should have made that not to occur! But since god is the creator of all things, even free will, there it is! So rather than indict humanity for loving in the wrong way,indict god for making them that way!


edit because somehow g a y s e x in it's usual spelling, is levied an server edit that reads *spam filter*

If Jesus is God, and God is all things, and a gay person is a thing, then Jesus is a gay person.

I suppose someone might argue that God is not "all things." He is a lot of things, but He is not a gay person, a Communist, a devil, or an atomic bomb. Those things are not aspects of God. To which I could reply, "well my God is all things. Therefore, my God is bigger than your God."

So: Assuming one has a God, then it is either the case that one's God is smaller than another possible God, or one's God is, in some sense, a gay person.

Pretty darned trivial.

Don't forget blacks, Jews, women, Catholics, Protestants, Arabs, Asians, cats, or the internet. I'm sure I missed a few other things. Except for Protestants, I've been told that god is not any of the above by my various pastors and bible school teachers. And apparently the wrong thing to say at that point is "but I thought God was all things."