John Suggests Jesus Was Gay

[Ahso!]

All the proof one could ever need. It's in John's Gospel.

Jesus' boyfriend John wrote: John 13:23 New International Version (NIV) 23 One of them, the disciple whom Jesus loved, was reclining next to him.


Jesus' lover John wrote: John 19:26 New International Version (NIV) 26 When Jesus saw his mother there, and the disciple whom he loved standing nearby, he said to her, “Woman,[a] here is your son,...” ...Gay and proud of it.

Jesus' boyfriend John wrote: John 20:2 New International Version (NIV) 2 So she came running to Simon Peter and the other disciple, the one Jesus loved, and said, “They have taken the Lord out of the tomb, and we don’t know where they have put him!”


Jesus' lover John wrote: John 21:7 New International Version (NIV) 7 Then the disciple whom Jesus loved said to Peter, “It is the Lord!” As soon as Simon Peter heard him say, “It is the Lord,” he wrapped his outer garment around him (for he had taken it off) and jumped into the water.


Jesus' boyfriend John wrote: John 21:20 - Peter turned and saw that the disciple whom Jesus loved was following them. (This was the one who had leaned back against Jesus at the supper and had said, "Lord, who is going to betray you?")


Any questions?

[magentaflame]

"Akhi Khulon:

There are four Hebrew words for love in the Old Testament Hebrew they are synonymous terms. They are as follows:

1) Khanan #2603,Strong , meaning grace, to show favor it is also associated with the word Rakham#7355, a word signifying a tender feeling of pity. These words are associated to the Assyrian thabu,'annu, remu. The adjective form Khannuwn #2587, from 2603,Strong), meaning gracious.

2) Rakham#7355,Strong

3) Ahab #157,Strong from which the Greek use the word Agapae.

4) Khesed,2616,Strong in the LXX it is rendered as Eleos#1656,Strong ,mercy in 135 passages.

Is this interesting or not? You see Greek is not the only language that has muliple words for love. In fact the Hebrew and Aramaic language has more words than the Greek has being four Storgae, Phileo, Agapae, and Eros. We could all benefit from the study of these Hebrew words and their Aramaic equivalents which are nearly identical in the Pe****ta both the New Testament and the Old Testament Pe****ta as well. Paul perhaps you can shed some light on the Aramaic equivalents of these Hebrew words being related to the Aramaic language more than any other language possible. Greek does not even come close to capturing their full meaning, does it? Shlama W'Berkhata Sam""

From the Assyrian forums

The apostles spoke and wrote in aramaic

[magentaflame]

So when Jesus gave the commandment Love one another as I have loved you, he was suggesting a gay orgy? Careful AHSO, you're bordering on a blaspheme there.

Jesus also gave John to his mother and told him to take care of her. His love for John was not a romantic one but one of a best friend. One he could trust and respected. I often think of John as having a really nice temperment....a big old softy, if you will. Unlike Peter who was dogmatic and rules driven.

[Ahso!]

Jesus was as queer as a 69 dollar bill.

[spot]

magentaflame;1530347 wrote: The apostles spoke and wrote in aramaic


I'm sure they did. The gospel writers, on the other hand, especially the author of the Gospel of John, wrote exclusively in Greek.

His love for John was not a romantic one but one of a best friend.


The quoted passages take two forms.

ὁ μαθητὴς ὃν aγάπα ὁ Ἰησοῦς, ho mathetes hon egapa ho Iesous - the disciple whom Jesus loved, the agape form of love. Usage: I love, wish well to, take pleasure in, long for; denotes the love of reason, esteem. This is the love your neighbour, your enemies, the Lord form.

and ὃν ἐφίλει ὁ Ἰησοῦς, hon ephilei ho Iesous, the disciple beloved of Jesus, the phileo form of love. Usage: I love (of friendship), regard with affection, cherish; I kiss. This is the "do you love me" use that Peter recoils from after the crucifixion.

No Hebrew, no Aramaic, just those two options. Christians shy away from the fondly implications of either when it comes to Jesus but that's Christians for you. Stone the faggots, God hates Gays, Not in this Church you can't.

What's questioned is not what Jesus felt, but whether he expressed what he felt physically or worked out[1] or lifted weights[1] or ran marathons[1] or wore eyeliner[1].

Roman Catholics are so screwed up about sex that not only must Jesus be a virgin conception but so must his mother. The entire church is dogmatically messed up over sexual expression.









1: This is deliberate provocation, not Biblical exegesis.

[Ahso!]

Long gone are the days when I would read the Christian bible, partnered with my concordances, from sunup to sundown. However, there is a lot that I still can recall.

As I recall, the OT is the formation and establishment of rituals, order, and beliefs, while the NT was a testament of radical political change. It's almost as though the two should not be between the same covers. I think it's important to remember the context of both in order to understand how they were intended.

Society was very different then than it is now. As it used to be said by males somewhere; 'boys are for fun, girls are for breeding.' It never really occurred to me to be sexual with any of my male friends when I was younger, though we did enjoy physical contact through sports mainly. But I think that had more to do with the culture of my environment. I understand culture was much less judgemental around the time the Jesus story was invented. The politics, however, could be brutal.

[spot]

Two words in particular are never used of Jesus in the bible.

κοίτη koite which enters English as coitus and gets translated in the bible, rather delicately I think, as "chambering" - something Americans do more with their guns these days than with their womenfolk.

and πορνεία porneia which is definitely conduct unbecoming.

[Bryn Mawr]

spot;1530367 wrote: I'm sure they did. The gospel writers, on the other hand, especially the author of the Gospel of John, wrote exclusively in Greek.



The quoted passages take two forms.

ὁ μαθητὴς ὃν aγάπα ὁ Ἰησοῦς, ho mathetes hon egapa ho Iesous - the disciple whom Jesus loved, the agape form of love. Usage: I love, wish well to, take pleasure in, long for; denotes the love of reason, esteem. This is the love your neighbour, your enemies, the Lord form.

and ὃν ἐφίλει ὁ Ἰησοῦς, hon ephilei ho Iesous, the disciple beloved of Jesus, the phileo form of love. Usage: I love (of friendship), regard with affection, cherish; I kiss. This is the "do you love me" use that Peter recoils from after the crucifixion.

No Hebrew, no Aramaic, just those two options. Christians shy away from the fondly implications of either when it comes to Jesus but that's Christians for you. Stone the faggots, God hates Gays, Not in this Church you can't.

What's questioned is not what Jesus felt, but whether he expressed what he felt physically or worked out[1] or lifted weights[1] or ran marathons[1] or wore eyeliner[1].

Roman Catholics are so screwed up about sex that not only must Jesus be a virgin conception but so must his mother. The entire church is dogmatically messed up over sexual expression.









1: This is deliberate provocation, not Biblical exegesis.


In modern Greek at least αγαπώ/agapo is romantic love and φίλος/filos is a male friend but φιλάω is to kiss whereas the verb for like/take pleasure in is αρÎ*σω/areso so the first one I’d translate as the pupil who loved Jesus (literally, the pupil ? I loved the Jesus. Όν does not translate in modern Greek) and the second as he kissed Jesus (literally, ? He (past simple) kissed Jesus)

Damnit, trying to translate from a modern Greek perspective does not really work so I’ve found a Greek text with a biblical Greek lexicon. (ον is who/which).

Whichever, both readings appear to read the opposite way to tradition as the disciple who loved Jesus.

[Ahso!]

The text is 'the disciple whom Jesus loved' not the other way around. To say that Jesus loved one disciple more than another in the context of favoritism, doesn't appear to fit Jesus' mission. He says Peter is the rock the church will be built upon, and yet Peter is also the one Jesus said would deny him three times before something to do with a cock (or does the three have to do with the number of cocks? My memory is a bit vague). Also, Jesus scolds all the disciples often as a whole. Also, it was for Thomas that Jesus made a point in making sure to show his death (that's some pretty serious love as you intend to show it as right there).

[gmc]

I thought the disciple jesus loved was mary magdelene? Can't remember the relevant section but did peter not express not express jealousy about the way he set her above them? It wasn't his boyfriend that stayed with him at the crucufixion or went to his tomb to gind him missing was it?

Never mind whether he was gay or not it's such an obviously made up story anyway.

[Ahso!]

gmc;1530390 wrote: I thought the disciple jesus loved was mary magdelene? Can't remember the relevant section but did peter not express not express jealousy about the way he set her above them? It wasn't his boyfriend that stayed with him at the crucufixion or went to his tomb to gind him missing was it?

Never mind whether he was gay or not it's such an obviously made up story anyway.I know, but it's fun poking holes.

I thought it was his mother Mary who remained at the crucifixion when Jesus says, 'woman behold your son', apparently referring to John, or, whomever it was standing with her. I imagine her response being something to the effect of 'I have enough goddamn kids; I don't need another one'.

[Bryn Mawr]

Ahso!;1530387 wrote: The text is 'the disciple whom Jesus loved' not the other way around. To say that Jesus loved one disciple more than another in the context of favoritism, doesn't appear to fit Jesus' mission. He says Peter is the rock the church will be built upon, and yet Peter is also the one Jesus said would deny him three times before something to do with a cock (or does the three have to do with the number of cocks? My memory is a bit vague). Also, Jesus scolds all the disciples often as a whole. Also, it was for Thomas that Jesus made a point in making sure to show his death (that's some pretty serious love as you intend to show it as right there).


The usual English translation of the original Greek text is the disciple whom Jesus loved, the original Greek looks to be more ambiguous.

There are many people that I love without there being any sexual connotation in the phrase.

[Ahso!]

Bryn Mawr;1530408 wrote: The usual English translation of the original Greek text is the disciple whom Jesus loved, the original Greek looks to be more ambiguous.

Ah, I see! Bryn Mawr;1530408 wrote: There are many people that I love without there being any sexual connotation in the phrase.


Me too, though I don't think I'd play favorites if I was asking the lot of them to go a suicide mission. Especially not after preaching the various parables of first and last, equal pay for an unequal workload and so on. If it would have been obvious to John that he was Jesus' favorite, the others would have noticed also. That sort of thing is difficult to hide.

[Bryn Mawr]

Ahso!;1530412 wrote: Ah, I see!



Me too, though I don't think I'd play favorites if I was asking the lot of them to go a suicide mission. Especially not after preaching the various parables of first and last, equal pay for an unequal workload and so on. If it would have been obvious to John that he was Jesus' favorite, the others would have noticed also. That sort of thing is difficult to hide.


The disciple who (he) loved (the) Jesus is a literal translation but it can be read both ways, either the Jesus is the object of he loved or it is a qualifier to say which of the two men the implicit he refers to, my knowledge of Greek grammar is not sufficient to be sure. The verb form of ηγάπα is the third person singular imperfect indicative active if that helps.

It doesn’t help that there appears to be nearly as many different forms of the Greek text as there are English translations, each subtly different.

[Ahso!]

John 21:7 New International Version (NIV) 7 Then the disciple whom Jesus loved said to Peter, “It is the Lord!” As soon as Simon Peter heard him say, “It is the Lord,” he wrapped his outer garment around him (for he had taken it off) and jumped into the water.In this passage, it appears that John and Peter both might have undressed to bathe in water when Jesus appears. Peter panics as if he doesn't want Jesus to see him naked, while John is completely comfortable with being naked in Jesus' presence. I take 'Lord' to mean 'Boss'. Thinking on this further, perhaps Peter was afraid Jesus would think he and John were being intimate and was afraid of Jesus' reaction. Perhaps they were?

[Bryn Mawr]

Ahso!;1530414 wrote: In this passage, it appears that John and Peter both might have undressed to bathe in water when Jesus appears. Peter panics as if he doesn't want Jesus to see him naked, while John is completely comfortable with being naked in Jesus' presence. I take 'Lord' to mean 'Boss'.


Where do you get naked from, it specifies outer garment removed implying the there’s an inner garment that was not removed.

[Ahso!]

Bryn Mawr;1530415 wrote: Where do you get naked from, it specifies outer garment removed implying the there’s an inner garment that was not removed.Well then why react as he did if he was still clothed? Perhaps both inner and outer garments were lying there. the outer, more loose-fitting garment would have been the easiest to wrap oneself in. Also, did this occur in daylight or at night?

[Bryn Mawr]

Ahso!;1530416 wrote: Well then why react as he did if he was still clothed? Perhaps both inner and outer garments were lying there. the outer, more loose-fitting garment would have been the easiest to wrap oneself in. Also, did this occur in daylight or at night?


I have no idea why he should react that way but to assume something contraindicated by the text suggests an agenda rather than a spirit of enquiry.

[Ahso!]

Bryn Mawr;1530418 wrote: I have no idea why he should react that way but to assume something contraindicated by the text suggests an agenda rather than a spirit of enquiry.We're both assuming; you that the outer garment was the only one removed and I am not so sure of that. It's not specified, so it's anyone's guess. There's nothing wrong with viewing it from both angles. That's curiosity, not an agenda. Though it is accurate to say that I don't believe the story of Jesus as it's been told, generally speaking.

[Ahso!]

Could there have been a gay male named Jesus who took political stands to disrupt the group-think of his culture? Absolutely!

Was that person born of a virgin, and did he walk on water, raise dead people and the rest of the absurd miracles? Absolutely not!

[Bryn Mawr]

Bryn Mawr;1530413 wrote: The disciple who (he) loved (the) Jesus is a literal translation but it can be read both ways, either the Jesus is the object of he loved or it is a qualifier to say which of the two men the implicit he refers to, my knowledge of Greek grammar is not sufficient to be sure. The verb form of ηγάπα is the third person singular imperfect indicative active if that helps.

It doesn’t help that there appears to be nearly as many different forms of the Greek text as there are English translations, each subtly different.


I put the quote to my Greek tutor this evening and it appears the the reading depends on whether the definite article prior to the final Jesus is nominative or accusative - i.e. whether he is the subject or the object of the verb, something that I should have realised from the start.

Given the the article is in the nominative the traditional reading is correct, it is Jesus doing the loving. This still does not, however, make it sexual love.

[Ahso!]

It is assumed that non-sexual love goes both ways between all the participants in the general story, so, for me emphasizing it in this gospel tells me there very well might be more to this particular relationship than just friendship. It might be 'a groovy kind of love'.

Thank you for checking further.

[Ahso!]

And I still think Peter was probably naked.