What Do You Think Jesus's Sexual Orientation Was?

[Vouthon]

Certainly the bible promotes chauvinism i see no reason why blind obedience to the teachings of the bible would produce anything other than chauvinism.

And, according to the NT JC himself toed the line of convention

The biblical texts are the product of an ancient patriarchal society, yes, so we unfortunately find the normative chauvinism / misogyny of this era reflected in a number of its books (Old and New Testament).

However, there are no chauvinistic statements attributed to Jesus himself that I know of.

Even the episode involving the Syro-Phoenician woman concerned her identity as a Gentile, not her sex. It could be construed as an incident of Jewish chauvinism towards non-Jews that Jesus learns from (through the woman's example of faith) or feigns as a teaching moment for his disciples (to demolish their ethno-religious prejudice) but he never demeans her as a woman.

Please cite for me something sexist to women that Jesus said?

If we turn to the gospels, we actually find someone who went out of his way to advocate for the welfare and dignity of women.

He fraternized openly with the unclean, sinners, tax-collectors, prostitutes and a Samaritan woman who appeared to be practising a first century version of "open marriage":

The Samaritan woman said to him, “How is it that you, a Jew, ask a drink of me, a woman of Samaria?” (Jews do not share things in common with Samaritans.)...

Jesus said to her, "Go, call your husband, and come back." The woman answered him, "I have no husband." Jesus said to her, "You are right in saying, 'I have no husband'; for you have had five husbands, and the man you are now living with is not your husband. What you have said is true!"

The woman said to him, "Sir, I see that you are a prophet. Our ancestors worshipped on this mountain, but you say that the place where people must worship is in Jerusalem."...

Just then his disciples came. They were astonished that he was speaking with a woman, but no one said, “What do you want?” or, “Why are you speaking with her?”

(John 4:4–42)
​

In John 4:4-42, Jesus ignores three codes of "conventional" behaviour.

He initiates a conversation with a foreigner belonging to a religion Jews deemed a heresy, Samaritanism. This foreigner is also a woman, and men were not expected to speak in public with women they weren't married to, or bring scandal upon themselves. Third, she is a sexually profligate woman in the eyes of her contemporaries. Her surprise is included in the narrative: “How can you, a Jew, ask me, a Samaritan woman, for a drink?” (John 4:9). As one scholar notes: "Jesus not only speaks with her but also enters into a prolonged dialogue, a dialogue which recognizes and honors her thirst for religious truth".

Did he criticise her for having had five husbands (or extra-marital relationships that Jesus was tongue-in-cheek referring to as husbands) and now living with a man she wasn't married to?

No, he opened a friendly dialogue with her and exchanged his perspective for hers, as an equal.

Likewise, Jesus lived in a strongly "whorephobic" society (obsessed with ritual purity) in which sex workers were regarded as morally lower than dirt. The popular second-century Jewish wisdom book, Ben Sira, simply stated in this regard: "A prostitute is regarded as spittle".

Josephus (the first century Jewish Historian) attributes the following words to Moses in his Antiquities of the Jews:


Flavius Josephus, Antiquities of the Jews, Book 4, Whiston chapter 8

"You are not to offer sacrifices out of the hire of a woman who is a harlot for the Deity is not pleased with any thing that arises from such abuses of nature; of which sort none can be worse than this prostitution of the body."

​

But, again, Jesus revolted against the prevailing societal norms in elevating prostitutes as people morally superior to the religious elites and closer to God's Kingdom than they were:

Matthew 21

Jesus said to them, “Truly I tell you, the tax collectors and prostitutes are entering the kingdom of God before you."
​

Notice to whom Jesus was speaking, the chief priests and elders of the people (Matt 21:23). That makes it even more shocking.

Likewise, he denounced the suppression of women by religious authorities who forced upon them exceedingly strict purity laws, for example concerning menstruation and their courses:


Jesus' interactions with women - Wikipedia

The woman who touched Jesus' garment


Mark 5:25-34
Jesus practiced the ministry of touch, sometimes touching the "untouchables" and letting them touch him. Among the things considered defiling (disqualifying one for the rituals of religion) was an issue of blood, especially menstruation or hemorrhage. One such woman had been plagued with a flow of blood for 12 years, no one having been able to heal her. She found the faith in a crowd to force her way up to Jesus, approaching him from behind so as to remain inconspicuous, and simply touching his garment.[Mk. 5:27] When she did, two things happened: the flows of blood stopped and she was discovered.[3]

Jesus turned and asked who touched him. The disciples tried to brush aside the question, protesting that in such a crowd no individual could be singled out. Jesus pressed his inquiry and the woman came and trembled at his feet; she explained her reason and declared amid the crowd what blessing had come to her.[Lk. 8:47] Jesus treated her as having worth, not rebuking her for what the Levitical code of holiness would have considered as defiling him.[Lev. 15:19-25] Rather, he relieved her of any sense of guilt for her seemingly rash act, lifted her up and called her "Daughter." He told her that her faith saved her, gave her his love, and sent her away whole.[Mk. 5:34]
​

It was for this reason that St. Paul, inspired by the example of Christ, could write:

"There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for you are all one in Christ Jesus" (Galatians 3:28)​

Among the early church fathers, an agraphon (extra-canonical saying) was attributed to Jesus as being the source for this Pauline statement in the New Testament, and according to the early second century 2 Clement it went as follows:

"For the Lord Jesus Himself, being asked by a certain person when his kingdom would come, said, 'When the two shall be one, and the outside as the inside, and the male with the female, neither male or female...A brother seeing a sister should have no thought of her as a female, and a sister seeing a brother should not have any thought of him as a male. These things if ye do (saith He) the kingdom of my father shall come'." (2 Clement 12:2)​

So would you deem this to be "male chauvinism", no less in the context of the generally speaking highly misogynistic social milieu of Greco-Roman civilisation?

He is repeatedly depicted as a person who advocated for the welfare of women.

I would like to see textual proof of your contention here, as I personally think you're being a tad unfair in light of Jesus's expressed views.

 

[Vouthon]

Boy! you just make it up as you go along, don't you.

Umm, no actually.

Have you read classical literature or secondary academic works on the Greco-Roman understanding of sexuality?

If you had, then their different understanding of sexuality would likely be apparent to you:


How Did the Ancient Romans See Sex?

"Modern sexuality offers a two-tiered dichotomy based on sexual preference. A homosexual is characterized by his exclusive sexual preference for same-sex relationships. Similarly, a heterosexual favors exclusive sexual relationships with members of the opposite sex. Ancient sexuality, on the other hand, finds its basis in status. The active partner, i.e. the partner of a higher social status, assumes the role of the penetrator; whereas, the passive partner, i.e. the partner of inferior social status, takes on the penetrated position.(www.princeton.edu/~clee/paper.html) - Malakos

"...Walters makes a crucial distinction between 'males' and 'men': 'Not all males are men, and therefore impenetrable.' In particular, he refers to the special nuance of the term vir, which 'does not simply denote an adult male; it refers specifically to those adult males who are freeborn Roman citizens in good standing, those at the top of the Roman social hierarchy -- those who are sexually impenetrable penetrators'" Craig A. Williams' Bryn Mawr Classical Review of Roman Sexualities

"... since the concepts 'heterosexual' and 'homosexual' did not exist, but there does seem to be a high degree of correlation between the conduct of men identified as cinaedi and that of some men now labeled 'homosexuals,' though it must be appreciated that the modern term is clinical while the ancient one is emotional and even hostile, and that both have been imposed from outside." Richard W. Hooper's Bryn Mawr Classical Review of The Priapus Poems​

 

[Vouthon]

He said in the most pseudo-intellectual tone he could muster.

I would appreciate it if we could both conduct ourselves in a mature and respectful fashion. There's no need to lower the tone.

 

[robocop (actually)]

.


I ask because the subject came to mind after reading the following.

"Comedy Group’s Headquarters Nearly Firebombed Over Netflix Show with Gay Jesus

"As we posted about earlier this month, Netflix is airing a Portuguese-language satire called The First Temptation of Christ, by the comedy team Porta dos Fundos, in which Jesus is shown in a same-sex relationship.

That description alone was enough to generation over a million signatures on a petition and incur the wrath of the son of Brazil’s president.

But now the outrage is getting worse.

On Christmas Eve, the headquarters of Porta dos Fundos were nearly firebombed when two Molotov cocktails were thrown into the building."​

Personally, I don't see any need for Jesus to be heterosexual, bisexual, or homosexual. I think he was most likely asexual.

.

​

It doesn't matter. Jesus atoned for the suffering and attractions of everyone.

 

[Rival]

Our notion of such things as a sexual orientation is very modern. There was no such word for homosexual until the 20th century. People were defined by dominant or submissive gender roles. If you were a female you were the submissive and were penetrated and if male you were dominant and penetrating. The issue was not with the person with whom one slept but the role one took. So for a male to be penetrated was seen as deviant not because he was with another male but because he took a female role. In the ancient Greek world a boy was not called 'he' until puberty and this is why older men would sleep with them and younger boys would be allowed a female role, because they were essentially genderless until they had a wet dream.

Also in the mediaeval period two women sleeping together was not actually a crime unless there was penetration involved, i.e. a female taking the male role.

Historical people saw this in terms of gender roles and dominance and submission, not a defined sexuality or preference. So a gay male, in modern speak, would have said 'I prefer the female role' if he were of a submissive nature. That's his understanding. A gay male who preferred to penetrate would not have even been likely to understand you making a distinction between him having sex with a man or a woman - as far as he is concerned he takes the male role.

 

[blü 2]

.


I ask because the subject came to mind after reading the following.

"Comedy Group’s Headquarters Nearly Firebombed Over Netflix Show with Gay Jesus ​

[...]
Personally, I don't see any need for Jesus to be heterosexual, bisexual, or homosexual. I think he was most likely asexual.

First of all, none of the NT authors ever met an historical Jesus (one possibility being because there wasn't one).

Second, Jesus is the hero of the story, called by Christians a messiah, and has the role of being the son of God. He's an odd sort of hero, in that he's a pacifist and his mission ends in disaster, but he's the hero nonetheless.

So when you're an NT author and you pick up your pen to write about Jesus, you're going to give him the qualities, express or implicit, expected of a hero at that time and place. Which means that to Paul and the authors of the synoptics, he's straight.

The author of John is the arguable exception, with the Beloved Disciple and Jesus having a snuggle at the Last Supper (John 13:23) and the singular lovers' tiff scene (John 21:20-22).

Making the final score, if not 5-0, at least 4-1 in favor of straight.

 

[Skwim]

Elite males were the penetrators and in Greco-Roman culture this could be with women or male slaves, who were the penetrated.

Boy! you just make it up as you go along, don't you.

I don't find a thing in your post below or in your link that mentioned Elite males as penetrators, or in any other context.

Now, in the Craig A. Williams quote below it certainly does say that "at the top of the Roman social hierarchy (we have no idea if all were elite or not. In fact, all were merely "freeborn Roman citizens in good standing") -- those who are sexually impenetrable penetrators," were considered to be "men," However, it never implies there weren't also those the top of the Roman social hierarchy who weren't the penetrators, but the penetrated, who would have been considered "males."

So, as it turns out we have two kinds of guys at the top of the Roman social hierarchy, elite or not:

Men: the penetrators
Males: the penetrated​

All of which leads me to conclude: So what?

How Did the Ancient Romans See Sex?

"Modern sexuality offers a two-tiered dichotomy based on sexual preference. A homosexual is characterized by his exclusive sexual preference for same-sex relationships. Similarly, a heterosexual favors exclusive sexual relationships with members of the opposite sex. Ancient sexuality, on the other hand, finds its basis in status. The active partner, i.e. the partner of a higher social status, assumes the role of the penetrator; whereas, the passive partner, i.e. the partner of inferior social status, takes on the penetrated position.(www.princeton.edu/~clee/paper.html) - Malakos

"...Walters makes a crucial distinction between 'males' and 'men': 'Not all males are men, and therefore impenetrable.' In particular, he refers to the special nuance of the term vir, which 'does not simply denote an adult male; it refers specifically to those adult males who are freeborn Roman citizens in good standing, those at the top of the Roman social hierarchy -- those who are sexually impenetrable penetrators'" Craig A. Williams' Bryn Mawr Classical Review of Roman Sexualities

"... since the concepts 'heterosexual' and 'homosexual' did not exist, but there does seem to be a high degree of correlation between the conduct of men identified as cinaedi and that of some men now labeled 'homosexuals,' though it must be appreciated that the modern term is clinical while the ancient one is emotional and even hostile, and that both have been imposed from outside." Richard W. Hooper's Bryn Mawr Classical Review of The Priapus Poems​

I would appreciate it if we could both conduct ourselves in a mature and respectful fashion. There's no need to lower the tone.

Then lay off the pseudo-intellectual tone. We both know what's going on.

.

.

 

[Skwim]

It doesn't matter. Jesus atoned for the suffering and attractions of everyone.

So it wouldn't matter if he was having a roll in the hay with some dude? Good for you. Most Christians would gag at the thought, but then maybe you're gay and see nothing wrong in it, to which I say.

.
.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

So, as it turns out we have two kinds of guys at the top of the Roman social hierarchy, elite or not:

Men: the penetrators
Males: the penetrated​

All of which leads me to conclude: So what? .

As a gay man all of my life, I'm always surprised that so many people still suppose that dichotomy is somehow hard-wired. That there aren't men/males who, being attracted to other men/males, can't enjoy both penetrating and being penetrated. After all, if you're in a relationship with somebody who has the same bits as you, it's pretty likely that both can enjoy using those bits in the same way.

What I can ask of my partner, I can offer to my partner. AKA "flip-flop." And enjoy both. There is a richness here that outsiders will never grok.

 

[robocop (actually)]

So it wouldn't matter if he was having a roll in the hay with some dude? Good for you. Most Christians would gag at the thought, but then maybe you're gay and see nothing wrong in it, to which I say.

.
.

Jesus Christ committed no sin, but he suffered for it all in the atonement, so he took upon himself the feelings of homosexuals and every other thing so that all might have hope.

 

[Vouthon]

I don't find a thing in your post below or in your link that mentioned Elite males as penetrators, or in any other context.

"Elite males" is a reference to status, and the ancient societal understanding of sexuality in large part had to do with status / social role (as opposed to orientation as in modernity) and this is indeed mentioned in the link I cited.

Another source that makes this clear:


The Oxford Encyclopedia of Ancient Greece and Rome

The Oxford Encyclopedia of Ancient Greece and Rome, Volume 1

The elite male could suffer no form of sexual penetration, yet he could penetrate with impunity the mouth, anus, or vagina of persons of inferior, non-citizen status​

This was the understanding of sexuality, not in terms of a modern "orientation" defined by the gender of the inferior penetrated partner.

Then lay off the pseudo-intellectual tone. We both know what's going on.

Actually, I don't.

I'm simply answering the question you posed in the OP based upon my understanding of the conventional approach to sexuality at the time, in the first century, which was very different from our modern straight/gay orientation approach.

 

[Skwim]

"Elite males" is a reference to status, and the ancient societal understanding of sexuality in large part had to do with status / social role (as opposed to orientation as in modernity) and this is indeed mentioned in the link I cited.

Another source that makes this clear:


The Oxford Encyclopedia of Ancient Greece and Rome

The Oxford Encyclopedia of Ancient Greece and Rome, Volume 1

The elite male could suffer no form of sexual penetration, yet he could penetrate with impunity the mouth, anus, or vagina of persons of of inferior, non-citizen status​

This was the understanding of sexuality, not in terms of a modern "orientation" defined by the gender of the inferior penetrated partner.

As much as I'd like to continue this discussion, the moderators killed my original reply to you leaving me without reference material, which forces me to bow out. Perhaps some other time.

.

 

[Quagmire]

As much as I'd like to continue this discussion, the moderators killed my original reply to you leaving me without reference material, which forces me to bow out. Perhaps some other time.

.

It was mercy killing.

 

[Skwim]

It was mercy killing.

That's what I figured.

.

 

[Sand Dancer]

.


I ask because the subject came to mind after reading the following.

"Comedy Group’s Headquarters Nearly Firebombed Over Netflix Show with Gay Jesus

"As we posted about earlier this month, Netflix is airing a Portuguese-language satire called The First Temptation of Christ, by the comedy team Porta dos Fundos, in which Jesus is shown in a same-sex relationship.

That description alone was enough to generation over a million signatures on a petition and incur the wrath of the son of Brazil’s president.

But now the outrage is getting worse.

On Christmas Eve, the headquarters of Porta dos Fundos were nearly firebombed when two Molotov cocktails were thrown into the building."​

Personally, I don't see any need for Jesus to be heterosexual, bisexual, or homosexual. I think he was most likely asexual.

.

​

He and Mary Magdalene were sweet on each other I think.

 

[roger1440]

To the OP, I have no clue and am not willing to speculate as that would just be just a guess. However, with that being said, it would be highly unusual for a man back then to be unmarried unless he was a "nazir".

"According to the ancient Jewish historian Josephus and the Jewish philosopher Philo of Alexandria, the Essenes were indeed celibate."
First Person: Was the Dead Sea Scroll Community Celibate?

 

[Riders]

Ahhh Netflix trying to remain in the streaming wars by being controversial. From a moral stand point, that's pretty low. From a business/capitalistic standpoint, questionable.

Why is it low? DO you think Jesus really cares about it?

 

[ChristineM]

The biblical texts are the product of an ancient patriarchal society, yes, so we unfortunately find the normative chauvinism / misogyny of this era reflected in a number of its books (Old and New Testament).

However, there are no chauvinistic statements attributed to Jesus himself that I know of.

Even the episode involving the Syro-Phoenician woman concerned her identity as a Gentile, not her sex. It could be construed as an incident of Jewish chauvinism towards non-Jews that Jesus learns from (through the woman's example of faith) or feigns as a teaching moment for his disciples (to demolish their ethno-religious prejudice) but he never demeans her as a woman.

Please cite for me something sexist to women that Jesus said?

If we turn to the gospels, we actually find someone who went out of his way to advocate for the welfare and dignity of women.

He fraternized openly with the unclean, sinners, tax-collectors, prostitutes and a Samaritan woman who appeared to be practising a first century version of "open marriage":

The Samaritan woman said to him, “How is it that you, a Jew, ask a drink of me, a woman of Samaria?” (Jews do not share things in common with Samaritans.)...

Jesus said to her, "Go, call your husband, and come back." The woman answered him, "I have no husband." Jesus said to her, "You are right in saying, 'I have no husband'; for you have had five husbands, and the man you are now living with is not your husband. What you have said is true!"

The woman said to him, "Sir, I see that you are a prophet. Our ancestors worshipped on this mountain, but you say that the place where people must worship is in Jerusalem."...

Just then his disciples came. They were astonished that he was speaking with a woman, but no one said, “What do you want?” or, “Why are you speaking with her?”

(John 4:4–42)
​

In John 4:4-42, Jesus ignores three codes of "conventional" behaviour.

He initiates a conversation with a foreigner belonging to a religion Jews deemed a heresy, Samaritanism. This foreigner is also a woman, and men were not expected to speak in public with women they weren't married to, or bring scandal upon themselves. Third, she is a sexually profligate woman in the eyes of her contemporaries. Her surprise is included in the narrative: “How can you, a Jew, ask me, a Samaritan woman, for a drink?” (John 4:9). As one scholar notes: "Jesus not only speaks with her but also enters into a prolonged dialogue, a dialogue which recognizes and honors her thirst for religious truth".

Did he criticise her for having had five husbands (or extra-marital relationships that Jesus was tongue-in-cheek referring to as husbands) and now living with a man she wasn't married to?

No, he opened a friendly dialogue with her and exchanged his perspective for hers, as an equal.

Likewise, Jesus lived in a strongly "whorephobic" society (obsessed with ritual purity) in which sex workers were regarded as morally lower than dirt. The popular second-century Jewish wisdom book, Ben Sira, simply stated in this regard: "A prostitute is regarded as spittle".

Josephus (the first century Jewish Historian) attributes the following words to Moses in his Antiquities of the Jews:


Flavius Josephus, Antiquities of the Jews, Book 4, Whiston chapter 8

"You are not to offer sacrifices out of the hire of a woman who is a harlot for the Deity is not pleased with any thing that arises from such abuses of nature; of which sort none can be worse than this prostitution of the body."

​

But, again, Jesus revolted against the prevailing societal norms in elevating prostitutes as people morally superior to the religious elites and closer to God's Kingdom than they were:

Matthew 21

Jesus said to them, “Truly I tell you, the tax collectors and prostitutes are entering the kingdom of God before you."
​

Notice to whom Jesus was speaking, the chief priests and elders of the people (Matt 21:23). That makes it even more shocking.

Likewise, he denounced the suppression of women by religious authorities who forced upon them exceedingly strict purity laws, for example concerning menstruation and their courses:


Jesus' interactions with women - Wikipedia

The woman who touched Jesus' garment


Mark 5:25-34
Jesus practiced the ministry of touch, sometimes touching the "untouchables" and letting them touch him. Among the things considered defiling (disqualifying one for the rituals of religion) was an issue of blood, especially menstruation or hemorrhage. One such woman had been plagued with a flow of blood for 12 years, no one having been able to heal her. She found the faith in a crowd to force her way up to Jesus, approaching him from behind so as to remain inconspicuous, and simply touching his garment.[Mk. 5:27] When she did, two things happened: the flows of blood stopped and she was discovered.[3]

Jesus turned and asked who touched him. The disciples tried to brush aside the question, protesting that in such a crowd no individual could be singled out. Jesus pressed his inquiry and the woman came and trembled at his feet; she explained her reason and declared amid the crowd what blessing had come to her.[Lk. 8:47] Jesus treated her as having worth, not rebuking her for what the Levitical code of holiness would have considered as defiling him.[Lev. 15:19-25] Rather, he relieved her of any sense of guilt for her seemingly rash act, lifted her up and called her "Daughter." He told her that her faith saved her, gave her his love, and sent her away whole.[Mk. 5:34]
​

It was for this reason that St. Paul, inspired by the example of Christ, could write:

"There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for you are all one in Christ Jesus" (Galatians 3:28)​

Among the early church fathers, an agraphon (extra-canonical saying) was attributed to Jesus as being the source for this Pauline statement in the New Testament, and according to the early second century 2 Clement it went as follows:

"For the Lord Jesus Himself, being asked by a certain person when his kingdom would come, said, 'When the two shall be one, and the outside as the inside, and the male with the female, neither male or female...A brother seeing a sister should have no thought of her as a female, and a sister seeing a brother should not have any thought of him as a male. These things if ye do (saith He) the kingdom of my father shall come'." (2 Clement 12:2)​

So would you deem this to be "male chauvinism", no less in the context of the generally speaking highly misogynistic social milieu of Greco-Roman civilisation?

He is repeatedly depicted as a person who advocated for the welfare of women.

I would like to see textual proof of your contention here, as I personally think you're being a tad unfair in light of Jesus's expressed views.

Did i say JC made sexist comments? No, what i said was that he toed the line [of convention at that time].

 

[SalixIncendium]

**THREAD LOCKED**​