Did Jesus ever mention homosexuality (or what would amount to it?)

[Delta4Embassy]

Skimming the Gospel of Judas for other things, I found something interesting. While the Gospel of Judas isn't canonized, it wasn't known when councils decided what to canonize or not. Can read it for yourself and make your own decision here,

The Coptic Ps.Gospel of Judas Iscariot


"Jesus said to them, “Those you have seen receiving the offerings at the altar----that is who you are. That is the god you serve, and you are those twelve men you have seen. The cattle you have seen brought for sacrifice are the many people you lead astray [40] before that altar. […] will stand and make use of my name in this way, and generations of the pious will remain loyal to him. After hi another man will stand there from [the fornicators], and another [will] stand there from the slayers of children, and another from those who sleep with men, and those who abstain, and the rest of the people of pollution and lawlessness and error, and those who say, ‘We are like angels’; they are the stars that bring everything to its conclusion. For to the human generations it has been said, ‘Look, God has received your sacrifice from the hands of a priest’----that is, a minister of error."

Bold mine. Seems Jesus did mention homosexuality.

 

[Delta4Embassy]

Btw, if you check it out, it and other ancient texts being semi-destroyed have gaps of text. Some Bibles and texts will use bracketed text indicating the translators' 'best-guess' as to what the missing text would have been. This link uses this system (which is prefered I think.) If the missing text has no 'best-guess' it'll be bracketed dot dot dot.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

It's clear that the Gospel of Judas is a modern forgery

 

[Delta4Embassy]

It's clear that the Gospel of Judas is a modern forgery

It's not. It's just non-canonized. It's in fact an early Gnostic text which puts it at odds with "mainstream Christianity."

Gospel of Judas Free of Forgeries But Still Fake Heretical Says New Testament Scholar

Worth the 5 minutes it takes to read.

 

[hobelim]

It's not. It's just non-canonized. It's in fact an early Gnostic text

Gnostic text should have alerted you to the fact that the nature of gnostic beliefs and expression is esoteric; abstruse, obscure, arcane, rarefied, recondite, abstract;



"Those who sleep with men" would only seem to be about sex if one was so inclined to obsess over homosexual sex, which seems to be the subject of your greatest interest..

What gives? Are you looking for divine approval for your sexual orientation or trying to disprove the existence of God in an attempt to free yourself from any negative reservations or instilled guilt from your religious upbringing that you are understandably desperate to purge??

You use scripture to find justification for homosexuality and then use the same scriptures to deride the belief in the existence of God.

You seem like a tortured soul.

Be healed. Your sins related to thinking that a Holy God would be preoccupied with the sexual behavior of bipeds of questionable intelligence are forgiven.

Go in peace and sin no more.

 

[Steven_R]

Nonsense. God has so much on his plate, but still manages to worry about whether or not I rub one out or if two hotties are scissoring. Of course, if we could just keep our perversions in check and only have sex for procreation, then maybe God could get around to stopping childhood cancer or ending famine once and for all.

tl;dr version: It's the Sears Catalog bra section's fault that kids die.

 

[Delta4Embassy]

Nonsense. God has so much on his plate, but still manages to worry about whether or not I rub one out or if two hotties are scissoring. Of course, if we could just keep our perversions in check and only have sex for procreation, then maybe God could get around to stopping childhood cancer or ending famine once and for all.

tl;dr version: It's the Sears Catalog bra section's fault that kids die.

Masturbation isn't a sin. Nor is it mentioned anywhere in the Bible. Oft-quoted sin of Onan was what we now call coitus interuptus (withdrawing the penis prior to ejaculation.) That's not masturbation clearly.

 

[hobelim]

Nonsense. God has so much on his plate, but still manages to worry about whether or not I rub one out or if two hotties are scissoring. Of course, if we could just keep our perversions in check and only have sex for procreation, then maybe God could get around to stopping childhood cancer or ending famine once and for all.

tl;dr version: It's the Sears Catalog bra section's fault that kids die.

You always manage to make me laugh.....

However I highly doubt that God is very interested in you rubbing one out, those hotties, though,,,,, .....sorry, I drifted off a bit,,,

Anyway, why would anyone think that God would consider the sexual preferences of sexual beings perverted.?.. The dude invented the entire thing....

about that cancer and famine .....Seems those things are entirely within the power of mankind to end.

God is probably waiting for someone to stop rubbing one out long enough to do something about those things themselves.

Until then, carry on....,

 

[Blackrook]

Delta you spend a lot of time posting here about God. Why are you wasting your time talking about a person who doesn't exist?

 

[BluePhantom]

It's clear that the Gospel of Judas is a modern forgery

Well if you consider the 3rd century CE modern, I guess that would be true. Regardless, the book was not written by Judas or any other apostle. There are scores of books from antiquity that are not in the Bible that claim to be written by apostolic figures and are not. Some of the books in the Bible claim to be written by apostolic figures and we know they were not. So what the Gospel of Judas provides us with is an interesting view of Gnostic belief and how they viewed the role of Judas. It has great historical value in that it tells us something about what some early Christians believed, but I wouldn't base a belief system on it. Nor would I have a great deal of confidence that Jesus said something simply because a saying is attributed to Him in a single manuscript from about 250 years after His death.

As to your original question, no. According to what is written in the Bible Jesus never mentions homosexuality.




Truth Behind Gospel of Judas Revealed in Ancient Inks

 

[PostmodernProph]

depends on whether you believe Jesus is the same being as YHWH.....if so, yes......

 

[onefour1]

I do believe he is YHWH also known as the great I AM.

John 8:57-59
57 Then said the Jews unto him, Thou art not yet fifty years old, and hast thou seen Abraham?
58 Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Before Abraham was, I am.
59 Then took they up stones to cast at him: but Jesus hid himself, and went out of the temple, going through the midst of them, and so passed by.

Leviticus 18:21-22
21 And thou shalt not let any of thy seed pass through the fire to Molech, neither shalt thou profane the name of thy God: I am the Lord.
22 Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination.

 

[Delta4Embassy]

Delta you spend a lot of time posting here about God. Why are you wasting your time talking about a person who doesn't exist?

Because, I might be wrong.

 

[hobelim]

Delta you spend a lot of time posting here about God. Why are you wasting your time talking about a person who doesn't exist?

Because, I might be wrong.

No, delta, you are not wrong.

The God of the OT and NT as defined by so called orthodox believers of the three major monotheistic religions who insist that God is preoccupied with diet, fashion, and the preferences of sexual beings according to the most superficial and ignorant literal interpretation of scripture possible does not exist at all or correspond in any way to any real living being ever in existence.

That's why no one, believers and unbelievers alike, can find any evidence to support the belief in the existence such a being as defined by believers who themselves have never seen or heard a single peep from him for their entire lives except in the delusions of their unrestrained imaginations that amount to wishful thinking..

And you are also right to consider the possibility that you are wrong.

Purify your mind and be refined and you will see and know, (not believe), he who truly is God.

Take another closer look at the dietary laws with the knowledge that the same God who spoke through the prophets in figurative language used figurative language when giving the law through Moses, a prophet.

If you can grasp the deeper implications in the prohibition against eating the flesh of swine because they are unclean creatures that do not ruminate you will see that by refusing to swallow the BS of certain religious people who would have you believe that God has the emotional maturity of a pubescent juvenile you are already living a Kosher life and in compliance with this particular law, whatever you eat for dinner,

The gist of the law is, if you fill your mind with the teachings, flesh, of unclean creatures that do not ruminate, think rationally, your mind will become defiled and contaminated and you will become a creature that cannot ruminate, think rationally, and you will say and do stupid things that injure yourself and the people that you love and love you.

If you can see the law in this light you will see a wisdom worthy of God and that invisible loving and benevolent God so hard to find, will begin to come into focus and you will believe in what you can see with your own inner eye and you will know the truth and the truth will set you free,.

 

[Delta4Embassy]

I'm confident mainstream religions are wrong. But ultimately an honest student will conceed he may be wrong.

 

[hobelim]

I'm confident mainstream religions are wrong. But ultimately an honest student will conceed he may be wrong.

True, but by stirring the waters of contention the truth is brought out.

Once the truth is out you must never entertain the possibility that you might be wrong. It would amount to not believing in yourself who you know exists..

 

[BluePhantom]

I'm confident mainstream religions are wrong. But ultimately an honest student will conceed he may be wrong.

True, but by stirring the waters of contention the truth is brought out.

Once the truth is out you must never entertain the possibility that you might be wrong. It would amount to not believing in yourself who you know exists..

Truth is often a matter of perspective though. In the United States, for example, we see it as a truth that Benedict Arnold was a traitor. In the United Kingdom, he is viewed far differently. According to their truth, he is a great hero. Christians hold the New Testament as the truth while Jews largely ignore it. Muslims view the Glorious Koran as the truth while Christians and Jews dismiss it. Even within Christian communities there is widespread disagreement about what is the truth and what is not.

As Pontius Pilate asked: "Veritas? Quid est veritas?" (or in English: "Truth? What is truth?.........of course Pilate would never have said that in Latin but that's the most famous depiction in a different language. He actually probably would have said "Aletheia? Ti estin aletheia?")

Do not mistake facts for truth. In many cases, truth is no more than a personal opinion or perhaps even a choice.

 

[UllysesS.Archer]

Delta you spend a lot of time posting here about God. Why are you wasting your time talking about a person who doesn't exist?

Because, I might be wrong.

That might be the post of the year.

 

[hobelim]

I'm confident mainstream religions are wrong. But ultimately an honest student will conceed he may be wrong.

True, but by stirring the waters of contention the truth is brought out.

Once the truth is out you must never entertain the possibility that you might be wrong. It would amount to not believing in yourself who you know exists..

Truth is often a matter of perspective though. In the United States, for example, we see it as a truth that Benedict Arnold was a traitor. In the United Kingdom, he is viewed far differently. According to their truth, he is a great hero. Christians hold the New Testament as the truth while Jews largely ignore it. Muslims view the Glorious Koran as the truth while Christians and Jews dismiss it. Even within Christian communities there is widespread disagreement about what is the truth and what is not.

As Pontius Pilate asked: "Veritas? Quid est veritas?" (or in English: "Truth? What is truth?.........of course Pilate would never have said that in Latin but that's the most famous depiction in a different language. He actually probably would have said "Aletheia? Ti estin aletheia?")

Do not mistake facts for truth. In many cases, truth is no more than a personal opinion or perhaps even a choice.

Thank you for that thoughtful, well written and intelligent response. Quite refreshing. and I do agree and understand the distinction between subjective truth, which is hardly more than an unfounded assumptions or opinion, and verifiable facts.

As truth pertains to the subject of both Jewish and Christian religions based on their respective holy books and the stories written as teaching tools for adherents, like fairy tales, fables and myths from every culture there is a teaching conveyed that is, as in any metaphorical story or work of fiction, not necessarily directly connected to the literal meaning of the words used.

When Jesus said to Pilate that his task was to bear witness to the truth he was referring specifically to the truth as it pertains to the subject of Jewish belief and practice that he claimed to have received by divine revelation, a truth that was arcane and withheld from the common people. That's why the religious authorities were astonished and wondered "where did he get this learning", a glutton and a drunk, because it was not available to people who were considered froward and sinful. They found it impossible to believe that he was taught by God , a person who was always partying with sinners and prostitutes and keeping bad company, even though there was no other possible explanation.

Jesus died trying to share with the common people what was being deliberately kept hidden from them, and the religious authorities instead of choosing to acknowledge that truth and verifiable fact, they chose instead to call him a liar, false prophet, demon possessed and out of his mind.

They probably thought of him as a Jewish Benedict Arnold in the loathsome way that Americans do. Their truth was that Jesus was a traitor who betrayed their secrets that enabled them to live lives of comfort and ease by deliberately keeping the rest of the population in the dark and preoccupied by the intolerably burdens placed upon them for the sole purpose of perpetuating their own wealth and smooth lives of comfort and ease..



excerpt from the dead sea scrolls, Manual of Discipline


When these men have undergone, with blamelessness of conduct, a two year preparation in the fundamentals of the community, they shall be segregated as especially sacred among the formal members of the community. Any knowledge which the expositor of the law may posses but which may have to remain arcane to the ordinary layman, he shall not keep hidden from them; for in their case there need be no fear that it might induce apostasy.

Of religious discussion.

No one is to engage in discussion or disputation with men of ill repute; and in the company of froward men everyone is to abstain from talk about (keep hidden) the meaning of the Law [Torah].


"The kingdom of Heaven is like hidden treasure buried in a field. The man who found it, buried it again." mat 13:44

 

[BluePhantom]

I'm confident mainstream religions are wrong. But ultimately an honest student will conceed he may be wrong.

True, but by stirring the waters of contention the truth is brought out.

Once the truth is out you must never entertain the possibility that you might be wrong. It would amount to not believing in yourself who you know exists..

Truth is often a matter of perspective though. In the United States, for example, we see it as a truth that Benedict Arnold was a traitor. In the United Kingdom, he is viewed far differently. According to their truth, he is a great hero. Christians hold the New Testament as the truth while Jews largely ignore it. Muslims view the Glorious Koran as the truth while Christians and Jews dismiss it. Even within Christian communities there is widespread disagreement about what is the truth and what is not.

As Pontius Pilate asked: "Veritas? Quid est veritas?" (or in English: "Truth? What is truth?.........of course Pilate would never have said that in Latin but that's the most famous depiction in a different language. He actually probably would have said "Aletheia? Ti estin aletheia?")

Do not mistake facts for truth. In many cases, truth is no more than a personal opinion or perhaps even a choice.

Thank you for that thoughtful, well written and intelligent response. Quite refreshing. and I do agree and understand the distinction between subjective truth, which is hardly more than an unfounded assumptions or opinion, and verifiable facts.

As truth pertains to the subject of both Jewish and Christian religions based on their respective holy books and the stories written as teaching tools for adherents, like fairy tales, fables and myths from every culture there is a teaching conveyed that is, as in any metaphorical story or work of fiction, not necessarily directly connected to the literal meaning of the words used.

When Jesus said to Pilate that his task was to bear witness to the truth he was referring specifically to the truth as it pertains to the subject of Jewish belief and practice that he claimed to have received by divine revelation, a truth that was arcane and withheld from the common people. That's why the religious authorities were astonished and wondered "where did he get this learning", a glutton and a drunk, because it was not available to people who were considered froward and sinful. They found it impossible to believe that he was taught by God , a person who was always partying with sinners and prostitutes and keeping bad company, even though there was no other possible explanation.

Jesus died trying to share with the common people what was being deliberately kept hidden from them, and the religious authorities instead of choosing to acknowledge that truth and verifiable fact, they chose instead to call him a liar, false prophet, demon possessed and out of his mind.

They probably thought of him as a Jewish Benedict Arnold in the loathsome way that Americans do. Their truth was that Jesus was a traitor who betrayed their secrets that enabled them to live lives of comfort and ease by deliberately keeping the rest of the population in the dark and preoccupied by the intolerably burdens placed upon them for the sole purpose of perpetuating their own wealth and smooth lives of comfort and ease..



excerpt from the dead sea scrolls, Manual of Discipline


When these men have undergone, with blamelessness of conduct, a two year preparation in the fundamentals of the community, they shall be segregated as especially sacred among the formal members of the community. Any knowledge which the expositor of the law may posses but which may have to remain arcane to the ordinary layman, he shall not keep hidden from them; for in their case there need be no fear that it might induce apostasy.

Of religious discussion.

No one is to engage in discussion or disputation with men of ill repute; and in the company of froward men everyone is to abstain from talk about (keep hidden) the meaning of the Law [Torah].


"The kingdom of Heaven is like hidden treasure buried in a field. The man who found it, buried it again." mat 13:44

I would generally agree, but I would add a few points.

1) Jesus had different conflicts with different groups of Jewish culture because of the focus of each group. The most common group Jesus ran into were the Sadducees and Pharisees, but there were also others like the Zealots, and the Essenes. All were concerned about different things. Since the Pharisees were concerned with strict adherence to Torah, Jesus ran into conflict with them when he taught or behaved in a way wherein Torah might not be kept. A good example would be gathering grain or healing on the Sabbath. The Sadducees, on the other hand, were less concerned with Torah and more concerned with Temple observances and rituals. It was the Sadducees who brought Jesus to Pilate and they were by far the most powerful group in the time of Jesus. So an argument could be made that while the nature of what Jesus taught pissed off other groups, the one that got Him in the end was His threat to Temple concerns. The charge of blasphemy by Caiaphas and the other Sadducees, therefore, may have simply been convenient charges to make although those charges were not truly their main concern. Those charges would have been the main concern of the Pharisees, but it was not the Pharisees who arrested Jesus.

I am wondering how you would respond to that.

2) Your quote from the Manual of Discipline is a great quote, but that is from the point of view of the Essenes. The Pharisees, Sadducees, and Jesus all disagreed with the Essenes on some major points of emphasis. So I am curious how you are using an Essense point of view in regard to a conflict between Jesus and the Sadducees.

3) When we apply history we can recognize that it was the Pharisaic point of view that ultimately endured. The Sadducees got wiped out when the Romans destroyed the Temple. The Essenes and Zealots got wiped out during the Jewish uprising. The Pharisees were the only ones to really survive. An argument could be made that by the time scripture was finalized (i.e. taken from the original form to the more standard form we see today), it had been redacted to emphasize a viewpoint that was more in line with Pharisaic belief. If that is the case, it could be further argued that the crimes Jesus was accused of in the Bible are influenced by the Pharisees long after the fact.

I am also curious how you would respond to that.

Great post, btw!