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

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.


Yes, there were many conflicts. The zealots were hoping that Jesus was the messiah and seemed to be waiting until the last minute for him to signal an armed revolt. That's what Jesus was referring to when he said that he had seventy seven legions of angels who could save him from the cross if he gave the order. It was not hubris. The Essenes, like John the baptist, seemed to be particularly against what they saw as the corruption inherent in Temple worship, collusion with Rome, and animal sacrifice itself. .



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.

The sadducees rejected the oral law which the Pharisees embraced, the traditions of men as Jesus called it, which goes into great detail about how to correctly apply the literal letter of the law even when it makes no sense, but the saducees also denied the resurrection and focused only on the obvious, not necessarily literal, interpretation and practical application of the Law exactly as it was written without explanation. The essene point of view was that there was a deeper meaning hidden in the figurative language used in the law. They believed it should remain hidden, as shown in the manual of discipline quotes. So Jesus, by revealing secret teaching and how to understand the figurative language of the prophets, he pissed of the saduccees who claimed there was no deeper meaning, he pissed off the Pharisees who believed their oral traditions were the only truth, and he pissed off the essenes by teaching ordinary layman, sinners, and people of ill repute their deepest secrets. He pissed them all off, took away the basis for their false claim to moral authority and openly revealed the wisdom of God and subjects hidden in the law as it was originally intended to be understood by Moses which gave the power back to the people who had been subjugated by traditions, mind control, and false teaching which amounted to money making and power grabbing schemes so a select few could live smooth lives of comfort and ease...




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.


I would tend to agree, especially since much of how Jesus was portrayed by Paul, a pharisee, insured that the Jewish people would never accept him as anything other than a false prophet, magician, or mentally ill traitor.

And yes, they were all wiped out except the Pharisees, the generation of teaching that Jesus said would persist to see it all, from the fall of Jerusalem, the destruction of the Temple, the diaspora and his eventual triumphant return.
 
Last edited:
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.


Yes, there were many conflicts. The zealots were hoping that Jesus was the messiah and seemed to be waiting until the last minute for him to signal an armed revolt. That's what Jesus was referring to when he said that he had seventy seven legions of angels who could save him from the cross if he gave the order. It was not hubris. The Essenes, like John the baptist, seemed to be particularly against what they saw as the corruption inherent in Temple worship and animal sacrifice itself. .



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.

The sadducees rejected the oral law which the Pharisees embraced, the traditions of men as Jesus called it, which goes into great detail about how to correctly apply the literal letter of the law even when it makes no sense, but the saducees also denied the resurrection and focused only on the obvious, not necessarily literal, interpretation and practical application of the Law exactly as it was written without explanation. The essene point of view was that there was a deeper meaning hidden in the figurative language used in the law. They believed it should remain hidden, as shown in the manual of discipline quotes. So Jesus, by revealing secret teaching and how to understand the figurative language of the prophets, he pissed of the saduccees who claimed there was no deeper meaning, he pissed off the Pharisees who believed their oral traditions were the only truth, and he pissed off the essenes by teaching ordinary layman, sinners, and people of ill repute their deepest secrets. He pissed them all off, took away the basis for their false claim to moral authority and dispensed the wisdom of God which gave the power to the people who had been subjugated by traditions and false teaching which amounted to money making and power grabbing schemes..




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.


I would tend to agree, especially since much of how Jesus was portrayed by Paul, a pharisee, insured that the Jewish people would never accept him as anything other than a false prophet, magician, or mentally ill traitor.

I think we agree more than we disagree, but I am probably not making one point very well. To my knowledge there is nothing in the Bible that details any communication of confrontation between Jesus and the Zealots or the Essenes. One of His disciples was a Zealot (Simon) but I am not sure that is enough to suggest that Jesus was in widespread discussions with the Zealots as a whole. It's reasonable to assume there were some confrontations, but as I said they are not recorded (although there may be some in the apocrypha).

I agree that Jesus certainly pissed off all groups for different reasons, but just for a moment I want to focus on the Sadducees because they were the ones who arrested Him and presented Him to Pilate for judgement and execution. I agree with you that the Sadducees would have disagreed with Jesus about greater and inner truths. But so did a lot of people. Jerusalem would have been packed with preachers teaching doctrine that would have been in opposition to the Sadducees. There's nothing to suggest that the Sadducees had tons of people killed for disagreeing and from the viewpoint of historical plausibility it wouldn't make much sense. As long as people followed the Law in regards to the Temple they would be mostly satisfied.

t seems unlikely to me, therefore, that they would endorse the execution of Jesus for any reason other than something that directly challenged their principle concerns. Just like Pilate wouldn't care if Jesus broke Jewish Law, neither would the Sadducees be overly concerned if Jesus pissed off the Pharisees, Zealots, or Essenes (especially since the four groups didn't have a whole lot of love for each other). So what did Jesus do that challenged the Sadducees specifically?

Well, consider that the Sadducees and Rome were at least willing to work together as long as there was a benefit to each for doing so. Well here comes Jesus creating a shitstorm in the Temple, threatening to destroy the Temple, directly challenging the Sadducees, etc. Caiaphas probably interpreted this as a threat to riot and rebel and a rebellion was the last thing he would want since that would bring heat from Rome. So he has Jesus arrested, but he needs an excuse to get rid of Him for good. So in a kangaroo court they accuse Jesus of blasphemy. That gives them a religious excuse to execute Jesus even though their real concern was political. So with Jesus convicted of blasphemy it satisfies their need for a theological excuse, but it doesn't satisfy Rome. So they accuse Jesus of sedition / treason by telling Pilate that Jesus claims to be a king which is a direct challenge to Tiberius.

So the argument I am attempting to make is that while Jesus' message and revealing inner truths certainly pissed people off, I doubt it was the reason why the Sadducees took the actions they did. It's the opinions of the Sadducees that matter, because they are the ones who arrested Him. That may have been their theological justification, but I would argue that their actual reason was political and not religious. I just have a hard time buying the suggestion that the Sadducees would be motivated to execute Jesus for any reason other than something that was a chief concern of theirs.
 
So the argument I am attempting to make is that while Jesus' message and revealing inner truths certainly pissed people off, I doubt it was the reason why the Sadducees took the actions they did. It's the opinions of the Sadducees that matter, because they are the ones who arrested Him. That may have been their theological justification, but I would argue that their actual reason was political and not religious. I just have a hard time buying the suggestion that the Sadducees would be motivated to execute Jesus for any reason other than something that was a chief concern of theirs.


Yes, I suspect it was no coincidence that Jesus was arrested, by Temple police immediately after he turned over the Temple money changers tables.

Disrupting and threatening their economic stability was probably their actual reason, not religion or politics, except that by exposing political and religious corruption he was causing social instability that they knew all too well, would never be tolerated by Rome. I suppose they thought that if they charged Jesus with sedition they could remain friendly with Rome and be assured of a few more years to safely rake in the shekels.

The sad part is that they thought they would get rid of their problem by getting rid of Jesus without realizing that he was finished anyway opening the eyes of the blind and raising the dead, etc., and that after he was gone, instead of one pissed off Jesus, there was waiting for them a nation of pissed off people..
 
Last edited:
New Testament. Romans 1. Jude 1. The OP already knows this though..

Well but Romans was the opinion of Paul and not Jesus. Jude is the opinion of whoever wrote Jude. Scholars are pretty comfortable that Jude wasn't written by Jude the Apostle, but someone claiming to be him. Whether that is correct or incorrect really doesn't matter in regard to the question the OP asked. In either case it is the opinion of someone other than Jesus. The OP was specific in asking whether Jesus said anything about homosexuality. If He did, it never made it to the Bible.
 
Looks like a telestial glory for them. Not terribly shocking that they would receive the lowest degree and come forth in the resurrection of the unjust. Which is a shame because they could have a celestial glory if they only repent and come to Christ.

Personally I'd much rather come forth in the morning of the first resurrection than wait 1000 years to rise again.
 
Looks like a telestial glory for them. Not terribly shocking that they would receive the lowest degree and come forth in the resurrection of the unjust. Which is a shame because they could have a celestial glory if they only repent and come to Christ.

Personally I'd much rather come forth in the morning of the first resurrection than wait 1000 years to rise again.

If you're dead doesn't 1000 years pass instaneously regardless? :) Universe existed a long time before I was born yet its' passing seemed instant to me before I was born. :)
 
Looks like a telestial glory for them. Not terribly shocking that they would receive the lowest degree and come forth in the resurrection of the unjust. Which is a shame because they could have a celestial glory if they only repent and come to Christ.

Personally I'd much rather come forth in the morning of the first resurrection than wait 1000 years to rise again.

If you're dead doesn't 1000 years pass instaneously regardless? :) Universe existed a long time before I was born yet its' passing seemed instant to me before I was born. :)

Nope. Those who wait suffer for their sins. We call this state hell.
 

Forum List

Back
Top