Did Jesus have Sex??

[Lighthouse]

My sentiments EXACTLY!![][][]

[narfellus]

Another take on the Jesus and marriage conspiracy is that the early church, in their efforts to "create" the bible and the shape of christianity, wanted to make Jesus as non-human as possible. In other words, to put him on a pedestal to be worshipped and awed and sought after, for his ways were immpecable and the birthright of God. Thus, we have the start of his life and the end, but the middle parts, well, these were very normal and human, and would have led people to believe he might be "less than divine." Yes, i believe he had sex. He MUST have known the connection between sexuality and spirituality, and more importantly known that abuse and overindulgence in sex would have been just as bad as getting drunk every night. (let me add that wine was one of the few ways to purify water from parasites, thus its prolific useage throughout the ages).

I see why the church did what they did, but it has had a profound, centuries long impact on the views of christianity. I'm going to tell my parents about the missing books of bible and see if they crap themselves. They'll probably think i'm a heathen or something, but they need a little enlightenment. The Bible's great, it's core lessons of love are as applicable today as 2000 years ago, BUT BUT BUT New Age spirituality is a mandatory expansion to its lessons, not to replace, but to expound and enhance the teachings in ways earlier generations never knew possible.

[MONDO]

How can a myth have sex? Unless of course it was written that the fictional character called Jesus did have sex.
I'm probably rubbing some people here up the wrong way but that is not my intention. It's just that I really dont believe in the whole Jesus thing. Its a lie and provably so.

[Lighthouse]

quote:Originally posted by MONDO

How can a myth have sex? Unless of course it was written that the fictional character called Jesus did have sex.

Perhaps you and I are myths too... it all depends upon your perspective.  I would have personally LOVED to have sex with that MAN... not the myth.

quote:
I'm probably rubbing some people here up the wrong way but that is not my intention. It's just that I really dont believe in the whole Jesus thing. Its a lie and provably so.

I believe that your statement is a lie to yourself.  If you intended not to make waves, you would not have added your disclaimer.  You are free to your opinions here and encouraged to express them, however, you will also be challenged and asked to support your statements just like the rest of us [8D]. []

Just be aware that many viewpoints are expressed here and the Christian Fundamentalists will challenge your every postulation on the life of Christ. []

Have fun... and I suggest that before the fundi's get to you, you might want to figure out what you will say when they start challenging your ideas. []

Once again... Don't forget to have fun []

Peace and Love,
Kerri

[MONDO]

Oh, I love this stuff and I have been challenged many times when I have made this statement that Jesus never existed as a real man that did all those miraculous things. The evidence is there and when I have more time (tommorow) I will write an extensive essay as to why I know that the story of Jesus is a myth.
I'm not trying to change anyones belief systems and if people want to believe the story then good for them. However, I do believe that everyone should have access to all information so as to have an informed opinion or belief system that they have conciously chosen. That way we can all move foward knowing the options that we have.

Watch this space.

[narfellus]

Well MONDO, i guess you can disprove Jesus if you want, but i don't see why you would. What's the point other than to rile up the fundamentalists like Lighthouse said? You can't offend me, say whatever you want, but i highly doubt you can disprove Jesus any easier than anyone on the planet can undeniably PROVE his existense. Jesus and all spirituality is a faith thing, based on thought and intent. If anyone chooses to NOT believe something then for all intents and purposes it doesn't exist for them. Remember the film Capricorn One? It was the conspiracy theory that NASA faked our 1st moon landing. Some people still think we did. Let em believe it, i don't care.

[Lighthouse]

quote:Originally posted by Red Dragon


Heh, heh as JC observed:  He was "tempted in all things yet was without sin".

Have fun![]

Red Dragon
Raven shaman[8D]

So do you believe that conjugal sex is a sin... or sex at all a sin for that matter?

Kerri

[Lighthouse]

Okay Red Dragon,

I guess my question is this... first of all, understand that I'm reading a book that suggests (with very convincing scholarly research I might add) that Jesus married Mary M. right before he was Crusified and that Mary was the Holy grail, the vessel that carried the Holy blood of Christ... his child. That she was brought to france by Joseph of Aramathea (sp?) to protect her and the child of Christ.  Here's another thread where I mentioned this. http://www.astralpulse.com/forums/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=12581&whichpage=5

Again, back to the question... You quote, "he was tempted by all things yet without sin." so my question to you is, Do you believe that if he did have sex that it would have been a sin?

Kerri

[Berserk]

Dear Mustardseed,

The biblical teaching on fornication and Jewish opposition to premarital sex in Jesus' day make it highly unlikely that Jesus had sex.  It seems better to ask whether he ever got married.  If he did, then he surely had sex.  Many of Jesus' Jewish contemporaries considered it sinful for a man to remain a bachelor after 30.  Jesus' brothers and the apostles, including Peter and probably Paul, were all married (1 Corinthianns 9:5).  In view of the Catholic identification of Peter as their first Pope, the Catholic insistence on a celibate pope and priesthood seems odd to me.  And of course, many of the early popes were married.  

Initially, the burden of proof lies with someone who argues that Jesus never married.  Despite this, the case for a bachelor Jesus quickly wins the day.  He opposes the consensus by celebrating the value of celibacy (Matthew 19:10-11).  A few Jews remained single due to their poverty or their sense of spiritual vocation.  If Jesus were married, then his wife would have been revered in the early church.  Why do we here nothing about her in first century literature?  

As for Jesus' romantic liaisons, the evidence from the Nag Hamadi Gnostic Gospels is far too late to have any historical value and is universally rejected by serious scholars.  Mary Madgalene was Jesus' closest female disciple and, as such, was a magnet for legendary confabulation in the late second and early third century.  The evidence cited in "The DaVinci Code" is historically worthless.  

Jesus was largely rejected in his home town, Nazareth.  His contemporaries of course did not accept his virgin birth.  However, they did agree that he was born too soon. In short, the charge of his illegitimacy quickly became widespread.  For example, the scandalized residents of Nazareth ask, "Is not this the carpenter, the son of Mary (Mark 6:3)?"  In that culture to call a man the son of his mother is to cast aspersions on his legitimacy even if his presumed father is deceased.  Elsewhere, his opponents attack him by pointing out, "At least we are not illegitimate."  (John 8:41--implying that Jesus is illegitimate).  This charge is repeated in early anti-Christian polemic.  Why is this relevant to the question of whether Jesus got married?   Because a bastard could not marry a Jewish girl.

[Mustardseed]

Dear Beserk
I apologize for my lateness in answering your post, I am very seldom on the net these days.

I appreciate your observations and have a few questions and thoughts myself. While I originally intended for my post to be a little iconaclastic it was no less a serious question, intended for a discussion, I am glad you took it that way.

I have always thought that the Jewish stand on pre maritial sex was qite liberal. It was under the impression that it was accepted that Jewish men visited "women" and that fornication or adultery was meant to be for women being unfaithful to their husbands. Hence the women caught in adultery was alone as the man was not seen as equal in this "sin". What are your sources that explain otherwise.

As regarding Jesus own words (as they are recorded in the Gospels) extolling celibasy it is indeed a possibility that He was talking about this in a spiritual context as a alegory of devotedness in the spiritual through closeness to God. The Bible as you no doubt know speak in other places about "in the latter days some shall depart from the faith ....forbidding to marry ...." (I am here qouting from memmory and do not put the ref.)

Very little is known about Jesus actual life, and most guesses regarding his lifestyle are based on how society around him behaved, assuming maybe rightly so, that He would in at least some way emulate this behaviour. This is however as far as I can see a asumption and not based on circumstantial evidence and not fact. What do you think??

Your insight is very much appreciated and I look forward to your reply.

[Jaclyn]

No, Jesus was not gay. If He was, you might as well say there was no Jesus (which I'm sure many of you do believe) because the Bible says He was without sin, perfect, and never went against His own teachings. If He did have sex, was gay, or w/e, we'd know the Bible was lying, so why should we believe He existed at all? (Hope ya'll're followin'. [])

Also, I believe Jesus was far beyond the spirituality and understanding of such things as we ever could or ever will be. I don't think He needed sex. He understood very much that all He needed was the Father, and to follow Him no matter what.

Why are the people who don't believe Jesus existed commenting on whether He was gay or not....

[Jaclyn]

Lola, actually, I hadn't even read all the posts. I had to type fast, cause I had to get my stuff ready for school which starts tomorrow (rolls eyes) So I just read the first page, then put in my 2 cents real fast. Wasn't talking to anyone in particular. []

[Lighthouse]

Is having Sex sinful?

Why do you assume that an enlightened being would not enjoy sex?  

Lets say we were all enlightened beings, does that mean we would all stop having sex?  It doesn't seem to go along with the natural order of things to me.

We know very little about the life of Jesus, what if he was married to MM just prior to the crusifixion and had conjugal sex?

Kerri

[Jaclyn]

No I'm not saying that having sex is sinful. I'm saying that Jesus taught that premarital sex is sinful, therefore it is. I guess He could have been married to Mary, but I highly doubt it because all He was truly interested in was living for God, and growing even closer to Him. With a life like Jesus' I don't really believe anyone would have enough time for a spouse.

[Lighthouse]

Do you not believe thatGod lives within all beings?  
Mary M. included?

[Lighthouse]

Besides, MM was with him all the time, traveled with him... Look a bit into Christian Art, you will see Mary Magdeline at the foot of Jesus in many.  Additionally, go look at the picture of the last supper in the DaVinci Code thread posted by Kazbadan (in book recommendateions.)  You will see MM sitting at the right of Jesus, dressed like him in the exact opposite colors (sort of a Yin-yang) And... she was one of his 3 female traveling companions, the other 2 were his mother and sister.  Perhaps the marriage was kept secret otherwise they would have crusified HER too.

[exothen]

Jesus was not married to MM, not did he have sex with her. And the person to the right of Jesus in The Last Supper is John, not MM.

[Gandalf]

Jesus was not married to MM, not did he have sex with her. And the person to the right of Jesus in The Last Supper is John, not MM.

Oh really?
You might want to check out that painting more carefully, esp. the *cleaned up* version; You are really trying to tell me that person on Jesus' right is a man?

Leonardo is normally very precise in his depictions of men and women. Note how both jesus and what is most certainly a woman wear exactly inverse coloured clothing from each other, suggesting a 'ying-yang' type theme; note also the V shape formed by both figures, which is a symbol often used to represent woman; stepping further away an 'M' becomes clear in the scene.
Note also that there are no 'grails' on the table, which is odd when you remember that the painting is depicting the last supper; instead, everyone is drinking out of glass vessals.
Also note Peter's threatning hand gesture to 'person' on Jesus' right; this suggests that Peter has negative feelings towards said 'person' on jesus' right, an idea supported in the gnostic scriptures, which refers to Peter's jealousy of Magdalene.

Just a few ideas to make you go back and have a closer look!

Douglas

[exothen]

runlola,

quote:The Urantia Book maintains

AHHHHHH!!! I am currently debating someone on another forum who believes in the Urantia Book, for whatever reason.

Gandalf,

I am not an art expert, so please tell me if Leonardo often used the "yin-yang" theme in his paintings or if this happens to be the only one.

John 21:20-23, "20 Peter, turning around, saw the disciple whom Jesus loved following them; the one who also had leaned back on His bosom at the supper and said, "Lord, who is the one who betrays You?" 21 So Peter seeing him said to Jesus, "Lord, and what about this man?" 22 Jesus said to him, "If I want him to remain until I come, what is that to you? You follow Me!" 23 Therefore this saying went out among the brethren that that disciple would not die; yet Jesus did not say to him that he would not die, but only, "If I want him to remain until I come, what is that to you?"

John was the one reclining on Jesus at the last supper. This is seen in the actual acount:

John 13:21-25, "21 When Jesus had said this, He became troubled in spirit, and testified and said, "Truly, truly, I say to you, that one of you will betray Me." 22 The disciples began looking at one another, at a loss to know of which one He was speaking. 23 There was reclining on Jesus' bosom one of His disciples, whom Jesus loved. 24 So Simon Peter gestured to him, and said to him, "Tell us who it is of whom He is speaking." 25 He, leaning back thus on Jesus' bosom, said to Him, "Lord, who is it?""

Please tell me Gandalf: how did Leonardo paint young men? Did they ever look effeminate? Would that be consistent with the era in which Leonardo painted The Last Supper?

Leonardo clearly painted The Last Supper according to the biblical account of the last supper. Anything having to do with MM in the painting is pure conjecture.

[Lighthouse]

quote:Originally posted by exothen

runlola,

quote:The Urantia Book maintains

AHHHHHH!!! I am currently debating someone on another forum who believes in the Urantia Book, for whatever reason.

Gandalf,

I am not an art expert, so please tell me if Leonardo often used the "yin-yang" theme in his paintings or if this happens to be the only one.

John 21:20-23, "20 Peter, turning around, saw the disciple whom Jesus loved following them; the one who also had leaned back on His bosom at the supper and said, "Lord, who is the one who betrays You?" 21 So Peter seeing him said to Jesus, "Lord, and what about this man?" 22 Jesus said to him, "If I want him to remain until I come, what is that to you? You follow Me!" 23 Therefore this saying went out among the brethren that that disciple would not die; yet Jesus did not say to him that he would not die, but only, "If I want him to remain until I come, what is that to you?"

John was the one reclining on Jesus at the last supper. This is seen in the actual acount:

John 13:21-25, "21 When Jesus had said this, He became troubled in spirit, and testified and said, "Truly, truly, I say to you, that one of you will betray Me." 22 The disciples began looking at one another, at a loss to know of which one He was speaking. 23 There was reclining on Jesus' bosom one of His disciples, whom Jesus loved. 24 So Simon Peter gestured to him, and said to him, "Tell us who it is of whom He is speaking." 25 He, leaning back thus on Jesus' bosom, said to Him, "Lord, who is it?""

Please tell me Gandalf: how did Leonardo paint young men? Did they ever look effeminate? Would that be consistent with the era in which Leonardo painted The Last Supper?

Leonardo clearly painted The Last Supper according to the biblical account of the last supper. Anything having to do with MM in the painting is pure conjecture.

I wonder if Leonardo was in the habit of painting men with breasts...  Because if that's John, he has rather large breasts for a guy!

Here's a link to an image of Da Vinci's Last Supper:
www.indiezelda.com/davinci/lastsupper.html Study it.

Couldn't the one who he loved have been a woman?  Are you suggesting that he would have loved a man more than a woman?  Or perhaps you are suggesting that men are more worthy of love than women, therefore loving a woman was unthinkable... take your pick.

Here's a copy of a thread I started a while ago.  This is the opening post to that topic, "Did Peter turn Magdeline into a Prostitute?"
http://www.astralpulse.com/forums/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=9822

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Last night, I was reading the gospel of Mary (Mary Magdalene) from the Nag Hammadi Library where she talks about some information that the Risen Christ imparted to her during a private conversation. Unfortunately, most of the conversation between herself and Christ were missing from the codecies (supposedly people were using the pages to fuel fire) when they were discovered in the Nag Hammadi desert. When reading this, it struck me that it is not so important about the content of their conversation as the way it was received by the other apostles in her company.

My observations in reading these are that the apostle Peter had great contempt for Mary Magdalene because she was a woman. Also based on the language used, I believe that Magdalene was indeed married to Christ and was turned into a prostitute by the church... I will expand upon this later. Over and over again, it is stated that Mary Magdalene was loved by Christ more than any other woman and more than all the other male apostles. In fact, after the risen savior had this conversation with Magdalene, when she told the other apostles of their conversation, Peter said this, "Did he really speak to a woman without our knowledge and not openly? Are we to turn around and listen to her? Did he prefer her to us?" In Magdalene's defense, Levi stated to Peter, "Peter you have always been hot tempered. Now I see you contending against the woman like the adversaries. But if the Savior made her worthy, who are you indeed to reject her? Surely the savior knows her very well. That is why he loved her more than us. Rather let us be ashamed and put on the perfect man and acquire him for ourselves as he commanded us, and preach the gospel, not laying down any other rule or law beyond what the savior said."



I used to work in a Glatt Kosher hotel and the clientele was mainly a very religious sect of Judaism known as the Hassidic Jews. It is my opinion that this sect who is very traditional in lifestyle would be very similar to the devout Jews during the time of Christ. In this sect, my observations were that women were seen mainly as second class citizens and their opinions on spiritual matters were seen as insignificant. In fact, in the Synagogue, women are not allowed on the main floor where the lessons are taught and are expected to remain in the balcony or separated off from the men in some way. In fact, they are not even allowed to use the main entrances and are usually relegated to using some side door into the house of worship.

Since Peter and Paul went forth and created the Christian Church, if Peter were indeed a misogynist (woman hater,) wouldn't it make sense that he (being human) had an agenda when going forward and teaching the gospels to the people? If indeed his attitude were one that women were inferior to men (which seems obvious to me,) might he then try to discredit Magdalene and turn her into a prostitute in order to dismiss her role as an equal counterpart in the life of Christ, the Savior? Wouldn't it serve his own self interests to do so, creating a bachelor of Christ (requiring no physical feminine counterpart) and thereby denying Magdalene and (as a result) all women the true understanding that we are as valuable in the eyes of God (Christ being the human incarnation of God in the Christian tradition) as any man?


Kerri

[James S]

quote:Originally posted by runlola




In the Gospel of Thomas Jesus promises Peter that he will lead Mary Magdalene in order to make her male 'so that she too may become a living spirit resembling you males. For every woman who will make herself male will enter the Kingdom of Heaven.'  In the Acts of Philip the Savior praises Mary Magdalene for her manly character. Because of this he gives her the task of joining the weaker Philip on his mission journey. But she is not to join him as a woman. 'As for you, Mary,' he says, 'change your clothing and your outward appearance: reject everything which from the outside suggests a woman.'

What an astoundingly sexist and bigoted thing to do!

What a wonderful thing some of these gospels are. They take what would have been perfectly rational, logical and socially acceptable things at the time and turn them inside out and upside down so that they can fit some bizzare new theological ideal.

Why wouldn't have Jesus taken a wife? Was it not the socially acceptable norm within Jewish custom then, and indeed now, that a man in his early 20's should take a wife? Considering Jesus was in his 30's when his ministry began, he would have been considered something of social misfit had he not. It has been pointed out in the gospels of the New Testament that Jesus had fulfilled ALL of the requirements of Jewish laws and customs.

Kinda common sense that he would have had a wife then, if this is the case, you know, Jewish laws & customs and all.

That's the trouble with religious theologies. In most cases, in order for them to work, common sense has to pack its bags and leave.

James.

[Lighthouse]

This may be a bit off topic but I wonder why in that painting, Christ seems to be grabbing for her wine and the dark haired person in front of Peter seems to be grabbing for her bread. Every time I look at this I cant help but be curious... It seems to me that there is some symbology of the Body and blood of Christ represented in the Wine and the Bread but I don't know enough about the apostles and what they did after his death to know what the symbolism is there.

Also, i think this needs mention... When you paint something, every detail is deliberate because you have to paint it in there. it'a not like taking a picture where you might accidentally get someone with their finger up their nose... it is all deliberate so every detail is there by the artist's choosing.

kerri

[Nay]

"Leonardo da Vinci was working based on the few known documents which describe this meal. As all artists do, he was trying to convey an impression and message, and took "artistic license" with his source material. Just as artists will often rearrange a scene in order to better convey what they are trying to have the viewer feel and think about, so did Leonardo da Vinci rearrange what was *said* about this important event, in order to convey his own thoughts and feelings on the subject."

http://www.lisashea.com/hobbies/art/lastsupper.html

Nay

[exothen]

First, I just want to say that I find something quite funny, hypocritically funny. It is very common in here to see people claim that the gospels and other books in the Bible weren't written by those whose names appear on them. However, when it comes to the "lost gospels" and Gnostic gospels, there is no disputing who the author is. Just thought I would point out that great, rational, consistent  thinking.

Lighthouse,

quote:I wonder if Leonardo was in the habit of painting men with breasts... Because if that's John, he has rather large breasts for a guy!

Umm, I think you are seeing what you want to see. [] I don't see any breasts, just folds in John's garment.

My initial point debunks the rest of your post.

What this all comes down to is sensationalism. There is zero reason to believe that Jesus was married to Mary, or that Mary is in the painting of the last supper. Reason forces one to conclude that the more rational answer is that da Vinci painted a scene right from the Bible.

[James S]

quote:Originally posted by exothen
What this all comes down to is sensationalism. There is zero reason to believe that Jesus was married to Mary, or that Mary is in the painting of the last supper. Reason forces one to conclude that the more rational answer is that da Vinci painted a scene right from the Bible.

I agree that the Last Supper painting really provides no evidence of a marriage between Jesus and Mary. It really is after all, the interpretations of a man, albeit a very gifted man, but nonetheless, someone who was not there.

There is however a fair ammount of reason to believe Jesus was married, possibly to Mary, but still married. Lets assume that the Bible is correct and Jesus was God made flesh. Just because he was God, he was no less pragmatic as a human. Would he really have been accepted among the Jews at the start of his ministry if he was viewed as being at all a social outcast? As I mentioned earlier, Jesus was said to have abided by all the laws and customs. He had to if his ministry was going to be at all effective.

Now think about the Jews of the time. How would they react to one of their own telling them how to love, if that person hadn't even experienced the love that exists between husband and wife? Is not the union (as brought about under the law - that is, within a marriage) between a man and a woman considered by God to be one of the greatest expressions of love?

If you think about some of these ideas with just an ounce of common sense, you see that some concepts promoted within the bible defeat some of the other concepts. It's inconsistent.

James.