Did Jesus have Sex??

Previous topic - Next topic

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Ceriel N

"San greal" = holy grail
"Sang real" = royal blood; the bloodline of Jesus.
Just a typographical error in French... [:O]
"We work in the dark - we do what we can- we give what we have. Our doubt is our passion, and our passion is our task. The rest is the madness of art."
- Henry James

Passionate-fool

I actually don't think He did.  I get my ideas with the way that Paul talks about sex.  Yes, it is ok that you have sex so long as it is done in the proper spirit and method.  But, he also says that it would be better not to if you are able to clear your thoughts of the carnal.  If you have that bonding with a woman then you are responsible for the "oneness" you create with that person.  As far as I can tell the only Oneness Jesus ever talks about is the oneness He has with the Father.  So therefore in my mind Jesus was totally committed to that oneness He had with the Father.  If He were to have sex with a woman, then He would be responsible for that oneness and not have His entire being centered on the Oneness He had with the Father.  The only way that I think He could have had sex on this earth and still be in total Oneness with the Father is if the woman He was with was also in complete Oneness with the Father.  This would mean in my mind that the woman would have to be PERFECT like Jesus was perfect.  I see this as being unlikely since the bible never mentions such a person.

I would also be careful about saying Jesus would like a good F...
Perverse speech is not a fruit of the Spirit (just a friendly reminder)

God bless,

PF

Lighthouse

I believe he did.  In the Gospel of Mary from the Nag Hammadi library, when Peter is tormenting Mary and accusing her of lying to them after the Risen Christ departed, Levi repremands Peter and says something like, "the Savior knew her well."  

Coming from such a traditional and conservative lifestyle, they wouldn't have spoken about sex the way we talk about sex today.  For a man to "know" a woman meant that they had an intimate relationship.  Elsewhere, it is stated that she was his "companion" which is a reference to a marriage of a man and woman.


I actually have a new topic I am going to post that relates somewhat to this in the context of this relationship and the forming of the church, a little off topic from this though.


--Kerri
http://www.divinewithin.com - Uncovering the Divine Within
http://www.worldawakened.com - World Awakened
http://www.blogtalkradio.com/worldawakened - World Awakened Talk Radio
http://www.innercirclepublishing.com - InnerCircle Publishing

lifebreath

After studying the issue for many years now, I am of the opinion that the whole line of gnostic tradition about Mary Magdalene and Jesus being married and having offspring was simply an attempt to "gnosticize" Jesus. In other words, the various gnostic groups at the time of Jesus wove him into their mythos in a way that would "legitimize" their existence. Thus, the gnostic archtypes are projected onto Jesus and Mary Magdalene, regardless of any historical veracity or factual basis.

As to the "royal bloodline" of Jesus that we read so much about these past few years, I believe much the same thing happened (i.e., if I claim to be descended from Jesus, I have "legitimized" my claim to "divine aristocracy.") Jesus made it clear that his "kingdom" what not of this world (i.e., it was of a spiritual nature), when his disciples thought, as other Jews of the time did, that Messiah would drive out the Romans and re-establish an earthly throne.

Yeh, go ahead and reply that the "Roman Church/State, etc." supressed the "truth" about Jesus and Mary Magdalene, .... If that is the case, why do the Eastern Orthodox churches, like the Syrian or Indian Orthodox rites, hold to essentially the same "orthodox" teachings of the Roman Church? The Syrian Othodox church in Antioch was founded by Peter and The Malankara Orthodox Church was founded in Kerala, India, by St. Thomas the Apostle around AD 52. These churches remained autonomous from the beginning, meaning they were never "Roman." Yet, amazingly (or maybe not so amazingly), their foundational beliefs are almost identical to Roman Catholic beliefs and their sacraments are the same seven as the Roman Church!

Some food for thought.

Did Jesus have sex? No, I don't believe so. Not because sex is "evil," but rather that the sexual act is reserved for use within the context of marriage and family, and I don't believe Jesus was married. Was Jesus "sexual?" Of course ... we are all sexual beings and sexuality pervades our human nature. But one can embrace their sexuality while being celibate. In fact, that is the only TRUE celibacy that harnesses the sexual vitality, lifts it up in love to a higher vibration and performs great works of charity.

Tony M.

You really think Jesus knocked a few off? Wow, what if we could locate some of his sperm and clone him..

There's a thought (with all due respect of course)
"You should always tell the truth, even when you lie."

The AlphaOmega

Hm, well, I personally never actually saw Jesus have sex, so I can't be certain.
"Discover your own path to enlightenment with diligence".
              - Buddha

James S

I think with that statement, TheAlphaOmega has nailed this whole argument(no pun intended, or maybe it was, you'll just have to guess [;)])!

One day we might be able to ask "those involved" this very question, but I've the feeling when that day comes, it really won't matter to us one way or the other, and the question will likely go un-asked.

James.

Blissful

ummm... errrr..aaaaaahhh...yeeeaaaaaahhhh... a'hem.

I think probably (and I mean a strong PROBABLY) not and if he did want us to know whether he did, it would have been as painfully clear as the miracles he performed and the truth he spoke.  Jesus had nothing to hide so if he did have relations with Mary (or any other woman) don't you think he would have said so?

I mean, asking this question is similar to asking if Jesus smoke pot!!!  I mean, it seems to "help" people get in touch spiritually and it's a natural plant and widely debated, created by God... RIGHT?  The question itself makes me want to take a shower (to wash off the visual I get, it's kind of spookie).

Other than that, without asking Jesus directly, I don't think there is a right/wrong answer to this one.

Blissful

jilola

quote:
Jesus had nothing to hide so if he did have relations with Mary (or any other woman) don't you think he would have said so?


Well, perhaps the guy was a gentleman and didn't see the value of bragging around with his sex life? [;)]
Or  maybe he thought it wasn't in any way relevant to what he was teaching?

2cents & L&L
Jouni

narfellus

Sex, drugs and...Jesus? I wonder if he was into rock n roll too? No, seriously, I always always thought it was intersting that the Bible explains his birth and death in EXPLICIT detail but leaves out the majority of his life. In all likelihood he did experiment with sex and masturbation as an innocent human. As for pot, well, it's been around a long time, and will likely stay a lot longer.
If but we knew the power of our thoughts we would guard them more closely.

eeb

Hmmm,
I don´t know if Jesus had sex or not. But i don´t think that really matters. If there didn´t exist something like sex, we wouldn´t be here. i don´t know who ever came to the conclusion sex is bad.

Sex is good, imagine yourself: if sex was something not pleasureable, do you think a lot of children would be born?
Consistent desire and intent are the key to change

jilola

I'm wit Narfellus in this matter.

The idea that Jesus never had sex as based on him being the Son of God and the Bible never mentionnig such activity taking place.
But then again according to scripture he never took a dump either.

Does it matter in some way if he did or didn't?

2cents & L&L
Jouni

jilola

quote:
"And the youth, looking upon him (Jesus), loved him and beseeched that he might remain with him. And going out of the tomb, they went into the house of the youth, for he was rich. And after six days, Jesus instructed him and, at evening, the youth came to him wearing a linen cloth over his naked body. And he remained with him that night, for Jesus taught him the mystery of the Kingdom of God".


The only way I can see how someone might infer from that the assumption that Jesus was homosexual is that the interpreter himself is preoccupied with the idea.

I've spend any number of evenings ad nights stark nekkid with other guys talking metaphysics and I don't think I'm homosexual. But on occasion everyone present have been severely worse for alcohol so who know what may have happaned.

It puzzles me that many scholars are so interested in irrelevant things about Jesus and completely fail to see that the significant thing abou t him was what he taught not what he expressed as a human being. Perhaps it's easier to pick over the details because the actual challenge of following the teaching would seriously wreck our societal gearbox.

2cents & L&L
Jouni


BlackBox

My opinions of this topic are:

1.) Jesus was not crucified. He died of old age.
2.) He had 3 children with Lady Magydelena (mispelt)
3.) He was not married with her.
4.) The number of Jesus' descendents are approximately: 364,142.
5.) Yasser Arafat is one.
6.) Jesus had a father. His name was Tonatha and he was an 'acquintance' of Mary's.
7.) Mary was a member of the Essene Group.
8.) Jesus was born at 6AM.
9.) The 3 prophets were from Iran.

Gwathren

quote:
Originally posted by runlola




I have heard some say Jesus was a homosexual.
Some even say that is the real reason he was crucified.


<<clipped article>>

Was Jesus gay? We don't know. But it is a possibility that cannot be ruled out. One version of St. Mark's gospel - which is still the subject of academic dispute - alludes to Jesus having a homosexual relationship with a youth he raised from the dead.

According to the US Biblical scholar, Morton Smith, of Columbia University, a fragment of manuscript he found at the Mar Saba monastery near Jerusalem in 1958, showed that the full text of St. Mark chapter 10 (between verses 34 and 35 in the standard version of the Bible) includes the passage:

"And the youth, looking upon him (Jesus), loved him and beseeched that he might remain with him. And going out of the tomb, they went into the house of the youth, for he was rich. And after six days, Jesus instructed him and, at evening, the youth came to him wearing a linen cloth over his naked body. And he remained with him that night, for Jesus taught him the mystery of the Kingdom of God".

The veracity of this manuscript is hotly contested by other Biblical scholars. This comes as no surprise. The revelation of a gay Jesus would undermine some of the most fundamental tenets of orthodox Christianity, including its rampant homophobia.

But even if the text is genuine, does this ambiguous, elliptical passage offer evidence of Jesus's homosexuality? It is hard to say. The precise nature of the relationship between Christ and the youth is not spelled out. Sexual relations are suggested but not explicitly stated.

The Morton Smith document is, in fact, irrelevant to the vexed issue of Christ's sexual orientation. What we can say for certain is that the standard, accepted Biblical narrative gives us no information at all about Jesus's sexuality.

This absence of firm information does not, of course, mean that we can take it for granted that Christ was heterosexual. Far from it! The lack of information about his erotic inclinations begs more questions than it answers.

The truth is that we simply don't know whether Jesus was straight, gay, bisexual or celibate. There is certainly no evidence for the Church's unspoken presumption that he was either heterosexual or devoid of carnal desires. Since nothing in the Bible points to Christ having erotic feelings for women, or relationships with the female sex, the possibility of him being gay cannot be discounted.

In the absence of any evidence - let alone proof - that Jesus was heterosexual, the theological basis of Church homophobia is all the more shaky and indefensible. How can established religion dare denounce homosexuality when the founder of its faith was himself a man of mysterious, unknown sexuality who could, for all we know, have been homosexual?

The Bible tells us that Jesus was born a man and therefore presumably had male sexual feelings. It would have been more or less impossible, biologically, for him not to have an element of erotic arousal - even if only having the normal male response of waking with an erection.




Oh JESUS!
What is this???

Leave the man alone!
He was just a guy! Who cares whether he had sexual relationships! I mean, IT DOESN'T MAKE A DIFFERENCE. AND ALL IMPORTANT MEN ARE NOT GAYS. SERIOUSLY, PLEASE!!!

I DON'T UNDERSTAND PEOPLE WHO, WHILE SPEAKING OF ANCIENT PEOPLE (GREECE, ROME TOO) THE ONLY THING THEY SHOUT OUT LOUD IS: "THEY WERE GAYS!!!!"

And Lola, by the wa, there where lesbians too you know. Maybe mother Therese(or whatever) was a lesbian. Eh?

Actually, I don't care. I'm not a christian. So for all I care, the christian god may be a homosexual too.

Lola, do you think that God is a hetero or gay?[:D]

Actually,
I still didn't mean anything mean,
Forgive me and the best[;)],

Gwathren
"Everything returns as before, and there is nothing new under the Sun, and man never changes although his clothes change and also the words of his language change."
Mika Waltari "Sinuhe"

BlackBox

quote:
I actually think he had to be celebate.


That's interesting because I would expect the complete opposite for the actions of 'advanced' souls.

Would someone who is spiritually advanced, enter the form of a species with 2 sexes and choose to never experience it?

Celebate?

In my opinion, ANY and I'm strongly voicing my thoughts here, person who would choose to enter 3D human-form and THEN choose to deny themselves sex, are disillusioned, confused, and full of backwards principles.

The higher-selves choose for a purpose, correct? Do you agree with me on that? If the higher-self chose a life of celebacy, then they would have chosen a race of hermaphrodites. Adrogynous.

If a person IS practicing celebacy, then it is either because they need to learn a lesson, they are an alien from another planet, or they are stuck within a formal institution of religious secessionists.

BlackBox

I disagree.

Sexual relations for the purpose of ejaculation is a release of energies for the purpose of procreation. That is how the majority of people relate to sex, and in this aspect of sex, it can be a negative supplement.

H-O-W-E-V-E-R, sexual relations are said to be the 'gift from the gods' because we forget the supreme nature of it. Sex can be done between two people that replenishes their energies, rockets them into unimaginable realms, and perhaps even attains them new abilities. To an advanced soul, he/she knows this; that sex is not a one-way road of losing/releasing energy, but rather that it can do the exact opposite. In such a world, a man would come home, notice his wife has the 'sniffles', and take her up to the bedroom to replenish her energies, strengthen her immunity, with no need for any Tylenol whatsoever. [:D]

I honestly think, runlola, that your perception in this matter is only focused on 'sex for procreation'.

The misconception on celebacy being a good thing is due to the misunderstanding/lack of awareness/ignorance of the many alternative forms of sex.

Lighthouse

I personally think he ws married to Magdaline and she was pregnant with his child when he was crusified.  

The Woman with the Alabaster Jar was written by a devout catholic woman.  The more she looked into the relationship of Jesus and Magdeline, the more she felt betrayed by her own belief system.  Here'a a review from a priest who read it and posted his impressions on Amazon.com:

I am very impressed with Margaret Starbird's scholarly work in her book "The Woman with the Alabaster Jar". It tells the story of the lost Bride and provides strong evidence for the sacred marriage at the heart of Christianity, that of Jesus and Mary Magdalen.

It is significant that all four Gospels record the anointing of Jesus by a woman with an alabaster jar of aromatic nard. In middle-eastern liturgical practices surrounding the ancient rites of the "sacred marriage" the anointing of the sacrificed bridegroom/king was a sacred ceremony reserved to his bride. The Gospel narratives describe the pre-nuptial anointing of Jesus by the woman with the alabaster jar and contain other elements from this ancient ritual.

On seven of eight New Testament lists of the women who walked with Jesus, Mary Magdalen's name is mentioned first on the list. She was clearly "first lady" in the eyes of the early Christian community. Some early Church theologians identified the Magdalen as the model of "church" (ekklesia) whom Christ "loved so much, that He gave his life for her."

More compelling facts from Scripture and history are included in Margaret Starbird's work. She follows a trail of evidence that leads through Egypt, to the south of France, and into important historical events in Europe.

Most significant is the medieval legend of the Holy Grail (sangraal), which secretly celebrated Mary Magdalen as the Bride of Christ. The "sangraal" is the "sacred blood" -- the royal lineage of Jesus. Because the legend of the Holy Grail contained and preserved the truth about Mary Magdalen, it was ruthlessly suppressed by the Inquisition. In an effort to discount her significance, Mary Magdalen was labeled a prostitute, but she was really the "Beloved" -- the bride of Jesus.

Restoring the sacred union of Jesus and Mary Magdalen to the heart of our Christian story provides us with a model of holiness based on the sacred union of the masculine and the feminine. It affirms the true holiness and significance of women as PARTNERS in the future practice of our Roman Catholic tradition.

I have talked with Margaret Starbird. When she embarked on her research, her intent was to disprove the possibility of Jesus' marriage, but the facts led her in a surprising new direction that provides a wonderful healing message for us all.

The Woman With The Alabaster Jar provides the facts and history that will explain why women hold the key to many of the problems faced today by our Roman Catholic Church.

Father John Shuster, Roman Catholic Priest



Have fun with it!
Kerri


http://www.divinewithin.com - Uncovering the Divine Within
http://www.worldawakened.com - World Awakened
http://www.blogtalkradio.com/worldawakened - World Awakened Talk Radio
http://www.innercirclepublishing.com - InnerCircle Publishing

narfellus

hey, great topic! and runlola, how the HELL do you do that with the smileys??

Jesus the Gay, Mary the pregnant mother. I admit, this is stuff i've never thought about, so thanks for bringing it to my attention. Ultimately i don't suppose it really matters, but it is fun for speculation and debate, especially since i won't be offended by any outcome. I'll have to ask Jesus one day when i meet him what the real story was; then i'll post and let you all know...:)
If but we knew the power of our thoughts we would guard them more closely.

Lighthouse

quote:
how the HELL do you do that with the smileys??


go here... http://www.astralpulse.com/forums/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=12682

Kerri
http://www.divinewithin.com - Uncovering the Divine Within
http://www.worldawakened.com - World Awakened
http://www.blogtalkradio.com/worldawakened - World Awakened Talk Radio
http://www.innercirclepublishing.com - InnerCircle Publishing

BlackBox

I just think that if you take all the commonly known knowledge of Jesus, minus some nifty quotes, and burnt them in the middle of the room, you'd still have the same amount of factual information remaining.

I think the Bible was made a couple centuries after Jesus and his acolytes. I think Christianity as it is now is not Christianity as was begun 2,000 years ago. The Romans called it an 'absurd superstition' yet what it is in common-day isn't what Romans would ever call that. I think Greek Enforcers wrote the bible as to use the support for Jesus and manipulate it into a text of manipulation for the purpose of mass-control.

So, with all of that said, I don't think many people really know much about Jesus to say he was 'celebate', 'gay', or anything of the sort.

The "Jesus was an alien" story is Nephalim/Nordic-related.

Anyways lola, you have just as much of a case to go the other way, so I respect that and I'll hush up because this stuff wont be settled until we meet up in the afterlife. [:D] Good ol' 5th Density.

Namaste.

narfellus

AH! It's like magic! damnable smiley secrets...
If but we knew the power of our thoughts we would guard them more closely.

Lighthouse

I bought The Woman with the Alabaster Jar today and wanted to post an excerpt from the foreword written by Rev. Terrance A. Sweeney, Ph.D. for this thread.  I understand that this is a conclusion based on circumstantial evidence, but none the less, it is definite food for thought.  This is from page XVI in the foreword:

The Jewish Scholar Ben-Chorin presents a "chain of indirect proofs" to support his belief that Jesus was married.  In the time Jesus walked the earth, Judaism regarded marriage as a fulfillment of God's command to "Be fruitful and multiply." Luke 2:51-52 indicates that Jesus, living under the authority of his parents, "grew in wisdom, stature, and favor before God and men."  Ben-Chorin argues that it would have been quite likely that Jesus' parents, as was the custom, would have sought out a suitable bride for him, and that Jesus, like every young man, especially those who studied the Torah, would have married.  Moreover, if Jesus had not been married, he most certainly would have been reproached for this omission by those Pharisees who opposed him.  And Saint Paul, in presenting reasons for supporting celibacy, would undoubtedly have cited Jesus' own life, had Jesus been celibate.  But Saint Paul did not.  Therefore, Ben-Chorin concludes, Jesus was married.

Have fun!!
Kerri
http://www.divinewithin.com - Uncovering the Divine Within
http://www.worldawakened.com - World Awakened
http://www.blogtalkradio.com/worldawakened - World Awakened Talk Radio
http://www.innercirclepublishing.com - InnerCircle Publishing

Lighthouse

I've only just started (haven't even finished the first chapter) but it illudes thusfar to the political scene being very volatile and that if the marriage were not kept secret, that the entire holy family would have been executed.  It talks of there also being political reasons for the marriage and that Mary M. (also known as Mary of Bethany and the sister of Lazarus) was of the House of Benjamin and Jesus was of the House of David (which we all know) both had royal family lineage.

Here's an excerpt:
He must choose his bride from the tribe of Benjamin, for it was written in the first book of the Torah that the silver chalice was hidden in the sac of Benjamin.  According to their inspired teachers, this meant that a woman from Benjamin's tribewould be the instrument for the reconciliation and the healing of Israel.

in another portion:
... the jealous hatred of Herod Antipas, so insecure on his throne that he could tolerate no rival.  And the Romans too; they feared an insurrection of the Jewish nation.  The hatred of the Jews for the Roman forces of occupation was intense, and their love and enthusiasm for the Son of David who had been so brutally executed could kindle a revolution at any moment...  

This to me would explain why they may have wanted to keep it a secret.  Jesus knew that he would be executed.  He also knew that his family would be killed in order to cease his bloodline if it were known that there was a royal bloodline and a bride.  This would further crush the hopes of the Israelites.


Kerri

http://www.divinewithin.com - Uncovering the Divine Within
http://www.worldawakened.com - World Awakened
http://www.blogtalkradio.com/worldawakened - World Awakened Talk Radio
http://www.innercirclepublishing.com - InnerCircle Publishing

eeb

Hahahaha, you´ve got a point there runlola [:D][:D][:D]! Maybe it´s like going to heaven and come back again[;)]?
Consistent desire and intent are the key to change