The Instigator
brian_eggleston
Pro (for)
Losing
4 Points
The Contender
davidtaylorjr
Con (against)
Winning
9 Points

Jesus Christ was gay and John the Apostle was his boyfriend

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 4 votes the winner is...
davidtaylorjr
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 8/3/2012 Category: Religion
Updated: 4 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 11,633 times Debate No: 24920
Debate Rounds (2)
Comments (21)
Votes (4)

 

brian_eggleston

Pro

No wonder the Pope is so reluctant to apologise for all those Catholic priests who abuse their positions of trust to queer up young men and boys: the Pope has a thorough understanding of the "New Testament" (the sequel to the "Old Testament") and, therefore, knows that the main character in the book, Jesus Christ, was himself a screaming homosexual.

Furthermore, the Pope will also be aware that another prominent character, John the Apostle, was another roaring poof and that he became Jesus' boyfriend later on in the story.

But what is the evidence for this? And why haven't we heard more about this before? Well, a Pauline epistle, written on lead codices recently discovered in Jordan, suggests the early church was anxious to not to offend the social and political establishment of the day.

As the expert on Christianity, Michael Ruse, observed: "The classically educated Paul, who was himself gay, saw that same-sex activity was inimical to the success of Christianity in the highly homophobic societies in which he lived. Hence, same-sex affections and activity were concealed, to be known to and practised by only the leaders in secret – the guardians of Christianity as one might say."

But now, with the ability of the Christian churches to persecute 'heretics' in decline, and the threat of prosecution under blasphemy laws waning, the reality of Jesus sexuality and his relationship with his "favourite disciple" can be exposed.

JESUS NEVER MARRIED
Jesus was a Jew and, even today, all Jewish men are expected to marry and start a family - and two thousand years ago the religion was even stricter - so it would have been highly unusual for a man of his age never to marry.

JESUS REJECTED THE SEXUAL ADVANCES OF WOMEN
Another character in the New Testament, Mary Magdalene, the neighbourhood slut, made it clear that she would not only accept Jesus into her heart, but into her vagina as well, but he rejected her advances.

JESUS WAS A MUMMY'S BOY
Jesus was a unusually close to his mother, even after he had left home. He paid her very frequent visits and devoted a great deal of attention to her. As Michael Ruse wrote: "There is at least one incident when Jesus quarrels violently with Joseph (Jesus' father), who shows great hostility and makes wild claims about 'manliness'....we have here a classic example of the Freudian triangle: over-possessive mother, hostile father, gay son."

JESUS WAS A PETULENT DRAMA QUEEN
Jesus was for ever having girly tantrums and never stopped bitching about people - here are just a couple of examples:

"Jesus entered the temple area and drove out all who were buying and selling there. He overturned the tables of the money changers and the benches of those selling doves." (Matthew 21:12-1)

"And on the morrow, when they had come out of Bethany, he [Jesus] hungered. And seeing a fig tree afar off having leaves, he came, if perhaps he might find anything thereon: and when he came to it, he found nothing but leaves; for it was not the season of figs. And he answered and said unto it, ‘No man [will] eat fruit from you from now on — for ever." (Mk. 11:12-14; 20-21).

JESUS FAILED TO CONDEMN HOMOSEXUALITY
In the recently discovered Pauline epistles there is a new parable, that of the two young men where Jesus speaks approvingly of one young man having his soul "knit with the soul" of the other, and loving him "as his own soul". However, at no point in the New Testament did Jesus takes the opportunity to condemn homosexuality, even though it is clearly forbidden in the Old Testament.

JESUS WAS AN ENTERTAINER
A disproportionately high number of men in showbiz are homosexual and just like Elton John, George Michael and John Travolta, Jesus was an entertainer - he liked nothing better than go down to the lake and impress the crowds with illusions such as appearing to walk on water or by performing conjuring tricks such as making loaves and fishes appear as if from thin air. What a showman, what an entertainer, what a poof!

JESUS RAN A MEMBERS-ONLY GAY CLUB
Only men were allowed to join Jesus' cosy little clique of disciples, and furthermore, they were expected to adopt a gay lifestyle as a condition of membership. Jesus said:

"If any man come to me, and hate not his father, and mother, and wife, and children, and brethren, and sisters, yea, and his own life also, he cannot be my disciple." (Luke 14, 26).

Although it cannot be proved that all the disciples were gay, the original Aramaic version of the New Testament makes it clear that John the Baptist certainly was. In that edition, Jesus said this

"…that among those who are born of women there has never risen one greater than John the Baptist…" (Matt.11:11 Lamsa).

The phrase "born of women," when applied to men, meant that the man was womanly, or effeminate.

Further proof that John the Baptist was homosexual was that he who spent much of his time frolicking in the Jordan River with naked young men. Let's be absolutely clear about what he was doing with these young men: John is called the Baptist and the word "baptist" means "washer" in Greek.

JESUS WAS HAVING AN AFFAIR WITH JOHN THE APOSTLE
The New Testament makes it clear that Jesus was having an affair with one of his disciples, as the following passages plainly illustrate:

"He riseth from supper and laid aside his garments" (John, 13:4)

"Now there was one of his disciples who was leaning das-mik on his bosom, the one whom Jesus loved...So that disciple leaned himself n'fal on the breast of Jesus, and said to him, My Lord, who is he?" (John 13:23,25 Lamsa).

The disciple lying on Jesus' bosom was John the Apostle, Jesus' "favourite disciple" and the intimate words of John lying on Jesus' breast, give John the characteristics of a gay male. That's because the Aramaic word "smak" means "to lay upon, rest and sleep."

In other words, Jesus held a dinner party for the members of his gay club and he drunk too much wine, got naked and made out with his boyfriend in front of all the guests.

If all that isn't proof that Jesus was gay and that John the Apostle was his boyfriend, I don't know what is. Vote Pro.

Thank you.

Sources:
----------

Jordan battles to regain 'priceless' Christian relics
http://www.bbc.co.uk...

Mary Magdalene and the Disciple Jesus Loved
http://www.lectio.unibe.ch...

Homosexuality in the Bible
http://www.homosexualeunuchsandthebible.com...

The New Testament
http://www.catholic.org...

Jesus was Openly Gay - article by Michael Ruse
http://www.guardian.co.uk...
davidtaylorjr

Con

I am happy to accept the challenge of this debate so that the truth can be made known.

When examining the evidence you will find that my opponents claims are not founded upon fact, or reality, and most are taken out of context.

In reference to the codices found in Jordan, the article used to represent this claim with the BBC does not state that Paul wrote the document, the author is unknown, this is no more significant than any other piece of fiction ever written.

To the claim that Paul himself was gay, I would love to see the documentation of this, it is in fact true that Paul was very emphatic that homosexuality was a sin and an abomination to the Lord. See the book of Romans for details.

To the argument that Christ never married, you state that because he was a Jew he would have been married. You forget that Christ did not follow the Jewish religion of the day, instead, he came to restore and birth the true teachings of God.

Where did Mary Magdalene "throw herself" at Christ?

The argument that Christ was close to His mother proves nothing. Of course the Saviour of the World would be close to the woman that God used as a way to bring Him into this world. I am not sure how this is a valid argument.

There is also no proof of the homosexuality of the disciples or even John. They followed Christ as Lord, God of the universe, no proof can be given to the contrary.

It is clear that the claim that Christ was a Homosexual is absurd at best, and unfounded but on Scripture taken out of context, and unsubstantiated archeology.
Debate Round No. 1
brian_eggleston

Pro

I would like to thank davidtaylorjr for accepting this debate and for posting his objections to my claims. Of course, the burden of proof is on me in this debate, I have to 'prove' that Jesus Christ, as featured in the New Testament and other texts, was a homosexual. If the Internet had existed two thousand years ago then, my job would be easier. I could trawl the Biblical gay forums looking for evidence...

Jesus C: Hey dude, what are thou up to, bro?

John the A: Hanging with the boys on the bank of the Jordan River.

Jesus C: And I bet those boys have casteth aside their garments, so that thou may cleanse them, haveth they not, thou dirty bugger, LOL.

John the A: Thou knowest me too well, dude. What are thy plans for tonight? Shall we meeteth underneath the fig tree? Mary M has given me a super recipe for stuffed figs.

Jesus C: That soundeth awesome, dude, I'll bring the meat.

John the A: From what I heard, it won't be the first time thou hast stuffed thy meat inside a date, thee naughty boy, LOL!

Jesus C: Ooh, get her!

Sadly, such unequivocal evidence for Jesus Christ being gay and John the Apostle being his boyfriend is not so easy to obtain, but that does not prevent us from piecing together all the information we have available to make a sound judgement based on the balance of probability, which is what I attempted to do in the opening round.

My opponent, however, just like a defence lawyer, has questioned the validity of my evidence, which is what we would expect him to do, and I am happy to clarify my assertions as follows:

The Jordan codices have been authenticated by scholars of ancient history. "The director of the Jordan's Department of Antiquities, Ziad al-Saad, says the books might have been made by followers of Jesus in the few decades immediately following his crucifixion." (1) Although I agree that they may not be any more "significant than any other piece of fiction ever written", the same can be said of the New Testament itself.

I'm not a professor but Michael Ruse, whose article I referenced, is (2,3) and it is his research and assertion that Paul was gay that was the basis for my claim.

My opponent is mistaken, Jesus was, indeed, a Jew: in fact; the members of his gay club even referred to him as "Rabbi". (4)

To understand Jesus' relationship with Mary we must remember the attitude towards women of the society in which he lived:

"Let the words of the Law be burned rather than committed to women.... If a man teaches his daughter the Law, it is as though he taught her lewdness" (Sotah 3:4)
"The woman, says the Law, is in all things inferior to man. Let her accordingly be submissive" (Apion 2:2 1 0)
"Let a curse come upon the man who must needs have his wife or children say grace for him."
"Praise be to God that he has not created me a gentile; praised be God that created me not a woman; praised be God that he has not created me an ignorant man." (Menahot 43b)
"It is well for those whose children are male, but ill for those whose children are female ... At the birth of a boy all are joyful, but at the birth of a girl all are sad ... When a boy comes into the world, peace comes into the world; when a girl comes, nothing comes . . . Even the most virtuous of women is a witch." (Nidda 3 lb).

So we can see that not only was society in which Jesus lived deeply homophobic (which is why he had to conceal the fact that he was gay) but also profoundly misogynistic. Clearly, Jesus did not have a sexual relationship with her, so what was she doing hanging around with him? The only possible explanation is that she wanted a sexual relationship but he wanted a platonic one: mirroring the relationship many gay men have with women in today's society.

Finally, it is natural to be close to one's mother as a child, but as a boy develops into a man, he becomes emotionally removed from his mother and is anxious to become independent. That is unless the boy is gay.

In conclusion, I have offered a broad range of solid evidence that, taken together, proves that Jesus and John were gay lovers while my opponent has offered no evidence to suggest that Jesus was heterosexual. For this reason, I urge you to vote Pro.

Thank you.

(1) http://www.bbc.co.uk...
(2) http://www.guardian.co.uk...
(3) http://www.guardian.co.uk...
(4) http://www.keyway.ca...
davidtaylorjr

Con

I would like to once again address my opponents arguments, and, as he said, the burden of proof falls on him as he is going against an accepted belief of over 2,000 years.

The Jordan codices have been authenticated by scholars of ancient history. "The director of the Jordan's Department of Antiquities, Ziad al-Saad, says the books might have been made by followers of Jesus in the few decades immediately following his crucifixion." (1) Although I agree that they may not be any more "significant than any other piece of fiction ever written", the same can be said of the New Testament itself.

The key words in the statement are "might have been made." This signifies that they are guessing and do not know for sure. This is hardly evidence.

I'm not a professor but Michael Ruse, whose article I referenced, is (2,3) and it is his research and assertion that Paul was gay that was the basis for my claim.

Once again this is an assertion, merely an opinion, not evidence.

My opponent is mistaken, Jesus was, indeed, a Jew: in fact; the members of his gay club even referred to him as "Rabbi". (4)

I did not say that Christ was not a Jew, I said He did not follow the Jewish Religion of the day. The Pharisees got it all wrong and Jesus set out to tell the truth of God, Himself, and how life and Salvation worked.

As far as Mary Magdalene, perhaps she wanted to be around the man who cast demons out of her (Luke 8:2) because she knew He was more than a man.


So as we seee, the evidence is nothing more than opinions that are derived from circumstantial and out of context "evidence."

I yield the floor to my oponent to bring real evidence to the claim.

Debate Round No. 2
21 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by GhostTracker 2 years ago
GhostTracker
There's a *much* simpler explanation and it's staring you right in the face. i.m.o. you just don't want to see it because you'd rather believe your pre-determined conclusion:

John the Apostle was female.

Think about it.

No REALLY - sit down and THINK about it.

MANY capable women at that time posed as men since it was such a chauvinistic society.

Look CLOSELY at the many, many period paintings of John. Notice the long hair? Notice the long, heavy clothes which are OBVIOUSLY being used to disguise something? Notice the female-like appearance of the face and the "female-like" facial expressions?

This was THE DISCIPLE THAT JESUS LOVED.

You have NO proof Jesus was gay; you have MULTIPLE pieces of possible evidence pointing to the fact that John the Apostle was female.

I really do think Occam's Razor applies in this case.

See what's really THERE, not what you want to see. :)
Posted by GenesisCreation 4 years ago
GenesisCreation
Neat. Thank you for that.
Posted by Aaronroy 4 years ago
Aaronroy
@GenesisCreation

'in accepting the homosexual'? Well, what else are we to do other than 'accept'? Put them on a rack like Thomas Moore did to his countrymen for daring to own a Bible in the English language?

'You shame your heritage'

This merely follows on the presumption that heritage is inherently good.
Posted by Microsuck 4 years ago
Microsuck
Gotta love these troll debates.
Posted by GenesisCreation 4 years ago
GenesisCreation
Mr. Eggleston,
Please stay in the wardrobe. If you become any more fabulous my head might explode.

Your virtue in accepting the homosexual is quite overshadowed by your open intolerance of Christian conviction. I see neither humor nor cleverness in this debate. You shame your heritage with this weak, almost Canadian attempt at buffoonery.
Posted by brian_eggleston 4 years ago
brian_eggleston
@ KRFournier: Thank you very much for your comment; I appreciate that very much - it's makes me feel great to think that some people can recognise my style of humour at a glance.
Posted by brian_eggleston 4 years ago
brian_eggleston
@ GenesisCreation: Although I do not have a problem with homosexuals, I'm not one myself. But if I was, being British, I'd come out of the 'wardrobe 'rather than the 'closet'!
Posted by davidtaylorjr 4 years ago
davidtaylorjr
I used the same sources as Pro, and gave a verse from Luke, but apparently that doesn't count as sources.. There was no need to introduce new sources as the burden of proof fell on Pro. I simply pointed out the holes in his debate.
Posted by davidtaylorjr 4 years ago
davidtaylorjr
Let the voting begin.
Posted by abstractposters 4 years ago
abstractposters
Why do you not marry Him?---become a Pastor.
4 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Vote Placed by Aaronroy 4 years ago
Aaronroy
brian_egglestondavidtaylorjrTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:20 
Reasons for voting decision: Con offered absolutely no sources to back his rebuttals. The rest of the debate was entirely nonsensical. The resolution killed it for pro. If the resolution stated "Jesus Christ may have been gay", then I would grant argument point in his favor but his arguments leave me dubious, although they may lean towards the notion that Jesus MAY been homosexually promiscuous. However, the resolution lies on certainty, not probability.
Vote Placed by acvavra 4 years ago
acvavra
brian_egglestondavidtaylorjrTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:23 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro took many things out of context from the Bible. Con substantiated that. Pro failed to make any real logical arguments, but relied on mentioning pieces of different information to prove his claim, which was shown untrustworthy. Sources go to Pro however, as he had 4 or 5 each round, whereas Con had none.
Vote Placed by 16kadams 4 years ago
16kadams
brian_egglestondavidtaylorjrTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: Only one point helped pro: loves mom hates dad. This is shown to be a sign of homosexuality. Regardless, it is true as con notes most of those bible verses where taken out of context and that pro never filled his BOP. He also showed pros bogus archaeology as many of the scriptures that look like the writer was homosexual had unknown authors, which is inconclusive. Pro failed too meet his burden, con negated the resolution
Vote Placed by ConservativePolitico 4 years ago
ConservativePolitico
brian_egglestondavidtaylorjrTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro's claims were trumped up and taken from ill reputed sources. Con does a nice job refuting Pro's arguments throughout enough to foil Pro's goal of meeting the BOP which he did not.