One version of St. Mark's gospel 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 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 "playing tents"

Jesus was not gay. What a stupid thing to say.

Based upon what?

uour going to hell

Why?

Thats awful

lol im waiting for some preacher to come in here and quote scripture and put you in your place

Why?

Debate it with me

Its a legitimate question based on a lack of evidence in your holy book.

... and if he was gay, what does it matter?

Unless they are going to make it up, they cant ... thats the whole point.

well i dont see guys putting evidence of sexual relations with women in their profiles.. does that make them gay? no, just means its none of anyone's business..

Jesus wasn't on earth to bone chicks, OR GUYS for that matter!

Doesnt make them straight either ..

not only does that suggest probable homosexual tendancies, it also suggest pediphillac ones. so as u say...go figger....perhaps simply..the nature of our beast..is to have sex. lots of sex?
no sex is forbidden sex? donno if i kin fly all that way..but..go'in from what u're quote'in..it took me there.

All I do when I do this sort of stuff is get people to question.

Thank you for questioning

Blindly acceptance is sheep mentality.

I'm curious....

Would this be a topic that concerns you? Or would you be posting this topic to provoke a reaction?

Accept half of what you see and none of what you read.

Its to provoke a debatable reaction, of course.

But then that is what these fora are about.

easy ta see you're here for a healthy debate..stretch the mind a tad...n i simply tossed a bit more out from what u presented. i'm all for think'in outside the box..color'in outside'a the lines..march'in ta the beat of a different sax player..

That's what I thought.

Us sax players dont follow the beat ... we are just smoothing out the wrinkles

Smart too ...