Was Jesus queer? 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.




(yes, this was a copy and paste)

It's possible.... anything is possible.... poor guy has been iconised into 50 squillion other things...

it really didn't pay to be a hippy preaching love peace and brown rice 2000 years ago.........

Jesus was like...Micheal Jackson???

Well, the question needs to be considered.

Dude, Jesus reads these threads.
I think you just blew your chance to go to heaven.

lol! And if Jesus is a pedo, he blew his chance to come to my birthday party.

If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.

Leviticus 20:13

The two angels that visit Lot wash their feet, eat, and are sexually irresistible to Sodomites.

"Bring them out unto us, that we may know them."

Oh, good grief. Angel rapers!

Im still looking for indications of how Jesus went one way or another but its not likely to be discussed in the bible. If it is, like everything else, it will be hinted at in only the most ambiguous and unclear of terminology...

I find it very odd that there is no direct reference to his sexuality, like it said in the original post, there was no mention of a boner even.

Well my understanding (which is limited) is that the Christians (devout ones anyway) believe that Jesus died sinless which means he never had sex with a woman and certainly never a male. I think that is complete crap. These people were Pagan prior to all this Christian fervor and bisexuality would have been the norm in many circles. Especially the Romans. For them it was considered strange to limit yourself to one sex or the other and men especially enjoyed other men. They always had "little young boy servants" So in summary I think there would be no reason to believe that Jesus didnt at least experiment.

I tend to accept the notion that he definitely was intimate with Mary Magdalene (his girlfriend and follower) Anyone who denies that is just plain not being realistic.


There is some nasty talk in the bible however. This is from Genesis 38

38:7 And Er, Judah's firstborn, was wicked in the sight of the LORD; and the LORD slew him.

38:8 And Judah said unto Onan, Go in unto thy brother's wife, and marry her, and raise up seed to thy brother.

38:9 And Onan knew that the seed should not be his; and it came to pass, when he went in unto his brother's wife, that he spilled it on the ground, lest that he should give seed to his brother.

38:10 And the thing which he did displeased the LORD: wherefore he slew him also.

You definably wont be hearing that lovely tale in Sunday school.

I gotta say this kind of goes against him "being without sin." Even if you take out the gay part, he still would need to be celibate. I would have to disagree with this thought.

Well I notice you are Christian so I cant say I am surprised. Feel free to elaborate in order that you support your position however. I would agree with the posted article stating that an omission in the bible of any description of the sexuality of Jesus would certainly not support yours (or the Church's absolute certainty) that he was heterosexual or celibate. On the contrary. It only has the problem of creating more mystery and controversy surrounding this conspicuous absence and lack of detail as it relates to this aspect of his life on Earth.

Option B is he just didn't exist at all.