Was Jesus Gay or Adulterer or BOTH?
By: Jacqueline Waheed
Perhaps the question whether
Jesus was a bisexual and adulterer may anger some, but facts cannot be denied,
especially coming from the very people who profess to be Christians or
Christian scholars. Following information is from Christian sources, so
please try to digest it.
Speaking of Jesus at the
Modern Churchmen’s conference at Oxford, 1967, Canon Hugh Montefiore, Vicar of
Great St. Mary, Cambridge, stated:
“Women were his friends, but it is men he is said to have
loved. The striking fact was that he remained unmarried, and men who did not
marry usually had one of the three reasons: they could not afford it; there were no girls; or they were homosexual in nature. (See The Times, July 28, 1967.)
Martin Luther also negates the image of a sinless Jesus. This is
to be found in Luther’s Table-Talk (See Weimer
edition, ii: 107) whose authenticity has never been challenged even
though the coarser passages are cause for embarrassment. Arnold Lunn
writes:
Weimer quoted a passage from the Table-Talk in which Luther
states that Christ committed adultery three times, first with the woman at the
well, secondly with Mary Magdalene, and thirdly with the woman taken in
adultery, “whom he let
off so lightly. Thus even Christ who was so holy had to commit adultery before
he died.” (See Arnold Lunn, The Revolt Against
Reason, Eyre & Spottiswoode (Publishers), London, 1950, p.233.)
Following is the original!
“Christus adulter. Christus ist am ersten ein ebrecher
worden Joh. 4, bei dem brunn cum muliere, quia illi dicebant: Nemo significat,
quit facit cum ea? Item cum Magdalena, item cum adultera Joan. 8,
die er so leicht dauon lies. Also mus from Christus auch am ersten ein werden
ehe er starb.“
In fact, it appears likely
that the term ‘Christian’ was merely an invention of Roman propaganda, for in
the early days,
“The name ‘Christian’ was associated with all kind of
detestable crime-this, too, is a common feature of the political propaganda,
and the author of 1 Peter…
admonishes his readers not to suffer for the things which for the populace were
implied in the name ‘Christian,’ (4:15) 4:15 But let none of
you suffer as a murderer, or as a thief, or as an evildoer, or as a busybody in
other men's matters. (See Dictionary of the Bible,
p. 138)
The early church busied itself with fighting this ‘Christian’
appellation, which in Roman minds was equated with a breed of criminals. Examining
the origins of this terminology implies that it was Romans, and not the
earliest Christians, who were eager to distinguish followers of the new
religion from ancient Israelite tradition. In fact, the early church was content to designate the new religion
simply as the Way, as in the ‘Way of the Lord,’ the ‘Way of
Truth,’ the ‘Way of Salvation,’ and the ‘Way of Righteousness.’ (See Dictionary of the Bible,
p. 139)
When Christian authorities like Canon Hugh Montefiore, Vicar of Great St. Mary, Cambridge, Martin
Luther and Dictionary of the Bible is telling us something like this, than who
are we to deny it or disagree with it?
Thursday, October 21, 2004