Results 1 to 7 of 7

Thread: The Gay Jesus

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Jan 2015

    The Gay Jesus

    There are indeed scholars who notice attachments between Jesus and his followers. It can be verified in the Gospels but I say this fellow Jesus is a myth and so does the person writing the words which follow. He was (is) a member here but he offered his book Barbelo for free due to poor health last year. I think the book presents well and has a great deal of good references - but as you will notice in the thread about his book - we have some differences of opinion. So it should be especially when the myth has various motivated parties fomenting continuing myths.

    I should make it clear I have no issue with any person having consensual sex with any other person., I do not even believe in just two genders.

    "Was Jesus Gay?

    Extract from Barbelo – The Story of Jesus Christ, by Riaan Booysen

    The physical intimacy between Christ and John would have raised many eyebrows if witnessed today and the idea that Christ may have been homosexual has been suggested by several researchers (hotly contested, of course). In Chapter 8 of Barbelo I argue that even though Christ as a young man may have had normal sexual desires, his physical appearance, being short and deformed with a scary face, prevented him from having such relationships. The constant ridicule he had to suffer as a child and as a young man must have fostered an unfathomable hatred in him towards the upper classes of society and in particular towards attractive women. However, through his eloquence and revolutionary ideas he was able to attract and impress many young men, like John, who eventually succumbed to Christ’s sexual advances. When Mary Magdalene eventually fell for him, he dropped John like a hot potato.

    In this extract I will present some of the allegations of sexual misconduct against Christ and his disciples.

    1. The most infamous suggestion of a sexual relationship between Christ and a young man (Lazarus, in this instance) comes from the disputed text The Secret Gospel of Mark,

    And after six days Jesus told him what to do and in the evening the youth comes 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.…After these follows the text, ‘And James and John come to him,’ and all that section. But ‘naked man with naked man,’ and the other things about which you wrote, are not found.

    2. In a sequence of events that could be labelled ‘The Seduction of John,’ Christ managed to finally destroy any resistance John might have offered to his advances, as John describes towards the end of his life:

    O God Jesu,…You who have kept me also till this present hour pure for yourself and untouched by union with a woman; who, when I wished to marry in my youth, appeared to me and said ‘John, I need you’; who prepared for me also an infirmity of the body; who on the third occasion when I wished to marry prevented me at once, and then at the third hour of the day said to me upon the sea, ‘John, if you were not mine, I would have allowed you to marry’; who blinded me for two years, letting me be grieved and entreat you; who in the third year opened the eyes of my understanding and gave me back the eyes that are seen; who when I regained my sight disclosed to me the repugnance of even looking closely at a woman; … who made my love for you unsullied; … who inspired my soul to have no possession but you alone.

    3. Probably the best evidence from the New Testament itself is Peter’s denial of Christ. Assuming that what the Gospels report in this respect is true, Peter was quite upset that Christ doubted his loyalty. Christ’s words ‘you will deny three times that you know me’ more likely were something like ‘one day you will reject me.’ Peter was the disciple who attacked one of those who came to arrest Christ. Following his arrest, however, Peter was accused by a servant maid as being one of Christ’s followers, which the brave and fearless man denied three times. Realizing that Christ’s prediction had come true, he wept bitterly. The most likely explanation for Peter’s denial lies in yet another curious event immediately following the arrest of Christ. According to Mark, ‘A young man, wearing nothing but a linen garment was following Jesus. When they seized him, he fled naked, leaving his garment behind.’ This young man could very well have been John, and it is more than likely that Peter, the leader of the now shattered group, would have been instructed by Christ to look after the others who may or may not have been in on the conspiracy at that stage (John would not have known about the plot to have Christ crucified and removed from the cross). When he saw John fleeing, he must have followed him for that reason, and it must have been then that John blurted out the true nature of his love for his master. It must have been John who was with Peter when he ‘denied’ Christ.

    What was the denial like? Peter swore that he did not know Christ and burst into tears. This behaviour, if anything, indicates that Peter was shocked and sickened by what he had just learned, for he had not realised before what had been going on between the two men. He then must have understood Christ’s prediction that he (Peter) would sometime in the future turn his back on him. The story of the cock crowing immediately after Peter had denied knowing Christ for a third time and Peter bursting into tears when he remembered Christ’s prediction, would have been invented in an attempt to disguise the true reason for Peter’s denial.

    Reading between the lines, more biblical evidence is to be found suggesting that Peter’s denial followed his shocking discovery of Christ’s affair with John. We learn of the miraculous fish catch early in the Gospels, when the calling of first disciples took place. Then, quite surprisingly, John relates the very same event when the risen Christ appears to his disciples on the beach. Peter reacted (in John’s account) by jumping overboard when he realised it was Christ. Would this not have been the reaction of a man who did not know if he could ever face his former master again? John’s placing of the miraculous fish catch here can only be a rationalization of the true reason why Peter jumped from the boat (in an attempt to get away from Christ). If John’s description of Peter’s ‘reinstatement’ is a true reflection of the atmosphere at that moment, Peter’s resentment of John is almost tangible:"

    He calls Jesus by the name Jesu here. That is closer to the title adepts in his family often earned through ardent study - Iesa or Iesu and Iesoos - different dialects). He is not confirming this is actually one person and like many scholars he says the myth includes others but he has it being a Simon more than I do. The way he describes many events and different accounts by different people writing what we are told was written by various apostles (all but Luke were dead at the time they appeared) is what I think makes reading his whole book worthwhile. I also think he demonstrates concise writing and psychological understanding.
    Last edited by R_Baird; 02-28-2016 at 11:20 PM.

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Jan 2015
    Since we have a true speculative idea here - let me add more fuel to the fire.

    Plato was 'immaculately conceived' and there are many other Phoenician myths which are the root of the Bible according to the father of Biblical Archaeology and more are discovered all the time. Many Greek states were gay including Crete before Greece, Sparta, Lesbos etc. In fact it was almost a law that pederasty would happen for older men and young boys. You already must be aware of what is meant by "Greek culture" being anal sex. They might have been intimate with camels in the Trojan War but more likely they pleasured each other.

    The Jews are Phoenicians and Hyksos (foreigners) or at a minimum their elites like the Benjaminites and Merovingians are. Add this to the picture and then check out the Lord Mountbottom thread.

    What you see here is a very small part of my research on this matter.

    As I continue to research Caesar and his legend on a thread devoted to him I get connections backwards through Greece to pre-Trojan eras and forwards to where one later finds Kaiser titles derived from the word Caesar. It all fits with a larger history of Keltoi Phoenicians or DN of Homer back to when Dolni Vestonici proves some very important technology in 27,000 BCE.

    Another source raises an item I suspect is false in reference to Caesar selling his body to a man. But you never know, his troops did sing songs saying he had to pay for his Gallic women. More importantly we have dates which could show Julius had no father at age 12 or 13. This source is widely copied and who knows where it originates.

    "102/100 BCE: Gaius Julius Caesar was born (by Caesarean section according to an unlikely legend) of Aurelia and Gaius Julius Caesar, a praetor. His family had noble, patrician roots, although they were neither rich nor influential in this period. His aunt Julia was the wife of Gaius Marius, leader of the Popular faction.

    c. 85 BCE: His father died, and a few years later he was betrothed and possibly married to a wealthy young woman, Cossutia. This betrothal/marriage was soon broken off, and at age 18 he married Cornelia, the daughter of a prominent member of the Popular faction; she later bore him his only legitimate child, a daughter, Julia. When the Optimate dictator, Sulla, was in power, he ordered Caesar to divorce her; when Caesar refused, Sulla proscribed him (listed him among those to be executed), and Caesar went into hiding. Caesar's influential friends and relatives eventually got him a pardon.

    c. 79 BCE: Caesar, on the staff of a military legate, was awarded the civic crown (oak leaves) for saving the life of a citizen in battle. His general sent him on an embassy to Nicomedes, the king of Bithynia, to obtain a fleet of ships; Caesar was successful, but subsequently he became the butt of gossip that he had persuaded the king (a homosexual) only by agreeing to sleep with him. When Sulla died in 78, Caesar returned to Rome and began a career as a orator/lawyer (throughout his life he was known as an eloquent speaker) and a life as an elegant man-about-town.

    75 BCE: While sailing to Greece for further study, Caesar was kidnapped by Cilician pirates and held for ransom. When informed that they intended to ask for 20 talents, he is supposed to have insisted that he was worth at least 50. He maintained a friendly, joking relationship with the pirates while the money was being raised, but warned them that he would track them down and have them crucified after he was released. He did just that, with the help of volunteers, as a warning to other pirates, but he first cut their throats to lessen their suffering because they had treated him well."

    The Nicomedes mention takes me into his family tree to find Celts (AKA Keltoi in Greece - and the ancient ones or DN). Then one sees people invading and doing nothing or enforcing the status quo in a large territory beyond just Greece. It was shortly after Alexander of Macedon (AKA 'the Great" who definitely was gay as were Cretans and Spartans who just happen to be where we find Caesar's Nichomedes) united a large area which I say was ruled by Phoenicians like the Hatti or Milesians two millennia earlier still. This is a wiki excerpt.

    "He commenced his reign by putting to death two of his brothers but the third, subsequently called Zipoetes II, raised an insurrection against him and succeeded in maintaining himself, for some time, in the independent sovereignty of a considerable part of Bithynia. Meanwhile, Nicomedes was threatened with an invasion from Antiochus I Soter, king of the Seleucid Empire, who had already made war upon his father, Zipoetes I, and, to strengthen himself against this danger, he concluded an alliance with Heraclea Pontica and shortly afterwards with Antigonus II Gonatas. The threatened attack, however, passed over with little injury. Antiochus actually invaded Bithynia but withdrew again without risking a battle.

    It was more against his brother than his foreign enemies that Nicomedes now called in the assistance of more powerful auxiliaries and entered into an alliance with the Celts who, under Leonnorius and Lutarius, had arrived on the opposite side of the Bosphorus and were, at this time, engaged in the siege of Byzantium, 277 BC. Having furnished them with the means of crossing into Asia, where they founded Galatia, he first turned the arms of his new auxiliaries against Zipoetes II, whom he defeated and put to death, and thus reunited the whole of Bithynia under his dominion.[2]"

    As suspected we have Cilicia and Silesia connected but I am surprised to find a book or two connecting them directly to Germany at this time. I think you can now see why Alexander had to get the consent of the Kelts before he went off to spread his Empire - else his base of operations would be taken away.

    "The Great German Nation: Origins and Destiny

    Craig M. White - 2007 - ‎History
    These Silesians probably come from the Cilician region of the Hittite {This is Hatti and Chatti and Katti} Empire. The battle-axes of ancient Silesia are traced back to Troy by Gordon Childe,585 ...

    2300 Days of Hell - Page 100 - Google Books Result

    Joseph F. Dumond - 2014
    The name of Cilicia in Asia Minor was simply transplanted to Eastern Germany by the Hatti who migrated from Cilicia to Silesia, then to the Rhine Silesia is only ...
    Last edited by R_Baird; 02-29-2016 at 10:02 AM.

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Jan 2015
    Many threads connect in ways people cannot grasp if they do not know certain things. For example sex and alchemy are entwined even when a person is not gay, due to the androgynous nature of past adherents and the rituals and insights which resulted. The human condition physical and spiritual is collective when it comes to sexuality, in almost all philosophies. But it goes beyond that as we have seen sharing body fluids includes blood as a method of transmitting knowledge. It is not just hetero sex which leads to sharing blood either. But you hopefully can see what I am saying without me having to get graphic or pornographic.

    Then there is the matter of a common culture called Pederasty to consider alongside the fact there is not just two genders. But, did you know the editor of your main modern Bible was gay and a deviate far beyond fear; who murdered witches merely because he had been told a witch's curse would cause his death - when he was a young boy? Yes, most people who read the porn in that document do not bother to think what it means.

    In Wikipedia just after Bart Ehrmann declares there is nothing in the Bible saying Jesus ever married or had any desire for sex we have the following. It does not matter if a person written about by Rome for the purposes of Rome and blaming Jews or the people, has anything at all as far as I am concerned. Bart notes there is nothing in the Dead Sea Scrolls which contribute to these myths either. He is wrong because there are Scrolls that do and we might even find more. But one has to actually study the spiritual and esoteric meaning to glean from code (remember we are talking about knowledge and power, people could die for or because of) any truth in any ancient texts after Empire thrust it's ugly presence over all humanity.

    "Gospel of Jesus' Wife[edit]

    The "Gospel of Jesus' Wife", a Coptic papyrus fragment unveiled in 2012, presents Jesus as speaking of his wife: "My wife ... she will be able to be my disciple." If genuine, it appears to date to around the 6th to 9th centuries AD, and would suggest that some Egyptian Christians of that period believed that Jesus was married. Although it does not contain the name of Mary Magdalene, there has been speculation that she is the woman referred to.[6] However, there is substantial scholarly concern about the fragment's authenticity, with a number of scholars regarding it as a modern forgery.[7][8][9]

    The notion of a marriage between Jesus and Mary Magdalene has been a frequent topic in literature, and within the 1982 book, The Holy Blood and the Holy Grail and subsequently Dan Brown's "The Da Vinci Code". {And thousands more.}


    The Disciple Whom Jesus Loved[edit]

    Main article: disciple whom Jesus loved

    The Gospel of John makes references to the disciple whom Jesus loved (John 13:23, 19:26, 21:7-20), a phrase which does not occur in the Synoptic Gospels. In the text, this beloved disciple is present at the crucifixion of Jesus, with Jesus' mother, Mary.

    The disciple whom Jesus loved may be a self-reference by the author of the Gospel (John 21:24), traditionally regarded as John the Apostle. Rollan McCleary, author of Signs for a Messiah, thinks this identification would make the phrase highly significant.[10]

    In subsequent centuries the reference was used by those who supported a homoerotic reading of the relationship. For example, Aelred of Rievaulx, in his work Spiritual Friendship, referred to the relationship of Jesus and John as a "marriage" and held it out as an example sanctioning friendships between clerics.[11]

    James I of England may have been relying on a pre-existing tradition when he defended his relationship with the young Duke of Buckingham: "I wish to speak in my own behalf and not to have it thought to be a defect, for Jesus Christ did the same, and therefore I cannot be blamed. Christ had his son John, and I have my George."[12]"

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Jan 2015
    The levels of deceit placed in the way of humans seeking truth and one-ness or at- one - ment are so numerous it boggles the mind. It does not surprise an actual scholar that common people believe, they are supposed to believe or have Faith. They are in fact legislatively conditioned and if they did not BELIEVE they suffered mightily for it m- and that is not so far behind our present condition without even using Islam as an example.

    The whole matter of sexuality and gender is involved whether you know it or not!

    Here is a good site addressing things like Adam in the Bible or the esoteric Adam Cadmon if you want to know the facts.

    "Alchemy, and in particular alchemical androgyny, has always resonated with me because it reflects aspects of my journey. When most of us start out in life, we’re immersed in a binarist culture that recognizes very distinct, and unmixable, male and female energies. Alchemy scholar Mircea Eliade wrote, “To be no longer conditioned by a pair of opposites results in absolute freedom.” And the alchemists did not see the alchemical androgyne as simply a half-and-half being, combining two ends of a binary. While a “male” and “female” figure were often shown conjoined, both figures are always androgynous, not diametrically opposed. In addition, this portion of an alchemical text, which speaks as the androgyne or rebus, points out that the rebus is not simply a combination of opposites, but a uniquely transformed being:

    “Hermes called me the Sun and the Moon. Riplaeus called me the green lion. Our author called me hermaphrodite, but I pay no attention to that. It makes no difference. Nor does it matter what the sophists [philosophy teachers] call me, for they learn nothing for all their trouble except: (1) I am One Substance, not two…” (Hermaphrodite Child of the Sun and Moon, as translated by Mike Brenner.)

    As alchemists tried to break the rules of nature, to hack physical reality to reveal a spiritual truth, gender radicals break the rules of our culture and reveal gender as an infinite, multidimensional spectrum rather than a binary. There are many interesting parallels between genderqueer and gender variant people today and the alchemists.

    Ultimately, the church grew uncomfortable with the writings of the alchemists, and encouraged scientists to stop working with religious ideas and focus on experimentation. Thus the church itself helped to give birth to modern science."

    - See more at:
    Last edited by R_Baird; 02-29-2016 at 11:22 AM.

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Jan 2015
    On the other end of the intellectual continuum I should present some thinking from the Jehovah's Witnesses, for a change of pace. After all - those last people probably were gay and sinners or something.

    " Yet the WBTS also teaches that only the archangel Michaelís life was transferred to Maryís womb. So because they teach that creatures in heaven have spiritual bodies [albeit intangible] we must ask what does such transferral of life mean? Was the spirit personís body also transferred or was it left lifeless in heaven?....


    As an analogy consider that if someone removes a car engine from say a Nissan Micra and has it fitted into a Rolls Royce does one still have a genuine Rolls Royce? Absolutely not!! It is a very substandard hybrid Rolls Royce/Micra. So if a powerful spirit creature existed in heaven and then was transferred to the womb of a human woman, he still carries with him the spirit equivalent of DNA which is then hybridized with human genetics and so is sub-standard in all respects rather than his being the perfect human that is detailed in the Scriptures. It is no good for Jehovahís Witnesses to claim that they view Jesus as 100% human because that does not fit with their presentation of a scenario in which a pre-existent spirit is reformed in the womb of a human. Again please note the impossibility of transferring a personality without its body."

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Jan 2015
    An adept who studies would never be prejudiced no matter what level of adept he or she or it, is. This is especially true about race and gender because those are things an individual can only influence but not truly overcome what nature (god) did. Thus the adepts write about the androgynous state.


    PART : 2

    The invisible face of Janus - Consciousness as a bridge

    The androgynous state of being can only be explained in the abstract, which is why we approach this subject on a mystical and esoteric plane and let intuition guide us through the subtle meaning behind these lines. The previous chapter portrayed Janus with an invisible face, engulfing the ever-changing presence of the moment. We also suggested that the invisible face of Janus stood on an axial pole, fixed in the eternal present that simultaneously connects and separates the past and the future, the two visible faces and the invisible.

    The description of the invisible face that emerges from the ever-changing ephemeral moment suggests that this ethereal presence is, in itself, a permanent element within consciousness, since the presence represents the ever-changing awareness of the moment. Consciousness, then, is the invisible presence of an immutable axial center within all human beings, fixed, neutral, and unchanged and untouched by time or space. Why is this? Because the axial pole does not belong to the world of duality, of matter and manifestation. Therefore, within its own pole, it remains neutral and never manifests, for to manifest, consciousness would need to come out of its neutral center into the world of duality, of contrasts and opposites, where it would manifest in different shapes and sizes in the world. In other words, when consciousness expands itself out of its axial position, it "comes out" and permeates the realm of duality. By projecting itself out of its axial point, consciousness intersects with time and space, with past and future through the left and right faces of Janus. But by expanding our consciousness, we are given the opportunity of becoming aware of creation and of using our mind, intellect, emotions and feelings to express consciousness.

    The three aspects of Janus are indivisible, since the axial center of being is the pivotal Center of Pure Being. Accordingly, whenever "being" becomes conscious of something, this means that it has focused its attention either outwardly or inwardly towards a chosen objective. It is as if, from its fixed and unchangeable position, consciousness willingly radiates its light to "enlighten" the past and future.

    So, the androgynous invisible face of Janus represents the one who is fully awake but hidden from physical view, holding in his awareness of the present moment, his "inheritance" or the karmic enfoldment of his past and his future. This is because, paradoxically, the invisible face of Janus is the only one that faces the eternally transforming present moment, so we know that it is awake. In other words, consciousness can only function from its axial position and as such, it is the divider and synthesizer of past and future events in our life. Furthermore, the invisible face of Janus remains imperceptible because it is a spiritual face, a perfect archetype, the unmanifested side of a human being, in which the androgynous state represents the perfect balanced center within our psyche.

    Another way of looking at the androgynous state reveals that whenever we involve ourselves in an act of creation, or focus totally on creating something, we are using our higher intelligence and intuition. And in these moments of intense creativity, we as creators stand on the axial pole of consciousness, in the neutral zone, living in the present moment. In such states of awareness, we cannot reflect on the past or project our thoughts into the future. The creative act itself is intuitive, linking our ego with our psyche, and it often does that unconsciously. Furthermore, the act of creating remains a mystery since it is a direct projection of consciousness in a world of duality. Once the conscious action is projected out of its neutral central pole, it emerges into a world of duality, where things past and future are reflected, analyzed and rationalized by our overeager ego.

    Consciousness as a bridge

    We should look at consciousness as a bridge mirroring the qualities of the soul and the characteristics of the ego. Our own interpretation of the content of our consciousness colors, interprets and rationalizes everything coming under the laws of manifestation and duality. We should also add, that whenever we think or reflect on something, ask ourselves questions, feel, sense and ponder on life in general, asking questions about who we are, what we are doing, then, our creativity comes to a sudden spontaneous end and we find ourselves "outside" of the neutral focal center. This happens even with momentary distractions, because we have inadvertently projected our attention to one or both of the visible faces of Janus, to one or other pole, and have left the vertical axis of our being in the present moment.

    Now, in the act of creating, which part of us creates? From where do the impulses, the energies of the act of creation, come? The psyche transmits them through the medium of our consciousness. Since consciousness operates only in the present moment, then the psyche is at the receiving end of the axial pole. The Center of Pure Being, the source of its root, always remains invisible, everywhere and nowhere at the same time.

    The answer then, albeit abstract, is that when consciousness is awakened, it illuminates the present moment and is in touch with the universal soul. What happens when we think of a past event, or project our consciousness into the future? The axial pole of consciousness within our being simply brings everything towards its own center, into the present moment, and transforms the past or future event into an eternally changing aspect of the present moment."
    Last edited by R_Baird; 03-24-2016 at 08:46 PM.

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Jun 2015
    Quote Originally Posted by R_Baird View Post
    There are indeed scholars who notice attachments between Jesus and his followers. It can be verified in the Gospels but I say this fellow Jesus is a myth and so does the person writing the words which follow. He was (is) a member here but he offered his book Barbelo for free due to poor health last year. I think the book presents well and has a great deal of good references - but as you will notice in the thread about his book - we have some differences of opinion. So it should be especially when the myth has various motivated parties fomenting continuing myths.

    I should make it clear I have no issue with any person having consensual sex with any other person., I do not even believe in just two genders.

    [COLOR="#0000CD"]"Was Jesus Gay?

    Extract from Barbelo Ė The Story of Jesus Christ, by Riaan Booysen
    Hello R_Baird,

    Apologies for not having picked up your comments earlier! In the extract you refer only to the first three points of my web summary on the homosexuality of Christ. The remaining paragraphs 4-10 make it clear that there was something fishy about the sexual orientation of Christ, specifically paragraph 4, involving the Templar knights. How would you interpret these (#4 to #10)?


Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts