Jesus Christ has been plagued by gay rumors almost as often and as long as an Oscar-nominated Scientologist, but according to noted theologian and author Dr. Reverend Bob Shore-Goss, Magdalene and the Virgin weren’t the only Marys in town.
Shore-Goss spoke with Vice‘s Jules Suzdaltsev about Jesus’ inherent queerness and how people misinterpret the Bible’s view on homosexuality .
“For my own spirituality, I would love to jump into bed with Jesus,” Shore-Goss told Vice. I mean, same.
Shore-Goss goes on to explain:
How about we take this to the next level?
Our newsletter is like a refreshing cocktail (or mocktail) of LGBTQ+ entertainment and pop culture, served up with a side of eye-candy.
At the very least, Jesus was queer. He broke the rules of his culture, of heteronormativity. He subverted masculinities and gender codes in his culture. Queer doesn’t necessarily mean sexual orientation, but it can include that. St. Paul, I would say, would probably be described as a closeted homosexual today, but they didn’t have those words at the time.
The doc-rev argues that if Jesus was human than logically he was also sexual — whether that meant he was gay or bisexual. Some theories even point to Jesus being intersex or trans. Shore-Goss also posits that the Bible wasn’t homophobic — just misogynistic and a real stickler for gender norms:
There was no concept of sexual orientation, but there was a concept of gender. So, in the Bible, when a man sleeps with another man like with a woman, it’s an abomination. See, the emphasis is on a man betraying his status: He has feminized himself. So it’s a gender violation as opposed to a sexual violation. The code of masculinity is very strong in the ancient world. Now, homoerotic relationships in the ancient world are really common, especially in the Greek and Roman worlds.
Whether or not you buy this queer interpretation of the Messiah, Dr. Rev. Shore-Goss’ point is that Jesus doesn’t discriminate. He’s for everybody. Figuratively and literally:
Was Jesus a top or a bottom?
Versatile.
Les Fabian Brathwaite — hallowed be thy shade.
Paul Tidd
It explains the six pack abs.
Billy Budd
Jesus is very sexy. I used to masturbate, thinking of him, after mass, when I were a kid.
Dave Basora
Yet another interpretation designed to make people feel better. Hey, whatever blows your skirt up, I guess
Sweetie Pie
Jesus was bi…he bonked John and he was also bonking Mary Magdalene…I suspect he was a versatile.
Ladbrook
I’ve always assumed Mary Magdalene was his wife, and that maybe they had children at some point (the wife relationship would explain her prominence in the stories and her discovery of the missing body at the tomb). Of course all of this is a moot point if you believe that the existence of an historical Jesus is itself just a myth, which is a highly probably theory as well.
The gay theory is also a valid one, but “gay” as we define it wasn’t really recognized at that time in history. Even homosexual men would have married, if only because it was necessary to produce offspring and perpetuate the family line. But seriously, why would 12 or more men wander around the desert like that raising so many eyebrows if there wasn’t something going on between some of them? If Jesus was “gay” then it’s probably safe to assume that his lover was either John (the one “he loved”) or Judas. But we’ll never really know.
Bob LaBlah
Ok folks, now I’m lost. Lets beg to be married in the church and once we’re able to we turn around and ask questions like this? I am an atheist who disagrees with this type of satire/ridicule. I don’t see this as funny come on the heels of gay marriage victory. Already, the community is losing its way, or fracturing. This is not funny at all.
Robert Hillyer
He hung out with hookers and 12 of his best buds, ran away when he was 14, and believed his mother was a virgin. Yup. Gay.
M J Martinez Crogan
I’d suck his dick
Homo Erectus
@M J Martinez Crogan: LOL. Jesus is coming, you better swallow. “Take, eat, this is my body.” Yum. Better than those little crackers anyway.
edtaylorky
He even insits in Matthew 22 that gender (and the roles associated with them) cease to exist in the afterlife (22:28-30) … an idea that would be considered insulting in many modern churches, and one that was so shocking at the time that “when the crowds heard this, they were astonished at his teaching” (22:33). That’s a pretty damned spiritual application of queerdom…
Stefano
Now Jebus was gay…**eye-rolling**
BJ McFrisky
I call for a Jesus/Muhammad porno.
What possible harm could come?
LandStander
@Bob LaBlah: Speculating that someone may have been a gay man is not ridicule, nor is it intended to be a joke.
edtaylorky
@Bob LaBlah: I don’t see how asking “questions like this” is automatically “satire/ridicule” — as you identify as athiest, (1) I assume you’re open to asking questions, and (2) you don’t have a vested interest in supporting one religious belief over another (well, as a general rule, ha! I mean if they’re otherwise non-threatening (i.e. not Westboro or Southern Baptist)).
Yes, Queerty’s tone is tongue-in-cheek, but the histoy of the Christianity is complex and dynamic. What we already know about it suggests that the early church would likely not identify most modern American evangelicals as christian in the way they understood it, so is it so radical for LGBT people to (re)contextualize Jesus?
He’s been (re)made by Europeams of every type, Americans, various protestants; there are over 5,000 denominations all fighting for their interpretation of Christ. Where you see this appeal to queer identiy as insulting to church members you hope to appease, I see a natural (timely and historically attested) progression of LGBT rights. I’m sure many LGBT people raised with religous faith imagined a God who somehow reflected them (as has every group in history that held religious beliefs) … so rather than see this an an uppity and unnecessary satirical reaction (perhaps based on a belief that LBGT people are automatically athiest as well), you could see it as an earnest attempt at understanding/finding God for some people (also, I really don’t want “Comments Wars,” but hope to inspire a dialogue).
edtaylorky
@LandStander: ha! You beat me to the comment…succinct 🙂
Xzamilio
He’s whatever you want him to be… the power of fictional characters and mythology not based on fact or evidence.
Xzamilio
@BJ McFrisky: A lot… but it needs to happen.
Bob LaBlah
@LandStander: When Ol’ Joyce Meyer says it then I will believe it.
@edtaylorky: “He’s been (re)made by Europeams of every type, Americans, various protestants; there are over 5,000 denominations all fighting for their interpretation of Christ. Where you see this appeal to queer identiy as insulting to church members you hope to appease, I see a natural (timely and historically attested) progression of LGBT rights. I’m sure many LGBT people raised with religous faith imagined a God who somehow reflected them (as has every group in history that held religious beliefs) … so rather than see this an an uppity and unnecessary satirical reaction (perhaps based on a belief that LBGT people are automatically athiest as well), you could see it as an earnest attempt at understanding/finding God for some people (also, I really don’t want “Comments Wars,” but hope to inspire a dialogue).”
So the evangelicals were right. There is a “gay” agenda, or plot, to rewrite the rules of Christianity. Thanks for your comments. Personally, I thought that all along as I watched just how hard this foolishness about being “recognized in matrimony” by the very thing they had to know despised them really was. To this day I don’t understand why gays simply don’t form their own church and go for it themselves. Its clear they have no respect for the rules of the established church.
Ogre Magi
I understand the appeal in claiming a fanatical cult leader as one of our own
edtaylorky
@Bob LaBlah: But the point is that NO ONE respects the establishment. The Catholic Church maintained it by force until there was economic and political reasons for Northern Europe to reject the South. They rewrote the rules to allow borrowing with interest, to stop indulgences, etc.
Later “agendas” gave people the right to divorce,
to drink wine,
to marry someone from another race,
to stone people,
not to stone people,
to allow Black people to go to heaven,
to allow women to preach,
to allow singing in service,
to forbid singing in service,
to see God as an angry father,
to see God as a caring hippy,
to see God as a man,
to see God as above gender,
etc.
An “establishment” has never existed. The terms of the church, and even the terms of Christ, have always been interpreted by the society that is inspired by it/him. Compare 8th century paratextual fables with 12th century paintings with 2nd century texts: there’s not exactly total consistency in the conceptual underpinnings of the church(es).
A sociologist might point to religious being used as a political tool, a psychiatrist might point to religion as a means of establish identity, and a priest might point to revelations God inspires in people, as the ultimate reason for the shift(s)…but, IF this is an “agenda” — then every person who ever believed in Christ also had one… More likely (in my opinion) is an attempt to reconcile God with human experience.
Bob LaBlah
@edtaylorky: “More likely (in my opinion) is an attempt to reconcile God with human experience.”
With all the rest of whatever it was you were trying to say prior notwithstanding I think you have forgotten just how it was suppose to “be”. You see, allegedly it was God who created man and set in stone (as in Moses) how society was to be. You can not reconcile God with what “he” created, humans. If it were “he” who wanted change, then “he” would have sent a message thru his intermediaries (and you know who those men are, denomination be damned) here on earth. Yes, to cut thru the red tape and bottom line it, it is a crock of shit. But it is THEIR established crock of shit that is being invaded in my eyes.
I mean really, how many break dance routines were performed at Carnegie Hall? Established means we, the rulers, have to agree to change. Not the outcasts.
Stefano
In 2050, Muslims and Christians will be exactly the same percentage in the World in 2050 ! So even if jesus was gay, it will make no difference. Muslims will destroy you ! Mouhahahah
Christopher Hayward
This crosses the line.
edtaylorky
@Bob LaBlah: Christ was an outcast who changed a religious belief. So was Luther. Your way of seeing it (“‘he’ would have sent a message thru his intermediaries”) makes sense from within some specific churches (i.e. Mormon, Catholic) IF we assume they actually have contact with God (big IF from both our perspectives, I assume). But most protestant churches have “personal relationships with Jesus” — and so interpretation comes from the bottom up. Even the Southern Baptist convention votes to make decisions based upon each individual member’s belief/interpretation … at which point they make declarations of what the Church believes…beliefs that change yearly as a part of slow change.
Many mainstream religions (and most Protestant denominations) are now gay affirming. For them–this (mostly (and to my knowledge, entirely)) has been a reaction to social experiences and “evolving understanding,” not a presumed direct (or even indirect) contact with God. Either way, even those churches (LDS, for example) that claim to be functioning from within a direct contact paradigm conveniently receive “divine inspiration” that matches social movements (such as their supposed revelation that African Americans could take up the priesthood or that polygamy was longer appropriate).
So “outcasts” may not have the right/tradition of directly changing just any church, but in many cases, their presense has (in a manner that is appropriate from within the bounds of the church’s rules (i.e. Episcopalian gay marriage service decision, some Pentecostal decisions to allow women teachers) changed the church’s time-honored beliefs, and, conveniently, churches without a voting system soon follow suit.
The question is “To whom belongs the ‘crock of shit'” and “What are the means of adjusting its recipe?” (Letting women speak, getting divorces, etc). In this case (LGBT people pondering Christ’s identity based upon the Bible and socio-historical context), using historical textual evidence doesn’t violate the established traditions of said crock.
Captain Obvious
We win the fight for gay marriage and proceed to flat out stab the hornets nest. I swear some of you people are complete and utter idiots. Jesus is dead, died long before you ever crawled around in diapers, and you have no reason to be pushing this other than to mock the religious people you’re hoping to offend by this. And you wonder why so many gay men won’t claim you and keep calling themselves mauling to separate.
Stop acting like freaks and you won’t be treated like one. You’re so married to this counter-culture bs that you don’t know when to let go and move on. We now have the same rights as everyone else and you’re still mentally hiding in some underground dimly lit club waiting for a police raid. Grow up, it’s over, quit trying to stir crap up.
God forbid you focus on the 2.5 kids, dog, and picket fence you wanted so badly. Time to give up the outcast meme and join society.
Bob LaBlah
@edtaylorky: I won’t rule out that whatever that thing in the video is that’s standing next to him in the skirt and stockings turned my stomach enough to condemn this video at first glance. However, upon looking at it a second time, I stand with my conclusion. It’s been nice talking to you. Take care.
Mark Pilsnik
Please..don’t push it.
Billy Budd
I would love to see a porn movie with Muhammed and Jesus as lovers. A Be*l* A*mi* version would be the ideal choice. I want to see a young Jesus and a young Muhammed.
Ditte Paul Posthuma de Boer
Oh Lord…ð???
Sweetie Pie
@Ladbrook: Judas was jealous…that´s why he betrayed Jesus according to the biblical narrative…some people just don´t know how to handle rejection
Sweetie Pie
@edtaylorky: Gender will not exist in heaven…everybody will be a hermaphrodite…an versatile
Ryan Nisbeth
The point of Jesus is NOT his sexual orientation it’s what he taught and they way he lived. Speculation into what his sexual orientation was has no point. It does not matter. Again only what he taught and the way he lived matters.
Bob LaBlah
@Billy Budd: “A Be*l* A*mi* version would be the ideal choice.”
It wouldn’t work due to Muhammad being a warrior and Bel Ami being sickeningly wholesome and twinkish, though I am sure they could figure a way to come up with a beardless version of jesus, bubble butt and all.
Alex Rothwell
Maybe so, same sex attraction has been around for a long time.
edtaylorky
To those who worry about “pushing it”:
If your concern is Queerty’s rhetorical choices (lol–see all images above and their manner of questioning specifics)–your point is essentially taken 🙂 The editorial decisions, though funny to some, are at least tacky and provocative to most.
But in terms of the argument–a gay or queer Christ–: to those who want others not to push it–this is similar to women getting the right to vote in 1919 and, when everyone gets their political civil rights, other women telling those “who ‘pushed’ for the right to preach to shut up and not stir the pot. Change happens, and applying, at the very least, the “queer” adjective to Christ is an honest religious endeavor and midrashic experience for many people.
@BobLaBlah: Same to you! Thanks for the conversation, and have a good day!
Joseph Blevins
The idea of homosexuality as an exclusive sexual orientation is a relatively new phenomenon–only dating back to the 1800s. Was there activity that we today would describe as homosexual going on during biblical times? Oh hell yes. However, Jesus’s sexual behavior is entirely up to speculation that’s best left to horrible History Channel documentaries.
Captain Obvious
Sexualizing/fetishizing Jesus and removing his purpose and sacrifice is as satanic as one can get so congratulations… Hope you’re atheists. At the very least stop pretending to be Chrstian and stopmentioning Jesus who you clearly care nothing about.
At least the morons in SanFrancisco who run this anti-religious event have the balls to admit they’re openly mocking Jesus and are anti-Christian because In their outdated idiocy they fail to realize we’re welcome in many churches across the nation and very few churches continue to preach hate of anyone or outdated ideals.
The whole “atheist because gay” meme needs to die. God never told anyone to hate you nor did Jesus so why are you mocking them beyond childish tantrums and trying to pick a fight just like Westboro? Grow up.
Bob LaBlah
@edtaylorky: “If your concern is Queerty’s rhetorical choices (lol–see all images above and their manner of questioning specifics)–your point is essentially taken 🙂 The editorial decisions, though funny to some, are at least tacky and provocative to most.”
Not only was that a cheap shot I will say this in defense of Queerty. You get what you PAY for. I think they are what they are: a site who provides free articles and info regarding the gay community but not a site where you look for WORLD news. It was not Queerty who produce this nor any of the other scripts, situations, books, etc…..they simply sifted thru and then printed what was sent in. I have seen sites where anything said against the “grain” of the article got deleted and in some cases the commentator banned, second amendment be damned. Ever been over on Towelroad?
Again, take care.
edtaylorky
@Bob LaBlah: Sorry–meant to offense to Queerty! I love this site for what it is: a free site that offers us a means of communicating with each other and keeping up with news–both the fun and the serious–on a daily basis. I only meant to say that IF this (images and means of dissemination of the idea in this article) was the source of the “don’t push it” comments, then I won’t argue with their intent, only because I don’t really want to discuss the politics of “tact” and am interested in other stuff.
In fact, I love this site FOR its irreverent “tackiness” (meant in the Southern sense of the word– slightly kitsch and irreverent) and meant no disrespect. Thanks for helping me clarify–and no, I’ve never been that I know of.
Queerty: Keep doing what you’re doing!
Allan O'Shea
Doesn’t matter now, he is dead!
Bob LaBlah
@edtaylorky: “I love this site FOR its irreverent “tackiness” (meant in the Southern sense of the word– slightly kitsch and irreverent) ”
I know, I know (hello, good-bye again) but that notwithstanding I must ask “you haven’t been down here lately, have you?” I am a southerner nearly sixty years old and I don’t think I nor my friends see “tackiness” the way you do. Ok, good-bye again.
Britt Wallace
Give me a break. I dont need people trying to make themselves feel better, or look better in my eyes. This is just ridiculous.
Allie Pocket
he was also hung.
Curty
He appears to be asexual in the Bible
No marriage or kids. No romance. A lot of male followers tho… oh well. He’s been dead how many centuries now?
Susana Heredia
Stop trying to justify being gay. Live and let live!
Ron Parsons
What would it matter if he was? You think he’d sleep with the likes of you, Queerty? Hardly.
Wilberforce
@Captain Obvious: I agree, except for on one point. The bible does condemn homosexuals, in a few places. Jesus didn’t though. And the central message of fairness and kindness clearly overrules the condemnation.
Rhoda Mackenzie
My Dad who was a chemist and agnostic (at least) always told me he thought Jesus was gay – why else would he hang out with 12 men his entire life??
OzJosh
Let’s be clear that this would-be theologian is speculating about the fictional Jesus, as portrayed in the New Testament. Real biblical scholars will admit that there is actually scant evidence that the biblical Jesus even existed. The evidence is so thin that it amounts to almost nothing, and nobody could make any conclusions about sexuality based on it. As for the fictional Jesus, the overwhelming impression from the four gospels is that he was asexual.
Will Glitzern
There’s only one word for those pictures: JESUS!
Lindy-Lou Nicholson
Actually i do not like the comments that objectify Jesus on a sexual level. I think they are disrespectful. Talking about his body and wanting to do sexual things; quite upsetting actually.
Bob LaBlah
@OzJosh: The first gospel didnt appear until forty years after his death. They may be right that all of this was made up. Or at least the majority of it was, because back then if people lived to be forty they were considered old. Life expectancy was not as long as it is now. Sure, there were people who lived to their seventies and beyond.
But the majority DIDN’T. And for me, there lies the reason I do not believe any of it. It seems hard to believe all of those gospel writers lived that long because if it was forty years AFTER his death that would have put many of them older than Jesus, who, if he really existed, left at age thirty two.
Nate Brauer-Rieke
He wasn’t gay because he didn’t even exist. I’ve seen no verifiable proof that he does.
Daniel-Reader
Of course, he was gay. Why? Because Adam and Eve were cursed and damned by God for all time, not Adam and Steve. So Jesus has to be part of the Adam and Steve tribe to avoid his own curse. Otherwise, he’d be cursing himself, which would be psychotic.
Chris
So, a theologian is arguing that Jesus someone was “gay or at the very least queer” based on a literary deconstruction of stuff that was written about him and his life how many hundred years after his life? Oh yeah, and the author(s) were trying to shore up their organization’s (church) status in their own historical setting by shifting its history from oral to written traditions; and in doing so, let’s not forget that the author(s) were themselves ensuring their own positions within that organization.
And his next trick, that theologian will use “The Book of Arnold” to speculate about Joseph Smith’s secret “gay or the very least, queer” life.
ait10101
This is hardly the first claim that Jesus was gay, with a special loving relation with John. That last is in the Bible.
no1
There were early Christian sect that taught gay was ok. I can name 2 off the top of my head they are the Carpocratians and the Phibionites. The Phibionites had ritual in which couples (male and female or male and male) would have sex and collect the sperm and eat it calling it the body of Christ. So the notion has been around for a long time. In the book of Mark chapter 14 verses 51 and 52 it speaks of a young man wrapped only in a linen cloth being with Jesus when he was arrested. The young man was so afraid that when he ran away his linen cloth fell off his body. this is not the only mention of Jesus and young men wrapped in a linen cloth. So the speculation about Jesus being gay is not new.
TrekBear
In The Last temptation of Christ, Jesus was presented as by – being equally attracted to one of his disciples and to Mary Magdalene.
Greg
@Billy Budd: No wonder you’re going to HELL.
Greg
@Nate Brauer-Rieke: Well that’s in YOUR life.
Greg
@Lindy-Lou Nicholson: I agree. Does everything have to be about sex and fucking?