Well, my gut says he must have been asexual, because we are not Mormons.To me it’s obvious that Jesus would not have been homosexual. I think it would be more interesting to discuss if he was asexual. (Asexual in this case meaning not sexually attracted to either sex.) Is asexuality considered natural by the Church? If so, is it a possibility for our Lord?
[Edited]
I see someone beat me to this idea.
See, that was along the lines of my original thought. In addition, I consider the fact that Jesus was and has always been in union with the Holy Trinity. To me, human sexual preferences would seem to totally subside or just be irrelevant for Jesus. However, as Jesus is fully man as well as fully divine, I am not sure if that’s true. Some Catholics here seem to think otherwise. I don’t know, but it is interesting to consider.Well, my gut says he must have been asexual, because we are not Mormons.
Jesus was indeed fully human and fully divine, however what I am thinking here, is his humanity never superceeded his Divinity, or vice versa- if that makes sense?
I don’t think asexuality would be considered normal or natural;God intends for us to proceate,therefore asexuality or homosexuality can be considered to be abberations,much like diabetes or deafness.Our Lord was Fully man as well as fully God.He was however chaste as befitted his station in life.To me it’s obvious that Jesus would not have been homosexual. I think it would be more interesting to discuss if he was asexual. (Asexual in this case meaning not sexually attracted to either sex.) Is asexuality considered natural by the Church? If so, is it a possibility for our Lord?
[Edited]
I see someone beat me to this idea
Why would Jesus need to have a sexual preference?I don’t think asexuality would be considered normal or natural;God intends for us to proceate,therefore asexuality or homosexuality can be considered to be abberations,much like diabetes or deafness.Our Lord was Fully man as well as fully God.He was however chaste as befitted his station in life.
We live in a society that is over indulged especially in things of sexual nature. It is my opinion that humans are not soley sexual beings as many are lead to believe by what is portrayed in the media; though it is a characteristic of our nature, we should not be driven by it (idolatory). Man is only part human as is women. It is together that a person is whole, husband and wife. Jesus being the son of G-d sacraficed this in that he would not live a normal life in this worlds standards to go on to live the perfect life G-d intended for us all. But to better answer your question, the DaVinci Code was not an extreme shot in the dark. Jesus did seem to have some intimate moments with Mary Magdalen though not of sexual nature since that was against Jewish Tradition. She appeared to be the one who poured fragrant oil on him, symbolic of his death. She was also the first to see him after his ressurection, though Jesus was careful to keep her from becoming to attached to him in his present form. Jesus being the Son of G-d new the holieness of marriage and probably desired it more than any of us could imagine, but it was because of his obedience to G-d that he went to Calvary to save all of those who were lost in the world. This is the very reason he states that his relationship to the Church was a marriage.Considering the Secret Gospel of Mark (a banned book), some people think he may have been bi or something.
But I personally think he was asexual. He doesn’t seem the type to necessarily “fall in love” with a significant other or even be sexually attracted to anyone.
The Secret Gospel of Mark itself does not have anything that says Jesus is bisexual; it is merely the case of people reading too much into the text. All it says is:Considering the Secret Gospel of Mark (a banned book), some people think he may have been bi or something.
But I personally think he was asexual. He doesn’t seem the type to necessarily “fall in love” with a significant other or even be sexually attracted to anyone.
Ironically Yours, Blade and Blood
Of course, it may bear mentioning that there is a possibility that this text is actually a forgery, as some have proposed.
As a diabetic, I don’t think I like be called an abberation.I don’t think asexuality would be considered normal or natural;God intends for us to proceate,therefore asexuality or homosexuality can be considered to be abberations,much like diabetes or deafness.Our Lord was Fully man as well as fully God.He was however chaste as befitted his station in life.
I confuse nothing.Do you not understand the concept of the hypostatic union?HE is FULLY man as well as being FULLY God.No where did I say He had a NEED TO PROCREATE.He chose chastity.As a man He also had FREE WILL and He chose chastity.He certainly was not ASEXUAL(FULLY MAN-got it?)If He wasn’t FULLY man why would satan have bothered to tempt him?He was not a pretend human being:shrug:Why would Jesus need to have a sexual preference?
God does not need to procreate, he CREATES.
You confuse the created, with the creator. Sorry.
That is what I was leading up to, and the non catholic rejection out of hand of Mary’s exception granted by God.
In the greater scheme of things illnesses ARE abberations.Not you as a person.
I am nearsighted-that is an abberation.These abberations are consequences of living in a broken world.If I have offended you I am TRULY sorry.
I think that Anne Rice has a better handle on this than you do. All of us are sexual, even eunuchs. Homosexuals are sexual deviants, in that their urges are misdirected.Considering the Secret Gospel of Mark (a banned book), some people think he may have been bi or something.
But I personally think he was asexual. He doesn’t seem the type to necessarily “fall in love” with a significant other or even be sexually attracted to anyone.
Ironically Yours, Blade and Blood
Those who think that Christ might have been bi simply haven’t got a clue of Who He is and have not experienced Him in one way or another. That simple.Considering the Secret Gospel of Mark (a banned book), some people think he may have been bi or something.
But I personally think he was asexual. He doesn’t seem the type to necessarily “fall in love” with a significant other or even be sexually attracted to anyone.
I personally believe that heterosexuality vs. anything else is completely irrelevant to Christ since anything that has to do with sex is purely of the flesh regardless of its initial purpose. And since He is of God (despite His human part), His Goodhood simply places Him outside of that “pouch” altogether. As much as it places Him outside of time one of His Holy Names being “I am” etc. Heterosexual, bi, or asexual are applacable to humans, humans that are fully humans.
Except that 50% of Jesus’ Chromosomes came from the Father Himself, so where does that leave us?
…
I find that idea very interesting. Do you purport that God has genetic material and that He transmitted it through Mary to Christ?
How do you explain Jesus being Fully Divine if I may ask?
