Was Jesus Heterosexual?

[Namesake]

How do you explain Jesus being Fully Divine if I may ask?

That is very far away from the question.

The idea, or question, is that God has genetic material. If so then where did He get it. Or, what is the lineage? Or, who is the direct descendant of God? That is to ask from a genetic point of view.

On the basis this idea is preposterous!

 

[notsmart]

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:

I am fully aware of hypostatic union, and I do not think my idea is a detrimental to it, or obscures it in any way.
Not anymore so than the non catholics do when claiming Mary’s vocation should have been just like anyone else’s that was bethroed, and married.
White marriages do exist in the church, but they are very very rare.

You seem to emphasize his humanity, over his divinity.
I do nothing to jepordize either with my position.

In fact, I give reason for the role of the vocation of marriage (as with Jesus- it was with the Bride- his Church)

And with Mary- it would be an “abberation” as the non catholics would tell you- that she DID NOT have sex, or a desire to have it. To be the Mother of Jesus. However, like you they think everyone has this desire and right. Joseph gave up nothing, because he was married before. Mary gave up the natural union of marriage, just as her Son did. Get it now? By the way your caps are so silly.

For anyone who is not in a vow to God to be celibate, or is not Jesus or Mary, I say fine and dandy- because you are not fully God and Fully man.

You see, you miss where I was going here with this, and the tie in to Mary, and vocations…

But, don’t let me stop you from chastising me for believing Jesus did not have to be tempted by sexual needs as you imply.

The odd thing about catholics like you I meet, is you have no qualms about Mary being celibate, but heaven forbid Jesus ever could have been asexual.

 

[notsmart]

That is very far away from the question.

The idea, or question, is that God has genetic material. If so then where did He get it. Or, what is the lineage? Or, who is the direct descendant of God? That is to ask from a genetic point of view.

On the basis this idea is preposterous!

Jesus had no children- So what are you saying?
What is so “preposterous” about what I am saying?
Please quote me if you charge me with anything. Use my words, not your misinterpretation of them.

 

[notsmart]

I find that idea very interesting. Do you purport that God has genetic material and that He transmitted it through Mary to Christ?

That opens up all sorts of mind boggling questions, as I assume you are aware.

Like what if I may ask? It’s not a question for anyone who believes in the Trinity.

 

[Namesake]

Jesus had no children- So what are you saying?
What is so “preposterous” about what I am saying?
Please quote me if you charge me with anything. Use my words, not your misinterpretation of them.

ATBAC said that 50% of the chromosomes in Jesus came from God.

Now someone needs to explain the idea that God has genetic material.

 

[notsmart]

ATBAC said that 50% of the chromosomes in Jesus came from God.

Now someone needs to explain the idea that God has genetic material.

I made no such claims about Jesus or his genentic material.
I still do not know why you can yell at me in all caps, yet not be able to point out where YOU FEEL I am wrong.
But, I await your reply with baited breath.

 

[Namesake]

Like what if I may ask? It’s not a question for anyone who believes in the Trinity.

Like about meiosis? Like how the genetic material was transmitted? Like where the genetic material came from? Like what was the genetic lineage? Where are the genes today? Why did God need to use genes?

The questions are mind boggling!

 

[Namesake]

I made no such claims about Jesus or his genentic material.
I still do not know why you can yell at me in all caps, yet not be able to point out where YOU FEEL I am wrong.
But, I await your reply with baited breath.

I didn’t use all caps.

I was replying to another poster.

 

[notsmart]

Like about meiosis? Like how the genetic material was transmitted? Like where the genetic material came from? Like what was the genetic lineage? Where are the genes today? Why did God need to use genes?

The questions are mind boggling!

Isn’t that part of the mystery? Just as the mystery of the Trinity itself?

Or has the catholic church decided they have done away with mystery?

 

[redrosetea]

As Jesus was not here to procreate I would say he was asexual.
His love surpasses that type of expression of love, but human sexual love expressed the way God willed for us to participate in, is not a bad thing, it is good.

This is the first sensible thing I’ve read on this thread

 

[notsmart]

This is the first sensible thing I’ve read on this thread

Pray I will be and my husband and child- a catholic very soon!

I am just having to fight off the false ideas my husband has about hell right now.

Prayers are all I can count on now.

 

[thistle]

You already said that, and the person you are quoting didn’t say anything about practicing…only that he or she knew people who were both homosexual and devout Christians.

The poster did not say same sex attraction people who were chaste. The use of the word homosexual in the posters sentence implies sexually active. The poster did not say they were non-practising.
Perhaps I should have been clearer in my comment.
Practising homosexuals cannot be devout Christians.

 

[notsmart]

The poster did not say same sex attraction people who were chaste. The use of the word homosexual in the posters sentence implies sexually active. The poster did not say they were non-practising.
Perhaps I should have been clearer in my comment.
Practising homosexuals cannot be devout Christians.

I think I see the post where you said it just right!

 

[notsmart]

Nobody **who practices **homosexuality is a devout Christian.

I knew I would find it!

 

[daeve]

The poster did not say same sex attraction people who were chaste. The use of the word homosexual in the posters sentence implies sexually active. The poster did not say they were non-practising.
Perhaps I should have been clearer in my comment.
Practising homosexuals cannot be devout Christians.

I’m a heterosexual who does not engage in any sexual activity. Should it be assumed I do?

This entire discussion is pointless. Whatever Jesus might have felt or thought about the subject is in the past, and we have no reason to talk about it today. See ya on some other thread.

 

[Soutane]

I am fully aware of hypostatic union, and I do not think my idea is a detrimental to it, or obscures it in any way.
Not anymore so than the non catholics do when claiming Mary’s vocation should have been just like anyone else’s that was bethroed, and married.
White marriages do exist in the church, but they are very very rare.

You seem to emphasize his humanity, over his divinity.
I do nothing to jepordize either with my position.

In fact, I give reason for the role of the vocation of marriage (as with Jesus- it was with the Bride- his Church)

And with Mary- it would be an “abberation” as the non catholics would tell you- that she DID NOT have sex, or a desire to have it. To be the Mother of Jesus. However, like you they think everyone has this desire and right. Joseph gave up nothing, because he was married before. Mary gave up the natural union of marriage, just as her Son did. Get it now? By the way your caps are so silly.

For anyone who is not in a vow to God to be celibate, or is not Jesus or Mary, I say fine and dandy- because you are not fully God and Fully man.

You see, you miss where I was going here with this, and the tie in to Mary, and vocations…

But, don’t let me stop you from chastising me for believing Jesus did not have to be tempted by sexual needs as you imply.

The odd thing about catholics like you I meet, is you have no qualms about Mary being celibate, but heaven forbid Jesus ever could have been asexual.

The odd thing about Catholics LIKE ME???What on earth are you going on about?Yes Mary was celibate,that certainly did not make her asexual.Nor does Christ’s celibacy make Him asexual.My contention is that catholics like YOU de-emphasise Christ’s humanity to the point of negation.He humbled Himself to become one of us while in no way relinquishing His Divinty.Believe it or not but I’m sure that he had the full range of human emotions and physical reactions-occasionally He probably had bad breath.He eliminated bodily waste just like we do,etc,etc,etc.He wasn’t partly man and partly God.He was both!He wasn’t a pretend man or part-man.Why on earth would He have been asexual?HE CHOSE CHASTITY! I think that too many people think of Christ as a Holy card Jesus-Blond,blue-eyed and impeccably groomed.I’m sure He was just as gritty as your average Nazarean.And by-the-by I am NOT implying that He was tempted by sexual NEEDS.I don’t know and neither do YOU.

 

[Jerry-Jet]

If Jesus was heterosexual the question of whether that heterosexuality should be imitated is a question that should be answered.

I don’t buy that same sex attracted but chaste gets it.

I buy that even if a person was previously same sex attracted that they should learn the language of heterosexuality and imitate that while being chaste just as Jesus was.

Of course that destroys the whole notion of people being born same sex attracted.

I don’t believe that people are born with any sexuality and that sexuality is learned.

Am I right?

 

[Soutane]

I am fully aware of hypostatic union, and I do not think my idea is a detrimental to it, or obscures it in any way.
Not anymore so than the non catholics do when claiming Mary’s vocation should have been just like anyone else’s that was bethroed, and married.
White marriages do exist in the church, but they are very very rare.

You seem to emphasize his humanity, over his divinity.
I do nothing to jepordize either with my position.

In fact, I give reason for the role of the vocation of marriage (as with Jesus- it was with the Bride- his Church)

And with Mary- it would be an “abberation” as the non catholics would tell you- that she DID NOT have sex, or a desire to have it. To be the Mother of Jesus. However, like you they think everyone has this desire and right. Joseph gave up nothing, because he was married before. Mary gave up the natural union of marriage, just as her Son did. Get it now? By the way your caps are so silly.

For anyone who is not in a vow to God to be celibate, or is not Jesus or Mary, I say fine and dandy- because you are not fully God and Fully man.

You see, you miss where I was going here with this, and the tie in to Mary, and vocations…

But, don’t let me stop you from chastising me for believing Jesus did not have to be tempted by sexual needs as you imply.

The odd thing about catholics like you I meet, is you have no qualms about Mary being celibate, but heaven forbid Jesus ever could have been asexual.

The odd thing about Catholics LIKE ME???What on earth are you going on about?Yes Mary was celibate,that certainly did not make her asexual.Nor does Christ’s celibacy make Him asexual.My contention is that catholics like YOU de-emphasise Christ’s humanity to the point of negation.He humbled Himself to become one of us while in no way relinquishing His Divinty.Believe it or not but I’m sure that he had the full range of human emotions and physical reactions-occasionally He probably had bad breath.He eliminated bodily waste just like we do,etc,etc,etc.He wasn’t partly man and partly God.He was both!He wasn’t a pretend man or part-man.Why on earth would He have been asexual?HE CHOSE CHASTITY! I think that too many people think of Christ as a Holy card Jesus-Blond,blue-eyed impeccably groomed and vaguely effeminate I’m sure He was just as gritty as your average Nazarean carpenter.

 

[ATBAC]

I find that idea very interesting. Do you purport that God has genetic material and that He transmitted it through Mary to Christ?

That opens up all sorts of mind boggling questions, as I assume you are aware.

I didn’t mean it literally, and regardless why not? If He made us to have a genetic code, what would stop Him from having His own? This question is much like that of when some speculated that Christ might have been married to Mary Magdalene. To just show the parallel, I’d say God ordained the covenant of marriage for His children but He does not have the right to marry?! says who? I personally do not believe Christ was but even if He was it would not make any difference to me. To get back to this, I’d say He created us, with genes, and yet, He is somehow devoid of his own? the bible says He created us in His own image.

 

[Claire_from_DE]

Jesus was not affected by original sin as we are. His desire for sexual expression was easily under the control of his will as ours would have been if we didn’t have a fallen nature. He had a normal sexuality that was under the control of his will. He could see a beautiful woman and appreciate her but not be overwhelmed by the temptation to sin, nor could he ‘fall in love’ in the sense of being out of control of his emotions. He could have close relationships with women and men that were not sexual in nature. But he was a man and related to women as a masculine person, not as an asexual neuter. As for where his genes came from, God created them. He had a normal genetic makeup. Exactly how this happened is known to God alone.

Since Jesus said that a man would leave his father and mother and cleave to a wife and be one flesh with her, that was his take on a normal married relationship. This obviously indicated that the ‘normal’ man would be heterosexual. Since Jesus was a normal man, his inclinations would have been heterosexual (but under control of his will). He never indicated that he looked down on those whose inclinations were otherwise. However, Paul, who had been directly taught by Jesus after the encounter on the road to Damascus, preached against homosexual and lesbian actions, which he likened to idolatry.