Talk:Sexuality of Jesus/Archive 1

Debate
I like this article; it provides some the basic information without veering too much into any one POV, and has some nice potential for future expansion. However, don't you think that it's a little short and singularly focused to merit inclusion on the main Jesus Template? Unlike Race of Jesus, the debate over this issue seems to be a bit one-sided and simple. The "Topics related to Jesus" template is starting to get a bit too long in general; I'm thinking that soon we should start removing some of the more specific, focused items (like Race and Language) and just have them be linked to from Historical Jesus and Cultural and historical background of Jesus. Remember that this template is listed on numerous articles, and balancing them with the opening text is often a very tricky issue, especially in cases where another image or template is needed near the top. As such, we should strive to keep the template only as long as it absolutely must be, and remove anything that can possibly be subdivided under another article, especially if it's short and simple. -Silence 07:56, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
 * The template is not causing any errors in the article as of now. I say we keep it. We will still be able to choose to remove it if there is any need for in the future (inclusion of images, other templates, etc.). -- SoothingR(pour) 08:07, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Disagree. This article is a stub. We should link to the very best and very most large, major, and centrally important subjects through the Jesus Template, not just every new article-in-the-making that someone to show off on all the Jesus pages. There are already dozens of Jesus articles on Wikipedia that aren't linked to via the Jesus Template, because they don't meet the qualifications, and that's for the best. If anything, we should raise our standards to prevent people from adding trivial articles to the Template, not lower them. There have already been many complaints about using such large templates and thus preventing so many good articles from beginning with images, etc. The way to help fix that is to make the most efficient possible use of templates and article links, not shoving everything into one place until it becomes too huge of a problem to endure any longer. We should try to handle the Jesus Template in the best way possible, not just in whatever way "is not causing any errors". -Silence 08:26, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

Thiering citation etc.
User:Roy Brumback has twice removed the following passage with edit summaries stating that works of fiction should not be referenced in this page:


 * ... it has been suggested in some marginal scholarly works such as Jesus the Man and Holy Blood, Holy Grail, as well as in a number of popular fictional works, such as The Da Vinci Code and the Last Tempation of Christ, that Jesus married Mary Magdalene.

By all means rephrase the wording, but the justification for removal does not hold up. Firstly, two of the works given as examples are non-fiction (and notable, if only by their popularity). The other two are notable fictional works. Roy, I think you are misunderstanding both the purpose of this article as well as the purpose of references. The notion of Jesus and Mary Magdalene being lovers has been circulating widely for many years, and it would be ridiculous not to mention it here. Popular portrayals of Jesus's sexuality are well within the scope of the article — including those in the "pseudohistorical" gospels of the Christian bible such as the book of Matthew. Take a look at the race of Jesus article: how Jesus's race is portayed in fiction and art is as central a concern as trying to establish what race Jesus "really" was. Perhaps others could indicate whether they feel the removed paragraph (or a modified version of it) belongs in the article? --ntennis 07:12, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Ok, no reply from Roy but as he is continuing to edit the article I will assume he has read this and re-insert the paragraph in question. ntennis 11:06, 23 May 2006 (UTC)


 * The idea that Jesus was really an alien has been circulating for many years. Is that scholarly?  The purpose of the article is about Jesus' "real" sexuality, not fictional accounts of it.  If you wish article on "Fictional explorations of Jesus' sexuality" feel free to start it, but this is on real scholarship, not fiction.  And calling the gospels pseudohistorical is just your opinion.  I think some is fact and some not, but no one has ever shown what did or didn't really happen, and the books claim they did, so that's that.  And if you want crazy fiction about Jesus' sexuality, who are you messing with Dan Brown's weak conspriacy theories?  Why not go straight to the motherload of weird and cite something like Clive Barker's Imajica, where Jesus makes it with a trisexual being and then kills God?  Once again, I could write anything about Jesus in a fictional book.  Encyclopedia articles on real topics don't cite fiction as a source.  And in the Last Temptation Jesus does not have sex with Mary and marry her, Satan tempts him with that vision on the cross. User:Roy Brumback 21:24, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Have you read the Jesus article? You might like to remove the following sentence from that article: "A number of popular novels, such as The DaVinci Code, have also portrayed various ideas about Jesus." In fact, by your logic, you should remove the entire Jesus article except the "historicity" section. All the other accounts are based on "non-scholarly" semi-fictional or fictional sources, such as "life and teachings based on the Gospel", and "Religious perspectives on Jesus". You might also want to remove all the images on that page, as they are based on non-scholarly (artistic) imaginings of what Jesus might have looked like, and replace them with this forensic reconstruction: Image:RFJesus.jpg. Your notion that widespread popular portayals of a subject are not relevant is absurd. All the more so for subjects like Jesus, who is more than anything a cultural icon. ntennis 00:55, 24 May 2006 (UTC)


 * What? Yes, I have read the Jesus article, at least the latest one, and it is largely based on the gospels, as they are mostly the ONLY HISTORICAL SOURCE of info on Jesus, plus Tacitus and maybe Josephus and the early church fathers and Paul.  And once again, I don't buy your premise that the gospels are mostly false.  One can list fiction written about Jesus on the general Jesus page as the general Jesus article could cover in brief or link to in depth all aspects of the subject of Jesus, although one may not cite fiction as a source about Jesus' life.  And painting a guess at Jesus' image is a lot different then saying Jesus made it with Mary because Dan Brown says so.  And Jesus, as the vast majority of historians, Christian and otherwise, agree was a REAL human being, not just a cultural icon, and this article deals with the sexuality of the REAL Jesus.  As I said before, if you want a page on  the fictional Jesus' sexuality, go ahead and start it.--Roy Brumback 11:52, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Roy, while I agree with everything you say, I think it's ok to add maybe a little sectoin citing the alternative and fictional theories. There are such paragraphs sections for more recent historical persons too. Pictureuploader 11:59, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Would you exclude Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone from a discussion of Harry Potter because the text was a work of fiction?

Would you exclude mention of Et tu brute in Julius Caesar because they weren't Julius' real last words (which were Se ku teknon) but instead were invented by Shakespeare?

Would you ban James Bond from being mentioned by the SMERSH article simply because one (but not the other) is fiction?

Clinkophonist 23:25, 17 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Harry Potter? Are you kidding?  And once again, there are many fictional books on Jesus' sexuality.  Should we put them all in?  Clive Barker has him having sex with a trisexual interdimensional being in Imagica, should we have some info about theories of Jesus' trisexuality?  I'm voting no on that, and so no on all the other "fiction" sources.  And since the Gospel of Philip is already referenced, why do we need any fictional books that take that as their base?  User:Roy Brumback 9:47, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
 * If Clive Barker's book is a significant work, has sold tens of millions of copies, is in the top 10 bestsellers ever, has been made into a number one and very controversial film, and has been read by over 1/5 of americans, then it probably should be mentioned as well. Its all about notability, not how mad the idea is. Christianity was less notable for its first 300 years than Dan Brown's viewpoint is currently after only 5 or so. Clinkophonist 19:30, 23 June 2006 (UTC)


 * It was a bestseller, and has millions if not tens of millions of copies sold so far. It should not be included.  Fiction is fiction.  Is does not in any way bear on the issue of this article, the sexuality of the real Jesus.  Please tell me how anything in Da Vinci or Last Temptation bear on that subject, as they are not evidence, just stories people made up.  Roy Brumback  09:05, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
 * But they are not given as evidence, but as an example of popularity of a theory. Pictureuploader 09:15, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

User 205.188.116.131 and vandalism
User has recently been engaging in vandalism on several pages. See these diffs, for example:, , , and the most disturbing of all, these racist changes to the Martin Luther King page.

The user has also been changing things here, recently in tandem with. Typically they are changes intended to present a conservative Christian view as if they are "mainstream" scholarship. For example, "the mainstream stance on the subject is that he remained celibate until his death." With such a paucity of evidence, a determination that Jesus died a virgin is well beyond anything but speculation and faith! Other editors, please be careful of edits by this user — some of the changes are quite sneaky. ntennis 01:26, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Technically, it is speculation, but it is the speculation which the majority of scholars adhere to. So, it would seem to be the 'mainstream stance'. Not that this excuses the vandalism and racism of this user, but it would seem that the vast majority of scholars would agree on this. One might think otherwise from tuning into the specials on the History Channel... but Napoleon was on the mark when he said that "ten people who speak make more noise than ten thousand who are silent". The minority views ring that much louder when they are professed endlessly as truth by their few adherents, and by our media.--C.Logan 19:23, 20 April 2007 (UTC)


 * It is quite a stretch to implicate non-vandalistic edits with vandalism because they were done by the same IP (not registred user). They are not necessarily the same persons. In any case, vandalism should be fought where it occurs. BTW, inference from the sources is not speculation and some views indulge more in speculation than others. Str1977 (talk) 21:30, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Merge proposal
I think the article Homosexual readings of Jesus and John should be merged into the section "The belove disciple" as a) it has not enough substance to stand on its own, b) has a problematic title. Str1977 (talk) 13:50, 16 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Support - though I think there might be a need for some clarification in the section title.--C.Logan 14:53, 16 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Support - What is hold up...somebody be bold. -- SECisek (talk) 18:11, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Recent changes
I've been reverting some recent changes for the following reasons. Although many sections of the text cite the Bible as a source, the manner in which it is being used (exegetical) is inappropriate due to the fact that it is a primary source. Wikipedia requires secondary sources for a valid source in an instance such as this.

While interpretations may seem obvious to some, they may not seem the same to others, and this problem is exemplified when an editor begins to insert some theorizations or "could be" statements without citations to support them. As it stands, the vast majority of the text is uncited, and some claims are rather strong.

On that note, the source added to the relevant text after the first reversion was itself reverted is hardly sufficient, as it is placed at the end of the paragraph when it doesn't appear to support all of the text.

Finally, I severely question the notability of Pastor Don Milton's opinion. While the man surely provides reasons for his interpretations, they are still his own, and as an individual who does not appear to be a scholar in any relevant field who happens to espouse an extreme minority point of view which makes a strong assertion (that the NT allows the taking of multiple wives- a view at odds with the majority of scholarship and the beliefs of nearly all Christian denominations), the notability of his viewpoint would need a weighty amount of justification.

Therefore, in accordance with Wikipedia's requirement of "exceptional claims requiring exceptional sources" along with the policy of WP:UNDUE, it wouldn't seem reasonable to include his opinion (I do believe that policy limits the inclusion of extreme minority views to the articles of the individuals or organizations which espouse them). It's no better than any extreme opinion I could espouse on my own website- the rules exist so that not every extreme viewpoint is included just because it's out there.--C.Logan (talk) 01:35, 6 December 2007 (UTC)


 * That a person makes an arguably extreme point (that wasn't included in the artical) should not invalidate other points he makes. The points that are included are based on accepted translations so can not be considered extreme. The first edit on divorce is particularly relevant (and not one of milton's claims) as it is based entirely on the Bible mentions. Two passages say it is unacceptable at all and two that it is ok for sexual misconduct, a contradiction that is explained. Currently the artical only gives half the story. As for the second edit the conclusions are a rational view based on the translation of the original text and should not be discounted because it conflicts with modern dogma. Only the original text is considered inerrant and thus the authority not the later translations. If the translation is unclear then we have to accept the alternatives even if it is a minority. Wayne (talk) 03:33, 6 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Here is a novel idea. If the source is under dispute, but the content is believed to be notable and even a common interpretation, then it shouldn't be hard to find a less controversial source making the same claims. So I suggest that perhaps we find a more reliable source to use for these claims. I think this would satisfy both parties. C.Logan's concerns regarding the reliability of the sourcing would be addressed while WLRoss's concern regarding including the content would be addressed. The only foreseeable bump in this idea is if we cannot find a more reliable source making these claims (and if that is the case, then perhaps the content isn't appropriate for wikipedia after all). -Andrew c [talk] 16:09, 6 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I agree with Andrew c. Also note, WLRoss, that the rules on Wikipedia dictate that primary sources like the Bible are not sufficient as sources unless you are simply saying with no slant, judgment or interpretation what the text says.


 * Much of what was added in your edits goes beyond this, and for statements like these sources are needed. Sources are required for all claims, regardless of whether or not they are perceived as being in tune with the text or with the orthodox position. I recall reading on policy/guidelines pages that we're supposed to act as robots, merely repeating the text found in sources (paraphrasing is fine, of course- the analogy isn't so extreme). Therefore, statements such as the one regarding Jesus' conflict with the OT view on divorce should be sourced as well.


 * Regarding Milton; again, as I've noted, he isn't a scholar. His views on certain things are extreme; the fact of the matter is that while the text concerns divorce, marriage is a naturally closely related concept and therefore it places some concern as to how far Milton is from the mainstream.


 * Obviously, in cases like this it's better to find a more reliable source that reinforces the view. Milton isn't a scholar, so it would be good to find someone who was (surely there is someone out there who can be cited). It may seem inconvenient, but it's only necessary to preserve the integrity of the information on the encyclopedia.--C.Logan (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 22:21, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Allegation that Jesus was a "lover of boys"
The Fishman Affidavit which alleges that Jesus was a pederast is disputed by the Church: "Jackson and Pattinson agree that the Fishman Affidavit does not accurately reflect the course the church presently offers." [] Furthermore, the source stating that the Fishman Affidavit is authentic and therefore, Jesus is a pederast, is a personal web page and thus not a reliable source per Wiki standards. Mysteryquest (talk) 02:06, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Explicitly
We cannot neutrally deny that certain passages may implicitly indicate that Jesus was sexual, especially when many do believe implicit indications of His homosexuality are present in the Bible. Implicit meanings are inherently subjective. --AnotherSolipsist (talk) 16:02, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Grammar in Title
I would just like to point out that it should be "Jesus's sexuality", not "Jesus' sexuality". The apostrophe by itself is for a plural subject, but an apostrophe with a "s" is used in the singular form. This is probably one of the most commonly made mistakes in the English language.


 * Actually, according to many style manuals, Ancient names that end in "s" do not need "'s" but just an apostrophe. See just as an example.-Andrew c [talk] 12:42, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Section "Jesus on sexuality"
This section has a problem, we cannot interpret from primary sources as per Wikipedia guideline: "Primary sources — writings on or about a topic by key figures of the topic — may be allowable, but should be restricted to purely descriptive explanations of the subject or its core concepts. They should not be used for interpretation or evaluation; use the interpretations and evaluations of reliable secondary sources for that purpose."

The reference in this section is "Matthew 5:27-5:28", which is primary. I will be removing this section. If any editor can get a reliable secondary source talking about this, we can have it. Thanks vineeth (talk) 05:29, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

The section "The beloved disciple" also has similar problems, As per the guideline, we cannot interpret from the primary source ("John 3:16"), I will be marking this section as Original research., -- vineeth (talk) 05:41, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Mary Magdalene as the Beloved Disciple
It's probably worth mentioning in the article that some revisionist scholars have identified Mary Magdalene with the Beloved Disciple (this is discussed in Disciple whom Jesus loved). -- 201.37.230.43 (talk) 02:01, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Move to "Sexuality of Jesus" and "Sexuality of Adolf Hitler"
Move Parsecboy (talk) 16:22, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Move is proposed to align these two articles with the others in Category:Sexuality of individuals. Of the six articles and one redirect currently in place, three were named "Sexuality of Foo", I moved Baden-Powell's article to match and created and categorized the redirect. This naming format is clear and concise and it avoids the issue noted above of deciding whether to apostrophize or not. Otto4711 (talk) 18:13, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't see any reason to object.   Will Beback    talk    18:32, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
 * No reason to object to the move. John Carter (talk) 16:07, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

recent controversial edits
An anonymous IP editor has persisted in several controversial edits, importantly, to reject any indication that scholars disagree with Gagnon in Gagnon's wild claim that "no serious scholar" thinks something; it's perfectly reasonable--and not OR or synthesis--to simply cite scholars who have said exactly that. Indeed, Gagnon is not really a reliable source in the first place and it is unreasonable to have him without any of his critics. Likewise, the reference from Jaganath is being removed. And, the observation by Kelly et. al., that the opposition to Gene Robinson's position may have something to do with a problem about engaging fully with the humanity of Jesus. Before the anonymous editor repeats these controversial edits, they need to be discussed in accord with the bold-revert-discuss procedure. He made the bold changes, they were reverted with careful edit comments after thought; now it's time for the discussion. Tb (talk) 06:05, 15 April 2009 (UTC)


 * "scholars disagree with Gagnon" none of the listed persons used are demonstrably "scholars" and more importantly they do not even talk about the topic of the quote.
 * "Likewise, the reference from Jaganath" what place does this person have here, who is he and why are we using text that is not supported by the reference given? 19:40, 15 April 2009 (UTC)  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.162.211.193 (talk)


 * Also "Gagnon's wild claim" is supported by the salon article, that you removed. 172.162.211.193 (talk) 19:43, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
 * There seems to be some confusion about which man said what and the text about "Gene Robinson's position" was stuck in under a different persons ideas (note that this is a different Robinson and you removed the text from its proper location the last time) I will return it to its proper location. There seems to be a bit of laxness in the construction of this article with sources being used that do not support the text and text that does not represent in a balanced way the sources used. 172.162.211.193 (talk) 19:50, 15 April 2009 (UTC)


 * It is not appropriate to restore your changes while we are discussing. I've reverted them until we reach consensus.
 * Because you are using a new IP address every time, it is difficult to keep track of your changes. Can you please create an account?
 * Toadt and Kincaid have certainly challenged Gagnon, but it may be incorrect to refer to him as a theologian or biblical scholar. He is a good source for those looking for the challenge, however. We should continue to reference them, but it may be better not to identify them as theologians or biblical scholars: Walter Wink is unquestionably an important theologian and biblical scholar, and Edward Campbell is a retired professor at one of the Presbyterian Church's major seminaries. Your comment sounds as a result as if you are simply unaware of their importance.
 * All the authors concerned do, in fact, criticize Gagnon's methodology as the article claims.
 * Jagannath is a writer who gives a nuanced view, instead of the polar opposites that most of the other folks do.
 * The conservative critics in the confusing Kelly sentence are critics of Bishop Gene Robinson, who famously suggested what the article already says about him, and Kelly is indeed attacking specifically those views, in the terms the article says.
 * Goss's views are well-known, and the Slate article accurately reports them; there is no reason to say "according to Slate, Goss says..."; we can just say, "Goss says..." and take the Slate article as an accurate source for Goss's words.
 * You cite the interviewer's question to Goss as if it proved something, and as if Goss has no response. The question says nothing about the subject of the article; it's a conversational interview.
 * I object to the very presence of Gagnon here. As a compromise position, I would be willing to drop the sources you dislike, with the exception of Walter Wink, for which a better text can be found which would help the article, and also drop Gagnon.
 * And, once again, it is not appropriate for you to insist on making controversial changes; Wikipedia works by consensus and there is, at this point, no consensus for the changes you wish to make. Let's see if we can work together to improve the article. Tb (talk) 21:24, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and pruned the back-and-forth which was generating nearly all the controversy. I think what remains is a good article--much better than before. Tb (talk) 21:59, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

back-and-forth sources
Much has centered in the past on the idea that we must have a back-and-forth between conservatives and others, each trying to have the article or a section end with "their" point of view. Not so good. The result has been a spate of questionable sources, from Gagnon to one-off web articles, and the like. Much stems from two particular questions: Neither of these are good questions for this article. This article is not going to solve the dispute, and it is inappropriate for this article to try and convince the reader how best to understand the Greek words. Better, a reference to Greek words for love, and we don't need any back-and-forth about whether "enough" people have held a given view. Tb (talk) 21:46, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
 * How should we translate eros and phileo and agapao?
 * Have "reputable scholars" held view X or not?

Sexual orientation
If this article is about sexual orientation, then it should perhaps be renamed accordingly, because the word sexuality can often be synonymous with gender, i.e. male sex or female sex. ADM (talk) 13:51, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Female saints
Also, regarding sexual orientation, additional information should probably be added on the spiritual relationship that Jesus allegedly had with female mystics in the Middle Ages, such as Clare of Assisi and Rita of Cascia. If there is any truth behind the stories of women falling mystically in love with Jesus, then the article would have to be changed in order to indicate that Jesus was certainly not gay. As a general rule though, it is not really possible to have a sexuality when your are theologically without sin, and completely celibate like a eunuch.

Bride of Christ
A related concept is the notion of bride of Christ, or Sponsa Christi, which is a title that has been given to the Christian Church throughout the ages. ADM (talk) 13:52, 11 September 2009 (UTC)