Regarding my last post entitled, Should One Really Visit ‘The Shack’, with my mentioning of my dislike of the author’s use of a woman called Papa for God the Father, one of the commenters has apparently went off on a tangent concerning Christ and homosexuality. Thus, I have moved this out of context discussion to its own post.
The commenter begins his tale with, ‘Remember that Jebus was quite feminine: Long hair, soft features, likes to hang around with 12 (Or 13, if you include Judas) disciples, etc, gets chased around by a naked young man, etc. I am quite positive that Jesus is in fact gay. And it wouldn't be surprising for me if God actually is a woman.’
I cannot help but laugh as they have apparently bought into the Hollywood version of a Christ they have never seen nor placed faith in. Even paintings, such as some would call art, are merely the interpretations of a Christ man would have in their imagination. Isaiah declares, 'he hath no form nor comeliness; and when we shall see him, there is no beauty that we should desire him.' There is no reason for one to believe Christ was a man who held the appearance and characteristics of a woman.
The crutch of the commenter’s argument seems to be Mark 14, whereby he writes, ‘Mark 14:51-52 suggests a lewd appearance of a young man chasing after Jesus, which suggests that Jesus is either gay, or have certain attractive qualities which make him attractive to a gay,’ giving us the following points:
This could suggest a few things:
1. Jesus didn't disapprove of gays.
2. Jesus was gay (highly likely)
3. And if he was attractive to gays, he may be a bit of a girly like, since Jesus has always been portrayed as such since antiquity.
Although there is no mention or even a subtle hint of homosexuality anywhere within these verses, not to mention the entire chapter, the commenter reveals there is really no point to his argument but to somehow give credence to homosexuality by the misuse and misunderstanding of Scripture.
1. We know that Jesus did not approve of homosexuality, for we find that He is both God and the Word incarnate (John 1), and both God and the Word declare homosexuality to be both sin and against nature (Leviticus 18, Leviticus 20, Romans 1).
2. There is no evidence in Scripture or without that suggest Christ portrayed any type of homosexual tendencies or lifestyle. First you state, 'a lewd appearance of a young man chasing after Jesus, which suggests that Jesus is either gay.' Scripture declares 'there followed him a certain young man' not that the man was chasing after Jesus. There are countless assumptions we could make regarding the why the young man was dressed in a linen cloth or why the young man followed after Jesus, but the fact remains the act of the young man in no way declares the character or actions of Christ to be homosexual in any way. Again, feminine or homosexual paintings and imaginations of man of Christ and/or his disciples does in no way make such true concerning Christ or his disciples.
3. Second you state, 'or have certain attractive qualities which make him attractive to a gay,' which is even a more illogical argument. The definition of being homosexual is to have a desire for one of the same sex. Just as the lustful desire of a man toward a woman does not make the woman heterosexual, neither would the lust of a man toward a man make the man being lusted after homosexual. If you recall the story of Sodom and Gomorrah, there were two angels which visited the home of Lot. The men of the city lusted sinfully toward these men, and desired even to take them forcefully to do wickedly. It was not the angels, but the homosexuals of the city which did lust and 'burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly.'
You cannot blame Christ for the perversion of man, no matter how hard you try.