Really Bad Argument for Sin Celebration Month

Someone else made this argument and I’m going to offer refutations here because though it is full of nonsense, people are going to see it as something worthwhile. I’ve truncated some of the post for length sake, but I haven removed any of the main points.

I’m going to put the original in // and then give my response.

//1. The Beloved Disciple - The Gospel of John repeatedly singles out one male disciple as “the disciple whom Jesus loved.” He appears in several key scenes and is portrayed with an unusual degree of intimacy including reclining against Jesus at the Last Supper. There is an actual academic book, The Man Jesus Loved by Theodore Jennings, arguing that the Gospel of John can be read through a homoerotic lens. There are several others who claim the same conclusion. Jewish tradition already had a framework for describing intense male love (1 Samuel 18 uses almost identical language to John's beloved disciple passages). Jesus was steeped in that tradition.//

1. John refers to himself as “the beloved disciple.” “Love” doesn’t mean homoerotic love every time it’s used. That’s nonsense.

//2. Secret Gospel of Mark - A disputed text known as the Secret Gospel of Mark describes a close relationship between Jesus and a young man. The mysterious naked young man in Mark 14:51–52 has generated centuries of speculation because he appears only briefly, follows Jesus, and flees naked when seized. Some writers have connected this to theories about intimate male relationships around Jesus. The authenticity of the document is heavily contested, but its existence demonstrates that alternative understandings of Jesus’ relationships have been proposed for decades.//

2. A false gospel says Jesus had a secret relationship, and a bystander is mentioned as naked, that has nothing to do with Jesus or some secret relationship. None of this means Jesus is gay.

//3. Lazarus - John 11:3 says the sisters sent word "Lord, the one you love is sick," using phileo (personal affection). John 11:5 switches to agapao (the deeper love word) when describing Jesus' feeling for Lazarus specifically. So you have two love words used for one man in the same passage. Jesus deliberately waits two days before going to Lazarus. That agonized delay reads more like someone wrestling with grief over a person deeply loved than a teacher visiting a student. Lazarus's household is in Bethany, described as a place Jesus regularly retreated to. This wasn't a distant admired friend but someone Jesus returned to repeatedly. John 11:36, bystanders watching Jesus weep say "see how he loved him." That's external witness to the intensity of the relationship, not just the narrator's framing. Jesus weeps publicly at his tomb, which is notable given he rarely displays that kind of emotion. The intimacy with Lazarus is arguably more specific than the beloved disciple passages.//

3. Jesus loved Lazarus. Again, you have to assume every time the word “love” is used, it’s homoerotic love. There’s absolutely no indication of that. Different words for love doesn’t mean homoerotic love. In fact, you’re ignoring that the Greek word for love, eros, is *not* used. Eros is the word that is used for sexual-type love. And, eros is *never* used in the Bible.

//4. Judas - Judas chose a kiss as the identifying signal for the arresting soldiers, prearranging it in advance. For it to work as camouflage within the group, physical affection between Jesus and male disciples had to be unremarkable to those around him. If such a gesture were startling or out of character, it would have been a poor signal. The Greek word used is kataphileo, an intensified form meaning to kiss tenderly or warmly, not a routine formal greeting. The detail appears in three synoptic gospels, making it one of the better-attested moments in the passion narrative. That level of attestation actually makes it harder to dismiss than some of my other points I believe.//

4. Judas betrays Jesus with a kiss. Not even something Jesus does here, but suddenly a kiss is now homoerotic even though a kiss of greeting is absolutely normal and commonplace without homoerotic meaning whatsoever. Funny, this liar says that this is the strongest point except it’s actually the weakest point. If you make Judas’ kiss out to be erotic, then you have to assume that Paul wants people making out at church every time they see each other: Rom. 16:16; 1 Cor. 16:20; 2 Cor. 13:12; 1 Thess. 5:26; and 1 Pet. 5:14 — all use the same word for “kiss.” Really? We’re supposed to “greet one another with a holy makeout session.” No. This is nonsense.

//5. Jesus Never Married - Ok, celibacy wasn’t unheard of but Jesus lived in a culture where marriage was the norm for Jewish men, yet there is no record of a wife. Or even female interest. For someone who became one of the most documented religious figures in history, that absence is noteworthy. Jesus spent nearly all of his adult ministry surrounded by men. His closest relationships in the sources are overwhelmingly with male disciples, and no surviving text records him expressing romantic interest in a woman.//

5. Paul didn’t marry, was he gay too? Roman Catholic leadership doesn’t allow marriage, are they all gay too? Is everyone who’s not married gay? Nonsense. Jesus didn’t get married because that wasn’t part of His ministry. Jesus actually didn’t spend His ministry surrounded by men. In fact, He’s well known for interacting with women far more often and far more kindly than would have been socially acceptable then.

//6. The Centurion’s Servant - Some scholars have noted that the Greek word pais can carry meanings beyond simply “servant” and may, in certain contexts, refer to a young male companion. While not strictly a sexual word, it was routinely used in the context of same-sex relationships to refer to the younger, passive partner. While this interpretation remains controversial, Jesus offers help without any recorded moral condemnation. Scholars like Theodore Jennings and Tat-siong Benny Liew have argued this reading deserves consideration given the Hellenistic cultural context of Roman-occupied Judea.//

6. Jesus raised someone else’s servant, who might’ve been a sex slave, if squint and read into the text what you want to see, from the dead, therefore Jesus is gay? What? Who makes that stupid leap in logic. You’d have to either be a consummate moron or trying to force your view onto Jesus where that view doesn’t exist.

//7. Matthew 19 and the Eunuchs - The best for last. Jesus explicitly acknowledges that some people are born outside conventional sexuality and rather than condemning them, he holds them up as capable of a higher calling. The word matters here because ancient writers like Philo and rabbinic texts used born eunuch as a recognized category specifically describing men who were naturally disinclined toward women and attracted to men. This wasn't vague or metaphorical but a known social category that his audience would have understood. So when Jesus lists born eunuchs alongside those who opt out of marriage, he's referencing a recognizable group of men who didn't fit heterosexual norms and calling their lives spiritually valid!//

7. Best for last, my foot. Jesus is saying that some men are born eunuchs, therefore Jesus is gay? Again the gymnastics. Jesus is saying that some people are born unable to father children. Even if you take this as men being born disinclined toward women, that doesn’t mean that He’s encouraging homosexuality. Homosexual activity is directly and clearly forbidden both in the Old Testament and the New Testament. Opting out of marriage and procreation does *not* mean gay.

//Conclusion: The question is historically legitimate and dismissing it requires abandoning the same evidentiary standards used to accept everything else about Jesus.//

Dismissing these lies is easy. If you claim the Bible says what it doesn’t say, I can dismiss your conclusion easily.

This argument cherry-picks passages, ignores the rest of the Bible and reads into the text a meaning that the person wants to see, so it can conclude anything whether or not it’s actually there. Is any of this in the text? No. Well, the words are sometimes there, but again reading your own meaning into the text is different from actually reading what is there. This person has decided that when the Bible says, “love” or “kiss” and it’s mentioning a man, it’s homosexual/homoerotic love and kissing. Nothing could be further from the truth. Every culture, even many cultures today have very different styles of interaction between men and men and men and women. That doesn’t mean they’re gay.