Talk:Sexuality and marital status of Jesus

God the Father, Holy Spirit, etc

Another thing is that Jesus is commonly believed to be hypostasis of the Holy Trinity, and in this perspective it makes as much sense to ask about the sexuality of Jesus than to ask about the sexuality of God the Father or the sexuality of the Holy Spirit. There are certain female saints that have reportedly fallen deeply in love with God the Father. The Holy Spirit, for his part, is often described as the spouse of the Blessed Virgin Mary because of his doctrinal role in the Incarnation of Jesus Christ on Earth. ADM (talk) 13:25, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Bride of Christ

While many maintain that the Church is the Bride this is far from the only interpretation. Yet this article makes it appeapopr as fact.--174.45.209.117 (talk) 16:27, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

There is a hymn, often attributed to the Baptist preacher John Leland, which appears to reverse the gender of the relationship, as it refers to the descent of Christ from heaven "as a comely bride adorn'd". --Haruo (talk) 02:55, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

Jesus being a Eunuch according to Tertullian

This is actually probably false as as in context, spado, which in most cases means eunuch, is generally translated as virgin as in here and a fuller explanation can be found here.

The original translation given in the notes is: Tertullian, On Monogamy, 3: “...He stands before you, if you are willing to copy him, as a voluntary spado (eunuch) in the flesh.” And elsewhere: "The Lord Himself opened the kingdom of heaven to eunuchs and He Himself lived as a eunuch. The apostle [Paul] also, following His example, made himself a eunuch..."

I added a bit to the reference to better explain it so a future editor can incorporate it into the article. DemonicInfluence (talk) 09:15, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Lead is argumentative

"The sexuality of Jesus has been portrayed in fiction, but the Letter to the Hebrews 4:15 states: 'We do not have a high priest who is unable to sympathize with our weaknesses, but who in every respect has been tempted as we are, yet without sin.' Most Christian denominations throughout history thus have maintained that Jesus remained celibate until his death. Interpretation of indirect evidence has produced widely varying theories of Jesus's sexuality."

So I hear an argumentative tone starting at the comma-spliced "but". "Thus" seems unjustified. "Maintained" (vs., say, "understood") seems a bit strong, since Christian teaching typically ignores the sexuality of Jesus. And how can any evidence be more "indirect" than a passage from the Letter to the Hebrews, whose unknown author seems temporally and culturally removed from any personal knowledge of Jesus, and is arguing a Christology? In short, not at all neutral or encyclopedic.

I've deliberately not revised, knowing how invested some may be on one side or other of the question. To my mind a better lead, with references as appropriate, might read:

No passage in the Christian scriptural canon unambiguously describes a sexual act or relation of Jesus (as distinct from his relatively few but telling remarks about sexuality). Jesus was explicitly argued to have been a lifelong celibate by some Church fathers, and this understanding entered tradition, although without much subsequent emphasis. Contrary speculation, sometimes arguing from scripture, has been documented since at least the sixteenth century CE, and includes a number of explicit fictional portrayals. Michael (talk) 05:25, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

I agree that the lead seems neither neutral or encyclopedic. Your proposal is an improvement at the very least, in my eyes. Guyfawkes972891 (talk) 04:18, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

Robert A. Gagnon

The source quoted here is a POV anti-gay activist:

http://www.robgagnon.net/homosexHateCrimePart3.htm

http://www.robgagnon.net/Index.html

as a POV partisan, this cannot be taken as an objective academic interpretation.

Please cite neutral, third-party scholars for this article.Ryoung122 23:09, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

I agree. Gagnon is not a credible source for anything. Contaldo80 (talk) 10:31, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

Hmm, then most of the sources provided don't qualify. Bob Goss is an LGBT rights activist, and Gene Robinson is the first openly gay bishop. --Dr. Bobbie Fox (talk) 12:17, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

In a precedent edition of the article, every "LGBT activist" were presented as such : "theologist and LGBT activist", "first openly gay priest", etc. But Robert A. Gagnon, like other anti-gay scholars that are quoted in this article, were just presented as "scholars", "theologists", "editor". I first added the "anti-LGBT activist" to be fair, but finally after some advice in the history of edits, I just deleted the parts that creates bias ("LGBT activist", "first openly gay priest").

But even now, I feel like the article isn't right. I think it's opinions vs opinions (eventhough I have my own on the subject) and isn't adding anything to the article.

The only bit I feel is relevant is the part where someone talks about how "agape" could be about (romantic) love, in response to an anti-LGBT scholar that says that the text isn't using "eros", meaning it couldn't be (romantic) love. Because that is the only part that discuss the actual text, translation and origin.

I think it would be best to stick to studies on the subject that are peer-reviewed, published and not edited by biased book editors or just parts of blog posts.

Or, if this part of "opinions vs opinions" is important in this article, maybe try to make a subheading introducing this is an "opinions about the subject", and adding context to every participant (including the LGBT people and allies & the anti-LGBT activists).

Maybe I'll give a try at it in the future, but I'm not a native english speaker so I'm not sure I'll get it right. 2A01:E0A:587:24B0:525:FD68:F64C:F003 (talk) 10:49, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

Who's 'neutral'? Who's 'third-party'? No one is independent my friend, Christ Himself said, "Whosoever is not with Me is against Me." (Luke 11:23) The whole existence of this page makes a mockery of the Lord and you will all be judged for it. I mean who're you kidding? 'The sexuality of Jesus'?...

Of course, because sexuality is evil, as everyone knows. Murder too, but sexuality... Joke. If Jesus was a man, no problem with sexuality. Mardochee1 (talk) 23:12, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

Work on article

Coming to this article fresh, I thought it would have been better if following the lead we had had a strong section on the celibacy of Jesus. He never married (pretty unusual for a rabbi), but furthermore preached an urgency about the coming of the Kingdom of God which made little time for personal relationships. This model was important for subsequent generations of Christians. Then we should move onto whether he had romantic or sexual relationships with others. I guess Mary Magdalene should come first, as it's the most well-known (thanks to Dan Brown), and then have a little on possible same-sex relationships. This would include the Beloved Disciple. And I disagree strongly that there couple of paras here we have are WP:UNDUE. That forgets that there is a whole article elsewhere on the relationship with Mary Magdalene! Contaldo80 (talk) 10:31, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

• Alright, I've put a more general tag {{Unbalanced}}. I think the section on Beloved Disciple falls under WP:UNDUE since some of the sources are pretty hilarious: for instance, Gene Robinson's scandalous statement would be more at place in the article about Gene Robinson rather than one about Jesus; why don't we include a similar statement by Elton John then? And who can seriously take an assumption based on astrology? --Dr. Bobbie Fox (talk) 12:14, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

Gene Robinson is a senior member of the Christian clergy as I understood it - Bishop of New Hampshire. I think your comparison to Elton John is insulting and cheap. Contaldo80 (talk) 10:57, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

Does not the wedding at Cana not need discussing? I thought Jesus there is described as carrying out the typical responsibilities of a bridegroom? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.13.155.21 (talk) 09:51, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

Off topic

Extended content

Philosophical implications What about the philosophical implications of Jesus possibly being a homosexual and engaging in homosexual sexual intercourse (which might typically include Jesus performing oral sex on other males, receiving oral sex from other males, being anally penetrated by other males, anally penetrating other males, masturbating the erected penises of other males, and having his own erected penis masturbated by other males) - if Jesus possibly did these things then they can not hardly be considered "sinful." And there is this philosophical problem, that if these things are sinful, why are we able to mentally form an image of for example Jesus homosexually kneeling before another man and taking pleasure in moving his salivating mouth back and forth over the other man's fully erected penis, to the point of Jesus stimulating his male lover to an orgasm and swallowing semen? Since this envisioning effects a permanent affixation in our brains, it would render us irredeemably sinful for thinking it unless either it is no sin at all to picture this, or the image reflects reality (ie Jesus actually having enjoyed completing an act of oral sex on another man). This is a serious philosophical issue, even though it requires discussion of imagary that might discomfit some, to be discussed. DeguJohn (talk) 14:17, 3 May 2013 (UTC) This is not a forum for general discussion about the topic. Please limit discussion to improvement of this article. - SummerPhD (talk) 01:19, 4 May 2013 (UTC) Indeed, such 'philosophical implications' are not especially anything to do with the sexuality of Jesus, since the issue is identically raised if we claim as much as to any of many other figures for whom the image of homosexual activity would be shocking. The same arises in connection with inducing a Muslim to picture Mohammad in this way, or perhaps of a Mormon induced to so imagine Joseph Smith. DeistCosmos (talk) 20:54, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

Gay Jesus in medieval literature?

Does anyone else interpret this as suggesting he was gay??

Crist was a mayde, and shapen as a man,

And many a seint, sith that the world began,

Yet lived they ever in parfit chastitee,

I will envye no virginitee,

Lat hem be breed of pure whete sede,

And lat us wyves hoten barley-breed,

And yet with barley-breed, Mark telle can

Our Lord Jhesu refresshed many a man.

(Geoffrey Chaucer's Wife of Bath's Prologue) Walshie79 (talk) 00:10, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

Gospel of Jesus' Wife

Given that this has been more or less conclusively been shown to be a fraud, I've cut it out. Mangoe (talk) 15:28, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

"The disciple" section

Obviously we aren't going to be able to get rid of this, but since the verb in that is "ἠγάπα", surely we can find enough koine-reading bible scholars who can tell that the whole thing is bosh and a fringe idea. Mangoe (talk) 17:52, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

Contentious issues

– there are three contentious issues that are subject to an edit war and need to be addressed:

1. – should the sentence in the lead, "That has not prevented speculation about alternative and fringe theories of his sexuality." be changed to, "That has not prevented speculation about and research into alternative theories of his sexuality."?
2. – should the sentence, with citation, in the "Jewis background" section, "Jesus explicitly stated that he came "not to abolish, but to fulfill" Jewish law, and at his various trials, no one could testify that Jesus broke Jewish laws on sexuality.<ref>[http://www.usccb.org/bible/mt/5:17 Matthew 5:17]</ref><ref>[http://www.usccb.org/bible/mt/26:59 Matthew 26:59-60]</ref>" be deleted as theology?
3. – should the description of the Gospel of Phillip in the "Mary Magdalene" section as, "a very late book dating from around the third century which was rejected from inclusion in the Bible" be deleted as redundant?

– please respect that consensus must be reached before any further changes to these three issues are made - thanks - Epinoia (talk) 17:50, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

– I made two edits to the article based on the above concerns – 1. removed "on sexuality" from the sentence "no one could testify that Jesus broke Jewish laws on sexuality." as sexuality is not specifically mentioned in bible verses cited – also, WP:RSPSCRIPTURE might apply here as bible verses are cited without reliable secondary sources – 2. I added a wikilink for non canonical and shortened the sentence to "The non-canonical 3rd-century text Gospel of Philip" – please discuss here if anyone finds these changes unacceptable - thanks, Epinoia (talk) 16:04, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for eliminating the repetition in the Gospel of Philip reference. Brevity is generally good prose practice; the Wikipedia style guidelines do reinforce this. To the Jewish background, this is helpful only insofar it actually discusses the background; the Wikipedia style guidelines on topicality reinforce this as well. Even then, it ought to point out, as at least one other person noted on this page, that there was no rabbinical requirement for celibacy. The question of whether Jesus broke Jewish law raises strong reactions. Some, as seemingly the writer of this passage, argue that he did not while others argue that he did (healed on the Sabbath, permitted his disciples to pluck grain, had contact with the unclean, turned ritually impure water into wine etc.) This article isn't the place for that discussion and is not "background" as such in any event. Barring objection, then, I will delete the sentence "Jesus explicitly stated that he..." To "research," well, the article presents a broad range of theories from scholarly to popular to some that, in at least the opinion of this user, stretch imagination. I think adding "research" captures the full range and recognizes that this is the topic of both popular conversation and serious scholarship. Perhaps you disagree.Metanoia2019 (talk) 21:59, 31 May 2020 (UTC)Metanoia2019

Requested move 19 September 2024

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: moved. (closed by non-admin page mover) Frost 16:06, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

---

Sexuality of Jesus → Sexuality and marital status of Jesus – Sex and marriage do not have to be synonymous, and the article at points addresses one independent of the other; Marriage is even invoked by the lead before actual sexuality is. Orchastrattor (talk) 17:46, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

Support, it seems to make sense; both subjects are discussed in the article and they are certainly not the same thing. This title seems more appropriate based on the the article's contents. Piccco (talk) 12:13, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

Support per nom. Srnec (talk) 17:51, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

• Support per nom. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:05, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Depictions of Jesus

I reveerted an unsourced WP:BOLD statement, probably redundant, that Jesus is always ascribed a male body. This is so bluesky that is doesn't warrant inclusion - if it does it's because there are enough other depictions, with RS discussion of significance, to make inclusion worthwhile, in which case there so=hould be a sourcwe. Golikom (talk) 19:33, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

Both the ostentato source and circumcision article mention Christ's penis directly, it is necessary for the reader to understand the circumcision and ostentato. The sentence is summarizing the information already present in the other sources, its no different from leaving a lead sentence uncited. Orchastrattor (talk) 19:46, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

It's not necessary for the reader to understand those things, and statements in the body of the article need sources. Especially since the implication of the "almost" is that sometimes, however rarely, he's not male, which in this context is not true. Golikom (talk) 02:29, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

No, only statements likely to be challenged require verification, there is no rational reason for a reader to challenge a sentence summarizing a section with something the sources used for the rest of the section already verifiably presume as fact. Plenty of readers may also be unfamiliar with the distinction between the physical and divine Jesuses, or otherwise be unfamiliar with Christian theology, and therefore need the subject to be confirmed in this way before reading the rest of the section. Orchastrattor (talk) 04:52, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

Well this is challenging it isn't it.

The ostentato souce itself says the trend "reversed a Byzantine tendency to depict Christ as sexless" which counters this entire statement anyway. Golikom (talk) 05:37, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

The Byzantines obviously still thought of Jesus as male, the source just says they didn't depict his genitalia directly, you're being sophistic. Your challenge can't be taken in good faith if one comment you're saying his physical sex is so unanimous it shouldn't be mentioned and the next you're saying it's so controversial that a depiction not addressing it directly means it actually thinks he's female or something. Orchastrattor (talk) 15:09, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

Where did I say I changed my position? I just pointed out what the other source says, which is specifically that they depicted him as sexless, not just not showing his genetalia. You can't have it both ways, either this is so bluesky is doesn't need to be mentioned, or there are different depictions of him that mean you need a source that supports your statement. Golikom (talk) 15:27, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

I haven't looked further into the sources, because I didn't have a time, but I believe that the Byzantine depictions of Jesus without genitals might not have been only about depicting him as sexless, but more about modesty; or it could be both, but in this case the "sexless" body would be symbolic and a reference to his divine nature. Generally, in Byzantine iconography sexless bodies or male bodies without visible genitals is a somewhat common imagery, drawn like that mostly out of modesty or at times for symbolism. Whatever the case though, I don't think that avoiding to draw genitals to baby Jesus implies that the Byzantines did not think he (the historical Jesus) was actually male when it comes to his physical body. Piccco (talk) 18:19, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

If you haven't looked at the sources then your "I reckon" isn't worth much. Golikom (talk) 18:33, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

I'm speaking based on my prior experience with and general knowledge of Byzantine art. From what I see above the discussion was focused on a few sentenses from the sources like: "reversed a Byzantine tendency to depict Christ as sexless". However, this sentense alone doesn't say much, unless there is more discussion in the source which explains what a "sexless body" really means in the context of Byzantine art. Piccco (talk) 18:44, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

I read the source and, as I was expecting, the quick reference to the word "sexless" was taken out of context. The depiction of Christ as "sexless" (or with hidden private area) is just as symbolic as depicting exposed genitals, as the source clearly says. The whole text in general clearly speaks about artistic depictions of Christ. This has nothing to do with the actual physical body of the historical Jesus, whose male biological sex is not and never was a matter of any substantial debate. Piccco (talk) 20:30, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

Traditional understanding : a clarification needed

I wanted to know whether the traditional understanding of Jesus' celibacy extended until the time after the resurrection and up until the ascension. The intro sentence only mentioned the time up to his death. So I researched elsewhere and found that the traditional understanding was that he also remained a celibate during that last period. I extended the sentence to reflect this, but it got reverted and that was called vandalism with no justification. What have I done wrong ? Why can we not add this clarification about the traditional understanding ? 2A02:8429:D98A:8D01:D1CE:E130:EA4C:F84 (talk) 05:46, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

The lead is a summary of the information in the article, which makes no discussion of the information you're adding. If there's a significant enough sourced section added discussing his celibacy in the period of resurrection and ascension it might be worth adding to the lead, but there's nothing to support that now. Golikom (talk) 05:55, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

I believe that you are referring to this edit that added the phrase and resurrection, as well as until his ascension to lead sentence.

First, there was verification from a reliable source that states this. Putting your own conclusion in the article without this is original research, which is disallowed here. I invite you to read this latter English Wikipedia policy.

Second, as Golikom wrote, the lead is a summary of the article. That Manual of Style guideline can be found at MOS:LEAD.

Perhaps you could propose in a new talk page section a change from remained celibate until his death to remained celibate his entire life. This should be acceptable both to those who believe the existence of Jesus on earth ended in death & those who believe it ended with the ascension. Peaceray (talk) 14:32, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

Contentions that Jesus was Trans

See here, for example. There is, as well, of course, the possibility of Jesus having been a true hermaphrodite, with a penis-clitoris. Hyperbolick (talk) 22:48, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

Pretty much a text book example of WP:FRINGE Golikom (talk) 02:37, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

Yes, and? We cover fringe, we just cover it as fringe. Hyperbolick (talk) 03:53, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

I doubt there's enough serious discussion of it to warrant it. The source you cited fails as WP:BLOG. Golikom (talk) 04:18, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

The "it's a blog" you dismiss calls out an article in The Telegraph. Hyperbolick (talk) 09:19, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

Then cite the artcile, and not the blog. But even so there's not proper sigcov of this. The only discussion of note around this seems to be about this one sermon, and most of that by pretty breathless tabloid journalism, even in the Telegraph. Inclusion would pretty much be undue so far as I can see. Golikom (talk) 17:01, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

Golicom seems to be correct here. This indeed is a clear example of WP:FRINGE and, as it appears in the same source, it has attracted harsh criticism too. It's a WP:EXTREME concept that diverges significantly from mainstream theology of the dominant christian denominations, and the vast majority of christian denominations in general. It is well known that if we search, we can literally find a source for pretty much anything out there. Wikipedia says that verifiability of a piece of information doesn't automatically warrant inclusion. A source cannot be given WP:UNDUE amount of attention, or even any attention at all, depending on it's contents. This one, in particular, is just a fringe interpretation of a Renaissance painting by one theologian, which says pretty much nothing about the historical Jesus of the 1st century AD. Piccco (talk) 11:44, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

There are some sources about queer theology saying Jesus is travesti: Vista do “Jesus é travesti”: um olhar sobre a LGBTfobia em discurso polêmico no Instagram (uesc.br); Vista do CRISTONORMATIVIDADE: TENSÕES PERANTE A IMAGEM DE JESUS TRANS EM UMA SOCIEDADE HETERONORMATIVA (ufrj.br); Vista do Self news: a ficção que é a sua cara (uff.br). (The Gospel According to Jesus, Queen of Heaven). And Cambridge dean defends sermon that claimed Jesus had 'trans body' (nbcmontana.com) and Was Jesus Christ the First Transsexual?, Evangelical Focus. Androgyne (The Androgyny of Jesus - Virginia Ramey Mollenkott (virginiamollenkott.com), see also gender of God); omnigender (Was Jesus Gay? (vice.com), The Queer God - Marcella Althaus-Reid); intersex (Project MUSE - Sex Otherwise: Intersex, Christology, and the Maleness of Jesus (jhu.edu), Trans-Formed by the Spirit: How the Doctrine of Miraculous Conception Reveals Jesus to Be an Intersex Trans Man - Georgia Day, 2023 (sagepub.com), Sex difference in Christian theology: Male, female, and intersex in the image of God, Sex and uncertainty in the body of Christ: Intersex conditions and Christian theology, Intersex in Christ: ambiguous biology and the Gospel, The Kenosis of Unambiguous Sex in the Body of Christ: Intersex, Theology and Existing 'for the Other'). Web-julio (talk) 19:36, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

As it was mentioned above, all of these modern concepts are WP:FRINGE not only within mainstream christian theology of by the world's dominant christian denominations, but also among modern historians and other scholars who focus on the life of the real human historical Jesus. This discussion also appears to be outside of the article's scope which is sexuality and marital status, and not sex or gender, the main article of which is Gender of God and Gender of God in Christianity (even there, discussion generally appears to be WP:BALANCED, avoiding modern fringe ideas). Much more around these topics also exists in the templates Christianity and LGBTQ topics and Christianity and gender. Piccco (talk) 13:12, 15 October 2024 (UTC)