Was Jesus Gay? No. Investigating the disciple whom Jesus loved

In the following post, I’ve decided to investigate claims that Jesus was gay and refute them. The claims are often made by atheists but there’s been even a few Christians who back the claims all based on a ridiculous argument that is easily refuted by a little research.

Normally, however, I find the claims are made mostly by anti-Christian atheists after being unable to continue with their vehement denial of the historical existence of Jesus when they encounter the historical evidence, so they jump onto the next band-wagon: character assassination.

Christianity forbids homosexuality and despite the continued growth of a progressive liberal Christianity, many Christians still hold the notion that homosexuality is wrong. The idea then that Jesus was gay would be quite blasphemous to the majority of Christians. Many anti-Christians and atheists, knowing this, often trout the nonsense that Jesus was gay in a pathetic attempt to either wind Christians up or as part of their crusade to “destroy” Christianity (something that internet atheism will never achieve), think this false fact will convert Christians.

I imagine half of those who promote this nonsense are simply trolling. I remember back in the days when I used YouTube, I encountered an atheist troll who had created a video on this very subject matter and although he is now suspended for his harassing and targeting of Christians (so all of his videos are removed) I still remember the argument in the video. The argument was as follows: The Gospel of John writes of the “disciple whom Jesus loved” ergo Jesus was in a homosexual relationship. Get wrecked Christians.

This is the major argument used by those who promote the “Jesus was gay” myth. In using it, its promoters express their down-right ignorance of the gospels and understanding of terms being used. Most of those who use this argument to say Jesus was gay, think the Gospel of John is referencing John himself, in fact there is nothing to suggest this and in fact the ending sentence of the gospel reveals this stating “This is the disciple who testifies to these things and who wrote them down. We know that his testimony is true” revealing it is the testimony of another person rather than the author. Some scholars have suggested the disciple to be James, the blood brother of Jesus. This makes sense as it would be odd for the author of John to reference himself in third person. This view is shared by the majority of Biblical scholars who believe the text of John went through two or more editions before reaching its current form.

Now the main argument used to back the claim that Jesus was gay, is that “the disciple whom Jesus loved” here is referring to some sort of relationship. The Gospel of John in fact claims that Jesus loves many people. In John 11:5 it is stated “…Jesus loved Martha, her sister and Lazarus” according to logic of the Jesus was gay argument we now have Jesus engaged in a bisexual incestuous three-way!

Putting this terrible reasoning aside and we simply see love here being used as a term to reference that Jesus cared about these people. We also have no reason to believe that the “beloved disciple” truly was beloved as a unique person by Jesus since no other gospel references anyone by this title. It seems more like that this term was being used here by the writer to put this disciple above all the others.

Another argument used to say Jesus was gay was that he had male followers (pretty much like any religious leader back in the day) ergo he was a homosexual. Get wrecked Christians and praise Dawkins (who himself mainly has male followers so I guess he must…uhh…be gay too).

This of course is another terrible argument and it is also untrue. Jesus was unique in having many female followers.

Mark 15:40-41 says the following:

“There were also some women looking on from a distance, among whom were Mary Magdalene, and Mary the mother of James the Less and Joses, and Salome. When He was in Galilee, they used to follow Him and minister to Him, and there were many other women who came up with Him.”

Luke 8:1-3 meanwhile declares that Jesus and his followers had women following them, “contributing to their support out of private means” so already we have a picture of a unique religious leader of his time to have many female followers who also contributed to his ministry.

In John 20:16, Mary calls Jesus “Rabbi” meaning teacher. Why would she call him teacher if he did not teach her as he did the 12 disciples?

In fact, after resurrecting, the first person Jesus revealed himself to was a woman: Mary Magdalene. In fact in the Gnostic Gospel of Philip, one verse has Jesus kiss Mary Magdalene. The passage, missing a few words is as follows:

"As for Wisdom who is called “the barren”, she is the mother [of the] angels. And the companion of the …] Mary Magdalene. … loved] her more than [all] the disciples [and used to] kiss her [often] on her …]. The rest of [the disciples…] They said to him, “Why do you love her more than all of us?” The Savior answered and said to them, “Why do I not love you like her? When a blind man and one who sees are both together in the darkness, they are no different from one another. When the light comes, then he who sees will see the light, and he who is blind will remain in darkness”

So if we were to have Jesus in a relationship with anyone, it would be with Mary Magdalene. Most scholars believe the following word after “kiss her often on her” was either hand or cheek, regardless, no gospel in or outside The Bible refers to Jesus kissing any of his male followers.

The Gospel of Philip corresponds with John in listing the three Marys as constant followers of Jesus.

“There were three who always walked with the Lord: Mary, his mother, and her sister, and Magdalene, the one who was called his companion. His sister and his mother and his companion were each a Mary.”

So the truth is, Jesus did have female followers and they were all important to him. Important enough that they are all named (the three Marys, Joanna, Martha, Susanna) and important enough that the first person he reveals his resurrected body to, is one of them: Mary Magdalene.

This part didn’t even need a refutation. If having male followers and friends make you gay then the whole world is gay including every single atheist public speaker who are often only seen procrastinating and interacting with other men at their atheist conventions. Jesus is unique for a religious leader of his time in that he did actually have female followers whom he interacted with and who followed him.

As for what the sexuality of Jesus really was? Probably asexual. There is only one instance of Jesus referencing sexuality and when he does this, he’s praising those who are born without sexual desires. This is found in Matthew 19:12:

“For there are eunuchs who were born that way from their mother’s womb; and there are eunuchs who were made eunuchs by men; and there are also eunuchs who made themselves eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. He who is able to accept this, let him accept it.”

Eunuchs were men who were castrated at a young age. Jesus however seems to be referring also to men who are also born without sexual desires as well as those who “make themselves” as such for the “kingdom of heaven” which is clearly referencing those who are celibate. Of course terms like asexuality didn’t exist back then and so Jesus used a term that was familiar to everyone, a term in reference to men whose duties as eunuchs led to them to forgo sex. Likely Jesus was born asexual or practiced celibacy to highly praise it. Also for someone who referenced his followers as actual family (Matthew 12:46-50), wouldn’t it be inappropriate for him to engage in sexual relations with them?

The picture we have of Jesus from the gospels in The Bible and the Gnostic gospels is of a man who loved all of his followers not as friends but as family. Loved when used in the New Testament here is not referring to a sexual relationship but a love far surpassing that.

Why did I bother writing a post on this and why does this subject matter? It matters because it’s important to know the truth about a person. Once one lie is accepted then many more can come to be so it’s best to refute them as they appear. Also to have Jesus as a person of any sexuality who was married or whatever, would contradict his status , his mission and his own words so it’s important to refute this misinformation and lies when they appear so people can have the real image of Jesus and who he was.


Apologetics often is.

The subforum to discuss computer games is here BTW: forums.catholic.com/forumdisplay.php?f=54

What does that mean?

Too long didn’t read. Begs the questions however of why bother posting that?

Amusing. The only answer needed as to whether or not Jesus was gay is “No.” The more words you use, the less clear you are, and you start getting into nonsense like claiming Jesus was asexual. It’s not productive.

I think John is simply adding in a bit of humor when he keeps saying “the disciple Jesus loved”. Its a bit of tongue in cheek that John was the most important.

Its a bit like when Mark adds in the line: “A young man was following him, wearing nothing but a linen [cloth]. They caught hold of him, but he left the linen [cloth] and ran off naked. (Mark 14:48-52)”. Some say this young man was Mark himself. This was a completely unnecessary line to add in, but would likely have made any readers and listeners of this part laugh (as it would today). This is why Mark added it in, for a light-hearted joke.

Gospel writers are allowed have a sense of humor too.

Well, it was long… And I skimmed most of it.

At what point did you determine that it was unnecessary or humorous?

Two different terms which did exist were the Greek words for “castrate” and “celibate.”
In Matthew 19:11-12 the author chose to use the Greek word for “castration” rather that the other, thereby implying that followers of Jesus might choose to castrate themselves.
ref: BAR vol 41, no. 3, pg 26, (Patterson)

Ugh, this is the most ridiculous argument put forth by atheist.

It is unnecessary because it is put in at such a tense moment in the Gospel - the arrest of Jesus. Its funny because, well, its funny. The idea of the servant catching the young mans clothes only to have them come off in his hand and the young man run off naked? Course it’s funny :slight_smile:

What’s this?

Check response #6 above. :slight_smile:

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.