Was Jesus a sexual being?

[Politesse]

I feel it would have been mentioned in our extant texts if he were a eunuch, as that was an established class with a notorious social role in Roman/Jewish society. But if he was no eunuch, if he had testicles, then he was a "sexual being" with sexual urges and sexual expression, even if that sexuality was expressed as a preference for asexuality. That's a question of biology, not theology.

If Jesus was sinless, it was by choice, not by physiological disability. And I think that would be more meaningful anyway.

 

[Politesse]

On one hand, I think it would be fascinating to get info on Second Temple Era woodcraft, but on the other hand, I very much doubt that over billions of people would take the time to preserve such a text for thousands of years.

Oh yeah? The Freemasons may have some thoughts on that!

 

[Windwalker]

Earlier today I was thinking to myself: Does God have a sexual orientation?

God doesn't have genitalia. God doesn't reproduce sexually. God is Spirit.

However - what if we accept Jesus is God? Did (indeed, “does”) Jesus have a sexual orientation?

Even if you believe Jesus is God incarnate, that "incarnate" part means into a human body. Human's do have sexuality. So the "incarnation", or the human part, was sexual. Of course. Why not? He ate food and pooped too. Not often one imagines Jesus taking a dump, hey? But he surely would have. But you wouldn't say, God took a leak, or something like that.

I think he was asexual in the sense that he was not a sexual being - with urges, desires, drives

Like not ever feeling anger or jelously, or anything else that makes a human a human? Being "fully human" means all that stuff is there. To make Jesus a "perfect angel", also makes him not human.

First of all, he was free from sin - sexuality produces sin

No. Sexuality produces life. It's how we all are created. It's God's design for life. God commanded "be fruitful (have sex) and multiply". God does not command humans to sin. But he did command humans to have sex.

Secondly, there is no evidence he was married (which was the only legit way of being sexual in that time and place)

There is no evidence he wasn't.

Also, there is no evidence he ever had sexual/romantic feelings towards anyone

Actually, yes there is. Mary Magdalene.

What we be wrong with that?

Indeed I think if he was a sexual being that would have seriously undermined his ministry

Why? You think repressed romantic feelings wouldn't negatively impact him? That's the kind of thing that creates shadows in our psyches, which would definitely undermine his ministry.

I think he went to the cross as a virgin and was never in love or in a relationship

That's unfortunate. He died not ever knowing what human love was then.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

I just want to add that there's many people who feel naturally celibate and have no interest in sex or romantic relationships. There's nothing wrong with these people and they're not "missing out". I say this because I'm seeing a lot of posts implying that sexuality and having sex is an inherently fundamental part of the human experience, like breathing. It's not, not for everyone.

 

[Windwalker]

I just want to add that there's many people who feel naturally celibate and have no interest in sex or romantic relationships. There's nothing wrong with these people and they're not "missing out". I say this because I'm seeing a lot of posts implying that sexuality and having sex is an inherently fundamental part of the human experience, like breathing. It's not, not for everyone.

If you're referring to my comment, what I said was in response to Eddi saying this: "I think he went to the cross as a virgin and was never in love or in a relationship"

That's what I said was unfortunate that he died not knowing human love then - if that were true. You don't have to have sex, to know love or being in love relationships.

 

[Father Heathen]

How can lust/libido be a "sin" when it's a natural part of our instinct which compels us to breed, propagating the species?

Also, has anyone mentioned "The Secret Gospel of Mark", yet?

 

[Tambourine]

Is that true? Sex is a pleasant thing. It is perfectly normal and essential in married life at one stage. One of the four things that a man should do (Purusharthas - earn, have sex, live righteously and think of God). Would I feel lustful in eating ice cream?

Christianity, in its early stages, was strongly influenced by Hellenistic life philosophies such as Stoicism and Epicureanism, which essentially considered excessive pleasure a form of spiritual self harm (for different reasons depending on the philosophy), and by the Gnosis, which considered the physical world a 'fallen' one and physical pleasures therefore intrinsically suspect from a spiritual standpoint.

The early Christians, who were convinced at the time that the End of the World was right around the corner (these were times of a serious crisis for the Roman Empire after all) would drive these sentiments even further by condemning any form of pleasure that was not spiritual in nature.

Eventually they settled on a division between 'lesser' sins and stronger, 'mortal' sins, but Christian theology has long remained ambivalent - and in some cases, actively hostile - towards physical pleasure, and specifically human sexuality.

 

[PearlSeeker]

. A Jewish man in the 1st century unmarried at 30 is rather anathema.

These are simple facts in Hebrew tradition. If he was any kind of Rabbi he had an obligation to marry, and yes by the testimonies of the Gospels Jesus had brothers and sisters,

Celibacy in Judaism has existed (although as an exception) - Essenes, Therapeutae, Bannus, Simeon ben Azzai, John the Baptist, Jesus.

 

[shunyadragon]

Celibacy in Judaism has existed (although as an exception) - Essenes, Therapeutae, Bannus, Simeon ben Azzai, John the Baptist, Jesus.

Exception and unlikely.

 

[PearlSeeker]

Exception and unlikely.

Yes. Jesus was exceptional.

 

[shunyadragon]

Yes. Jesus was exceptional.

That is one point we agree on.

 

[sojourner]

Even if you believe Jesus is God incarnate, that "incarnate" part means into a human body. Human's do have sexuality. So the "incarnation", or the human part, was sexual. Of course. Why not? He ate food and pooped too. Not often one imagines Jesus taking a dump, hey? But he surely would have. But you wouldn't say, God took a leak, or something like that

I dunno... PMS is in the Bible.

 

[Windwalker]

I dunno... PMS is in the Bible.

Alright, you've got me there. Verse?

 

[sojourner]

Alright, you've got me there. Verse?

“...and Mary rose Joseph’s a** all the way to Bethlehem.”

 

[IndigoChild5559]

Earlier today I was thinking to myself: Does God have a sexual orientation?

My first thoughts: I don’t think he does as he is incorporeal

He is only a “he” by convention. Forget it and move on.

However - what if we accept Jesus is God? Did (indeed, “does”) Jesus have a sexual orientation?

He’d have had to, even if his orientation was “asexual”

I think he was asexual in the sense that he was not a sexual being - with urges, desires, drives

First of all, he was free from sin - sexuality produces sin

Secondly, there is no evidence he was married (which was the only legit way of being sexual in that time and place)

Also, there is no evidence he ever had sexual/romantic feelings towards anyone

So no, I don’t think Jesus was a sexual being

Indeed I think if he was a sexual being that would have seriously undermined his ministry

I think he went to the cross as a virgin and was never in love or in a relationship

As a Jew, I don't think Jesus was God, but rather was only a man. But even orthodox Christians will say he was fully man just as he was fully God. As he was fully man, he would have had to have had a sex drive.

I find it incredibly odd that as a Jew he was not married. In orthodoxy, a Jewish man is born to Torah, Marriage, and Good Deeds. I can only surmise that there was something about him that prevented him from being married, something that ruled this out for him. For example, if his genetalia were somehow malformed or had been damaged, he would have been prohibited from marrying. Something like that.

 

[Eddi]

As a Jew, I don't think Jesus was God, but rather was only a man. But even orthodox Christians will say he was fully man just as he was fully God. As he was fully man, he would have had to have had a sex drive.

I find it incredibly odd that as a Jew he was not married. In orthodoxy, a Jewish man is born to Torah, Marriage, and Good Deeds. I can only surmise that there was something about him that prevented him from being married, something that ruled this out for him. For example, if his genetalia were somehow malformed or had been damaged, he would have been prohibited from marrying. Something like that.

Or maybe this? - Poll: Intersex Jesus?

 

[Muffled]

Is that true? Sex is a pleasant thing. It is perfectly normal and essential in married life at one stage. One of the four things that a man should do (Purusharthas - earn, have sex, live righteously and think of God). Would I feel lustful in eating ice cream?

I believe sometimes I lust for ice cream but most of the time I just enjoy it. Probably what the person was thinking is that people have a God given need for sex. That isn't the same thing as lust.

 

[Muffled]

As a Jew, I don't think Jesus was God, but rather was only a man. But even orthodox Christians will say he was fully man just as he was fully God. As he was fully man, he would have had to have had a sex drive.

I find it incredibly odd that as a Jew he was not married. In orthodoxy, a Jewish man is born to Torah, Marriage, and Good Deeds. I can only surmise that there was something about him that prevented him from being married, something that ruled this out for him. For example, if his genetalia were somehow malformed or had been damaged, he would have been prohibited from marrying. Something like that.

I believe that is a case where your religion tells you to ignore the truth.

I am not sure what the Orthodox Christians say but certainly an early creed says that. It is probably from the passage that says He is a man like us but that is not solid proof of 100% humanity but simply enough on the basis of observation.

I believe He was always God first and Jewish second.

I believe that would only be if God felt he needed to go by men's rules.

My theory is that God engineered the body He would have to be without the sex drive.

 

[Muffled]

I just want to add that there's many people who feel naturally celibate and have no interest in sex or romantic relationships. There's nothing wrong with these people and they're not "missing out". I say this because I'm seeing a lot of posts implying that sexuality and having sex is an inherently fundamental part of the human experience, like breathing. It's not, not for everyone.

I believe I can say let's have nun of that. I believe the drive can be sublimated but that doesn't mean it isn't there. My question remains: Why have it if there is no need for it and it only gets in the way of fulfilling the mission?

 

[Aupmanyav]

Yeah, it can be sublimated. For example, the 'Digambar' (Lit. Sky clad) Jain monks. They have to go naked, walk thousands of miles (except in rainy season, they are not supposed to stay in one place for more than a specified number of days). They are not supposed to use any vehicle, otherwise their followers can easily arrange Rolls-Royce cars for their transportation. Jains are a rich, educated community in India. They would go to the house-holds of the laity completely naked. But their training makes them not to get excited.

Human sex drive is a complex phenomena. One may have more testosterone but the drive may be subdued. Another person may not have that much testosterone but may have more drive. One is related to body, the other is related to mind.

Here is about one such monk. See the absolute minimal things that they are supposed to carry. Just a receptacle for water (now metal but in olden days a water-gourd) and a broom to clean the place before they sit, so that they do not injure even an insect.