How homosexuals blaspheme Christ
Dr Keith Sharpe, an Anglican and author of the book "The Gay Gospel", believes that there is evidence in the Bible that Jesus may have been gay. As a self-declared homosexual he offends Almighty God and defies God's own description of homosexuality as an 'abomination' that sends unrepentant homosexuals to hell.
Sharpe's 4Thought TV claim, that Christ loved John erotically, is blasphemous and theologically stupid, but it must be answered. The claim is not new, but it remains just as foul.
Outrageously, homosexuals use this text to infer that Jesus and John were homosexual lovers! The verse says:
"Now there was leaning on Jesus' bosom one of his disciples, whom Jesus loved."
The stupidity of homosexuals who try to pervert scripture as well as their own selves, is found in their total disregard for, and ignorance of, the words used in scripture. We are told that Jesus loved the disciple. Anyone with an ounce of understanding of koine Greek knows that the word 'love' and 'loved' can be one of a number of words, and that there are specific, different words for sexual love. The word used in this verse is not one of them. The word used is agapaō. It means to be very fond of, and to be pleased with someone or something.
Men can thus 'love' other men as they do their brothers. It is NOT the same as erotic love! To claim otherwise is to completely ride roughshod over genuine Bible interpretation and a normal use of words.
The other error is to assume that the disciple simply laid on Jesus' chest for a longish period of time. This misunderstands what happened – it was the custom to lay on cushions at a low table, when eating (anakeimai). Thus, the disciple just put his head on Jesus after hearing awful news, in much the same way as one would touch the shoulder in reassurance. Another fact is that the same word, kolpos, can also mean the 'bosom of a garment'...the upper part of Jesus' clothing.
John was also said to be 'lying' on Jesus' breast. This uses a different word - epipiptō. It means to fall upon, to catch Jesus, as one would do when holding both arms. It can also mean to lay on. In both instances the action was one of suddenness, when faced with a disturbing surprise. The apostles had been with Jesus for three years. They knew His amazing deific power. They heard His remarkable words and saw the miracles. No wonder they loved Him (as a brother and Lord). Now, suddenly, He told them that one of the group would betray Him!
These men knew Jesus to be God! There was no sexual content at all in their actions. And, there was no way that Jesus, being God, would be hypocritical about the Father's attitude towards the evil of homosexuality.
How the loved disciple and Peter responded to Jesus' news was typical of the semitic peoples. When David cried, those around him also cried. In those days men would fall upon others in grief. It was a normal expression of their emotions... not of sex. Daniel was a man who was "greatly beloved". When Jesus was troubled by the coming betrayal by Judas, His apostles were also troubled. Hence, the placing of the head on the chest. It was a straightforward act of concern, and typical of that era's way of showing emotion, nothing more!
It is repulsive of homosexuals to turn what is plainly a picture of concern into something homo-erotic/sexual! It is a terrible assassination attack on the Son of God. Today, a man can hold the hand of another man, when he is filled with compassion. As a nurse I had no problem holding the hand of a dying man. When John leaned on Jesus' chest, his head was very close anyway - both were in a leaning position because of the meal. The act showed real concern and genuine human (not erotic) love for Jesus.
I can only advise readers to ignore everything said by homosexuals who claim to be 'Christian' and who find homosexuality in scripture where there is none: their sole interest in life is perverse sex and everything is defined as sexual. The same people ignore the upfront verses telling them that God condemns homosexuality outright, as a plague upon any nation. And they ignore the very simple fact that Jesus is God, and if God condemns homosexuality, the Son would definitely not accept it, and especially not be part of its eroticism. As always, homosexuals twist scripture to suit their wicked intentions.
The answer to Sharpe's horrendous question is – yes, it is wrong for a bishop to be openly gay... and it is wrong, too, to be gay at all. For an Anglican priest not to know this is a shame on his mind and heart, and a shame on the Anglican church which allows gay priests to offices of any kind.