1067
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] bstix@feddit.dk 2 points 8 months ago

I remember reading about how investigations into the translations of the Bible support the gay Jesus. (Disclaimer I'm not gay, so I have no affiliated interest in promoting gayness, I just find it historically interesting).

"Washing feet" was a actually a mistranslation of some kind of general "servicing" that had several meanings, including cock sucking or accepting being bottom. Jesus "washed a lot of feet", but one thing is certain: It didn't mean literally washing feet. That part was definitely made up according to the people who looked into it.

Anyway, it's been thousands of years and learning of how cultures and acceptance of certain things can change rapidly, I wouldn't be surprised.

Keep in mind that Romans were also at war with the Greek shortly before the alleged time of Jesus. We know that the ancient Greeks practiced gay sex not just casually, but even expectedly. The Romans did not. The empire had an expansion strategy that looked a lot like the Nazis Third Reich: Expansion by breeding.

Personally I find it likely that historical Jesus was killed for a whole lot of other reasons than for claiming to be the king of Jews or for betrayal of the state, and he sure as fuck did not die "for our sins".

[-] kromem@lemmy.world 3 points 8 months ago

We know that the ancient Greeks practiced gay sex not just casually, but even expectedly. The Romans did not.

Huh? The Romans were even more extreme with it. The Greeks would court young boys coming of age with a lengthy courting ritual that involved a lot of focus on consent - the Romans were straight up castrating prepubescent children to preserve their femininity.

In fact, it's probable that the "marriage is between a man and a woman" in the NT was an anachronistic reactionary response to gay marriage having become a legitimate Roman institution in the 60s CE following Nero marrying two men, first playing the role of the bride and then the role of the husband (the latter time with someone who had been castrated when prepubescent).

Even before the empire there were rules related to homosexual senators losing their voting rights if they were the bottom, and they weren't likely to create a rule for something that didn't happen.

So I'm not sure where you get the idea Rome didn't have homosexuality.

"Washing feet" was a actually a mistranslation of some kind of general "servicing" that had several meanings, including cock sucking or accepting being bottom.

I'd really need to see a source for this claim, as it sounds extremely spurious. There's a lot of literature around Christianity that claims secret coded language use, but generally they are all quite ridiculous claims.

While 'feet' or 'thigh' as words sometimes have euphemistic meaning for genitals, I'm unaware of any idiomatic use of "washing feet" as reference to sex. You can see some related discussion about the OT usage of a similar phrasing/theory here.

this post was submitted on 06 Mar 2024
1067 points (98.8% liked)

Comic Strips

12655 readers
1504 users here now

Comic Strips is a community for those who love comic stories.

The rules are simple:

Web of links

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS