Observer, Observer, Observer,

Once again:

From Professors Crossan and Watts' book, Who is Jesus??

"That Jesus was crucified under Pontius Pilate, as the Creed states, is as certain as anything historical can ever be.

“ The Jewish historian, Josephus and the pagan historian Tacitus both agree that Jesus was executed by order of the Roman governor of Judea. And is very hard to imagine that Jesus' followers would have invented such a story unless it indeed happened.
WaPo blog blocked this paragraph for some reason “While the brute fact that of Jesus' death by crucifixion is historically certain, however, those detailed narratives in our present gospels are much more problematic. "

“My best historical reconstruction would be something like this. Jesus was arrested during the Passover festival, most likely in response to his action in the Temple. Those who were closest to him ran away for their own safety.

I do not presume that there were any high-level confrontations between Caiaphas and Pilate and Herod Antipas either about Jesus or with Jesus. No doubt they would have agreed before the festival that fast action was to be taken against any disturbance and that a few examples by crucifixion might be especially useful at the outset. And I doubt very much if Jewish police or Roman soldiers needed to go too far up the chain of command in handling a Galilean peasant like Jesus. It is hard for us to imagine the casual brutality with which Jesus was probably taken and executed. All those "last week" details in our gospels, as distinct from the brute facts just mentioned, are prophecy turned into history, rather than history remembered."

See Professor Crossan's reviews of the existence of Jesus in his other books especially, The Historical Jesus and also Excavating Jesus (with Professor Jonathan Reed doing the archeology discussion).

Other NT exegetes to include members of the Jesus Seminar and a number of On Faith panelists (Professors Crossan, Borg, Fredriksen, Wright, Pagels, and Armstrong) have published similar books with appropriate supporting references.

See also Wikipedia's review on the historical Jesus to include the Tacitus' reference to the crucifixion of Jesus.

From ask.com,

"One of the greatest historians of ancient Rome, Cornelius Tacitus is a primary source for much of what is known about life the first and second centuries after the life of Jesus. His most famous works, Histories and Annals, exist in fragmentary form, though many of his earlier writings were lost to time. Tacitus is known for being generally reliable (if somewhat biased toward what he saw as Roman immorality) and for having a uniquely direct (if not blunt) writing style."

The following information should be sent to each Catholic in the world. There is more evidence for the existence of the Tooth Fairy than there is for jesus christ and it is wiser to place teeth under pillows than swing censors and build statues.

Observer, Observer, Observer,

Again:

Based on the analyses of many NT and historic Jesus exegetes, ~70% of the NT has been judged to be not from the historic Jesus. i.e.

http://wiki.faithfutures.org/index.php/Works_Cited

and

http://www.faithfutures.org/Jesus/Crossan2.rtf .

It is time to give the OT and the Tanakh an analogous "historic correction".

mhoust- just to add, on that last love they G-d thing. It's a Jewish thing actually. But then Jesus was a rabbi. Just being nit-picky. It was a really nice post :-) and I really agree- why do we have to identify him in any particular way? I mean other than historically, would it make his teachings any less if we found definitive proof he had an affair with a man? Or a child with Mary Magdalene? I don't think so. That would be like declaring Shakespearean sonnets are garbage once you found out some of them were written to a young man (as some were).

CCNL, Bagel,

Bagel: Round, doughy, donut shaped with hole in the middle. High in fat with little nutritional value.

Ergo, CCNL is an example of a bagel.

Roles like a bagel
Is digested like a bagel
Produces waste like a bagel

CCNL writes: "In any case the OT has to go."

As per blogger Farnaz, enlightened Christians, Catholics, etc. There is no OT. Only a distorted reading and translation of another people's text. Per Edward Said, the sine qua non of imperialism is the theft of another people's culture and an explanation of its culture by the imperialist theives. (Also, Farnaz's analysis)

In any case, Bagel, you have no right to the Tanakh. According to the NT anyone who believes in Jesus will be saved regardless of what he has done. anyone else will be damned. (Just lovely.)

Bagel, I agree that you as a catholic have no right to the Tanakh. In any case, Bagel, the NT has to go.

As per many NT and historical Jesus exegetes:

Jesus was an illiterate Jewish peasant/carpenter/ simple preacher man who suffered from hallucinations and who has been characterized anywhere from the Messiah from Nazareth to a mythical character from mythical Nazareth to a mamzer from Nazareth (Professor Bruce Chilton, in his book Rabbi Jesus). Analyses of Jesus’ life by many contemporary NT scholars (e.g. Professors Crossan, Borg and Fredriksen, On Faith panelists) via the NT and related documents have concluded that only about 30% of Jesus' sayings and ways noted in the NT were authentic. The rest being embellishments (e.g. miracles)/hallucinations made/had by the NT authors to impress various Christian, Jewish and Pagan sects.

The 30% of the NT that is "authentic Jesus" like everything in life was borrowed/plagiarized and/or improved from those who came before. In Jesus' case, it was the ways and sayings of the Babylonians, Greeks, Persians, Egyptians, Hittites, Canaanites, OT, John the Baptizer and possibly the ways and sayings of traveling Greek Cynics.
http://wiki.faithfutures.org/index.php/Works_Cited

For added "pizzazz", Catholic/Christian theologians divided god the singularity into three persons and invented atonement as an added guilt trip for the "pew people" to go along with this trinity of overseers. By doing so, they made god the padre into god the "filicider".

Current crises:

Pedophiliac priests, atonement theology and original sin!!!!

Luther, Calvin, Joe Smith, Henry VIII, Wesley et al, founders of Christian-based religions, also suffered from the belief in/hallucinations of "pretty wingie thingie" visits and "prophecies" for profits analogous to the myths of Catholicism (resurrections, apparitions, ascensions and immaculate conceptions).

Current crises:

Adulterous preachers, "propheteering/ profiteering" evangelicals and atonement theology.

Come on people.

Jesus was a remote descendent of King David. Don't make too big a deal out of that. Otherwise that would be like saying my kids are the chosen descendents of Richard Warren of the Mayflower. He was a jewish man and the son of a carpenter. If he did any work for Joseph while he was growing up, it's pretty damn likely that he was robust physically.

Although it's not mentioned in the Bible, and it seems like most christians think all of his teachings were divinely inspired out of thin air, there is reason to beleive that he was a well-educated man in multiple religious teachings of his day. So it seems obvious that his mom and dad were able to trade on some family reputation (and wealth) to get him admitted to that day, age, and place's equivalent of college and graduate school.

If he truely was like a man in all things, then he definately wasn't a virgin; and probably was married. His comments about setting aside family to follow him does strike an interesting chord in that he may have chosen to be at least physically separated from his wife and family.

During his years of his ministry, he walked long distances, and alternated living fairly austerely on the road with respectable dining with friends and acquaintences in towns.

So we have a strong, enduring, muscular but spare, well-educated, semi-aristocratic jewish man running around consorting with the untouchables of his day and teaching philosopy to anyone who would hear him.

If you have to interpret him as gay, or a woman, or a fanatic aesthetic, or a non-sexual drone, I suggest you are missing the entire point.

Jesus said to love God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind and with all your strength; and to love your neighbor as yourself.

Can't get more simple than that.

Observer, Observer, Observer,

Hmmm, not orthodox Jewish? Are you sure??

Walks like a duck and quacks like a duck then?

The OT must go whether you are or are not!!!!

CCNL, Bagel:

Observer, Observer, Observer,

Unfortunately, you just cannot get past your 3 B Syndrome i.e. Bred, Born and Brainwashed in orthodox Judaism. Accepting the mythical nature of most of the OT as has been done by many Conservative Jews and their rabbis is a quick cure. It also will go a long way in correcting the flaws and errors of the NT and koran because OT myths are so heavily used in these books of myth and embellishments.

HUH? Orthodox Judaism? Are you insane? (Don't answer.) You know very well I'm not Jewish, have never been, am a self-liberated former christian.

Too bad you can't say the same for your benighted self.

That said, CCNL, Bagel,

Too late to take back Joshua. You've posted on his God aided adventures endlessly all over this blog. If you go back on your testimony now, you'll appear psychotic (in contrast to how you generally seem).

More from Mumbai doctors on the work of your Joshua and God inspired murderers of Jews.

"The other doctor, who had also conducted the post-mortem of the victims, said: 'Of all the bodies, the Israeli victims bore the maximum torture marks. It was clear that they were killed on the 26th itself. It was obvious that they were tied up and tortured before they were killed. It was so bad that I do not want to go over the details even in my head again,' he said.

Corroborating the doctors' claims about torture was the information that the Intelligence Bureau had about the terror plan. 'During his interrogation, Ajmal Kamal said they were specifically asked to target the foreigners, especially the Israelis,' an IB source said."

http://worldnews.about.com/b/2008/12/02/signs-of-torture-on-mumbai-victims-especially-israelis.htm

Funny thing is, most of them weren't Israeli. God and Joshua must have misled you folks

Observer, Observer, Observer,

Unfortunately, you just cannot get past your 3 B Syndrome i.e. Bred, Born and Brainwashed in orthodox Judaism. Accepting the mythical nature of most of the OT as has been done by many Conservative Jews and their rabbis is a quick cure. It also will go a long way in correcting the flaws and errors of the NT and koran because OT myths are so heavily used in these books of myth and embellishments.

CCNL, Bagel,

Too late to take back Joshua. You've posted on his God aided adventures endlessly all over this blog. If you go back on your testimony now, you'll appear psychotic (in contrast to how you generally seem).

More from Mumbai doctors on the work of your Joshua and God inspired murderers of Jews.

"The other doctor, who had also conducted the post-mortem of the victims, said: 'Of all the bodies, the Israeli victims bore the maximum torture marks. It was clear that they were killed on the 26th itself. It was obvious that they were tied up and tortured before they were killed. It was so bad that I do not want to go over the details even in my head again,' he said.

Corroborating the doctors' claims about torture was the information that the Intelligence Bureau had about the terror plan. 'During his interrogation, Ajmal Kamal said they were specifically asked to target the foreigners, especially the Israelis,' an IB source said."

http://worldnews.about.com/b/2008/12/02/signs-of-torture-on-mumbai-victims-especially-israelis.htm

Funny thing is, most of them weren't Israeli. God and Joshua must have misled you folks.

Ah, contraire Observer, the OT effect on terror will remain until it is thoroughly "Crossanized".

Again:

Many of the 1.5 million Conservative Jews and their rabbis have already "Crossanized" Judaism i.e. almost 10% of the Jewish global population have come to realize that the OT is mostly myth, myths that have had in many cases tragic consequences since the OT forms the bases of both the NT and koran.

To wit:

"New York Times
ARTS & IDEAS/CULTURAL DESK | March 9, 2002
New Torah For Modern Minds
By MICHAEL MASSING (NYT) http://query.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=F20E1EFE35540C7A8CDDAA0894DA404482

New Torah For Modern Minds

Abraham, the Jewish patriarch, probably never existed. Nor did Moses. The entire Exodus story as recounted in the Bible probably never occurred. The same is true of the tumbling of the walls of Jericho. And David, far from being the fearless king who built Jerusalem into a mighty capital, was more likely a provincial leader whose reputation was later magnified to provide a rallying point for a fledgling nation.

Such startling propositions -- the product of findings by archaeologists digging in Israel and its environs over the last 25 years -- have gained wide acceptance among non-Orthodox rabbis. But there has been no attempt to disseminate these ideas or to discuss them with the laity -- until now.

The United Synagogue of Conservative Judaism, which represents the 1.5 million Conservative Jews in the United States, has just issued a new Torah and commentary, the first for Conservatives in more than 60 years. Called ''Etz Hayim'' (''Tree of Life'' in Hebrew), it offers an interpretation that incorporates the latest findings from archaeology, philology, anthropology and the study of ancient cultures. To the editors who worked on the book, it represents one of the boldest efforts ever to introduce into the religious mainstream a view of the Bible as a human rather than divine document."

Religious art belongs to religious people?? Which religious people? The South African whites who were outraged at the idea of a black Jesus? Muslims who don't want Mohamed depicted - as if anyone knew what he looked like? Which art? Which religion? Which people?

Why would Jesus's sexual proclivities even occur to us Catholics - we were taught that Jesus, the offspring of egg and spirit, was celibate throughout his life on earth, so we can't really object to gayness any more than to Jesus Christ Superstar's love of Mary the Magdalene.

Liberal Catholics get as goofy as the only Tridentine Mass loyalists, trying to be fair but not too fair; reasonable but not too flexible; liberal but not too far from middle-aged.

When the Church Fathers purged women from Christ's priesthood and discipleship, they left - Protestant and Catholic alike - a homo-social Jesus and Apostles. The sublimation in art and life over the millenia have been remarkable.

Give t up: Jesus was as likely to be gay as blonde.

CCNL, Bagel,

Too late to take back Joshua. You've posted on his God aided adventures endlessly all over this blog. If you go back on your testimony now, you'll appear psychotic (in contrast to how you generally seem).

More from Mumbai doctors on the work of your Joshua and God inspired murderers of Jews.

"The other doctor, who had also conducted the post-mortem of the victims, said: 'Of all the bodies, the Israeli victims bore the maximum torture marks. It was clear that they were killed on the 26th itself. It was obvious that they were tied up and tortured before they were killed. It was so bad that I do not want to go over the details even in my head again,' he said.

Corroborating the doctors' claims about torture was the information that the Intelligence Bureau had about the terror plan. 'During his interrogation, Ajmal Kamal said they were specifically asked to target the foreigners, especially the Israelis,' an IB source said."

http://worldnews.about.com/b/2008/12/02/signs-of-torture-on-mumbai-victims-especially-israelis.htm

Funny thing is, most of them weren't Israeli. God and Joshua must have misled you folks.

Jesus once said that blasphemy against God and Jesus is forgivable. Blasphemy against the Holy Spirit is not forgiven. My guess is that Jesus could care less about how he is represented.

I can't believe so many are taking this and the entire religion scam seriously!

csintala79- the exhortation against images has to do with idolatry (no graven images before me). Not ego or respect for images. that explains the early aversion you speak of in Protestantism. Jewish art never used to depict human images because of that (although there are animals despite the golden calf thing).

Mr. Stevens-Arroyo put the personal spin on art that uses religious images for its message because he objects to it but this is not related to the biblical injunction.

After reading this, the Muslim's prohibition on the use of images in art, at least that of religious figures, makes sense. As you say, the way the image is presented says more about the artist than the subject; "it [is] profanation of a religious image out of personal vanity." When a group depicts Christ, for example, as having their physical attributes, are they venerating Him, or are they producing propaganda extolling their special and particular connection, i.e., presenting themselves as the Chosen? In short, religious art basically is a product of vanity and egoism, and, as the Muslims say, blasphemy. Interestingly, many early Protestants were not comfortable with religious images.

A gay Jesus could not partake of His own Table in a Catholic Church but he might find a lot of priests interested in him.

oh jezus mother maria why not a gay jezus?? in the vatican at present we have a dude named pope that in his youth used to belong to the nazi hitler jugend and now runs around in full san francisco queeny drag 24/7 ! i ask you readers of wapo do we have a great country or not? so lets all have a mary xmas and remember that religion poisons everyone it touches!

I don't ever want to read this jerk again. In Poland, Jesus is Polish. In Nigeria, he's Black. In Navajo culture he's a dark-skinned, earth-loving warrior.

But apparently in Gay America he can never be queer. That offends "believers' sensibilities." But Gay people are believers too.

Stop claiming the Catholic faith as the exclusive property of heterosexuals!

Many of the 1.5 million Conservative Jews and their rabbis have already "Crossanized" Judaism i.e. almost 10% of the Jewish global population have come to realize that the OT is mostly myth, myths that have had in many cases tragic consequences since the OT forms the bases of both the NT and koran.

To wit:

"New York Times
ARTS & IDEAS/CULTURAL DESK | March 9, 2002
New Torah For Modern Minds
By MICHAEL MASSING (NYT) http://query.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=F20E1EFE35540C7A8CDDAA0894DA404482

New Torah For Modern Minds

Abraham, the Jewish patriarch, probably never existed. Nor did Moses. The entire Exodus story as recounted in the Bible probably never occurred. The same is true of the tumbling of the walls of Jericho. And David, far from being the fearless king who built Jerusalem into a mighty capital, was more likely a provincial leader whose reputation was later magnified to provide a rallying point for a fledgling nation.

Such startling propositions -- the product of findings by archaeologists digging in Israel and its environs over the last 25 years -- have gained wide acceptance among non-Orthodox rabbis. But there has been no attempt to disseminate these ideas or to discuss them with the laity -- until now.

The United Synagogue of Conservative Judaism, which represents the 1.5 million Conservative Jews in the United States, has just issued a new Torah and commentary, the first for Conservatives in more than 60 years. Called ''Etz Hayim'' (''Tree of Life'' in Hebrew), it offers an interpretation that incorporates the latest findings from archaeology, philology, anthropology and the study of ancient cultures. To the editors who worked on the book, it represents one of the boldest efforts ever to introduce into the religious mainstream a view of the Bible as a human rather than divine document."

CCNL, Bagel,

Too late to take back Joshua. You've posted on his God aided adventures endlessly all over this blog. If you go back on your testimony now, you'll appear psychotic (in contrast to how you generally seem).

More from Mumbai doctors on the work of your Joshua and God inspired murderers of Jews.

"The other doctor, who had also conducted the post-mortem of the victims, said: 'Of all the bodies, the Israeli victims bore the maximum torture marks. It was clear that they were killed on the 26th itself. It was obvious that they were tied up and tortured before they were killed. It was so bad that I do not want to go over the details even in my head again,' he said.

Corroborating the doctors' claims about torture was the information that the Intelligence Bureau had about the terror plan. 'During his interrogation, Ajmal Kamal said they were specifically asked to target the foreigners, especially the Israelis,' an IB source said."

http://worldnews.about.com/b/2008/12/02/signs-of-torture-on-mumbai-victims-especially-israelis.htm

Funny thing is, most of them weren't Israeli. God and Joshua must have misled you folks.

Oh ccnl? You refer to the blowing of our own horns? Or bringing down walls? frankly I have never heard anyone use Jericho as anything other than the theme for a song and a few sermons. People believe a lot of things and act on them- not all are from the bible. If you're trying to make some kind of rational argument for non-sectarianism , this isn't it.

There is a difference between trying to learn as much as can be known about Jesus by modern standards of historical research, and trying to bend an authority figure to suit your predispositions.

Then there is the possibility that Jesus was God and man, in which case either Protestant or Catholic or Orthodox orthodoxy best describes what is the case.

In any case, the shabbiest participant in the debate will be the one who has a favorite issue which colors their interpretations of all evidence: "I'm a woman with a right to control my reproductive decisions"; "I'm a gay man".

The only thing we'll learn from all these debates is that everyone who participates in them believes that a being named "Jesus" gives divine authorization to their point of view.

Once we've put all of that behind us, we can ask whether or not Christianity is worthy of belief, in a serious way.

The Jewish atrocities "committed" in Jericho etc., were as per many OT exegetes mythical since the walls never came tumbling down from the blasts of Joshua's band. Unfortunately and tragically, the story is still believed and the example followed by many Jews, Christians and Moslems.

And that is why an "official Crossanization" of the OT, NT and koran is so very important.

It would also end the speculation that the simple preacher man was gay.

"In other words, the dung image actually praised Mary, albeit filtered through a culture disrespected by Gotham's ex-mayor. "

And Mr. Stevens-Arroyo, the name of our city is NOT Gotham- it's the City of New York. Considering how uch you got out of living here, a little respect on your part would be nice.

"McNally's gay man or the woman dressed like Guadalupe would have little artistic worth without the attendant subversion of other people's religious symbols. Making yourself into the image and likeness of God or of His Holy Mother is idolatrous:"

Idolatry is the worship of images. you have little understanding of the intent of the artist since you reduce their intent to egomania, or assuming they desire to be worshiped. You're also assuming ownership of religious symbols on the part of churches- in fact some of these artists are Christian and using the powerful symbology of religion to comment on its role in society and often its hypocrisy. But religions don't like being held up to a mirror so of course you argue against their artistic expression and their freedom of speech.

The central problem with the propriety argument is that it is just wrong. If Jesus in fact ever exist as a physical entity that walked this planet very little information was persevered about him. Even with we accept the Bible as literally true we know virtually nothing about him apart from a few miracles and the sermon on the mount.

We know even less about Mary who is barely mentioned in the bible beyond the story of Jesus's birth.

All other details about Jesus and Mary were filled in later, sometimes hundreds of years later by people who had no more knowledge and certainly much less knowledge about Jesus and Mary than the gospel writers did.

So these details were filled in by other sources. Those other sources where almost exclusively qualities and stories attributed other gods and religious figures.

This is why there hundreds of Mary of's. All most all of whose stories are remarkably similar to the Goddess worshiped in the area previous to Catholic dominance.

The reality is that Jesus and Mary are in the public domain both literary and spiritually and have been sense before the Gospels where written down. They can be separated from the shared western and world culture.

It is ironic that conservatives often demand a return to the classics. But nothing more than classics as the author himself points out support the concept of plastic image of the Jesus and Mary.

The Catholic church may have a large investment in the Jesus and Mary brands, but they certainly don't own them. The church's development of their stories has always been a collaboration with those who don't share their faith. In fact nothing could be more Catholic than importing aspects of contemporary culture into the Jesus and Mary narratives. It is how Catholicism vanquished and replaced virtually all the religious of earth.

Anthony,

Is God anti-Semitic? Seems like yours has been after Jews for a long time. The links below will take you to three reports in the last few years: the first commissioned by the United States government, the second by the English, the third by the EU:

England:
Report of the All-party Inquiry into Anti-semitism
http://www.thepcaa.org/Report.pdf
_________________________

US Report on Anti-semitism
http://www.state.gov/documents/organization/102301.pdf

_______________________
EU Report on Antisemitism 2001-2007: Updated 2008

http://fra.europa.eu/fra/index.php?fuseaction=content.dsp_cat_content&catid=449677441f3f3

EU report: widely held that some incendiary information was suppressed.

Mr. Stevens-Arroyo,

This essay brings further into focus for me the question of the 'humanizing' of God so to make him more relevant to our lives. I say "our lives" on a collective level, although it is true individually as you made clear in some of your examples.

"It is part of a tendency for believers to view Jesus through the lens of our own experiences."
"...Christ has been depicted as a blond and as a black, as battered and glorious, tender and terrifying."
"Pope Pius V (1566-1572), for example, wanted to put clothing on some of Michelangelo's statues in the Vatican...

Your "Material Theology" is essential for a human mind to simplify, (and by so doing) minimize and humanize God. We make God 'someone' with understandable (to us) traits, imperfections, foibles, as well as divine attributes, so that we can comprehend It,and so have a relationship with It. Make him HIM.
It makes sense. How else could we possible get our heads and hearts around the immensity that MUST BE God, and comprehend that with our human minds? Yet, does that not weaken God, in our eyes?

And if God is Everything, would It not also be what the artists are depicting? Otherwise God is limited in form and expression. At what point does one say "That is not God"? If He is black and then brown and then blond, effete, Ramboesque, soft, bleeding.... but NOT gay. Not liberal. Not...
Perhaps it is just in the flavor of the present day that we color God, so that we can better understand and relate to That Immensity.

Thank you for your article.
Justin

captn_ahab:

"Or perhaps making God into man and giving him a mother is in itself idolatrous. Perhaps, that's why they call it Roman Catholicism."

Kinda makes sense now that you mention it. Guess the Protestants should also be called Roman, though.

Could be why I left the church. Romans never did it for me, although I like Italian wines.

Or perhaps making God into man and giving him a mother is in itself idolatrous. Perhaps, that's why they call it Roman Catholicism.

"As if any more disturbing details about the Mumbai massacre could emerge, it's now being reported that many of the victims were also tortured -- and no one more so than the Israelis killed in the Chabad house. DEBKAfile reports that Rivka Holtzberg, wife of the center's rabbi, Gavriel, was also six months pregnant, and that the toddler rescued from the house by his Indian nanny bore bruises indicating that the captors had beaten him."

http://worldnews.about.com/b/2008/12/02/signs-of-torture-on-mumbai-victims-especially-israelis.htm

Hello Judy-in-TX:

I liked your post and what you had to say. Thanks for your input. You ended with this:

"Mr. Stevens-Arroyo:
Can't we find any Catholic issues to discuss other than issues related to sexual misbehavior?
Or is that all you can dredge up to discuss?
There are so many issues of theology and community service and philosophy that I can think of which would make for good discussions."

Can't say I have been around for long, this time around. But recent posts by Stevens-Arroyo can be found at the bottom right of this page under 'Recent Posts', and you may see that he is not spending too much time dialoguing sexual misbehavior. Not too much at all. :-)

VIRGIN12:
"How can Catholic priests who are all homosexual and NOT real represent God because God is real?"
==
Virg:
You know that for a fact, do you?
That "Catholic priests ... are all homosexual"?
Before you slander people, you'd be well advised to do some homework.
I live in the buckle of the Bible Belt.
Last year, a court rendered a $5M judgment against the local Council of the Assemblies of God, because the leadership transferred a youth minister who abused youngsters from one church to the other repeatedly.
Some youth ministers of local Baptist churches were also caught sexually abusing the young.
Another local community church was absolutely fractured by the criminal behavior of the son-in-law of a church leader toward youngsters, including his own children.
The man, out on bond, continues to practice medicine locally.
(Personally, I wouldn't allow the bum to touch me.)
So does that mean every minister of a Baptist church or a community inter-faith church or every Catholic priest or every doctor deserves to be so tarred with the sins of a few reprobates that they are automatically assumed to be privately indulging in the same abhorrent and illegal practices as the few?
Virg, grow up.
Just because the author of this play claims he is a Catholic and uses a Latin title for the play doesn't make this "Catholic" art.
This reminds me of the so-called "art" (removed after protests ensued) of a crucifix in a bottle of urine displayed in New York City several years ago.
This same bigoted attitude puts me in mind of the days, years ago, when after graduating from college, but without a marketable skill, I considered joining the Navy to become a Navy nurse.
One of my friends told me if I ever wanted to marry and have children, I'd better forget about joining military service because she considered all women who served in the military were lesbians.
In this country, we simply need to step back and remove the 2-x-4 out of our own bigotry before we cast any aspersions on others.
That includes the sad religious persecution of gays in our society.
I don't condone how they live; but their choice does not have the slightest impact on my legal status as a married woman, on my marriage or on our community, since the few gay couples I do know live quiet, peaceful lives without calling attention to their lifestyle.
Mr. Stevens-Arroyo:
Can't we find any Catholic issues to discuss other than issues related to sexual misbehavior?
Or is that all you can dredge up to discuss?
There are so many issues of theology and community service and philosophy that I can think of which would make for good discussions.

Was Jesus a-sexual?
That seems to be the Christian belief.
Did he exist at all?
That is the Christian belief.

Whatever. At this point, he is a cultural symbol that is in the public domain.

As such, artists and essayists and Joe the Plumber are free to speculate on his nature, recast his image in their own likeness, critique the use of his image to reinforce the power structures of society (such as heterosexuality).

Catholics do NOT own the image of Jesus any more than Unitarians or Atheists do.

We all have the right to risk offending our fellow humans with our free speech (unless we are drawing Islamic Cartoons in Denmark).

I wonder how the Islamic world would have reacted had the subject been Mohammed...?

PARIS1969

You wrote, "Jesus was not God" and "His message carries his contribution to the world higher than any label we might assign to him."

If Jesus is not God, then what is "His Message"?

It is not a "label" that we assigned to Him but what He flat out said about Himself, that He Is God, "I and the Father are One", "If you have seen Me, you have seen the Father" among many other statements that He made, that is why He was called a blasphemer.

Either Jesus is God in the flesh, just like He said, and that Jesus is not only a messenger but The Message or His "Message" is totally meaningless.

We are all sons and daughters of God and by God becoming One of us, God is not only our Creator but is also our Brother, no matter what "label" we apply to ourself.

As I have said numerous times, God is a searcher of hearts and minds not of religious affiliations or lack thereof and it is important what one does and why one does it and what one knows.

God's Plan is unfolding before our very eyes and part of God's Plan was to become One of us and God's Plan is for ALL OF HUMANITY to be with Him in His Kingdom which is the new heavens and the new earth on the seventh day.

Take care, be ready.

Sincerely, Thomas Paul Moses Baum.

One of the functions of art is to be controversial. To question, to look at the world differently. religion is part of that. When you say religious art belongs to the believers, what you really mean is that religious imagery should be sacrosanct- and yet, it's not. there is no property ownership of imagery or symbolism. religion, whether you are a believer or not has affected every aspect of our lives and history.

Why shouldn't an artist have the right to question it and rethink its meaning? religious people take offense anytime aspects of their faith are questioned. It's seen as an insult for artists to look at how it affects the world. If religion were so benevolent, the would be no need- but one can hardly claim that in light of history and the present day.

And then there is freedom of speech. Artists have that right, as well as believers. Isn't it the utmost hypocrisy to let churches and religious organizations claim freedom of speech in order to impact the policies of this country, as well as the lives of those, such as gays, but cry foul when artists turn the tables and comment on them?

many would be offended if Jesus wasn't seen as a virile heterosexual and look just like Tab Hunter...

The simple preacher man had too many girl friends to be a gay type. And no attestations even close to living a life of "yuckiness"!!! Being male though, "wet dreams" must have been part of his manhood. Hmmm, I wonder who he dreamed about???

Anthony M. Stevens-Arroyo

You wrote, " Making yourself into the image and likeness of God or of His Holy Mother is idolatrous: definitely not a Catholic thing to do.".

We cannot make ourself into the Image and Likeness of God, God already has, hasn't He?

Page one by the way, it seems like quite a few people who call themselves "Christian", do not like page one, well even if someone wishes to tear out page one, it is good to remember, God hasn't torn out page one.

Also, by the way, that is ALL OF HUMANITY is made in God's Image which is LOVE since God is a BEING OF PURE LOVE.

Take care, be ready.

Sincerely, Thomas Paul Moses Baum.

Jesus was not God ... he was "a son of God" as are we all. The Bible statement was changed to make him a deity instead of just one of the greatest figures in history.
Who cares if someone thinks he was gay? His message carries his contribution to the world higher than any label we might assign to him.

Why is it Catholic art? Why is it worth attention? Apparently the playwright is Catholic and the fact that the play exists makes it art. But it seems like prolonging the controversy is the art part: the columns are outlasting the production cycle. Is there some sort of bone- fides-merit-badge thing going on with the commentariat compelling them to keep this thing alive? Did ticket prices go to the level of The Producers? Did Catholics turn gay after watching it? Did Christians start condemning Christ? Has the Pentagon started building a Broadway Buster bomb? I missed that part.

Bonkers, just totally bonkers.

Interesting article, but I don't agree with your idea of "property rights" for religious art. Art about characters or ideas that are connected with a religion is not necessarily religious art - it's entirely possible to have a secular response. Secondly, religion has profoundly affected many non-believers. Those individuals are certainly entitled to their own artistic interpretation of the experience. Going back to your opener, "Corpus Christi's" portrayal of Jesus as gay is quite likely a pointed commentary about the Catholic Church's ponderous influence on secular homosexuality. I haven't seen the play, but I believe you may have missed the point.

Jesus was a Jewish Man first. Read the book of Exodus. Jewish Men are not gay like catholic priests. It is a sin and abomonation to be homosexual. By Jewish standards, homosexuals are not real in the eyes of God. How can catholic priests who are all homosexual and NOT real represent God because God is real? What they do is called projection in psychological terms, that is, seeing traits or characteristics in someone else when those traits are in themselves.

I've always found the de-sexing of Jesus and his relatives to be somewhat odd. Jesus was supposed to be fully human, to experience human life, and somehow he missed out on sex? Given that growing up there were not a lot of teenaged boys his age (they were killed, right?) so the local honeys would have been really tempting him. Same with Mary - she was a married women (and Jesus had brothers) and somehow she never had sex with her husband after Jesus was born? Seems to me that some prudish male RCC leaders projected their own preferences on Jesus, Mary and Joseph.
So is there something offensive in portraying Jesus as Gay? Would't that make him more fully human?

"In justifying why its pages carried a favorable review of the revival of McNally's play, the Times' Public Editor admitted the paper should have acknowledged the offense caused by the artist's depiction of Jesus."

What about catoons of the prophet Muhommad? Should the papers carrying them have acknowledged the offense caused by the artist's depiction of Muhammed? We should treat all religions equally. If we don't, which do we favor? Catholicism or Protestantism? Sunni or Shiite? Reformed or Orthodox Judaism?

In both cases, Catholics and Muslims would have been better off ignoring the offending play or cartoon.

Oh lawdy, why why why even give these people the time of day?