Homosexuality and the New Testament

Imagining a peaceful, peace-advocating "Jesus" in a world where war is not a pressing concern is not radical.  Yet that is the scene proposed by Christian historians who believe that the gospels were constructed in the period following the destruction of the Temple.  After Titus destroyed the Temple, there was a period of approximately 30 years of no-war.

Imagining a Jesus who preaches peace in a world that is in the middle of revolt, in a world in which death is at hand, in a world in which worship as it has been known has been irreparably ruptured is radical.  Advocating amity with current antagonists, with those who claim their worship is more authentic than the worship your fathers practiced is radical.  Advocating extending assistance to those who are attempting to destroy you is radical.  

It is as radical as leading a rebellion and re-establishing sovereignty of a land that lost its autonomy.  Yet that is exactly what Bar Cochba succeeded in doing.

People ask why there is no discussion about homosexuality in the gospels.  There is an exchange concerning the woman caught in adultery, who is about to be stoned.  The reason for the stoning is that having been caught in adultery, she is guilty of committing two felonies:  theft of the progeny of the man who impregnated her, to whom she was not under contract, and fraud in attempting to pass that progeny off as the property of the man to whom she was under contract.  The reply is, essentially: "stone her if you have never done anything wrong."  In other words "Right now, it is more important to produce offspring than it is to worry about who owns it."

That, then, is the answer to those who want to know what the gospels have to say about homosexuality:  who slept with whom was not an issue.  Who owned what progeny was not an issue.  At issue was survival of those who survived birth.  

In bar Cochba's era, sexuality was not an issue.  Ownership of the progeny was not an issue.  Remaining alive was an issue.