So I got a hair up my butt after Nigel linked to this article on FB. http://johnpavlovitz.com/2016/05/26/dear-offended-christian-from-a-very-tired-christian/
There was a specific point made about there being NO teachings from Jesus in the Gospels, and this sort of hit a sore spot for me. My question centers around a small but possibly very significant use of language that may be a fairly huge thing. Here's the write up as I have it down for now.
As to sincere opinions please fire away. I'm not attached to the perspective quite so personally as I used to be. I DO want to construct this from within the Christian perspective ultimately, but that's on me.
I sympathize with the author on pretty much every point, but one of them is very close to the heart of the matter in terms of factional strife.
"I’m tired of reminding you that the number of times Jesus spoke about gender identity and sexual orientation in the Gospels—is zero."
This is not strictly true. In Matthew ch19 from about verses 8-12 Jesus lays down some pretty severe teaching about the spiritual consequences of divorce and when folks be like "That sucks! Better to never marry" Jesus basically says "Yup!" and goes into a bit about eunuchs as an aside.
As far as Jesus' actual teachings clearly went he says abstinence to focus on the spiritual exclusively is best, but, hey, clearly not for everyone. He uses that to approach the subject of the eunuch then delineates the three basic sorts, those so born, so made by others, and some very few who are able to give it up as a spiritual sacrifice, in that order. He makes a point of showing that the status can be inherent, placing it first in description, but spoke most of the willing sort, and barely mentioned the usual kind in the middle. This matters as it demonstrated unmistakably through his language that he was least concerned in his message with the most usual sort of the subject. Yet he only meant "eunuch" in its most common form here say the scholars of "Christianity"!
I do wonder about that.
There's longstanding, highly predictable, argument against this passage possibly applying to homosexuality. The fact is they're correct that Jesus wasn't talking about that... overtly. If he had they'd have stoned him then and there, and he knew that damn well. They try a few times in other places, most notably when he declares "Before Moses was I AM" speaking the forbidden name of God in reply to a Pharisee's challenge of his authority to interpret the law. Christian doctrine states this was him claiming to be God, but there we now differ. I think he was merely stating the simple, terribly dangerous truth. God's authority is greater and older than Moses' law, and so any use of the law that is counter to Love and Truth has none of God's authority, but I digress.
It's worth noting that the Greek word for eunuch is derived from the words for "bed" and "owner" implying all of the sleeping alone a eunuch does. That's in Strong's Concordance if any question that interpretation. Given Jesus' sense of wordplay and the unapproachable nature of the subject, I'd say "one who's bed is their own" could well describe the person of (then) unorthodox gender or sexual orientation in a sublime fashion. It follows that if a person can be so born then God must have made them so, and loves them as such. From there we can see that the division never existed. It is and always was a lie, and as such doomed eventually. How's that for an eschaton worth "emmanentizing"?