After posting my blog entry “Jesus and Homosexuality” I received a correspondence from a Harry H. McCall, a self-proclaimed ex-reverend. He referred me to his blog “Debunking Christianity.” His post was entitled Jesus the Homosexual: Evidence From the Gospels.

It is despicable to even say or suggest this of Our Lord but we need to be prepared to refute such vulgarity in view of the gay agendas desire to twist everything to fit their perverted view of the world.

McCall’s blog was not a tit-for-tat response to my article but was an article he wrote and published at the same time I uploaded my post. I am responding to the content of his blog post since he sent it to me for my comments. I always promote honest and courteous discourse, seeking the truth with charity and honesty. I hope I have accomplished that in my response below. I am strongly against the gay lifestyle and the practice of homosexuality, yes; but I also hope that my response is not angry or antagonistic.

  • Save
The Jewish Jesus of History

[When I wrote this a while back I was in Israel]  As I write I am looking out at the Church of the Holy Sepulchre where Jesus was crucified, died and was buried before rising from the dead. My wife and I joined the Mass in the Tomb at 5:30 AM.

To my right I see the top of Mount Zion where Jesus celebrated the Last Supper. I am writing this in context — not only the context of Scripture and history, but the context of the land of Israel where I spend a large part of my time. (I will pray for McCall while here.)

You may rightfully say, “You don’t take this guy seriously so why take the time to respond to his post on claiming Jesus was a homosexual?” The reason is simple. Homosexuality is becoming more and more accepted in our country. Catholics, other Christians, Jews, Muslims and who condemn the homosexual lifestyle will find themselves ostracized as it becomes more recognized.

We will be called bigots and old fashioned. Clever arguments will be crafted that may sound reasonable at first (just read the combox on McCall’s blog post to see how gullible many people are). As with McCall’s blog, they will often twist the Bible around like a rubber nose and even contend that Jesus himself was homosexual.

So, you may say, “That is stupid and I disagree.” Good, but why do you disagree? When they marshall Scripture verses against you, will you be prepared to respond? That is why I am refuting this otherwise foolish and waste-of-time article. We who are not caught up in the gay life or the support thereof, need to know what we know and why.

I have no doubt that McCall does not accept the Bible as the inspired word of God, nor does he really care about what it says or why. His website is called Debunking Christianity which is what he has set out to do.

He is homosexual and that is how he finds his identity, and it is his driving motivation—to eliminate biblical arguments against homosexuality; rather to twist the Bible like a rubber nose to suit his purposes. Any discussion of Scripture by McCall is simply to twist it to fit his agenda and to confuse those who try to read it honestly.

It is certainly not my objective to attack homosexuals or the gay lifestyle. However, it is being forced down my throat (no pun intended). It is being forced down America’s throat. I hope to engage the conversation in a rational, reasoned, cordial and biblical way.

I decided the best way to respond to his attempt to paint Jesus as a homosexual was to address his claims paragraph by paragraph. I decided to give him the benefit of the doubt whenever possible, but to be exacting and uncompromising when necessary.

To read my full biblical refutation, click HERE.

Share on facebook
Share on twitter
Share on email
Share on print

This Post Has 8 Comments

  1. Susy

    A huge ‘thank you,” Steven Ray, for taking the time to compose a cogent response to Mr. McCall’s ‘Jesus must have been gay’ article, especially while in Israel. It’s easy to dismiss such fluff, but distressing to see the gullible finding such shallow ‘scholarship’ convincing. I find the Protestant ‘bible-only’ position harder going than the Church’s reliance on the ‘three-legged stool’ of Sacred Tradition, Scripture, and Magisterium. Many of those eagerly agreeing with Mr. McCall, will know nothing of the strength of Catholicism vs. Protestant Christianity. In my house, my Muslim husband is always trying to ‘debunk Christianity’ but for altogether different reasons. He knows nothing of the difference between Catholic and Protestant Christianity. He always argues as if the proof for Christianity were Bible Only. The Church existed 350 years before the Bible was canonized. That’s a long time. The gospels were used in the liturgy. The Early Church Fathers shed light on what Early Christians really believed. Their historicity is no doubt. Check it out.

  2. J. Cole

    Hi Steve. I was reading another blog, I dont remember which, but an author stated that he did not like the word gay, to be used. He stated that the “good as you”, tag was, well, really another attack on us. The word certainly does not mean happy when used in their context. Anyone can certainly see the situation of Lot, and the same hate spoken by the intolerant… “we will do worse to you”… as present, yet again.

  3. Steven

    Hi… A very interesting read – thank you for taking the time to present your views cogently and without hysteria. I like to hear and read all sorts of views on an issue because there are few things on which my opinions are fixed and unwavering. I am 31 and gay. I don’t see any evidence to support the claim that Jesus Christ was gay. I also don’t see any evidence to disprove the suggestion, but in any case it seems unlikely (if based on purely statistical grounds alone). In any case it hardly seems relevant – Jesus’ message of loving God, your neighbour, and fellow humans is his legacy – and speculation about sexuality etc tends to distract from that message. I am interested in your personal beliefs against what you call the gay culture and lifestyle, and that it is being rammed down your throat. I’m aware that there are a minority of over the top militant gays – just as there are similar types of Christian and churches – but in my experience most of us just want to be left alone to live a quiet and peaceful life and are not actually defined by our sexuality, nor do we seek to recruit, nor force our worldview on anyone. You would walk past most of us on the street in total ignorance of our sexuality. It’s not a sin to fall in love. And in a secular society it’s not extreme to expect equality before the law. Thanks again for an interesting contribution…

  4. Mark martinson

    There is a side of Islam that is very pro homosexual. It is not a sister religion of Christianity.

  5. Geoffrey Williams

    Geoffrey, Thanks for your comments below. I inserted a few responses in brackets…

    Dear Steve, Thanks for your patient deliberations around the blog by McCall.
    I preface my remarks by describing myself as a 'progressive' Christian.
    Isn't it whitewashing just a little to say that the inconsistencies between the Gospels are merely different perspectives of the same historical event?
    [No, not necessarily. Each author had his own audience, perspective and goal. But that does not negate the historicity or the accuracy of their individual Gospels]

    Is it not also true that none of the Gospel writers ever met an eye witness to the life of Jesus? Not only this, none of the Gospel writers even used the Aramaic language that Jesus spoke. And further, the Gospels weren't written until at least one generation after Jesus life. I consider that this opens up much of the Gospels to cultural bias.
    [Here I would really beg to differ with you. At the turn of the last century it became popular the date the gospels late, even into the second century. That scholarship has pretty much been dismissed and much earlier dates of been assigned to the Gospels, especially among conservatives, which I tend to be. I wrote a 450 page book and the Gospel of St. John. In it I conclude that it was written by John who was the fisherman a new Jesus. There’s no reason to believe Matthew did not Right Matthew and that Mark was the man mention in the gospels who served Peter in Rome. Therefore, at least two of the riders were eyewitnesses of the whole life of Jesus and the other two were reliable witnesses of eyewitnesses.]

    I was recently at an Anglican Church here in Australia when the preacher, an ordained Anglican priest, explained how he had previously had many discussions with a Jewish man whose comment had been: "Every Christian should have a Jewish guide when reading the Gospel of Matthew!" The point being that the Gospel of Matthew was written for a Jewish audience which would understand the symbolism used to describe Jesus in Jewish terms. Most early Christians were Jews, and it was only a generation later that Gentiles started to out-number them.

    [I would agree with the Anglican priest 100%. The earliest Christians commented that Matthews first gospel was written in Hebrew or Aramaic. We don’t have a copy of it in that language we only have the Greek translation of the original Aramaic. But Matthew was writing to the Jewish people of the first century to convince them that Jesus was there king and Messiah]

    Over time, Gentiles have interpreted the Jewish-based texts as being literal truths, rather than spiritual truths. One blight on humanity that resulted from this was the obnoxious anti-Semitism that caused the Holocaust, amongst other atrocities.

    [There is no need to make a division between historical truth and spiritual truth. That is a tendency of some to say either/or instead of both/and. And I would also contest that it was not the Gospel writers or the New Testament that cause the Holocaust. It was the perversion of Nazism which actually rooted itself back in the individualism preached by Martin Luther and the protestant rebellion.]

    You seem so confident of your interpretation, but I believe that any theologian (which I am not) needs to consider that possibility that the New Testament is not pure historic fact, and focus rather on the spiritual truths from the teachings and attitudes of Jesus. For example, the role of women in the Church has been suppressed by a male-centric hierarchy for over nineteen centuries, and yet Jesus Himself chose to speak to women when other Jewish men would not. Also, He first revealed Himself to women after the resurrection.

    [Yes Jesus spoke with women but he did not choose women to be his 12 apostles. Thanks again for your comments and that we may Disagree I appreciate your irenic tone and your love of God and search for the truth.]

  6. Tony

    Interesting that the present crisis in the Catholic Church is precisely over this particular matter. Makes you wonder!

  7. Sean

    Why do you have to lie on the Word in denigrating and oppressing the sexual minorities?

    The word of God is very clear that homosexuality is a perversion and an abomination. I do not denigrate a “sexual minority“ rather, I warn sexual perverts to straighten out their life and get right with God.

  8. Bill912

    Sean: If you are going to accuse Steve of lying, you should give some examples. Without them, you are engaging in calumny.

Leave a Reply