This is a new posting on Huffington but it had to be divided into two parts because of its length. Here is my entire post in order:

When dealing with the sexuality of Jesus, the NT Gospels seem pretty clear so Mr. Imus' comments should not be, at this late date, at all outrageous or controversial. Yes, I know the difference between "agape and eros" but that argument comes many years after the supposed time of Jesus.

Wikipedia even has a page dealing with the sexuality of Jesus:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sexuality_of_Jesus

But there is still the question as to whether Jesus ever existed as a person and how much of his story is based on earlier stories and myths. And, because of this, I find that there may be little that anyone can say with certainty about his life.

The American mythologist, Joseph Campbell,

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_Campbell

has pointed out similarities of "hero myth" stories over the ages but, without trying to oversimplify his views, these "hero 's journeys" seem to have certain similarities. Even in the case of Moses, I think Dr. Freud has convincingly demonstrated, in his "Moses and Monotheism" that Moses was an Egyptian (In the song "It Ain't Necessarily So" from Gershwin's Porgy and Bess, the lines occur: "and old Pharoah's daughter she fetched him, she said, from that stream") even if his further conclusions seem built on surmise and are far less convincing.

In our working on a "Merlin Symphony" project with narration from Tennyson's "Idylls of the King", in one of the birth stories of the legendary King Arthur, there is a description of how Merlin plucks Arthur from an ocean wave. That this is absurd as history is not in doubt but we are working from a legend and not from history.

And, I think we need to have the same attitude about the story of Jesus.