Originally posted by Ron91Are you suggesting that Jesus knew that He was going to die, say, from
I agree that he wasn't against sex i just believe that his mind was focused on more important things. Plus if he had had a son that would have caused no end of problems the son of gods son would have been left fatherless.
the time He was a pre-pubescent kid? Keep in mind that most people
think that Jesus was around 30 or so when He was crucified. That a
Jewish man at that age would be unmarried is at the very least unusual.
Why do you think that a healthy sexual relationship would make
'being focused on more important things' harder? The physical body
yearns for sexual fullfillment. If you don't ejaculate, your body does
it in its sleep. You wake up with morning wood. Toddlers play with
themselves. Sexual denial more likely serves as a distraction from
focusing on other things rather than sexual fullfillment.
Nemesio
Originally posted by Ron91
A truly enlightened mind has no need for physical fulllfillment and were not talking about any normal person.
That's not what you said, though. You said that physical fullfillment
was a distraction to enlightenment. Whereas that might be the case
for ordinary people like you and me, why would it be the case for a
perfect person, who would be equally capable of balancing physical
fullfillment and spiritual fullfillment?
Further, do you think that Jesus didn't enjoy eating? Enjoy drinking
wine responsibly? Didn't dance, sing, laugh, tell jokes, or engage in
any other pleasures of the flesh? Why would you deny Jesus' enjoyment
of one aspect of the flesh while admit of His engaging in others?
don't you think that if he had a wife it might have been mentioned at least once in the bible.
First of all, we don't know that it wasn't. We do know that the
Bible went through an editorial process as evinced by the fragments of
papyri which contain altered, omitted, or added verses to what is in
the current translation (based largely on the 4th-century exemplars).
Second, there are various early, but extraneous accounts of Jesus and
physical intimacy with Mary Magdalene which did not arouse any particular
ire on the parts of the Orthodoxy; that is, while they may have objected
to the theologies espoused by these documents, there is not one 2nd-
century account (to my knowledge) that scoffs at the idea that Jesus
was married.
Nemesio
Originally posted by NemesioActually he said we were the future Bride and Wife of God. We are also all God's sons, as well as God's daughters, and God is both our Father and our big-breasted Mother.
I don't remember what thread it was in, but one of the fundies was asserting that all people were
female, because Jesus is married to His Church, Jesus the groom, the Church His bride.
http://www.timeforchess.com/board/showthread.php?threadid=56280&page=1#post_1053146
Originally posted by Ron91i strongly disagree, there are a few weird people who dont "need physicial fullfillment" but they are not "truly enlightened" if you ask me, theyre usually just different or crazy psycho, like vincent van gogh; went crazy and cut his ear off.
A truly enlightened mind has no need for physical fulllfillment and were not talking about any normal person. don't you think that if he had a wife it might have been mentioned at least once in the bible.
Originally posted by EcstremeVenomThat point was irrelevent and anyway i was making up what i said it's just the way i like to see things, right or wrong.
i strongly disagree, there are a few weird people who dont "need physicial fullfillment" but they are not "truly enlightened" if you ask me, theyre usually just different or crazy psycho, like vincent van gogh; went crazy and cut his ear off.
Originally posted by NordlysWow. I'd forgotten how absurd it was.
Actually he said we were the future Bride and Wife of God. We are also all God's sons, as well as God's daughters, and God is both our Father and our big-breasted Mother.
http://www.timeforchess.com/board/showthread.php?threadid=56280&page=1#post_1053146
Originally posted by scottishinnzI don't think Christianity generally rests on details of Jesus' biography except, perhaps, upon the
Seems a very weak platform on which to base an entire religion.
details that are in least dispute -- that He died on the cross at the hands of a Romans because He
posed a certain threat to the normative way of life.
Regardless, Christianity is based in part on teachings attributed to Him and in the idea that He died
for the sins of all humankind. I don't think most Christians really care all that much that He
really only fed 4900 people and not 5000, for example (but, who knows! some literalist's faith might
sadly hinge on such details).
Nemesio
Originally posted by Ron91You see things the way you like, regardless of whether it's right or wrong?!
That point was irrelevent and anyway i was making up what i said it's just the way i like to see things, right or wrong.
This is the most honest witness of any Christian on this site so far!