16 Jan 10
Originally posted by AThousandYoungSo I should sit aroung and wonder who is gay or not? If that's all one can come up with to ponder on then what a life.
He makes perfect sense, actually. It seems to me like your bias is overpowering your ability to reason.
It's ones like you that even start to go along with this blasphemous line of thought that's sad.
16 Jan 10
Originally posted by galveston75Mark 14 (NIV) 51A young man, wearing nothing but a linen garment, was following Jesus. When they seized him, 52he fled naked, leaving his garment behind.
What would make anyone come up with this thought in the first place? He was not gay and there is not indication in the Bible that he was...
-
And straightway, going in where the youth was, he stretched forth his hand and raised him, seizing his hand. But the youth, looking upon him, loved him and began to beseech him that he might be with him. And going out of the tomb they came into the house of the youth, for he was rich. And after six days Jesus told him what to do and in the evening the youth comes to him, wearing a linen cloth over his naked body. And he remained with him that night, for Jesus taught him the mystery of the kingdom of God.
Secret Gospel of Mark (not officially part of the Bible)
-
In the Gospel of John, the disciple John frequently refers to himself in the third person as 'the disciple whom Jesus loved'."
...
During the Last Supper before Jesus' execution, the author(s) of the Gospel of John describes how the "beloved" disciple laid himself on Jesus' inner tunic -- his undergarment. See John 13:25 and 21:20. Robert Goss, assistant professor of comparative religion at Webster University in St. Louis, LA, noted that Jesus and the beloved disciple: "... eat together, side by side. What's being portrayed here is a pederastic relationship between an older man and a younger man. A Greek reader would understand."
...
"Jagannath" interprets the Gospels differently. He argues that Jesus may have been bisexual. He wrote:
"In the Book of John a word is used eight times that means 'is in love with' with the implication of sexual intimacy. Five times it is used with reference to Jesus' relationship with John. Once it is used to define Jesus' relationship with Lazarus. And it is also used to describe his relationship with Mary and with her sister Martha."
Etc.
http://www.religioustolerance.org/chr_jegay.htm
16 Jan 10
Originally posted by galveston75The weakness and long hair may emphasize the degeneration he went through on the Cross.
I don't care about how many google hits there is on this. We just need to hold on and back up here a little.
This picture that most religions have of Jesus is about the laimest thing to begin with. They portray him as this long haired weak and pale looking whimp that the first gust of wind would blow him over kind of look. What's up with this? Even whe ...[text shortened]... er problems we normally have.
So think about this a little and us some reasoning power here.
16 Jan 10
Originally posted by ThinkOfOneYou sure? There's a lot of far-left radicalism and hatred in parts of the gay community.
Evidently rather than engage in discussion, you'd rather provide a typically homophobic reaction.
Lets try this. If I think about all the homosexuals I've known and all the heterosexuals and had to say which group was better at following the teachings of Jesus, I'd have to say the homosexuals. It wouldn't even be close. Is there anything "disgusting" about that? I think it's beautiful.
16 Jan 10
1 edit
Originally posted by AThousandYoungummm i dont know if you are aware, for quite obviously these persons you are quoting are not, , there are principally four words for love in the Greek language three of which are used in the Bible, agape - principled love, phileo - brotherly love and storge - natural affection,
Mark 14 (NIV) 51A young man, wearing nothing but a linen garment, was following Jesus. When they seized him, 52he fled naked, leaving his garment behind.
-
And straightway, going in where the youth was, he stretched forth his hand and raised him, seizing his hand. But the youth, looking upon him, loved him and began to beseech him that he mig ister Martha."
Etc.
http://www.religioustolerance.org/chr_jegay.htm
eros - sexual love is not mentioned, you would have thought they might have checked their variations before making a move!
16 Jan 10
Originally posted by galveston75No. If the topic doesn't interest you you should ignore it, not challenge it in public. If you challenge an assertion in the Debates forum you should be prepared to defend it. Claiming you're uninterested is a cop-out since you did challenge the claim.
So I should sit aroung and wonder who is gay or not? If that's all one can come up with to ponder on then what a life.
It's ones like you that even start to go along with this blasphemous line of thought that's sad.
16 Jan 10
Originally posted by robbie carrobieIf you look at the link (which is a Christian link responding to these claims, not a site making the claims) it will tell you that there are some who think the word agape was substituted for eros at some point, corrupting the Bible.
ummm i dont know if you are aware, for quite obviously these persons you are quoting are not, , there are principally four words for love in the Greek language three of which are used in the Bible, agape - principled love, phileo - brotherly love and storge - natural affection,
eros - sexual love is not mentioned, you would have thought they might have checked their variations before making a move!
- Joined
- 30 May 09
- Moves
- 30120
16 Jan 10
Originally posted by robbie carrobieWell, clearly if the matter is resolved for you, that fixes the context for your wondering about my thoughts, so your claim that 'its nothing to do with me' is false.
no, its nothing to do with me, i really wondered about your thoughts, not mine, for me the matter is resolved.
Just to clarify, are you saying that, in your opinion, Jesus was straight? I just want to get that clear before I offer more detailed thoughts of my own.
16 Jan 10
Originally posted by AThousandYoungyes, how very convenient for them, fortunately there are literally hundreds of extant manuscripts which corroborate the text as we understand it. I bet they were all corrupted just at the right instance as well!
If you look at the link (which is a Christian link responding to these claims, not a site making the claims) it will tell you that there are some who think the word agape was substituted for eros at some point, corrupting the Bible.
16 Jan 10
Originally posted by AThousandYoungYou should be defending it instead it seems your enjoying it.
No. If the topic doesn't interest you you should ignore it, not challenge it in public. If you challenge an assertion in the Debates forum you should be prepared to defend it. Claiming you're uninterested is a cop-out since you did challenge the claim.