Two strange and unusual facts about Jesus Christ, Messiah and Redeemer. His historicity. Jesus's real attitude to Gays.
78
The strange story of Jesus and the centurion.
Contents.
Jesus Christ. The best known person in history.
The Historicity of Jesus Christ.
Jesus approved homosexual relationships.
Some additional evidence about biblical approval of homosexual relations.
Homosexuals will get a resurrection to glory also.
Jesus Christ. The best known person in history.
Perhaps the most written about personality in history is Jesus Christ, and yet despite the plethora of ink that has been spilled on the subject of this person, the very mention of His name can excite very different emotions. Some love Him with all their hearts as their Lord and Redeemer, others use His name as a stick to beat anyone who tries to live life outside of a very smothering form of morality, that they say is the only way of living that He would approve of. Still others will maintain that He was never an historical figure at all. That the stories of His life and works were invented by control freaks, with but one purpose, to extend and consolidate the servitude of the masses in slavish ignorance.
It is to counter both of these views that I am writing this article. I do not propose to express any opinion directly as to whether Jesus was, or is God. But I do wish to address, first the issue of the historicity of Christ, and secondly evidence that He may very well have given warm approval to a form of relationship not generally lauded by the majority of His adherents today.
The Historicity of Jesus Christ.
It is one of the oddest things in the world that the person who has the best contemporary attestation of anyone from His era should be considered by anyone to be a fictional character. Yet that is undoubtedly the case with Jesus. If I had a dollar for every time I have come across someone either writing or saying that Jesus Christ is a "Fairy-tale character", I would be a millionaire by now. If I stood up and lectured about Augustus or Cleopatra, and even hinted that I doubted their historical authenticity, the men in white coats would probably come to take me away before I had finished my sentence. But the earliest written information we have that testifies to the life and careers of both these personages date from later than The Gospels that tell of the life of the Carpenter from Nazareth.
The first of The Gospels to have been written is The Gospel of Mark. This has been reliably dated to the sixties AD, and was likely written by someone who actually knew the principal character.
Matthew's Gospel was written around the eighties AD.
Luke's Gospel was also written around the eighties to nineties AD. Parts of Luke's and Matthew's accounts were probably based on Mark as there is a great similarity in certain passages.
The Gospel of John was most likely written in the nineties.
The Epistles of Paul were written in the fifties AD.
There is a debate amongst scholars as to the date of composition of The Book of Revelations. Some put it as being written prior to the Fall of Jerusalem in 70 Ad. Others date it to the reign of The Emperor Domitian in the nineties.
The Acts of The apostles were probably written around 62/64 AD.
In addition to these canonical sources there is reference to Jesus in Josephus's "The Wars of the Jews" written around
75/80 AD. Josephus was a Jewish man who collaborated with Rome, and was very hostile to early Christians.
In addition to these sources there are extant innumerable near contemporary references in a variety of non-canonical gospels, i.e The Gospel of Thomas, and The Gospel of Philip.
There is also a reference to Christ in the undoubtedly hostile Annals of Tacitus, (A roman historian).
Ok, so we have all these written sources to use as evidence for Jesus Christ, who some people doubt existed.
So what do we have for those undisputed historical figures, The Emperor Augustus, and Cleopatra Queen of Egypt?
Our knowledge of the lives and careers of these famous and powerful personages are derived from three main sources,
The "Histories" and "Annals" of Tacitus, "The Twelve Caesars by Suetonius, and "The History" of Dio Cassius.
Tacitus was writing around the mid second century AD, so he was testifying to the lives of people who had died at least one hundred years before, Augustus in AD 14, and Cleopatra in BC 30.
Suetonius was writing also in the later second century AD, and Dio Cassius in the third century AD.
How peculiar that people cannot doubt the details in the lives of these people, yet their histories are written down much later from their deaths than the histories of Jesus.
Perhaps some people prefer to disbelieve. It is not, however, scholarly to do so.
 | Amazon Price: $15.00 List Price: $104.95 |
Jesus approved homosexual relationships.
“Not everyone can accept this teaching, but only those to whom it is given. For there are eunuchs who have been so from birth, and there are eunuchs who have been made eunuchs by others, and there are eunuchs who have made themselves eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. Let anyone accept this who can.” (Matthew 19:11-12)
The above passage has in recent years caused a lot of controversy in Christian circles. Most of us have the belief that a eunuch is a castrated male human. That was the case for a large part of recent history. We have only to think of the harems in Ottoman Turkey or Imperial China to know that. But that wasn’t always what the word meant. That is not what Jesus understood it to mean. In ancient times the term eunuch referred to men who had no interest in sexual relations with women.
"There are eunuchs who have been made eunuchs by others" = castrated males.
"And there are eunuchs who have made themselves eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven" = celibate, as in priests.
"For there are eunuchs who have been so from birth" = homosexual men
Note, no condemnation, just a simple statement of the facts.
There is also the curious story of the roman centurion and his sick servant.
In the roman army it was the rule that serving soldiers were not allowed to marry. This ban was in force until it was abolished by the Emperor Septimus Severus in 197 AD. It was not unusual for soldiers to have relationships with people they were not allowed to marry. This sometimes included same sex relationships.
In the accounts in the Gospels the word used to describe the beloved servant of the roman centurion in Matthew and Luke was the Greek "pais". When they referred to other servants they used the word "doulus". There is no other instance in the entire New Testament where servants are regarded as any other than "doulus",( which means simply servant or slave). The word "pais" however in ancient Greek is always used to refer to same sex lovers.
The following three examples will illustrate the point.
Thucydides writes of Agathon, 445-400 BC, the pais, same gender lover of Pausanias, King of Sparta, in History of the Peloponnesian War. Their relationship began when Agathon was 18 and continued for twenty years.
Eupolis, a playwright, 446-411 BC, references Agathon, an exceptionally good-looking man who, in his late teens, was the paidika or pais of Pausanias. Their same sex relationship continued to flourish when Agathon was in his thirties.
Aeschines, 390-314 BC, Athenian poet, in Against Timarchos, charged rival politician Timarchos with having lived off his relationships with older men. In such relationships, the older man was called the erastes or the lover, and the younger man was called the eromenos or paidika or pais, the boyfriend. Paidika is derived from pais.
There are others that I could show as well, but I think these three should be sufficient for now.
Nowhere in the story of the centurion does Jesus say "You are an abomination. Take your servant and wait at the gates of Hell" instead he says "I have found no greater faith than this in all Israel". The servant/same sex lover gets cured.
Makes you think. Doesn’t it?
 | Amazon Price: $11.56 List Price: $17.00 |
Some additional evidence about biblical approval of homosexual relations.
Homosexuals will get a resurrection to glory also.
Have fun answering and asking questions on any subject while earning good AdSense revenue.
http://www.webanswers.com/_christopheranton
Quality items from eBay.
|
NEW Jesus Christ Religious NEW Tie! #1893 Jesus With 3 Crosses On The Hill!
Current Bid: $6.00
|
|
The DOLOROUS PASSION of our Lord Jesus Christ, Anne Catherine Emmerich
Current Bid: $4.00
|
|
Jesus Christ Cross with Rays Italian Statue Wall Plate Vittoria Made in Italy
Current Bid: $49.95
|
A different way to be christian.
vote upvote downshareprintflag
- Useful (7)
- Funny (1)
- Awesome (5)
- Beautiful (4)
- Interesting
CommentsLoading...
Have you ever considered that everything is not in the bible? I don't see your writting the same as Austinstar but I do agree about the writters of the books that says that Jesus called himself son of God as in the Only One True God, Now there are papers that state the there were several men at the time that claimed that they were the Savior. Was this a deception to keep people from seeing or paying attention to something else....that is very possible.
As far as your homosexual enlightenment, I had gorgotten about those verses and stories. They DO make alot of sense. Most of the Christians who go through Bible Study can only spout scripture. If asked what they think in their own hearts, they haven't a clue and it becomes apparent that the only way they can read the bible is by singular broken verses.
Hi Austinstar and Lady Guinevere, Happy New Year to you both.
It is quite possible that The Universe always did exist, but it may then have had a conciousness. We cannot scientifically prove the existence of God, or disprove it either.
Jesus did not have any brothers, either older or younger, unless His mother had several husbands. The individuals named in The Bible as his brothers all had different named fathers.
But I did not write this article to start a discussion on this, or on whether He was God or not. I just wanted to establish His historicity, and point out that He appeared to have no problems with homosexuals.
That was all.
So you're saying that there is empirical evidence for Jesus, the man. I agree.
And as for the Christian hatred of homosexuals, I have no idea how that came about. I really despise those that go to our soldier's funerals with signs that state "God hates fags". What is that all about? To hear them preach is an abomination (to use a biblical term).
Good lord, I just went to that web page - godhatesfags.com and that Church needs to be nuked off the face of the earth!
I,ve seen them before. They are just a gang of lunatics, but they do cause hurt to a lot of people out of sheer malevalence.
The so called christian hatred of homosexuals has no actual basis in the bible, or even in early church practice. It really only started at the time the crusades in the twelfth century, because it was a convenient accusation for the propagandists to label the Muslims as homosexual. So the thinking was. Muslims are Gay, therefore Gay is bad. The fact that the muslims labeled the christians the same way seems to have escaped everyones notice.
That's people for you.
Wow, I didn't know that. Thanks for the information.
There were other factors as well, and there always was an undercurrent of prejudice, just as there is now. But that is when it really started to grow.
Thanks for all your Comments Lady Guinevere. Happy New Year. Give my best wishes to Sir Lancelot.
This is really interesting and worth digging deeper into. A very interesting hub considering the usual Christian rants that are not strongly based on the Biblical accounts.
Thanks syzygyastro. I have really only skimmed the surface. I could write books on the subject, but my typing is so slow, it would take me ages.
Ah ha. You are a scholar indeed. Let's not go into it. Instead, you have the knowledge and the talent to bring off a novel of gargantuan porportions!! Really. If you are thinking novel at all, feel free to write me as I would like to be involved. Perhaps a partnership or a team of Hubbers A good outline could entice me. Think Dan Brown. YEs, you have only scratched the suface here... RJ
Reynold Jay. Thanks for reading, and for your supportive comments.
There is nothing in what I write, that isnt plainly in The Bible, if people care to read it carefully, and look up the original meaning of the words.
I dont really think I would like to emulate Dan Brown.
I consider him to be a rather scummy liar, who tried to damage a lot of people's faith just in order to make money.
But it might be something to consider, so long as It would not be damaging to The Church, or belief in Christianity.
Hi, Christopher, I think the trouble is that we always think in 'modern' ways whenever we read the Bible or old books from that time, it was so different then, Jesus would have grown up surrounded by the history of the Spartans who always had same sex lovers, in fact it was deliberately pushed onto them when they were made to join up, the idea was that they would look after each other more if they loved each other, and of course the romans were quite open about it, it was only hushed up and made to be bad later as you said, strange isn't it, how forward they were, and how backward some people are today! cheers nell
Christopher, I don't think you or I or even Dan Brown could write anything that would damage the church or Christianity. Just the opposite, it seems that no matter what people write, it is dismissed or adopted by the Church on their own terms. Brown's books are classified as novels and I'm pretty sure that's how the Church sees them. Not the first and not the last.
I had no idea that Spartans were taught to be lovers!
What an interesting idea.
I completely fail to see what the fanatical churches stand to gain by criticizing someone's personal life. I don't get why the religionists INSIST on sticking their noses into other peoples personal lives.
I guess the message of salvation just isn't enough.
Dan Brown. Yep... and you could be the man to get it right. set it all straight. Heck--it is something to think about. RJ
I'm not sure how I really want to approach your hub. In one aspect, it seems like you've done some research and motivated by something which presently escapes me. I'm sorry to disappoint, but when you really boil down to the nuts and bolts of the topic, you've done a good to explain what you've researched. However, I think you need to dig a little deeper- Jesus, the man, Christ isn't his name.
Now, I'm not claiming he didn't exist, but before you go and write a Hub on the man, it would be prudent to make sure you have all the facts and not just some of them.
Jesus did not have a last name. Christ was given to his name, because of the birth of Christianity. I will agree with the fact that Jesus isn't a myth. I don't approve of the "church" action some 2000 years ago and I refuse to support the on-going myth of some god.
Jesus was advanced beyond most comprehension, but his message is fairly simple to understand, providing the influence of the church is taken out of play. The Only One True God is a myth. Jesus knew it, despised it and warned all who he taught to beware of it. It being "religion". Religion at the time, Jesus knew it was a hoax. That is why his teachings are about "God within".
God is a metaphor. Jesus' true message is about self mastery. Being a god(all powerful, all knowing) in your own life. The truth of the message continues to get lost because of the god myth. I know your hub served a purpose and I wasn't trying to be mean. I just like to point things out, when out of context. As for the homosexuality part- it's irrelevant, as is the topic.
I'm studying church history and have determined that this type of prejudice began rather recently. The brief history of church history and oppositions goes something like this, the schism between the east and west about 323 AD, followed by challenges from the emerging religion of Islam beginning in 625 AD, then the Cathars in the 11th century, the Knights Templar in the early 14th century, Protestantism in the 16th century under Luther and Calvin, the challenges of the witch hunts throughout beginning around the 13th century and persisting into the 19th, the bourgeois revolutions in England, the US and France and Marxism in the 19th and thereafter. In brief, the church had a lot of battles and a lot of competitors to deal with through the ages. Within this, there was maintaining the power of the church and gays figured little in the struggle until recently. By and large, except during the era of the holy inquisition and witch hunts, gays were ignored as there was a lot else going on in various power struggles.
The story of the centurion is most intriguing.Yet why will any master be so caring about a servant unless there was something more to their relationship?You put forward one possibility.There is also debate about Jesus and John "the disciple whom Jesus loved". Makes one wonder why homosexuality is such a raging issue with the church when most people have already come to accept it.
This is an excellent essay. I just want to quote from a site I have consulted:
"Whatever view one takes on the exception clause, Jesus obviously affirmed the permanence of marriage. Those who heard His words understood Him in this way, for they reasoned that if there were no grounds for divorce one would be better off never to marry. But this was not what Jesus intended, for God has given marriage to people for their betterment (Gen. 2:18). Marriage should be a deterrent to lustful sin and to unfaithfulness (1 Cor. 7:2). But a few either do not have normal sexual desires (they were born eunuchs or were castrated), or are able to control those desires for the furtherance of God’s program on the earth (Matt. 19:12; cf. 1 Cor. 7:7-8, 26). But not all are able to accept the single role (Matt. 19:11). Many marry and carry out God’s purposes, extending His work in the world.2"
Is it not possible that eunuch from birth referred to here means someone who is asexual? There are people who are born with no sexual desires.
Jesus was clearly referring to people who abstain from sex in Matthew 19:11. One being those who are asexual, two those who abstain because they can't have sex and three, those who abstain because of religious reasons. Homosexuals don't abstain from sex.
As for the Centurion, if Jesus sees a good act, He will commend it. He commended the centurion's current action. His sexual conduct didn't have anything to do with the man's faith.
Nell.
Thanks for reading.
Very interesting about the Spartans. The reason why both the Old Testament and St Paul disaproved of same sex relationships was because it was part of worship practice in some pagan temples, like Egypt and Babylonia in the Old Testament, and Greece in New Testament times.
The problem was more to do with being pagan than being gay.
Austinstar
We all would be better off, and closer to God, if we stopped sticking our noses into what people do in bed.
Thanks for your good and intelligent comment.
RJ
If you want to contact me privately about your interesting idea, we can discuss it more.
Cagsil.
I think his actual name in Aramaic would have been Yeshua Bar Joseph. Christ is a title meaning "Annointed One"
I wouldnt dismiss the idea that He was God as a myth. There had to be something incredibly special about Him, for Him to have become so famous in such a short time. He being God seems to be a fairly safe bet.
syzygyastro
Thanks for your comment. Your well researched contribution has saved me a lot of typing.
SilentReed.
Thanks for reading.
I dont believe that there was a relationship between Jesus and "The Beloved Disciple".
I believe that Jesus was celibate as he reccomended celibacy as the highest way of serving God, for those with the vocation to it.
The problem with homosexuality and The Churches is that it is a last remnant of "creation order theology".
But now that most of them have accepted evolution, there is no reason why this final prejudice can't be thrown out as well.
Claire.
Thanks for commenting.
Some say that the category of "Eunuch from birth" refers to people with some physical disability that prevents them from having sex.
How many actual "asexuals" do you know?
The percentage of male homosexuals in society has been conservatively estimated as 10%. Most people accept that homosexuality is something you are born with, therefore it is reasonable, to me, to assume that Jesus was referring to homosexuals here.
If you put this together with the story of the centurion, it is difficult to escape the notion that Jesus had no problem with people being gay.
Austinstar, your very first comment states that you believe the universe has always existed. This theory/belief is called the "Steady State" theory, a common belief of scientists before the Big Bang Theory. Question: what then do you do with the Big Bang and its impications? The Big Bang theory states that all things had a beginning - including atoms. If so, and the current evidence is fairly conclusive based on Red Shift data, then your agument that the universe has always existed is null and void - no longer an option of belief. The Big Band states conclusively there was a beginning. Most scientists have let go their previous belief in the steady state theory (the universe has always existed). Some are considering an "oscillating" universe or parallel universes, but the evidence for these is not evident. Genesis states there was a beginning to all things from nothing - exactly as the Big Bang states. So while Genesis is routinely considered by many as a book of myths, (not my belief), it did get the beginning part right.
As for your argument that Jesus was a "man" and not a God, the scriptures do not leave this an option. Either Jesus was who he said he was, or he was a liar or lunatic. Since his words indicate he was not a liar or a lunatic, that leaves one to decide the issue of who he is. This very question is posed in the gospel of Matthew, Chapter 16:13-15. Each one of us answers this question with how we respond to the gospel account.
Finally, the virgin birth of Christ (making him the Son of God), through the Holy Spirit, is also scriptural, predicted by Isaiah: "Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign: Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel." Isaiah 7:14.
The birth of Jesus fulfills this prophesy.
konedog
konedog, there have been lots of "virgin" births. Artificial Insemination is one kind. Aliens/ET's have done that for many centuries. What is brought up in this hub doesn't have anything to do with that. This is about Eunuchs and Homosexuality.
Who warned against sign seekers just to find circumstances to fulfill said prophesy???
Why Jesus himself did that!!
Hi konedog and Lady Guinevere.
Thanks for visiting.
I dont have any problem in believing in The Virgin Birth, but it is not the subject of the article.
I'm starting to like you more and more, Christopheranton, because I love pot stirring individuals.
@konedog - You quoted, "Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign: Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel." Isaiah 7:14.
So why isn't Jesus' named Immanuel?
I hope we don't have to go into that whole virgin birth thing. I have personally witnessed virgin births during my 34 years in the medical field. It's EASY to get pregnant while staying a "virgin".
And let's just postulate that eventually, all of the matter in the universe gets sucked up into one final black hole and gets compressed enough to "explode with a big bang". The cycle would start all over again. It would still mean that all things have always existed, exist now, and always will exist. The "steady state" theory is also inaccurate. Stop insisting that there was a beginning when there was nothing with which to begin things with! Where is the beginning of infinity?
Genesis is also inaccurate. Think about it.
Jesus came to help those in need. He didn't come to help those who already are convinced they are ok. If you would search the scriptures, not just read them, God would show you what's real about Jesus. "Those who diligently seek shall find". It is a wonderful experience to read the bible many times, and after you've read a particular scripture 50 times, all of a sudden you see the meaning of it for the first time. That's because God will not allow you to understand the book all the way through just because you read it. He want to know you want to know Him. Then you will know it's real.
Christopher, is it not true that Jesus was pointing out those who do not marry and don't indulge in sexual activities? Eunuchs who were castrated by other men can't have sex, those who don't marry because of religious reasons and the ones who are eunuchs from birth. Now if the previous two referred to those who abstain from sex, why not those who are born eunuchs from birth? It doesn't make logical sense that Jesus was referring to homosexuals for they do indulge in sexual activities. In a biblical sense, eunuch also means a celibate person. There is no biblical reference that supports the notion that eunuch refers to homosexuality.
http://www.mountainretreatorg.net/faq/what_are_eun
As for the centurion, there is no way you could know for a fact that the centurion was gay. Even if he was, his homosexuality was completely irrevelant to his faith. I am not an advocate for homosexuality but I not going to bring up their homosexuality if I am commending them for good works. You automatically believe that since Jesus didn't make reference to the centurion's homosexuality that somehow it means Jesus condones homosexuality. He didn't exactly say, "And by the way, I have no problem that you are homosexual." Saying that is completely irrelevant to the faith the centurion was displaying.
Let me preface this by saying that I do believe it is possible that there was a rabbi named Jesus for which the Bible is based upon. After all, 'Yeshua' was a fairly common name among Jews of the Second Temple Period. However, from my own studies, I'm incline to say that the evidence strongly suggests that the biblical Jesus is a composite character. I also hope you don't mind an honest and critical critique of your piece, and perhaps a couple of pointed questions.
The claim made in your first two sentences simply isn't true, Christopher. Outside of Christian tradition, there are no contemporaneous sources attesting to the life of a historical biblical Jesus. Could you cite just one example please? Bare in mind that this source doesn't necessarily have to be an eyewitness either, but should be contemporaneous and describing events in the ministry. There are, of course, mentions of a "Jesus" by non-Christians, but these mentions are either not contemporaneous, and/or they merely allude to a personage of adoration by a fledgling cult. To make matters worse, it is pretty well known that the Josephus references you mentioned are interpolations - most likely by Eusebius.
The Bible simply does not count as a reliable source of historical information either. Besides the fallacious circular claim that the Bible would prove itself, it is obviously slanted towards a religious belief. In other words, it was written as religious propaganda with the purpose of increasing belief in Jesus. By the way, if I had a PENNY for every time I've come across someone claiming that the biblical Jesus existed outside of the realm of Christian tradition, well, I'd be a whole lot richer than you in your own hypothetical, my friend. Either way, it would not be evidence for or against the existence of a historical Jesus.
So, do you really think you'd be taken away by men in white coats for saying what you said about Augustus and Cleopatra? As I'm sure you're aware, people make extraordinary counter claims to established ones all the time without being straitjacketed away! I must say though, that you'd certainly get a lot of sighs coming from historians. Anyway, Nicholaus of Damascus completed a biography of Augustus just after the emperor's death in AD 14, and Cicero wrote of Cleopatra in his letters to Atticus in 44 BC. As you can see, both of those examples predate any of the written gospels by many decades!
I'm curious as to how you've objectively arrived at your conclusion that Mark, "was likely written by someone who actually knew the principal character." Christian tradition has it that one of Peter's disciples, John Mark (possibly Mark the Evangelist) wrote it -- in Greek nonetheless, not Aramaic, the language of Jesus! The Coptic Church, as you may know, also claims that the author of Mark was the founder of the Church in Alexandria. Whatever the case may be, the gospel of Mark makes absolutely no internal mention of its authorship, nor is the existence of an actual Mark attested to by any historical records outside of Christian dogma. Furthermore, the consensus among biblical historians (and conservative ones too) is that the authorship is at best inconclusive. In fact, it wasn't until late 2nd century that we see any names assigned to what the Church father Justin Martyr simply referred to as, "the memoirs of the apostles".
Incidentally, for one whom you claim likely knew of the "principal character", the author of Mark sure does make many serious geographical blunders in references to Jesus Christ's travels throughout early Palestine! Besides numerous geographical inaccuracies, the author of Mark has Jesus traveling from the territory of Tyre by way of Sidon to the Sea of Galilee, which is akin to traveling from Florida to Virginia by way of New York! Now how does that work? This is but one indication that points to the author of Mark drawing upon pre-existing sources in varying oral traditions, not as a witness to the events in question.
I'm sorry, Christopher, but it appears to me as if you have done some research, but not nearly enough to evidence anything beyond a cursory knowledge of history. Well, either that or you're being a little less than honest in your rendition, which I certainly hope really isn't the case! To add, it is entirely reasonable to reserve belief in the biblical Jesus until there is sufficient good evidence (of which I believe there is very little) pointing to his actual existence. What is truly un-scholarly, Christopher, is to begin from a position of belief with the tendency to search for or interpret information in a way that confirms one's own preconceptions.
Thank you all for your comments.
Claire and AJ Bird, I will get back to both of you later today.
Thanks for visiting.
AJ Bird.
As regards to Nicholas of Damascus, his Life Of Augustus ends at the Death of Caesar. In no part is Octavian referred to as Augustus. If we wanted to use this work as a source for the life of the first emperor of Rome we would be very limited. The later details in the life of Octavian have to be taken from sources written long after his death.
The references to Cleopatra in Cicero's letters are very sketchy. For any details of her life we have to fast forward to the second century and Suetonius and Plutarch. You can,t realy expect a few disjointed paragraphs to compete with The Gospels.
The actual titles of the individuals responsible for writing the books of The New Testament are not really that relevant. It is the fact that they were written closer in time to the life of their subject than the biographies of Augustus and Cleopatra that matters to me here. I disregard Nicholas and Cicero, as their information is very incomplete.
In Josephus this is the passage usually cited.
"Now there was about this time Jesus, a wise man, if it be lawful to call him a man; for he was a doer of wonderful works, a teacher of such men as receive the truth with pleasure. He drew over to him both many of the Jews and many of the Gentiles. He was [the] Christ. And when Pilate, at the suggestion of the principal men amongst us, had condemned him to the cross, those that loved him at the first did not forsake him; for he appeared to them alive again the third day; as the divine prophets had foretold these and ten thousand other wonderful things concerning him. And the tribe of Christians, so named from him, are not extinct at this day." [ja]
The sentences "He was[the] Christ". and "for he appeared to them alive again the third day; as the divine prophets had foretold these and ten thousand other wonderful things concerning him" are often thought of as interpolations. The rest is usually considered genuine.
When I consider your point that knowledge of geography was not a strong point with the author of Mark, I would lust like to point out that Jesus was an itinerant preacher, and probably didnt always take the shortest routes in his travels.
I admire your researching skills, but nothing that you are saying would reasonably convince me of the rightness of your arguments.
Claire.
I feel that my interpretation of what the term "eunuch" meant is nearer to the truth than yours. There really are very few assexual people around to give your idea relevance.
I know it is difficult for most people to get their heads around the notion that Jesus might have approved homosexuals, but when you consider the other categories of people that He did include in His circle of friends,( prostitutes and tax collectors), it doesnt seem out of character.
"God will not allow you to understand the book all the way through just because you read it. He want to know you want to know Him. Then you will know it's real."
This doesn't strike you as a weird statement? I find it extremely bizarre.
Why would God (or his inspired followers) write a book that apparently no one can understand? And how is it that you can know what God thinks? Especially enough to speak for him?
At least veil your statements with a preface like, "it seems to me" that after reading the same passage 50 times, this is what "I think" it means.
Christoper, please keep up the good work, you are making some sense out of it all and you are able to express yourself well.
Hi Austinstar.
I think you are absolutely correct in thinking the statement above to be bizarre.
Obviously, when reading something that was written thousands of years ago, we should use different criteria than if we are reading something that was produced last week.
We have to take account first that the book was primarily written to make sense to the people reading it in it's own time. So we must understand something of the culture and society of the time.
We have to also understand that the meaning of words can change over time. For instant "eunuch" means less now than it did to people of the first century.
We also have to remember that ancient books like the bible have to be translated from ancient languages to become intelligible to readers of English. It is this translation process that gives people opportunity to change the sense of what was being said in the original, by picking the meaning for a word that most closely corresponds to their own prejudices, or in some cases completely inventing translations.
So you are absolutely right there. You can read something thousands of times, but unless you understand the rules you need to use to comprehend it, you can never get to the sense of what is written.
The Bible, because it is so central to many people's beliefs, has been more abused by interpretors than probably any other book.
Am I right in thinking we would need to learn Greek and Aramaic to understand the original book of the bible as well as cultural studies to understand the prospective?
If so, then I think God needs to inspire a new and modern book for us!
Wesman Todd Shaw.
Thank you for the vote of confidence.
I must admit I can never resist "stiring the pot", although in this particular instance I feel that there are important points to be made.
Austinstar. I think it is probably about time that He did.
In fact he has already.
It's called
"On the Origin of Species".
It was written by Charles Darwin.
Holy Moly! Whoa! that's a bold statement! I didn't see that coming.
Hi Cristopher, i found your hub and all it's associated comments very interesting reading. Whether Jesus really existed or not is difficult to prove. If he did exist then I don't think the Romans would have been too happy about his deeds being rehashed thirty years after his death. The authors would no doubt be ensconces in a well disguised hideaway. To not except homosexuality these days is very sad indeed, whether one believes in religion or not. Cheers mate.
Cheers Keith.
I am myself inclined to believe that He existed very much as He was portrayed. Nothing else could explain why His fame mushroomed almost overnight to become the movement it later became. He must have been someone really remarkable.
Thanks for the supportive comments.
I hope you and your family are not affected by those floods.
My brother and his wife went to Australia for a months holiday on December 27 th.
They could have picked a better time.
I first want to say that I love and respect everyone and every comment that was made.
With that being said, I want to share that I'm sad. I'm very sad that we as humans have travelled down a path of disbelief. We are all here to love oneanother. We are are here to accept our neighbors as they are and love them for it.
Whether we are able to find evidence that Jesus existed or not is irrelevant. Our human minds always want proof for something we can not see. We want confirmation for our beliefs.
It's funny what we choose to have faith in. We have faith in an airplane taking off and landing the way it was intended. We have faith that when we take our vehicles to a mechanic that it will be properly fixed, but we can not believe that the Lord sent his only begotten son to save us. We can not see it. Research is great and learning history is empowering, but if we were really supposed to know everything that happened throughout the history of this world, the facts would be layed out before us like food at the dinner table.
We need to stop searching for answers in places we will never be able to discover them. God is in all of us. His love for us is unwavering. You feel his love whenever you show gratitude.
Try living with God's love as your religion and see how grand life is.
God Bless!
Hello Me.
Thanks for your really uplifting comment. I couldnt agree more.
God Bless you also.
I think you are one sick dude. Pais is the word used in the kjv with strongs #3816 with means servant no matter how you put it.
You say In ancient times the term eunuch referred to men who had no interest in sexual relations with women.
"there are eunuchs who have been made eunuchs by others" = castrated males.
"and there are eunuchs who have made themselves eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven" = celibate, as in priests.
"For there are eunuchs who have been so from birth" = homosexual men
Well according to what you are saying Our Lord was a homosexual for he falls into your #2 of explanations.
Take your theory to the bible and read where it says neither thief,murderer or homosexual will enter the kingdom. There is another verse that talks about this subject in the bible but don't remember right off hand
David, God is Everything------EVERYTHING
Is it not significant to you that in the three examples Jesus mentioned, two were clearly mentioning those who don't engage in sex? Another theory is that the eunuchs who were born that way are those who are physically disabled, as you mentioned some believe, or impotent?
As for mentioning Jesus hanging out with prostitutes, are you insinuating that He didn't have a problem with prostitution? Didn't He say to the prostitute who was about to be stoned to sin no more? If Jesus associated Himself with people who didn't sin, He'd be isolated in a little bubble. To hang out with sinners, Jesus gave sinners the opportunity to repent. How could they know the errors of their ways if He just shut Himself up in His room and refused to associate with them?
I agree with you about your comment on Josephus. The passage you cited was clearly an interpolation because another passage he wrote refers to the so-called Christ as opposed to the Christ.
Hi David.
I may be sick, by your standards, but I am not blind.
The term "pais", as I quite reasonably pointed out, is only used in the story of the centurion to describe "the beloved servant"; and nowhere else. It is rather telling that a word, which in greek, was understood to mean "same sex lover" should be used exclusively in this account.
On controversial issues such as this, you need to go beyond "Strongs" to get the real meaning of a word in context. You might not like it, but you cannot get away from the facts, as indicated by an educated reading of the text.
I never even hinted that Jesus was homosexual. If He fitted into category two, which I believe, He would have been celibate.
Criticise, by all means. But at least base it on something that I have actually said.
The passage in Romans that you reccomend me to read doesnt actually say "homosexuals" in any translation earlier than the nineteenth century.
It is more representative of the bigoted attitude that prevailed then, than of a proper appreciation of biblical scholarship.
The same term can be seen in some of the sloppier produced editions of The Scriptures, produced today, i.e the ones you so obviously read.
God bless you, and may He lead you to true enlightenment.
Lady Guinevere.
Thank you for that important reminder.
Claire.
I think it is much more likely that the third category of eunuch is homosexual men, for the reasons I have already given.
If I have given the impression that Jesus approved of prostitution, that was not my impression, but note that when He cured the centurion,s servant there was no admonishment to "go and sin no more", probably because Our Lord considered that no sin was being committed.
I,m glad you agree with me on Josephus, maybe, with God's help, you will come to agree with me on the other matter as well.
God bless you.
In the case with the prostitute, the situation was based upon her sin. She was being stoned for her sin. That is why her sin was drawn to the attention of Jesus. However, with the centurion, and you have yet to prove he was even a homosexual, his homo
sexuality had nothing to do with the faith he was displaying.
The reason why I question Jesus approving of homosexuality is because it is so important in Satanism.
http://www.henrymakow.com/bohemian_grove_illuminat
Here are some more interesting articles:
http://www.savethemales.ca/_left_albert_pike_1809-
http://www.cuttingedge.org/n1084.html
The "Crime of Sodomy" is a Knights Templar (precursor to Freemasonry) initiation.
I have nothing against gay people but I cannot help but notice these facts. Why would Jesus condone occult practices?
I don't know if you have heard of a place called Bohemian Grove where they indulge in homosexual orgies? Aleister Crowly also indulged in sodomy in his magic rituals.
Claire.
I have just checked out the links you posted.
If you are going to use arguments from people that post such ridiculous rubbish as that Her Majesty The Queen is a reptile, dont expect intelligent people to engage in debate with you.
That is all I have to say.
Thumbs up Christopher to your comment to Claire. If she actually read the part of the bible about the prostitute she would understand why Jesus really was there.
Lady Guinevere. Thanks.
The problem is that sometimes someone can read a book or a passage hundreds of times, but if what they read doesnt agree with their own preconcieved ideas, it just doesnt register.
The only comment I can add, is that Jesus was clearly against sexual immorality, including adultry and fornification...they are sins. Yet, we are all sinners, and He loves us all. For anyone of us to claim that homosexuals are destined to hell due to their lifestyle would be foolish. We have our own planks to remove from our eyes first and foremost.
CMerrit, like others like you it is hard for you to read that bible all by yourselves. Jesus did not say that we are all sinners. For your information that is in the book of Mark and you can go find it yourself.
Christopher, you are right and who put those preconceived notions into their heads--the CHURCH of which Jesus was totally against in the first place.
Romans 3:23 "for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God"
I think the word ALL, indicates pretty much what it means...ALL. I did not need anyones help to explaint to me what "all" means.
CMerritt.
Thanks for dropping by. I think all religions place far too much emphasis on "sexual sin", which compared with "The biggies"of murder, bearing false witness, and robbery, is really pretty "small fry".
So far as I know we are all deserving of hellfire, but it is only through the Grace of God that we dont go there.
Lady Guinevere.
I wouldnt lay too much blame on the church, which does get a lot of things right, although I differ from them on this issue.
Oddly enough The Catholic Church does not base their condemnation of homosexual practices on the bible, which they are wise enough to know doesnt hold water, but on a creature caled "creation order theology" which is pretty flawed in itself.
There are signs that the church's position on this issue is starting to undergo some changes. I just hope The Holy Spirit encourages them to hurry up.
CMerritt, just as I thought, you take Paul's words over Jesus's.
Mark 2: 16And the scribes and the Pharisees, having seen him eating with the tax-gatherers and sinners, said to his disciples, `Why -- that with the tax-gatherers and sinners he doth eat and drink?'
17And Jesus, having heard, saith to them, `They who are strong have no need of a physician, but they who are ill; I came not to call righteous men, but sinners to reformation.'
Pretty clear to me!
Oh and here is another one: Psalm 103: 11For, as the height of the heavens [is] above the earth, His kindness hath been mighty over those fearing Him.
12As the distance of east from west He hath put far from us our transgressions.
Hey Christopher, I was so distraught over my having forgot about the scripture concerning eunuchs that you used that I featured that, you, and this hub in my newest one today, here: http://hubpages.com/_2f6iz9aonqwpc/hub/Christian-B
There's a link to your profile page, this hub, and I mentioned that I'd got the scripture here, and I quoted your elaboration, credited to you, of course.
Christopher, you have just dodged the point. So you are zoning in on one claim on one site and disregarding the rest. I post information that is not opinion. It is fact. Look at what Freemasons like Albert Pike write and the Knights Templar's stance on sodomy.
I personally don't care what homosexuals do but you cannot state it is fact that Jesus didn't have a problem with it. That is just wishful thinking.
@ Lady Guinevere. Please would you explain the scripture about the prostitute and Jesus.
@ Christopher "The problem is that sometimes someone can read a book or a passage hundreds of times, but if what they read doesnt agree with their own preconcieved ideas, it just doesnt register."
Consider this and apply it to yourself. You have not proved Jesus was for homosexuality. You have no proof the centurion was homosexual and even if eunuchs also mean homosexuals, Jesus would have stated a fact that people are born that way. It doesn't mean he condoned the sexual act. Some people are born with alcoholic tendencies but that doesn't mean it is right to abuse alcohol.
If one wants to know what Jesus would have condoned, just see what is important to Satanists and that is what He wouldn't condone.
Claire.
What Jesus would really not condone is the amount of young gay's of both sexes that are driven to suicide by guilt feelings induced by ill informed people who tell them that their perfectly natural feelings are anathema to God.
I have explained the scriptural position, as regards Jesus, several times already.
The question should really be, what is important to Satan rather than satanists?
The answer should be pretty obvious, but I will state it here for you, since you do not seem to get it.
What is important to Satan is that he should undermine the message of Love that God tried to bring into the world through the ministry of His Son Jesus Christ. Do you not feel that the low level prejudice that you are expressing in your posts, might be feeding the high level hatred that is being expressed by the "God hates fags" brigades?
Think about it. Please.
Christopher, you are asking someone to think? If only they could. Unfortunately, the copy/paste people can only do just that.
Claire, I will not spoon feed anyone. You go and read your bible yourself.
Lady Guinevere, that was a fail. You don't say things like that in a debate. You say I don't understand the scriptures regarding the prostitute, now you back that up. What part of, "Go sin no more" is unclear?
Christopher, one can't help being an homosexual. I truly believe people are born that way. However, the choice they have is whether to indulge in homosexual sex or not. Jesus abstained from sex so that is not impossible. When one lives on their accord, they can indulge in all the homosexual sex they like. There is nothing wrong with that. However, when one is representing Jesus, they have to take themselves to a much higher standard. Sodomy between a heterosexual couple is considered wrong, too. Oral sex as well.
I was born with the tendency to be an alcoholic. Alcoholism is genetic. Now I can claim that since I was born that way, I shouldn't feel guilty by indulging in too much alcohol.
My issue of contention is not the homosexual life. They can do what they want. It's not for me to judge. My contention is the fact that you are claiming it is a fact that Jesus condoned homosexuality when there isn't an iota of evidence to support that. You make wild claims that the ceturion was gay which is unfounded.
Yes, Jesus did bring a message of love to the world but that doesn't mean He condones everything we do. I suppose I could be making a prostitution feel guilty by saying prostitution is wrong. You know, Jesus did say He came to bring a sword. That means He is going to cause division by His high standards.
And you are out of line to say I feed the "God hates fags" brigade. I don't hate homosexuals and no one has a right to treat them with disrespect.
Ultimately, it is an individual's choice the way they want to live. Just don't put words into Jesus' mouth that you can't prove and is mere conjecture.
Claire, I did NOT fail. It is not my fault that you cannot go and read the bible yourself. Don't blame me for your laziness.
Claire, Brie has other handles here as well. She is also Carrie Bradshaw and you can read her attacks on my hub about Cults: http://hubpages.com/hub/What-Are-Cults
She also goes by Judah's Daughter.
Matthew 19:11-12 is not about Gays/Homosexuals/Lesbians/or Queers at any stage.
Include this in your understanding and try and argue the fact that all are sinners and need forgiveness and fruit of repentance.
1Cr 6:9 Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind.
Claire. If you set the same standards for alchohol as you set for gay sex nobody would be ever allowed to have a drink.
You are treating homosexuals with disrespect, when you say gay sex is always sinful, and, whether it makes you uncomfortable or not, the word "pais" as used in the account of the centurion, does mean "same sex lover".
You cannot get away from the truth of the text.
HOOWANTSTONO.
Your translation uses the word "effeminate".
What does it mean by that?
There are heterosexual men who are effeminate.
There are celibate priests who are effeminate.
Most women are, by nature of their sex, effeminate.
Are all these people excluded from The Kingdom?
By the reasoning of the passage as presented, that must be the case.
If that is what you meant, you are talking rubbish, and if that is what St Paul meant, he is talking rubbish as well.
I think both of you need to go back to "the drawing board".
Austinstar, and Lady Guinevere.
Thank you both for your intelligent, and supportive comments.
Hoo, who has not read the comments there are other verses then what Paul states and on eif from Jesus. I find it wierd that people want to take Paul's words over Jesus's words. Is Paul more important than Jesus---that is confusing becasue everyone in religion tells us they follow Jesus, but in fact they are following Paul. Paul is NOT Jesus by any stretch of the imagination. Here is the words of JESUS (again)
Mark 2: 16And the scribes and the Pharisees, having seen him eating with the tax-gatherers and sinners, said to his disciples, `Why -- that with the tax-gatherers and sinners he doth eat and drink?'
17And Jesus, having heard, saith to them, `They who are strong have no need of a physician, but they who are ill; I came not to call righteous men, but sinners to reformation.'
Pretty clear to me!
Oh and here is another one: Psalm 103: 11For, as the height of the heavens [is] above the earth, His kindness hath been mighty over those fearing Him.
12As the distance of east from west He hath put far from us our transgressions.
Lady Guinevere.
Thanks again.
Does anyone notice that the bible doesn't say anything about women laying with other women? Interesting hmmmm.
"Claire. If you set the same standards for alchohol as you set for gay sex nobody would be ever allowed to have a drink."
Don't be silly. It is the abuse of alcohol that is wrong, not merely drinking it. There's no such thing as gay sex in moderation which makes it right.
"You are treating homosexuals with disrespect, when you say gay sex is always sinful, and, whether it makes you uncomfortable or not, the word "pais" as used in the account of the centurion, does mean "same sex lover"."
Am I treating prostitutes with disrespect when I say prostitution is wrong? Respecting someone doesn't mean you have to agree with them. Disrespecting gays would mean I'd condemn them to hell which I don't.
The term "pais" can be interpreted in many ways. It is translated as son or servant, or a servant that is much younger, in other words, a child servant. It is derived from the Hebrew word ebed, meaning slave or servant. Luke refers to doulo, not pais, which obviously means servant. Doesn't it occur to you the centurion may have viewed his servant so dear that he was like a son to him? It was the centurion's compassion and faith Jesus was commending, not his homosexuality, if one is to argue from that point of view.
Pais is also mentioned 24 other times in the Bible. Are they all references to homosexuality? One example is Luke 1:69 whereby David is referred to as pais, i.e, a servant of the Lord. Was David God's gay lover?
The evidence all points to the centurion having a servant that he didn't engage in sexual relations with. It is clear in Matthew 8 that the centurion loves the servant so much because he is so faithful and loyal and obedient. He didn't say he loved him to much because he was his lover.
Hi Claire.
If you dont condemm homosexuals to Hell what is the problem? Obviously by your standards there is no sin, because there is no consequence.
You are correct in Luke 1:69, and I was incorrect in saying the word "pais" did not appear in the NT except in the centurion story, but words must be understood in the context in which they are written.
In Luke 1:69 David is obviously a special servant of God, but that still does not take away from the fact that in the greek of the time, the word "pais" usually referred to "same sex lover", and considering the restrictive way that roman soldiers had to operate at the time, (not being allowed to marry), it is more than reasonable to assume that the servant was his lover.
I reckon, that if Jesus was telling the parable of The Pharisee and The Publican today, homosexuals would be taking the part of The Publican. I'll leave it up to you to decide who The Pharisee should be.
It is not for me to condemn anyone to hell no matter how much I disapprove of something. So just because someone sins I must condemn them to hell or else I'm conceding no sin exists? As a sinner, I'd certainly not like someone to condemn me to hell because they don't know what is in my heart.
And, yes, there are many consequences to sins. We are all to held accountable for it. I know that if Jesus doesn't condone something, it is not to spoil anyone's fun but because it is in our best interest.
You do a lot of assuming, I think you know that. You somehow think that all Roman centurions were homosexual and that all of them couldn't control themselves because they didn't marry and thus had to have sex with young boys.
I think if the Roman centurion was gay and had a servant lover, the gospel of Luke would also have referred to the servant as pais and not doulo. Since Judaism was very much against homosexuality, as stipulated in their laws, it would have been reported in the gospel that the man was homosexual and that people would have urged Jesus to condemn him, but no one said anything. The message of the whole scripture was the centurion's faith and not about any sort of homosexuality. Why are people turning it into a homosexual issue when it has nothing to do with the scripture?
Greeks were known to have orgies and were obviously idolators. Now because no mention of these things are made by Jesus in the healing of the servant story, does it mean He condoned it? Why didn't He call him a filthy pagan? Obviously Jesus didn't approve of paganism but pagan worship had nothing to do with the centurion's faith.
As much as Jesus had compassion on us sinners, make no mistake in thinking He condones any of it.
Claire.
You still dont get it I,m afraid.
If God is The Creator of all men, and He is Omnipotent and infinetly just, would He create a category of human that was handicapped from birth by a sexuality that was not allowed to be expressed?
The modern understanding of homosexuality is that it is something that people are born with. It is not a learned behaviour. I know that much from personal experience.
I am assuming that you are a heterosexual woman.
If you were told, that you were obliged to live a life of celibacy, because it was inherently wrong for you to have sex with a man, even if you were married, how would you feel?
Do you feel that a just God would put such strictures on how you live your life?
If you answer no, why do you feel that God, Who is supposed to be equally just to me, would condemm me to a lifetime of sexlessness. There are up to twenty percent of His human creations in the same situation.
I dont believe God made me as I am, and then expected me to deny expression to the nature that He endowed me with.
I dont feel that he expected the centurion, or his "servant" to do so either.
I got bored half way through the comments and slid on down here.
Jesus hung out with the needful, that had an open mind and would listen to his message " the greatest of all, being love", treating one another as we would ourselves.
To hate a Homosexual, would be not of his nature and should not be of ours. I lived in California where many of them seem to congregate. I have found out that men I knew were gay, so as a "christian" was a man I knew to be fair and trustworthy at a job or fellow that hunted or fished with me, now to be hated and cast away from my friend list? NO, I'll never believe that yes should be the answer.
I do believe that scripture provides statements in regard to this as "in no ways shall see the Kingdom of God". Do I believe that? Yes. I don't see it different than being a habitual liar, or thief, or a multitude of things listed as sins. They all have a ranking of the same, while society puts a color of difference to the significance of "Murder" over "stealing" the scripture does not.
A christian is to be one of kindness and accepting of those who will hear them, and those who will not are directed to knock the sand of their sandals on their way out. Like don't waste your time with them. Leave them to wallow in the wickedness until they become teachable.
Teaching is the core of "duty" as a follower of Christ, if they are willing to listen, let them listen, and maybe they will hear what compels them to try and do better. Maybe you'll see a miracle of awakening.
I had one and was baptized one day, then the next day I most likely, if not the same day, sinned in one way or another. Get me in the company of crude speakers and most likely you'll hear just what kind of vocabulary I have, way different than that of the one I would use if I was inside a church or in front of folks that I don't know.
It's just this, we are not charged with condemning our fellow people, we are charged with setting an example and some are teachers, none are judges and I have stepped aside of mainstream religion and the word "christian" in favor of "follower of Christ and his teachings" not least, a failure at that most days, but I am allowed to repent, and that was the biggest miracle of "Christ" his payment for all sins yet to come, and everyone who is alive can repent right up to their last breath, after that, you've died in or out of sin and that is what I will believe until then.
I thank you for writing an article that brings us to thought on an interesting topic, 50
Thanks 50 Caliber for your well thought out, and interesting comment.
I agree with you.
It is not for us to judge, but to give example.
You are a wise man.
Why do you only the address the parts of my argument convenient to you?
I'm afraid it is you who doesn't get it.
You happen to be taking Satan out of the equation. Would God create sinful people? A just and perfect one? No, He would not. Are there sinful people? Yes, all of us. So what's going on? Well, the devil has tainted creation. Yes, he has and that is why we have sinful desires. Why would God make me in such a way that I had the tendency to abuse alcohol? Why are we so weak by nature that evil appeals to us?
If Satan manipulated mankind to such an extent that they'd desire to have sex with members of their own sex, then it would explain why homosexuality is so important in Satanism. I have heard testimony from occult defectors that they commit homosexual acts because it offends God.
"If you were told, that you were obliged to live a life of celibacy, because it was inherently wrong for you to have sex with a man, even if you were married, how would you feel?"
First of all I'd ask you if Jesus condemns heterosexual sex within marriage? No, because the Bible says He wants marriage between a man and a women, not between a man and a man or between a woman with a woman.
And even though it is hard for a person, homosexual or not, to abstain from sex, it doesn't give someone the right to make false claims about Jesus just to rest their conscience.
"Do you feel that a just God would put such strictures on how you live your life?"
Nobody claimed the Christian life is easy. Jesus demands a high standard of living of us. You can't have God on your own terms. Jesus led a celibate life because He wasn't put on this earth to marry. Would a just God put restrictions on Jesus? Seems so. If you cannot aspire to be like Jesus, then perhaps you shouldn't be a Christian at all. And I do put my money where my mouth is. I am celibate myself. There have also been cases whereby homosexuals have claimed they have turned straight because of the power of God. Whatever our circumstances may be, we all have CHOICES.
"If you answer no, why do you feel that God, Who is supposed to be equally just to me, would condemm me to a lifetime of sexlessness. There are up to twenty percent of His human creations in the same situation."
A nymphomaniac could claim she was born with the desire to have sex all the time. Should she feel restricted because promiscuity is wrong?
Look, I really feel for you. It isn't easy to abstain from sex and feel like you are doing something wrong everytime you have sex. I personally don't know what is it like to be in your situation but what you do is between you and God. I don't judge you. It is not your homosexuality I am speaking out against; it is your claim that Jesus condoned it where you have no proof He did.
"I dont believe God made me as I am, and then expected me to deny expression to the nature that He endowed me with."
I could say to myself I don't believe God make me as I am, a sinner by birth, just to deprive me of sin.
"I dont feel that he expected the centurion, or his "servant" to do so either."
How can I comment on this when you ignored my argument in my latest comment on why the centurion wasn't gay? If the Christian life is too hard for you, abandon it.
I'm going to ask you a very important question that may help me to understand better: Why are you a Christian?
There is no such thing as Satan as an real enitity. It's only in your head. Jesus was not a Christian and today's Christians don't listen to the words of Jesus, they listen to Paul and puts Jesus words out of focus.
Not everyone is a sinner and Jesus said that and you deny it, but it is right there. Who is telling yu that Jesus's words are not to be listened too?????
Claire. I will answer your last question first.
I am a christian because I believe that Jesus Christ is God, and that He came down from Heaven and died for my sins, and the sins of all mankind, that He raised Himself from the dead, and that He holds out the promise of everlasting life to me, if I love Him back, and show that love by doing my best to love all other people for His sake.
I hope that is some help to you.
When you say that Satan has tainted creation, are you saying that some of us were created by the Devil?
If Satan did taint creation, he did so by encouraging bigotry and narrow minded prejudice to creep in and pollute a movement that was set up by God to spread love throughout the world.
You say you "feel for me". You dont need to. I exhult in my sexuality, and I exhult in God Who made me as I am.
I utterly reject the notion that my homosexual way of life is sinful, or that it is in any way displeasing to God.
The attitude that you promote is the attitude that has lead to the death by suicide of many good young people.
You may not personally be driving them to an early death, but the false notion that it is sinful to engage in homosexual relations is one of the principal causes behind this tragic waste of life.
It also gives comfort to those who feel it is a good idea to go out and beat gays up.
The hardest part of being a christian in the twenty first century is to have to put up with the jibes and the sticks, literally and metaphorically, that get thrown at one from those who are supposed to be one's brothers and sisters in Christ.
Christianity will never be a properly grown up religion until it gets rid of the totally unChristlike attitude that it adapts towards those who dont subscribe to the ridiculously narrow sexual mores it promotes.
One final thing. You say you yourself are celibate. Is this a lifelong vocation, or are you just waiting for the right man to come along? I hope he does for you.
But please dont expect me to let my "right man" pass by because I am supposed to be celibate. Because it aint going to happen sister.
Clair, don't forget that God also created Satan according to the bible. (God created all things in heaven and on earth) I don't know the chapter/verse, but I'm sure Lady G does.
Personally, I'm not a Christian and the more I get to know Christians, the less I want to know them. I'm actually developing a distaste for anyone who tells me they are Christian. The reason for that is that they lie to themselves as well as to me. Christianity has been so corrupted from its roots that there is no knowing what what was meant in the ancient book you all believe in.
You argue over the meanings of single words like 'pais' and 'duolo'. You cannot see the forest for the trees.
I like 50 Cal's definition better - following the teachings of Jesus. Drop the entire old testament, and while you're at it, drop everything in the new testament except the teachings of Jesus and I might like you a lot more.
Hi Lady Guinevere.
I,m afraid that I am one of those who believes that Satan is a real entity, It's just that the people who are under his sway are not the people generally supposed to be.
Of course Jesus was not a christian, as He did not follow Himself.
I feel that we should follow St Paul and Jesus. They are both of great importance, but we should be really sure of the meanings of what they say, before we start quoting either.
St Paul has been given rather a bad press in recent times by those who want to ascribe opinions to him that are not necessarily those actually written in his Epistles, and he has suffered quite a lot from deliberate mistranslation, or from people who didnt understand the context in which he was sometimes writing.
He was a great man, and a great saint. It is just that we need to be a bit careful when we try to interpret some of his writings.
I still go with Austinstar about Jesus. When I gave those verses from Mark, they were dismissed and Paul's teaching to his place. They were also the opposite in their teaching. Paul was born and brought up a roman soldier, he was taught to be in infiltrator. How many people do you know that is in the spy field turn over in one night---NOBODY! If it is ROTE (brainwashed) into them from birth they cannot change overnight, just lke that.
Have you actually seen Satan? What does he look like and why is it a HE when in the Bible he was the Angel of Beauty and thought to be Feminine. Now it is a HE and it has a physical body? It was told in the Bible that he was an Angel which do not have physical bodies.
Satan is God's friend. Does that shock you? I bet it does. Read Job and really take all religion out of it when you do and see what God and Satan did to Job and how they planned things for him to test him to bring him closer to GOD. Oh and God and Energy are the same things.
everything is made up of energy. Everything! Lets have a look at the similarities between God and Energy-
Can neither be created nor be destroyed.
Has ever been and will ever be.
Is the fundamental creation
Exists everywhere
Can be seen in various forms
Which means that EVERYTHING is part of EVERYTHING connected and all the same.
About Saints and the One True God: When Abraham or even much earlier in Egypt when the One God came into theology and religion came to be the Saint's replaced the many God's. Look the them and compare their principles and duties of each. There is a god that did the same thing in the polytheistic/pagan or what-have-you beliefs.
Hi Austinstar.
Shooting from the hip, as always.
It is one of the things I like about you most.
As you may have already guessed I am a christian, but it sometimes takes all my faith to strenghten me in dealing with many of my fellow believers.
Still I would rather fight the good fight from within than leave. But that's me.
I hope your growing distaste is not starting to creep in my direction, as I feel that my time on hubpages has been very much enriched by my exposure to your very interesting views.
Looking back at where you got your information in the books that were written from Jesus on homosexuality and it stated that it was not a problem and then taking someone elses comments that were written by Paul and they were contradictory of what Jesus taught, can't you see the differences there about homosexuality. Paul was strictly against it and Jesus didn't pay any mind to it. Those Christians like you have been told---yes TOLD that Paul's teaching is right with Jesus and it is apparent that they are not.
Hi Lady Guinevere.
The idea that we are all part of one great energy field is a bit too Gnostic for my tastes, still I think we should agree to differ on that one.
I dont recall any instances in The Bible when Satan was considered Female.
I expect, as a spirit, he is essentially sexless.
Thanks for visiting. Your contributions are always valued.
Lady Guinevere. St Paul on homosexuality is a complicated subject, that I havent time to go into in deapth here.
Essentially what he was condemming was Pagan Temple prostitition, and heterosexual men that were going with priests in the temples, as a way of gaining favour with the pagan gods. He wasnt condemming homosexuality as such.
It is the same attitude that prevails in the Leviticus rules in The Old Testament. People were commanded not to do the things of Egypt and Canaan. This was because homosexual sex was part of the worship in the temples of both of those countries.
That is it basically. There is a lot more to be said on the subject, but I might save it for a separate hub.
Thanks again.
I will still follow Jesus and not Paul. Makes no sense when we are asked to follow him and he only get 4 books in the bible and Paul gets all the rest. All his other books about him have been told that they are heresies. THAT makes no sense. There is some political play and some power of the people.
Peter was set as the foundation of the church by Jesus and yet Paul gets it all---something is just not right with that.
The most critical thing is that you do follow Jesus Lady Guinevere.
But the easiest way of doing that is through the messages in The New Testament, and that includes The Epistles of St Paul.
Best wishes in your journey.
@Christopher,
Jesus died for our sins but that doesn't mean it gives us carte blanche to carry on sinning. We have to put Jesus' will in front of our own. However, you insist that Jesus condoned homosexuality when you know your case is weak.
"When you say that Satan has tainted creation, are you saying that some of us were created by the Devil?"
Don't you know the difference between tainting creation and creation itself? God created us but Satan has somehow manipulated the makeup of us all. That is why we have the desire to sin. If we weren't tainted by Satan, then why do we sin? Did God make us with the desire to sin?
"If Satan did taint creation, he did so by encouraging bigotry and narrow minded prejudice to creep in and pollute a movement that was set up by God to spread love throughout the world."
Is the God movement about doing whatever the hell one likes? I have no problem with people being gay. What I do have a problem with is people claiming as a fact that Jesus condoned homosexuality when it is wrong. I want to reiterate something. Jesus came to bring a sword. That means He caused division on this earth because of the truth. I think this is the reason why He was accused of being possessed by the spirit of Beelzebub, which you are kind of implying I am.
"You say you "feel for me". You dont need to. I exhult in my sexuality, and I exhult in God Who made me as I am."
Who said God made you the way you are? God certainly wasn't responsible for my alcoholic genetics. He didn't make me that way. That was Satan tainting me. If God made me the way I am as someone who sins, then why stop sinning? I'm going to indulge in sin because God made me that way.
"I utterly reject the notion that my homosexual way of life is sinful, or that it is in any way displeasing to God."
Do Satan and God want the same thing? You can reject the notion all you like because it is comforting to you. It's not convenient for you to think otherwise. However, you can't put words in Jesus' mouth. No way did He condone homosexuality and deep down you know it. Why else are you protesting so much?
"The attitude that you promote is the attitude that has lead to the death by suicide of many good young people."
You are a bully, you know that? I don't condemn homosexuals. I have never done so. I have always stood up for homosexuals when people say things like they should be crucified. I draw the line when they say Jesus condones the homosexual way of life, though. You can't see the difference, can you? You can't seem to take any responsibility. When my mother said I had to clean up my act and stop abusing alcohol, should I have accused her of making me feel guilty and commit suicide?
"You may not personally be driving them to an early death, but the false notion that it is sinful to engage in homosexual relations is one of the principal causes behind this tragic waste of life."
I'm sorry, but Jesus didn't spare people's feelings. Imagine if He said, "Well, look Mary, I know you depend on prostitution to make a living, so I'm not going to say prostitution is wrong because I don't want you to feel guilty and commit suicide." He said, "Go sin no more."
"It also gives comfort to those who feel it is a good idea to go out and beat gays up."
Those people are wrong and you know it. They have absolutely no excuse to do so for they aren't sin-free.
"The hardest part of being a christian in the twenty first century is to have to put up with the jibes and the sticks, literally and metaphorically, that get thrown at one from those who are supposed to be one's brothers and sisters in Christ."
Jesus did much jibing. Look at John 4:17. He draw to the attention of the Samaritan woman that she was committing adultery. I suppose out of guilt she should commit suicide.
"Christianity will never be a properly grown up religion until it gets rid of the totally unChristlike attitude that it adapts towards those who dont subscribe to the ridiculously narrow sexual mores it promotes."
Then Christ was totally unChrist-like.
"One final thing. You say you yourself are celibate. Is this a lifelong vocation, or are you just waiting for the right man to come along? I hope he does for you."
Of course it is not a lifelong vocation. I'm waiting for the right man.
Christopher, you can live the life you want. I just thought it was good for you to be challenged like it is for all of us. Knowing all sides of the argument enables us to make more informed choices.
@Austinstar
"Clair, don't forget that God also created Satan according to the bible. (God created all things in heaven and on earth) I don't know the chapter/verse, but I'm sure Lady G does."
Absolute nonsense. The Bible isn't infallible. If God created Satan, then I'd tell Him to get knotted. Jesus said that Satan was a liar and murderer from the start. Why would God create that sort of creature? Genesis was plagiarised from ancient pagan sources.
"You argue over the meanings of single words like 'pais' and 'duolo'. You cannot see the forest for the trees."
Yes, it is called a debate.
"I like 50 Cal's definition better - following the teachings of Jesus. Drop the entire old testament, and while you're at it, drop everything in the new testament except the teachings of Jesus and I might like you a lot more."
What about the teachings of Jesus that said He came to bring a sword? If only He stopped pointing out sin!
I'm not here to be liked. If I was liked by everybody, there would be something wrong with me.
Now, I have exhausted my argument. I have said everything I wished to say so I wish to end this debate here. I don't want someone to commit suicide because of me.
I'm not coming back here so please don't respond.
Hi Claire.
I,m sorry that you feel that robust debating is bullying.
I can see now that you have your own demons to battle with.
All I can do is pray for you, that you are able with God's help to overcome the stresses your life is subject to.
If you can do the same for me that would be nice.
Take care.
Nice to have known you.
"I hope your growing distaste is not starting to creep in my direction, as I feel that my time on hubpages has been very much enriched by my exposure to your very interesting views."
Definitely not, Christopher! I think you are one really good intelligent person. You have enriched my life also. I pay attention to everyone's views, some of them disgust me and some of them make me smile!
I think I may be splitting hairs on the Christian identity. I really mean that if you call yourself a "Christian" I am automatically going to assign you to a "category" of people. Then I am further going to try to see you as a human being and not a "Christian" because I have internally developed a distaste for "Christians". That's my shortcoming and not yours. It's my nature and I have to fight it constantly.
Our brains have been hardwired from birth to think in certain patterns and it is a struggle to develop a thinking brain and not a brain that just spews forth "learned" material. Yes, even for me :-)
Thanks Austinstar.
That is a problem we all suffer from.
It is always so much easier to accept the things we are told, than to look at the world, and make up our own minds.
I think you do pretty well though.
Did Jesus ever tell his followers to follow anyone else but him and his father?
Christopher, outstanding!
God is love, and yet there is so much ego in the world. Ego is us vs. them, and I'm right and you're not. It is also, "Look how generous I am." Could ego be Satan? Could ego be the self which needs to die before we can gain everlasting life? Those moments when I felt closest to God, ego was nowhere to be found.
I need to follow. I don't want to miss another scrap of your scholarly work. Thank you!
Hey Lady Guinevere, I just saw this on the feed and I wanted to point out that Jesus didn't want anyone following anyone. None! No idols, no nothing. ;)
Hey Cagsil, You are right and he hated the chruch establishment too. He was totally against anything traditional--as n oral traditions or written ones and he didn't like any money changing in the churches or any type of of image worship. Yet you see all of these being taught in the chruch. They simply do not read anything that Jesus supposedly said. I question that all the time and they continue to ignore it because they would rather go with a deceiver than Jesus. Why?
Hi Lady Guinevere.
He didnt, but by virtue of any one of us talking about Him, and someone agreeing with the opinion expressed, that person is following to Jesus.
It is the same with St Paul. People are not following St Paul because of his personal opinions, they are only following through him to Christ.
Hi lone77star.
Thanks for your very generous comments. I think you may have a very good point there, although I dont think that God expects us to lose all sense of self. He just wants us to build on our positive aspects, and share them with the world.
Cagsil.
Thanks for looking in. I think that Jesus did want people to follow him.
Lady G.
I dont think that Jesus hated the church/temple establishment.
He hated the corruption that had been allowed to creep in. That is why he cleared out the money changers.
I dont really know of any christian churches where they worship images. In Catholicism, and Orthodoxy they venerate the people that the images represent, but worship is different, and that is reserved for God.
So we should follow anyone who talks about anyone, just by virtue--even Satan because we talk about them? Satan and Jesus talked all the tie, while Pauls never met Jesus in person ever. That certainly sounds like what you are saying.
Hey Lady, that's because the church has the mentality of- "do as I say, not as I do". The church is the ones who began this myth of "Christ". So, it would make sense that they also manipulated the scripture to suit themselves.
Hey Christopher, I find it truly appalling that YOU are addressing my posts, which have NOTHING to do with you. My posts are for the hub author. The fact that you bring yourself into my conversation with Lady is absurd. Man, learn your place in this world would you.
Cagsil.
It may have escaped your notice, but I am the Hub author.
Lady Guinevere.
I shall answer you in the morning, if that is OK, and if Cagsil has no objection. It is one a.m here at the moment, and I need to go to bed.
Just talk amongst yourselves.
Lady Guinevere.
So exactly what did happen on the road to Damascus then?
And I am not saying that we should follow Satan.
If you believe, as I do, that St Paul was an apostle of God, and his writings were inspired, of course you should follow him. But you should use discernment, and realise that it is neccessary to understand what he is saying in the context of the time he was saying it.
For instance he says that a woman should keep her head covered in church, or in assembly.
This was because in the first century only prostitutes had their hair uncovered, so it was important that women in church kept their heads covered, otherwise the more conservatives amongst the congregations might accuse them of prostitution.
Read about Jesus based on the Qur'an
http://prophet-isa.blogspot.com/
I believe In Jesus and Im a muslim. But I believe he was a prophet. Give it a try and read our version of Jesus.
OmNaser.
Thanks for reading, but I think I would prefer to stick with christianity at the moment.
Jesus didn't say anything about women's heads being covered or not. If Paul had a vision then you could say the same about all those that are in jail that have turned to Jesus....hmmmmm? No, I would rathr go with someone who is and always is honest and that is Jesus. Who wrote about the vision that Paul had on the road?
Lady Guinevere.
Let us agree to disagree on this, as we are just going round in circles.
God Bless you, and thanks for your valued contributions.
So you don't have an ansswer as to who wrote about Paul's experience? Were there witnesses or was it just Paul that told people?
We can agree to disagree.
Lady Guinevere.
I,m pasting one of the relevant passages.
This is from The Acts of The Apostles.
As he neared Damascus on his journey, suddenly a light from heaven flashed around him. He fell to the ground and heard a voice say to him, "Saul, Saul, why do you persecute me?"
"Who are you, Lord?" Saul asked.
"I am Jesus, whom you are persecuting," he replied. "Now get up and go into the city, and you will be told what you must do."
The men traveling with Saul stood there speechless; they heard the sound but did not see anyone. Saul got up from the ground, but when he opened his eyes he could see nothing. So they led him by the hand into Damascus. For three days he was blind, and did not eat or drink anything.
– Acts 9:3-9, New International Version
There is plenty more in The Bible as well.
Oh I read the whole chapter in the Young's Litteral translation. If someone had that story today they would also be despised and sought to be put away.So he suffered just like Jesus did--all except being put on the cross. Jesus said to test the spirits and so I do. I still go with the teachings of Jesus--especially what was not included in the Bible.
My apologizes Christophanton. I was speaking with Lady, not you. But, it's now irrelevant. Good day.
Lady Guinevere.
If I am reading you correctly you seem to be getting a lot of your information about Jesus from The Gnostic Gospels, i,e The Gospel of Mary, The Gospel of Thomas etc.
If that is the case you really ought to do some research into these books, especially if you want to "test the spirits". These books were left out of the canon because they were written a long time after the accepted gospels, probably around the end of the second century, or the beginning of the third. They were written to give a quasi pagan greek spin on the account of Jesus, and have little to do with the actual Jesus as portrayed in the approved gospels. I would be very careful, if I were you, about taking my beliefs from such dubious sources.
You would be putting yourself on a very dangerous path.
Cagsil.
Apology accepted. No offence taken. Have a brilliant day.
You assume wrong. Don't you ever wonder what is so bad in those other gospels to deem it necessary to put the fear of the Almighty in one's heart? Do you ever wonder why just a small amount of MEN decied what went into and was ommitted from the Bble that we have today? Have you ever read about the Council of Nicea and what they considered truth? How about the other Councils, do you know what was said in them and what was going on at the times of them deciding what went into the books? Isn't it for each person to decide for themsleves what Jesus was speaking about? Jesus said that he put the laws in the minds of men andin the hearts too. What does that say to you?
Someone told me that in the Council of Niceas they had to decide on weather woman had a soul? Does that surprise you and doesn't it give you an idea why women are treated the way they are to this very day?
Lots to think about......hmmmm don't you think....or do you also go by men's words?
Jesus stated that The Kingdom and Everything is WITHIN YOU and he didn't say any books either. By the way in the bible it is stated that not everything and not all of the miracles that Jesus performed or what he ever taught is in the book.
We each have our own brains and each is slightly different in it's thinking then another. Ever wonder why that is? If we were all to believe and act the same way, what purpose would that serve and why would we all be different?
Just think about it all.
You talk about the council of Nicaea, and whether women have souls.
I'll paste this excerpt and then the link so you can read the entire article.
You really shouldnt base your beliefs on just what people told you.
But when one traces the rumor back to its source, one finds that someone, somewhere, made a very big mistake. The actual historical event which became the basis for this rumor did not happen at the Council of Nicea or any other ecumenical council in Church history, but in a local Synod in France in 585 AD. The account can be found in the book The History of the Franks by Gregory of Tours (which I have read; you can probably get it from an academic library or through Interloan at a public library).
This is what really happened:
During a break between sessions at the Synod, one of the bishops there expressed to his fellow bishops his personal belief that the Latin word homo (mankind) does not include women. Immediately every other bishop present objected to his statement, pointing out that the Vulgate (the Latin translation of the Scriptures used at that time) uses the word homo to refer to both Adam and Eve in Genesis 5:2.
That verse reads: "(God) created them male and female; and blessed them: and called their name Adam, in the day when they were created" (Douay Version, emphasis mine). Adam, besides being the proper name applied to the father of our race, is the Hebrew word for "mankind" or "humanity" (as opposed to iysh, which refers to a male human being). When Saint Jerome translated the Bible into Latin he rendered Adam here with the Latin equivalent Homo. And the bishops at the French Synod used his Vulgate translation to prove their fellow bishop wrong in stating that women are not included in the word homo.
Having sufficiently refuted that notion, the discussion ended.
http://home.earthlink.net/~mysticalrose/object.htm
If you want to be a Gnostic, that is your affair, but I am afraid it is not for me.
Your hub makes us think a little more and the facts were very well presented.Thank you for expressing your thoughts for others to see and learn more.Have a great day.
nowhere did your quote speak about women having soul's. It stated that they may or nay have not been homo.
Jesus was an essene which is gnostic and I will leave it at that.
It appears to me that you are RC.
DREAM ON.
Thanks for visiting, and Thank you for your supportive comments.
Have a great day yourself.
Lady Guinevere. Read the entire article, if you have time.
Jesus wasnt an Essene. The Essenes were the people who left The Dead Sea scrolls.
They had nothing to do with Jesus.
It appears to me that I am RC also.
Is that a problem?
It is when you have been indoctrinated since birth into what they want you to read and what they don't want you to read. If you read your Doctrines in those somewhere it says tht they are to keep the clergy and the peaople n the dak at all costs. Now I had that on my favorites list and had posted it on a social netowrk that is no longer and have lost it since, but I can assure you that it is there in the doctrine. Why would they want to do that? Is that what Jesus said? Have you read it yet. Have you read any of the gospels that were not included in the Bible that you have?
Jesus was teaching "THE WAY" and so was Peter. They were Nazarenes which one sect is the essenes, or vice versa, and that is how Jesus was brought up.
Here you find somehting contrary to other popular belief to prove your sexuality as being OK by Jesus, but you are bound and determined to keep mine as gnostic and that is bad in your churche's eyes and the rest of the world who claims that the gnostic is pagan and wrong and therefre I am wrong period.
When you read some of those other gospels you will see why they were not included. Until ten you can gesture all you want becasue it is the doctrine of your church that wants to keep their people in the dark at all costs. "ALL COSTS"! What is so precious as to keep people away from it and why so secretively?
Here are some links for you:
http://www.thenazareneway.com/ght_table_of_content
This is from the site:
Luke-Acts and Revelation were written in Allegory in order to preserve the true story of Jesus the Nazarene and Mary Magdalene.
The Nazarenes were under attack and feared total destruction of their doctrine. Allegory was their only hope of saving their history
from destruction at the hands of their enemy, Saulus, aka "The Apostle Paul. "
I went to your site and it was a catholic rebuttal to someone else. It talked about Thomas Awuinas and yes I know his ways and what he was really called. His parent kidnapped him form one of the monestaries that he was attending becasue he was known as The Dog of the Catholic Church. He was to be trained as a Lay Dominican. Here is one site about him: http://philosophy.lander.edu/intro/aquinas.shtml
Lady Guinevere.
Jesus was hardly a nazarene, because they did not eat meat, and there is no evidence from the bible that Jesus didnt.
And nobody ever indoctrinated me, or told me what to read.
You seem to have some rather strangely odd ideas about the catholic church, and about St Thomas Aquinas.
I will look at your links sometime when I have a bit of time, thats if my bishop will allow me.
Mark 1:9-45 (Young's Literal Translation)
9And it came to pass in those days, Jesus came from Nazareth of Galilee, and was baptized by John at the Jordan;
I do not have any ODD ideas about the Catholic Church. I went through RCIA and then after several years decided it wasn't for me and I hear the lies they tell right in the Mass.
Lady Guinevere.
You appear to be mixing up a native of Nazereth, which was a town in Galilee, with Nazarenes, which was a sect within Judaism.
You do also really appear to have odd ideas about The Catholic Church.
Just because you disagree with them, does not mean that they are not telling the truth, but since the legitimacy and the authority of The Catholic Church was not the original subject of my article, I will not be saying any more on it here.
No, I don't and am not the only one who has "odd" ideas about the Catholic Church. You just seem to be trying to prove something that scares the begeebees out of normal folk. No Homo's aren't perverts but the Catholic Church seems to think that it is OK to be a predator to male children. Is that "odd"? I think so!
Why are you using that "H" word Lady Guinevere? some people, including me find that term offensive.
And whats with that "normal folk" thing? Am I not normal?
When I last looked I had the same amount of limbs as most of the rest of humanity, and I dont have horns, or a tail. That seems quite normal to me.
"but the Catholic Church seems to think that it is OK to be a predator to male children. Is that "odd"? I think so!"
If your theology is so weak that you have to resort to such cheap and inaccurate slanders as the above in order to try to get your points across, perhaps you might be more at home posting on a different hub, that is if you can find a one on how to libel your betters.
Gosh, you two. Dukeing it out, eh?
I've had several gay male friends and some gay female friends. My son even thought I was a lesbian at one time. I really don't have any idea how he got that idea as I am definitely heterosexual.
Now, even I didn't know that "Homo" was offensive. I knew it used to be a few years ago. Then Queer as Folk came out, and the gay initiative went full blast and everyone started jumping on the Rainbow wagon. My friends started calling themselves queer and proud as well as some other names I thought were offensive, but they said it's now the "in" thing.
People would think they were offending me by calling me names like fatso and lardass or whatever. (My fav was "fatsnatch"). But I think it's just funny. I am what I am and that's all there is to it. I'm at the age now that I don't think you could offend me if you tried.
So that being said, please forgive me in advance if I slip up and say something stupid as I have been known to speak before engaging my brain.
I'm sort of trying to defend Lady G here and I don't know why. I just like her.
Hi Austinstar.
I like Lady G myself, I just dont like that term, as it has often been used as a term of abuse,and I question her definition of "normal".
But Lady G is fine herself.
I have not one thing against the Homosexual community. I have a neighbor who is gay and we get along just fine and his lover is now living with him and that I see as a good thing. He would lose his house if he didn't have a room mate. He also went through some extensive surgeries and so did his lover and them helping each other out is a good thing. What is normal for you Christopher? Normal for me is "whatever floats your boat".
Hi Lady G.
Much the same as you, I guess.
Take care.
Hey, reality is normal :-)
Fair enough.
Where did Jesus say the laws and the kingdom are? Whatever you want in yourself is normal. Everything is WITHIN you---so said Jesus. Now if you want to know why we are in each others lives you can read my hub about what Jesus taught me here:http://hubpages.com/hub/What-I-learned-When-I-Went
I shall have to look at that.
Thank you.
What do you not believe it truth in my hub?
I have another hub that may interest you: http://hubpages.com/hub/The-Myth-Of-Peace-and-Love
Thanks Lady Guinevere.
I will check your link later on.
Personally,I'll go with beliefs of Alex Collier.
good hub.
Thanks for the comment. Who is Alex Collier?
If one of the two strange facts about Jesus was that he approved homosexual relationships, what is the second fact you are putting forward?
I would like to thank you for this post/article.
Please consider adding my book on your amazon.com list. The name of my book is Insights on the Exodus, King David, and Jesus by Steefen. This book is available on the kindle and as a print-on-demand book. As I am redoing the index, the Kindle version which does not have an index is currently the most up-to-date manuscript.
The Historical Jesus is not possible because Jesus was mythologized; therefore, Jesus has at least one historical component and at least one mythological component.
Insights on the Exodus, King David, and Jesus / The Greatest Bible Study in Historical Accuracy is one of the best tests of faith at the pillar of historicity not just of Jesus but King David, the 23rd Psalm, the Exodus, and even Adam and Eve.
Steefen.
Thanks for your very useful comment.
It will be my pleasure to add your book to My Amazon list.
I will see to it in the next couple of days.
The second fact you asked about, is the historicity of Jesus, which I note you doubt.
Good work. You are like a pitbull, aren't you. You sink your teeth in and don't let go. I agree with your assessment. I also think that the time is right for christianity to reform. I am hetero, not that it makes a difference, but the point is, is that to live up to what the messiah taught, then we must accept all w/o reservations. I myself, am not a christian, because most of them seem to believe that Jesus was God, period. I believe that whatever Jesus was, we all are. Whatever God is, we all are. I'll be watching for your hubs! Peace
Thanks Druid Dude.
I think that was the message that Christ was trying to bring.
The problem with christianity nowadays is that everyone is trying to remake God in their image, rather than the way it is supposed to be, and some of the images are not very nice.
christopher, I broke away and went to Wesmans link above[ http://hubpages.com/_2f6iz9aonqwpc/hub/Christian-B ] and left a second comment as I had read it before and it's pretty much the same as I would leave for this Great Article you have presented. I tried to read all the comments but got burnt out by the few that needed to take their arguments to the forums instead of bitching each other on a article where I feel the comments should be directed at a persons thoughts on the subject that you presented.
I, personally agree with what you presented to the point of Gay people, I find humor in this debate but please don't take offense, I'm not making fun of you or Gay people, I'm laughing at homophobic self righteous, heterosexual yet kinky behind closed door bible scholars that haven't attended any formal type of education in regard to taking the original Hebrew or other language translation studies. That's like me sans the "self-righteous" portion. I know I'm a sinner, most every day and walk a thin wire when I do a self evaluation of my fulfilling the requirements according to the New Testament Faith based teachings vs Old Testament Law based references that echoed in part to the New Testament. Here is the part that makes me laugh.
A heterosexual couple leave church on a Sunday, go eat a bite with an other hetero couple then go their separate ways. One couple goes home the dude pops a top on a beer turns the ball game on and his woman gets on the internet and looks at pictures of men that gets her hot and rubs her self off a few times while beer boy in the other room worships his idol, the TV sports channel and won't tolerate any interruption of his favorite team. How would one recognize these two peoples actions? Then:
The other couple get home, the dude goes into his den and from behind a hiding spot pulls out his leather hood and wrist and ankle cuffs strips off and puts it all on, she's in the master bed room stripped off and puts on her leather crotchless panties, bra and stockings and pumps, she signals for him he comes in she bends him over the bed ties his ankles to the bed posts and his arms to the top, then straps on a rubber weenie and plows his butt and the kinky sex thing goes on the rest of the after noon. How would the actions be recognized of these two?
MY opinion based on my understanding of the biblical rules. Couple 1. she had extra marital sex, he worshiped an idol, or idolized an activity above anything else.
Couple 2. She had a temporary sex change, he enjoyed it and accepted an act that a gay man might partake in, then what ever else went on.
Both couples would verbally judge and condemn the homosexual life style, who wins on judgement day?
I dropped out of Main Stream Religions due to hypocrites, I dropped out of "churchianity" for the same reason. People all have planks in their own eyes including me. I admit it, I accept folks just as they are with the exception of allowing them to insult and harass me for being as I am. Full tattoos on my arms[sleeves] 28 inch hair cut LOL, and a 15 year old beard. I wear Levis and t-shirts same as every day, it's all I own and I cannot afford specialty clothing to show up to any church. I tell folks I could cover my arms and tie my hair back and tuck it under my shirt. There I would be dressing for them because an all knowing God would know what I put in the dark, that the scriptures say will all be brought to light and exposed.
Bottom line, I refuse to dress to please others, I wear what is comfortable for me, I have and do confess sins in prayer daily as every day is a new day and I believe we have or need to renew ourselves daily. My opinion, great article thank you, hope I wasn't to redundant from my first comment, sense then I have read and retract my statement that Homosexual people will in no way see the kingdom of God/Yahweh through their belief in the son/Yahshua and his sacrifice on the cross providing us with the peace and serenity of heart[the Holy Spirit] if we just shut up and listen. It is a life long journey of learning to trust in the promises Jesus made and "No one comes unto Yahweh except through the son,Jesus/Yahshua".
Thank You again for stirring the pot of thought! dusty/50
Thank you 50 Caliber.
I think we all need to examine our conciences every day about so many things. It is just that I dont believe that some of the things that people call sins are really a problem.
I enjoyed your two stories. They made very important points.
We Judge Not Least we Be judged and we are Not given in Marriage or Promised in marriage in Heaven and Heaven is were we All originated from in the first place.
I was steered Away from this topic A few times As I was still unsure of the arguments made by some of those that I deem a little wiser then My self.
And I am prone to be influenced by some of them still where as I see now I should not be. I have prayed on this matter and today I have received my answers.
We are neither Jew or Gentile or Male or Female Or Bonded or a Slave in Heaven either so It would be the hearts condition that would cause the Sin if Any would exist from being gay or straight.
Casual Sex is Not ever a free of lust thing, but it is Not a condemning Thing or a damning Thing. Where as Adultery is a condition of the heart as to breaking a vow and fornication is a sin also for it is only about Lust and self pleasuring ones self.
True love or committed love is what it is. And I have a much clearer picture of it now. Thanks for the Sharing of this Hub. the union of two souls would still create one flesh.
Donnie/ Sinbad the Sailor Man
I commend you on your knowledge And/or your interpretations of the scriptures christopheranton, I guess I was not yet ready to take a stand on this subject before, But I did almost always lean to your side and insightful vision or point of view to the truth of this matter.
It is the Heart that God Judges and not the Actions of the flesh for it is just a suit of detention. Made for Correction. And It does pass away for all eternity. I totally missed that law of the Hospitality thing you mentioned too.
Thanks Donnie for your good and supportive words. I agree with everything you have written.
You must be a homosexual,otherwise why would you defame the name of Jesus Christ, by saying that he approves of homosexual behavior? You are very confused, and are mislead in the very worst way. I will pray for your soul.
Hi Robert.
You are right there. I am a homosexual. But that is irrelevant to the truth of what I am saying.
How could Jesus say, " do unto others as you would have them do unto you", if he condemned a section of society for behaving in accordance with its God- given nature? He made me as I am.
I thank you for your prayers. All our souls need them. I will pray for you as well, not just for your soul, but that you reach that state of charitable regard for all your fellow humans, that our God desires from us all.
Happy New Year.
I say this not to place a credit or a defamation on any. You Miss the very point of the reason we are Here Robert. We are all Guilty of SIN of the Original Sin which is choosing Lucifer as god over GOD the Father!
It matters not to GOD the conditions of the Flesh for it is condemned and shall parish every last bit of it. There is nothing this Flesh can do or has every done, that It will be placed above another's.
If you shall Judged Judge By that which will Matter! For It Has already been condemn (Your Flesh) In the day that you eat of the fruit of the tree of Both Good and Evil the tree of Knowledge. you shall surely Die the lord was talking to the flesh.
It is the condition of your (Heart) which is torn between the two bodies (This flesh body and your original Spirit body) that you will be judged by! And No Flesh Not any Save the Lord Jesus Is able to Judge the others Heart.
Hitler take as an example most notably the cruelest of Flesh beings even his heart we are not allowed to judge least we be judged in the same matters the same manner with the convictions we would choose for this One Hitler GOD is faithful to forgive All their sins here in this world. Save one Satan who is also already condemn.
In matters of this world we are to only discern and separate from those who are not of Christ's you shall Know them by their fruits Not their choices or their life style by what they do and how they do it unto you.
People are very easily misdirected by Satan and his children those that chose him over GOD as their god. For this world was a gift to Satan to do a certain task which he did not do!
And then refused to repent from; he now called by GOD (Satan because there was no longer any truth left in him) was to teach and instruct to bring light or understanding as to who and what GOD the Father The Creator was Is and shall always Be. To Us 1/3 of Heaven
There is much to still be learn by you and many other as well as myself included as to what is truly happening here in this dimension of time. Time does not exist in the other 2/3 of Heaven.
Read the Good Book as a Book that you read for yourself by your self let no man not I or any other tell you what it says or means your Father deals directly with you on Judgment Day! Do not get judged for another's crimes. Crimes of the Heart!
Donnie/ Sinbad the Sailor Man
Thanks for those wise words Donnie. You make a lot of sense.
The Darwin Club. RSS Feeds for Fans of the Truth.
- Reconstructing God
The usual debate about the existence of God is silly. - 15 months ago
- Darwin, Evolution, Racism and Slavery
What's the truth about Darwin on natives, slavery, racism, eugenics? - 15 months ago
- Escaping the Exclusive Brethren
Book review on memoir Breakout. - 16 months ago
- Deconstructing God
As any artist can attest, creativity comes from out of nowhere to make something from nothing. - 16 months ago
- Darwin Fans, Theory of Evolution Club, Free Thinkers Unite!
Charles Darwin fans unite on this hub. - 17 months ago
Austinstar Level 7 Commenter 17 months ago
I think the part of our brains that look to religion are confused way too easily. I have trouble looking at a tree and seeing a "creator". Instead, I see the atomic elements that have bound together to form a tree. There is a cosmic energy that binds the tree together, but it is not mystical or god-like. The atoms have always existed and were never "created".
I can accept that there was a man who lived and breathed and preached and may have been called Jesus. I can accept that Mark may have known this man. I can even accept that he waited 30 or so years after this man's death to write a story about his life.
What I cannot accept is that he was god. I cannot accept that Mary was impregnated by a "spirit". Especially if Jesus had an older brother.
So I have to accept and believe that the whole Jesus story is flawed and therefore not "divine".
However, if it is your opinion that this is true, you are entitled to it.
Meanwhile, it is my opinion that the universe exists, has always existed, and will always exist. Enjoy.