[Vicky.]

Originally Posted by LeatherTrumpet

who says it does. the christian view has always been love the person but not the act.

i have not met many people who would disagree

But it would make a difference if they found out that jesus was gay? Why?

[Crimson Dynamo]

Originally Posted by Patrick

Hes not real never mind Gay.

says mr Eastenders..

[Crimson Dynamo]

Originally Posted by Vicky.

But it would make a difference if they found out that jesus was gay? Why?

It is a moot point the same as saying what if we found out he was a murderer and a paedophile

what if we found out that evolution was made up by John Craven to get his own back on Maggie Philben

what if Arista posted a thread and then never voted it 5 stars...

[Vicky.]

Originally Posted by LeatherTrumpet

It is a moot point the same as saying what if we found out he was a murderer and a paedophile

How is it? its perfectly plausible that he might have been gay.

[Crimson Dynamo]

Originally Posted by Vicky.

How is it? its perfectly plausible that he might have been gay.

bearing in mind he has 4 independent accounts of his life - 3 from eyewitness and backed up by around 5000 surviving documents it would seem unlikely that we missed this nugget

[Patrick]

Originally Posted by LeatherTrumpet

says mr Eastenders..

Wha'?

[Shasown]

Originally Posted by ElProximo

That is not true.
For nearly 2000 years there is tremendous unity on the nature of Christ and of Him being God incarnate.
Even as far back to the earliest councils recorded we see the earliest Christians having very little disagreement and even that being on 'how' He was God incarnate.For centuries Christians around the world and crossing denominations recited the Nicene, Apostles creeds every Sunday,
and,
to this day, even with as many 'exceptions proving the rule' we see a massive global church of so many denominations which acknowledge this. Even those disagreeing intensely on many 'in house' issues will be in total agreement on the nature of Christ.

So why you said something like this really amazes me. Its as if you just thought it 'sounded good' and fit your worldview of what you would like Christianity to 'come across' like... and so you wrote it.
Hoping it would just fly.

The nature of Jesus' divinity was asserted by Saul of Tarsus later St Paul. Jesus never said he was God incarnate. Other religious including early christian sects at the time that knew of Jesus and his ministry were later declared heretic, outlaw and suppressed. Take for example Gnostics, Essenes, Donatists.. to name a few.

Incidentally the Nicene Creed came about in 325AD/CE after the first ecumenical council.

[Crimson Dynamo]

Originally Posted by Patrick

Wha'?

you
got
it

[Patrick]

Originally Posted by LeatherTrumpet

you
got
it

Is it an insult?

[Crimson Dynamo]

Originally Posted by Shasown

The nature of Jesus' divinity was asserted by Saul of Tarsus later St Paul. Jesus never said he was God incarnate. Other religious including early christian sects at the time that knew of Jesus and his ministry were later declared heretic, outlaw and suppressed. Take for example Gnostics, Essenes, Donatists.. to name a few.

Incidentally the Nicene Creed came about in 325AD/CE after the first ecumenical council.

throughout his earthly ministry Jesus claimed to be God in word and deed..

mark 14:61-62
John 5:18. 20; 8:58; 10:30-33

and vindicated his claims to deity by living a sinless life

[Crimson Dynamo]

Originally Posted by Patrick

Is it an insult?

no

LT never insults posters

[Shasown]

Originally Posted by Vicky.

How is it? its perfectly plausible that he might have been gay.

Given his divine nature why is it plausible? Surely it can be accepted that if he was indeed god incarnate, he wouldnt need to be a sexual being. Also if he was God incarnate would he give himself a sexuality that would if he was discovered have at the very least undermined his ministry at the time and even nowadays in some peoples eyes, and probably shortened his life dramatically. (They used to love stoning people did those jews).

[Patrick]

Originally Posted by LeatherTrumpet

no

LT never insults posters

Oh okay

[Vicky.]

Originally Posted by Shasown

Given his divine nature why is it plausible? Surely it can be accepted that if he was indeed god incarnate, he wouldnt need to be a sexual being. Also if he was God incarnate would he give himself a sexuality that would if he was discovered have at the very least undermined his ministry at the time and even nowadays in some peoples eyes, and probably shortened his life dramatically. (They used to love stoning people did those jews).

Because I believe jesus was just a normal person...who people wrote stories about...no reason why he couldnt be gay

They are hardly going to put in the bible 'Jesus walked on water while sticking a finger up his bum to the thought of moses' now are they

[InOne]

Originally Posted by LeatherTrumpet

"God is a trinity of persons: the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. The Father is not the same person as the Son; the Son is not the same person as the Holy Spirit; and the Holy Spirit is not the same person as Father. They are not three gods and not three beings. They are three distinct persons; yet, they are all the one God. Each has a will, can speak, can love, etc., and these are demonstrations of personhood. They are in absolute perfect harmony consisting of one substance. They are coeternal, coequal, and copowerful. If any one of the three were removed, there would be no God."

this ^^^

in other words, one big contradiction lol

[Shasown]

Originally Posted by LeatherTrumpet

throughout his earthly ministry Jesus claimed to be God in word and deed..

mark 14:61-62
John 5:18. 20; 8:58; 10:30-33

and vindicated his claims to deity by living a sinless life

I really could have some fun ripping this apart, its a translation fron Ancient Greek consequently the answer "I am" can also be read as The I am is here.

I suppose you are using one of the newer dumbed down version of the Bible, I use the older and more reliable Catholic Bible, upbringing sorry to say

and sitting at gods right hand should be read as sitting at the right hand of the power,

they are both quotes from scriptures namely Exod 3:14 and Ps 110:1 see also Dan 7:13.

It wasnt an affirmation of being the Christ, it was an answer to question the high priests right to question him. throughout his ministry he challenged the Pharisees and priests, this was a direct challenge against the authority of the Sanhedrin.


As in the case of the John references as well:

Ego eimi [“I am”] does not identify Jesus with God, but it does draw attention to him in the strongest possible terms. “I am the one—the one you must look at, and listen to, if you would know God.”

Bear i mind though John was again wrote in Anciet Greek so the translation we have do not draw on the full context of the original Aramaic words the man himself used .

While the Greek phrase in John does mean “I am,” the Hebrew phrase in Exodus actually means “to be” or “to become.” In other words God is saying, “I will be what I will be.” Thus the “I am” in Exodus is actually a mistranslation of the Hebrew text, so the fact that Jesus said “I am” did not make him God.

Given that neither book were actually wrote as they are alleged to have occurred, but consdierably later after his death, dont you find it amazing that the writer in the case of Mark's godspel can quote what was said word for word, given that they werent actually there because it was wrote about 2 centuries after the actual event?

[Shasown]

Originally Posted by Vicky.

Because I believe jesus was just a normal person...who people wrote stories about...no reason why he couldnt be gay

They are hardly going to put in the bible 'Jesus walked on water while sticking a finger up his bum to the thought of moses' now are they

How many normal people do you know that can walk on water? Except me of course honey! Or turn water into wine except homebrewers? Oh ok who can get scourged etc, crucified, take a spear in the side , and then appear a few days later all bright eyed and bushy tailed?

[Vicky.]

Originally Posted by Shasown

How many normal people do you know that can walk on water? Except me of course honey! Or turn water into wine except homebrewers? Oh ok who can get scourged etc, crucified, take a spear in the side , and then appear a few days later all bright eyed and bushy tailed?

I already know its a load of bullshine...if thats what your getting at

[GunthersTeabag]

Originally Posted by LeatherTrumpet

It is a moot point the same as saying what if we found out he was a murderer and a paedophile

what if we found out that evolution was made up by John Craven to get his own back on Maggie Philben

what if Arista posted a thread and then never voted it 5 stars...

Your comparing being gay to being a murderer or a paedophile?

[WOMBAI]

Originally Posted by LeatherTrumpet

It is a moot point the same as saying what if we found out he was a murderer and a paedophile

what if we found out that evolution was made up by John Craven to get his own back on Maggie Philben

what if Arista posted a thread and then never voted it 5 stars...

I wondered who put the stars there - I thought it was admin - but thought the judgement was strange sometimes - it is explained!

[ElProximo]

Originally Posted by Shasown

The nature of Jesus' divinity was asserted by Saul of Tarsus later St Paul. Jesus never said he was God incarnate. Other religious including early christian sects at the time that knew of Jesus and his ministry were later declared heretic, outlaw and suppressed. Take for example Gnostics, Essenes, Donatists.. to name a few.

Incidentally the Nicene Creed came about in 325AD/CE after the first ecumenical council.

Yes but all you are doing is proving out what I told you.
First off - part of the reason YOU EVEN KNOW about early Christian sects (and gnostics definitely make up a lot of them) is because this is not only referred to in the New Testament itself,
but,
also because early church leaders (before Nicea) wrote about them, wrote about where they went wrong and wrote about how they were NOT squaring with the church at large or the leadership,
and
if you ever want confirmation on that then you get Nicea where it starts with almost every representative from every region ALREADY understanding.. as a 'given'... that Jesus is God incarnate.
In fact the 'big debate' is over Arius and a couple of his friends who DONT actually deny anything,
but,
have some nearly 'definition games' over just what exactly 'essence' might mean.

And a reminder that listing exceptions to the rule - proves the rule.
You can list me Mormons, Jehovah's Witnesses and keep going with handfuls of little cults
(if you list names it makes it sound more over-whelming),
but,
65 wacky fringe denominations don't change the fact that some 1 billion people from Roman Catholics, Orthodox, Presbys, Lutherans, Methodists... really any and all massive main denominations all agree on the Divinity of Christ.
It might even be a rare thing we all DO entirely agree on.

To say "every christian has a different idea of this" is about as wrong as wrong can get.

[Crimson Dynamo]

Originally Posted by Shasown

I really could have some fun ripping this apart,
snip

You really could have some fun ripping apart basic Christian doctrine that has survived and flourished for 2000 odd years?

That is probably the most arrogant and self-righteous statement that Tibb will get in 2010.

Others far, far greater than you have tried and failed.

[Crimson Dynamo]

Originally Posted by Shasown

snip

Given that neither book were actually wrote as they are alleged to have occurred, but consdierably later after his death, dont you find it amazing that the writer in the case of Mark's godspel can quote what was said word for word, given that they werent actually there because it was wrote about 2 centuries after the actual event?

this whole paragraph is nonsensical and just plain incorrect,

Mark was written mid to late 50s AD to mid to late 60s AD

John was written 70-100 AD

Mark was eyewitness dictation from Peter

John was an apostle, one of the 12 disciples ("the disciple whom Jesus loved"), John the son of Zebedee.


This is not my own personal opinion it is historical accepted fact which can be fully checked online or in any modern study Bible.

and the Bible translation I use is the ESV if you can prove to me that the Catholic Bible (which uses the vulgate) uses better sources and more up to date manuscript and sources than the ESV that would be just grand.

[karezza]

Jesus was also a Vegan and he didn't drive a car.

[Niamh.]

Originally Posted by karezza

Jesus was also a Vegan and he didn't drive a car.

he did, he drove a Range Rover