Jesus... gay?? Options

[Heathasm]

Jesus did exist
but sometimes i wonder if jesus was just a very manipulative man . . . when you look at his followers, they weren't very smart and were very naive

as for him being homosexual . . . thats also a possibility
im way too unclear on all of this T_T which is why im beginning to go to church on sundays

[sensationalist]

He didn't get married because He wanted to keep his Focus on why He had been put on earth and God and stuff.

[vash1530]

Uh...all of them provide evidence that Jesus, as a man, did exist. Even the quote you extrapolated: "To what degree the gospels are reliable as historical documents is disputed, and all other known sources, of which there are few, provide only limited, second-hand information. Nevertheless, the majority of scholars agree that Jesus did, at least, exist." So yes, most scholars do believe he existed. To what capacity is the issue, but if you follow the links, these are not opinions--they are supported by historical documentation.

They are somewhat supported by very ureliable documentation. And all of this comes back to belief. I mean, you said it, "So yes, most scholars do believe he existed. A Belief is not facts. It ca be an educated guess (like i this case or the big bang theory among countless others).

[coconutter]

Jesus wasn't gay.

[DrEaMgUy2K1]

Rumor has it that jesus did have women desciples/followers but they were not important enough to be remembered/recorded.

Jesus didnt really show affection towards women nor did he to men.

They said he took up celabasy.

[vash1530]

WHO CARES!!!!??

[*disco infiltrator*]

Apparently you do, seeing as how stubborn you're being on the subject and making your own thread about it as well.

Just as you exist, Jesus existed. I, too, am an atheist and don't believe any holy texts, but people can exist and spread word. Like priests. I don't agree that they were holy and chosen to spread the word, but they spread it anyway, and they exist. So, if you're trying to sound extremely intelligent on the matter by saying he never even existed in the first place, it's not working. You're only making yourself look uneducated rather than the opposite.

[*mipadi*]

They are somewhat supported by very ureliable documentation. And all of this comes back to belief. I mean, you said it, "So yes, most scholars do believe he existed. A Belief is not facts. It ca be an educated guess (like i this case or the big bang theory among countless others).

Uh...no. There's evidence supporting their beliefs. You're wrong.

[DrEaMgUy2K1]

lemmie guess vash, you've had alot of shit happened to you throughout your life and you lost faith in god and now u wanna bash on "jesus" or whoever rite?

Even if im wrong which i probally am, STFU no one wants to hear you bitch about how god doesnt exist and all that shit,im not religious, u dont see me bitchin around .heres my response to your opinions.

WHO CARES?

[vash1530]

Apparently you do, seeing as how stubborn you're being on the subject and making your own thread about it as well.

Just as you exist, Jesus existed. I, too, am an atheist and don't believe any holy texts, but people can exist and spread word. Like priests. I don't agree that they were holy and chosen to spread the word, but they spread it anyway, and they exist. So, if you're trying to sound extremely intelligent on the matter by saying he never even existed in the first place, it's not working. You're only making yourself look uneducated rather than the opposite.

okay, dream guy ur a total idiot im not bitching dummy bitching is commplaning about something by moaning and whining. im glad you could point out to yourself that you are wrong. I lost faith in Jesus because I took it upon myself to truly study god and follow his texts. doing so I found many faults in the word. Ive also had trouble trying to find reliable info that he existed that dosent use the words believe, or opinion. I mean it's not anyone's opinion that i exist because there is documentation( like my birth certtificate). dummy smly face perso ar u stupid? ur article even states that any evidence "proving" that jesus is real is shaky at best

o and disco ifiltrator ur stupid cuz i was referring to jesus being gay. if you haven't noticed.I started the thread so that i didn't have to comment in the jesus is gay one. that whole bit about priests was very relavent tho. the bible was written by gods disciples, and other holy men to spread the word of god.

tell me when you can find a RELIABLE source of info that has merit, saying that jesus has existed, without a religous bias. and i will stop commenting about this issue

[*mipadi*]

tell me when you can find a RELIABLE source of info that has merit, saying that jesus has existed, without a religous bias. and i will stop commenting about this issue

We have. I have linked you to several scholars who cite evidence that Jesus did, in fact, exist.

[*disco infiltrator*]

And I'm the one being stupid.

[sadolakced acid]

To say jesus is not gay is to commit heresey.

because jesus loved his deciphels. he loves all of us, even the men.


"oh it's not that type of love"

then i must ask you, what is love?

[coconutter]

Apparently you do, seeing as how stubborn you're being on the subject and making your own thread about it as well.

Just as you exist, Jesus existed. I, too, am an atheist and don't believe any holy texts, but people can exist and spread word. Like priests. I don't agree that they were holy and chosen to spread the word, but they spread it anyway, and they exist. So, if you're trying to sound extremely intelligent on the matter by saying he never even existed in the first place, it's not working. You're only making yourself look uneducated rather than the opposite.

Honestly, she's right. You should listen to her. You DO look stupid.. I'm not an athiest, but I believe that she just burned you.

[*disco infiltrator*]

BURN BITCH!!!!?@?!!@!!!!!

Sorry, I had to, it was WAY too tempting...

[BOLIN_Vee]

have u even read the bible? it states that homo's go to hell.

[Spirited Away]

have u even read the bible?  it states that homo's go to hell.

Does it?




where? and before you answer, read the damn thread.

[malimars]

jesus is awesome

[NoSex]

I am skeptical that a man named Jesus Christ ever even existed. In all reality, there is not a strong amount of historical documentation within the supposed time of Jesus Christ. The earliest document outside of the Bible which mentioned a Jesus Christ appears late in the first century. A small paragraph speaks of a Jesus Christ in Josephus' Antiquities of the Jews. The interesting thing about this though is that the section which mentions the Christ has been under quite an amount of scrutiny. Many a scholar has expressed skepticism towards the document, and many, both liberal and conservative scholars, have taken the position that the mention of Jesus was not written by Josephus but added centuries later by dishonest christian historians.

Scholars often point to the most blaring problem within "Josephus'" passages. Josephus was a devout Jew but, in the text, refers to Jesus as "The Christ."

The passage appears in Book 18, chapter 3 and reads as follows:

3. 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.

Although the first copies of Antiquities are believed to have appeared after 90 CE, the oldest copies available are dated back to the 9th century. All of the known copies and translations have been provided by christian sources. The work was also copied and kept alive by the church. As many have studied the text, it seems to fail authenticity in that the style and vocabulary used is highly unlike that of Josephus' other writings.

There is not a single other known document which mentions a Jesus Christ within the 1st century. There is a handful of scattered accounts of "The Christ" within the 2nd century, none of which refer to a "Jesus Christ." These seems distant and often a product of hearsay. Notable accounts are presented in small passages by Suetonius, Tacitus, and Pliny the Younger.

Still, not a single document naming the christ as "Jesus," within the 2nd century. As the "records" continue on into the 3rd and 4th centuries they become less and less significant. A "historical" record of a man who lived in the 1st century written in the 3rd century is a bit silly.

As you examine the documents, their authors, and the controversy involved with early christian historians creating counterfiet documents to support the historicity of their man-god you may become increasingly skeptical of a historical Jesus.

Heck, the Biblical accounts are even rather poor. Some later gospels appearing nearly six decades after the supposed death of Jesus. This would make Luke and John nearly 90 years old when they wrote their accounts. This seems highly unlikely for both the time and the situation.

It may also be noted that descending into heaven, rising from the dead, and general miracles were not much of a rare happening according to most ancient records. Suetonius, whose writings are presented as evidence for a historical Jesus, also wrote that Caesar Augustus flew into heaven after his death. Countless pagan mythology includes men-god, born of virgins, death and rebirth, as well as empty tombs and wrathful fathers; many of which date back before the Christ story.

Inconsistencies in gospel, and the total lack of important historians (Philo of Alexandria, Justus of Tiberius), within the region of christ, making note of Jesus within his time just enforce a skeptical position.

It isn't like mythicists are rare or shortsighted. There really is not a good case for the historical existence of a Jesus Christ.

[sadolakced acid]

bravo. very well argued. not saying i agree, but that was quite nicely done.

[d0t0rg]

*Sigh* People take DaVinci Code too seriously.

[vash1530]

I am skeptical that a man named Jesus Christ ever even existed. In all reality, there is not a strong amount of historical documentation within the supposed time of Jesus Christ. The earliest document outside of the Bible which mentioned a Jesus Christ appears late in the first century. A small paragraph speaks of a Jesus Christ in Josephus' Antiquities of the Jews. The interesting thing about this though is that the section which mentions the Christ has been under quite an amount of scrutiny. Many a scholar has expressed skepticism towards the document, and many, both liberal and conservative scholars, have taken the position that the mention of Jesus was not written by Josephus but added centuries later by dishonest christian historians.

Scholars often point to the most blaring problem within "Josephus'" passages. Josephus was a devout Jew but, in the text, refers to Jesus as "The Christ."

The passage appears in Book 18, chapter 3 and reads as follows:
Although the first copies of Antiquities are believed to have appeared after 90 CE, the oldest copies available are dated back to the 9th century. All of the known copies and translations have been provided by christian sources. The work was also copied and kept alive by the church. As many have studied the text, it seems to fail authenticity in that the style and vocabulary used is highly unlike that of Josephus' other writings.

There is not a single other known document which mentions a Jesus Christ within the 1st century. There is a handful of scattered accounts of "The Christ" within the 2nd century, none of which refer to a "Jesus Christ." These seems distant and often a product of hearsay. Notable accounts are presented in small passages by Suetonius, Tacitus, and Pliny the Younger.

Still, not a single document naming the christ as "Jesus," within the 2nd century. As the "records" continue on into the 3rd and 4th centuries they become less and less significant. A "historical" record of a man who lived in the 1st century written in the 3rd century is a bit silly.

As you examine the documents, their authors, and the controversy involved with early christian historians creating counterfiet documents to support the historicity of their man-god you may become increasingly skeptical of a historical Jesus.

Heck, the Biblical accounts are even rather poor. Some later gospels appearing nearly six decades after the supposed death of Jesus. This would make Luke and John nearly 90 years old when they wrote their accounts. This seems highly unlikely for both the time and the situation.

It may also be noted that descending into heaven, rising from the dead, and general miracles were not much of a rare happening according to most ancient records. Suetonius, whose writings are presented as evidence for a historical Jesus, also wrote that Caesar Augustus flew into heaven after his death. Countless pagan mythology includes men-god, born of virgins, death and rebirth, as well as empty tombs and wrathful fathers; many of which date back before the Christ story.

Inconsistencies in gospel, and the total lack of important historians (Philo of Alexandria, Justus of Tiberius), within the region of christ, making note of Jesus within his time just enforce a skeptical position.

It isn't like mythicists are rare or shortsighted. There really is not a good case for the historical existence of a Jesus Christ.

bravo!!!

[Mulder]

^instead of agreeing with what other people say, how about you come up with your own points.

[saintruthanne]

I don't know if anyone is still reading this, or even reading MY specific post, but Jesus was not a homosexual. Do you really want to know why? Because He never SINNED. Thats why he didn't 'look' at women either. He didn't lust after women, because He condemns lusting AND homosexuality, and so do His followers. If I have you the verses, would it matter? well here goes anyway, Matthew 5:27-28,
"You have heard that it was said, 'Do not commit adultery.' But I tell you that anyone who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart." why would Jesus go against His own rules? He was sinless.

And, by the way, like someone said earlier, the Da Vinci code is total fiction. Duh. Jesus didn't have a 'thing' with Mary Magdalene.

Also, someone else said "[Jesus's followers] weren't very smart and were very naive." where did you even come up with that? Its ridiculous! Have you ever even heard of Paul?? Or Peter? Or anyone?

The Bible says that homosexuals shall not inheret the Kingdom of God (i.e., heaven, which means that they will go to hell. unless the repent of their ways) "Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God."

Jesus WAS real. They had so many witness to His wonderful works; they even had witnesses to see Him alive after He had died.

If you don't think He was real, you will be sorry. Sorry for what you have been saying when/if you repent, or you'll be very sorry if you end up going to hell.

[saintruthanne]

oh yeah, that verse about homosexually immoral not inhereting the Kingdom of God, that's found in 1 Corinthians 6:9, 10. I gave you New Testament verses so that you won't say "oh, well condemning homosexuality is only in the Old Testament." which its not.