[Bilbo Bagins]

Personally it makes sense to me. In those days being 33 and not being married was considered odd.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/19/us...wife.html?_r=1

[Glock36shooter]

If Mary Magdalene looked like Monica Bellucci (Passion of the Christ)... I'd say he was down right gay if it didn't hit that.

What if Jesus was Gay? He never spoke against homosexuality, and he did hang out with a bunch of dudes and one prostitute that he apparently never touched. Could Christ have been a homosexual?

[MadMonkey]

I'm 28 and a virgin, and not exactly the holiest person in the world I'm sure it wouldn't have been difficult for the son of God to stay single...

[Geko45]

Just a man like any other. I wonder what he would say if he could know how his teachings have been so distorted.

[Geko45]

Originally Posted by MadMonkey

I'm 28 and a virgin, and not exactly the holiest person in the world I'm sure it wouldn't have been difficult for the son of God to stay single...

All that proves is that you are socially awkward.

[ArrowJ]

Originally Posted by Geko45

Just a man like any other. I wonder what he would say if he could know how his teachings have been so distorted.

I often wonder this too. For instance, it drives me nuts when people claim that Jesus did not say He was God.


http://highcaliberguns.com
http://thesitterdowners.com

[Glock36shooter]

Originally Posted by MadMonkey

I'm 28 and a virgin, and not exactly the holiest person in the world I'm sure it wouldn't have been difficult for the son of God to stay single...

Well first we are assuming that such a person as Christ even existed. But that he was the offspring of the creator of the universe is an even greater leap. First it requires assuming there is even a creator at all. And to say you're a virgin... well... I've heard that before LOL. There's no way to verify that.

[SPIN2010]

Originally Posted by Geko45

All that proves is that you are socially awkward.

No, it actually proves he wants to present his future wife with the best he can offer.

Thanks for your service MM.

[Glock36shooter]

Originally Posted by Geko45

All that proves is that you are socially awkward.

Actually it proves he's as "Aberrant" as believers like to say Homosexuals are.

[MadMonkey]

Originally Posted by SPIN2010

No, it actually proves he wants to present his future wife with the best he can offer.

Thanks for your service MM.

I appreciate the sentiment, but I'm a contractor, not military... those guys deserve the thanks way more than I do

(socially awkward comments are always expected, BTW )

[Geko45]

Originally Posted by SPIN2010

Thanks for your service MM.

What? No thanks for my service?

<-- Desert Storm/Shield & Operation Deliberate Force

[Glock36shooter]

Originally Posted by SPIN2010

No, it actually proves he wants to present his future wife with the best he can offer.

LOL Practice makes perfect. A 3 minute exhibition is not really going to be considered the "Best" he can offer. You can hope you're first time out of the gate is going to be this spectacular triumph of sexual prowess... but it's spectacularly unlikely.

You seem to put forth the idea that once you've had sex... you are no longer at your best. How so?

[Glock36shooter]

Originally Posted by Geko45

What? No thanks for my service?

<-- Desert Storm/Shield & Operation Deliberate Force

Thank you for keeping us safe.

[Geko45]

Originally Posted by Glock36shooter

Thank you for keeping us safe.

You're welcome. Wasn't really fishing for a thanks. Just curious as to why one of us was bestowed appreciation while the other wasn't.

[Glock36shooter]

Originally Posted by Geko45

You're welcome. Wasn't really fishing for a thanks. Just curious as to why one of us was bestowed appreciation while the other wasn't.

Because he's pure and untouched by filthy women. You are dirty and covered in the waste of your own jackassery.

[Geko45]

Originally Posted by Glock36shooter

Because he's pure and untouched by filthy women. You are dirty and covered in the waste of your own jackassery.

Now we're talking!

[Arc Angel]

'Oh ye of little faith,' Before everyone gets too carried away with this quasi-religious, pseudo-intellectual farce:

(1) The Apostle Paul specifically preached against, both, the Copts and Gnostic heresies.

(2) Christ, Himself, was - and is - married to His bride: THE CHURCH!

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...g-experts.html

If you found a message in a Chinese fortune cookie that said, 'You will, perhaps, be a rich man someday.' would you believe it? Would it be, 'true'? This is pseudointellectual nonsense, people, and should be treated that way.

During His lifetime, here on earth, the Lord Jesus Christ was repeatedly accused of being a patron of Satan, the devil. If, tomorrow morning, someone discovers a parchment that says, 'Christ is in league with the devil.' does THAT make the statement true?

Remember there is, still, a huge segment of the earth's population that does NOT believe Jesus of Nazareth is the biblical Messiah. These people do a lot of writing, too. Does that mean they are correct?

Really, this is intellectual nonsense; and bears neither one way, nor another on the true nature of Christ and His life. The one thing we do know that is irrefutable about the life and person of the biblical Jesus of Nazareth is that He perfectly fulfilled The Law. A part of that Law DOES SAY, 'Be fruitful and multiply.' If Christ is the head of the church; and the church is His bride, then, Jesus Christ did, indeed, keep that commandment; and whether or not He did so in a carnal fashion is simply NOT germane to Christian faith.

As for Mary Magdalene? She is a reformed whore. As such, and in an important allegorical sense, Mary Magdalene represents the almost irrepressible urge of the (wandering) human soul to go a whoring. That's it! This and her, 'discovery' of the Risen Christ represent Mary Magdalene's real spiritual significance to Christian faith.

Somebody's been watching too many reruns of The Da Vinci Code.

[Schabesbert]

Originally Posted by Arc Angel

Somebody's been watching too many reruns of The Da Vinci Code.

I know, right?

[Geko45]

Originally Posted by Arc Angel

(1) The Apostle Paul specifically preached against, both, the Copts and Gnostic heresies.

I fully believe that Paul took this position, but that doesn't mean he was correct.

(2) Christ, Himself, was - and is - married to His bride: THE CHURCH!

This metaphor has always struck me as a bit odd. God created the church and then married it? Isn't that a little incestuest? Like marrying your own daughter? The whole thing strikes me as a poorly formed analogy developed by an unsophisticated people to help them explain their relationship with the deity they created to explain natural phenomenon.

[Glock36shooter]

Originally Posted by Arc Angel

(1) The Apostle Paul specifically preached against, both, the Copts and Gnostic heresies.

So what?

(2) Christ, Himself, was - and is - married to His bride: THE CHURCH!

Gross, Jesus humped a building?

During His lifetime, here on earth, the Lord Jesus Christ was repeatedly accused of being a patron of Satan, the devil.

Prove he wasn't. Prove his nonsense about grace wasn't to turn people away from the Law... God's real path for us. Christianity IS much easier. It would appeal to most since works aren't required. It's the ultimate free lunch... Heaven for the price of simple faith. What if that's not the standard God wants us to live up to? What if he expected us all along to keep the Law and Christ... a minion of Satan came and drove half the world away from it with the concept of Grace.

If, tomorrow morning, someone discovers a parchment that says, 'Christ is in league with the devil.' does THAT make the statement true?

Doesn't make it false.

Remember there is, still, a huge segment of the earth's population that does NOT believe Jesus of Nazareth is the biblical Messiah. These people do a lot of writing, too. Does that mean they are correct?

Does that mean they aren't?

The one thing we do know that is irrefutable about the life and person of the biblical Jesus of Nazareth is that He perfectly fulfilled The Law.

How do we KNOW that? Because he said so? Because ancient mythological stories say so? What if he's Satan's right hand man? Wouldn't he have intentionally deceived everyone anyway?

A part of that Law DOES SAY, 'Be fruitful and multiply.' If Christ is the head of the church; and the church is His bride, then, Jesus Christ did, indeed, keep that commandment;

And the same would be true if he were in league with the Devil. If Satan's goal is to see as many of us fall with him as possible... what better way than a Trojan Horse like Chirst? Constantly leading us from the narrow path of the Law to the much easier path of just believing.

Doesn't it sound more like Satan's style to send a magic man of the flesh. God is more earthquakes and fire from the sky. The Devil is the one that uses the flesh against us isn't he?

As for Mary Magdalene? She is a reformed whore.

The worst kinda whore.

[Schabesbert]

Originally Posted by Glock36shooter

Gross, Jesus humped a building?

So, that's the whole meaning of marriage to you?
Interesting insight into your beliefs & personality.

PS: "the Church" isn't a just, or even primarily, a building

Christianity IS much easier. It would appeal to most since works aren't required. It's the ultimate free lunch... Heaven for the price of simple faith. What if that's not the standard God wants us to live up to?

Besides not understanding marriage & the Church, you are now misunderstanding Christianity as being only the beliefs of fundys. That's 3 for 3 that you're mistaken on.

[bowtie454]

"proof" is a far too strong of a statement. Read up a little more on this "find". There is a lot of skepticism among religious and archaelogical experts that this is authentic. Also, this "document" (for lack of a better description) is said to be dated 200 years after Jesus' death. All it "proves" is that someone 200 years later stated that Jesus was married. If I write an article about George Washington stating he was homosexual and someone finds a scrap of it 1000 years from now, does that "prove" that George Washington was gay?

[Glock36shooter]

Originally Posted by Schabesbert

So, that's the whole meaning of marriage to you?
Interesting insight into your beliefs & personality.

PS: "the Church" isn't a just, or even primarily, a building

I actually disagree with marriage all together. It is a failed institution. Once you reach the 51% failure rate... you're effectively reached the useless stage. And I think marriage is at the 60% range these days.

However I can appreciate what marriage means in religious terms. Buying and selling of women as property.

Besides not understanding marriage & the Church, you are now misunderstanding Christianity as being only the beliefs of fundys. That's 3 for 3 that you're mistaken on.

All you have to do to be saved is accept Christ as your personal savior. That is the current view of the majority of Christians in this nation. You think you know better? You're a better Christian than they? That's what they think of you too.

[Animal Mother]

Originally Posted by bowtie454

"proof" is a far too strong of a statement. Read up a little more on this "find". There is a lot of skepticism among religious and archaelogical experts that this is authentic. Also, this "document" (for lack of a better description) is said to be dated 200 years after Jesus' death. All it "proves" is that someone 200 years later stated that Jesus was married. If I write an article about George Washington stating he was homosexual and someone finds a scrap of it 1000 years from now, does that "prove" that George Washington was gay?

Are we discarding everything written after Jesus' death? Because that doesn't leave a whole lot to work with.

[Schabesbert]

Originally Posted by Glock36shooter

All you have to do to be saved is accept Christ as your personal savior. That is the current view of the majority of Christians in this nation.

No, it is not. You'd better re-assess your sources of information.

Or have you found your bliss?