Originally posted by ivanhoeDo you have something to contribute to this thread? This thread has the potential to be very informative and stimulating. I have not berated anyone and have even indulged one participate in this thread who asked about my mother's sex life. Do you have somthing to contribute either to the topic of Jesus' humanity or my mother's sex life? If you do, I invite you to share openly instead of berating me.
I know Captain Jerk ...... 🙄
Originally posted by kirksey957
Do you have something to contribute to this thread? This thread has the potential to be very informative and stimulating. I have not berated anyone and have even indulged one participate in this thread who asked about my mother's sex life. Do you have somthing to contribute either to the topic of Jesus' humanity or my mother's sex life? If you do, I invite you to share openly instead of berating me.
You're too good for this world Kirkie ...... 😛
Originally posted by NemesioThank you , Nemesio, for I am glad you got us back on topic. Could you say a little bit about why it makes no theological difference to you.
Um. The idea that Jesus was married dates long before Dan Brown.
Indeed, the Gospel of Mary Magdelene which dates from the 3rd century
discusses Jesus's kissing of her in a rather sexual way.
Unlike pcaspian, I do not take any offense at the idea. Whether Jesus
was married or not makes no theological difference whatsoever.
Nemesio
Originally posted by kirksey957
By all means. If there is something you know about it and if it can edify this thread, please give your input.
Neah, I don't know anything about it, but neither do you about Jesus, yet that doesn't stop you debating his sexlife. As you know your mom best, why don't you start.
Originally posted by NemesioSo Mary Magdeline, who was a contemporary of Jesus, wrote a Gospel about Jesus kissing her in the 3rd century? Those must have been some magical kisses.
Um. The idea that Jesus was married dates long before Dan Brown.
Indeed, the Gospel of Mary Magdelene which dates from the 3rd century
discusses Jesus's kissing of her in a rather sexual way.
Unlike pcaspian, I do not take any offense at the idea. Whether Jesus
was married or not makes no theological difference whatsoever.
Nemesio
Originally posted by kirksey957Well, what I said was 'it makes no theological difference.'
Thank you , Nemesio, for I am glad you got us back on topic. Could you say a little bit about why it makes no theological difference to you.
What I mean is, in terms of Jesus's teachings or those Scriptures
which were directly inspired by Him (i.e., the canonized NT),
Jesus's being married does not impact them.
That is, when He says, 'Feed my lambs,' His being single or married
doesn't change the impact of that statement.
Nemesio
Originally posted by DarfiusYes, part of the Gnostic Gospels. These certainly have some historical value and I encourage you to read some of Elaine Pagels' work on this.
So Mary Magdeline, who was a contemporary of Jesus, wrote a Gospel about Jesus kissing her in the 3rd century? Those must have been some magical kisses.
Originally posted by DarfiusNo, just like the other Gospels, it was written pseudonomynously.
So Mary Magdeline, who was a contemporary of Jesus, wrote a Gospel about Jesus kissing her in the 3rd century? Those must have been some magical kisses.
My point, Darfius, is that Dan Brown has nothing to do with the
debate. The debate started long, long ago.
Nemesio
1 edit
Originally posted by Nemesio
No, just like the other Gospels, it was written pseudonomynously.
My point, Darfius, is that Dan Brown has nothing to do with the
debate. The debate started long, long ago.
Nemesio
(DID YOU MEAN : pseudonymously ? )
Hehe, Nemesio got OWNED by Darfius ... LOL.
gnight all. weekend time. Don't spent too much time infront of the P C🙂
