Was Jesus Gay?

Originally posted by jaywill
We know that the way of discipleship will not be easy.

Yes, this is true: Accepting those who are different is always difficult. Showing them the love
and compassion and respect in spite of feeling uncomfortable with their lifestyle is not easy at
all. Seeing the Christ in them despite the deep-seeded sentiments against their behavior is
very tricky. And being opened to the possibility that the relationships they have are blessed by
God, well, that's the really hard part.

You're right: Discipleship is not easy.

Nemesio

Originally posted by Nemesio
Yes, this is true: Accepting those who are different is always difficult. Showing them the love
and compassion and respect in spite of feeling uncomfortable with their lifestyle is not easy at
all. Seeing the Christ in them despite the deep-seeded sentiments against their behavior is
very tricky. And being opened to the possibility that the relationshi ...[text shortened]...
God, well, that's the really hard part.

You're right: Discipleship is not easy.

Nemesio

All of that requires another life. All of that requires that you be taken over by the Spirit of the resurrected Christ. It requires that you be able to say "It is not longer I that lives, but Christ that lives within me."

Don't think you can muster up the compassion and love out of your fallen nature to do these things. These things require another life and new life; a new birth.

Was Jesus secretly an egg?

"Take my yoke upon you, and learn of me; for I am meek and lowly in heart: and ye shall find rest unto your souls. For my yoke is easy, and my burden is light." - Matthew 11.

Judge for yourselves.

Originally posted by abnoxio
Yes it's true that apocryphal and gnostic texts are up for interpretation, just as the canonical. But my question is why are the canonical taken seriously while most mainstream Christians view these texts ( apocryphal and gnostic ,as well as gospels that were tossed out such as the Gospel of Thomas, Gospel of Peter....etc) as heresy? Because of the Council o ...[text shortened]... his? Perhaps, and I find it likely, that Christianity started early a gnostic sect. And chips.

But my question is why are the canonical taken seriously while most mainstream Christians view these texts ( apocryphal and gnostic ,as well as gospels that were tossed out such as the Gospel of Thomas, Gospel of Peter....etc) as heresy?

I am not sure if the Gospel of Thomas was rejected as heretical. Some parts share common teachings of Jesus. The reason it, and others, are repudiated is because they lack apostolic origin; there is no evidence that these gospels were composed by the apostles.

Originally posted by Conrau K
[b]But my question is why are the canonical taken seriously while most mainstream Christians view these texts ( apocryphal and gnostic ,as well as gospels that were tossed out such as the Gospel of Thomas, Gospel of Peter....etc) as heresy?

I am not sure if the Gospel of Thomas was rejected as heretical. Some parts share common teachings of Jesus. Th ...[text shortened]... ey lack apostolic origin; there is no evidence that these gospels were composed by the apostles.[/b]

There's little or no evidence ANY book of the New Testament was composed by the apostles (I assume you mean the 12).

Originally posted by Conrau K
[b]But my question is why are the canonical taken seriously while most mainstream Christians view these texts ( apocryphal and gnostic ,as well as gospels that were tossed out such as the Gospel of Thomas, Gospel of Peter....etc) as heresy?

I am not sure if the Gospel of Thomas was rejected as heretical. Some parts share common teachings of Jesus. Th ...[text shortened]... ey lack apostolic origin; there is no evidence that these gospels were composed by the apostles.[/b]

There is no evidence that the four canonical gospels are of apostolics origins.

Originally posted by abnoxio
There is no evidence that the four canonical gospels are of apostolics origins.

No; but tradition has held that the gospels have had apostolic origin. Luke recorded his gospel when he travelled with Paul; Mark was under the tutelage of Peter. These traditions are probably false (and modern scholars think so) but that is why the gnostics were rejected while the gospels retained.

Originally posted by Conrau K
No; but tradition has held that the gospels have had apostolic origin. Luke recorded his gospel when he travelled with Paul; Mark was under the tutelage of Peter. These traditions are probably false (and modern scholars think so) but that is why the gnostics were rejected while the gospels retained.

That is begging the question. "Tradition" doesn't come out of nowhere; in this case, "tradition" means the judgment of certain of the early Church "fathers". To claim that the content of the Gospel of Thomas and other gnostic writings had nothing to do with the decision to exclude them from the NT strains credulity.

Originally posted by no1marauder
That is begging the question. "Tradition" doesn't come out of nowhere; in this case, "tradition" means the judgment of certain of the early Church "fathers". To claim that the content of the Gospel of Thomas and other gnostic writings had nothing to do with the decision to exclude them from the NT strains credulity.

Take that issue up with the Christian gang. Abnoxio asked why Christians dismiss the gnostics; I answered that the Christians do not believe they do not have an apostolic tradition. That might be because the Church Fathers considered them objectionable in their content. But they still did not believe these gnostics texts had apostolic origin.

Originally posted by abnoxio
It would be so much easier for Christians and Christianity if they could somehow accept homosexuality. I know that some very liberal sects have, but when you do you have no choice to to stray from a literal interpretation of scripture. Which is probably a good idea anyway.

Well, you won't convince the conservatives. They will insist the Gospel of Mark never existed... it is a rather shady thing anyway.

Originally posted by jaywill
All of that requires another life. All of that requires that you be taken over by the Spirit of the resurrected Christ. It requires that you be able to say [b]"It is not longer I that lives, but Christ that lives within me."

Don't think you can muster up the compassion and love out of your fallen nature to do these things. These things require another life and new life; a new birth.[/b]

I can do it easy enough. I have no problem AT ALL against (let's list):

homosexuals heterosexuals obese anorexic Christian Islamic atheist agnostic Buddhist Taoist retarded black white asian latino...

let's cut this short. Thing is, I have nothing against anyone who doesn't:

1. Murder people. (Like, say, OT God)
2. Discriminate against others. (Like, say, OT God)
3. Force others to do things they don't want to do. (Like, say, OT God)

So sometimes, I have a problem with people. But it is not because of anything they don't choose.

Originally posted by UzumakiAi
They will insist the Gospel of Mark never existed

?

Originally posted by abnoxio
Yes it's true that apocryphal and gnostic texts are up for interpretation, just as the canonical. But my question is why are the canonical taken seriously while most mainstream Christians view these texts ( apocryphal and gnostic ,as well as gospels that were tossed out such as the Gospel of Thomas, Gospel of Peter....etc) as heresy? Because of the Council o ...[text shortened]... his? Perhaps, and I find it likely, that Christianity started early a gnostic sect. And chips.

Jesus was not gay. have any of you even read the Bible. Verse 34 speaks on the mocking that He has and is receiving, and Verse 35 Jesus is being asking a favor, and Jesus show the greatness in helping others. No way does that crap about little boys etc.. even fit between those two verses. Lastly Don't you think if found more scriptures to the Bible the largest followed religion it would have been made more public. Whoever posted this Jesus is gay I'll pray for you. Jesus is love. What other religion did a god die for you. Normally you die or someone dies for their god. This is the only religion where God dies for you. God Bless you all.

Originally posted by realeyez
Jesus was not gay. have any of you even read the Bible. Verse 34 speaks on the mocking that He has and is receiving, and Verse 35 Jesus is being asking a favor, and Jesus show the greatness in helping others. No way does that crap about little boys etc.. even fit between those two verses. Lastly Don't you think if found more scriptures to the Bible the larg meone dies for their god. This is the only religion where God dies for you. God Bless you all.

Don't you think if found more scriptures to the Bible the largest followed religion it would have been made more public.

Maybe it was buried by disciples who did not want people to think of Jesus in this fashion. If the Nicean council was able to leave certain gospels out of the bible altogether, then it would have been trivial for them or other similar authorities to expunge a part of a verse.

What other religion did a god die for you. Normally you die or someone dies for their god. This is the only religion where God dies for you.

And torments you for eternity if you don't accept him. Yeah, what a great guy!