Quote:
Originally Posted by awareness
Now now bro Trapped. Calm down. I think brother zeek's point about Jesus possibly being homosexual is that the NT has left us with only speculations about his sexuality.
Same with the word bosom. Angels carried the beggar into Abraham's bosom, Lazarus was "in" his bosom, and the same Greek word was used for a "creek" in Acts 27.
All the speculation about those days 2000 yrs ago is taken care of by tradition, and christian hearts has embraced it. So John the evangelist is said to be the one that lay on Jesus' bosom, proof not needed.
And Humperdinck is acting all smart and everything, so I challenged him to answer who it was, to test his standing on tradition ... and his emotional attachment to all this.
You keep wanting logic, but most are objecting due to emotion, not logic. Logic can't answer speculations about 2000 yrs ago, if the records don't.
|
I'm already calm. Do you think you are riling people up by posting totally ludicrous statements that are still handled seriously?
I really don't think you all read the "other side's" posts on these threads. The NT doesn't leave us with only speculations, there is plenty to reasonably infer, as I've detailed out. I know, some people love to claim that John the beloved disciple was literally in Jesus's underwear, as the Vice article posted earlier (did you read it?) said, but do you really think angels carried a beggar into Abraham's underwear? This is why I'm asking for just a semblance of logic and reason. Because if we don't have that as a basis, then there is no way to have a discussion. And that's what this forum is about, and that's what the OP said she wanted in her OP - "a civilized discussion". I've kept my posts civil as well as discussion-oriented to the point of seriously engaging topics that many would have walked away from the second they were even posed. Are you going to hold to that parameter?
We've already got some people on one side of the issue claiming they are "hated" while others on that same side are the ones to tell people on the other side "good riddance" they are gone. Where's the civility?
Here's another semblance of reason: the rest of the apostles were Jews giving up their lives for this guy. Do you really think they were all sitting there at the last supper chilling out with no issues as John got in Jesus's underwear....and still came away believing in faith that the sinless Lamb of God was who He said He was?
The objections are not even emotional. They are out in left field and crumble under a little basic inspection. Again, if logic and reason are out the window, then the entire basis of this thread is also out the window. It's up to you.