Jesus Was Gay, "Or At The Very Least" Queer, Professor Says.

originally posted by: Gryphon66
Jesus is God; God is Jesus; Holy Spirit is both; Both Are Holy Spirit ... somehow Mother Mary didn't quite make the cut.

Settled at the Council of Nicea, 324 CE.

Neither did EARTH (you are standing on it).

originally posted by: christophoros
a reply to: peter vlar

He could have married and had children as that wouldn't be a sin. And I'm not going to argue whether he was a sinner or not that's basic stuff. He felt tempted to sin but he never sinned that was the human experience.

You don't need to argue it. The scripture takes care of that for you.

When Jesus went after the money changers at the Temple, he assaulted them. Are you really going to try to convince people that assault is not sinful?

OK then... how about John 5:18

For this reason they tried all the more to kill him; not only was he breaking the Sabbath, but he was even calling God his own Father, making himself equal with God.

Breaking the Sabbath and making himself the equal of god... both sins. And that doesn't even entertain the fact that there are roughly 20 years of Jesus life completely unaccounted for in scripture after the age of 12 until the age of 30 or so. You can't honestly try to convince anybody that as a child or young adult that if he were a real person, he didn't commit a single sin? Come on... you are entirely ignoring gods alleged impetus for creatoing and sending, his only begotten son into the world of man... to learn from the human condition and experience the human condition. To do so, one must take part in every facet of such an existence. You simply can not experience what it is to be a human without partaking in all manner of experience both positive and negative, sinful and good. He couldn't understand why it was imperative to be forgiving of sin without first partaking in sin. You're entirely too naïve if you truly believe what you're trying to sell to the world here.

And while we're playing 'Name That Tune', I missed this gem earlier...

He is also pure blood straight from original man Adam and Eve who are afro Asiatic homo erectus according to science.

Exactly which science are you referring to with this bold and saucy statement? Could you be so kind as to cite the source material for this powerfully enigmatic statement/position? Because I've never seen any data resembling this conclusion

Huh ?

First they say Jesus didn't exist.

Now the say he does, but he was gay.

Before that he 'dated' a hooker I think it was.

I wish people would get their stories straight.

originally posted by: Collateral
a reply to: vethumanbeing

You would have to ask your friends.

I have Lesbian friends who have lots of male friends and are currently having a baby together through a sperm donor.

What is natural and not natural is all (are we supposed to change or recreate the rules of conception). Perhaps so; to challenge those rules.

originally posted by: Xtrozero
Jesus was God in human form so I guess he is saying God is gay....

I thought we all were (god in human form); and allows for all things to manifest, after all it just wants to know who/what it is. We were created to describe Itself to Itself.

Someone's probably already said this, but the beloved apostle was probably Mary Magdalene, and the author of the Gospel of John could have been Mary Magdalene, but was covered-up by the misogynist leadership:

Mary Magdalene Wrote The Gospel of John

The Gnostic Gospels deliver a lot of detail about how Christ came to unionize the sexes from their enmity that was caused during the fall... Read the Gospel of Phillip if you're interested. It's also a less frequent, but present theme in the orthodox gospels:

"And he answering said to them, `Did ye not read, that He who made [them], from the beginning a male and a female made them,
and said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and cleave to his wife, and they shall be -- the two -- for one flesh
so that they are no more two, but one flesh; what therefore God did join together, let no man put asunder.'"

Not gay.

originally posted by: vethumanbeing

I thought we all were (god in human form); and allows for all things to manifest, after all it just wants to know who/what it is. We were created to describe Itself to Itself.

Beautiful. If you read the creation story in that light, it makes a lot more sense. Then we got lost in our own creation... awkward...

originally posted by: cooperton

originally posted by: vethumanbeing

I thought we all were (god in human form); and allows for all things to manifest, after all it just wants to know who/what it is. We were created to describe Itself to Itself.

Beautiful. If you read the creation story in that light, it makes a lot more sense. Then we got lost in our own creation... awkward...

We get lost in our IMPORTANT ego formation (I suspect the reason for its being keeps us alive) so cannot actually fault it; but I don't think the ego is ones friend. I have to re-read the creation story.

a reply to: peter vlar

Lol that's the worst excuse ever how can they be sins if what he was saying was true? And I don't dabble in speculation of the lost years probably being a monk/rabbi who studied the mysteries in Egypt and became an adept which is otherworldly in itself because it takes 40 years to be an adept and transcend.

a reply to: peter vlar

Science says original people we are descended from are homo sapiens sapiens why are you trying to start an argument where there isn't one....en.m.wikipedia.org...

originally posted by: vethumanbeing

originally posted by: cooperton

originally posted by: vethumanbeing

I thought we all were (god in human form); and allows for all things to manifest, after all it just wants to know who/what it is. We were created to describe Itself to Itself.

Beautiful. If you read the creation story in that light, it makes a lot more sense. Then we got lost in our own creation... awkward...

We get lost in our IMPORTANT ego formation (I suspect the reason for its being keeps us alive) so cannot actually fault it; but I don't think the ego is ones friend. I have to re-read the creation story.

Genesis is still very mysterious even with this in mind, but if God is the "I Am", then this is an intuitive start to fully understanding the origin. The ego separated us between the avatar (human) and Divine Essence (creative consciousness).

originally posted by: cooperton

originally posted by: vethumanbeing

originally posted by: cooperton

originally posted by: vethumanbeing

I thought we all were (god in human form); and allows for all things to manifest, after all it just wants to know who/what it is. We were created to describe Itself to Itself.

Beautiful. If you read the creation story in that light, it makes a lot more sense. Then we got lost in our own creation... awkward...

We get lost in our IMPORTANT ego formation (I suspect the reason for its being keeps us alive) so cannot actually fault it; but I don't think the ego is ones friend. I have to re-read the creation story.

Genesis is still very mysterious even with this in mind, but if God is the "I Am", then this is an intuitive start to fully understanding the origin. The ego separated us between the avatar (human) and Divine Essence (creative consciousness).

My understanding is similar; God is the IAM and created us (all things alive). Somehow ego got in the way regarding the human; some would call this Lucifer doing his best work. I say no, there is nothing wrong with enlightenment; God created Lucifer as well for a good reason. There was/is a plan; just difficult to decipher. Who is in charge exactly and why are we being manipulated.

a reply to: tothetenthpower

If they had any such physical evidence, I might be more inclined to believe it.

JERUSALEM- A team of archaeologists discovered artifacts near the wall in Jerusalem's ancient City of David that not only shows evidence that Jesus actually existed, but that "he" was a female. The amazing discoveries make it, not only the earliest known evidence for Jesus, but reveals that Jesus was actually a girl.

Carbon dating puts the artifacts at around 30 A.D. which makes this the earliest known evidence for an historical Jesus.

In describing the painting, Ephraim Balzar, a professor emeritus at Tel Aviv University, depicted the mural as, "Jesus with flowers in her hair, wearing a pearl necklace and a beaded anklet (ankle bracelet). And note Christ wearing the red lipstick." Also in the painting, "you can see a vertical ichthys that had a special meaning in ancient religions."
www.nobeliefs.com...

I don't know what else to add.

originally posted by: christophoros
a reply to: peter vlar

Lol that's the worst excuse ever how can they be sins if what he was saying was true?

So if I assault someone it's a sin and a crime but jesus gets a free pass somehow? Breaking the Sabbath is a sin for all others but not for Jesus somehow? Equating himself to god is not sinful per the scripture? interesting rationalizations you've got there. The simple fact of the matter is that until he was crucified and paid the wage for all of humanities sins, he was just like every other person born of a woman, imbued with the original sin of Adam. You're running in circles to deny the reality of your own scripture because you have some to your own, incorrect, conclusions.

And I don't dabble in speculation of the lost years

Are you sure about that? seems like a lot of what you are saying is speculative, or at least ignores scripture.

probably being a monk/rabbi who studied the mysteries in Egypt and became an adept which is otherworldly in itself because it takes 40 years to be an adept and transcend.

And your very first word here is PROBABLY, which indicates speculation on your part. How does it take 40 years to become this magical adept if the last time you see good old jesus was at age 12, before his ministries began and he was executed in his early 30's? Your math doesn't add up.

Science says original people we are descended from are homo sapiens sapiens why are you trying to start an argument where there isn't one....en.m.wikipedia.org...

Is that really what science says? Not quite. It's not even what you said that made me reply to you, but I'll get to that later. What "science says" is that WE are the Homo Sapiens Sapiens. The archaic humans living at the time of Mt Eve and Y Adam were H. Sapiens Sapiens with admixture from earlier archaic hominids and there are various dates for Y Adam that could make him old enough to have been a Homo Erectus or Heidelbergensis or young enough to have lived after the first HSS left Africa. Either way, all HSS are descended from H. Heidelbergensis, which in turn are a specialized variation of H. Erectus all closely enough related to have successfully bred with one another. The lineage is nowhere near the straight line you attempt to portray it as and not at all the

pure blood straight from original man Adam and Eve who are afro Asiatic homo erectus according to science

And even if you think science supports the notion of Adam and Eve, the Mt Eve and Y Adam were separated by a minimum of 10's of thousands of years and up to 300 thousand years (depending on which date you're looking at) chronologically and not the same exact spot geographically. So no... I'm not trying to start an argument where there isn't one, I'm pointing out that your grasp of science is as tenuous as your grasp of scripture.

a reply to: windword

That actually makes sense when you look at the parallels between the words of The Spirit Sophia (Chochmah/Wisdom) in Proverbs and Jesus in the Gospels.