Elton: Jesus was a gay Lord

Jesus: Elton is a gay Lord.......

O.K., nuffa that!

Maybe he meant gay as in happy? Maybe he was just trying to say Jesus is the lord of happiness?

How's about this then?



LOL!

Originally posted by Kandinsky
You all do realise that there's no evidence a historical Jesus existed?

Except for the fact that

"and while scholars further debate what can specifically be known concerning Jesus' character and ministry, essentially all scholars in the relevant fields agree that the mere historical existence of Jesus can be established using documentary and other evidence."

en.wikipedia.org...

There is a HUGE list of sources there.

"Flavius Josephus (c. 37–c. 100), a Jew and Roman citizen who worked under the patronage of the Flavians, wrote the Antiquities of the Jews in 93 AD. In these works, Jesus is mentioned twice. The one directly concerning Jesus has come to be known as the Testimonium Flavianum."

"Pliny the Younger, the provincial governor of Pontus and Bithynia, wrote to Emperor Trajan c. 112 concerning how to deal with Christians, who refused to worship the emperor, and instead worshiped "Christus"."

"Tacitus (c. 56–c. 117), writing c. 116, included in his Annals a mention of Christianity and "Christus""

"Gaius Suetonius Tranquillus (c. 69–140) wrote the following in his Lives of the Twelve Caesars about riots which broke out in the Jewish community in Rome under the emperor Claudius:"

"Mara bar Sarapion was a Syrian Stoic.[97] While imprisoned by the Romans, Mara wrote a letter to his son that includes the following text:"

The sources for the historicity of Jesus go on and on and on.

Many of these sources were NON-christian. Romans mostly, being it all happened in a province of Rome...

Please study these many varied and reasonable sources.
en.wikipedia.org...

I've recently started 'spying' on a Religious Sect, named:

Celebrate Recovery.

Seems, there a bit taudry, in that they forgive all, then bend the gender line.

I can see where this comes from, as I'm an on the fence believer; Yeah, I lie, commandment xx.
They do get in there and say the oddest of sorties, which includes the forbidden homosexuality.

Maybe someone responded in this post is trying to make the 'Catholic Million', whereas be it here foreknown there was this 'abuse' see, and the little boy fell and 'skinned' himshelf. Then, see, they get to eat from the Tree of Life...

Who really cares?...

yeshua taught that the flesh is a veil that hampers our vision of our true eternal bodies. our eternal bodies are not sexually procreative by design. although an argument could be advanced that the angels were able to sexually procreate, however, in order to do that, they had to manifest in a fallen condition. thus suggesting that physical sexual contact is a function of a fallen, degraded state of being. therefore, i do not believe yeshua had a sex life, nor was he interested in a sex life. his purpose on earth seemed to be focused on an entirely different set of subjects, relating to evolving above things like sex and other selective functions of the physical body.

consider there are many other teachings, by other wisemen, with similar focus. you can rechannel energy normally expended on sex, into other avenues of improvement.

[edit on 19-2-2010 by undo]

reply to post by OZtracized


Maybe people misspelled gay... and they meant gaea... or gaia...

stupid people

Originally posted by undo
yeshua taught that the flesh is a veil that hampers our vision of our true eternal bodies. our eternal bodies are not sexually procreative by design.

Here is the confusion between gender and sex. Our eternal bodies may not have gender, yet that doesn't mean there is no sex.

I can't accept being ambiguous.

If we never were either, then there never would have been a difference.

reply to post by dzonatas


i'm not even sure we have the same body shapes, since they wouldn't be necessary. perhaps it's like ethereal playdough, that we can reshape to whatever.

Does anyone find both the intellectual integrity, and the depth of character completely disintegrate when the subject of religion, and specifically that of Jesus is approached?

I mean, come on folks.

It is utterly embarrassing to read through this, and more than that is tells a tragic story of the unbelievable lack of education, insight, empathy and tact surpassing even the faintest hopes of human decency.

I am sorry, but there is no more evidence to suggest he was gay, than there is to suggest he was a unicorn (to which you are able to suggest equally as much). But there is a higher truth here for us. Whenever a polarizing subject rears its head, or a paradox is debated, what you get is more of an indication of the persons debating it, than the subject itself.

For the observant, the joke is indeed on the opinionated, the know-it-alls, the fundamentalists, and the flippant scoffers. You only impress those like you.

It is too bad that shame has very little to do with the online way of things, because perhaps we would learn to approach serious matters with understanding, and not complete ignorance, and utter stupidity. I truly wish there was a cost to these things as there once was. In times past, many of the things said on here would have marked you the village idiot, or at least the asshole to be avoided.

Maybe show some respect to the subject, to yourselves, to those who stand with you, and even to those who who oppose you.

Ha!

Seriously, I am not sure why I even bothered. Again.

Peace.

Well, I've really enjoyed reading this thread. Its pure ATS gold. I'd actually forgotten how much I do enjoy christians, so thank you all for contributing.
To the OP: S&F!

reply to post by rainfall


well, white people want jesus to be white and black people want him to be black...

oh, and jews want him to be a jew

but, of course, us UFO nutters know better: Jesus is ET

reply to post by deinonychus
unicorn...

maybe a were-unicorn

[edit on 19-2-2010 by reject]

reply to post by reject


hubby said to me once that he thought it would be very much like yeshua, to appear to each person as the race they most disapproved of (not what other people think you disapprove of, but what he knows to be a fact, you disapprove of), as a sort of object lesson in the nature of love (not sex).

[edit on 19-2-2010 by undo]

Originally posted by deinonychus
I am sorry, but there is no more evidence to suggest he was gay, than there is to suggest he was a unicorn (to which you are able to suggest equally as much). But there is a higher truth here for us. Whenever a polarizing subject rears its head, or a paradox is debated, what you get is more of an indication of the persons debating it, than the subject itself.

Of course, the bible doesn't teach virtue at all. Why would people go to the bible for virtue when they know it doesn't.

If someone has a male body and a femme spirit (a.k.a jesus), then how would morals ever resolve the issue. They don't. They can't. They never will. The bible obviously has set it's absolute down in what it doesn't deal with.

People still say it does, and they think to kill other is the answer.

That is what is to become of them in the end. Justice done.

I don't think that just because a male is compassionate, understanding and intelligent that makes him gay...

I don't think that that was the claim, nor was the claim that being gay, as such, would ensure that a man was compassionate, understanding, and intelligent. Elton John reports that he has discerned several qualities in Jesus, among them that Jesus was gay, in EJ's opinion.

As to the merits of that belief, I think it is a tenable view based on the Gospels, especially John. On the other hand, the Gospels don't say, obviously. I guess it comes down to how well calibrated you think your gaydar is, or Elton John's.

One thing, though. Jesus never let black letter law stand in the way of what he thought was the right thing to do. Black letter says your donkey stays in the well until sundown on the Sabbath, Jesus says use your common sense and get him out of there, right now.

If Jesus were gay, then, I don't think he would be much impressed by an appeal to the Law. He seemed to favor love, and wasn't overtly fussy about the forms in which love spontaneously manifests in healthy people and healthy societies.

Personally, if the point of Jesus' mission really was that God should live as a man, then I hope he got some while he was here, since that is an important part of the human experience. If that was with another man, then so what?

hubby said to me once that he thought it would be very much like yeshua, to appear to each person as the race they most disapproved of (not what other people think you disapprove of, but what he knows to be a fact, you disapprove of), as a sort of object lesson in the nature of love (not sex).

Hubby speaks word.

Originally posted by undo
reply to post by dzonatas

 

i'm not even sure we have the same body shapes, since they wouldn't be necessary. perhaps it's like ethereal playdough, that we can reshape to whatever.

Being able to do that, to me, is homosexuality.

I don't believe we can do that. All is possible, yet there are things we obvious have chosen impossible.

If heterosexuality is an impossible dream... then it is a worthwhile dream.

reply to post by muzzleflash
I'm not making a case that Jesus didn't exist....nor would I debate it.

I was pointing out that no evidence exists of his physical existence. The 'historicity' (not heard that word since Uni) of Jesus is founded on a consensus of accounts from after he would have died. No Roman records exist. In your link there isn't a contemporary account of a first-hand meeting with a physical Jesus. I'm happy to accept that the guy lived...

I was pointing out that it's impossible to draw conclusions about his sexuality. Also that the values are what matter and aren't affected by sexuality. On probability alone, it's fair to assume he was straight...most people are.

Elton John is a d###. I don't buy any of his records...I'm buying even fewer in future.

Originally posted by cjcord

Originally posted by RizeorDie
Jesus was not gay. PERIOD.

what does being gay offer the word? there are no advantages and nothing good that comes from it, its completely useless and there is no future in being gay... god create man and women for a reason... and if god didnt create us and we were created by aliens, then they wouldnt be happy that their experiment went wrong and started being gay... total fail

...
Is this a sarcastic post?
I know such blatantly bigoted viewpoints aren't really still floating around in..lemme check...2010. Right?

And are those our only options? God or Aliens?
Mods!! The deny ignorance button's broken!

Maybe he's just not being "politically correct" enough for some portion of the audience.
Is this a sarcastic thread?

Originally posted by eight bits
Personally, if the point of Jesus' mission really was that God should live as a man, then I hope he got some while he was here, since that is an important part of the human experience. If that was with another man, then so what?

What if His missions was to show the difference between a homosexual female in a male body, and a heterosexual femme in a male body.

He was obviously really not interested in females because He is femme (as the bible says).

He had nothing left to do but teach.

Hubby speaks word.

Everybody hates this type, right?

I humbly ask for you to consider this other post

I understand the Elton, like so many others in the limelight, are travistock trained. They are managed and they promote the causes that facilitate a submissive agenda for the masses.

reply to post by dzonatas


well the first adams were men and women. there was no "Eve" yet. so if we were created in an image of something else we call God, and were both men and women, what part ya think was God's image? the male part or the female part? cause they are called "adam" in the original language. and this verse is found in the chapter BEFORE the chapter about Eve being taken from Adam's side. Furthermore, God in the original language in these passages is ELOHIYM (plural, gods)

So God created man (adam) in his [own] image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.

that text is preceeded by Let US make man (adam) in OUR image. the confusion is pretty easy to remove:

men and women were created in the image of the Elohiym (plural), and were collectively known as "adam". later, Eve is created, which is a real puzzler, because originally, woman was created in the image of the gods, just as man was ,and they were both adams.