Printable View
So basically, what you are saying is, you have to be married to be tempted by sex and to have lust and to have a sex drive?? This is completely untrue. Being tempted with lust and sex has nothing to do with being married.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dawgbitten
I agree, all you have to do to understand that is be a jr high boy. When you would watch tribal documentaries just to get a look at a pair of boobs. Dont lie guys, we all have done it.Quote:
Originally Posted by THE RED
You also don't have to go 40 days without food to know what it is like to be hungry. Believe what you want. I don't care. Just analyze facts and human nature before believing everything that doesn't make sense and call it faith.
I just dont understand your reasoning behind why Jesus was or had to be married. No proof has ever been brought forward to prove otherwise. I dont care either way, but the burden of proof is on those that think he was married. Until I see substatial evidence to support such a claim, I can only assume that he wasnt. Besides, the Bible put the 40 days of temptation in there to show what Jesus had to endure and how he overcame it. I have never ready anything about how he had to have sex to understand human nature, that is just pure conjecture on your part.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dawgbitten
AMEN dhussdawg!!! We have the Bible as our proof, and until there is solid proof otherwise, why would you believe anything else??Quote:
Originally Posted by dhussdawg
Dhuss, the proof, outside of the Gospel of Phillip (which in my opinion is pretty solid), was probably destroyed. Your early history was destroyed. Scrolls, books, and people have been burned throughout the last 2000 years for any kind of belief that didn't agree with the early church. That is fact. Like I said, Believe what you want. History is written by the victors.Quote:
Originally Posted by TechDawgFan
Sick pervert.Quote:
Originally Posted by dhussdawg
DB,
While I don't agree with what you are saying, I do understand it.
I'm going to get over my head real quick here so just stay with me.
Jesus didn't sin. He was blameless and that was what made him the perfect and only sacrifice that could cleanse us of our sins. Was he tempted? Sure he was. But he didn't succumb to the temptation. But rather than looking at the sin, consider the CONSEQUENCE of sin. Sin results in spiritual death, or a spiritual separation from God. Sin is sin is sin. There is no difference in God's eyes between murder and cheating. In order to understand that, you have to have a definition of sin. I'll take a stab at it as I've done before - Sin is doing what you want to do because you want to do it rather than what God wants you to do. It is rebellion against God and the following of your own desires. It can take many forms, some of which you have already brought up.
Since Jesus was sinless, He had never experienced that separation from the Father. He and the Father were one. They were as Adam and Eve were in the Garden before the fall.
Ever wonder why the cross was so painful for Jesus? While I'm sure he had physical pain, it wasn't the driving force. He said, "My God, My God, why have you forsaken me?" It was because, for the first time in his life, he was suffering the consequence of sin. Even though He was sinless, he bore our sins and had to suffer the consequence of it which is separation from the Father. It is why he was agonizing in the garden. It wasn't that he didn't want to die, but that he didn't want to have to suffer the consequence of our sin and be separated from the Father.
I'm rambling now.
Chris
Really? There are plenty of account of history written by the defeated. What about Jeremiah's account of the Israelites defeat at the hands of King Nebuchadnezzar around 586 BC? There are numerous examples of history being written from the hostile defeated, which is actually a better account of what actually happened since they are forced to concede what actually occured. Heck, just look at the Civil War. Much more has been written about the South and the southern generals than the North.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dawgbitten
Chris
And in full disclosure, here is the text from the Gospel of Philip:
Anywhere you see [...] it is where there is no word on the manuscript. It is blank, not that it isn't interpretable or more text.Quote:
And the companion of the [...] Mary Magdalene. [...] more than [...] the disciples, [...] kiss her [...] on her [...]. The rest of the disciples [...]. They said to him "Why do you love her more than all of us?" The Savior answered and said to them, "Why do I not love you like her? When a blind man and one who sees are both together in darkness, they are no different from one another. When the light comes, then he who sees will see the light, and he who is blind will remain in darkness.
If Jesus had to cave to "human nature" just like anybody else, there was nothing special about him and we shouldn't be talking about him now. The "proof" in the gospel of Phillip is by no means difinitive. The gospel of Phillip was written very long after the deaths of anyone who would've had any first hand knowledge of Christ. The four gospels were cannonized because those who had seen Christ and been around him had debated their content and agreed that it was true. You can believe that Jesus was married if you wish, but you shouldn't trick yourself into thinking that there is ANY solid evidence to support such a claim.
Well, I find the Gospel of Phillip fairly suspect, considering it was written around 150 years after Jesus died. It had no review by anyone who was alive during Jesus' time on earth. I am just saying if it was so common knowledge and there was so much proof out there as you claim, it would have slipped through the cracks of history in many places. No way did the early church destroy everything that had to do with Jesus being married. Christians were the persecuted during most of the first century by the Roman soldiers anyway. It is a wonder how any of the Four Gospels made it through those times.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dawgbitten
Yeah, the victors write the history is a fallacy...there are numerous examples of the opposite. I don't personally have those examples with me, but we went over them 2 Sundays ago.Quote:
Originally Posted by TechDawgFan
History is written by everyone. You and I can go watcht he same historical event and write two totally different things about it. Our either of our writings wrong? Not necessarily, you might have seen one thing that made you stray from my same account or vice versa. For ages, military's ahve exaggereated numbers that they have fought against. the defeated may have written the account to show that they were powerful but were overwhelmed. The victors might have written that they defeated tens of thousands, so that it might make them look like a small mighty force.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dawgbitten
The point is, I can prove something historically right and you can prove it historically wrong. We just might not use the same materials for our research.
The first few books of the Bible were written several centuries after they actually happened, right?Quote:
Originally Posted by johnnylightnin
I am not trying to back up DB and I haven't completely followed all of this thread. I am a Christian and a historian. You can't believe everything you read, but you can't disbelieve it either. That might not be worded right. I was fighting a fire last night and only got 2 hours of sleep.:)