Jesus Christ and Homosexuality.

BernardR wrote:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rex Red- You had better stop--You are depressing Light Wizard and O"Donnell!!!

If anyone needs cheering up, here Laughing

0 Replies

Did God create an X chromosome in the womb of Mary (the mother of Jesus) or did he just give an egg life? Did God pass on physical male characteristics to his son or only make a new soul/life part in the egg? Did Jesus bare a "physical" resemblance to God his father?

What kind of masculine traits could a formless God contribute to a "son" physically?

0 Replies

RexRed wrote:

How individual must one become until they begin to discord with the main resounding body of life?

Is the main resounding population generally in harmony with the one true God?

There are limits as to how individual one can become, RR. Why must fundies always think in absolutes?

Sure, individuality is a good thing but you mustn't be so individual as to create discord.

It's like oxygen. Sure, breathing oxygen is a good thing, but if you breathed nothing but pure oxygen you'd be dead. Water's a good thing, but if you did nothing but drink it non-stop, you'd also be dead.

BernardR wrote:

Rex Red- You had better stop--You are depressing Light Wizard and O"Donnell!!!

Don't know where you got that idea from.

RexRed wrote:

Did God create an X chromosome in the womb of Mary (the mother of Jesus) or did he just give an egg life? Did God pass on physical male characteristics to his son or only make a new soul/life part in the egg? Did Jesus bare a "physical" resemblance to God his father?

What kind of masculine traits could a formless God contribute to a "son" physically?

Why would God need to create an X chromosome in Mary's womb? She's a woman. All her eggs already have X chromosomes.

God would have needed to at least mutate an X chromosome into a Y chromosome in order to create Jesus, otherwise he'd be a freak of nature. And he would need to give Jesus a few other genes, otherwise he would have looked exactly like a clone of Mary, but with male characteristics obviously... unless he was a woman pretending to be a man.

What's your point again?

Are you trying to say that Jesus had two X chromosomes and was therefore a cross-dresser?

0 Replies

Wolf_ODonnell wrote:

RexRed wrote:
How individual must one become until they begin to discord with the main resounding body of life?

Is the main resounding population generally in harmony with the one true God?

There are limits as to how individual one can become, RR. Why must fundies always think in absolutes?

Sure, individuality is a good thing but you mustn't be so individual as to create discord.

It's like oxygen. Sure, breathing oxygen is a good thing, but if you breathed nothing but pure oxygen you'd be dead. Water's a good thing, but if you did nothing but drink it non-stop, you'd also be dead.

BernardR wrote:
Rex Red- You had better stop--You are depressing Light Wizard and O"Donnell!!!

Don't know where you got that idea from.

RexRed wrote:
Did God create an X chromosome in the womb of Mary (the mother of Jesus) or did he just give an egg life? Did God pass on physical male characteristics to his son or only make a new soul/life part in the egg? Did Jesus bare a "physical" resemblance to God his father?

What kind of masculine traits could a formless God contribute to a "son" physically?

Why would God need to create an X chromosome in Mary's womb? She's a woman. All her eggs already have X chromosomes.

God would have needed to at least mutate an X chromosome into a Y chromosome in order to create Jesus, otherwise he'd be a freak of nature. And he would need to give Jesus a few other genes, otherwise he would have looked exactly like a clone of Mary, but with male characteristics obviously... unless he was a woman pretending to be a man.

What's your point again?

Are you trying to say that Jesus had two X chromosomes and was therefore a cross-dresser?

I'm sorry, I meant Y chromosome not X... God would have to had created a Y chromosome in Mary to give Jesus male characteristics. God has no form or beauty so how would Jesus have looked? God could have just made an egg come alive with two X chromosomes but in order for Jesus to have been male he would have had to create a sperm with "life" AND create a Y chromosome.

I believe this whole birth of Jesus is a knights move logically.

Three steps of logic here that lead to two steps of logic there, all on one move.

0 Replies

RexRed wrote:

I'm sorry, I meant Y chromosome not X...

Well, that's a relief. I couldn't imagine the direction this post would go in if you didn't mean Y.

Quote:

God would have to had created a Y chromosome in Mary to give Jesus male characteristics. God has no form or beauty so how would Jesus have looked? God could have just made an egg come alive with two X chromosomes but in order for Jesus to have been male he would have had to create a sperm with "life" AND create a Y chromosome.

So you already know what Jesus looked like if you think God did that.

If that is all God did, then Jesus would have looked similar to Mary, except he would have male characteristics.

What I can't understand is what on Earth this has got to do with the rest of the topic.

0 Replies

Wolf_ODonnell wrote:

RexRed wrote:
I'm sorry, I meant Y chromosome not X...

Well, that's a relief. I couldn't imagine the direction this post would go in if you didn't mean Y.

Quote:
God would have to had created a Y chromosome in Mary to give Jesus male characteristics. God has no form or beauty so how would Jesus have looked? God could have just made an egg come alive with two X chromosomes but in order for Jesus to have been male he would have had to create a sperm with "life" AND create a Y chromosome.

So you already know what Jesus looked like if you think God did that.

If that is all God did, then Jesus would have looked similar to Mary, except he would have male characteristics.

What I can't understand is what on Earth this has got to do with the rest of the topic.

It might explain Jesus' celibacy. It may explain also why he was rejected and crucified by the people.

Mt 27:35
And they crucified him, and parted his garments, casting lots: that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the prophet, They parted my garments among them, and upon my vesture did they cast lots.

0 Replies

RexRed wrote:

It might explain Jesus' celibacy.

Nope. No it can't.

Quote:

It may explain also why he was rejected and crucified by the people.

Mt 27:35
And they crucified him, and parted his garments, casting lots: that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the prophet, They parted my garments among them, and upon my vesture did they cast lots.

Nope. It wouldn't explain that either, because no one in those times knew about genetics. Furthermore, Mary was married (if I remember correctly) to Joseph, so many people wouldn't think about him having been born from a virgin.

Jesus never seemed to tell anyone in the Bible and even if he did, no one would have believed him on that.

0 Replies

Wolf_ODonnell wrote:

RexRed wrote:
It might explain Jesus' celibacy.

Nope. No it can't.

Quote:
It may explain also why he was rejected and crucified by the people.

Mt 27:35
And they crucified him, and parted his garments, casting lots: that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the prophet, They parted my garments among them, and upon my vesture did they cast lots.

Nope. It wouldn't explain that either, because no one in those times knew about genetics. Furthermore, Mary was married (if I remember correctly) to Joseph, so many people wouldn't think about him having been born from a virgin.

Jesus never seemed to tell anyone in the Bible and even if he did, no one would have believed him on that.

God didn't know about genetics? Very Happy

0 Replies

Rex Red- Don't be silly. O'Donnell doesn't believe in God. He thinks Elton John is God!!!

0 Replies

RexRed wrote:

Quote:
It may explain also why he was rejected and crucified by the people.

Mt 27:35
And they crucified him, and parted his garments, casting lots: that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the prophet, They parted my garments among them, and upon my vesture did they cast lots.

Nope. It wouldn't explain that either, because no one in those times knew about genetics. Furthermore, Mary was married (if I remember correctly) to Joseph, so many people wouldn't think about him having been born from a virgin.

Jesus never seemed to tell anyone in the Bible and even if he did, no one would have believed him on that.

God didn't know about genetics? Very Happy

[/quote]

You silly-billy. You were clearly talking about why the people crucified Jesus, right? It was after that blurb about genetics. So my "they didn't know about genetics" statement was in reference to the people that crucified Jesus.

In that post, you were clearly stating that the people may have crucified him because they thought he was some kind of genetic freak. But I stated that they didn't know about genetics back then, so it couldn't possibly have been that.

How could you have read my post and came out with that conclusion? It makes no logical sense. Did you actually read the entire post or were you half asleep when you made that post?

BernardR wrote:

Rex Red- Don't be silly. O'Donnell doesn't believe in God. He thinks Elton John is God!!!

Once again, Bernie doesn't add any substance to the topic except for insults and trolling.

0 Replies

Wolf_ODonnell wrote:

RexRed wrote:
Quote:
It may explain also why he was rejected and crucified by the people.

Mt 27:35
And they crucified him, and parted his garments, casting lots: that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the prophet, They parted my garments among them, and upon my vesture did they cast lots.

Nope. It wouldn't explain that either, because no one in those times knew about genetics. Furthermore, Mary was married (if I remember correctly) to Joseph, so many people wouldn't think about him having been born from a virgin.

Jesus never seemed to tell anyone in the Bible and even if he did, no one would have believed him on that.

Quote:
God didn't know about genetics?

You silly-billy. You were clearly talking about why the people crucified Jesus, right? It was after that blurb about genetics. So my "they didn't know about genetics" statement was in reference to the people that crucified Jesus.

In that post, you were clearly stating that the people may have crucified him because they thought he was some kind of genetic freak. But I stated that they didn't know about genetics back then, so it couldn't possibly have been that.

How could you have read my post and came out with that conclusion? It makes no logical sense. Did you actually read the entire post or were you half asleep when you made that post?

BernardR wrote:
Rex Red- Don't be silly. O'Donnell doesn't believe in God. He thinks Elton John is God!!!

Once again, Bernie doesn't add any substance to the topic except for insults and trolling.

Just as we have found the "knights move" in the conception of Jesus Christ, maybe we will find the "double helix" in the beatitudes? Smile

0 Replies

Christ was celebate because 1. He was God in the flesh 2. he was the son who was doing his fathers will (which didn't include sex or procreation)

Christ was crucified because 1. It was part of God's plan for man to have forgiveness of sin 2. Some of the pharisees hated him and wanted him dead

as for Christ's physical appearance read isaiah 53:1-2

0 Replies

kate4christ03 wrote:

Christ was celebate because 1. He was God in the flesh 2. he was the son who was doing his fathers will (which didn't include sex or procreation)

Christ was crucified because 1. It was part of God's plan for man to have forgiveness of sin 2. Some of the pharisees hated him and wanted him dead

as for Christ's physical appearance read isaiah 53:1-2

Isaiah 53:1 Who hath believed our report? and to whom is the arm of the LORD revealed?
2 For he shall grow up before him as a tender plant, and as a root out of a dry ground: he hath no form nor comeliness; and when we shall see him, there is no beauty that we should desire him.

Comment:
Hey Kate! Welcome to our seemingly controversial chat here on A2K. Differences of opinion are welcome in this thread. No real disrespect toward the lord Jesus Christ is intended here.

We have a disagreement with "God in the flesh" bit though... My Bible says, the "word" in the flesh not "God" in the flesh... There are several forms of "the word" spoken of in the Bible BEFORE it was made flesh also.

First, the flesh could never contain God. If the heaven of heavens can not contain God then what makes you think the flesh can?

1Ki 8:27
But will God indeed dwell on the earth? behold, the heaven and heaven of heavens cannot contain thee; how much less this house that I have builded?

2Ch 6:18
But will God in very deed dwell with men on the earth? behold, heaven and the heaven of heavens cannot contain thee; how much less this house which I have built!

Comment:
Also, if Jesus was not very "beautiful" then why should we believe he was temped in all points as we are. The devil was considered the most beautiful angel of God until he fell due to lust for HIS OWN beauty... Yet Jesus did not have to endure that temptation, so was he really tempted in "all" points AS WE ARE?

Heb 4:15
For we have not an high priest which cannot be touched with the feeling of our infirmities; but was in all points tempted like as we are, yet without sin.

Comment:
Is that all without exception or all with distinction?

0 Replies

RexRed ty for the welcome Very Happy

Ok Im a trinitarian..I believe in God the father, God the son and God the Holy Spirit....one God three persons...
So i believe that Jesus is God manifested into flesh and the son ...there are many verses that show Jesus is God...john 1:1 says in the beginning was the Word and the Word was with God and the Word was God....(im paraphrasing) but it does say the Word was God...then a few verses down it says the Word manifested into flesh...that is Christ he is God and he is the son....I can get more verses if you care for them ........

also in a discussion i had on another topic i went in depth on the temptation of Christ..let me tell you my view bf i answer you question if you dont mind.......

Quote:

"Then was Jesus led up of the Spirit into the wilderness to be tempted of the devil. "mt 4:1
when in doubt check the greek....the term tempted used in this verse and throughtout this story is Peiravzw which literally means
(by impious or wicked conduct to test God's justice and patience, and to challenge him, as it were to give proof of his perfections)

in other places where it shows Christ being tempted this same word is used...Yes Christ was in the flesh so he can empathize with struggles we went through...But he was also fully God and couldn't sin....

ok sorry it was so long lol in saying that....hebrews is clear he was tempted in all points, so even if it doesnt state every single point in the bible, I am sure that Christ was thrown every temptation that we are thrown by satan.......and I am sure that satan could have (dont know just supposition) tried to tempt him with women......even if he was not handsome .....But Christ could not sin

0 Replies

Kate,

The Bible says the "word" was images (fables), it was spoken (law), it was written (by prophets) and then it became flesh (Christ) also, the ministry today...

But they all agreed with God... (none can contain God)

That does not make "the word" God. It just agrees (is) with God, The word is "with" (Together with yet having a distinct independence thereof.) God, in "will and purpose", when it is 'rightly' divided...

0 Replies

Er... Kate, if the Old Testament talked about what Jesus looked like, then chances are Jesus did not look like what is described in the Old Testament. After all, one of the reasons people didn't believe Jesus was the Messiah and that Jews still don't believe he is the Messiah is that he did not fit the physical description in the Old Testament.

0 Replies

Rex Red....anywhere you see "WORD" all capitals its referring to Christ...
JOhn 1:1In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. ...the Word was Christ and the Word was God....that verse is pretty clear...
John 1:14The Word became flesh and made his dwelling among us. We have seen his glory, the glory of the One and Only, who came from the Father, full of grace and truth.
1Tim 3:16And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: God was manifest in the flesh, justified in the Spirit, seen of angels, preached unto the Gentiles, believed on in the world, received up into glory.
The bible is clear that Christ is God...and he is also the son....
Ph 2:6-7Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God:But made himself of no reputation, and took upon him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men.

0 Replies

Quote:

After all, one of the reasons people didn't believe Jesus was the Messiah and that Jews still don't believe he is the Messiah is that he did not fit the physical description in the Old Testament.

Wolf how so?

0 Replies

kate4christ03 wrote:

Quote:
After all, one of the reasons people didn't believe Jesus was the Messiah and that Jews still don't believe he is the Messiah is that he did not fit the physical description in the Old Testament.

Wolf how so?

What do you mean, by how so? You'll have to elaborate on that.

If I remember correctly, Jesus was supposed to have red-hair according to the Torah, but the one that was crucified did not. That is one of the only traits I can remember off the top of my head.

Though now that I think about it, there are no physical descriptions of Jesus in the Gospels, so how on Earth they could come to that conclusion, I have no idea.

By the way, how did we get on to this discussion? There's already another topic about Jesus's divinity and physical appearance, so why are we talking about it here in a topic about Jesus' opinion on homosexuality?

0 Replies

kate4christ03 wrote:

Rex Red....anywhere you see "WORD" all capitals its referring to Christ...
JOhn 1:1In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. ...the Word was Christ and the Word was God....that verse is pretty clear...
John 1:14The Word became flesh and made his dwelling among us. We have seen his glory, the glory of the One and Only, who came from the Father, full of grace and truth.
1Tim 3:16And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: God was manifest in the flesh, justified in the Spirit, seen of angels, preached unto the Gentiles, believed on in the world, received up into glory.
The bible is clear that Christ is God...and he is also the son....
Ph 2:6-7Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God:But made himself of no reputation, and took upon him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men.

Kate, the CAPITALS were added by the translators... Underneath all of those capital and non capitals is the same word LOGOS.

So were the translators Godly inspired? Apparently you think so. I can show you many errors in translation. That is clearly one of them.

Again I will state that there are several forms of "the word".

All forms of the word are only an image of the word of God in God's mind.

Jesus is not this word. He is an image of this word.

An image of something is not the same thing as the thing the image represents.

2Co 4:4
In whom the god of this world hath blinded the minds of them which believe not, lest the light of the glorious gospel [word] of Christ, who is the image of God, should shine unto them.

Col 1:15 - Show Context
Who is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of every creature:

Comment:
The "word" is only an "image" of God.

This is in plain English. How much clearer does God need to be.

Christ was "born"... He did not always exist... He existed only in the word in God's mind and foreknowledge.

And the word "was God" (in the beginning)... Not Jesus...

When you make Jesus "the only word" you then begin to worship a man over the creator that created man. This is idolatry.

Why didn't John just write. In the beginning was Jesus and Jesus was with God and Jesus was God.

He didn't write that. He wrote the word was with God.

Who was the word?

Joh 5:19
Then answered Jesus and said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, The Son can do nothing of himself, but what he seeth the Father do: for what things soever he doeth, these also doeth the Son likewise.

Joh 5:30
I can of mine own self do nothing: as I hear, I judge: and my judgment is just; because I seek not mine own will, but the will of the Father which hath sent me.

Comment:
This should only further corroborate the truth that God is "the word" and Jesus only an "image" of God.

"As I hear"... Jesus hears what? He hears "the word" from God... Just as we do today through Christ Jesus our mediator. But it is God who is the word. Jesus in heaven is still only the image of God. And we are also the image of God with Christ in us. We are the word also... But that does not make us God. That only makes us an image of God also.

The trinity is very dangerous. It tries to empower humans with the very throne of God. The devil is still tempting humans with "ye shall be as gods"... He is doing it with the word. The anti christ will make use of this trinitarian throne. You are helping to lay the foundation.

God created man in his own image.

The image of God is a created thing... Jesus is part of the creation just as we are.

Col 1:16
For by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him, and for him:

0 Replies

Jesus Christ and Homosexuality.

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know