It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

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

page: 7
20
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 13 2015 @ 04:39 PM
link   
Jesus couldn't sin LIKE AT ALL APPARENTLY. Not even straight sex and he wasn't a rebel at all either he stuck to the scriptures. If he sinned he wouldn't have been sacrificed in the first place. He is the sinless lamb of god. The whole point of Jesus is he was sinless if he wasn't sinless he would be just another Joe schmoe and the his sacrifice would be in vain.




posted on Jul, 13 2015 @ 04:42 PM
link   
a reply to: ketsuko

You know Jesus was dark skin right so technically yes the "blacks" are right you believe Jesus was a white man with a nice straight beard? Lol hilarious



posted on Jul, 13 2015 @ 06:13 PM
link   
a reply to: Stormdancer777

Nice deconstruction of disinformation there Stormdancer...

Having done my own search for it, I came across many websites that actually refer to the inner tunic as a vest, not at all underwear as claimed by this ludicrous pastor.



posted on Jul, 13 2015 @ 06:15 PM
link   
a reply to: randyvs

I did state my opinion in my second post...
And further elaborated later in the thread.

I think he is either a troll, doing it for the biblical lulz...

Or he is ashamed of his own birthright, and needs to validate his gayness by lumping the Messiah into the LGBT movement.




posted on Jul, 13 2015 @ 06:18 PM
link   
a reply to: NavyDoc



Or... Irish comedian, David Doherty...







posted on Jul, 13 2015 @ 06:34 PM
link   
Jesus was definitely gay(content), and was the Son of Homos(man), and was queer in his way(strange or unusually odd with all supposed super powered), and was probably strong and his soul was on fire, like a bundle sticks not being broken or souls being sent to hell.
edit on 13-7-2015 by Specimen because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 13 2015 @ 06:43 PM
link   

originally posted by: christophoros
a reply to: ketsuko

You know Jesus was dark skin right so technically yes the "blacks" are right you believe Jesus was a white man with a nice straight beard? Lol hilarious


No I think he was Middle Eastern which means olive skin, dark hair and likely dark eyes. People in the Middle East have darker skin than Northern Europeans, but not black like sub-Saharan Africans.

And what's with "blacks" in quotes? It was on this very site on a PC thread that someone just posted that blacks don't like African-American. I used to use African-American all the time. Should I start typing "people of very melanistic skin coloration?"

edit on 13-7-2015 by ketsuko because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 13 2015 @ 07:02 PM
link   
a reply to: CharlieSpeirs

I haven't read everyone's replies yet so perhaps i'm not the first to suggest this, but here's what drives me crazy about such "debates":

-Jesus was considered a RABBI.. (each time the word "teacher" is used in the new testament, they're actually saying Rabbi), and this was not a loosely defined position in Hebrew culture of the time.. To acquire this position, one had to be married and (i think) have children..

-Sorry folks, but whether or not there was a "real Jesus", it doesn't matter. The stories of Jesus are SOoooo laden with symbolism, it's entirely pointless to interpret it as being a historical... Jesus breaking what was "typical" of men at the time says NOTHING about his sexuality.. It does however relate directly to the androgyny of the Holy Spirit (that which CHRIST symbolizes) and even the androgyny of Adam before Eve was "created"

I'm not a Christian per se (i see Judaism, Hinduism, Buddhism, Sufism, etc, as all observing objective phenomenon, but then portrayed and expressed through the filter of the messenger's time, place, and culture), BUT i do get so tired of people interpreting the story of Jesus as this person whose biography should be written.. if people spent half this time on actually reading their own scripture , not to mention trying to UNDERSTAND it.., i'm sure they would get a whole lot more out of it.


edit on 13-7-2015 by HyphenSt1 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 13 2015 @ 07:18 PM
link   
a reply to: CharlieSpeirs

Oh good grief.

Seriously though, he may have something with Paul. Either a closet homosexual or straight and so sexually repressed that he hated anyone with a vagina.


edit on 13-7-2015 by redhorse because: needed an "and"



posted on Jul, 13 2015 @ 07:59 PM
link   
Dr. Reverend Bob Shore-Goss, an openly gay senior pastor.......,

Hey Bob , nice try , but you are hellbound .

For many are called, but few are chosen."

You just made my "punch in the nose list "

.... note to self , not mad , just even




posted on Jul, 13 2015 @ 08:07 PM
link   
a reply to: HyphenSt1

If god said let us make man in our image

"Let us make humankind in our image, after our likeness," and then "God created humankind in his own image, in the image of God he created them, male and female he created them.

Then god and his co-creators, had gender.
edit on 083131p://bMonday2015 by Stormdancer777 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 13 2015 @ 08:08 PM
link   

edit on 7/13/2015 by BuzzyWigs because: nvm



posted on Jul, 13 2015 @ 08:50 PM
link   
a reply to: CharlieSpeirs

Perhaps the Professor is a dill?

The Bible says Jesus had no sin. For His crucifixion to have meaning (that He died for our sins and not His own) He would have to be sinless.

Sex outside of the marriage is regarded as a sin (regardless of gender). If Jesus had sex, He would be a sinner and everything He stood for would be invalidated.

Perhaps He loved everyone without consideration of their gender?

Let's look at the evidence: In Greek (the language of the New Testament) that type of Godly, platonic love was referred to using the word "Agape" rather than the other types of love (Philia, Eros, Pragma, Ludus & Philautia). The very language used clearly and unequivocally indicates that Jesus was not gay. He was also, notably, not 'straight' either.


edit on 13/7/2015 by chr0naut because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 13 2015 @ 09:27 PM
link   
a reply to: CharlieSpeirs

This is getting retarded now lol. Some gay pastor, I presume from the article, uses a painting painted 1500 years after Christ died, plus a little bit of text probably written by someone at least 2 or 3 times removed from the actual event and that constitutes a viable theory? WTF is the matter with these people? Are they so delusional and divorced from reality that they'll just say any old crap to get some likes on Facebook or sell their garbage?

A theory requires scientific methods to be employed, this "pastor" is simply an idiot IMHO. Next we'll have tools like him producing a whole new theory of evolution based on some hollyweird B movie. We live in bizarro world now, it's just sad.

Cheers - Dave



posted on Jul, 13 2015 @ 09:50 PM
link   
a reply to: ketsuko

I say black and by olive skin that is brown like very brown the man was a carpenter and work outside in the middle of the desert look at how native Palestinians with no European blood look they are dark brown not black but dark brown Like most black people are.



posted on Jul, 13 2015 @ 09:57 PM
link   
a reply to: ketsuko

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



posted on Jul, 14 2015 @ 12:06 AM
link   

originally posted by: Kromlech
Homosexuality is a sin, according to God. And Jesus "sinned not." SO, there you go.


So is eating shellfish...



posted on Jul, 14 2015 @ 12:52 AM
link   
Only homophobes would have an issue with this hypothesis.

If you really 'love' Jesus, then you wouldnt care what his sexual orientation was/is...Indeed if God created man in his image, then apparently God is Bi-sexual.



posted on Jul, 14 2015 @ 12:54 AM
link   

originally posted by: redhorse
a reply to: CharlieSpeirs

Oh good grief.

Seriously though, he may have something with Paul. Either a closet homosexual or straight and so sexually repressed that he hated anyone with a vagina.


That was all dispicable PAUL and his problems with regard to Jesus and his personal sexual context relating to this Entity he revered? He never knew Jesus or Mary Magdalene, their relationship (they were husband and wife/Mary was the 13th apostle) when alive (he, Paul was a voyeur only as a recorded after effect). Paul was a crazed jealous individual; most likely the original Gay ordinance; his creation: the RCC seems warped in this: Catholicism (Priests are not to marry; live sequestered/Nuns sequestered and must be married to Jesus) so how do they profligate new constituents; as the now known first Greek description ORTHODOXY 300 AD. Paul was well known as a misogynist (hated women). History, the Bible doesn't lie? (or does it). What is wrong with Paul and his invention of Roman Catholicism.
edit on 14-7-2015 by vethumanbeing because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 14 2015 @ 02:17 AM
link   

originally posted by: Collateral
Only homophobes would have an issue with this hypothesis.

If you really 'love' Jesus, then you wouldnt care what his sexual orientation was/is...Indeed if God created man in his image, then apparently God is Bi-sexual.


Well, I have issues with this hypothesis and I'm not a homophobe.

Why do I have no fear?

Because I use a toothpaste with "Advanced Cavity Protection" (not the retarded cavity protection that other brands may have), it says so right there on the tube.

Ha ha!




edit on 14/7/2015 by chr0naut because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
20
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join