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.
originally posted by: TerryDon79
a reply to: SisterDelirium
I appreciate such a well thought out post that addressed the op so deeply.
Oh, wait.
originally posted by: SisterDelirium
originally posted by: TerryDon79
a reply to: SisterDelirium
I appreciate such a well thought out post that addressed the op so deeply.
Oh, wait.
You're expecting depth on a post pondering whether or not Jesus was really the first century equivalent Priscilla Queen of the Dessert?
OK.
originally posted by: TerryDon79
originally posted by: SisterDelirium
originally posted by: TerryDon79
a reply to: SisterDelirium
I appreciate such a well thought out post that addressed the op so deeply.
Oh, wait.
You're expecting depth on a post pondering whether or not Jesus was really the first century equivalent Priscilla Queen of the Dessert?
OK.
No. That would be a transvestite. I think you have your trans' mixed up.
originally posted by: SisterDelirium
originally posted by: TerryDon79
originally posted by: SisterDelirium
originally posted by: TerryDon79
a reply to: SisterDelirium
I appreciate such a well thought out post that addressed the op so deeply.
Oh, wait.
You're expecting depth on a post pondering whether or not Jesus was really the first century equivalent Priscilla Queen of the Dessert?
OK.
No. That would be a transvestite. I think you have your trans' mixed up.
It's a fair cop.
Still... I don't think Lola was a hymn.
originally posted by: TerryDon79
originally posted by: SisterDelirium
originally posted by: TerryDon79
originally posted by: SisterDelirium
originally posted by: TerryDon79
a reply to: SisterDelirium
I appreciate such a well thought out post that addressed the op so deeply.
Oh, wait.
You're expecting depth on a post pondering whether or not Jesus was really the first century equivalent Priscilla Queen of the Dessert?
OK.
No. That would be a transvestite. I think you have your trans' mixed up.
It's a fair cop.
Still... I don't think Lola was a hymn.
Maybe it was one of the ones that were omitted?
originally posted by: TerryDon79
originally posted by: HUMBLEONE
originally posted by: TerryDon79
originally posted by: HUMBLEONE
Ask yourself, what bathroom would Jesus use?
already gone over that.
Answer: Unisex latrine.
Well here I am on page 10. How the hell am I supposed to know that?
Read the thread from page 1?
Become a psychic?
Guess?
There's three options for you
originally posted by: HUMBLEONE
originally posted by: TerryDon79
originally posted by: HUMBLEONE
originally posted by: TerryDon79
originally posted by: HUMBLEONE
Ask yourself, what bathroom would Jesus use?
already gone over that.
Answer: Unisex latrine.
Well here I am on page 10. How the hell am I supposed to know that?
Read the thread from page 1?
Become a psychic?
Guess?
There's three options for you
Please can't you let a boy enjoy his satire?
I've seen worse.
originally posted by: Achilles92x
This is the most absurd thread that I have ever seen drag on for 12 pages on any website, ever.
Yeah. Just like everyone else who posts here.
Got some free time OP?
Do you don't agree with the thread then?
Go better yourself instead of trolling. Perhaps a book? A quick workout?
The premise of the thread is that Jesus exists. Whether or not I believe he/she was real has no bearing on the topic.
Your logic is outrageous. It's obvious you don't believe in Jesus.
Pretty much.
But your options are: a) he was a woman because of the virgin birth. Or b) he was a man, no virgin birth?
That's certainly an option, but I don't think it's possible.
So God can (and I believe He did) use his unlimited power to impregnate the Virgin Mary, but He can't use that same power to make Jesus a male via implanting the Y chromosome?
So you're taking offence? You do know that nobody forced you to click on the thread, read it and reply to it. That was your own choice. Maybe you were curious?
Just be thankful you're speaking the way about Jesus here--at least for now.
Christians like me will just shake their heads at you.
If you think so you can report it.
originally posted by: Achilles92x
a reply to: TerryDon79
People have free time and post things, sure, but this is a blatant troll thread.
Which means the only source of DNA would be from Mary's XX chromosomes. Therefore, Jesus was a she.
God has no gender. He is not trans. He is not male, female, or agender. He certainly has masculine and feminine "qualities" by our cultural standards, but he is not masculine or feminine. No qualities pre exist to define him.
But people lie. Just because it's written in a book saying he, doesn't mean it is a he.
God IS love. Any qualities he has are prescribed to him by us as a way to explain the mystery of him. I use the pronouns He and His because those are a) biblical and b) traditional.
With only XX chromosomes? That would be a she.
Jesus was born a man.
And it's not absurd to think that God added a Y chromosome when he could have just let it be and create Jesus as a she?
For you to say "you don't think it is possible for God to add the Y chromosomes in" is absolutely absurd.
Which inconsistencies would they be?
We're talking about a virgin birth to begin here--that is not "possible" by any standard other than God's omnipotence. Your inconsistencies give away the true beliefs and intentions of this thread.
Or a she.
As to why He was born a man?
Or was born as a she, hidden as a he as a test?
I would assume it has somewhat to do with the patriarchal world Jesus was born into, and the oppression of women that has persisted around the world.
That's debatable.
God is wise.
Another reason to hide Jesus being a she.
Maintaining the free will of human beings, having Jesus be born a man was the best way to ensure that people's ignorance and biases would not discriminate against the son of God as they would a "daughter of God."
I don't see how that is relevant.
The message of Jesus and the end game--salvation and eternal life with him--is much bigger than anything of this world.
No facade and not anti Christian. If it was anti Christian then I would not refer to Jesus or God.
I'm not offended. I'm just not buying into your facade, and pointing out that the anti-Christians out there like yourself would never do this sort of thing to the figurehead of another religion...
Yet you spent all that effort coming here and typed all that?
Trust me, besides the moments I spend typing this on my phone, I give no mind to you or this thread.
Cool.
originally posted by: samerulesapply
I have a friend who wants to be an archaeologist.
Band camp?
This one time he went to, uh...Bethlehem, for a holiday.
So Jesus was a post-op? I didn't know that.
While randomly digging a section of dirt by a small tree he found some ancient texts or scriptures in a strange language that he said gave detailed accounts of the life of Christ, both post and pre-op.
Meany.
We always thought he just made it up since we were all about 15 at the time and drunk,
Wondering is good. If we didn't wonder then threads like this wouldn't exist.
but not I'm beginning to wonder.
Does he know if it was a real beard or a stick on one?
He said that before the op, Christ had long hair, a beard, wore a dress and sandals.
Same question as above.
And apparently, post-op...had long hair, a beard, wore sandals and a dress.
Why? It wouldn't make any difference in religion of Jesus was male or female.
Seems legit to me. Good job I'm not a christian or I'd be terribly upset.