Discussion in 'Religion and Lighthearted Discussion' started by SalemPats, Apr 11, 2014.
Then why qualify it with "before"?
Thats the point....the word doesn't imply a qualification in the original Greek....going forward.....only backwards in this case. The passage was obviously intended to show the divine fatherhood of Jesus not imply that Mary and Joseph had other children.
Huh? How would divine fatherhood be impacted by Joseph having normal relations with his wife after Jesus was born?
I didn't say that "divine Fatherhood" would be impacted by Joseph having relations with his wife after Jesus was born. I said the Greek word for "before" in this case did not imply anything going forward (after Jesus' birth) and that the passage itself wasn't written to show that Joseph and Mary had more children. The passage was written to show the divine fatherhood of Jesus.
Well, it's not as obvious to everyone. The focus of the passage may have been to show the divine fatherhood of Jesus, but it makes no sense that a man and wife never made love during the 33+ years after Jesus was born.
It doesn't have to be obvious to everyone. It just has to be true and the people who were closet to the situation (the Patristics) pretty much all agree with me.
Some say Jesus was a prophet .............. if he was a prophet then it is not blasphemous.
See how I did that ......... you're word is not absolute here ... like uhh devil incarnate if u ask me.
I'm not going to waste a bunch of time "debating" you on whether Jesus was God or not....that is not the topic of this thread. I'll gladly post in another thread if you wish to explore the topic.
Christians, though, do believe that Jesus is God....that is undeniable. So obviously the picture you posted was designed to denigrate the God of Christians. Obviously, it brings nothing to the discussion.
BTW, I would never post such a picture about Muhammad nor speak so disrespectfully about him even though I disagree with Islam.
Jesus lived as a human ... why is that such a difficult perception for Christians.
He went to the bathroom, he listened to gossip, brokered differences. There were constant struggles amongst the Apostles and Jesus brokered differences and jealousies ... yes Jesus was a human man. Now he either was hetero or gay or asexual and that just makes no sense as he had to be tempted when he was amongst prostitutes which was a huge profession back then. some say Mary was his wife and some say she was a prostitute ... so it's not out of the realm of possibility that Jesus has sex. If he did not live 100% as a human then the entire scenario of Jesus living as a mortal is a farce. Sex is 100% a part of the Old Testament as the lineage of Jesus is explained. So all those people had sex then we are to believe Mary did not have it and Jesus did not have it but everyone else did and BTW Jesus lived as a mortal ... for some of us that is inane and pure fiction ... Jesus lived as a mortal should not be a dilemma for Christians and it is not blasphemous. It would only be blasphemous if he came to earth as a God ... which he did not.
Ok, I should have known better. My bad.
He was fully human, but also fully God.
I believe Jesus is the son of God. That being said, he was either a lunatic or he was the son of God. If he was not God's son, all he had to do was to tell them he was not. Then he wouldn't have had to die on the cross. If it wasn't true, only a lunatic would stick to his guns about being the son of God. A sane man would come clean before getting beaten unrecognizably and hung on a cross.
Separate names with a comma.