Ubenedictus: Wow! what is d point? He cast demons from many people.
hahaha! U defeated ur argument the moment u agreed that the text were gnostic, for those wu dont know, gnosticism was a heresy that existed in the early church, the heresy was condemned and the writtings werent by any of d apostles or immediate disciple. That fact and the heretical nature of d said text was more that enough reason why d church fathers excluded those book.

the church excluded those books(original truth), and then fabricated their own books'(Constantine inspired & rewritten articles)

plaetton:

Several times in the gospels there are mentions of "The disciple whom Jesus loved".

Uncharacteristically of the bible, this disciple is never named and has remained a mystery.

as its a mystery then there is no suitable answers to your questions, just take what the bible gives you

Lord_Reed:

Do you now believe that Jesus is not human or what exactly are you on about?

Christians believe that Jesus was more than human, he was a god. not so?

If he was vulnerable to the same weaknesses, such as selective love, as the rest of us mortals, then by how and why are we expected to be sinless in order attain salvation?

plaetton:

Christians believe that Jesus was more than human, he was a god. not so?

If he was vulnerable to the same weaknesses, such as selective love, as the rest of us mortals, then by how and why are we expected to be sinless in order attain salvation?

You are the one putting a spin on this. Right from the beginning The Lord has always showed a tendency to select one person to showcase His mercy and grace upon yet He takes flesh and then you say the characteristic is strange? How does the fact that His character has not changed translate to being a "human weakness"?

Lord_Reed:

You are the one putting a spin on this. Right from the beginning The Lord has always showed a tendency to select one person to showcase His mercy and grace upon yet He takes flesh and then you say the characteristic is strange? How does the fact that His character has not changed translate to being a "human weakness"?

It seems you are the one who is trying to put a spin. The gospel verses in question did not, I repeat , did not ever say that jesus selected any special disciple to showcase his mercy and grace, did not state the jesus gave any special assignment to this person, did not say what was special about this person, and did not even identify the disciple.
If that doesn't seem fishy to you, it sure does to me.

If this person was chosen for special love for any reason other than personal, the gospels would have named and gone to great lengths to chronicle the examplary virtues this disciple that made him/her worthy of the special love of Jesus.
All of you would have been naming your children after this special disciple.

If we accept, by your rationalization, that it was no big deal for jesus to have a special love for 1 disciple out of 12, it would be suggestive that, somehow, the unloved 11 were somehow,not up to par or did not reach the threshold of the lord's grace.
This is essentially what you are saying.

diluminati:

as its a mystery then there is no suitable answers to your questions, just take what the bible gives you

Thanks, but no thanks.
Since I have a brain, I also have a responsibility to use my thinking faculties to ask questions.

plaetton:

It seems you are the one who is trying to put a spin. The gospel verses in question did not, I repeat , did not ever say that jesus selected any special disciple to showcase his mercy and grace, did not state the jesus gave any special assignment to this person, did not say what was special about this person, and did not even identify the disciple.
If that doesn't seem fishy to you, it sure does to me.

If this person was chosen for special love for any reason other than personal, the gospels would have named and gone to great lengths to chronicle the examplary virtues this disciple that made him/her worthy of the special love of Jesus.
All of you would have been naming your children after this special disciple.

If we accept, by your rationalization, that it was no big deal for jesus to have a special love for 1 disciple out of 12, it would be suggestive that, somehow, the unloved 11 were somehow,not up to par or did not reach the threshold of the lord's grace.
This is essentially what you are saying.

I am saying there should be no surprise even if His reasons were personal. He loved Lazarus but was a reason given?

I think it is inconsequential what His reasons were in as far they were not mentioned or elaborated upon as there are many details of His time on earth that might have been interesting to know but for lack of information do not matter. Guessing at His motivations in this case is simply speculation.

Lord_Reed:

I am saying there should be no surprise even if His reasons were personal. He loved Lazarus but was a reason given?

I think it is inconsequential what His reasons were in as far they were not mentioned or elaborated upon as there are many details of His time on earth that might have been interesting to know but for lack of information do not matter. Guessing at His motivations in this case is simply speculation.

Whatever his reason were, It is very consequential, and I am shocked that you would think otherwise. Afterall, this is a man whose short life on earth has had perhaps the greatest impact on human civilization over the past 2000yrs.
This was a man who is still worshipped today as the son of the creator of the universe by at least 2 billion people.
Therefore, no part of his life, or deeds, can be deemed inconsequential. That sounds more like blasphemy.

Speculating about who this disciple was, what type of love and why is the purpose of this thread.
Like I said earlier, where something is concealed is also where it can be revealed.

Lord Reed, we were all taught from infancy that jesus is love, jesus loves and jesus preached love. So it is taken for granted that jesus would love those whom he had chosen as his disciples. Right?
Now , if the gospels go out of their way to remind us of a disciple whom jesus loved, then right away, our common sense would tell us that it was not an ordinary , garden variety type of love. Would it not?

I do understand that your faith may not permit you to imagine, let alone accept, that it could have been a romantic,carnal, fleshy, kissy kissy type of love.
The reasons are that the implications might be very unsettling, if not scandalous. This would in turn undermine his god status.
I understand , and I feel for you guys.
Unfortunately, the gospel is there, pointing at something.
You can use your scriptural reasoning to filter it out. That is the beauty of faith.

plaetton:

Whatever his reason were, It is very consequential, and I am shocked that you would think otherwise. Afterall, this is a man whose short life on earth has had perhaps the greatest impact on human civilization over the past 2000yrs.
This was a man who is still worshipped today as the son of the creator of the universe by at least 2 billion people.
Therefore, no part of his life, or deeds, can be deemed inconsequential. That sounds more like blasphemy.

Speculating about who this disciple was, what type of love and why is the purpose of this thread.
Like I said earlier, where something is concealed is also where it can be revealed.

Lord Reed, we were all taught from infancy that jesus is love, jesus loves and jesus preached love. So it is taken for granted that jesus would love those whom he had chosen as his disciples. Right?
Now , if the gospels go out of their way to remind us of a disciple whom jesus loved, then right away, our common sense would tell us that it was not an ordinary , garden variety type of love. Would it not?

I do understand that your faith may not permit you to imagine, let alone accept, that it could have been a romantic,carnal, fleshy, kissy kissy type of love.
The reasons are that the implications might be very unsettling, if not scandalous. This would in turn undermine his god status.
I understand , and I feel for you guys.
Unfortunately, the gospel is there, pointing at something.
You can use your scriptural reasoning to filter it out. That is the beauty of faith.

Please you simply being contentious. I have not said it bears no imagination or question. Whatever the result of imagination is hardly of consequence seeing that the reasons were not expounded and so their usefulness limited.

What did Jesus eat? What did He wear? What did His voice sound like? How did he treat dogs and cats? Would He have liked chocolate? All very many interesting questions many depending on information on His personal tastes that is not available and therefore inconsequential.

Lord_Reed:

Please you simply being contentious. I have not said it bears no imagination or question. Whatever the result of imagination is hardly of consequence seeing that the reasons were not expounded and so their usefulness limited.

What did Jesus eat? What did He wear? What did His voice sound like? How did he treat dogs and cats? Would He have liked chocolate? All very many interesting questions many depending on information on His personal tastes that is not available and therefore inconsequential.

Good points.
But if the bible had repeatedly mentioned that Jesus had a pet, would it not arouse our curiosity to find out if the son of the almighty god loved a pet dog, a cat, a parrot,a snake or some other type of exotic pet?

Let me get to the meat of the issue by asking you a question.

Do you think, not believe, that jesus could have been married?

plaetton: Let me get to the meat of the issue by asking you a question.

Do you think, not believe, that jesus could have been married?

I think that Jesus was a desirable man for a husband and some women may have indicated their interest. Whether He actually married from what scripture has expounded about His life I would say no He did not.

Lord_Reed:

I think that Jesus was a desirable man for a husband and some women may have indicated their interest. Whether He actually married from what scripture has expounded about His life I would say no He did not.

That is an honest answer and I appreciate.

I have opened another threat to discuss this issue with others.
Fell free to contribute.

plaetton: Let me get to the meat of the issue by asking you a question.

Do you think, not believe, that jesus could have been married?

Please permit me to butt in here,

Answer: No I don't, No evidence for that.

.....What is interesting however is the way you phrased your question. Let me try something similar.

"Do you believe your username is plaetton?"
"Do you think your username is plaetton?"

..............What's the difference between the two questions? Please do tell.

Mr_Anony:
Please permit me to butt in here,

Answer: No I don't, No evidence for that.

.....What is interesting however is the way you phrased your question. Let me try something similar.

"Do you believe your username is plaetton?"
"Do you think your username is plaetton?"

..............What's the difference between the two questions? Please do tell.

It was not a trick question.
I wanted him to rely on his common sense and not on his belief in scripture to answer the question.
He understood it and answered it very well.
Perhaps you did not.

As per your answer, lets discuss it on my new thread" was jesus or could jesus have been married?

plaetton:

It was not a trick question.
I wanted him to rely on his common sense and not on his belief in scripture to answer the question.
He understood it and answered it very well.
Perhaps you did not.

I know it was not a trick question. I was only pointing at the misconception you probably have: that faith and reason are mutually exclusive

Mr_Anony:
I know it was not a trick question. I was only pointing at the misconception you probably have: that faith and reason are mutually exclusive

Not necessarily.
There are some questions we can think and answer with our common sense and there are some questions that require us to seek answers from written material.
I wanted the my comrade to answer from common sense.

plaetton:

Not necessarily.
There are some questions we can think and answer with our common sense and there are some questions that require us to seek answers from written material.
I wanted the my comrade to answer from common sense.

lol.............and do you believe in common sense?

(you don't really have to answer this one, I'm just playing with you now.....unless of course you want to play along then please be my guest)

Mr_Anony:
lol.............and do you believe in common sense?

(you don't really have to answer this one, I'm just playing with you now.....unless of course you want to play along then please be my guest)

I get you.

But common sense is not as common as we think it is , you know.lol
I'm still waiting for you to join me on the other threat

plaetton: Let me get to the meat of the issue by asking you a question.

Do you think, not believe, that jesus could have been married?

@plaetton
you already know from your researches what the answer to this question is, going on and on to argue this with christians is pointless because they would never concur with your argument on the marital status of Jesus. both written and unwritten historical evidences point to the fact that jesus was married to mary magdaline .

991:

@plaetton
you already know from your researches what the answer to this question is, going on and on to argue this with christians is pointless because they would never concur with your argument on the marital status of Jesus. both written and unwritten historical evidences point to the fact that jesus was married to mary magdaline .

I laugh at the highlighted..........would you be so kind as to provide us with these "written and unwritten evidence" if you may?

plaetton:
I get you.

But common sense is not as common as we think it is , you know.lol
I'm still waiting for you to join me on the other threat

I'm sorry but I really don't see the relevance of joining the other thread because nothing about it has any biblical evidence. We may as well argue whether Jesus was black or whether he liked goathead peppersoup.

OP
has ulterior motive and is not after the truth, nothing can be learnt from arguing

cescky: OP
has ulterior motive and is not after the truth, nothing can be learnt from arguing

In sincerity, my motive is to pick the minds of christians, especially the intelligent ones. I 'm always curious to understand how and what they understand from their common sense when they read scriptures, as opposed to what they are required to believe and accept.
Nothing more.

And, I do learn a lot from discussions and debates.

I'm afraid I see no purpose to this thread. Even if it is true that Mary Magdalene and Jesus had an affair, and even if it is true (as Rosicrucians claim) that Jesus had a child with her, who was taken away to Gaul (France), and even if it is true that she was a prostitute, none of these do anything to vitiate the message of Christ or his ministry.

Deep Sight:
I'm afraid I see no purpose to this thread. Even if it is true that Mary Magdalene and Jesus had an affair, and even if it is true (as Rosicrucians claim) that Jesus had a child with her, who was taken away to Gaul (France), and even if it is true that she was a prostitute, none of these do anything to vitiate the message of Christ or his ministry.

he had a child with a prostitute. that is so lowly of him. cant he have a grip on himself

Delafruita:
give me the proof that jesus christ existed

u arent ready for a discussion. U cant answer my question by bringing up a totally irrelevant subject. If the writtings of history and scripture doesnt satisfy u, i doubt i can make a meaningful discussion with u.

plaetton:

Disprove of what? The letter of the scriptures is staring you in the face : It did not say" the disciple whom Jesus loved above others", no, it ephatically said "The disciple whom Jesus loved". Did that imply that Jesus did not love the other disciples, or that Jesus had a different kind of love for this particular disciple?



Here is a quote from father Iranaeus:

He says “ ...but from the fortieth and fiftieth year a man begins to decline towards old age, which our Lord possessed while He still fulfilled the office of a Teacher, even as the Gospel and all the elders testify; those who were conversant in Asia with John, the disciple of the Lord, [affirming] that John conveyed to them that information. And he remained among them up to the times of Trajan. Some of them, moreover, saw not only John, but the other apostles also, and heard the very same account from them, and bear testimony as to the [validity of] the statement. Whom then should we rather believe? Whether such men as these, or Ptolemæus, who never saw the apostles, and who never even in his dreams attained to the slightest trace of an apostle?”


Gnosticism was condemned collectively and individually? Who were the individuals and who were the collective that had the devine perogative to choose what was truth and what was falsehood?

read act 15, u will se those with d divine perogative and how it is exercised.

And by your logic, all the teachings of Jesus should also be condemned as heresy because the Senhadrin , the council of Jewish elders,declared him as such because they did not like what he preached. Do you agree?

this is ur idea, i didnt imply that. Some doctrines in xtianity are considered heresy in judaism, gnosticism is considered heresy in catholic christianity.

That the church is bulwark of truth is laughable.
Which church and which truth?
The roman catholic church and the roman catholic truth?
The orhtodox church and the orthodox truth?
The coptic church and the coptic truth?
The calavnist church and the calvanist truth?
The anglican church and the anglican truth?
The white garment church and the white garment truth?
The Tb Joshua truth and the Tb Joshua truth?
And on and on and on........

gud question, one u may want to find an answer for urself.

Ohhhh Pls.
Spare me the laughter.

really, provide me with the name of d work u quoted, it chapter and verse. As for d other long stories u told i would rather ignore them, today those topic dont interest me.

Hmmm..........thanks plaetton we learn everyday, grew up in a strong baptist family, the bible we read today is a council of nicea edited bible, no thanks to the catholic church, the da vinci message is getting clearer, this is sign we are edging towards the end of time after millenia of falsehood and deceit.

@Ubenedictus thanks a lot we arent fools any longer hang on to ur falsehood and deciet

rich_john: Hmmm..........thanks plaetton we learn everyday, grew up in a strong baptist family, the bible we read today is a council of nicea edited bible, no thanks to the catholic church, the da vinci message is getting clearer, this is sign we are edging towards the end of time after millenia of falsehood and deceit.

@Ubenedictus thanks a lot we arent fools any longer hang on to ur falsehood and deciet

hahahahaha, i cant help laughing as u display ur ignorance, the canon of d bible wasnt set at nicea, infact d nicea fathers didnt discuss about d bible. Go back to ur history class and be careful, before u accuse someone of deciet and falsehood make sure u arent lying. I think next time u shuld take it easy before u mention 'da vinci' the guy wasnt mr know all. He is probably more ignorant in some issues than urself, da vinci first son.

PAGAN 9JA:


he had a child with a prostitute. that is so lowly of him. cant he have a grip on himself

No: True LIGHT would not discriminate in such a hypocritical fashion. Is a prostitute not a human being? Did he not say that he came for the sake of sinners and the lowly? If at all she was ever a prostitute, did she remain a prostitute after meeting him? These are the issues an honest person will consider, not just jumping to attack just because its Uncle Jesus being discussed.