(December 11, 2009 at 7:44 am)tackattack Wrote:(December 10, 2009 at 11:32 pm)Dotard Wrote:Dotard, you must ahve missed the part where I said it doesn't matter if he was any of those things. Various religions and documents agree he existed so I believe he existed. I've only ever been shown my high school history book to prove that Alexander the great exists but I believed that without any cross reference. It was much easier to believe that Jesus existed. You're simply trying to get a rise out of me and it won't work.(December 10, 2009 at 7:51 pm)tackattack Wrote: 12For some are eunuchs because they were born that way;
"Eunuchs" as in dickless? Just another metaphor for "Homosexual". Jesus reconized some are born thataway.
Quote: ...others were made that way by men;
And the rest are sucked into it.
Quote:In some translations of ancient texts, individuals identified as eunuchs sometimes historically included men who were impotent with women,
Meaning homosexuals.
Quote:as well as those who were celibate.
Like celibacy in the RCC. Meaning molesting little boys was more their thing.
Quote: Or he could have been born without member due to a gene abnormailty from having the incorrect pairing of XY chromosones.
Ok. Maybe. maybe Jesus was dickless. Or a dyke. Or a hermaphrodite.
Quote:The Bible doesn't really talk about his years from 12 to 30.
He was 'finding himself'.
Quote: He didn't have to be a Virgin, just that he's celibate after his "missing years".
I would say "He didn't have to be a Virgin, just that he prefered the company of men after his 'missing years'."
I LIKE this game Saerules started!
Quote:Your claim that sex is the "best" part of life is debateable,
I would debate it is debateable right along with you on this one.
And it would have nothing to do with my 'spiritual' side.
The existence of Jesus is not that well supported at all, mainly due to the fact that there are absolutely no contemporary sources to confirm his existence. Also the testimony presented to support the idea of Jesus and his divinity are massively inconsistent, for example Mathew is the only one of the gospels that have any mention of an Angel bringing an earthquake and the dead rising, Mark and Luke mention 3 hours of darkness and the tearing of the temple curtain and John mentions no supernatural events what-so-ever - It's far too inconsistent to be reliable in any way.
.