Why Believe Jesus Never Had Sex?

[sojourner]

I was talking about NT doctrines not OT practices

Celibacy for clergy was not the rule in the church until the Lateran Council in 1139 — 1000 years after Christ.



You’re welcome.

 

[sealchan]

According to the Bible, a couple can only have sex within the marriage arrangement. The word "fornication" used by Jesus in Matthew 5:32 is "porneia" which according to Strongs, means......

"illicit sexual intercourse

1. adultery, fornication, homosexuality, lesbianism, intercourse with animals etc.

It is the word from which we get "pornography" in English, so it doesn't just mean casual sex. It means any kind of sexual activity with someone to whom you are not married. It would also include pornography according to Jesus. Since a man can commit adultery in his heart. (Matthew 5:28)



This is sadly true. But not surprising. In Greek there are four words that mean "love"...but in English we only have one word and it is very inadequate.

In Greek we have storgé, philéo, agápe and éros.

storgé is the love among blood relatives and family members.

philéo is brotherly love felt for close friends and spiritual brothers.

agápe is love based on principle, IOW this is the love we can feel even for an enemy in the sense of not hating a person for any reason. We can hate the sin, but not the sinner.

éros is the love in love songs, and expressed romantically and sexually.

Interestingly the words used for love in the Greek scriptures, are missing "eros". Yet that is all today's youth understand "love" to mean.

The purer forms of love, especially "agape" (as is used in 1 Corinthians 13 when it says that "love never fails") are what the Bible speaks of...."eros" isn't even mentioned once in the NT. True love is what you feel above your navel.

God created eros so that we would be fruitful and multiply. Our biology and psychology depend on the satisfaction of our God given instincts. To say all non-marriage sex is wrong is to put God himself on trial for His creation. Biblical authors are not to be excluded from this critique.

What is actually true in Gods creation trumps what Biblical authors claim or suggest to claim about it.

I have seen first hand in a church I attended how upstanding young Christian leaders run off to get married. They continue being Christian's but they pursued their eros above all else. Why? You could blame everything except our God given sexual urge and how it rages in puberty.

Now are we prepared to promote masturbation as an acceptable substitute or are we still going to anachronistically call list "of the devil"? Is so then "praise be!"

 

[nPeace]

I call killing almost every human being genocide.
I call killing all animals because His humans didn't turn out like He, with the power of omniscience, wanted them to, sick. Just plain sick.

You believe this petty, sick genocidal entity deserves worship and praise. That's really twisted.

I wonder if you would think that same way if you were ruling a domain, and 99.999% of your subjects were like this "twisted genocidal entity".
Would you kill all 99.999%? Perhaps cause them a bit of discomfort - maybe by putting them all in burning barrels and roll them down a hill?
Honestly, what would you do?

I hope you would do something to save the 0.001%,
According to the scriptures God did something. He didn't stand idly by twiddling his thumbs, while the earth became completely devoured in twisted depravity.
I think that is reasonable. I probably would have done the same, especially if that right rested on me alone.

It is easy to see particular things, and overlook others, so I will just like to remind you of what the actual text says. It helps in seeing the whole picture, not just patches.

(Genesis 6:4-8) 4 The Nephilim [Possibly meaning “The Fellers,” that is, those who cause others to fall down] were on the earth in those days and afterward. During that time the sons of the true God continued to have relations with the daughters of men, and these bore sons to them. They were the mighty ones of old times, the men of fame. 5 Consequently, Jehovah saw that man’s wickedness was great on the earth and that every inclination of the thoughts of his heart was only bad all the time. 6 Jehovah regretted that he had made men on the earth, and his heart was saddened. 7 So Jehovah said: “I am going to wipe men whom I have created off the surface of the ground, man together with domestic animals, creeping animals, and flying creatures of the heavens, for I regret that I have made them.” 8 But Noah found favor in the eyes of Jehovah.

I see you gave your religion as 'atheist', but I am not particularly addressing this to you. It's just my observation.
I find that Atheist - people who claim not to believe in gods, and who like to "throw darts at the Bible", also seem to have convinced themselves that they are experts at interpreting the book they hate so much - a holy book.
That amazes me, since the said book says that the Devil blinds the minds of those not believing, and God hides the understanding from the, and lets them believe he lie, imply because the refuse to humble themselves, and accept the truth so clearly evident before them.

There are many scriptures that show that even though God has the power to know everything, he does not exercise that power - except specifically.

The text says clearly that there was an ongoing population increase of purely twisted minded individuals, and acts of wickedness were the order of the day - each day, every day. The influence on others was great, and the death tool must have made Chicago look real good.
No time for a ruler to twiddle his thumbs imo.

Why the animal though? God could have killed the wicked without killing the animals... surely.
Well the simple fact is, we don't know how far men had gone in their twisted mentality. Look at today. People are having sex with trees. I don't think I need to mention the animals do I, ecco?
I believe someone with power to create a universe is wiser than I am, and would know how best to act, especially in that situation.
I did see a display of that wisdom, by his preserving animals to repopulate the earth.

From my understanding of the overall issue, I think God acted in justice. He gave everyone an opportunity to choose - exercise their freedom of choice. Obviously that can't be defined as genocide. The scriptures show that every person was given the opportunity to get on the ark. The had ample time too. What did Jesus say they failed to do?
They paid no attention. Matthew 24:39

I'm still curious as to what your response would be though, if you had to deal with the astounding number of twisted minded homicidal people under your rule.

 

[Deeje]

God created eros so that we would be fruitful and multiply. Our biology and psychology depend on the satisfaction of our God given instincts. To say all non-marriage sex is wrong is to put God himself on trial for His creation. Biblical authors are not to be excluded from this critique.

In God's original purpose for this earth, he told the humans to become fruitful and fill the earth. He instituted the marriage arrangement from the get go to facilitate that. Eve was brought to Adam as a wife. Jesus said "what God has yoked together, let no man put apart". So what are you suggesting? That humans can change God's standards because sin creates an inordinate dictate of the flesh? Christ's teachings make no allowance for a slackening of God's standards to accommodate man's desire for sexual gratification. Self control is a fruitage of God's spirit. (Galatians 5:22-23) Perhaps this needs to be stressed?

Looking for excuses to break God's law will never get us anywhere.

I have seen first hand in a church I attended how upstanding young Christian leaders run off to get married. They continue being Christian's but they pursued their eros above all else. Why? You could blame everything except our God given sexual urge and how it rages in puberty.

The focus on sex in this world is nothing new.....but today there is more focus than ever. Yet, the desires of the flesh are not stronger than the operation of God's spirit unless we allow them to be. There are many ways to feed an appetite and today every form of entertaimnent seems to glorify illicit sex. The Bible's recommendation is to be "past the bloom of youth" so maturity is important. Expectations are also important. Once the rosy glow has worn off....as it does...the marriage has to be based on something more solid than the bedroom.

For our young ones, we stress what the Bible teaches rather than looking for ways to break God's moral laws to satisfy the fallen flesh. There can be no compromise on this.

Now are we prepared to promote masturbation as an acceptable substitute or are we still going to anachronistically call list "of the devil"? Is so then "praise be!"

There is no room in Christian teaching even for masturbation. The apostle Paul wrote regarding married people...."Let the husband give to his wife her due, and let the wife also do likewise to her husband. 4 The wife does not have authority over her own body, but her husband does; likewise, the husband does not have authority over his own body, but his wife does." (1Corinthians 7:3-4)

So our body is not ours to use for our own sexual gratification....it is given in marriage to pleasure our mate and ultimately to create a family in the true expression of unselfish love.

There are no escape clauses in this and those who cannot find it in themselves to exercise self-control are not demonstrating faith in God but in allowing the flesh to dictate to the spirit. Christianity is a "cramped and narrow road"....the easy way leads somewhere else. That is how I see it. Be careful about justification...."the heart is treacherous". (Jeremiah 17:9-10)

 

[sealchan]

In God's original purpose for this earth, he told the humans to become fruitful and fill the earth. He instituted the marriage arrangement from the get go to facilitate that. Eve was brought to Adam as a wife. Jesus said "what God has yoked together, let no man put apart". So what are you suggesting? That humans can change God's standards because sin creates an inordinate dictate of the flesh? Christ's teachings make no allowance for a slackening of God's standards to accommodate man's desire for sexual gratification. Self control is a fruitage of God's spirit. (Galatians 5:22-23) Perhaps this needs to be stressed?

Looking for excuses to break God's law will never get us anywhere.



The focus on sex in this world is nothing new.....but today there is more focus than ever. Yet, the desires of the flesh are not stronger than the operation of God's spirit unless we allow them to be. There are many ways to feed an appetite and today every form of entertaimnent seems to glorify illicit sex. The Bible's recommendation is to be "past the bloom of youth" so maturity is important. Expectations are also important. Once the rosy glow has worn off....as it does...the marriage has to be based on something more solid than the bedroom.

For our young ones, we stress what the Bible teaches rather than looking for ways to break God's moral laws to satisfy the fallen flesh. There can be no compromise on this.



There is no room in Christian teaching even for masturbation. The apostle Paul wrote regarding married people...."Let the husband give to his wife her due, and let the wife also do likewise to her husband. 4 The wife does not have authority over her own body, but her husband does; likewise, the husband does not have authority over his own body, but his wife does." (1Corinthians 7:3-4)

So our body is not ours to use for our own sexual gratification....it is given in marriage to pleasure our mate and ultimately to create a family in the true expression of unselfish love.

There are no escape clauses in this and those who cannot find it in themselves to exercise self-control are not demonstrating faith in God but in allowing the flesh to dictate to the spirit. Christianity is a "cramped and narrow road"....the easy way leads somewhere else. That is how I see it. Be careful about justification...."the heart is treacherous". (Jeremiah 17:9-10)

You have stated the Biblical perspective well. But my morality is not based only on the Bible. But if one wants to conquer ones God given instincts, you cannot simply deny them. This is a fact which reality teaches. Separating sex from marriage (lets say just a little) creates an opportunity for a relationship to be based on personal experience of the difference between amor (interpersonal love) and eros (purely sexual love). This makes the bond between two people deeper because it is felt so much more personally.

The moral standards of the Bible are based on fostering a culture where marriages are arranged by someone other than the individuals getting married. It was much less an opportunity for individuals to find themselves. Parents and a society can and should influence that choice of mating but so much suffering can be avoided if individuals can also be allowed to come into their own understanding.

And yes much suffering comes from being allowed to choose ones own mate, but then you are faced with the consequences of your own choice. People who are raised to think for themselves will know how critical it is to be given the freedom to make their own mistakes. Careful parenting allows for that in a way where a child can feel the bite of consequence and respect that before falling in to ones cravings.

But in a sufficiently restrictive environment, straight confrontation of ones instinctual desire will only foster disobedience to ones own and ones societies strict moral standards or it creates a displacement of will that leads to strange appetites and bizarre results.

 

[nPeace]

You have stated the Biblical perspective well. But my morality is not based only on the Bible. But if one wants to conquer ones God given instincts, you cannot simply deny them. This is a fact which reality teaches. Separating sex from marriage (lets say just a little) creates an opportunity for a relationship to be based on personal experience of the difference between amor (interpersonal love) and eros (purely sexual love). This makes the bond between two people deeper because it is felt so much more personally.

The moral standards of the Bible are based on fostering a culture where marriages are arranged by someone other than the individuals getting married. It was much less an opportunity for individuals to find themselves. Parents and a society can and should influence that choice of mating but so much suffering can be avoided if individuals can also be allowed to come into their own understanding.

And yes much suffering comes from being allowed to choose ones own mate, but then you are faced with the consequences of your own choice. People who are raised to think for themselves will know how critical it is to be given the freedom to make their own mistakes. Careful parenting allows for that in a way where a child can feel the bite of consequence and respect that before falling in to ones cravings.

But in a sufficiently restrictive environment, straight confrontation of ones instinctual desire will only foster disobedience to ones own and ones societies strict moral standards or it creates a displacement of will that leads to strange appetites and bizarre results.

What is your view sealchan... is "your morality" in harmony with God's? If you don't base "your morality" on the Bible alone, on what do you base it on - man's thinking?

Paul said, "Look out that no one takes you captive by means of the philosophy and empty deception according to human tradition, according to the elementary things of the world and not according to Christ; 9 because it is in him that all the fullness of the divine quality dwells bodily." Colossians 2:8, 9

If we are not being guided by God's word, what are we being guided by, and how do we determine that God approves of it?

 

[nPeace]

A link to a Creationist website isn't evidence. Sorry. Those people are simply incapable of telling the truth.

You call all Creationist liars? What a serious call to make.
Of course you are aware that to make a statement such as that without any proof to back it up is called a baseless claim.

Here are some other terms for, and related to baseless.
groundless - not based on any good reason.
invalid - not valid; not true, correct, acceptable or appropriate.
unfounded -
having no strong foundation; not based on solid reasons or facts.
unreasonable - without the ability to reason; unreasoning.
unsubstantiated - lacking substantiation; without evidence.
unsupported - - without confirmation from a credible source, without verifying support
unwarranted - unjustified, inappropriate or undeserved.
illogical - contrary to logic; lacking sense or sound reasoning.
irrational - not rational; unfounded or nonsensical.
unconscionable - excessive, imprudent or unreasonable.
unsound...

 

[nPeace]

I looked. They point to THIS PAGE-- which isn't evidence. Moreover? All but a couple POINT TO THE BIBLE-- you cannot use the BIBLE to "prove" the bible!

THAT ISN'T EVIDENCE!

No. None of those links had any reference to the Bible. Look again.

 

[nPeace]

I did. You use Circular Reasoning Logical Fallacy. Bootstrapping. You can't use your CLAIM to prove your CLAIM-- which is 100% of what you were doing.

Please point out exactly where I made a claim to prove a claim, and please provide your evidence to support your claims that what I used were claims - from this post alone.

 

[nPeace]

As a Christian I believe the Bible is only true to the extent that it can be demonstrated to be true outside of the Bible itself.

Sadly many Christian's think that such experiences cannot be had so they cling to A life raft they can hardly themselves use.

Is there no evidence outside the Bible that shows it is authentic? Or is it not evident that no matter how much proof is presented, it still would not satisfy the ones who do not want to live by Bible standards?

 

[ecco]

I wonder if you would think that same way if you were ruling a domain, and 99.999% of your subjects were like this "twisted genocidal entity".
Would you kill all 99.999%? Perhaps cause them a bit of discomfort - maybe by putting them all in burning barrels and roll them down a hill?
Honestly, what would you do?

First off, if you are referring to the people in Noah's time, your 99.999% figure is bogus. Probably 20% were under the age of 17. I doubt many of these were horrible people.

In any case they were not twisted genocidal entities. There is nothing that says they were.

The Lord saw how great the wickedness of the human race had become on the earth, and that every inclination of the thoughts of the human heart was only evil all the time.

​

Perhaps you don't know there is a difference between a heart having evil thoughts and actually killing.

I hope you would do something to save the 0.001%,

The Lord regretted that he had made human beings on the earth​

First I would realize that I have no regrets. After all, my creations turned out exactly as my omniscient mind knew they would. Then, if I cared, I would look very carefully at the situation with the powers of my omniscience. I would realize that if I killed almost all people and all animals, in just a couple of thousand years things would be all messed up again. So, instead, I would carefully look at each individual and find those with less evil thoughts (children, infants, even the unborn. Then I would take all these into heaven and keep them there until each could be returned to earth as adults.

For those 80% with too much evil, I would poof them into non-existence. I sure wouldn't have buried them alive in mudslides. This would include Noah's line. Omniscience tells me that his offspring were the cause of things getting messed up again.

Thereby I would have saved far more then the 0.001% and the results would not have been much different 2000 years later.

I sure would not have killed all the animals. What did they do wrong?

I find that Atheist - people who claim not to believe in gods, and who like to "throw darts at the Bible", also seem to have convinced themselves that they are experts at interpreting the book they hate so much - a holy book.

Where have I interpreted the bible? Unlike may Christians, I don't pick and choose. I don't interpret, although I may quote from time to time.

There are many scriptures that show that even though God has the power to know everything, he does not exercise that power - except specifically.

Where does it say that?

Why the animal though? God could have killed the wicked without killing the animals... surely.
Well the simple fact is, we don't know how far men had gone in their twisted mentality. Look at today. People are having sex with trees. I don't think I need to mention the animals do I, ecco?

Yet, you did just mention the animals. Maybe back in the old days men had sex with trees and that produced poison ivy bushes. But if men could have sex with poison ivy producing trees, that was all according to how god did his "creating". He made the trees and the Nephilim.

From my understanding of the overall issue, I think God acted in justice. He gave everyone an opportunity to choose - exercise their freedom of choice. Obviously that can't be defined as genocide.

Perhaps if god had come out in a big booming voice and said; "I am God! Lissen' up! Get that evil thought out of your heart or I will kill you!" people would have listened. Instead he gave no warning whatsoever.

So, yeah, that's genocide.

 

[nPeace]

First off, if you are referring to the people in Noah's time, your 99.999% figure is bogus. Probably 20% were under the age of 17. I doubt many of these were horrible people.

In any case they were not twisted genocidal entities. There is nothing that says they were.

The Lord saw how great the wickedness of the human race had become on the earth, and that every inclination of the thoughts of the human heart was only evil all the time.

​

Perhaps you don't know there is a difference between a heart having evil thoughts and actually killing.

The Lord regretted that he had made human beings on the earth​

First I would realize that I have no regrets. After all, my creations turned out exactly as my omniscient mind knew they would. Then, if I cared, I would look very carefully at the situation with the powers of my omniscience. I would realize that if I killed almost all people and all animals, in just a couple of thousand years things would be all messed up again. So, instead, I would carefully look at each individual and find those with less evil thoughts (children, infants, even the unborn. Then I would take all these into heaven and keep them there until each could be returned to earth as adults.

For those 80% with too much evil, I would poof them into non-existence. I sure wouldn't have buried them alive in mudslides. This would include Noah's line. Omniscience tells me that his offspring were the cause of things getting messed up again.

Thereby I would have saved far more then the 0.001% and the results would not have been much different 2000 years later.

I sure would not have killed all the animals. What did they do wrong?

Perhaps you might have misunderstood my question.
I wasn't asking you to go back in time to Noah's day. Nor was I asking you to play God.
First, we do not have all the details so we cannot judge the situation there - and especially by our standards.
Second, we can't play God, because our standards, wisdom, power, etc., are nowhere near his, and if we think so, we are only dreamers.

Already, you can see that you started off with assumptions.
You assumed about 20% were under the age of 17.
You assumed that they were not twisted and genocidal, and committing homicide.

Just curious though... How do you poof someone out of existence. Sounds like magic.
Does God do that? That's funny though.

What I was really asking you, is what you would do in a situation where you were king over a domain, and the vast majority of your subjects were murdering others. You are not God - though that may sound appealing to some - You are a mortal. Just a king - the sole authority of your domain.

Where have I interpreted the bible? Unlike may Christians, I don't pick and choose. I don't interpret, although I may quote from time to time.

How did you miss where I said, I am not particularly addressing this to you. It's just my observation.

Where does it say that?

Many scriptures show that God does not look into the future to know what choice man will make. Scriptures even says he hides his eyes from those practicing what is bad. In the case of Sodom and Gomorrah, he said it was reported to him what they were doing, and that he would investigate it - which he did by sending angels. The scriptures reveal that he tested Abraham to see what he would do.
Apparently, God is not an automatic know-it-all.

Yet, you did just mention the animals. Maybe back in the old days men had sex with trees and that produced poison ivy bushes. But if men could have sex with poison ivy producing trees, that was all according to how god did his "creating". He made the trees and the Nephilim.

Men do not sex with trees and produce anything. ecco... Have you been smoking.
No. God did not make the Nephilim. Genesis 6:1

Perhaps if god had come out in a big booming voice and said; "I am God! Lissen' up! Get that evil thought out of your heart or I will kill you!" people would have listened. Instead he gave no warning whatsoever.

So, yeah, that's genocide.

No. ...and No. Now the people are all deaf, so they can't even hear Noah.
You still have not used the definition for genocide appropriately.

Question:
Did God regret making Noah, and family?

 

[1robin]

Celibacy for clergy was not the rule in the church until the Lateran Council in 1139 — 1000 years after Christ.

That does not counter anything I have said. I didn't mention the start date of celibacy requirements. I simply said they have existed which is true.

You’re welcome.

What?

 

[lukethethird]

Other than the Bible doesn't mention whether or not Jesus had sex in his life, why believe he never did? Would that somehow have tainted him?

Jesus has sex in other gospels, just not the canonical gospels, ain't that a pity.

 

[sojourner]

That does not counter anything I have said. I didn't mention the start date of celibacy requirements. I simply said they have existed which is true

You said you were talking about NT doctrine. I replied that it didn’t become doctrine until 1139, 1000 years after the NT. Please try to keep up.

 

[1robin]

You said you were talking about NT doctrine. I replied that it didn’t become doctrine until 1139, 1000 years after the NT. Please try to keep up.

I said that Catholic priestly are required to be celibate. This is a historical fact. I said nothing about when the practice started. I never even discussed how prolific it was. You need to take my claims as stated instead of trying to turn them into something else.

 

[sojourner]

I said that Catholic priestly are required to be celibate. This is a historical fact. I said nothing about when the practice started. I never even discussed how prolific it was. You need to take my claims as stated instead of trying to turn them into something else.

No, you specifically referred to “NT doctrine.” I pointed out that it was NOT NT doctrine.

 

[1robin]

No, you specifically referred to “NT doctrine.” I pointed out that it was NOT NT doctrine.

I have gotten 41 responses so far just today. I am going to have to be brief to have any hope of catching up.

The only thing I recall basing on the NT is the doctrine of slavery. What post is it where I said that celibate priests are a NT doctrine? I did say I thought the apostles were celibate but I think I was incorrect about that.

 

[sojourner]

I have gotten 41 responses so far just today. I am going to have to be brief to have any hope of catching up.

The only thing I recall basing on the NT is the doctrine of slavery. What post is it where I said that celibate priests are a NT doctrine? I did say I thought the apostles were celibate but I think I was incorrect about that.

“I was wrong” just isn’t in your vocabulary. Too bad.

 

[sealchan]

What is your view sealchan... is "your morality" in harmony with God's? If you don't base "your morality" on the Bible alone, on what do you base it on - man's thinking?

Paul said, "Look out that no one takes you captive by means of the philosophy and empty deception according to human tradition, according to the elementary things of the world and not according to Christ; 9 because it is in him that all the fullness of the divine quality dwells bodily." Colossians 2:8, 9

If we are not being guided by God's word, what are we being guided by, and how do we determine that God approves of it?

I can't be guided if I don't first stand up and choose a direction. Gods children are not mere pawns on Satans chessboard, we are living, breathing thinking beings with hearts capable of good and bad decisions and minds capable of contemplating our own, others and Gods understanding.

If you think Gods word merely provides a simple set of rules for human behaviour then you have missed fully half of Gods word.

If you think you understand fully in clear rational terms what God wants, then I do not think you know God.