Why Believe Jesus Never Had Sex?

[Mindmaster]

I am literally a 40 year old virgin.

That's pretty hard to do, I almost consider it an accomplishment. Not that I particularly ever sought not to be, it just happened.

I can count my partners on one hand and like it that way.. 22 years with the same one...

 

[Milton Platt]

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?

I think for those who believe he was who the bible says he was, they are assuming he never married, therefore never had sex. Wonder what a porn collection from that era would look lke..........

 

[Kenny]

I don’t think my interpretation is compatible the idea of an all-knowing God, but Genesis doesn’t portray God as all-knowing. There are several points in the story where he’s portrayed as not knowing things, having plans go unexpectedly astray, etc.

It may appear so, but since He has already written the end from the beginning, I might take a second look on your viewpoint.

 

[Kenny]

How do you know this? Were you there?

Hmmmm......

Hmmmm... we have the historical account?

 

[Kenny]

You can make a very strong case that Jesus was only attracted to men.

I mean, even his formal ending of prayers seems to hint at that:

"Aaaah.... men"

There is a saying that goes "to the pure, all things are pure". It gives understanding to "perspective".

 

[Kenny]

How do you know? When the "official" bible was created, some 300+ years after the alleged events, the myths could easily have been "sanitized" by creepy old men who loathed the idea that people might get a little happiness from having families or being in relationships...

Actually, that isn't historically correct.

The letters were writing almost all within the first century and quite historically correct. They were placed together 300 years later and given the accumulated documents the title of The Bible

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Actually, that isn't historically correct.

The letters were writing almost all within the first century and quite historically correct. They were placed together 300 years later and given the accumulated documents the title of The Bible

Try mostly second century (for the books that survive today):

Early Christian Writings: New Testament, Apocrypha, Gnostics, Church Fathers

 

[nPeace]

Cat got your tongue?

 

[Kenny]

Try mostly second century (for the books that survive today):

Early Christian Writings: New Testament, Apocrypha, Gnostics, Church Fathers

Your source is wrong, even for logical reasons such as what was written; (unless you are just quoting what complete books are available and not when it was written)

Appendix 8: Chronological Order of the Books of the New Testament - Bible Study Tools

 

[Bob the Unbeliever]

By the Gospel according to Bob. Yes.

Nope. Unlike YOU? I have actually read the OT parts that outline the requirement for the Jewish Messiah.

And unlike YOU? I can comprehend what I read, and Jesus simply fails to measure up on multiple points.

The most damning of them all, is that the Messiah has to be descended of David. Jesus? Descended of ... the holy haunt? Certainly not a son of Joseph!

Oooops!

 

[Bob the Unbeliever]

I think for those who believe he was who the bible says he was, they are assuming he never married, therefore never had sex. Wonder what a porn collection from that era would look lke..........

"Ooooh! Look at that one! She has no hat or scarf covering her hair! Ooooh-la-la!"

 

[Bob the Unbeliever]

Hmmmm... we have the historical account?

Really? Care to name this ... ahem.... "historical account"?

 

[Bob the Unbeliever]

There is a saying that goes "to the pure, all things are pure". It gives understanding to "perspective".

Indeed. Those same "pure" folk see absolutely nothing wrong with taking rape-brides, or sex slaves in wartime.

All part of God's Holy Plan. Right?

 

[Kenny]

Really? Care to name this ... ahem.... "historical account"?

It is all compiled in the NT...

 

[Kenny]

Indeed. Those same "pure" folk see absolutely nothing wrong with taking rape-brides, or sex slaves in wartime.

All part of God's Holy Plan. Right?

Hardly...

Are you all for sacrificing babies and beastiality? And are you trying to deviate what this OP is about?

 

[Bob the Unbeliever]

Actually, that isn't historically correct..

Nope. Accurate: The modern bible was fabricated in roughly 300ACE. Cobbled together by a committee of old men. And lorded over by Constantine, who was pretty much a pagan. He over-rode several of the committee's recommendations too. My favorite was his forced inclusion of the heretical book "The Revelations Of John" over the objections of nearly everyone on that "august" committee.

Actually, that isn't historically correct..

The letters were writing almost all within the first century and quite historically correct. They were placed together 300 years later and given the accumulated documents the title of The Bible[/QUOTE]

Really? Almost all? And how soon after the alleged events? 3 generations? 5?

When most folk cannot remember last week.... and this is the best work that god can do?

 

[Bob the Unbeliever]

It is all compiled in the NT...

False. You cannot use your claim as your proof. Sorry.

That is a Logical Fallacy, known colloquially as Bootstrapping. Or Circular Reasoning.

 

[Kenny]

Nope. Accurate: The modern bible was fabricated in roughly 300ACE. Cobbled together by a committee of old men. And lorded over by Constantine, who was pretty much a pagan. He over-rode several of the committee's recommendations too. My favorite was his forced inclusion of the heretical book "The Revelations Of John" over the objections of nearly everyone on that "august" committee.


The letters were writing almost all within the first century and quite historically correct. They were placed together 300 years later and given the accumulated documents the title of The Bible

Really? Almost all? And how soon after the alleged events? 3 generations? 5?

When most folk cannot remember last week.... and this is the best work that god can do? [/QUOTE]
The Gospel according to Bob the "UNBELIEVER". I understand you!

 

[Bob the Unbeliever]

Your source is wrong, even for logical reasons such as what was written; (unless you are just quoting what complete books are available and not when it was written)

Appendix 8: Chronological Order of the Books of the New Testament - Bible Study Tools

false link. Website has no outside links for their false claims.

 

[Kenny]

False. You cannot use your claim as your proof. Sorry.

That is a Logical Fallacy, known colloquially as Bootstrapping. Or Circular Reasoning.

Nope!

Even the information of the Book of Acts has been corroborated.