|
Post by gadreel on Jun 13, 2017 19:55:31 GMT
It is totally possible for a person to be free from romance. Great saint Ramana Maharshi never had any romantic relationships and many monks of Jainism and Shaivism take vow of celibacy since childhood. Yeah but possible and likely are not the same. I accept that it is possible that Jesus was not involved in romance at all, I just see no compelling reason that he would deny it from his life.
|
|
|
Post by Aj_June on Jun 13, 2017 20:00:16 GMT
It is totally possible for a person to be free from romance. Great saint Ramana Maharshi never had any romantic relationships and many monks of Jainism and Shaivism take vow of celibacy since childhood. Yeah but possible and likely are not the same. I accept that it is possible that Jesus was not involved in romance at all, I just see no compelling reason that he would deny it from his life. I don't know much about Jesus so can't speak much about him. But in general terms, it is possible for people to avoid romance even though such people may be very rare (1 in 50,000 or even less). Such people may be inspired by other human values such as duty, love for humanity or feeling of helping others spiritually or in other ways.
|
|
|
Post by gadreel on Jun 13, 2017 20:13:04 GMT
Yeah but possible and likely are not the same. I accept that it is possible that Jesus was not involved in romance at all, I just see no compelling reason that he would deny it from his life. I don't know much about Jesus so can't speak much about him. But in general terms, it is possible for people to avoid romance even though such people may be very rare (1 in 50,000 or even less). Such people may be inspired by other human values such as duty, love for humanity or feeling of helping others spiritually or in other ways. Agreed, I just see no reason for Jesus to, it is not like being engaged in romance affects his mission. I must confess, I think it would be a pretty strong other drive to make you avoid romance.
|
|
|
Post by CoolJGS☺ on Jun 13, 2017 20:22:03 GMT
I'm not sure why it would be considered reasonable unless one thought Jesus was supposed to be generic or assumed that everyone was married/dating back then.
Jesus did live the life of a human so there are no doubts regarding that.
However, the life of a human is not necessarily tied to the notion of love, romance, or sex.
Those aren't even requirements in our day so not sure why it would be for a time where men could have more than one wife and marriages were routinely arranged.
And to be clear, I'm not saying that Jesus wouldn't be involved in romantic endeavors, only the notion that he likely was or should be involved is a silly assumption to make and especially since any relationship would be temporary.
Jesus was human, part of being human is romantic attachment, it seems to me that it is more likely he engaged in romantic attachement than he did not. I disagree that the life of a human is not fundamentally tied to love, romance or sex, those things are a fundamental part of our nature. I disagree with the notion that romance is a necessary component of humanity.
However, don't conflate things.
I never said that Jesus life was not dependent on love or relationships which is not the same thing as dating or marriage or sex.
However, I have no doubt that Jesus had the self control to keep it in his robe for 3 years since people do it all the time and especially when there is no evidence to support relationships routinely occurring prior to a marriage arrangement during that time.
|
|
|
Post by drystyx on Jun 13, 2017 20:31:38 GMT
Obviously not, for the very reasons the more inferior minds believe he did.
First, lets get a handle on life for these people. Survival was a 24 an hour a day job. They didn't have central air and heating. They didn't have any electrical conveniences. They didn't have Deet. They didn't have medical knowledge. Lord knows how many of them were traipsing around with one limb, one eye, and so forth, trying to survive.
Now, the reasons some of the modern day idiots think he was in romance is because they claim to be "respected" as a teacher, he would have to be married.
So, if he was married, or even engaged, the writers woujld have made sure it was mentioned. There isn't one Old Testament patriarch of whom the wife isn't mentioned, save perhaps Caleb, and he was listed as having sons.
Certainly, Jesus had no children, for that would have been mentioned, for the very reasons that the "new age thinkers" believe he was married.
There wasn't much time for romance, and Jesus was always surrounded by dozens of "fans". He probably had a tough time just going to the bathroom alone.
Not to mention that if he had children, the apostles would have made attempts to find the descendant of David among them for a Messiah. No doubt they looked to the brothers of Jesus, and were very disappointed and dismayed when they saw him alive, telling them to spread the news that would make them get flayed, beheaded, crucified, and burned alive.
This is a no brainer. Jesus had no sexual contact. Sorry to burst the bubbles of the feeble minded.
|
|
|
Post by gadreel on Jun 13, 2017 20:40:18 GMT
Jesus was human, part of being human is romantic attachment, it seems to me that it is more likely he engaged in romantic attachement than he did not. I disagree that the life of a human is not fundamentally tied to love, romance or sex, those things are a fundamental part of our nature. I disagree with the notion that romance is a necessary component of humanity.
However, don't conflate things.
I never said that Jesus life was not dependent on love or relationships which is not the same thing as dating or marriage or sex.
However, I have no doubt that Jesus had the self control to keep it in his robe for 3 years since people do it all the time and especially when there is no evidence to support relationships routinely occurring prior to a marriage arrangement during that time.
You are the one who used romance, but lets not split hairs, we both know what is being discussed. Three years? ? How does the length of his ministry mean anything, in fact if anything by using the length of his ministry as an example you are implying that before his ministry started he was free to engage in whatever he pleased.
|
|
|
Post by CoolJGS☺ on Jun 13, 2017 20:59:54 GMT
I disagree with the notion that romance is a necessary component of humanity.
However, don't conflate things.
I never said that Jesus life was not dependent on love or relationships which is not the same thing as dating or marriage or sex.
However, I have no doubt that Jesus had the self control to keep it in his robe for 3 years since people do it all the time and especially when there is no evidence to support relationships routinely occurring prior to a marriage arrangement during that time.
You are the one who used romance, but lets not split hairs, we both know what is being discussed. Three years? ? How does the length of his ministry mean anything, in fact if anything by using the length of his ministry as an example you are implying that before his ministry started he was free to engage in whatever he pleased. I suited romance because that was the thread topic. However, I do confess that my answers are largely based on guesses of what the heck the vagaries of the conversation are. Are you saying that Jesus needs to boink? Are you saying he needs to go to the prom? Are you saying that he was shacking up with someone? What exactly is your point since I made my point abundantly clear but will repeat again.
If I don't think romance is a necessary component, then certainly the subset of sex wouldn't be either.
The reason I mentioned the 3 years is because this was the time period Scriptures concerns itself with overall and everyone is largely being vague about what they mean regarding romance & Jesus. If you are wanting to discuss his teenage years then inform me of the dating aspects of 1st Century Nazareth.
Since I am making the argument that romance was not a significant thing for society in general at the time until marriage age, & Jesus was not married or engaged, then there's no reason to force this concept on him..
I think people, not necessarily you since I don't know what you're getting at now, are making the mistake of thinking that just because Jesus was a man, his life is interchangeable with any man which is silly.
I'm not sure why you think that any man needs to have sex at any time in his life much less specifically tying the mythical necessity to Jesus who most would agree was distinctly different from
|
|
|
Post by gadreel on Jun 13, 2017 21:13:31 GMT
You are the one who used romance, but lets not split hairs, we both know what is being discussed. Three years? ? How does the length of his ministry mean anything, in fact if anything by using the length of his ministry as an example you are implying that before his ministry started he was free to engage in whatever he pleased. I suited romance because that was the thread topic. However, I do confess that my answers are largely based on guesses of what the heck the vagaries of the conversation are. Are you saying that Jesus needs to boink? Are you saying he needs to go to the prom? Are you saying that he was shacking up with someone? What exactly is your point since I made my point abundantly clear but will repeat again.
If I don't think romance is a necessary component, then certainly the subset of sex wouldn't be either.
The reason I mentioned the 3 years is because this was the time period Scriptures concerns itself with overall and everyone is largely being vague about what they mean regarding romance & Jesus. If you are wanting to discuss his teenage years then inform me of the dating aspects of 1st Century Nazareth.
Since I am making the argument that romance was not a significant thing for society in general at the time until marriage age, & Jesus was not married or engaged, then there's no reason to force this concept on him..
I think people, not necessarily you since I don't know what you're getting at now, are making the mistake of thinking that just because Jesus was a man, his life is interchangeable with any man which is silly.
I'm not sure why you think that any man needs to have sex at any time in his life much less specifically tying the mythical necessity to Jesus who most would agree was distinctly different from
Look honestly I do not care, if Jesus had sex then he had sex, it does not change is message, but it is an interesting thing to think about. I am concerned with the statement that you are not sure why any man needs to have sex, sex is a basic fundamental need, it is required by biology to reproduce the species, the urge is there in every male, I suppose there is a difference between urged to and needs to, but given that it does not affect Jesus' mission there is no reason so think that he is required to resist the urge. Bearing in mind here that Jesus must be fundamentally human to perform his mission, so he must experience human desires. The point about his ministry vs his whole life is exactly what you pointed out, scripture mentions only his infancy (well a little bit later) and the last three years of his life, there is nothing about the intervening 20 or so years, it seems reasonable that his life was as normal as possible in those years. I dont have to discuss the dating aspects of 1st century nazareth, the fact that humans are the same then as now indicates that he would have had those needs and there are many examples in history of people going outside social norms to satisfy them. I suppose that is the one argument that can be made that Jesus would avoid sex, is that it defies the social norms, I can concede that might be the case but I still think that if he did or not has no effect on his ministry so there is no reason to suspect he would avoid it for that reason.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 13, 2017 21:17:22 GMT
I'm not sure why it would be considered reasonable unless one thought Jesus was supposed to be generic or assumed that everyone was married/dating back then.
Jesus did live the life of a human so there are no doubts regarding that.
However, the life of a human is not necessarily tied to the notion of love, romance, or sex.
Those aren't even requirements in our day so not sure why it would be for a time where men could have more than one wife and marriages were routinely arranged.
And to be clear, I'm not saying that Jesus wouldn't be involved in romantic endeavors, only the notion that he likely was or should be involved is a silly assumption to make and especially since any relationship would be temporary.
Jesus was human, part of being human is romantic attachment, it seems to me that it is more likely he engaged in romantic attachement than he did not. I disagree that the life of a human is not fundamentally tied to love, romance or sex, those things are a fundamental part of our nature. There are those humans who do not engage in such things, but they are a very small percentage of the total. But then, what would be the point of doing this? Wasn't the whole idea of jesus that he came to experience human life? Isn't that largely invalidated if the life he chose to live was an strongly abnormal one?
|
|
|
Post by gadreel on Jun 13, 2017 21:23:53 GMT
Jesus was human, part of being human is romantic attachment, it seems to me that it is more likely he engaged in romantic attachement than he did not. I disagree that the life of a human is not fundamentally tied to love, romance or sex, those things are a fundamental part of our nature. There are those humans who do not engage in such things, but they are a very small percentage of the total. But then, what would be the point of doing this? Wasn't the whole idea of jesus that he came to experience human life? Isn't that largely invalidated if the life he chose to live was an strongly abnormal one? You make the exact point I am trying to make, but with less words.
|
|
|
Post by CoolJGS☺ on Jun 13, 2017 21:24:32 GMT
Yeah but possible and likely are not the same. I accept that it is possible that Jesus was not involved in romance at all, I just see no compelling reason that he would deny it from his life. I don't know much about Jesus so can't speak much about him. But in general terms, it is possible for people to avoid romance even though such people may be very rare (1 in 50,000 or even less). Such people may be inspired by other human values such as duty, love for humanity or feeling of helping others spiritually or in other ways. It's not even that rare. Probably half the marriages today are arranged in some way and alleviates the need for romance or at least a great deal of it until after the wedding.
This could have been even higher in Jewish society of the 1st century.
The only women Jesus could get with are hookers and that's not terribly romantic either.
|
|
|
Post by CoolJGS☺ on Jun 13, 2017 21:27:26 GMT
Jesus was human, part of being human is romantic attachment, it seems to me that it is more likely he engaged in romantic attachement than he did not. I disagree that the life of a human is not fundamentally tied to love, romance or sex, those things are a fundamental part of our nature. There are those humans who do not engage in such things, but they are a very small percentage of the total. But then, what would be the point of doing this? Wasn't the whole idea of jesus that he came to experience human life? Isn't that largely invalidated if the life he chose to live was an strongly abnormal one? There wouldn't be a point to it if the goal was to be involved in a romantic or sexual relationship.
That's not even close to the only point in life though and especially if one knows their time may be limited or meant to have another point.
The purpose of Jesus coming was not that he could experience human life. His experience as a human automatically provided this experience. However, that doesn't mean he was supposed to mimic the human experience since that would have no point to it and especially since sex is in no way a need for survival or happiness of the individual.
|
|
|
Post by gadreel on Jun 13, 2017 21:28:46 GMT
There are those humans who do not engage in such things, but they are a very small percentage of the total. But then, what would be the point of doing this? Wasn't the whole idea of jesus that he came to experience human life? Isn't that largely invalidated if the life he chose to live was an strongly abnormal one? There wouldn't be a point to it if the goal was to be involved in a romantic or sexual relationship.
That's not even close to the only point in life though and especially if one knows their time may be limited or meant to have another point.
The purpose of Jesus coming was not that he could experience human life. His experience as a human automatically provided this experience. However, that doesn't mean he was supposed to mimic the human experience since that would have no point to it and especially since sex is in no way a need for survival or happiness of the individual.
"sex is in no way a need for survival or happiness of the individual." I know a number of studies that would disagree with you.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 13, 2017 22:49:36 GMT
The purpose of Jesus coming was not that he could experience human life. His experience as a human automatically provided this experience.
Then what was the point of it?
|
|
|
Post by captainbryce on Jun 13, 2017 22:53:13 GMT
I don't know. For Him to have not married would have been very remarkable in His time. Couldn't it also be argued if that was the case surely it would have been mentioned? If He did marry it would have been so automatically expected that would inspire less mention. A) Do you consider walking on water, turning water into wine, curing paralysis, and bringing people back to life to be "unremarkable" during his time? I think the one thing scripture seems to be consistent about is the fact that Jesus was a rather remarkable guy. B) Given everything that Paul says in 1 Corinthians (about hoping disciples stay single like him), it stands to reason that he was emulating Christ in his mission to minister on his behalf. C) Given that Christ spent a lot of time on missions with his disciples, ultimately leading to his arrest, trial, execution, and resurrection, it would seem to be absurd that none of the authors thought that a mention of what his "wife" was doing at that time might have been relevant. For him to leave his wife for however many months/years, and then to go die without ever seeing her again seems strange. Stranger still the fact that there is no mention of her at his trial, or execution, or resurrection. Everyone else (including his mother) is mentioned. Why wouldn't his wife be (if he had one). So given all the other details the scripture does give up with respect to who was involved in his later years, I would argue that the presence of a wife would certainly have warranted a mention in at least ONE of the Gospels. The fact that there is no such mention would lead me to conclude that there was no wife.
|
|
|
Post by lowtacks86 on Jun 14, 2017 3:00:48 GMT
He didn't exist, so no.
|
|
|
Post by kls on Jun 14, 2017 9:41:32 GMT
If He didn't exist how did the earliest people who made up the claims in the first half of the first century AD fool others to think some non existent Jesus walked among them? No questioning why those who were where he was said to have preached never heard him or saw him?
Now questioning His divinity, if He rose from the dead, if He's the Son of God is another thing altogether.
|
|
|
Post by yezziqa on Jun 14, 2017 12:48:28 GMT
I think Jesus was gay. I'm an atheist, but I do believe that the person behind the Jesus myth was real and just an ordinary person. People often do the misstake of believing that marriage was something everybody strived for in historic times, but that is far from the truth. People weren't stupid, and they did realize that if they didn't own a plot of land, they could hardly feed a family.
But to my gay theory. Jesus was born into a macho culture, yet he is described as quite soft and gentle, unmanly according to what was expected in those times. Those that was closest to him, were all men, yet his mother is a dominent figure in his life. It would make the hole Judas thing and suicide a bit more understandable, a forsaken and deserted lover seeks revenge (maybe Jesus got in a new relationsship with one of the others?), and then when Jesus is dead, Judas realize what he has done and kills himself.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 14, 2017 13:26:20 GMT
If He didn't exist how did the earliest people who made up the claims in the first half of the first century AD fool others to think some non existent Jesus walked among them? It was a very different time back then. No news media, the only way to know things was others telling you. So they spread stories of this amazing guy who preached such a message in such a place. It really wouldn't be hard at all to create such a legend. Most people didn't travel far. Until a couple of centuries ago 90%+ of people never travelled more than 20 miles from where they were born in their entire lives. Nor did most people have any reliable method of knowing dates and times. So if you're spreading stories around you're very unlikely to find anybody contradicting you with "I was there on that day and I never saw it." It's entirely possible no such person as jesus existed at all. Or that he's an amalgam of several different people. Or that he was a real person with, as you suggest, no divine attributes whose story was exaggerated.
|
|
|
Post by kls on Jun 14, 2017 13:30:09 GMT
If He didn't exist how did the earliest people who made up the claims in the first half of the first century AD fool others to think some non existent Jesus walked among them? It was a very different time back then. No news media, the only way to know things was others telling you. So they spread stories of this amazing guy who preached such a message in such a place. It really wouldn't be hard at all to create such a legend. Most people didn't travel far. Until a couple of centuries ago 90%+ of people never travelled more than 20 miles from where they were born in their entire lives. Nor did most people have any reliable method of knowing dates and times. So if you're spreading stories around you're very unlikely to find anybody contradicting you with "I was there on that day and I never saw it." It's entirely possible no such person as jesus existed at all. Or that he's an amalgam of several different people. Or that he was a real person with, as you suggest, no divine attributes whose story was exaggerated. I didn't mean for it to sound like I suggested no divine attributes if it read that way. I see Jesus as savior and Son of God.
|
|