The Couch

Jesus was a raging homo sexual.
Exposure

Comments on Jesus was a raging homo sexual.

Starjade
banned

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Feb 01, 2012
Location: Blackpool Lancashire Britain

Total Topics: 3
Total Comments: 197
Posted 08/27/15 - 7:56 AM:

Subject: Jesus exposed as being homosexual. AKA gay faggot.

One version of St. Mark's gospel - which is still the subject of academic dispute - alludes to Jesus having a homosexual relationship with a youth he raised from the dead. This does imply the Roman writers of the new testament were in fact necromancers. Obsessed with having sex with the dead.

Was this the reality behind the claims of raising people from the dead. ?

Mark 14:51
And there followed him a certain young man, having a linen cloth cast about his naked body; and the young men laid hold on him:


52- And he left the linen cloth, and fled from them naked.

? Does that mean they sodomised the young chap. And he later ran off. It does appear that was what happened. So Jesus also gang raped the young man with his 12 disciples. Tsk tsk tsk. That in not a very nice thing for anyone to be doing is it now. Or as Jesus was your idol bumlight was this something you think was ok with you. ?

Makes me wonder what you do in your Christian life. Such paedophile perverts usually take up jobs as social workers Christian priests or teachers just to get close to the innocent children. So what do you do for a living then?

Who was this boyfriend of Jesus then did they tell you in Sunday school. John
Ch 13: v 23 Now there was leaning on Jesus' bosom one of his disciples, whom Jesus loved.

Was this Mark. I have heard some rumours that Mark and Jesus were buttfucking each other. Was this the boyfriend of Jesus? Or was it John. I suppose it could have been just about anyone, as clearly they all loved thy fellow man often in the desert as well as anything that passed by. Of course I did hear it was John who was leaning on the breast of Jesus. Not normal behaviour for a heterosexual man but for a homosexual well it would be natural and Jesus did love John in a special way according to the Christian gospels.

queerchurch.wordpress.com/...k-and-the-naked-young-man/

But the most intriguing passage of all is found not in the standard Gospel of Mark, but in the so-called “Secret Mark”, supposedly found by Morton Smith in an eighteenth century copy of a previously unknown letter of Clement of Alexandria, found in 1958. The authenticity is disputed, but some scholars accept that it authentic, and is taken from an earlier, longer version of Mark’s Gospel than the one we use today. I’m not going to get into the details of the origin or significance of this fragment – see Jennings for that – but here is the bit that intrigues:
Gospel of Mark,

And they came into Bethany, and a certain woman, whose brother had died, was there. and, coming, she prostrated herself before Jesus and says to him, “Son of David, have mercy upon me.”. But the disciples rebuked her. And Jesus, being angered, went off with her into the garden where the tomb was, and straightaway a great cry was heard from the tomb.

The cry was probably Jesus cos we know what that means. Penetration. It would cause anyone to screech Jeeeesus. As I am sure you know.

And going near Jesus rolled away a stone from the door of the tomb. And straightaway, going in where the youth was, he stretched forth his hand nad raised him, seizing his hand.

Was Nad another name for a penis. We have all heard of gonads. Is this where the saying comes from the secret sex life of the gay Jesus.

But the youth, looking upon him, loved him and began to beseech him that he might be with him.

Clearly the lad was begging for it and as Jesus was a gang banger then the lad was going to be calling out his name all night Jeeeesus. We all know what that means.

And going out of the tomb they came into the house of the youth, and he was rich. And after six days Jesus told him what he wast to do and in the evening the youth comes to him, wearing a linen cloth over his naked body. And he remained with him that night, for Jesus taught him the mystery of the kingdom of God. And then, arising, he returned to the other side of Jordan.

So who was this other Geezer Jordon then.? Clearly Jesus spent 6 days having sex with this fellow. Pure evidence that Jesus was really a faggot all along.

Faggot by the way is an English expression that is often heard screamed by people in Birmingham at people who are homosexual just before they go over to give them what is known as a queer bashing. I have to use words that a specific Christian here who would be interested would understand. So do pardon the language. It is the way those English sorts speak.

Well the evidence was right there for the seeing. I noticed that right away when I first read the new Testament. Even though Jesus just an imaginary character he was depicted by the Roman sodomite writers as being gay.

Jesus and Santa Claus along with the tooth fairy never really existed. Romans writing out these deceptive christian tales were all sodomites and so their sexuality was bound to get mentioned. These Romans were such dreamers and any hole in the night will do.

This passage has two literary connection to the two earlier passages from canonical Mark: the verb used here for he youth “looking at “Jesus is the same (“emblepein“) as that that used to describe Jesus when he “looked at” (and “loved”) the rich young man; and here again, he is described as wearing just a linen cloth over his naked body. (This is not on being raised from the dead, when such a cloth would have been expected, abut when he came to Jesus six days later.

Now, be honest: if a young man came to you, “in the evening”, wearing “nothing but a linen cloth over his naked body”, what do you suppose he was after? And if he came not to you, but to another man, and then stayed the night, what do you suppose your conclusion would be in the morning?

Now we are all men of the world and we all know what was really going on. As with all cults the leader wants to butt fuck his followers and they beg their cult leader for it. However, let us not pretend that the new testament character Jesus was anything other than just a faggot out on the prowl cruising for a bit of ass to bounce off.

The New Testament character Jesus was depicted as having no qualms with appearing naked before his disciples, and revelled in his appearance.

John records that jesus ‘riseth from supper, and laid aside his garments; and took a towel, and girded himself’, and in another instance, jesus was asked by his disciples, ‘When will you be revealed to us and when shall we see you?’, to which jesus replied, ‘When you disrobe without being ashamed and take up your garments and place them under your feet like little children.’

I understand that it can be disturbing hearing such a character of the New Testament appearing of dreaming of little children being naked. Christian priests dream of such things all the time. You are right to be disturbed however one must remember that some Roman Writer was inventing these tales and so they were his dreams really and did not actually take place in reality. However the Christians believe that it did and would refuse to believe otherwise for they are obsessed with idol worshipping. A worrying thought is that monkey see monkey do. So remain watchful around Christians.

The so-called ‘transfiguration on the mountain’ also suggests that jesus was naked, and, in fact, with another man (from The Acts of John):

Then I, since he loved me, went quietly up to him, as if he could not see, and stood there looking at his hinder parts, and I saw him not dressed in clothes at all, but stripped of those that we usually saw upon him, … he, turning about, appeared as a small man, … and I saw another like him coming down …

The ‘transfiguration on the mountain’event ended with jesus performing some kind of dance for his disciples – in the nude?

Starjade doth sayeth. Christian gospels are not showing jesus as being a heterosexual but as clearly a homosexual who was always up for a bit of bump and grind with any male walking. Males do not get naked with each other and dance around to show their hind parts without those males being homosexuals.

Now I have nothing and I mean nothing against homosexuals. Live and let live. A person’s sexuality is his or her own business.

However, there are children reading these New Testament books and so it is not right to mislead them. Such behaviour is ok for homosexuals but normal society does not do those sorts of things. It is not the normal practice for Breeding a continuity of the human race. It is simply the desires of homosexual men allowing their sexuality to run away into dark worlds of fantasy.

The New Testament when examined closely is a book of lies and deceptions and outright pornography.


The End of Times Deuteronomy Doomsday Prophet.
The Lord King and King of Kings Starjade.
The Crown of the Living White Sphere of Kether.
Memory Lane
New

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Aug 07, 2015

Total Topics: 1
Total Comments: 3
Posted 08/27/15 - 10:10 AM:

It's very simple, indeed. A person starts with "a preoccupation," then they move to "a fixation," and then they move to "a delusion," and then they move to "a hallucination." Between the neurotic (still in contact with reality) they can become psychotic (with a loss of reality testing}.

STARJADE: If you are (1) The End of Times Deuteronomy Prophet
(2) The Lord King and Kings of Kings Starjade, and
(3) The Crown of the Living White Sphere of Kether, the time
has come for you to either CHECK IN or CHECK OUT.

You need a well deserved rest from your overworked ratiocinations.
henry quirk
Senior Member
Avatar

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Apr 17, 2008
Location: here

Total Topics: 47
Total Comments: 1298
Posted 08/27/15 - 2:35 PM:

Memory,

You can't reason with the unreasonable (or a garden-variety nutjob).

I've tried...got nowhere.

Jade, overly sensitive girl that she is, will play herself out here...those faulty circuits in her head can't last forever...I say we just wait her out.

Later, once the poor girl has passed on to her just reward, Liberty can scour the forum of her excesses...mebbe Lib will create a locked sub-forum as a shrine to Jade's lovely thoughts.

*shrug*

No point in pondering tomorrow...let's just gut through today.
Memory Lane
New

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Aug 07, 2015

Total Topics: 1
Total Comments: 3
Posted 08/27/15 - 5:24 PM:

Henry, well said, and executed. If a female this can account for some of her diatribes against Homosexuality. Though the majority of woman are not homophobic. His subject and object is "Jesus" (regardless of what position a person regards him.} She rants and raves, and the rest of us have to tolerate her voluminous entries on The Couch Forum. She is so homophobic it reeks to the next galaxy. My question is this: Is he/she a man or a woman? What she wants is to create a reading audience to read her babble. Enough is enough, don't buy into it.

Edited by Memory Lane on 08/27/15 - 10:16 PM. Reason: typographical
Starjade
banned

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Feb 01, 2012
Location: Blackpool Lancashire Britain

Total Topics: 3
Total Comments: 197
Posted 08/27/15 - 9:36 PM:

Memory Lane you said; It's very simple, indeed. A person starts with "a preoccupation," then they move to "a fixation," and then they move to "a delusion," and then they move to "a hallucination." Between the neurotic (still in contact with reality) they can become psychotic (with a loss of reality testing}.


Starjade doth sayeth; Wow now that is a whole gob full. I am up for the hallucinations though. Timothy Leary was right –Tune in turn on and drop out. A philosophy I share. And it is the holy Mushroom season so God willing even if the bones are not.

You might be surprised about the reality assumption though. I am usually always in touch with reality.


Memory Lane you said;

STARJADE: If you are (1) The End of Times Deuteronomy Prophet
(2) The Lord King and Kings of Kings Starjade, and
(3) The Crown of the Living White Sphere of Kether, the time
has come for you to either CHECK IN or CHECK OUT.


Starjade says; I am that very specific Deuteronomy prophet as established in accord with the law of Deuteronomy Chapter 19 verses 15 onwards and the very many signs in the heavens. The descendants of Abraham were never in any kind of position to dispute that fact. I already named more than four witnesses to my power as a Prophet with a provable connection to the “Living God” This was all established way back in 1995 when I contacted the descendants of Abraham giving them details of an ever nearing apocalypse with a view to an Exodus of their people out from the four corners of the globe out of future earthquake zones that I have forewarned them about.

So do not get misled with your presumptions.

Ole bumlight {Henry Quirks special friend} wanted to talk about his special idol Jesus. So I say lets talk the talk and walk that walk.


Memory Lane you said; You need a well deserved rest from your overworked ratiocinations.



Starjade says; Nah I was simply passing by spare moments farm. It was no trouble at all to speak of that imaginary false prophet Jesus. Psssst. Did you know the character jesus was Gay? Eeeek what a shocker eh? Who apart from many thousand religious scholars would have thought. It must have been absolutely devastating for ole bumlight to learn such a secret about his special idol. At the least he now understand why those Roman Catholic priests were trying to get him to bow down to Jesus all this Time.




Henry Quirk you said; Memory, You can't reason with the unreasonable (or a garden-variety nutjob). I've tried...got nowhere. [/quote]

Starjade says; You know something henry as you might have noticed I did try and reason with ole bumlight and just like you got nowhere. However, I came up with a new plan and it speaks a thousand words. You must be gasping with amazement at the sudden rush of writers wakening up out of their deep sleep. It has been so very long since this forum saw such action. Of course you may recall me I always was hard core and to the point.


Henry Quirk you said; Jade, overly sensitive girl that she is, will play herself out here...those faulty circuits in her head can't last forever...I say we just wait her out.

Later, once the poor girl has passed on to her just reward, Liberty can scour the forum of her excesses...mebbe Lib will create a locked sub-forum as a shrine to Jade's lovely thoughts. *shrug* No point in pondering tomorrow...let's just gut through today. [/quote]


Starjade says; Actually as you might recall Liberty Girl created the End of Times website and collected a lot of my writings to put on that website enshrined already by the geocities archives. So you are a tad behind times. Of course I was only being brief.

http://www.oocities.org/end_of_times/


Now come on now Henry there you go just like your boyfriend bumlight being offensive and insulting. No wonder things get so controversial in such a short while. I do note that you are targeting my good self as per usual and not actually commenting on the points made in the thread. You should never forget that I have wrote and do write on forums where tens of thousands write. Naturally as I am such an interesting writer the rest of the threads do go silent as everyone want to speak with me about my revelations. Forums on the Internet are ten a penny. Of course certain religious groups do get pissed off at my comments about their idols. Do you truly think I care. Banning does not silence me. I simply open up a conversation elsewhere. It is good to get about. You would not understand as you have been dwindling here with nothing but ole bumlight to talk to and even that is one sided.

Lets face it the Bible can be obtained on the internet for free. So bumlight spending time copy cut and pasting verses per paragraph is so very boring with any actual religious dialogue. Far better to just download a copy. I mention this because before I appeared that is all this entire forum was doing. Boring empty space with no dialogue. When I go it will go back to silence.


Memory lane-Henry, well said, and executed. If a female this can account for some of her diatribes against Homosexuality. Though the majority of woman are not homophobic. Her subject and object is "Jesus" (regardless of what position a person regards him.} She rants and raves, and the rest of us have to tolerate her voluminous entries on The Couch Forum. She is so homophobic it reeks to the next galaxy. My question is this: Is he/she a man or a woman? What she wants is to create a reading audience to read her babble. Enough is enough, don't buy into it.


Starjade says; Clearly Memory Lane you cannot have received much of an education if you think Kings are females. Perhaps you invited yourself into the right thread after all. What was it now that enticed you.

Contrary to your beliefs I am not the homophobe. There was only one audience and that was ole bumlight. HENRYS PAL. I really do not care who is attracted to whom or what. I have a very open mind. Others like bumlight however are not so open-minded. On one breath he is all for the love of Jesus. However he was not so understanding when he discovered the New Testament writers did depict his idol Jesus as being homosexual. Suddenly the allure wavered.

I have already proven that the New Testament character was not a real person and simply a fabricated character. I have already explained why. I should not need to repeat myself however some assholes do not want to listen. I note you do not get on your high horse when such people start a repetitive posting on all threads to spit their nasties out directed clearly at me. Yet when I respond as all Gemini’s do then your sorts appear grunting out some presumptuous opinion and waffle off as if a fact. You do not know me nor grasp the actual reasons why I would speak. Henry of course is still bitter from past-lost conversations and is bound to grunt out any spittle in my direction with the bitter retributions of a child.

Why you would be so concerned about my comments when the character Jesus was a figment of some Romans imagination. Have I shattered the dreams of your idol too. Did you think Jesus was a holy thing and you actually believed those Christian tales as if they were gospel truths. Yet what did you base those reasoning upon?

Anyone reading the New Testament can see it was a fraud. The Hebrews all said so as well. Clearly though you decided it seems that all those descendants of Israel and religious scholars must all be wrong. Did it nark you that I pointed out the New Testament character Jesus was depicted as being homosexual? Yet worse for in chapter and verse it is implied homosexual rape took place by Jesus and his disciples. That is the story line in New Testament text.

It was not something I made up to cause teeth to gnash. These things are well known by religious scholars worldwide it is just that Christians like sunlight did not carry that information. Of course after he started to target me with abuse I was happy to give him such revelations. So why condemn me for shattering your delusions. I remind you that before now I did not even know you existed. Sunlight was the only one waffling out Christian blabberwocky here.

Perhaps you know of some evidence to dispute these homosexual claims made by religious scholars. Links were left so research could be confirmed. Was it all such a touchy topic with you unsettling some deep-rooted problems you have on your mind. Well as Frazier would say why not lie back on the couch and tell us all about it.

Bear in mind also that the New Testament character was not an actual real person. Not were those tales in the New Testament. Those Romans lied deceiving the congregations. So do not get upset about something that some past dead Romans dreamed up. They were sodomites so what else did you expect they would be talking about.
Starjade
banned

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Feb 01, 2012
Location: Blackpool Lancashire Britain

Total Topics: 3
Total Comments: 197
Posted 08/27/15 - 10:04 PM:

By the way did you all like those religious jokes on the Soul on the move thread? laughing


Look here Memory Lane. Let me take you back down Memory Lane no gay pun intended. It seems clear that you are offended by my pointing out that the New Testament character Jesus was gay. Just because others have some idol worship going on that does not mean we cannot examine the character of such idols. Homosexuality is not any bad thing. Many folk are and we are in a more enlightened period of time. Same sex marriages are on the rise even though many do not last. And who cares who is bonking whom. Of course I did speak out a tad strongly as I thought on such a quite forum only Sunshine would be reading and of course his butt buddy Henry. It did not occur to me that anyone else actual wrote here anymore. So do not take offence at my aggressive posture. I do so like to cause teeth to gnash.

However, when there are stories in the New Testament that Jesus and his disciples actually raped a man then things do need to be examined more closely without religious delusions over idol worshipping getting involved. It shows the character portrayal is not someone who is in any way a holy thing. In knowledge nothing should be Taboo.

I say again the New Testament character Jesus was not a real live person but was simply a character some Roma writers of the New Testament dreamed up and so naturally their sexuality would be on display in their writings. However, if you were one of those who were deceived and believed those Roman writers then allow me this opportunity to enlighten you that those Roman writers were not speaking the gospel truths that you have become so convinced about. Upon that reasoning that you would see that their words were not to be trusted. THEY DID NOT SPEAK GOSPEL TRUTHS.

So all these tales about this New Testament character Jesus were simply things that those Roman writers had simply imagined in their own fantasy world. However, future religious scholars who could read and write picked up their comments. After analysing such writings they came out with some obvious conclusions. However, as none of what those writers were saying was true including tales about Jesus and his disciples then you have nothing at all worry about do you.

If a soul never existed then such a thing could not be anything at all except imagination. Rest easy then get yourself the Christians Bible and do a bit of research on the following chapters and verses. See it all for yourself. When you grasp those pesky Romans were lying to everyone regarding their new testament then you can feel a whole lot better knowing Jesus never actually existed in the first place and it was just a Roman fantasy that Jesus was a homosexual. The New Testament exposed a sexuality of their imaginary idol because the writers of such so claimed gospel truth were in fact themselves sodomites.
Starjade
banned

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Feb 01, 2012
Location: Blackpool Lancashire Britain

Total Topics: 3
Total Comments: 197
Posted 08/27/15 - 10:05 PM:

The genealogies of Matthew and Luke contradict each other


Matthew's genealogy of Jesus is recorded in Matthew 1:1-16, and Luke's is recorded in Luke 3:23-38. It has long been known that these two records do not agree with each other. Specifically, they diverge after Solomon, converge at Shealtiel (the father of Zerubbabel), diverge after Zerubbabel and do not converge again until Joseph, the father of Jesus.

Note that this also means that the genealogy of Zerubbabel is contradictory. Matthew makes him a descendant of Solomon, David's son. Luke makes him a descendant of Nathan, also a son of David. Since Solomon and Nathan were full blood brothers (I Chronicles 3:5) they cannot both be paternal ancestors of Zerubbabel.
In fact, both genealogies are pointless, since both Matthew and Luke then go on to claim that Mary was impregnated by the Holy Spirit, not by Joseph. Since Mary was probably of the tribe of Levi (see Luke 1:5 in conjunction with Luke 1:36), it is therefore impossible for Jesus to have been the 'Son of David' as was required for the Messiah (Matthew 22:42).

There is another problem with Matthew's list. Matthew includes Jeconiah (Matthew 1:11), even though the Old Testament records that God cursed Jeconiah, and prophesied that he would never have a descendant upon the throne of Judah. (Jeremiah 22:28-30)

Bible scholars have, over the centuries, proposed several solutions to this difficulty. Among these are -

· Luke records the lineage of Mary, and Matthew that of Joseph.

The problem with this solution is that both genealogies explicitly end with Joseph. Further, Jewish genealogies were almost always traced via the paternal line. There is nothing in either text to warrant such a conclusion. This solution also fails to explain the inconsistent lineages of Zerubbabel.

Another problem with this approach is that the genealogy listed in Luke is derived from David, whereas Mary belonged to the tribe of Levi, not Judah.

· Matthew's genealogy is not complete - he skips generations.

In fact, this is true. Joram was actually the great-great-grandfather of Ozias (Matthew 1:8. Ozias was spelled Uzziah in the Old Testament), and Josiah was actually the grandfather of Jechoniah (Matthew 1:11). However, this solution creates more problems than it solves. Firstly, it again still does not explain the divergent genealogies of Zerubbabel, and secondly it means that Matthew's assertion that there are fourteen generations from the captivity to Jesus is wrong. (Matthew 1:17). In fact, in Matthew's list, there are only thirteen generations from the captivity to Jesus, not fourteen as he claimed.

· One or both genealogies include maternal deviations.

This is possible, but unlikely. The Jews almost always traced genealogies via the paternal line. Again, there is no hard evidence from either text to indicate that this is true. Matthew mentions four females (Tamar, Rahab, Ruth and Beth-Sheba), but only together with their husbands in the paternal line.
· Levirate marriage.

This term refers to the practice whereby a man was required by the Law to marry his brother's widow, provided that she had no children. Any offspring from the marriage would then be placed in the lineage of the deceased for the purposes of inheritance. Some have speculated that this might explain the divergences in the genealogies. There are two problems with this explanation.

Firstly, there is no indication that a Levirate marriage took place at the divergent points. Solomon, for example, did not die childless, and there is no indication in the Old Testament that he married Nathan's widow. Secondly, the one indisputable case of Levirate marriage in these two passages (that of Boaz to Ruth) is recorded in the same manner in both genealogies. It does not produce a divergence.

· Adoption.

Logically, the only way for a person to have two fathers is if he had been adopted into another family. Some apologists have invoked this scenario as a solution to the problem of the discrepant geneaologies. There is, however, no indication that Joseph or Shealtiel were adopted. This fact is not mentioned by Matthew or Luke, nor can it be sustained from the Old Testament. It is basically an argument from silence.

Where did Joseph take Jesus from Bethlehem?

While recording the birth of Jesus, Matthew states that Joseph and his family left Bethlehem and headed for Egypt in order to escape Herod.

Matthew 2:13,14,15 And when they were departed, behold, the angel of the Lord appeareth to Joseph in a dream, saying, Arise, and take the young child and his mother, and flee into Egypt, and be thou there until I bring thee word: for Herod will seek the young child to destroy him. When he arose, he took the young child and his mother by night, and departed into Egypt: And was there until the death of Herod...

From Egypt, Joseph and his family travelled to Nazareth.

Matthew 2:21,23 And he arose, and took the young child and his mother, and came into the land of Israel...And he came and dwelt in a city called Nazareth...

The only other gospel that records Jesus' birth, that of Luke, not only fails to mention the flight to Egypt, but specifically states that Joseph travelled to Jerusalem (to the Temple) from Bethlehem, and then to Nazareth.

Luke 2:22 And when the days of her purification according to the law of Moses were accomplished, they brought him to Jerusalem, to present him to the Lord...

Luke 2:39 And when they had performed all things according to the law of the Lord, they returned into Galilee, to their own city Nazareth.

The reference to the Law refers to the ceremonial cleansing required of Jewish women after giving birth. This would have required a period of about forty days. There is simply no time in Luke's narrative for a journey to and from Egypt, and an extended stay in that country.


Where did Jesus go after his baptism?

The three synoptic gospels are unanimous in recording that Jesus went into the wilderness for forty days, immediately following his baptism.

Mark 1:12,13 And immediately the spirit driveth him into the wilderness. And he was there in the wilderness forty days, tempted of Satan; and was with the wild beasts; and the angels ministered unto him.

John's gospel, on the other hand, has Jesus in Galilee following his baptism, and in Cana two days later.

John 1:32,35,36 And John bare record, saying, I saw the Spirit descending from heaven like a dove, and it abode upon him...Again the next day after John stood, and two of his disciples; And looking upon Jesus as he walked, he saith, Behold the Lamb of God!

In fact, John never mentions the temptation in the wilderness at all. In fairness, it should be noted that the wording in John is vague enough to allow for the possibility that John the Baptist was referring to an earlier time, although this does seem to be stretching the text a little.


Did Jesus speak to the Centurion?

Matthew 8 records the miracle of Jesus healing a Roman Centurion's servant. The Centurion visits Jesus personally to ask for a healing.

Matthew 8:5,6 And when Jesus was entered into Capernaum, there came unto him a centurion, beseeching him, And saying, Lord, my servant lieth at home sick of the palsy, grievously tormented.

Matthew 8:13 And Jesus said unto the centurion, Go thy way; and as thou hast believed, so be it done unto thee. And his servant was healed in the selfsame hour.

In the parallel passage in Luke 7, the Centurion sends a group of Jewish elders to represent him.


Luke 7:2,3 And a certain centurion's servant, who was dear unto him, was sick, and ready to die. And when he heard of Jesus, he sent unto him the elders of the Jews, beseeching him that he would come and heal his servant.

Luke 7:10 And they that were sent, returning to the house, found the servant whole that had been sick.

In Luke's account, Jesus never met the Centurion at all.


Where did Jesus heal the maniac?

In Matthew 8, Jesus meets two men possessed by devils in the country of the Gadarenes. He drives out the demons, which then enter into a herd of swine.

Matthew 8:28 (NIV) When he arrived at the other side in the region of the Gadarenes, two demon-possessed men coming from the tombs met him.

They were so violent that no one could pass that way.

Matthew 8:32 He said to them, "Go!" So they came out and went into the pigs, and the whole herd rushed down the steep bank into the lake and died in the water.

Mark and Luke both tell the same story, except that they mention only one man, in the country of the Gerasenes.

Mark 5:1,2 (NIV) They went across the lake to the region of the Gerasenes. When Jesus got out of the boat, a man with an evil spirit came from the tombs to meet him.

Mark 5:13 He gave them permission, and the evil spirits came out and went into the pigs. The herd, about two thousand in number, rushed down the steep bank into the lake and were drowned.

Although Gadara and Gerasa are both close to Galilee, they are not the same place. Gadara is 10 Km (6 miles) southeast of the Sea of Galilee, Gerasa is 30 Km (19 miles) east of the Jordan, midway between the Dead Sea and the Sea of Galilee. (New Concise Bible Dictionary, pgs 181 and 188).

It seems that various scribes have attempted to harmonize these two passages over the centuries. Some manuscripts read 'Gergesenes' in Matthew 8:28, and 'Gadarenes' in Mark 5:1.


Starjade
banned

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Feb 01, 2012
Location: Blackpool Lancashire Britain

Total Topics: 3
Total Comments: 197
Posted 08/27/15 - 10:09 PM:

Matthew confused two Old Testament characters

Matthew 23:35 That upon you may come all the righteous blood shed upon the earth, from the blood of righteous Abel unto the blood of Zacharias son of Barachias, whom ye slew between the temple and the altar.

The incident that Jesus is alluding to is recorded in II Chronicles.

II Chronicles 24:20-21 And the Spirit of God came upon Zechariah the son of Jehoiada the priest, which stood above the people, and said unto them, Thus saith God, Why transgress ye the commandments of the Lord, that ye cannot prosper? because ye have forsaken the Lord, he hath also forsaken you. And they conspired against him, and stoned him with stones at the commandment of the king in the court of the house of the Lord.

However, the Old Testament records that this Zechariah was the son of Jehoidah, not Berechiah. Berechiah was actually the father of the prophet Zechariah, who lived several decades after the death of his namesake.

Zechariah 1:1 In the eighth month, in the second year of Darius, came the word of the Lord unto Zechariah, the son of Berechiah...

When Luke quotes this event, Jesus does not give the name of the father of Zechariah.

Luke 11:51 From the blood of Abel unto the blood of Zacharias which perished between the altar and the temple: verily I say unto you, It shall be required of this generation.


Matthew refers to an unknown prophecy

Matthew 2:23 And he came and dwelt in a city called Nazareth: that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the prophets, He shall be called a Nazarene.

This prophecy is not recorded anywhere in the Old Testament.
Some have speculated that Matthew may have been referring to a passage in Isaiah.

Isaiah 11:1 And there shall come forth a rod out of the stem of Jesse, and a Branch shall grow out of his roots...

The Hebrew word translated 'branch' is the word 'netzer', and may have been the root of the name 'Nazareth'. If this is true, it raises an interesting possibility. The location and even existence of the town called Nazareth has long been problematic. (The place that is called 'Nazareth' today has not been verified by archaeology, and in fact does not fit the description of the town given in the Gospels).

The name is never referred to in the Old Testament, nor by any of the contemporary historians. Even the early church fathers, such as Origen and Eusebius, who were familiar with the area, could not point out the location of Nazareth.

This has led some to speculate that there never was a place called Nazareth. The theory is that Jesus was called 'Jesus the Branch' by the early Christians, as a reference to Isaiah 11:1. In the years between Christ's death and the writing of the Gospels, the origin of the phrase was confused, and some thought that 'netzer' referred to a location, thus 'Jesus of Nazareth'. If correct, this theory would explain the lack of any historical witness to the town called Nazareth, and Matthew's puzzling reference to a nonexistent prophecy.


Matthew misunderstood an Old Testament prophecy
In Matthew 21, Jesus tells his disciples to fetch an ass and a colt, to fulfill and Old Testament prophecy.

Matthew 21:2,4,5,7 Saying unto them, Go into the village over against you, and straightway ye shall find an ass tied, and a colt with her: loose them, and bring them unto me. All this was done, that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the prophet, saying, Tell ye the daughter of Sion, Behold, thy King cometh unto thee, meek, and sitting upon an ass, and a colt the foal of an ass. And brought the ass, and the colt, and put on them their clothes, and they set him thereon.

In actual fact, the prophecy that Matthew quoted only refers to one animal.

Zechariah 9:9 Rejoice greatly, O daughter of Zion; shout, O daughter of Jerusalem: behold, thy King cometh unto thee: he is just, and having salvation; lowly, and riding upon an ass, and upon a colt the foal of an ass.

The word 'and' in this sense means 'even', and should be translated as an interpretation of the first object.

Zechariah 9:9 (NIV) Rejoice greatly, O Daughter of Zion! Shout, Daughter of Jerusalem! See, your king comes to you, righteous and having salvation, gentle and riding on a donkey, on a colt, the foal of a donkey.

Zechariah 9:9 (RSV) Rejoice greatly, O daughter of Zion! Shout aloud, O daughter of Jerusalem! Lo, your king comes to you; triumphant and victorious is he, humble and riding on an ass, on a colt the foal of an ass.

Matthew misunderstood the meaning of the passage, and has Christ riding on two animals. The other gospel writers only mention one animal.

Mark 11:2,7 And saith unto them, Go your way into the village over against you: and as soon as ye be entered into it, ye shall find a colt tied, whereon never man sat; loose him, and bring him. And they brought the colt to Jesus, and cast their garments on him; and he sat upon him.

Luke 19:30, 35 Saying, Go ye into the village over against you; in the which at your entering ye shall find a colt tied, whereon yet never man sat: loose him, and bring him hither. And they brought him to Jesus: and they cast their garments upon the colt, and they set Jesus thereon.

John 12:14,15 And Jesus, when he had found a young ass, sat thereon; as it is written, Fear not, daughter of Sion: behold, thy King cometh, sitting on an ass's colt.

Matthew misapplies an Old Testament passage

Matthew 1:23 Behold, a virgin shall be with child, and shall bring forth a son, and they shall call his name Emmanuel, which being interpreted is, God with us.

Firstly, the Old Testament passage that Matthew referred to (Isaiah 7:14) does not contain the word 'virgin' in Hebrew. It uses the Hebrew word almah, which simply denotes a young female, and does not necessarily connote sexual purity. The Hebrew word for 'virgin' was bethulah, which is used by Isaiah in 62:5. Matthew followed the lead of the Greek Septuagint in mistranslating almah.

Although Fundamentalist scholars assert that almah is never used in a sense which does not connote sexual purity, a quick survey of the Old Testament reveals a different story. Whenever we find the word, it is always used to denote a young female. Often, the question of whether the woman was a virgin or not is not relevant to the issue. In at least one instance, however, a good case could be made for the position that almah does not imply sexual purity. This is in Proverbs 30:19, which reads as follows:

Proverbs 30:19 The way of an eagle in the air; the way of a serpent upon a rock; the way of a ship in the midst of the sea; and the way of a man with a maid.

The word translated 'maid' in the King James Version is the Hebrew almah. Many scholars understand the phrase '...the way of a man with a maid' as a euphemism for the sex act, especially in the light of the context of Proverbs 30 (see especially verse 20, which speaks of adultery).

Even if Proverbs 30:19 does not speak of the sex act, there is still another issue to consider. This is the fact that whenever the Old Testament speaks unambiguously of a sexually pure woman, it consistently uses the word bethulah, not almah. Consider the following two examples:

Genesis 24:16 And the damsel was very fair to look upon, a virgin, neither had any man known her...

Judges 21:12 And they found among the inhabitants of Jabeshgilead four hundred young virgins, that had known no man by lying with any male...

In both cases, the word translated 'virgin' is bethulah. Thus, had Isaiah intended to claim that the woman who would give birth to the child was a virgin, he should have used bethulah. The word that he did use, almah, is ambiguous in this context.

The second point about this alleged prophecy is that it has immediate application in its own context. Isaiah used the sign of a young, pregnant woman, whom both he and King Ahaz knew. He prophesied that before the child reached the age of accountability (7:16) both Syria and Israel would be conquered. Isaiah thus limited the time span of his prophecy to no more than eight years. There is no indication in the text that this prophecy would have a future fulfillment.

Finally, Jesus was never called 'Emmanuel' by his parents, nor anyone else.


When was the First Temple built?

I Kings explicitly states that Solomon began building the Temple 480 years after the Israelites left Egypt.

I Kings 6:1 And it came to pass in the four hundred and eightieth year after the children of Israel were come out of the land of Egypt, in the fourth year of Solomon's reign over Israel, in the month Zif, which is the second month, that he began to build the house of the Lord.

In Acts 13, Paul delivers a sermon during which he gives a chronology of Israelite history after the Exodus.

Acts 13:18-22 And about the time of forty years suffered he their manners in the wilderness...And after that he gave unto them judges about the space of four hundred and fifty years, until Samuel the prophet....And afterward they desired a king: and God gave unto them Saul the son of Cis, a man of the tribe of Benjamin, by the space of forty years...And when he had removed him, he raised up unto them David to be their king...

Paul thus puts the start of the reign of David at 530 years after the Exodus. David reigned forty years (II Samuel 5:4), and work began on the Temple in the fourth year of Solomon (I Kings 6:1). This puts the start of the temple at 573 years after the exodus, according to Paul. This is almost a century later than the date given in the Old Testament.


When did Terah die?
In Acts 7, Stephen claimed that Abraham left Haran after his father, Terah, died.

Acts 7:4 (NIV) So he left the land of the Chaldeans and settled in Haran. After the death of his father, God sent him to this land where you are now living.

According to Genesis, Terah was about seventy years old by the time he had Abraham.

Genesis 11:26 And Terah lived seventy years, and begat Abram, Nahor, and Haran.

Abraham was seventy-five when he left Terah, at God's command.
Genesis 12:4 So Abram departed, as the Lord had spoken unto him; and Lot went with him: and Abram was seventy and five years old when he departed out of Haran.

This means that Terah was, at most, 145 years old when Abraham left Haran. However, Genesis states that Terah lived much longer than that.

Genesis 11:32 And the days of Terah were two hundred and five years: and Terah died in Haran.

Thus, according to Genesis, Terah lived at least sixty years after Abraham left Haran. Stephen (or the author of Acts) may have been misled by the fact that Genesis records the death of Terah before the story of Abraham's departure, and simply assumed that Terah was dead by this time, without stopping to check the math.

Where was Jacob buried?

According to a sermon given by Stephen in the book of Acts, Jacob and Joseph were buried in Shechem.

Acts 7:15,16 (NIV) Then Jacob went down to Egypt, where he and our fathers died. Their bodies were brought back to Shechem and placed in the tomb that Abraham had bought from the sons of Hamor at Shechem for a certain sum of money.

However, it was in fact only Joseph and his sons who were buried in Shechem. Jacob was buried in Machpelah, near Mamre, with his fathers.

Genesis 50:13 For his sons carried him into the land of Canaan, and buried him in the cave of the field of Machpelah, which Abraham bought with the field for a possession of a buryingplace of Ephron the Hittite, before Mamre.

Furthermore, it was Jacob who bought the field from the sons of Hamor, not Abraham.

Joshua 24:32 And the bones of Joseph, which the children of Israel brought up out of Egypt, buried they in Shechem, in a parcel of ground which Jacob bought of the sons of Hamor the father of Shechem for an hundred pieces of silver: and it became the inheritance of the children of Joseph.

It appears that Stephen (or, more likely, the author of Acts) has confused these two incidents, and has Abraham buying the wrong field. The transaction wherein Jacob bought the field of Shechem is recorded in Genesis 33:19.

Genesis 33:19 And he bought a parcel of a field, where he had spread his tent, at the hand of the children of Hamor, Shechem's father, for an hundred pieces of money.

Abraham was already dead by this time (Genesis 25:8), and thus could not possibly have purchased the field, as Stephen claimed.

Does God cause confusion?
Writing to the Corinthians, Paul claimed that God does not cause confusion.

.I Corinthians 14:33 For God is not the author of confusion, but of peace..

This quote takes place in the context of speaking in tongues, i.e. speaking in a foreign, or unknown language. However, the Old Testament, while relating the myth of the Tower of Babel, states that God did indeed cause confusion.

Genesis 11:9 (NIV) That is why it was called Babel --because there the LORD confused the language of the whole world...
This passage contains a play on words. 'Babel' in the ancient Babylonian language means 'the gate of God', while in Semitic it means 'confusion'.

Can God be seen?

John 1:18 is quite emphatic that God has never been seen.
John 1:18 No man hath seen God at any time...

Later in John's Gospel, Jesus is even more explicit.

John 5:37 And the Father himself, which hath sent me, hath borne witness of me. Ye have neither heard his voice at any time, nor seen his shape.

The Old Testament prescribed dire consequences for anyone who saw God's face.

Exodus 33:20 And he said, Thou canst not see my face: for there shall no man see me, and live.

However, earlier in the same chapter, Exodus contradicts itself (and John) by claiming that Moses did indeed see God's face.

Exodus 33:11 And the Lord spake unto Moses face to face, as a man speaketh unto his friend.

It seems that Moses was not the only person to be granted this privelege.

Isaiah 6:1 In the year that king Uzziah died I saw also the Lord sitting upon a throne...

Job 42:5 I have heard of thee by the hearing of the ear: but now mine eye seeth thee.

How many sons did Abraham have?
According to the Old Testament, Abraham already had one son, Ishmael, when he had Isaac.

Genesis 16:15 And Hagar bare Abram a son: and Abram called his son's name, which Hagar bare, Ishmael.

Genesis 21:3 And Abraham called the name of his son that was born unto him, whom Sarah bare to him, Isaac.

However, the book of Hebrews refers to Isaac as Abraham's 'only-begotten' son.

Hebrews 11:17 By faith Abraham, when he was tried, offered up Isaac: and he that had received the promises offered up his only begotten son...

The Greek word here translated 'only-begotten' (monogene) is the same word that John used of Christ (John 1:18, John 3:16). Therefore, any re-interpretation of the word to allow for more than one son in Hebrews 11:17 can also be applied to Christ.

A close examination of the Old Testament sources will reveal that the author of Hebrews cannot really be faulted for claiming that Abraham had only one son. The book of Genesis itself repeatedly refers to Isaac as Abraham's 'only son' (Genesis 22:2, 12, 16), despite having recorded the birth of Ishmael only a few chapters earlier.

These sort of side-by-side contradictions occur with some frequency in the earlier historical part of the Old Testament (i.e. Genesis through Judges).

It was this phenomenon that led to the Documentary Hypothesis, which states that the early part of the Old Testament was pieced together from a collection of separate narratives by a number of unknown editors. Often, these stories contradicted one another, but the editors nonetheless included them with a minumum of rewriting, a practice which has resulted in a large number of confusing and contradictory statements in the Old Testament.

Was {cough} Jesus the first to ascend into Heaven?

Speaking to Nicodemus in John 3, Jesus claimed that no man had ascended into Heaven before him.

John 3:13 And no man hath ascended up to heaven, but he that came down from heaven, even the Son of man which is in heaven.
However, the Old Testament records that Elijah was taken to Heaven in a fiery chariot.

II Kings 2:11 And it came to pass, as they still went on, and talked, that, behold, there appeared a chariot of fire, and horses of fire, and parted them both asunder; and Elijah went up by a whirlwind into heaven.

The Old Testament (and the New) also seem to imply that Enoch was taken directly to Heaven although this is not explicitly stated. (Genesis 5:24, Hebrews 11:5)

Was Jesus the first to rise from the dead?

During a sermon delivered before king Agrippa, Paul claimed that Jesus was the first to rise from the dead.

Acts 26:23 That Christ should suffer, and that he should be the first that should rise from the dead...

In his first letter to the Corinthians, Paul repeated this claim.
I Corinthians 15:20 But now is Christ risen from the dead, and become the firstfruits of them that slept.

It appears, however, that Paul was not very well versed in his Old Testament history at this point. The Old Testament records several incidents of people being raised from the dead.

In I Kings 17, the prophet Elijah restored a dead boy to life in Zarephath.

I Kings 17:20-22 ...hast thou also brought evil upon the widow with whom I sojourn, by slaying her son? And he stretched himself upon the child three times, and cried unto the Lord, and said, O Lord my God, I pray thee, let this child's soul come into him again. And the Lord heard the voice of Elijah; and the soul of the child came into him again, and he revived.

The second book of Kings records an incident of an unintentional resurrection.

II Kings 13:21 And it came to pass, as they were burying a man, that, behold, they spied a band of men; and they cast the man into the sepulchre of Elisha: and when the man was let down, and touched the bones of Elisha, he revived, and stood up on his feet.

The New Testament, too, records a number of resurrections that preceded that of Jesus. Mark 5, for example, records that Jesus himself raised to life a young girl. And, of course, John writes that Jesus restored Lazarus to life after he had been dead for four days.

John 11:43,44 And when he thus had spoken, he cried with a loud voice, Lazarus, come forth. And he that was dead came forth...

What was Balaam's error?

The Canaanite prophet Balaam seems to have come in for some heavy criticism in the New Testament.

II Peter 2:15 Which have forsaken the right way, and are gone astray, following the way of Balaam the son of Bosor, who loved the wages of unrighteousness;

Jude 1:11 Woe unto them! for they have gone in the way of Cain, and ran greedily after the error of Balaam for reward, and perished in the gainsaying of Core.

Revelation 2:14 But I have a few things against thee, because thou hast there them that hold the doctrine of Balaam, who taught Balac to cast a stumblingblock before the children of Israel...

It is a little difficult to see what all the fuss was about, however, because the Old Testament reveals a completely different story.

The story of Balaam is recorded in Numbers 22 through 24. The Moabite King Balak, concerned about the impending Hebrew invasion, asks Balaam to curse the Israelites. Despite numerous pleas, and promises of great reward, Balaam refuses, and instead obeys God, and blesses the Israelites.

Numbers 24:10-11 And Balak's anger was kindled against Balaam, and he smote his hands together: and Balak said unto Balaam, I called thee to curse mine enemies, and, behold, thou hast altogether blessed them these three times.

Therefore now flee thou to thy place: I thought to promote thee unto great honour; but, lo, the Lord hath kept thee back from honour.

Note that all three of the New Testament passages cited claim that Balaam accepted a large reward to curse the Israelites. The Old Testament tells a completely different story, however.

Numbers 22:16-18 And they came to Balaam, and said to him, Thus saith Balak the son of Zippor, Let nothing, I pray thee, hinder thee from coming unto me: For I will promote thee unto very great honour, and I will do whatsoever thou sayest unto me: come therefore, I pray thee, curse me this people. And Balaam answered and said unto the servants of Balak, If Balak would give me his house full of silver and gold, I cannot go beyond the word of the Lord my God, to do less or more.

The Old Testament indicates that Balaam refused the reward, and instead said that he would say only that which God commanded him to speak. Does this sound like the same person who was so roundly abused in the New Testament?

Hebrews incorrectly quotes the Psalms

In Hebrews 10, the author appeals to one of the Psalms while arguing that Jesus was sacrificed for the sins of mankind.

Hebrews 10:5-7 Wherefore when he cometh into the world, he saith, Sacrifice and offering thou wouldest not, but a body hast thou prepared me: In burnt offerings and sacrifices for sin thou hast had no pleasure. Then said I, Lo, I come (in the volume of the book it is written of me,) to do thy will, O God.

The problem is that the verse does not appear in the Psalms as quoted.

Psalms 40:6 Sacrifice and offering thou didst not desire; mine ears hast thou opened: burnt offering and sin offering hast thou not required. Then said I, Lo, I come: in the volume of the book it is written of me, I delight to do thy will, O my God...

Note that the crucial phrase '...a body hast thou prepared me...' does not appear in the Hebrew version of Pslam 40:6. The author of Hebrews depended on this phrase for his argument.

Hebrews 10:10 By the which will we are sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all.

The phrase quoted in Hebrews 10:5 actually comes from the Septuagint, the Greek version of the Old Testament. This raises the troubling question of textual reliability. We now have no idea which text (Hebrew or Greek) is supposed to be reliable. If the Hebrew reading is correct, then the argument produced here in Hebrews 10 is invalidated; if the Septuagint version is correct, it casts a shadow on the reliability of the entire Hebrew Old Testament.

Mark incorrectly attributed a prophecy

Early in Mark's gospel, he quotes an Old Testament verse when introducing John the Baptist:

Mark 1:2 (NIV) It is written in Isaiah the prophet: "I will send my messenger ahead of you, who will prepare your way"...

Actually, the phrase comes from Malachi, not Isaiah.

Malachi 3:1 Behold, I will send my messenger, and he shall prepare the way before me...

It seems that the ancient scribes who copied the New Testament manuscripts were aware of this problem, because a number of later Greek manuscripts remove the reference to Isaiah, and simply substitute "the prophets" (as in the KJV).

Abiathar and Ahimelech

While responding to a charge of profaning the Sabbath, Jesus referred to an incident from David's life, recorded in the Old Testament:

Mark 2:25-26 And he said unto them, Have ye never read what David did, when he had need, and was an hungred, he, and they that were with him? How he went into the house of God in the days of Abiathar the high priest, and did eat the shewbread, which is not lawful to eat but for the priests, and gave also to them which were with him?

This incident is recorded in I Samuel 21. However, the story indicates that Ahimelech was the high priest, not Abiathar.

I Samuel 21:1,6 Then came David to Nob to Ahimelech the priest...So the priest gave him hallowed bread: for there was no bread there but the shewbread, that was taken from before the Lord, to put hot bread in the day when it was taken away.

Abiathar was in fact Ahimelech's son, who is referred to as a priest some time after this event.

I Samuel 22:20 And one of the sons of Ahimelech the son of Ahitub, named Abiathar, escaped, and fled after David.

There is no external support for Herod's murder of the children
In Matthew 2:16, Matthew records that Herod ordered the execution of all children under two years of age in Bethlehem. This event is not recorded in secular history. The Jewish historian Josephus, in his book Antiquities of the Jews, has a long history of Herod and his crimes. The massacre at Bethlehem is not among them.
Click here for a longer analysis of the birth narratives.

When was Jesus born?

Matthew places Jesus' birth in Bethlehem, when Herod was still king.

Matthew 2:1 Now when Jesus was born in Bethlehem of Judaea in the days of Herod the king...

Matthew goes on to record how Joseph fled with Mary and Jesus to Egypt, where they remained until the death of Herod. He also states that Archelaus, Herod's son, was the ruler of Judaea when they returned from Egypt.

Matthew 2:19 But when Herod was dead, behold, an angel of the Lord appeareth in a dream to Joseph in Egypt... Matthew 2:22 But when he heard that Archelaus did reign in Judaea in the room of his father Herod, he was afraid to go thither: notwithstanding, being warned of God in a dream, he turned aside into the parts of Galilee...

By comparing this narrative with the history of Judaea, as recorded by Josephus, it is possible to come up with an estimate for the year of Jesus birth. Josephus records that Herod died a short while after an eclipse, which can be dated to about 4 BC (Antiquities, Book 17, Chapter 6:4). Thus, according to Matthew, Jesus was born sometime around the year 3 or 4 BC, when Herod died and Archelaus became ruler of Judaea in his place.

Antiquities 17 8:1. And now Herod altered his testament upon the alteration of his mind; for he appointed Antipas, to whom he had before left the kingdom, to be tetrarch of Galilee and Perea, and granted the kingdom to Archelaus...When he had done those things, he died...

Luke, however, places Jesus' birth in a different time period. According to Luke 2, Jesus was born during the first census under Cyrenius, governor of Syria.

Luke 2:1,2 And it came to pass in those days, that there went out a decree from Caesar Augustus that all the world should be taxed. (And this taxing was first made when Cyrenius was governor of Syria.)

This census was also recorded by Josephus, but it took place quite some time after Herod's death. Josephus records that Archelaus reigned ten years before being banished to Vienna. Cyrenius was appointed governor of Syria at this time, to wrap up the affairs of Archelaus.

Antiquities 17 13:2. But in the tenth year of Archelaus's government, both his brethren, and the principal men of Judaea and Samaria, not being able to bear his barbarous and tyrannical usage of them, accused him before Caesar...Whereupon Caesar, when he heard it, was very angry, and...both banished him, and appointed Vienna, a city of Gaul, to be the place of his habitation, and took his money away from him.

Antiquities 17 13:5 ...So Archelaus's country was laid to the province of Syria; and Cyrenius, one that had been consul, was sent by Caesar to take account of people's effects in Syria, and to sell the house of Archelaus.

Josephus goes on to record that Cyrenius took a census of Judaea at this time.

Antiquities 18 1:1. Now Cyrenius, a Roman senator...came at this time into Syria, with a few others, being sent by Caesar to...take an account of their substance...Cyrenius came himself into Judaea, which was now added to the province of Syria, to take an account of their substance, and to dispose of Archelaus's money; but the Jews, although at the beginning they took the report of a taxation heinously, yet did they leave off any further opposition to it...

Since Archelaus reigned for ten years after the death of Herod, this would put the time of the census at about 6 or 7 AD. Matthew, then, states that Jesus was born when Herod was still alive, no later than 3 or 4 BC. Luke states that Jesus was born when Cyrenius was governor of Syria, which did not take place until at least ten years after Herod's death.

It has been proposed that Luke was referring to an earlier census, and the Luke 2:2 should be translated '...this taxing was first made before Cyrenius became governor of Syria...'.

There are several problems with this approach. Firstly, it stretches the plain meaning of Luke 2:2 a little. Secondly, as it stands, Luke 2:2 is in harmony with Josephus, who records no census before this point, and seems to imply that this was, in fact, the first taxation of Judaea by the Romans.

Finally, Matthew mentions no census in his birth narrative. Instead, he begins his story in Bethlehem, where Jesus was already claimed to have been born.

In fact, the census conducted by the Roman, Cyrenius, would necessarily have had to be the first. Up to this point, Syria was under the jurisdiction of Herod and his family. It was only after the banishment of Archelaus that Syria became a Roman province. The Roman historian Dio, who wrote about AD 200, independently confirms 6 AD as the year of Archelaus' exile, and the year in which Syria came under direct Roman rule.


Did Jesus return in the first century?

A number of New Testament passages indicate that Christ was supposed to return before his generation had died. This would have been sometime in the first century AD.

First, there is the testimony of Jesus himself, who explicitly stated that some of his disciples would not die until Jesus instituted the Kingdom, and that his generation would not pass away until all his prophecies of the end of the world had been fulfilled.

Matthew 16:28 Verily I say unto you, There be some standing here, which shall not taste of death, till they see the Son of man coming in his kingdom.Matthew 23:36 Verily I say unto you, All these things shall come upon this generation. Matthew 24:34 Verily I say unto you, This generation shall not pass, till all these things be fulfilled.

It is important to note that Jesus' long discourse on the end of the world, recorded in

Matthew 24 and 25, was spoken in private to his own disciples.
Matthew 24:3 And as he sat upon the mount of Olives, the disciples came unto him privately, saying, Tell us, when shall these things be? and what shall be the sign of thy coming, and of the end of the world?

In this discourse, Jesus makes a number of assertions about the fate of his disciples. One of the signs of the end would be the persecution of his disciples.

Matthew 24:9 Then shall they deliver you up to be afflicted, and shall kill you: and ye shall be hated of all nations for my name's sake.

While tradition records that the disciples were persecuted and martyred, this was not followed by the return of Christ, as he promised.

The Apostle Paul, too, seemed to think that Christ would return for his generation.

I Thessalonians 4:15-17 For this we say unto you by the word of the Lord, that we which are alive and remain unto the coming of the Lord shall not prevent them which are asleep. For the Lord himself shall descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of the archangel, and with the trump of God: and the dead in Christ shall rise first: Then we which are alive and remain shall be caught up together with them in the clouds, to meet the Lord in the air: and so shall we ever be with the Lord.

Note that Paul twice uses the phrase '...we which are alive and remain...'. This seems to preclude the theory that Paul was speaking of some far future generation. Paul made a similar assertion in First Corinthians.

I Corinthians 15:51,52 Behold, I shew you a mystery; We shall not all sleep, but we shall all be changed, In a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trump: for the trumpet shall sound, and the dead shall be raised incorruptible, and we shall be changed.

Note that Paul said that '...we shall not all sleep...'. In other words, he expected that at least some of his generation would not see death. Again, there is nothing in the text to indicate the Paul was speaking about some far future generation.
Paul reiterated his belief in a soon return of Christ in the Book of Romans.

Romans 13:11-12 And that, knowing the time, that now it is high time to awake out of sleep: for now is our salvation nearer than when we believed. The night is far spent, the day is at hand: let us therefore cast off the works of darkness, and let us put on the armour of light.

The other New Testament writers had similar thoughts about the iminence of the return of the new Testament character Jesus.

James 5:8 Be ye also patient; establish your hearts: for the coming of the Lord draweth nigh.

I John 2:18 Little children, it is the last time: and as ye have heard that antichrist shall come, even now are there many antichrists; whereby we know that it is the last time.

I Peter 4:7 But the end of all things is at hand: be ye therefore sober, and watch unto prayer.
Starjade
banned

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Feb 01, 2012
Location: Blackpool Lancashire Britain

Total Topics: 3
Total Comments: 197
Posted 08/27/15 - 10:11 PM:

There you go down memory lane zen Dont you feel a whole lot better knowing the New Testament was not the Gospel truth after all.

See how nice I am keeping you all so enlightened.
henry quirk
Senior Member
Avatar

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Apr 17, 2008
Location: here

Total Topics: 47
Total Comments: 1298
#10 - Quote - Permalink
Posted 08/28/15 - 9:39 AM:

Memory,

"Is he/she a man or a woman?"

Based on the hysteria of the posts, Jade is a woman or an effeminate man...half a dozen of one, six of the other.

##

Jade,

"I do note that you are targeting my good self as per usual and not actually commenting on the points made in the thread."

What you view as 'insult' is observation, nuthin' more.

As for "commenting on the points": I'm an atheist, you silly, forgetful girl...why the hell would I waste a moment of my time commenting on fairy (pun intended) tales?

The Bible and all other holy books: manure.

You: not a prophet.

#

"Liberty Girl created the End of Times website"

I don't hold that against her...anyone can have a off day.
Starjade
banned

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Feb 01, 2012
Location: Blackpool Lancashire Britain

Total Topics: 3
Total Comments: 197
#11 - Quote - Permalink
Posted 08/29/15 - 2:55 PM:

Why Henry Burp. You really are a tatty writer. “Dishevelled” with no class or distinction. You do show other visitors here how childish and petty you can be. Do you not feel embarrassed writing out such petty rants?

You and bumlight must surely be aware that you two are as insignificant to me as the stench of gnats piss on a summer’s day. Did you really think that the likes of you could get under my skin with such petty jibes? Did it make you feel you were a big man. Henry you truly are an asshole.

No wonder bumlight wants you to be a Christian. A religion created by Sodomites. nod
SUNLIGHT
Senior Member
Avatar

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Apr 28, 2012
Location: united kingdom

Total Topics: 64
Total Comments: 931
#12 - Quote - Permalink
Posted 08/30/15 - 2:08 AM:

QUOTE THE FALSE PROPHET "" Do you not feel embarrassed writing out such petty rants?...............and do you not feel shame for accusing 3 members of this forum of doing things of which you have NO PROOF but are merely the imaginations of your OWN dirty mind which is seems obsessed with gay sex ?
henry quirk
Senior Member
Avatar

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Apr 17, 2008
Location: here

Total Topics: 47
Total Comments: 1298
#13 - Quote - Permalink
Posted 08/30/15 - 1:28 PM:

Jade,

You're right: I'm an awful writer. Fortunate for me, my observation of you as nutjob stands apart from my presentation of that observation.

That is: fact (you're a nutjob) is independent of awful style (mine).

#

Sun,

Jade desperately wants some one, any one, to force himself through Jade's back door.

Really, all this religious hooey (claims of prophethood, etc.) is just the demand of a small, lonely, girl for hot, dirty, company.

Starjade
banned

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Feb 01, 2012
Location: Blackpool Lancashire Britain

Total Topics: 3
Total Comments: 197
#14 - Quote - Permalink
Posted 08/30/15 - 6:14 PM:

Why bumlight do you got brave enough to speak again. Is it cos your butt buddy Henry got brave and posted an ikkle biddy rant that made him feel like he was a big man. Unlike you I do show chapter and verses. I have no obsession with homosexuality. It is simply that the writers of the Christians new testament who were themselves sodomites wrote in this fabricated character Jesus as being homosexual. Or as you lot say in Birmingham they depicted Jesus as being a faggot. Now a faggot in Britain is (usually the word faggots) means A ball or roll of seasond chopped liver however often it is a slang word english people used to call homosexuals.

Faggot, often shortened to fag, is a pejorative term used chiefly in North America primarily to refer to a gayman. Alongside its use to refer to gay men in particular, it may also be used as a pejorative term for a "repellent male" or a homosexual person of either genda. Its use has spread from the United States to varying extents elsewhere in the English-speaking world through mass culture, including film, music, and the Internet.

Now I understand that you as a weirdo pee brained christian would get upset learning that your idol Jesus was in fact a faggot however I point out that you have admitted that you loved a man. That man being the New Testament character Jesus who was written in by sodomites as being a gay homosexual man who often had sex with young boys and was well into loving his fellow man. Jesus loved an ass. Iwould have thought you would love the idea that Jesus was a faggot as that in your views means he may come back and give your ass a good seing too. After all you admit you love this character and so then you clearly must be Gay yourself loving a man.

I was simply opening up a religious dialogue examining your idol more closely. It seems clear from the New Testament text that Jesus and his disciples were having sex with each other and also raped a man. That is not an obsession with homosexuality but simply pointing out this so called holy figure was not above raping someone of his own genda. An evil figure not holy as you would claim. Afterr all men should not be going about raping other men. If they do rape men or wormen then they are monsters and should not under any curcumstances be emulated worshipped or idolised.

One version of St. Mark's gospel - which is still the subject of academic dispute - alludes to Jesus having a homosexual relationship with a youth he raised from the dead.

According to the US Biblical scholar, Morton Smith, of Columbia University, a fragment of manuscript he found at the Mar Saba monastery near Jerusalem in 1958, showed that the full text of St. Mark chapter 10 (between verses 34 and 35 in the standard version of the Bible) includes the passage:

"And the youth, looking upon him (Jesus), loved him and beseeched that he might remain with him. And going out of the tomb, they went into the house of the youth, for he was rich. And after six days, Jesus instructed him and, at evening, the youth came to him wearing a linen cloth over his naked body. And he remained with him that night, for Jesus taught him the mystery of the Kingdom of God".

references. http://www.petertatchell.net/religion/jesus.htm

https://www.google.co.uk/#q=was+jesus+gay

http://www.petertatchell.net/religion/jesus.htm

Certain fringe writings allude to the idea that the New Testament character Jesus was a homosexual. To back up their claim they point to the fact that all of the twelve closest to him were males.

To further prove their point they mention the naked young man when Jesus was arrested.

Mark 14:51
And there followed him a certain young man, having a linen cloth cast about his naked body; and the young men laid hold on him:


52- And he left the linen cloth, and fled from them naked.

A naked young man can make people question, "Why was a young man naked?" Clearly he was written in to the tale as being out cruising and heard of Jesus out in the desert having sessions with some men. Thought I want some of that and went cruising as homosexuals call it. Those Romans did have such imaginations. They loved dirty stories.


Another biblical passage used to infer the idea that Jesus was homosexual is:

John
13:23 Now there was leaning on Jesus' bosom one of his disciples, whom Jesus loved.

The specific use of the word loved for a certain disciple (male) leaning on the bosom of Jesus during a meal.

Suspicions can be raised over this incident. Men having a meal and one of them leaning on a particular man and this man being leaned upon loved the man leaning on him. Queer sort of folk. Only gay men would behave like that. Real straight men sought the company of women.

Leviticus 18:22-
Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination.

Performing homosexual acts was a sin and as a sinner Judas would have had the opportunity to betray Jesus.

29 For whosoever shall commit any of these abominations, even the souls that commit them shall be cut off from among their people.

We are told quite plainly that homosexuality is a sin and any who perform these deeds are committing abominations.

And those that commit these abominations are to be put to death:

20:13
If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.

Those Romans did love to fantasies stories about these homosexual things.

Christianity created the mental problems you all have and caused you to suffer unto loneliness and in that desperation of empty desire made you look at your fellow mankind with unclean eyes and twisted thoughts. We know Christian priests prey upon the children for the sake of their false god Jesus. Have you also been having such dark thoughts? Such is the price for following false prophets and false gods. It invokes a great evil on this earth that everyone must be watchful for and protect their children from.


Mark 14:51
And there followed him a certain young man, having a linen cloth cast about his naked body; and the young men laid hold on him:


52- And he left the linen cloth, and fled from them naked.

? Does that mean they sodomised the young chap. And he later ran off. It does appear that was what happened. So Jesus also gang raped the young man with his 12 disciples. Tsk tsk tsk. That in not a very nice thing for anyone to be doing is it now. Or as Jesus was your idol bumlight was this something you think was ok with you. ?

Makes me wonder what you do in your Christian life. Such paedophile perverts usually take up jobs as social workers Christian priests or teachers just to get close to the innocent children. So what do you do for a living then?

Who was this boyfriend of Jesus then did they tell you in Sunday school. John
Ch 13: v 23 Now there was leaning on Jesus' bosom one of his disciples, whom Jesus loved.

Was this Mark. I have heard some rumours that Mark and Jesus were buttfucking each other. Was this the boyfriend of Jesus? Or was it John. I suppose it could have been just about anyone, as clearly they all loved thy fellow man often in the desert as well as anything that passed by. Of course I did hear it was John who was leaning on the breast of Jesus. Not normal behaviour for a heterosexual man but for a homosexual well it would be natural and Jesus did love John in a special way according to the Christian gospels.

queerchurch.wordpress.com/...k-and-the-naked-young-man/

But the most intriguing passage of all is found not in the standard Gospel of Mark, but in the so-called “Secret Mark”, supposedly found by Morton Smith in an eighteenth century copy of a previously unknown letter of Clement of Alexandria, found in 1958. The authenticity is disputed, but some scholars accept that it authentic, and is taken from an earlier, longer version of Mark’s Gospel than the one we use today. I’m not going to get into the details of the origin or significance of this fragment – see Jennings for that – but here is the bit that intrigues:
Gospel of Mark,

And they came into Bethany, and a certain woman, whose brother had died, was there. and, coming, she prostrated herself before Jesus and says to him, “Son of David, have mercy upon me.”. But the disciples rebuked her. And Jesus, being angered, went off with her into the garden where the tomb was, and straightaway a great cry was heard from the tomb.

The cry was probably Jesus cos we know what that means. Penetration. It would cause anyone to screech Jeeeesus. As I am sure you know.

And going near Jesus rolled away a stone from the door of the tomb. And straightaway, going in where the youth was, he stretched forth his hand nad raised him, seizing his hand.

Was Nad another name for a penis. We have all heard of gonads. Is this where the saying comes from the secret sex life of the gay Jesus.

But the youth, looking upon him, loved him and began to beseech him that he might be with him.

Clearly the lad was begging for it and as Jesus was a gang banger then the lad was going to be calling out his name all night Jeeeesus. We all know what that means.

And going out of the tomb they came into the house of the youth, and he was rich. And after six days Jesus told him what he wast to do and in the evening the youth comes to him, wearing a linen cloth over his naked body. And he remained with him that night, for Jesus taught him the mystery of the kingdom of God. And then, arising, he returned to the other side of Jordan.

So who was this other Geezer Jordon then.? Clearly Jesus spent 6 days having sex with this fellow. Pure evidence that Jesus was really a faggot all along.

Faggot by the way is an English expression that is often heard screamed by people in Birmingham at people who are homosexual just before they go over to give them what is known as a queer bashing. I have to use words that a specific Christian here who would be interested would understand. So do pardon the language. It is the way those English sorts speak.

Well the evidence was right there for the seeing. I noticed that right away when I first read the new Testament. Even though Jesus just an imaginary character he was depicted by the Roman sodomite writers as being gay.

Jesus and Santa Claus along with the tooth fairy never really existed. Romans writing out these deceptive christian tales were all sodomites and so their sexuality was bound to get mentioned. These Romans were such dreamers and any hole in the night will do.

This passage has two literary connection to the two earlier passages from canonical Mark: the verb used here for he youth “looking at “Jesus is the same (“emblepein“) as that that used to describe Jesus when he “looked at” (and “loved”) the rich young man; and here again, he is described as wearing just a linen cloth over his naked body. (This is not on being raised from the dead, when such a cloth would have been expected, abut when he came to Jesus six days later.

Now, be honest: if a young man came to you, “in the evening”, wearing “nothing but a linen cloth over his naked body”, what do you suppose he was after? And if he came not to you, but to another man, and then stayed the night, what do you suppose your conclusion would be in the morning?

Now we are all men of the world and we all know what was really going on. As with all cults the leader wants to butt fuck his followers and they beg their cult leader for it. However, let us not pretend that the new testament character Jesus was anything other than just a faggot out on the prowl cruising for a bit of ass to bounce off.

The New Testament character Jesus was depicted as having no qualms with appearing naked before his disciples, and revelled in his appearance.

John records that jesus ‘riseth from supper, and laid aside his garments; and took a towel, and girded himself’, and in another instance, jesus was asked by his disciples, ‘When will you be revealed to us and when shall we see you?’, to which jesus replied, ‘When you disrobe without being ashamed and take up your garments and place them under your feet like little children.’

I understand that it can be disturbing hearing such a character of the New Testament appearing of dreaming of little children being naked. Christian priests dream of such things all the time. You are right to be disturbed however one must remember that some Roman Writer was inventing these tales and so they were his dreams really and did not actually take place in reality. However the Christians believe that it did and would refuse to believe otherwise for they are obsessed with idol worshipping. A worrying thought is that monkey see monkey do. So remain watchful around Christians.

The so-called ‘transfiguration on the mountain’ also suggests that jesus was naked, and, in fact, with another man (from The Acts of John):

Then I, since he loved me, went quietly up to him, as if he could not see, and stood there looking at his hinder parts, and I saw him not dressed in clothes at all, but stripped of those that we usually saw upon him, … he, turning about, appeared as a small man, … and I saw another like him coming down …

The ‘transfiguration on the mountain’event ended with jesus performing some kind of dance for his disciples – in the nude?

Starjade doth sayeth. Christian gospels are not showing jesus as being a heterosexual but as clearly a homosexual who was always up for a bit of bump and grind with any male walking. Males do not get naked with each other and dance around to show their hind parts without those males being homosexuals.

Now I have nothing and I mean nothing against homosexuals. Live and let live. A person’s sexuality is his or her own business.

However, there are children reading these New Testament books and so it is not right to mislead them. Such behaviour is ok for homosexuals but normal society does not do those sorts of things. It is not the normal practice for Breeding a continuity of the human race. It is simply the desires of homosexual men allowing their sexuality to run away into dark worlds of fantasy.

The New Testament when examined closely is a book of lies and deceptions and outright pornography. So don’t go shooting the messenger for revealing these facts to you bumlight. Do not forget these are writings taken from the Christians new testament.

Also do not forget.
Jesus never was real just because you became convinced it was so. Still Jesus clearly was depicted in the Christians New Testament as being a sado masochistic homosexual faggot out butt fucking and raping his fellow man at any opportunity. Christians still emulate that character to this day. Ask a catholic priest if you doubt me.
Starjade
banned

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Feb 01, 2012
Location: Blackpool Lancashire Britain

Total Topics: 3
Total Comments: 197
#15 - Quote - Permalink
Posted 08/30/15 - 6:16 PM:

Oh by the way bumlight I did quote Chapter and verse so this delusion you have that there is no proof is just you lying to yourself.

Jesus was a faggot accept it embrace it. Dont forget that you claim to love this man Jesus so that makes you gay also.
Starjade
banned

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Feb 01, 2012
Location: Blackpool Lancashire Britain

Total Topics: 3
Total Comments: 197
#16 - Quote - Permalink
Posted 08/30/15 - 6:18 PM:

See how infectious homosexuality is. Even Henry Burp is talking like a faggot. The only correct thing he has ever said was he is a crappy writer. I did like the Joke about speaking of facts as if he knew what was of those things were now that was funny. laughing
Starjade
banned

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Feb 01, 2012
Location: Blackpool Lancashire Britain

Total Topics: 3
Total Comments: 197
#17 - Quote - Permalink
Posted 08/30/15 - 6:27 PM:

Come on now bumlight you cannot be objecting to jesus being a little queer are you. Does that make you more cautious about openly saying you love a man. Did you think if it was Jesus people would not think you would come out of the closet. Did you think if you love a man people would not think you were gay. Do you think it is alright for Jesus and his followers to be raping passing young boys as clearly they did.

Oooops lets not forget the Chapter and verses Mark 14:51
And there followed him a certain young man, having a linen cloth cast about his naked body; and the young men laid hold on him:


52- And he left the linen cloth, and fled from them naked.

Starjade doth sayeth; Now come on how can you say nothing homosexual was going on. Maybee they do that all the time in Birmingham. However most of the rest of the world can see a young man was sexually attacked and by Jesus and his so called disciples.

John records that jesus ‘riseth from supper, and laid aside his garments; and took a towel, and girded himself’, and in another instance, jesus was asked by his disciples, ‘When will you be revealed to us and when shall we see you?’, to which jesus replied, ‘When you disrobe without being ashamed and take up your garments and place them under your feet like little children.’

I understand that it can be disturbing hearing such a character of the New Testament appearing of dreaming of little children being naked. Christian priests dream of such things all the time. You are right to be disturbed however one must remember that some Roman Writer was inventing these tales and so they were his dreams really and did not actually take place in reality. However the Christians believe that it did and would refuse to believe otherwise for they are obsessed with idol worshipping. A worrying thought is that monkey see monkey do. So remain watchful around Christians.

The so-called ‘transfiguration on the mountain’ also suggests that jesus was naked, and, in fact, with another man (from The Acts of John):

Then I, since he loved me, went quietly up to him, as if he could not see, and stood there looking at his hinder parts, and I saw him not dressed in clothes at all, but stripped of those that we usually saw upon him, … he, turning about, appeared as a small man, … and I saw another like him coming down …

The ‘transfiguration on the mountain’event ended with jesus performing some kind of dance for his disciples – in the nude?

So come on bumlight face the fact that the New Testament character Jesus was depicted as being homosexual. Whats your problem with that. You openly claimed you loved this dead man and said to all of us that you wanted Jesus to be behind you. You are gay too.
Starjade
banned

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Feb 01, 2012
Location: Blackpool Lancashire Britain

Total Topics: 3
Total Comments: 197
#18 - Quote - Permalink
Posted 08/30/15 - 6:33 PM:

JESUS WAS A PETULENT DRAMA QUEEN
Jesus was for ever having girly tantrums and never stopped bitching about people - here are just a couple of examples:

"Jesus entered the temple area and drove out all who were buying and selling there. He overturned the tables of the money changers and the benches of those selling doves." (Matthew 21:12-1)

"And on the morrow, when they had come out of Bethany, he [Jesus] hungered. And seeing a fig tree afar off having leaves, he came, if perhaps he might find anything thereon: and when he came to it, he found nothing but leaves; for it was not the season of figs. And he answered and said unto it, ‘No man [will] eat fruit from you from now on — for ever." (Mk. 11:12-14; 20-21).

JESUS FAILED TO CONDEMN HOMOSEXUALITY
In the recently discovered Pauline epistles there is a new parable, that of the two young men where Jesus speaks approvingly of one young man having his soul "knit with the soul" of the other, and loving him "as his own soul". However, at no point in the New Testament did Jesus takes the opportunity to condemn homosexuality, even though it is clearly forbidden in the Old Testament.

JESUS WAS AN ENTERTAINER
A disproportionately high number of men in showbiz are homosexual and just like Elton John, George Michael and John Travolta, Jesus was an entertainer - he liked nothing better than go down to the lake and impress the crowds with illusions such as appearing to walk on water or by performing conjuring tricks such as making loaves and fishes appear as if from thin air. What a showman, what an entertainer, what a poof!

JESUS RAN A MEMBERS-ONLY GAY CLUB
Only men were allowed to join Jesus' cosy little clique of disciples, and furthermore, they were expected to adopt a gay lifestyle as a condition of membership. Jesus said:

"If any man come to me, and hate not his father, and mother, and wife, and children, and brethren, and sisters, yea, and his own life also, he cannot be my disciple." (Luke 14, 26).

Although it cannot be proved that all the disciples were gay, the original Aramaic version of the New Testament makes it clear that John the Baptist certainly was. In that edition, Jesus said this

"…that among those who are born of women there has never risen one greater than John the Baptist…" (Matt.11:11 Lamsa).

The phrase "born of women," when applied to men, meant that the man was womanly, or effeminate.

Further proof that John the Baptist was homosexual was that he who spent much of his time frolicking in the Jordan River with naked young men. Let's be absolutely clear about what he was doing with these young men: John is called the Baptist and the word "baptist" means "washer" in Greek.

JESUS WAS HAVING AN AFFAIR WITH JOHN THE APOSTLE
The New Testament makes it clear that Jesus was having an affair with one of his disciples, as the following passages plainly illustrate:

"He riseth from supper and laid aside his garments" (John, 13:4)

"Now there was one of his disciples who was leaning das-mik on his bosom, the one whom Jesus loved...So that disciple leaned himself n'fal on the breast of Jesus, and said to him, My Lord, who is he?" (John 13:23,25 Lamsa).

The disciple lying on Jesus' bosom was John the Apostle, Jesus' "favourite disciple" and the intimate words of John lying on Jesus' breast, give John the characteristics of a gay male. That's because the Aramaic word "smak" means "to lay upon, rest and sleep."

In other words, Jesus held a dinner party for the members of his gay club and he drunk too much wine, got naked and made out with his boyfriend in front of all the guests.

If all that isn't proof that Jesus was gay and that John the Apostle was his boyfriend, I don't know what is.

Thank you.
Starjade
banned

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Feb 01, 2012
Location: Blackpool Lancashire Britain

Total Topics: 3
Total Comments: 197
#19 - Quote - Permalink
Posted 08/30/15 - 6:51 PM:

Now come on bumlight I am sure that you and henry burp have both thought about the G spot growing up. Well now you know what the New Testament writers meant when they said Jesus could send you to heaven. nod All you have to do is prostrate yourself {that sort of means bow down position} and then Jesus can enter into you with spirit. laughing

Bumlight you wish and hope that you could be one of Jesus's many lovers. However I suggest you "Get your head out of Jesus's ass and do something productive!" laughing

The Gospel of John tells a story not found in the other gospels which describes Jesus washing the feet of the Disciples. He strips off his clothing and puts on a servants towel, he washes the disciples feet despite Peter’s objection and then has them wash each other’s feet (13:3-14).

Starjade doth exclameth; O.M.G. Jesus was a foot feticher. Getting naked to wash his disciples feet. Now come on Bumlight even Henry burp isnt that thick not to notice that Jesus was a queer character. Jesus is taking the humble role of the servant and treating the young men to a relaxing foot bath and massage with some kind of vague allusion to servant leadership, right? That is certainly one way of reading it but it doesn’t explain Peter’s reluctance or his later suggestion of washing his whole body rather than just the feet. There is something else going on here.

What man gets naked to wash another mans feet and also wants to wash other parts of their bodies. Obviously somebody who was a raging homosexual that’s who. Denial is futile. The writers of the New Testament were sodomites. They dreamed out their fantasies. Well clearly the New Testament was some kind of homosexual porn book. laughing

No wonder you liked it bumlight. laughing
Starjade
banned

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Feb 01, 2012
Location: Blackpool Lancashire Britain

Total Topics: 3
Total Comments: 197
#20 - Quote - Permalink
Posted 08/30/15 - 7:01 PM:

John’s gospel is full of this sort of homosexual practices and certainly doesn’t skimp on the homoerotic imagery. I am sure that both Henry Burp and Bumlight will be wanting to go looking and paying more attention than normal as clearly they had not noticed these homosexual acts before. So then we realise that you will be going out confirming these things for yourself. Just be sure to take along a tissue. We just do not want you to get the new testament pages getting stuck together whiles you go reading it in the toilet. claptakes a bow
Starjade
banned

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Feb 01, 2012
Location: Blackpool Lancashire Britain

Total Topics: 3
Total Comments: 197
#21 - Quote - Permalink
Posted 08/30/15 - 7:04 PM:

So if the messianic mutual masturbation story isn’t suggesting that Jesus was into the group thing and initiating an orgy on the night of the last supper for the sake of one final bang before getting penetrated by some large nails onto a hard length of wood, what is the intended meaning? wink
Starjade
banned

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Feb 01, 2012
Location: Blackpool Lancashire Britain

Total Topics: 3
Total Comments: 197
#22 - Quote - Permalink
Posted 08/30/15 - 7:15 PM:

Christians are already talking about their gay Jesus. These things are not a secret. The whole world is talking about getting gay for Jesus. Especially the foot fetishes and sado masochists.

Getting nailed is a tad more exiting to them than bondage ropes and whips. Of course as we all know priests to like to flagellate.


Starjade
banned

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Feb 01, 2012
Location: Blackpool Lancashire Britain

Total Topics: 3
Total Comments: 197
#23 - Quote - Permalink
Posted 08/30/15 - 7:21 PM:

What do you all think will be revealed by studies regarding the religions of murderers, rapists and paedophiles? Do you think that most were Christian or Muslims? What does that say about following such religious beliefs and how they can influence a persons character. Would you like to know.?
henry quirk
Senior Member
Avatar

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Apr 17, 2008
Location: here

Total Topics: 47
Total Comments: 1298
#24 - Quote - Permalink
Posted 09/01/15 - 8:20 AM:

Huge blocks of text no one can gut through...walls...question is: are the walls to keep us out, or, to keep her in?
SUNLIGHT
Senior Member
Avatar

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Apr 28, 2012
Location: united kingdom

Total Topics: 64
Total Comments: 931
#25 - Quote - Permalink
Posted 09/01/15 - 9:28 AM:

henry quirk wrote:
Huge blocks of text no one can gut through...walls...question is: are the walls to keep us out, or, to keep her in?
,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,laughing..trust you to ask a question that I cant answer henry .clap
Search thread for
Download thread as
  • 0/5
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5



Sorry, you don't have permission . Log in, or register if you haven't yet.



Acknowledgements:

Couch logo design by Midnight_Monk. The photo hanging above the couch was taken by Paul.

Powered by WSN Forum. Free smileys here.
Special thanks to Maria Cristina, Jesse , Echolist Directory, The Star Online,
Hosting Free Webs, and dmoz.org for referring visitors to this site!

Copyright notice:

Except where noted otherwise, copyright belongs to respective authors
for artwork, photography and text posted in this forum.