Was Jesus homosexual?

[Flail]

Question for debate:
Is there any evidence or information from which one could logically conclude that Jesus (or Paul for that matter) was or was not homosexual?

And why would that matter in the least?

[KCKID]

Question for debate:
Is there any evidence or information from which one could logically conclude that Jesus (or Paul for that matter) was or was not homosexual?

There isn't any evidence that Jesus / Paul was homosexual or heterosexual. We simply don't know.

And why would that matter in the least?

It wouldn't.

Both Jesus and Paul appear as young, virile, healthy males and so both would presumably have testosterone and strong sexual urges. Can it then be somewhat reasonably inferred that (since they both kept almost exclusive company of unmarried men) they were homosexual?

Not that it would matter to me in the least ...I don't know about Jesus, but Paul might have been carrying some baggage concerning homosexuality.

Romans 7:21-25
21. I find then a law, that, when I would do good, evil is present with me. 22. For I delight in the law of God after the inward man: 23. But I see another law in my members, warring against the law of my mind, and bringing me into captivity to the law of sin which is in my members. 24. O wretched man that I am! who shall deliver me from the body of this death? 25. I thank God through Jesus Christ our Lord. So then with the mind I myself serve the law of God; but with the flesh the law of sin.

'Members' are, obviously parts of the body that appear to be causing Paul some anguish. If, indeed, homosexuality was what Paul was 'at war' with, I would have to say, 'poor guy, unable to be the person he is because of archaic beliefs to which he feels that he has to be a slave.

[99percentatheism]

Question for debate:
Is there any evidence or information from which one could logically conclude that Jesus (or Paul for that matter) was or was not homosexual?

There isn't any evidence that Jesus / Paul was homosexual or heterosexual. We simply don't know.

And why would that matter in the least?

It wouldn't.

Both Jesus and Paul appear as young, virile, healthy males and so both would presumably have testosterone and strong sexual urges. Can it then be somewhat reasonably inferred that (since they both kept almost exclusive company of unmarried men) they were homosexual?

Not that it would matter to me in the least ...I don't know about Jesus, but Paul might have been carrying some baggage concerning homosexuality.

Romans 7:21-25
21. I find then a law, that, when I would do good, evil is present with me. 22. For I delight in the law of God after the inward man: 23. But I see another law in my members, warring against the law of my mind, and bringing me into captivity to the law of sin which is in my members. 24. O wretched man that I am! who shall deliver me from the body of this death? 25. I thank God through Jesus Christ our Lord. So then with the mind I myself serve the law of God; but with the flesh the law of sin.

'Members' are, obviously parts of the body that appear to be causing Paul some anguish. If, indeed, homosexuality was what Paul was 'at war' with, I would have to say, 'poor guy, unable to be the person he is because of archaic beliefs to which he feels that he has to be a slave.

This is where the depravity of gay culture shines through. And where the pro gay agenda fails to establish any legitimacy within a Christian framework. And the pathetic Christian denominations trying to meld homosexual life with their missions of preaching the Gospel to the lost, will only see haertache and failure within a very short timeframe. Gay activists are always more concerned about homosexuality than they are about anything else. The current gay attack on Biola University by the "Queer Underground" is a prime example.

May I repeat:

Yes it matters. The intense evil of the gay pride movement, attcahed to the rabid anti-Christian goals of the new atheist endeavors, yoked to the apostates that want to develope a detestable version of Christianty and demand that that is "equal" to the faith delivered only once to the Saints makes the day to day life of the Christian almost as precarious as it was when these linds of people hunted them down in Rome during the first few centuries.

[99percentatheism]

Question for debate:

Is there any evidence or information from which one could logically conclude that Jesus (or Paul for that matter) was or was not homosexual?

Jesus as an orthodox (fundamentalist) Jew would have been rejectedd and/or stoned to death by the orthodox fundamentalist disciples he surrounded himself with. It is clear that many thought he was the military version of the Messiah and left him in the dust when he showed he wasn't. To posit that Jesus was a man that had sex with a man as with a woman, is not only an incredibly dirty insult toward Jesus and all Christians (but not surprising in this days of New Atheism) but would have had him losing every disciple and apostle that he picked.

And why would that matter in the least?

Because it is an afront to all Christians everywhere, and it is a sickening proposition meant for only defaming Jesus and His Church.

[KCKID]

Question for debate:
Is there any evidence or information from which one could logically conclude that Jesus (or Paul for that matter) was or was not homosexual?

There isn't any evidence that Jesus / Paul was homosexual or heterosexual. We simply don't know.

And why would that matter in the least?

It wouldn't.

Both Jesus and Paul appear as young, virile, healthy males and so both would presumably have testosterone and strong sexual urges. Can it then be somewhat reasonably inferred that (since they both kept almost exclusive company of unmarried men) they were homosexual?

Not that it would matter to me in the least ...I don't know about Jesus, but Paul might have been carrying some baggage concerning homosexuality.

Romans 7:21-25
21. I find then a law, that, when I would do good, evil is present with me. 22. For I delight in the law of God after the inward man: 23. But I see another law in my members, warring against the law of my mind, and bringing me into captivity to the law of sin which is in my members. 24. O wretched man that I am! who shall deliver me from the body of this death? 25. I thank God through Jesus Christ our Lord. So then with the mind I myself serve the law of God; but with the flesh the law of sin.

'Members' are, obviously parts of the body that appear to be causing Paul some anguish. If, indeed, homosexuality was what Paul was 'at war' with, I would have to say, 'poor guy, unable to be the person he is because of archaic beliefs to which he feels that he has to be a slave.

This is where the depravity of gay culture shines through. And where the pro gay agenda fails to establish any legitimacy within a Christian framework. And the pathetic Christian denominations trying to meld homosexual life with their missions of preaching the Gospel to the lost, will only see haertache and failure within a very short timeframe. Gay activists are always more concerned about homosexuality than they are about anything else. The current gay attack on Biola University by the "Queer Underground" is a prime example.

Since Paul was a human being (I realize that you believe he was God, but he really wasn't) why would it be impossible for him to be 'gay'? Being 'gay' is perfectly okay and Paul would not lose any credibility even if he had been 'gay'.

Anyway, since you appear to be the all-knowing oracle on scripture, what IS Paul referring to here? I'm quite willing to accept a reasonable explanation.

May I repeat:

Yes it matters. The intense evil of the gay pride movement, attcahed to the rabid anti-Christian goals of the new atheist endeavors, yoked to the apostates that want to develope a detestable version of Christianty and demand that that is "equal" to the faith delivered only once to the Saints makes the day to day life of the Christian almost as precarious as it was when these linds of people hunted them down in Rome during the first few centuries.

*Yawn* ...same old Pharisaical rhetoric . . .

[99percentatheism]

Since Paul was a human being (I realize that you believe he was God, but he really wasn't) why would it be impossible for him to be 'gay'?

He would have never made it to being a Pharisee trained by Gamaliel. You forget there is outside history of the people of the Bible in play here.

Being 'gay' is perfectly okay and Paul would not lose any credibility even if he had been 'gay'.

Whatever. This tagline of you gay activists employ is a tired old canard. It is completely expected that when "washed clean" of your sins, that desires from sin can be obtained. That one can live a life without involvement of what sins they left is obviously obtainable as well. I for example. no longer desire, nor have multiple sex partners as I once did. I live for Christ in my marriage. And it is easy to cheat anytime I want to.

Anyway, since you appear to be the all-knowing oracle on scripture, what IS Paul referring to here? I'm quite willing to accept a reasonable explanation.

Paul was a murderous bast-rd. He was a pompus Pharisee. It is more than likely that he warred with his desires to choke the living s--- out of the enemies of Christians once he became a Pastor to the Gentiles. His description of the reprobates in Romans 1 is a good example. He was also executed by the Romans under Nero. IF, Paul was a good old pederast (homosexual) in Rome at that time, he wouldn't have been such an enemy of the State. It is clear from his writings that he loathed these kinds of behaviors.

As you can see in my style of apologetics, I have an incredibly difficult time trying to be nice to the enemies of my brothers and sisters in Christ. Before I was a Christian, I wasn't quite a murderous bast-rd, but I know what I did to people when I was a soldier. With absoluetly no suffering of my conscience at all. Now, I work to live to protect Christians from the Enemy that stalks them.

now let's deal with:

Romans 7:21-25
21. I find then a law, that, when I would do good, evil is present with me. 22. For I delight in the law of God after the inward man: 23. But I see another law in my members, warring against the law of my mind, and bringing me into captivity to the law of sin which is in my members. 24. O wretched man that I am! who shall deliver me from the body of this death? 25. I thank God through Jesus Christ our Lord. So then with the mind I myself serve the law of God; but with the flesh the law of sin.

What you see hear is a refutation of the Gay Activists that say "once gay, always gay."

Jesus is Lord even over gay culture. First century or 21st century. Why????

Jesus is the same, Yesterday, Today and Forever.

May I repeat:

Yes it matters. The intense evil of the gay pride movement, attcahed to the rabid anti-Christian goals of the new atheist endeavors, yoked to the apostates that want to develope a detestable version of Christianty and demand that that is "equal" to the faith delivered only once to the Saints makes the day to day life of the Christian almost as precarious as it was when these linds of people hunted them down in Rome during the first few centuries.

*Yawn* ...same old Pharisaical rhetoric . . .

Meaning nothing you are able to rebut. My positions come from the rock. Your positions come from secular-humanist pop culture.

Same old "way of the world."

[Flail]

Question for debate:
Is there any evidence or information from which one could logically conclude that Jesus (or Paul for that matter) was or was not homosexual?

There isn't any evidence that Jesus / Paul was homosexual or heterosexual. We simply don't know.

And why would that matter in the least?

It wouldn't.

Both Jesus and Paul appear as young, virile, healthy males and so both would presumably have testosterone and strong sexual urges. Can it then be somewhat reasonably inferred that (since they both kept almost exclusive company of unmarried men) they were homosexual?

Not that it would matter to me in the least ...I don't know about Jesus, but Paul might have been carrying some baggage concerning homosexuality.

Romans 7:21-25
21. I find then a law, that, when I would do good, evil is present with me. 22. For I delight in the law of God after the inward man: 23. But I see another law in my members, warring against the law of my mind, and bringing me into captivity to the law of sin which is in my members. 24. O wretched man that I am! who shall deliver me from the body of this death? 25. I thank God through Jesus Christ our Lord. So then with the mind I myself serve the law of God; but with the flesh the law of sin.

'Members' are, obviously parts of the body that appear to be causing Paul some anguish. If, indeed, homosexuality was what Paul was 'at war' with, I would have to say, 'poor guy, unable to be the person he is because of archaic beliefs to which he feels that he has to be a slave.

Paul clearly struggled with something...so much so it rendered him susceptible to extreme delusion on the Road to Damascus...from which he never recovered.

[Mr.Badham]

Since Paul was a human being (I realize that you believe he was God, but he really wasn't) why would it be impossible for him to be 'gay'?

He would have never made it to being a Pharisee trained by Gamaliel. You forget there is outside history of the people of the Bible in play here.

Being 'gay' is perfectly okay and Paul would not lose any credibility even if he had been 'gay'.

Whatever. This tagline of you gay activists employ is a tired old canard. It is completely expected that when "washed clean" of your sins, that desires from sin can be obtained. That one can live a life without involvement of what sins they left is obviously obtainable as well. I for example. no longer desire, nor have multiple sex partners as I once did. I live for Christ in my marriage. And it is easy to cheat anytime I want to.

Anyway, since you appear to be the all-knowing oracle on scripture, what IS Paul referring to here? I'm quite willing to accept a reasonable explanation.

Paul was a murderous bast-rd. He was a pompus Pharisee. It is more than likely that he warred with his desires to choke the living s--- out of the enemies of Christians once he became a Pastor to the Gentiles. His description of the reprobates in Romans 1 is a good example. He was also executed by the Romans under Nero. IF, Paul was a good old pederast (homosexual) in Rome at that time, he wouldn't have been such an enemy of the State. It is clear from his writings that he loathed these kinds of behaviors.

As you can see in my style of apologetics, I have an incredibly difficult time trying to be nice to the enemies of my brothers and sisters in Christ. Before I was a Christian, I wasn't quite a murderous bast-rd, but I know what I did to people when I was a soldier. With absoluetly no suffering of my conscience at all. Now, I work to live to protect Christians from the Enemy that stalks them.

now let's deal with:

Romans 7:21-25
21. I find then a law, that, when I would do good, evil is present with me. 22. For I delight in the law of God after the inward man: 23. But I see another law in my members, warring against the law of my mind, and bringing me into captivity to the law of sin which is in my members. 24. O wretched man that I am! who shall deliver me from the body of this death? 25. I thank God through Jesus Christ our Lord. So then with the mind I myself serve the law of God; but with the flesh the law of sin.

What you see hear is a refutation of the Gay Activists that say "once gay, always gay."

Jesus is Lord even over gay culture. First century or 21st century. Why????

Jesus is the same, Yesterday, Today and Forever.

May I repeat:

Yes it matters. The intense evil of the gay pride movement, attcahed to the rabid anti-Christian goals of the new atheist endeavors, yoked to the apostates that want to develope a detestable version of Christianty and demand that that is "equal" to the faith delivered only once to the Saints makes the day to day life of the Christian almost as precarious as it was when these linds of people hunted them down in Rome during the first few centuries.

*Yawn* ...same old Pharisaical rhetoric . . .

Meaning nothing you are able to rebut. My positions come from the rock. Your positions come from secular-humanist pop culture.

Same old "way of the world."

So you were a soldier? An atheist soldier? And you murdered people as an atheist soldier? But then you realized that killing people was wrong and now you just hate (gay) people. I have to admit that going from killing to hating is better, I'm just not sure that your reasoning is sound.

Can I ask a question? When you go from Atheism to Christianity, do you become a literalist, or do you reject all the parts of the bible regular Christians, that have been Christians since their mothers told them they were Christians at age 3, reject? You know, like Genisis.

[Flail]

Question for debate:

Is there any evidence or information from which one could logically conclude that Jesus (or Paul for that matter) was or was not homosexual?

Jesus as an orthodox (fundamentalist) Jew would have been rejectedd and/or stoned to death by the orthodox fundamentalist disciples he surrounded himself with. It is clear that many thought he was the military version of the Messiah and left him in the dust when he showed he wasn't. To posit that Jesus was a man that had sex with a man as with a woman, is not only an incredibly dirty insult toward Jesus and all Christians (but not surprising in this days of New Atheism) but would have had him losing every disciple and apostle that he picked.

And why would that matter in the least?

Because it is an afront to all Christians everywhere, and it is a sickening proposition meant for only defaming Jesus and His Church.

Claiming that all non believers will rot for eternity in hell is an affront beyond comparison....whether Jesus was gay or not is irrelevant to his message and teachings.

[Shermana]

Question for debate:
Is there any evidence or information from which one could logically conclude that Jesus (or Paul for that matter) was or was not homosexual?

And why would that matter in the least?

Tex: Maybe he was a homosexual before conversion...Saint Paul that is.

As for the Lord .....He was not sexual. We are his creation. We are like children to him. He was neither gay nor straight. He was God.

If we are made in God's image, then perhaps either way is ok with Him.

By that logic, then being incestual is okay by him too.

There is no evidence whatsoever that either of them were.

There is evidence that those who want to say they were have an agenda for doing so.

[99percentatheism]

Question for debate:
Is there any evidence or information from which one could logically conclude that Jesus (or Paul for that matter) was or was not homosexual?

And why would that matter in the least?

Tex: Maybe he was a homosexual before conversion...Saint Paul that is.

As for the Lord .....He was not sexual. We are his creation. We are like children to him. He was neither gay nor straight. He was God.

If we are made in God's image, then perhaps either way is ok with Him.

By that logic, then being incestual is okay by him too.

There is no evidence whatsoever that either of them were.

There is evidence that those who want to say they were have an agenda for doing so.

There is no evidence at all.