Nicely put.I don't think that was the narrative.
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Nicely put.I don't think that was the narrative.
Has to do with being tempted in all ways just as we are. Relating to mankind.If Jesus wanted all the kingdoms of the world, he just had to ask his dad. He wouldn't bother to truck with some underling his dad had created.
That means either Jesus was ignorant of his own status as son of Yahweh, or he knew, and the whole Satan thing was a charade.Has to do with being tempted in all ways just as we are. Relating to mankind.
That means either Jesus was ignorant of his own status as son of Yahweh, or he knew, and the whole Satan thing was a charade.
No, it means, as usual, that your understanding in spiritual matters is nonexistent at best.
No, it means, as usual, that your understanding of spiritual matters is not coherent enough for you to articulate reasoned replies to such points,No, it means, as usual, that your understanding in spiritual matters is nonexistent at best.
No, it means that your understanding of spiritual matters is not coherent enough for you to articulate reasoned replies to such points,
And as usual, you're firing shots with nothing to back it up.
Oh wise one, do elaborate. We hold our breath awaiting your next post of great wisdom.
"We?" Do you have a mouse in your pocket?
I was expecting a great revelation from you, most venerable one. How disappointing.
Why would I offer one to you? You would simply cover your ears while yelling that your Bible and God don't teach that, and dismiss it. I have no inclination to debate someone that resorts to logical fallacies with nearly every post.
Indeed. Yet you speak to me as one who knows many things. What do you know of value?
Still no reasoned reply from you.So you agree with me by your stated ignorance. Noted.
Whoa there! Settle down a bit. Never said a thing about homoeroticism. Only that I thought that Jesus had homosexual feelings for the "follower Jesus loved very much." Whether these rose to homoeroticism can only be speculated.It's not the definition of "love dearly" that's the issue, it's your asinine insinuation that this love is homoerotic.
Not necessarily--- like it or not, Strong's use of "to love dearly" leaves the door open.Connotations of sexual affection contradict the meaning of agape.
Over-wrought responses like this only make you look desperate, which is becoming more evident with each post you make here. And, we both know my "connotations" were decently reasoned, even if you don't agree with them. . . . .or maybe you don't know.You can't just hamfist your own unique connotations against the accepted meaning of a word and pretend that you're credible.
Because I don't consider it a salient point. Considering the Old Testament's denunciation of homosexuality it's obvious, to me anyway, the writers of the Bible could never come right out and say that Jesus had homosexual feelings for "the disciple whom he loved," by using words like "eros." So they pussyfooted around it by using euphemisms:Also note that the Greeks had a specific word for sexual affection, a point you keep ignoring.
Nope, which is why the writers choose to use the euphemisms they did.Do you honestly think that if the text could at all reasonably be taken to insinuate what you are claiming that it would have been accepted as scripture by Church leaders who actually spoke the Greek in question?
But, dear Musing Bassist, it's much more than just the word [which see below]. It's also the writers' insistence in showing that for Jesus one of his disciples merited a special love. A love so special and important they believed it was worth mentioning 5 times.If you are confident agape can have a connotation of sexual affection, why don't you quote some Greek literature where it has such a meaning?
Not the way it's used in the scripture I quoted according to Strongs AND your own source, which said this usage is used only five times in the Bible. So, being a unique use of "agape," you can stop going on and on about its common meaning.Translation: I'm going to insinuate and you'll just have to take my word for it. The problem with this argument is that unlike the English phrase of "love very much" agape, or agapao for the verb is defined in contrast to love with sexual affection. Agape is platonic by definition.
How is that even a temptation? If Jesus has god power, some petty angel offering is not tempting. Humans are tempted cause we don't have god powers. Which leads back to how Jesus can be tempted by lust as much as a regular human sinner.Has to do with being tempted in all ways just as we are. Relating to mankind.
Looks like it was mentioned six times and some theories suggest the disciple Jesus loved could have been Mary Magdeline but apparently that is a bit more difficult to prove without losing biblical consistency.Whoa there! Settle down a bit. Never said a thing about homoeroticism. Only the likelihood that Jesus had homosexual feelings for the "follower Jesus loved very much." Whether these rose to homoeroticism can only be speculated at.
And, of course, you're compelled to invalidate Strong's use of "to love dearly" in describing the use of "agape" in the scriptures I quoted. It too easily leaves open the possibility of eros love, something you obviously could never, never admit to or even speculate about.
Not necessarily--- like it or not, Strong's use of "to love dearly" leaves the door open.
Over-wrought responses like this only make you look desperate, which is becoming more evident with each post you make here. And, we both know my "connotations" were decently reasoned, even if you don't agree with them. . . . .or maybe you don't know.
Because I don't consider it a salient point. Considering the Old Testament's denunciation of homosexuality it's obvious, to me anyway, the writers of the Bible could never come right out and say that Jesus had homosexual feelings for "the disciple whom he loved," by using words like "eros." So they pussyfooted around it by using euphemisms:
"follower Jesus loved very much."
"disciple whom he loved"
"the one whom Jesus loved"
As I said before;
This was one person Jesus had singled out for a different kind of love than the love he had for the other eleven disciples. A very important love to Jesus. Why else mention it, and mention it four times?
Of course you dutifully ignored my question. No surprise.
Nope, which is why the writers choose to use euphemisms they did.
But, dear Musing Bassist, it's much more than just the word [which see below]. It's also the writers' insistence in showing that for Jesus one of his disciples merited a special love: "the one whom Jesus loved." A love so special and important they believed it was worth mentioning 4 times.
Not the way it's used in the scripture I quoted according to Strongs AND your own source, which said this usage is used only five times in the Bible. So, being a unique use of "agape," you can stop going on and on about its common meaning.
.
Interesting that in looking into the "six"times mentioned only five instances are cited. I did miss John 20:2:Looks like it was mentioned six times and some theories suggest the disciple Jesus loved could have been Mary Magdeline but apparently that is a bit more difficult to prove without losing biblical consistency.
Disciple whom Jesus loved - Wikipedia
See John 11:3Interesting that in looking into the "six"times mentioned only five instances are cited.
.
Again, interesting. However, there's no mention of Lazarus, the "he" mentioned in John 11:3 being a disciple.See John 11:3
which specifically mentions a "he".
"Therefore his sisters sent unto him, saying, Lord, behold, he whom thou lovest is sick."