Why Believe Jesus Never Had Sex?

[Muffled]

Other than the Bible doesn't mention whether or not Jesus had sex in his life, why believe he never did? Would that somehow have tainted him?

I believe God does not wish to confuse people. I also think sex would have been a distraction from His purpose.

 

[OtherSheep]

Other than the Bible doesn't mention whether or not Jesus had sex in his life, why believe he never did? Would that somehow have tainted him?

We have no record that Jesus married, and unwed intercourse is fornication. The Greek word for fornication seems to be the root of the word pornography.

I cannot speak for anyone else, but I was raised with the notion of "original sin"

Original sin is a myth. What happened in Eden is that man chose to be held responsible for the knowledge of good and evil, so that when he chose the bad, he became guilty of sin. The Bible records the child as reaching an age when he chose the good. Before that point, the child was as innocent as were Adam and Eve before they thought that the knowledge of good and evil couldn't possibly have had any adverse effects... guess they thought they'd always be able to chose the good... even though, standing there in front of them was the premiere proof of evil choices: Satan.

 

[Bob the Unbeliever]

Those are good questions, actually.
Jehovah wanted them (his people) to grow in their faith of Him, and then to show their faith by obeying Him.
The account says that a "vast mixed company" left Egypt with the Israelites, apparently other Egyptians..

Well, that seems kind of overkill to me-- god kinda thinks very little about the value of non-Hebrew life, in that it's utterly disposable to "prove a point"? Seriously? That's messed up!

Most of those plagues were outright attacks against their Egyptian gods....yes, they even had a frog God!

In Exodus 7, which details when Moses first confronted Pharaoh, remember when Moses threw his staff down, and it became a snake? Pharaoh's magic-practicing priests, i.e., his religious leaders, threw their staffs down, and they became snakes! But then, Moses' "snake" ate up theirs.
.

So you are polythiest? Unless these gods were as real as the bible's? It's pretty malicious on the part of bible-god, isn't it?

The account is telling us that there were real, invisible spirit forces backing Pharaoh's religious leaders...but they weren't as powerful as Moses' God.

Those forces are still around today, trying their best to keep people from searching for the True God, Jehovah.
And the Bible tells us..

So, as I pointed out: Polythiestic Worldview is what you are claiming here.

Of course-- the bible really doesn't support the notion of monotheism at all--- you have to twist a great many parts of it into that mold.

Heck, the first commandment of the 10, pretty much shows the bible's polytheism, as does the 2nd creation story in Genesis.

I guess you don't believe there could be intelligent life, that's invisible to us?

If this ... ahem ... "intelligent life" is undetectable, does not cause anything that can be recorded or noted consistently?

Then it is 100% indistinguishable from random events.

Random events seems far more likely than malicious gods who deliberately keep to 100%, all evidence of them existing...

 

[Bob the Unbeliever]

moving the goal post = those letters are from those who did live during Jesus' lifetime.

Nope. That was my original complaint: ZERO historical artifacts dating from the alleged life of Jesus.

That has ALWAYS been my complaint, in fact. It was YOU who attempted to divert to non-contemporary "sources".

It's the single most common tactic, in fact, theists try to use, to "excuse" the fact there is NOTHING, historically, in support of Jesus having existed at all.

"Yet you cannot point to a secular, or even a University source? And all I'm doing is pointing directly to the bible itself-- only without cherry-picking or pretending the words don't mean what is actually written..."

You said it was written 5 generations later and I gave a secular source that it was written within the first century.

3 or 5 ... depends on who you ask, doesn't it? Even your source is much too late.

People cannot remember what they had for lunch last week-- and you expect valid "witness" after 60 years?

Come on. Not even you can be that disingenuous.

 

[Bob the Unbeliever]

Seems like you only read one piece of the post. That wouldn't surprise me if that's the case..

I never read stuff from creationist websites-- they are always-- ALWAYS full of lies, misdirection and fraud.

They cannot be trusted to tell the correct time.

There are a lot of discrepancies with the dates for fossil evidence..

According to? Who? YOU?

Still there are problems identifying fakes and frauds, and even identifying what's real.
Problems galore.

According to... ? Who? YOU?

 

[Bob the Unbeliever]

That's an inaccurate statement - quite far from the truth actually.

Evidence was given here, here, here, here, here, and here, and many other places, I am sure. Evidence that is solid too.

NONE of those constitute actual evidence. Sorry. You cannot use your CLAIM as proof of your CLAIM.

 

[nPeace]

I never read stuff from creationist websites-- they are always-- ALWAYS full of lies, misdirection and fraud.

They cannot be trusted to tell the correct time.


According to? Who? YOU?


According to... ? Who? YOU?

No. According to the links I posted. How would you know if you don't look at them? You will obviously wind up asking questions like that.

 

[Bob the Unbeliever]

We have no record that Jesus married, and unwed intercourse is fornication. The Greek word for fornication seems to be the root of the word pornography..

No record? Seriously? There is plenty of "record" that is easily as valid as what's in the Official Bible™, many of which document Jesus having married, living a long productive life with lots of fat, healthy half-human babies.

Original sin is a myth. What happened in Eden is that man chose to be held responsible for the knowledge of good and evil, so that when he chose the bad, he became guilty of sin. The Bible records the child as reaching an age when he chose the good. Before that point, the child was as innocent as were Adam and Eve before they thought that the knowledge of good and evil couldn't possibly have had any adverse effects... guess they thought they'd always be able to chose the good... even though, standing there in front of them was the premiere proof of evil choices: Satan.

So your Satan is the more powerful deity, then? In that your god was unable to stop Satan's activities?

Okay-- that means that Satan will likely win in the end, what with Satan having all the *real* powers here.

In fact, by your description, your god is something of a wimp, and rather negligent too...

 

[Bob the Unbeliever]

No. According to the links I posted. How would you know if you don't look at them? You will obviously wind up asking questions like that.

A link to a Creationist website isn't evidence. Sorry. Those people are simply incapable of telling the truth.

 

[nPeace]

NONE of those constitute actual evidence. Sorry. You cannot use your CLAIM as proof of your CLAIM.

Of course, they are not my claims, but if you don't read the information, it is expected that you would not know that. Hence, you can only make inaccurate assertions.

 

[nPeace]

A link to a Creationist website isn't evidence. Sorry. Those people are simply incapable of telling the truth.

That is not true, and those links are not Creationist websites. LOL You didn't read them.

 

[ecco]

So, yes. Read and understand the definition you posted.

So, you concur that God's killing of almost all humans was genocide.

Bean me up Scotty.

When you don't have an answer, make a silly comment and hope no one notices you don't have an answer.

You do that a lot.

 

[ecco]

Do you realize that you are offering as evidence an article written by a Rabbi that quotes from Exodus.

ETA: Did you bother to read the article?

If you can't attack the evidence, attack the author.

Can you come up with something with a little more substance?

If you had read the article you wouldn't be pressing me to come up with substance about your "evidence".

But, since you asked...
Let's look at the name of the URL...

British Museum & Evidence of Israelite Slavery in Egypt

British Museum Evidence of Israelite Slavery in Egypt

That is also the title (in big bold letters) splashed across the top of the article on the website.

The website contains an article written by Rabbi Yisroel Roll. Typical of apologist BS the Rabbi discusses a meeting with Dr. John H. Taylor, the curator of the Egypt Department of the British Museum in London. This, like the website name and the title is to give scientific credence to the article. The intent is to make the gullible reader believe that Dr. John H. Taylor, the curator of the Egypt Department of the British Museum in London is stating that there is Evidence of Israelite Slavery in Egypt. He doesn't.

The table of archaeological finds below, presented to me by Dr. John H. Taylor reveals a mud brick with straw which is stamped with a royal seal which says: “House of Ramses ll”. The mud brick, seen on the left side of the photo below has been carbon dated to the Israelite period of slavery in Egypt.
​

• The curator says the brick has been carbon dated to substantiate the Ramses seal (~1250 BCE).
• The Rabbi asserts that is the period of Israelite slavery in Egypt.
• The curator never, in the entire article, mentions slavery.

KenS, either...

1. You just missed that important fact.
2. You just went along with the Rabbi's deception.
3. You didn't read the article.

There is only one other mention of "slavery" in the article:

The 11th century French Biblical commentator, Rashi, comments that the Jewish women used these mirrors to beautify themselves in order to entice their husbands to produce children despite the fear of bringing children into a life of slavery. This attests to the greater faith of the Israelite women than that exhibited by the Israelite men, which faith has continued to sustain Jewish continuity.​

The good Rabbi goes on discussing a few other items. Then he states...

Below is a mural of slaves building a structure in Egypt dated from the Israelite period showing a pile of mud bricks similar to the brick displayed on the table above.

​

Yes, indeed. The mud brick in the photo from the museum is similar to the bricks shown in the mural (which is not even from the museum). And we know the people depicted in the mural are slaves.

Uh huh.

​

KenS,either...

1. You just missed those important facts.
2. You just went along with the Rabbi's deception.
3. You didn't read the article.

If you can't attack the evidence, attack the author.

Can you come up with something with a little more substance?

Is that enough substance for you? I attacked your apologist author. I attacked his non-evidence. And I raised questions about your interpretation and support of the article.

 

[ecco]

ecco: So, you concur that God's killing of almost all humans was genocide.

I understand genocide to be associated with prejudice, not justice.
For example, if s government set a time to execute all murderers, I don't consider that genocide, or murder.
There must be some kind of justice. What do you think?

I think that is the kind of comment an apologist would make.

In any case, do you deny that God was prejudiced against all people except Noah's little group?

 

[ecco]

Eventually? I did read the whole ugly thing-- how else do you think I became an atheist?

Gee. All it took for me, around age nine, was a couple of days of Sunday School replete with pictures of giraffes sticking out the top of the ark.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I believe God does not wish to confuse people.

A celibate Jesus wouldn't confuse people?

I also think sex would have been a distraction from His purpose.

...implying that Jesus was imperfect, no?

 

[Kenny]

When you don't have an answer, make a silly comment and hope no one notices you don't have an answer.

You do that a lot.

You didn't answer my question... why should I answer yours?

 

[Kenny]

If you had read the article you wouldn't be pressing me to come up with substance about your "evidence".

But, since you asked...
Let's look at the name of the URL...

British Museum & Evidence of Israelite Slavery in Egypt

British Museum Evidence of Israelite Slavery in Egypt

That is also the title (in big bold letters) splashed across the top of the article on the website.

The website contains an article written by Rabbi Yisroel Roll. Typical of apologist BS the Rabbi discusses a meeting with Dr. John H. Taylor, the curator of the Egypt Department of the British Museum in London. This, like the website name and the title is to give scientific credence to the article. The intent is to make the gullible reader believe that Dr. John H. Taylor, the curator of the Egypt Department of the British Museum in London is stating that there is Evidence of Israelite Slavery in Egypt. He doesn't.

The table of archaeological finds below, presented to me by Dr. John H. Taylor reveals a mud brick with straw which is stamped with a royal seal which says: “House of Ramses ll”. The mud brick, seen on the left side of the photo below has been carbon dated to the Israelite period of slavery in Egypt.
​

• The curator says the brick has been carbon dated to substantiate the Ramses seal (~1250 BCE).
• The Rabbi asserts that is the period of Israelite slavery in Egypt.
• The curator never, in the entire article, mentions slavery.

KenS, either...

1. You just missed that important fact.
2. You just went along with the Rabbi's deception.
3. You didn't read the article.

There is only one other mention of "slavery" in the article:

The 11th century French Biblical commentator, Rashi, comments that the Jewish women used these mirrors to beautify themselves in order to entice their husbands to produce children despite the fear of bringing children into a life of slavery. This attests to the greater faith of the Israelite women than that exhibited by the Israelite men, which faith has continued to sustain Jewish continuity.​

The good Rabbi goes on discussing a few other items. Then he states...

Below is a mural of slaves building a structure in Egypt dated from the Israelite period showing a pile of mud bricks similar to the brick displayed on the table above.

​

Yes, indeed. The mud brick in the photo from the museum is similar to the bricks shown in the mural (which is not even from the museum). And we know the people depicted in the mural are slaves.

Uh huh.

​

KenS,either...

1. You just missed those important facts.
2. You just went along with the Rabbi's deception.
3. You didn't read the article.

Is that enough substance for you? I attacked your apologist author. I attacked his non-evidence. And I raised questions about your interpretation and support of the article.

All I see is you interpreting the evidence to your belief.

It doesn't need to mention slavery... I don't think that was the object.

 

[1robin]

Other than the Bible doesn't mention whether or not Jesus had sex in his life, why believe he never did? Would that somehow have tainted him?

If the bible does not mention it then no one should have a firm fixed position about it. However it could be that Jesus was the perfect example of complete devotion to God. If he had sexual relationships it would be a deal breaker but would indicate that Christ had decided loyalties and it would show that Jesus more than just God's love to sustain him. But if the bible does not make an issue about Christ's sexuality it apparently isn't that important.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

If the bible does not mention it then no one should have a firm fixed position about it. However it could be that Jesus was the perfect example of complete devotion to God. If he had sexual relationships it would be a deal breaker but would indicate that Christ had decided loyalties and it would show that Jesus more than just God's love to sustain him. But if the bible does not make an issue about Christ's sexuality it apparently isn't that important.

Does the same thought process apply to Christians today?

I’ve heard plenty of ministers describe marriage not just as something acceptable to address human imperfection but as praiseworthy in its own right... even as a “calling from God” in some cases.

Does a married Christian have divided loyalties? When a Christian has a sexual relationship, does this mean they don’t have perfect devotion to God?