Hi Serenity

Dragoness,



yes, it does.

For Jesus would be hypocritical in the depiction that he was manifest to do what the Father's will is, and not his own.

The whole point of being crucified to only be risen again and alive in death would be very much contrary to that which he professed, if he were disposed to carnal selfish pleasures AT ALL!

It would also lend credibility to the depiction that women are nothing but preferential toys fro self gratification.

Such is an abominable perversion of the righteousness of God.

Jesus, as the Living Word of the Father, is not about himself, but about bridging God and man.

Depicting him as assumingly wanton and prurient is purposefully espoused as a denial of his message, expecting that he was given to like passions found in temptations common to man.

Falling prey to temptations and vaunting himself would make his message incredible and hypocritical and contradictory of his very credibility of being the Holy One only known of and to the Father.

Any that resist temptations, successfully or not, can recognize Jesus is clearly above such things and can lead us to victory of such affronts to our conscience, if our conscience is so disposed to resist, successfully or not, by our own device and will, apart from God's help in seeing it for what it is beforehand that it not have power over us to enslave us to it's trickery.

Hebrews 2:17-18 is an example of what I am conveying to you, from a Christian perspective.

Wherefore in all things(ALL THINGS) it behoved him to be made like his brethren, that he might be a merciful and faithful high priest pertaining to God, to make reconciliation for the sins of the people.
For in that he himself has suffered being tempted, he is able to succor them that are tempted.

Temptations and partaking of temptations are two different things.


In that he says that we, the world, do not know God apart from what he reveals, then it stands to reason that the world knows the things of itself, and not God.

Equating Jesus Christ as being of the world , which is known by all men, is like saying that he is the same in his affinities.

That is not the case.

That is the case for trying to discredit him through accusations and disengenuous depictions of contemptible hypocrisy.

The only thing that is evident is that excuses abound to argue with Jesus' words, when the simple truth is that any and all may refuse them and walk on.

Obsessing oneself with trying to rationalize his words into one's own construct is a compulsion that is an excessive waste of contemplation, effort and energy when it is far easier to not dwell on torment.

Why such obsessive compulsivity continues throughout every generation is apparent.

His words sting and cut the heart and expose itself to itself invasively; an unacceptable intrusion to those harboring secret guilts and not wanting to address them openly.

But then, that is nothing new.

Don't shoot the messenger.

you will waste a BULLET.

PEACE.

I was one that got booted back in the day for checkin out other sites.

Hmmm...you do look familiar.....

Ok for a start I dont agree with same-sex marriage. In fact I dont agree with marriage at all! So, Im not going to argue that point with you.
Get married only for the papers and for the sanity of the kids.

But we are not talking about same-sex unions.

We are debating whether Jesus was gay.
The debate has moved onto whether homosexuality is sin.

There are three major parts to Mark 7.

The first (Mark 7:1-13) is the accusation of the Pharisees that the Apostles do not follow the traditions of the elders, which set the stage for the words of Jesus.

In that segment, Jesus pointed out that the Pharisees were wrong, gave examples, and expanded the context to far beyond the original incident.

The second (Mark 7:14-16) are the words of Jesus to EVERYONE, where Jesus provides a test which can be used for ALL of the traditions which match -- and the anti-gay traditions are a perfect match.

In the 3rd part, Jesus speaks to the Apostles, who apparently do not want to believe that the words of Jesus were as all-inclusive as they actually were.

Jesus makes it quite clear that he did not misspeak in his original comment

So, the application of Mark is a true test that Jesus condones homosexuality.

Which could, by definition, mean that he was a homosexual.