Article: "Was Jesus Gay"

[Rodeo]

While I do not endorce the following story as being absolute in its truth of opinions, I thought it would be good for debate purposes...no doubt some will become heated at the mere thought, but in the course of educating ourselves to the views of others, it is worthy of conversation. The following story was sent to me by a friend of mine, which was written by by Matt Johns 365Gay Newscenter, Los Angeles Bureau


(Los Angeles, California) As Christians celebrate the birth of Jesus few of them will be told in their churches and Cathedrals anything about the sexuality of Jesus, yet a growing group of Biblical scholars believe that Christ may have had at least one sexual relationship with another male.

Noted Methodist theologian Rev. Theodore Jennings Jr. and Dr Morton Smith a world renowned Bible scholar at Columbia University say there is irrefutable evidence that Jesus was at least bisexual. Dr Rollan McCleary of the University of Queensland, in Australia, says he has discovered through his research that three of the disciples were gay.

Prof. Smith points to a fragment of manuscript he found at the Mar Saba monastery near Jerusalem in 1958 which he says allues to Jesus having a homosexual relationship with a youth he raised from the dead. The fragment shows that the full text of St. Mark, Chapter 10 (between verses 34 and 35 in the standard version of the Bible) includes the following 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".
Rev. Jennings, a professor at the United Church of Christ's Chicago Theological Seminary, points to the Gospel of St. John. In his recently published book "The Man Jesus Loved: Homoerotic Narratives From the New Testament," Jennings writes that the reference in St John about "the disciple Jesus loved" was actually a reference to Jesus' gay boyfriend.

Jennings also claims the centurion's servant who was healed by Jesus actually was the centurion's gay boyfriend and that Jesus did not denounce their relationship.

Dr McCleary spent the last three years researching “gay spirituality”. His book, "Signs for a Messiah" published earlier this year says that Jesus and at least three of his disciples were gay, and Christianity in general is built on “gay principles”.

McCleary says that Christianity needs to recognize its homosexual roots and abandon the practice of alienating gays and spreading homophobia.

British gay rights advocate Peter Tatchell says even though the information about Jesus' sexuality remains scant, "there is certainly no evidence for the Church's presumption that he was heterosexual. Nothing in the Bible points to him having desires or relationships with women. The possibility of a gay Christ cannot be ruled out."

"Since there is no proof of the heterosexuality of Jesus, the theological basis of Church homophobia is all the more shaky and indefensible," Tatchell said.

"Large chunks of Jesus' life are missing from the Biblical accounts. This has fuelled speculation that the early Church sanitized the gospels, removing references to Christ's sexuality that were not in accord with the heterosexual morality that it wanted to promote", said Tatchell.

The Vatican has denounced the research by Jennings, Smith and McCleary as "heretical". It has also been denounced by Southern Baptists and evangelical Anglicans.

When recently asked if his research might be tainted because he is gay, McCleary said: "You could see that either way. You could also say that heterosexual people have their eyes wide shut on the matter, that they don't want to see that Jesus would have been of gay disposition.

"You maybe have to be gay to read the signals and to see things and research things which other people wouldn't," he added.

[SantaMonica]

I'm sure the gay community would love it. Or the gay pedophile Priests. Either or would no doubt feel vindicated.

[Rodeo]

I believe my greatest difficulty with the bible lays in that the scriptures written are an interpretation of mankind to what was said and done and subsequently re-written over the years. so it becomes difficult to know what is the true word of God.

In regards to the aforemented article, yes, there are many years of Jesus' life that are missing and there are many scriptures that contradict other scriptures. I do not however believe that Jesus was gay, but I do believe he associated with gays', as would be consistent in his teaching all of the word of God.

[DNCAttackDog]

Whatever the historical truth about Jesus' sexuality, why should it be discussed in a forum about U.S. politics?

IMO, one of the moderators should move this thread.

[up2date]

Originally posted by DNCAttackDog
IMO, one of the moderators should move this thread. Agreed.

[ranger]

Originally posted by Rodeo



The fragment shows that the full text of St. Mark, Chapter 10 (between verses 34 and 35 in the standard version of the Bible) includes the following 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".


This fragment does not seem to fit the context of Mark chapter 10 versus 34 and 35.

the original latin bible

"34 et inludent ei et conspuent eum et flagellabunt eum et interficient eum et tertia die resurget

35 et accedunt ad illum Iacobus et Iohannes filii Zebedaei dicentes magister volumus ut quodcumque petierimus facias nobis"

Later translated into english

"34 And they shall mock him and spit on him and scourge him and kill him: and the third day he shall rise again.

35 And James and John, the sons of Zebedee, come to him, saying: Master, we desire that whatsoever we shall ask, thou wouldst do it for us."

[Gus]

The DiVinci Code would differ with your take that Jesus was gay.

Gus

[xexon]

The problem here is, you folks are looking at this with your western eyes.

You can't do that and understand. In eastern thought, there is no higher bond on earth than the relationship between master and disciple. It exceeds even a mother-child relationship.

There is a bonding that occurs in this kind of relation that is difficult for people in the west to comprehend. It is a mingling of souls. It occures beyond the realm of physical senses. The physical closeness should not be confused with carnal lust. It's quite different. Its a form of adoration, in the same way you admire your father or mother.


x

[TomAZ]

"IMO, one of the moderators should move this thread."

Why? It's a debatable topic about a guy who hung-out with 12 males and never laid with a female.

[xexon]

Its right where it needs to be.

Jesus has no value to humanity other than religious value.



x

[foxroaddaddy]

Originally posted by xexon
Jesus has no value to humanity other than religious value.

Except for that small detail that He created everything.

As for the topic of this thread. If Jesus were gay, then Christianity would have no meaning - it wouldn't even be a viable religion since homosexuality is condemned over and over and over in the Bible. My whole purpose for existing would shrivel up and blow away in the wind. On the basis that I believe Jesus lived a sinless life and that homosexual behavior is a sin, it is ludicrous to suggest He is gay.

[foxroaddaddy]

One other thing, if you all understood who it is your are discussing, these types of accusations would be ventured with extreme trepidation and trembling. I hope each of you who haven't yet will someday personally experience Him and receive from Him the mercy and forgiveness I have, even forgiveness for mischaracterizing Him in a way He would loathe.

[Agnostic]

The sexual preferences of Jesus dont interest me, but if I was asked to speculate, I would say he was bisexual. His relationship with Mary Magdalene wasnt exactly platonic, according to some people.

What difference does it make anyway?

Robin Hood had his band of "merry men," didnt he?;)

I always wondered what Jesus meant when he said about Peter "On this rock I shall build my church.:D

[cpwill]

agnostic; take a look at the geography of the region if you want to know about the "rock" statement.

on Jesus being Gay; if so, then Christianity is bunk

however, there is nothing in the scripture that indicates this.
there is also nothing in the scripture that indicates that Jesus had an affair to Mary Magdalene; that he did so and that they two of them had a child is an old tale that was originally told in such a way that (suprise suprise) the royal families who payed those who did the research turned out to be descendants of that child.

as for "the DaVinci Code", it's fictional, and intended to be so. conspiracy theories no doubt abound; however, there isn't any realistic historical justification for them; scripturally speaking.

[Quincy Wisdom]

Jesus is gay?

When are you people just going to forget him already?

:lol:

[Cobra]

The Romans seemed to have had no objection of homosexuality. Many of the emperors seemed to prefer slave boys to women. Latin does not even have a word for homosexuality.

[xexon]

Thats what I've been saying.

You can't judge ancient times with modern views.



x

[Simon666]

Originally posted by Cobra
The Romans seemed to have had no objection of homosexuality. Many of the emperors seemed to prefer slave boys to women. Latin does not even have a word for homosexuality.
:rofl:

Homosexual is a word of Latin origin.

[EvilTwinFelicia]

Originally posted by TomAZ
"IMO, one of the moderators should move this thread."

Why? It's a debatable topic about a guy who hung-out with 12 males and never laid with a female.

For those who've read the Bible, lest we forget-- Mary Magdalene was not considered a "disciple" yet she was always present. Many of Jesus' revelations were given/spoken to females-- was it not Mary Magdalene who discovered Jesus had risen from his grave after three days?

There. After that pro-girl message, I return you back to the original topic of "Was Jesus Gay?"

[EvilTwinFelicia]

Originally posted by Agnostic
The sexual preferences of Jesus dont interest me, but if I was asked to speculate, I would say he was bisexual. His relationship with Mary Magdalene wasnt exactly platonic, according to some people.

Some Biblical scholars believe Mary Magdalene was Jesus' wife, since she went everywhere with him. There is also some speculation that the wedding where Jesus turned water into wine was His own wedding to Mary.

[EvilTwinFelicia]

Originally posted by foxroaddaddy
Except for that small detail that He created everything.

You're mixing up the 66 books of the Bible. Everything was created by God-- in the book of Genesis. One must muddle through many books to get to Jesus.

[EvilTwinFelicia]

Originally posted by Rodeo
"You maybe have to be gay to read the signals and to see things and research things which other people wouldn't," he added.

I liken this statement to my mother being able to look at any movie-- and relate each aspect of HER life to that of the movie! Now, you and I know that when the scriptwriter wrote the movie, they weren't thinking about my mom-- or her life.

The Bible was written by man, original tongue was Greek. Many of the chapters about Jesus were supposedly written anywhere from 20 to 100 years after His death. Ergo, many aspects about Jesus' life were either forgotten or deemed unimportant to put in the Bible. To say Jesus was gay because of the phrasing of certain scriptures serves a personal agenda. No where in the Bible does it speak of Jesus having any siblings-- based on that-- I could assume if Jesus did have siblings, they must have been killed! (I read too much true crime!) The truth could be-- Jesus' siblings were all overshadowed by their Brother-- and each lived good lives as merchants and carpenters until their death.

Once we are dead, we shall indeed find out the truth, now won't we?

[xexon]

In the end, none of this really matters.

There are no philosophers in heaven. Its because they spent all their time splitting hairs over useless points instead of walking the path.

Walk, don't talk.


x

[foxroaddaddy]

Originally posted by EvilTwinFelicia
You're mixing up the 66 books of the Bible. Everything was created by God-- in the book of Genesis. One must muddle through many books to get to Jesus.

The Bible states in John, chapter 1:
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was with God in the beginning.
Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made. In him was life, and that life was the light of men. The light shines in the darkness, but the darkness has not understood it. ...
He was in the world, and though the world was made through him, the world did not recognize him. He came to that which was his own, but his own did not receive him. Yet to all who received him, to those who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God. ...
The Word became flesh and made his dwelling among us. We have seen his glory, the glory of the One and Only, who came from the Father, full of grace and truth.

So, the Bible credits both God, in Genesis, and Jesus, here in John, with creating everything. It really doesn't matter, though, becuase whether you say Jesus or God, you're really saying the same thing. They are simply two persons in the unified Godhead.

[Simon666]

If Jesus is supposed to be the son of god, that means at some point he had to be born. At no point is it said this was at the point of the creation of the earth as described in that fairy tale called Genesis. All indications are that Jesus only start to exist when he was born out of Mary, so saying Jesus created everything is false.

[EvilTwinFelicia]

Originally posted by foxroaddaddy
The Bible states in John, chapter 1:
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was with God in the beginning.
Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made. In him was life, and that life was the light of men. The light shines in the darkness, but the darkness has not understood it. ...
He was in the world, and though the world was made through him, the world did not recognize him. He came to that which was his own, but his own did not receive him. Yet to all who received him, to those who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God. ...
The Word became flesh and made his dwelling among us. We have seen his glory, the glory of the One and Only, who came from the Father, full of grace and truth.

So, the Bible credits both God, in Genesis, and Jesus, here in John, with creating everything. It really doesn't matter, though, becuase whether you say Jesus or God, you're really saying the same thing. They are simply two persons in the unified Godhead.

I personally don't buy that Jesus created the Earth, since he did not come along until much later. But-- hey, that's me. I also don't believe Jesus was gay, or even remotely concerned with endorsing Bush in the next election.

[foxroaddaddy]

Originally posted by Simon666
If Jesus is supposed to be the son of god, that means at some point he had to be born. At no point is it said this was at the point of the creation of the earth as described in that fairy tale called Genesis. All indications are that Jesus only start to exist when he was born out of Mary, so saying Jesus created everything is false.

If you don't believe Genesis, or John, then you certainly could say that Jesus creating everything is false. In fact, Jesus would be simply a man just like you or me.

The truth as I believe it, and as the Bible states, is that Jesus existed in His spirit form since before the beginning of time. As an Omnipotent Being, He stepped out of heaven, giving up His throne, in order to take the form of a human. When He was immaculately conceived, his physical life began.

It is a difficult metaphysical concept to wrap your mind around, especially if you are preset against it. However, the Bible is not unclear at all that this is what happened.

[foxroaddaddy]

Originally posted by EvilTwinFelicia
I personally don't buy that Jesus created the Earth, since he did not come along until much later. But-- hey, that's me. I also don't believe Jesus was gay, or even remotely concerned with endorsing Bush in the next election.

Felicia, if you read my last post to Simon, you'll see that Jesus has existed in Spirit for an infinity in the past. He had no beginning; He'll have no end.

[EvilTwinFelicia]

Originally posted by foxroaddaddy
Felicia, if you read my last post to Simon, you'll see that Jesus has existed in Spirit for an infinity in the past. He had no beginning; He'll have no end.

No problem. . .my beliefs have taught me differently. Now you see why the folks in my church hate to see me coming with a question!

[xexon]

I had the same problem when I was about 10.

I feel your pain. :)



x

[EvilTwinFelicia]

Originally posted by xexon
I had the same problem when I was about 10.

I feel your pain. :)



x

I like to stump 'em with the transsubstantiation of the host and wine into the Body and Blood of Christ. That one always gets them!

[xexon]

My favorite was if Jesus was the one and only son of God, why does the lords prayer start with "our father" ?

You could almost see the sweat start to bead on their foreheads.

And this was bible belt country too.



x

[Rodeo]

Sorry for the delayed response to the thread I started, so here are some thoughts.

First, Simon666 you are incorrect that the word "homosexual" is a latin word. The word homosexuality was coined in 1868 by the Gernam-Hungarian journalist Karl Maria Kertbeny in a letter written to the sexologist Karly Heinrich Ulrichs. H e used it again in 1869, in an annomymous pamphlet opposing Purssian antisodomy law. However, some indicate that the word homosexual may have been used first in English in 1863, in a Problem in Greek Ethics, an essey by the English cridic and homosexual apologist John Addington Symonds, in which he argued that the Greeks not only tolerated "homosexual passions" but deemed them of spiritual value. The earliest known use of "homosexual" in an American text was in May 1892 issue of the Chicago Medical Recorder, in an article entitled "Responsibility in Sexual Perversion" by the legal psychiatrist Dr. James Kiernan.

Secondly, while the early Roman era engaged in homosexaul behavior, e.g. taking on boy slaves the Romans did not view homosexuality in the same way that the Greeks did. And it was not until the Catholic Church decided to influence public policy by speaking out against homosexuality that the Roman's eventually outlawed this behavior as did the Greeks.

When it comes to Jesus as I have said, I do not believe that he was gay and I do believe that any factualness to this would seriously undermind all biblical scriptures. What becomes both disappointing and even discouraging is that in spite of the bible's plainliness, mankind has often distorted if not misrepresented different parts of Jesus' life. While at the same time there are certainly many contridictions between biblical scriptures and certainly between scriptures and that of scientific evidence.

We are taught that God creates man in his own image and becasue of this it is certainly not surprising that people would eventially protray Jesus in a particular light. Whether white or black, man or women, gay or straight...perhaps in our quest to believe that there is an actual prupose in the mystry of life, we look to God as we are in order to feel less isolated in the totality of what exists.

[cpwill]

Xexon; two possible answers; 1. Jesus is speaking as a member of the Godhead 2. Jesus is doing what he was saying he was doing; teachin us how to pray, ie:Matt 6:9"This, then, is how you should pray:
" 'Our Father in heaven..."

ETF; what was your question about transubstanciation? (not a catholic, but i know a couple and i'll see if i've thought about it before.)

[foxroaddaddy]

Originally posted by EvilTwinFelicia
I like to stump 'em with the transsubstantiation of the host and wine into the Body and Blood of Christ. That one always gets them! Transsubstantiaton is a Catholic doctrine.

For evangelical Christians, the bread and cup are symbolic of Christ's body and blood; they do not actually become His body and blood. The Lord's Supper is observed in remembrance of and in honor of Jesus' loving sacrifice. It is a truly moving event when those who were bought with the price of Jesus' blood can reflect with humble amazement and gratitude on the love He shows every one of us.

[foxroaddaddy]

Originally posted by xexon
My favorite was if Jesus was the one and only son of God, why does the lords prayer start with "our father" ?

Cpwill is correct in saying Jesus was teaching his disciples how to pray.

I'll address your original "if". Jesus is God's only begotten son. But because Jesus paid the price for our sins, we have been given the opportunity to become the children of God. Think of it as adoption. Jesus' perfection is imputed to us if we "confess with our lips that Jesus is Lord and believe in our hearts that God raised him from the dead" (from Romans 10:9). This is how we become sons and daughters of God.

[foxroaddaddy]

Originally posted by EvilTwinFelicia
No problem. . .my beliefs have taught me differently. Now you see why the folks in my church hate to see me coming with a question!

I'm curious, what are you beliefs on the subject? I assume you don't see God and Jesus as one. Is that right?

I'm also curious, what church are you a member of and what questions have you raised that the folks in your church had a problem with?

[Simon666]

Originally posted by Rodeo
First, Simon666 you are incorrect that the word "homosexual" is a latin word.
I just said it is of Latin origin. Homo : Greek for equal, same and sexus : Latin for gender. I doubt the Romans didn't have a word for it, it is probably only because they did not write anything down about it that it didn't reach us by written documents. If it occurred and was quite common at the time as even you admit is the case, then I am quite convinced they had a word for it.
Originally posted by foxroaddaddy
The truth as I believe it, and as the Bible states, is that Jesus existed in His spirit form since before the beginning of time. As an Omnipotent Being, He stepped out of heaven, giving up His throne, in order to take the form of a human. When He was immaculately conceived, his physical life began.
Could you give me the part of the Bible where that is stated? The Old Testament speaks of only one God, not divided in three entities. Only in the New Testament the Holy Spirit and Jesus appear, so it is only fair to assume they only existed at that around that point otherwise God would have been holding information behind for Moses and his bunch.

[foxroaddaddy]

Originally posted by Simon666
Could you give me the part of the Bible where that is stated? The Old Testament speaks of only one God, not divided in three entities. Sure, I'd be glad to. The Old Testament is replete with references to the Trinity and the pre-existance of both the Holy Spirit and Jesus, the Son. I'll give you three to get you going.

Micah 5:2 - Micah prophecies that Jesus to be born in Bethlehem and then defines Him as being existent from eternity past.

Isaiah 9:6 - Again predicts Jesus birth and proclaims Him to be "Mighty God" and "Eternal Father."

Isaiah 63:8-10 - The Holy Spirit's existence is clearly stated in this passage.

So, God's nature and makeup has never changed. He has always been and will always be a Trinity of three distinct, divine persons.

[Simon666]

What version do you use for the Bible, I use King James' version I found once, it is pretty handy to get to a verse:

Micah 5:2 (http://bibletools.org//index.cfm/fuseaction/Bible.show/sVerseID/22636/eVerseID/22636/version/kjv/opt/comm/RTD/cgg) : I don't really read this as being existent from eternity past. This may be a language issue.

Isaiah 9:6 (http://bibletools.org//index.cfm/fuseaction/Bible.show/sVerseID/17836/eVerseID/17836/version/kjv/opt/comm/RTD/cgg) The everlasting father seems to me the father who will last forver, not the person who has been father forever since the start of time.

Isaiah 63:8-10 (http://bibletools.org//index.cfm/fuseaction/Bible.show/sVerseID/18875/eVerseID/18875/version/kjv/opt/comm/RTD/cgg) It is clearly stated, but couldn't this be a language issue, that they rebelled against his will, his spirit? Not as in the Spirit being a seperate entity of God, just as the Father and the Son in the trinity proclaimed by the christian church. I have never heard of Jews recognizing a duality of God, this would be new information to me.

[ranger]

Satanists worship God's fallen angel Lucifer. They believe in Hell. Satanists believe in God. They believe in the "Holy Sacrifice of the Mass" of the Roman Catholic Church. Satanists believe in the transubstantiation as believed by the Roman Catholic Church. They use the Hosts of the Catholic Church in their "Black Mass".

Would it not be in the satanist's best interest to argue against the existence of God? They would also argue against the Blessed Trinity! They would argue against the humanity of the weakest of humans. They would do this in an attempt to confuse people and get them to defy God's law to send them to the judgement of the Damned.

When you take a person claiming to be a satanist seriously, they often deny being a satanist and claim they are not to be taken seriously. They claim it is for shock value alone.

Makes you wonder!

[Simon666]

Advice to ranger: buy cd "Seventh Son of a Seventh Son" from Iron Maiden or this one (http://www.cduniverse.com/productinfo.asp?PID=1061582&frm=sh_google) for example, insert in cd player and press play.

[ranger]

Originally posted by Simon666
Advice to ranger: buy cd "Seventh Son of a Seventh Son" from Iron Maiden or this one (http://www.cduniverse.com/productinfo.asp?PID=1061582&frm=sh_google) for example, insert in cd player and press play.

I appreciate your advice but would rather not invest money in such things. I tend to discriminate against Iron Maiden and their type of music. Battle Hymn of the Republic pretty much sums up my kind of music.

[foxroaddaddy]

Originally posted by Simon666
What version do you use for the Bible, I use King James' version I found once, it is pretty handy to get to a verse:

Micah 5:2 (http://bibletools.org//index.cfm/fuseaction/Bible.show/sVerseID/22636/eVerseID/22636/version/kjv/opt/comm/RTD/cgg) : I don't really read this as being existent from eternity past. This may be a language issue....whose goings forth have been from of old, from everlasting...
"Whose goings forth" confirms existence - you can't be "going" if you don't exist.
"From of old (or antiquity)" means the very distant past.
"From everlasting" means "Since eternity past"

Isaiah 9:6 (http://bibletools.org//index.cfm/fuseaction/Bible.show/sVerseID/17836/eVerseID/17836/version/kjv/opt/comm/RTD/cgg) The everlasting father seems to me the father who will last forver, not the person who has been father forever since the start of time.The two terms, "The mighty God, The everlasting Father" are terms that are reserved for God who is eternal both past and future. So, not only does this passage confirm Jesus' pre-existence, it also confirms both His diety and His union with God the Father.

Isaiah 63:8-10 (http://bibletools.org//index.cfm/fuseaction/Bible.show/sVerseID/18875/eVerseID/18875/version/kjv/opt/comm/RTD/cgg) It is clearly stated, but couldn't this be a language issue, that they rebelled against his will, his spirit? Not as in the Spirit being a seperate entity of God, just as the Father and the Son in the trinity proclaimed by the christian church. I have never heard of Jews recognizing a duality of God, this would be new information to me.Simon, you can say many things about what this and any other passage "could" say. The same is true for me or anybody else.

I think the important thing here is that no matter how clear or confusing the scriptures are, it takes faith to believe. That's the way God designed it. If everything were perfectly clear, verifiable, and proven, no faith would be necessary.

You obviously have a very analytical, intelligent mind, and you have reasoned well in this debate. We can debate all day, but no amount of solid evidence can be presented to you so that you'll say in your mind, "OK, I'm satisfied. Everything makes perfect sense." My goal, instead, in this debate is to present enough plausible evidence to you that, with your mind, you might be able to say "Not everything is totally clear, but the message is feasible." At that point, your heart might take over, and perhaps the Holy Spirit will give you faith to accept what God, through Jesus, has done for you. This is my earnest prayer for you, my friend.

[Thermopylae]

If Jesus did exist, it wouldn't surprise me if he were. Having homosexual relations with young boys was common practice among the Greek and Roman civilizations. The barbaric practice was very popular among the hierarchy, but luckily it died later in the Roman times.

[Simon666]

Originally posted by foxroaddaddy
...whose goings forth have been from of old, from everlasting...
"Whose goings forth" confirms existence - you can't be "going" if you don't exist.
"From of old (or antiquity)" means the very distant past.
"From everlasting" means "Since eternity past"
Perhaps. It would be nice to see a direct translation from the original language the Old Testament was written in.
Originally posted by foxroaddaddy
The two terms, "The mighty God, The everlasting Father" are terms that are reserved for God who is eternal both past and future. So, not only does this passage confirm Jesus' pre-existence, it also confirms both His diety and His union with God the Father.
You forget three things. First, the Everlasting father is a term that in that verse is given to the Son of God, not to God, so it doesn't indicate God has been father of a son all along. Second, it is an honorary title in a list of honorary titles, it doesn't seem like something to be interpreted literally. And third, everlasting means lasting forever, not having existed all along and lasting forever in eternity.
Originally posted by foxroaddaddy
Simon, you can say many things about what this and any other passage "could" say. The same is true for me or anybody else.

I think the important thing here is that no matter how clear or confusing the scriptures are, it takes faith to believe. That's the way God designed it. If everything were perfectly clear, verifiable, and proven, no faith would be necessary.

You obviously have a very analytical, intelligent mind, and you have reasoned well in this debate. We can debate all day, but no amount of solid evidence can be presented to you so that you'll say in your mind, "OK, I'm satisfied. Everything makes perfect sense." My goal, instead, in this debate is to present enough plausible evidence to you that, with your mind, you might be able to say "Not everything is totally clear, but the message is feasible." At that point, your heart might take over, and perhaps the Holy Spirit will give you faith to accept what God, through Jesus, has done for you. This is my earnest prayer for you, my friend.
Thank you but I made up my mind years ago to not believe in God anymore. At age 12-14 I still thought of becoming priest, but now I don't think there is any person that can "rescue" me anymore. I have seen the light and it is not the light of God but the light of reason.