What do you think Jesus meant by "eunuchs"?
920265
The passage of inspired text to which you refer finds place with in the context of the Lord's conversation with the Jews who were tempting him in an effort to "catch him in his words" as they often did.  The Jews knowing of the continued controversary about marriage law which found much addressing between the Jews who insisted that Moses allowed divorce for any reason, and the Jews who contended that that which Moses' law was restricted to divorce based upon adultrey only, well realized that the marriage, divorce, re-marriage topic was hotly contested. They concluded that such was indeed the best of subjects with which to put the Lord in the proverbial hot water before the then present audience.\nThe Lord, however, being wise to the foolishness of such simply asked the question; "have ye not read" the Scripture? The Lord plainly refered the Jews to the Garden of Eden when God established his law regarding marriage. It is of good importance to notice that in the context of Matt.19:1-12 the Lord twice referd to the "begining," going back to God's law regarding marriage established in the Garden.  The Lord explained that God's law was never intended to be set aside concerning marriage, and that God intends that marriage is to be for life, and that divorce was never even so much as mentioned in the Genesis record. Thus the importance of that which the Lord stated in Matt.19:6 "That which God hath joined together, let not man put assunder."\nThe Jews then followed up with the question; "why did Moses then command " that a bill of divorcement be given?  Jesus informed the Jews that Moses did so because of the "hardness of the hearts" (Matt. 19:8) of the Jews.   Notice again the Lord's comment when he stated; "but from the begining it was not so" (Matt.19:8). \nThe Lord plainly revealed the fact that God's law pertaining to marriage was to be forever sealed, that is marriage is for life and only in the case of adultery may one (an innocent party)  put away a mate. Only the innocent mate in a marriage has the right to divorce a spouce who has committed adultery.  The innocent party then has the right to re-marry with God's approval, and only the innocent party (Matt.19:6). \nThe Lord plainly declared that one who was put away for adultery has lost the right to re-marry and must remain single. One guilty of adultery must come to the knowlege of the truth and comply with God's marriage law and remain single. For one to re-marry, who has committed adultery, places one in a continoius state of adultery. Thus the reason the Lord prohibited the mate guilty of adultry to re-marry.  It must also be realized that the only reason the Lord authorized divorce is in fact adultery.  If a divorce occurs in which neither spouce has committed adultery then neither spouce meets the requirements of the only exception authorized by the Lord to indeed acquire a divorce. Thus neither spouce has the right to re-marry, for neither one has indeed met the law establishing the exception the Lord allowed.\nAfter the Lord had well explained this matter to the Jews then present, (the 12 apostles also being present) the apostles concluded that if that which the Lord had just set forth in verses 4-9 were true it would be better to never marry if one could not divorce his spouce (Matt.19:10). The Lord of course gave this a ready reply. The reply is indeed recorded in verses 11 and 12\nNotice: \nVerse 11; "But he (Jesus) said unto them, all men cannot receive this saying, save they to whom it is given."     The passage is this by way of explaination. \nFirst; note that the words "But he said" are used. This of course settles the matter of the authority. It was Christ who said what he said.  Therefore, all men ought to heed well that which has been declared in the passage.\n\nSecond; The Lord stated, "All men cannot receive this saying."
14468
They are works of imagination. For one, Jesus being the son of a Nazarene, would have looked like a Middle Eastern person, not the brown haired blue eyed person that is typically portrayed by Western artists.\n\nFurthermore, Isaiah 53:2 (Christians presume that this chapter prophesieses of Jesus - for e.g. 53:1 is quoted in John 12:38) states that "He had no beauty or majesty to attract us to him, nothing in his appearance that we should desire him" (this is from the New International Version). You could take this to mean that Jesus was not good looking either. Another interpretation could be that he did not look 'royal', but regardless, he was probably an average looking Joe.\n\nI'm not sure if I would want to fault the artists for their inaccurate portrayals of Jesus. Perhaps a misplaced attempt at depicting those aspects that we find admirable. In the end, the physical appearance is immaterial, it is what the man stands for that is important.
549876
Proof that our "friend" is a hypocrite and a mental case, see above.\n\nI ask myself every time I read the Bible, what does this mean FOR me.
988627
We don't.\n\nVERY NAUGHTY FIGS\n\nJew in the Hebrew (yehudiy) means “of the tribe of Judah”.\nJew in the Greek (Ioudaios) means “of the tribe of Judah or a resident of Judea”.\nJudah is only one tribe of Israel (Jacob).\n\nDuring and after the Babylonian captivity, many infiltrated the Levitical priesthood or said they were of Judah. Ezra on the trip back to Jerusalem wrote.\n\nNONE OF THE SONS OF LEVI\n\nEzra 8:15 And I gathered them together to the river that runneth to Ahava; and there abode we in tents three days: and I viewed the people, and the priests, and found there none of the sons of Levi. \n\nThis is also illustrated in the parable, the two baskets of figs (Jer.24:1-10). One basket of good figs and one basket of naughty figs. So by the time Christ came along things were very rotten.\n\nPLAY ACTORS\n\nMatt.23:1 Then spake Jesus to the multitude, and to His disciples, Matt.23:2 Saying, The scribes and the Pharisees sit in Moses' seat: \n\nThe scribes and Pharisees sit in authority, they have taken over. Then Christ tells them to observe (inwardly), for they say and do not. Later Christ calls them hypocrites.\n \nMatt.23:13 But woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye shut up the kingdom of heaven against men: for ye neither go in yourselves, neither suffer ye them that are entering to go in. \n\nIn the Greek (hupokrites) means “an actor, stage player”. They are playing a role.\n\nSo many Biblically illiterates slander Judah, when it was the basket of naughty figs.\n\nIn Revelation Christ tells the church of Smyrna and Philadelphia.\n\nWHICH SAY THEY ARE JEWS\n\nRev.2:9 I know thy works, and tribulation, and poverty, (but thou art rich) and I know the blasphemy of them which say they are Jews, and are not, but are the synagogue of Satan. \n\nRev.3:9 Behold, I will make them of the synagogue of Satan, which say they are Jews, and are not, but do lie; behold, I will make them to come and worship before thy feet, and to know that I have loved thee.\n\nTHE SYNAGOGUE OF SATAN
895663
He'd say that they don't know their Bible well enough.\n\nThe passages in Leviticus (18:22 & 20:13), understood IN CONTEXT, are not an admonishment against loving sexual relationships between people of the same sex but instead against sex as a form of domination and control. Besides, these passages are part of the Holiness Code which is not binding to modern day Christians (or anyone else for that matter).\n\nThe story of Sodom and Gomorrah (Genesis chapters 18 & 19) was a warning against rape, inhospitality and xenophobia. The reason for Sodom's destruction is made clear in Ezekiel 16:48-50. According to Ezekiel, the sins of Sodom were pride, laziness, being inhospitable, neglecting the needs of the poor, greed, and idolatry (the worshipping of idols). Nothing about homosexuality is mentioned.\n\n1 Corinthians 6:9 was a mistranslation of the word malakee. It's used elsewhere in the Bible to mean someone who lacks discipline or one who is morally weak, and never is it used in reference to sexuality or gender.\n\n1 Timothy 1:10? Also a mistranslation. 1 Timothy was an admonishment against male prostitution, not committed, loving same sex relationships.\n\nThe words physin and paraphysin in Romans 1:26-27 have also been mistranslated. Contrary to popular belief, the word paraphysin does not mean "to go against the laws of nature", but rather implies action which is uncharacteristic for that particular person. An example of the word paraphysin is used in Romans 11:24, where God acts in an uncharacteristic (paraphysin) way to accept the Gentiles. When the scripture is understood correctly, it seems to imply that it would be unnatural for heterosexuals to live as homosexuals, and for homosexuals to live as heterosexuals.
340936
artistic license.  What Jesus actually looked like is unknown.  He was definately of Middle Eastern decent.  He most likely was unshaven.  He probably had shorter hair (as was the common jewish style at the time) unlike the long haired interpretations.
96421
It is hard to say for sure exactly what this meant.  Jesus seemed to believe that there would be coming very soon a "Son of Man" in glory on the clouds of heaven.  And he seems to be some sort of cosmic judge.  Of course, it was later understood by Jesus's followers that he was speaking of himself.  \n\nSon of Man seems to have been used in Judaism to refer to the Messiah or some sort of a cosmic judge of the earth that would come in apocalyptic times.  It is used in the book of Daniel in this way.  \n\nSon of Man actually can be argued to have almost a MORE divine connotation than Son of God.  Everyone is a son or daughter of God.  And also everyone is a son or daughter of man.  But to become a true Son of God, one must make himself subservient to his fellow man, thus becoming a son of man.  \nSo when Jesus washed the feet of his disciples, he was making himself a son of man, a servant of man.  And in so doing, he precisely shows himself to be a true Son of God, because to become great, one makes oneself lowly.
68846
eu·nuch    \n \nA castrated man employed as a harem attendant or as a functionary in certain Asian courts. \nA man or boy whose testes are nonfunctioning or have been removed. \nInformal. An ineffectual, powerless, or unmasculine man. \n\n\n--------------------------------------------------------------------------------\n[Middle English eunuk, from Latin eunchus, from Greek eunoukhos : eun, bed + -okhos, keeping (from ekhein, to keep. See segh- in Indo-European Roots).]\n--------------------------------------------------------------------------------\neunuch·ism n. \nWord History: The word eunuch does not derive, as one might think, from the operation that produced a eunuch but rather from one of his functions. Eunuch goes back to the Greek word eunoukhos, “a castrated person employed to take charge of the women of a harem and act as chamberlain.” The Greek word is derived from eun, “bed,” and ekhein, “to keep.” A eunuch, of course, was ideally suited to guard the bedchamber of women.
670997
Does it matter?  I think of Jesus as an olive-skinned man with brown eyes and dark hair, because he was born in Bethlehem, a district in a Middle Eastern country.  The fact that I have blue eyes and fair hair doesn't make me want to claim him as having that description.  Can't we all agree that Jesus was/is all things to all men?
565254
So if the followers of Jesus (pbuh) considered God to be their "Father," then how did they regard Jesus? \n\n"And when he would have put him to death, he feared the multitude, because they counted him as a prophet." Matthew 14:5 (compare with Matthew 21:26) \n\n"And the multitude said, This is Jesus the prophet of Nazareth of Galilee." Matthew 21:11 \n\n"But when they sought to lay hands on him, they feared the multitude, because they took him for a prophet." Matthew 21:46 \n\n"And he said unto them, What things? And they said unto him, Concerning Jesus of Nazareth, which was a prophet mighty in deed and word before God and all the people:" Luke 24:19 \n\n"The woman sayest unto him, Sir, I perceive that thou art a prophet." John 4:19 \n\n"Then those men, when they had seen the miracle that Jesus did, said, This is of a truth that prophet that should come into the world." John 6:14 \n\n"Many of the people therefore, when they heard this saying, said, Of a truth this is the Prophet." John 7:40 \n\n"And there came a fear on all: and they glorified God, saying, That a great prophet is risen up among us; and, That God hath visited his people." Luke 7:16 \n\n"They say unto the blind man again, What sayest thou of him, that he hath opened thine eyes? He said, He is a prophet." John 9:17 \n\nIndeed, how did Jesus himself describe himself? Let us read: \n\n"Nevertheless I (Jesus) must walk to day, and to morrow, and the [day] following: for it cannot be that a prophet perish out of Jerusalem." Luke 13:33 \n\nAnd they were offended in him. But Jesus said unto them, A prophet is not without honour, save in his own country, and in his own house. Matthew 13:57, Mark 6:4, Luke 4:24, John 4:43 \n\nThis is once again confirmed in the noble Qur'an: \n\n«"And when Jesus son of Mary said: O Children of Israel! Verily! I am the messenger of Allah unto you, confirming that which was [revealed] before me in the Torah"» The noble Qur'an, Al-Saf (61):6
1142814
Jesus actually ran his own escort service out of Nazareth and his twelve disciples were actually his posse of prostitutes that were rented out to King Herod's bi-sexual henchmen.\n\nJesus was gay, but celibate. True story.
850833
Is it me, or does Pangel always talk gobbledygook? LOL. Anyway, no, of course it is not a sin to use your mind that God gave you, to try and analyze things for yourself. The Bible was written thousands of years ago by many men, and much of it is NOT history, but rather allegory and symbolism. You are smart not to take it literally. After all, Jesus was always questioning the Pharisees about the law, and finding fault in it, Right?
27681
The new guy has obviously been influenced by the _da_Vinci_Code_ or other, similar works that posit that Jesus was married (most likely to Mary Magdalene), and likely had children through that union.\n\nThere are a couple verses in the gospels (depending on your translation - I'm looking at the New International Version) where Jesus is referred to as having brothers; I'd look specifically at Matthew 13:54-56, which says \n\n"54 Coming to his hometown, he began teaching the people in their synagogue, and they were amazed. "Where did this man get this wisdom and these miraculous powers?" they asked. 55 "Isn't this the carpenter's son? Isn't his mother's name Mary, and aren't his brothers James, Joseph, Simon and Judas? 56 Aren't all his sisters with us? Where then did this man get all these things?"\n\nWhile scholars have argued that "brother" might actually mean "cousin" or "other close male relative", the text wouldn't directly support that.\n\nThe wife and children thing can't be disproved Biblically - but neither can it be proven.  Some take the absense of direct reference to a wife as proof, while say that any man referred to as a rabbi/teacher would need to be married to have that status (as per the culture of the time).  Either way, there isn't anything that can be used definitively either way.
268992
First, I'm wondering how Jehovah's Witnesses resolve Revelation 14:4, which states that the 144,000 will be virgin (unmarried) males:\n\n"These are they which were not defiled with women; for they are virgins."\n\nThis verse, taken with Revelation 7:4, tells us that the 144,000 will literally be:\n1. Jews\n2. Men\n3. Virgins (unmarried). \n\nA Jehovah's Witness once told me that these were "virgins" in the spiritual sense, since they did not defile themselves with the whore of Babylon. But John didn't say "woman" (singular) he said "women" (plural).\n\nSo if we shouldn't take what the book of Revelation says literally regarding the 144,000, why should the number itself be? It seems that the Watch Tower organization is applying a double standard here in its interpretation of the scriptures. \n\n------------------------\n\nSecondly, Wink Winkleman said: "The scriptures make it very clear that the Jews WERE, at one point, God's chosen people, but they were completely abandoned by God once they had his Son, Jesus, put to death."\n\nWink, I'm wondering how you resolve that statement (that the Jews have been completely abandoned by God) with what Paul wrote in Romans chapter 11. \n\nPaul, writing well after Jesus died and rose again, said this of the Jewish people:\n\nVerse 1:\n"I say then, has God cast away His people? Certainly not!"\n\nVerse 2:\n"God has not cast away His people whom He foreknew."\n\nVerses 25-27:\n"For I do not desire, brethren, that you should be ignorant of this mystery, lest you should be wise in your own opinion, that blindness in part has happened to Israel until the fullness of the Gentiles has come in. And so all Israel will be saved, as it is written:\n>  "The Deliverer will come out of Zion,\n>  And He will turn away ungodliness from Jacob;\n>  For this is My covenant with them,\n>  When I take away their sins.""\n\nVerses 28-31:\n"Concerning the gospel they are enemies for your sake, but concerning the election they are beloved for the sake of the fathers. For the gifts and the calling of God are irrevocable. For as you were once disobedient to God, yet have now obtained mercy through their disobedience, even so these also have now been disobedient, that through the mercy shown you they also may obtain mercy."\n\nIf Paul is correct in saying that God will one day restore salvation to the nation of Israel, then why can't we take Revelation literally and simply believe what it says? The 144,000 will be Jewish, male virgins.
59516
Actually they are related.\n\nTestis in Latin means a witness, one who attests something or even something that serves as proof; another use of the word is for testicle.\n\nThe testament (as in the New and Old, as well as your last will and...) means a pact, a promise a swearing of obligations.  Testimony, of course, is the recitation of facts to which you attest.\n\nIt seems that testis in the plural, testes (testicles), may be a specific use of the general term.  How did this happen?\n\nThere is an oft-repeated but little proved popular etymology that says testis and testimony are related because a Greek or Roman would have to 'swear by his testicles', that is to grip them and swear that his oath was true lest he lose his testicles.\n\nThis same story seems to be supported by the swearing of oaths in the Old Testament wherein Hebrews would swear by the 'yarek' or thigh.  This, though it seems prove the swearing by the testicles is still not a proven point. (Just like in English a generic term like 'thigh' can mean the thigh itself or be used euphemistically for the thigh area or even testicles.)\n\nWithout some other evidence to support the 'swearing by the testicles' idea, the most basic and therefore more likely explanation is that the testicles themselves are 'proof' of manhood, that is to say they show that a male is not a eunuch, and in the minds of the ancients, able to produce an heir. (A eunuch could still have a penis, therefore, there needs to be some other 'proof'.)\n\nThomas Talboy, PhD, Director\nUbiquity International, LLC\nExperience. Explore. Embrace the World.(TM)\nhttp://www.ubiquityinternational.com\nDr. Tom’s Traveling News and Trivia. (TM)\nhttp://drtomstravelnewsandtrivia.blogspot.com/
719123
He pulled away...there's the proof. I love having my feet tickled. Lots of guys do. \n\nAs far as Jesus and all that. It's a bit off topic...
408055
Jesus was human and had sweay glands so Im sure he stank sometimes.... but as far as the other hygien questions, people werent animals back then, they even had holes carved in structures that served as early toilets. According to the KJV, men of stature "pisseth against the wall" which mean they had enough class to turn their backs and urinate privately.