rob_just_rob
Sexy Member
Who's up for starting a "If Jesus had had sex, would he have been bisexual?" thread? :naughty:
Fallen Angel said:Repent ! That's all I have to say... makarioi oi ptwxoi to pnevmati...
Can somebody tell me where I can meet some hot college girls?![]()
Check up your ass, I stuffed a few up there earlier this morning. They were talking about adding a couch.. all that room.:tongue:
And all this time, I thought that I had eaten too much curry. Thanks for enlightening me.
Pleez Lads, could you stop to wonder if somebody could get offended by this thread? Its a public forum, and still we have free speech. No need for hypocrisy.
I dont think Jesus was huge, besides, these Mediterranean guys seem to be quite average to me.
I would think that God would've given Jesus a grower. He would be like four inches long and four inches thick flaccid. When He had gotten erect, it would be 8 inches long and 7 inches circumferential girth. That is party the reason why the Romans and the Jews were scared. :smile: Only Mary Magdalene could handle it.
I would imagine Jesus probably didn't have a penis. If he was supposedly the messiah, what would he need one for?
The Messiah had to urinate, you know.![]()
Where was that written in the bible?![]()
Blasphemer. :tongue:
I would imagine Jesus probably didn't have a penis. ...
I would imagine Jesus probably didn't have a penis. If he was supposedly the messiah, what would he need one for?
There have been significant theological, and spiritual, reasons as to why Jesus needed a penis.:smile:
Something to cut and paste into your address box: http://www.metahistory.org/LastTaboo.php
***********WARNING this site: INCLUDES ART HISTORICAL IMAGES OF BULGING JESUS![]()
idea) by Gamaliel:
http://everything2.com/index.pl?node_id=665308
A 1983 work by Leo Steinberg that was a bombshell in the field of Renaissance studies. Steinberg noticed that there were a large number of paintings (and even some sculptures) which prominently featured the genitals of Jesus Christ. In many of these works, the penis was held, pointed to, gestured at, in a state of erection, or similarly displayed in a noticeable manner. This fact was either suppressed or ignored during the history of Renaissance scholarship, and many of those works he discussed were newly restored in recent decades after being defaced by prudish censors or falling victim to neglect over the centuries.
In the visual arts there was a tradition of ostentatio vulnerum - the display of the wounds of Christ. Steinberg concluded that these works were evidence of a similar tradition; he called it the ostentatio genitalium.
Steinberg speculated that the ostentatio genitalium was an effort to emphasize the human nature of Christ. Christ was divine, of course, but he was also human, and this dual nature is key to his importance to the Christian faith. What better way to emphasize that Christ was incarnated as a human male then to display that manhood in all its glory?
This idea, of course, instantly offended lots of people, and many more were skeptical. Initially, I was one of those skeptics. One of the flaws of Steinberg's argument is that he has no written evidence to buttress his claims: no artist's letters or journals, no contemporary commentary, nothing. But the evidence of the paintings themselves are powerful and irrefutable, and Steinberg's book provides illustrations of 300 of them. (Imagine that. Three hundred pictures of Jesus' penis.) Despite the torrents of criticism, tortured alternate explanations of the paintings, and logical contortions drawing on the writings of obscure mystics, the critics could not refute the obvious visual evidence.
From Amazon:
Originally published in 1983, Leo Steinberg's classic work has changed
the viewing habits of a generation. After centuries of repression and
censorship, the sexual component in thousands of revered icons of Christ
is restored to visibility. Steinberg's evidence resides in the imagery
of the overtly sexed Christ, in Infancy and again after death. Steinberg
argues that the artists regarded the deliberate exposure of Christ's
genitalia as an affirmation of kinship with the human condition.
Christ's lifelong virginity, understood as potency under check, and the
first offer of blood in the circumcision, both required acknowledgment
of the genital organ. More than exercises in realism, these unabashed
images underscore the crucial theological import of the Incarnation.
This revised and greatly expanded edition not only adduces new visual
evidence, but deepens the theological argument and engages the
controversy aroused by the book's first publication.