Were Samson and Jesus molested?

[Bolshevik]

So,

are you asserting that, in your opinion,

every perversion known to the Roman soldiers at that time were performed

on Jesus in that instance?

Hello,

If I have to say, yes, I think Jesus was molested. Can I prove that from the text? No. Therefore I could very well be wrong.

Lone Wolf

[WordWolf]

I'm not sure if anything can be proven from scripture but then again there is ALOT of scripture that we don't have access to. I've wondered if they didn't do sexual preversions to Jesus. If they would beat him so that his visage was marred more than any man then why wouldn't they do other kinds of atrocities to him too. It wouldn't surprise me if we found out they did - just what we know is pretty hlorrific.

Scourging alone produces some horrific damage.

It won't KILL you as fast as it MUTILATES you, because it's designed primarily to

TEAR SKIN and not PENETRATE FLESH so much.

But being horribly beaten, at the time, was not as isolated as some people think

or portray. (Not COMMON, but not unknown.)

I came across some references a number of years back concerning their

gladiator games. Some of them were man to man, weaponless combat,

which is no less brutal for using fists rather than swords.

Leather caps were instituted later to preserve ears from being bitten off.

Anyway, one poet wrote of a fighter who came home so brutally beaten up

that his own dog didn't recognize him.

Whether literally true or not, the concept was at least feasible to them at the time.

[jr4jc]

GOD i cannot believe this thread is still going on, it's warped and twisted stop it, go help an old lady across the street, do something but this discussion is SICK

rascal said it so well -- these guys were twisted and we quite often saw their bent

let their sickness die ---ie what i mean is realize that the way twisted a lot of things with thier---this is what that means--crap

stretching what is in scripture to meet their needs [lusts is more accurate]

here's one... what's the camel going through the eye of a needle????????

no matter what you think, know or have studied or been taught we all KNOW it means something that is difficult

if you want to argue over what it is then it is because you want to argue

likewise here our Lord suffered horribly for us--that shows us His love for us, that shows us His obedience to the Father

that shows us that suffering is temporary.

ask HIM what happened, if you have the spirit of truth HE may lead you into all truth [boy that sounds familiar]

but to hash this stupid subject to death---are you people sick too!!!!!

you know HE suffered a lot let it go at that

Edited April 19, 2007 by jr4jc

[rascal]

jr, I am sorry that the topic offends you. That doesn`t mean that it is not of merit to discuss. This is simply what it takes for some of us to come to grips with the error in our understanding.

My spouse STILL believes some of this stuff...it can affect his/our lives to this day. It is in analysing these doctrines, seeing the wild stretches, coming to grips with the realization that these were beliefs that evil men saw and taught...it takes understanding this evil to finally be able to realize that our *truth* is not truth at all sometimes. It takes facing up to the depths of perversion and why these guys taught it to realise that maybe OTHER things that we were taught are as outragiously wrong also.

Some of us are still imprisoned in the false teachings and it takes this kind of slap in the face to wake up.

'

I understand that it is offensive to you, but please do not discount the need to understand nor denigrate the people trying to come to grips with being betrayed. Talking about it, being outraged about it, being depressed about it...they are all healthy stages of healing.

Jr, Can you understand in telling people to sit down and shut up that you might be interfering with someone elses healing? That for some one else this might be the key to being released from rhe tears of imprisonment?

[Bolshevik]

I agree rascal.

If I don't stop and reconsider all these "little" details I was taught about scripture, I will continue to believe them and skew my thinking of other scriptures based on them.

And worse. . .I might even go on and teach others (like my kids) that these things are so.

[WordWolf]

Here's how I answered previous objections earlier in the thread, when they came up.

Same questions, from 2 different people. To save time, I'll answer them together.

twi put forth that they had not only A true understanding of Scripture, but

THE True Understanding of Scripture,

that anyone who agreed with them had the incontrovertible truth,

that anyone who disagreed with them were idjits who lived in error.

They still push this.

Among other things, they've put forth doctrines that are not allowed to be questioned-

that are unable to be supported beyond "this is what I say so believe it"-

and people questioning beyond that are told to just accept that leadership

has examined it and concluded it to be true.

(This is generally a lie-nobody "examined" it-it was declared by divine fiat.)

Among the beliefs they taught/teach are some odd teachings concerning sex.

The two subjects mentioned here were interrelated in their explanations-

they propounded ONE odd belief to justify the OTHER odd belief,

NEITHER of which seems to have a shred of BIBLICAL support.

Mind you,

even discussing or entertaining the notion that they might be wrong

was forbidden in twi/IS STILL FORBIDDEN IN TWI.

Even the messageboards of members face "sanctions" if anyone dares to

initiate even a well-mannered discussion of same.

So, this discussion has never taken place before.

Furthermore,

twi, AFAIK, STILL teaches this, and there are other people who teach

this- since "if it was good enough for wierwille, it's good enough

for me".

So, the discussing of doctrines I find to be a healthy thing.

The actual investigations, as we saw, were NEVER conducted in twi,

and-I gather-were never done until now by ex-twi, either.

So, this is technically new ground.

Thus, I consider this unfinished business.

Furthermore, sooner or later,

someone's going to come in and claim these are true.

(It happened with the other subject-about the oath-before.)

Therefore, I'm saving time in refutation of it when it happens.

I think the odd grouping of a number of teachings-

unique to twi-all centering around sex or body parts-

is suspicious and indicative of something.

Up to you to conclude WHAT it is indicative OF.