Could Christ Have Been A Woman?

@maxdancona,

maxdancona wrote ..... Both God and I have had children with human females.

The Anointed Responds ..... You may have had children with human females, but God never has.

Jesus was born from the union of Mary and her half brother Joseph, who were both sired by Alexander Helios III=Heli from different mothers, and Jesus was born son of God, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but by the spirit of the Lord, which descended upon him in the form of a dove, as he came up out of the baptismal waters of the Jordon, and the heavenly voice was heard to say; "You are my son, 'THIS DAY' I have begotten thee".

Hebrews 5: 7; In his life on earth Jesus made his prayers and requests with loud cries and tears to God, who could save him from death. Because he was humble and devoted, God heard him. But even though he was 'A" son of God (All Jews are sons of God, See psalms 82) he learnt through his sufferings to be obedient. When he was made perfect, he became the source of eternal salvation for all those who obey him, 10and God declared him to be high priest, in the priestly order of Melchizedek.

Hebrews 5: 5; In the same way, Christ did not take upon himself the honour of being a high priest. Instead, God said to him: “You are my Son; 'TODAY' I have become your Father.” 6 Ps 110.4He also said in another place, “You will be a priest for ever, in the priestly order of Melchizedek.”

1 Reply

@The Anointed,

Of Alexander Helios (aka Heli), I found this.

https://sites.google.com/site/christanitystudies/home/jesus-genealogy-3

I'm gonna pass on this. Not a hard pass, like with Catholicism (sorry guys, you suck), but I can't accept this one.

I do believe in virgin birth (sorry Heli), but I do not think Mary is "blessed among all women," the Wife of God, or the Mother of God. Such beliefs are dangerously false.

1 Reply

@bulmabriefs144,

And what makes you believe the false teaching of the virgin birth as taught by the Roman Church?

Luke 3:23; (KJV) And Jesus himself began to be about thirty years of age, being (as was supposed) the son of Joseph, which was the son of Heli. The (AS WAS SUPPOSED) in brackets, was a later interpolation by those who would have you believe the false teaching of the so-called virgin birth.

In the different translations of the KJV into Arabic, Afrikaan, Zulu, etc and even some of the more modern English translations, such as the Good News Catholic Study Edition Bible, the words (As was supposed) have been retained, but the brackets are removed, thus by, making those words appear to be the declaration of Luke, while the serious biblical student know that they were not written by Luke, but were a later interpolation and a corruption of the Holy Scriptures, by those Christians, who refuse to accept that Jesus was not a God who became a man, but a man, born of human parents, who was later CHOSEN by the Lord our saviour ‘The Son of Man,’ as his heir and successor, and who was given divine glory, as revealed in Acts 3: 13; where it is said that the God of our ancestors, the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, has given divine glory to his servant Jesus etc.

1 Reply

@The Anointed,

The virgin birth is taught by both Catholics and Protestants. It is devised specifically because Joseph's line has cursed parts. It is inelegant as a solution to prophecy, and I'm sure I believe it really happened the way they described it, but it tells us that families in Christianity are really about adoption.

Through Mary, Jesus has one direct family line to God. Mary don't need no man, as the feminists would say. But she does take a husband, so that her child will be called a child of David and of Solomon. Certainly she doesn't need some weird stranger with a foreign name, who possibly invalidates Jesus's divinity (the one major problem I have with Heli is this). Jesus is God. And since God is a spiritual being (no male DNA), Jesus could conceivably have been a girl. Make no mistake, her mother would raise her as a boy if this were so. Which is why Jesus is also called King of Jews, "he" would be a male impersonator, who the church allowed to remain so as canon. But why refer to oneself as a hen? Why the 30 pieces of silver? And the lamb in the old testament is supposed to be female. I read this passage myself.

It's when you start talking about the immaculate womb of Mary and ignore the fact that later she did have plenty of children through Joseph as is canon.

I generally try to follow Biblical canon. I have some syncretic ideas, and some weird theories, but part of why I loathe Catholicism is that they try to lead people away from written scripture and toward what the Pope (a corrupt man given power through a false teaching that Peter is a stand-in for Jesus). Nobody can replace Jesus. "It is enough for a disciple to be like his master." Matthew 10:25. I would say that this female Jesus is not canon, except the OP link made a case for why I would be left out, and why other passages suggest it should be in there.

When we start saying some man in a funny robe is the Holy Father (literally what Pope means), we blaspheme against the true Holy Father (God, Creator of the Heaven and the Earth).

1 Reply

@bulmabriefs144,

bulmabriefs144 wrote ….. The virgin birth is taught by both Catholics and Protestants. It is devised specifically because Joseph's line has cursed parts. It is inelegant as a solution to prophecy, and I'm sure I believe it really happened the way they described it, but it tells us that families in Christianity are really about adoption.

The Anointed Responds ….. Yeh, well the protestant churches are only the daughter denominations who were spawned from the false teachings of their Roman mother body, before coming out of her and establishing families of their own. And the Joseph you are referring to, is Joseph ben Jacob, who married Mary after she had fallen pregnant to Joseph ben Heli, the biological father to Jesus.

And as you believe that the birth of Jesus really happened the way they described it, then you must believe as the Roman church does, and that is the Jesus was some alien life form that existed before he and his father created the Cosmos, and some two thousand years ago, he came down to earth and entered the womb of some supposed ever virgin, where he created for himself a human like body which was not of the seed of Adam and therefore not subject to the death penalty for the sin of Adam which all human beings are supposed to be.

And in that human like body he was able to walk the earth disguised as a human being, until He, (The immortal Son of God, who can never die) took the humanlike body to the cross and had it killed, after which He returned to his eternal heavenly home to be with his eternal father. If such is the case and you believe that the birth of Jesus really happened the way they described it, then you are more gullible that I suspected you to be.

bulmabriefs144 wrote ….. Through Mary, Jesus has one direct family line to God. Mary don't need no man, as the feminists would say. But she does take a husband, so that her child will be called a child of David and of Solomon.

The Anointed Responds ….. Well, the feminists are wrong, and Jesus was not a descendant through the male line of Solomon, but of the genetic male line of Nathan, the half brother of Solomon, both being born of the one mother, ‘Bathsheba’. See the genealogy of Jesus as recorded in Luke 3: 23.

bulmabriefs144 wrote ….. Certainly she doesn't need some weird stranger with a foreign name, who possibly invalidates Jesus's divinity (the one major problem I have with Heli is this). Jesus is God. And since God is a spiritual being (no male DNA), Jesus could conceivably have been a girl.

The Anointed Responds ….. Joseph the biological father of Jesus is not a foreign name, in fact Joseph would be one of the most common names in the Hebrew, do you know how many different Jewish men in the new testament are named Joseph, besides Joseph ben Jacob, a descendant of Solomon and the foster father of Jesus as recorded in Matthew and Joseph ben Heli, a descendant of Nathan and the biological father of Jesus, as recorded in Luke? And when did the man Jesus become incontestably divine? When, as revealed in Acts 3: 13; it is said; "The God of our ancestors, the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, has given divine glory to his servant 'Jesus'.

bulmabriefs144 wrote ….. Make no mistake, her mother would raise her as a boy if this were so.

The Anointed Responds ….. I see, and at what age would Mary have had her (Female) child circumcised as recorded in the scriptures?

bulmabriefs144 wrote ….. Which is why Jesus is also called King of Jews, "he" would be a male impersonator, who the church allowed to remain so as canon. But why refer to oneself as a hen? Why the 30 pieces of silver? And the lamb in the old testament is supposed to be female. I read this passage myself.

The Anointed Responds ….. Good heavens, I've met some in my long life, but you take the cake. And from where did you read that passage, of the female lambs? undoubtedly from some lying Roman church literature, because I have read in the Holy Scriptures where it is written in Exodus 12:5 "The animals you choose ‘MUST BE YEAR-OLD MALES’ without defect, and you may take them from the sheep or the goats. "
You should try reading the bible one day, instead of Catholic literature.

bulmabriefs144 wrote ….. It's when you start talking about the immaculate womb of Mary and ignore the fact that later she did have plenty of children through Joseph as is canon.

The Anointed Responds ….. I have never talked about the Roman churches false teaching of some supposed ‘IMMACULATE WOMB’, but I have spoken of Joseph as being the only child of Mary, who was sired by Joseph ben Jacob, after Mary had birthed Jesus, and Joseph ben Jacob finally consummated his union with Mary, whereas James the younger of her three biological sons and the only full brother of Jesus, was sired by ‘Alphaeus’, who I have already explained was another name given to Joseph ben Heli.

bulmabriefs144 wrote ….. I generally try to follow Biblical canon.

The Anointed Responds ….. BS, then what makes you think that Mary had a daughter circumcised at the age of 8, and that the Passover Lamb had to be a female lamb, and if you follow the canon which was a few books of scripture that was around in his day, that were put together by Jerome of the Roman church, do you believe Luke who states that Shelah was the son of Kainam=Cainan,(Luke 3: 35-36.) whereas the only two places in the canon's OT, which refer to the father of Shelah, is Genesis 11:12, and 1 Chronicles 1: 18, and both state that Apachshad is the father of Shelah. I suppose you believe that Luke is a liar, because he had to go the Greek Septuagint and the book of Jubilees to discover the truth.

bulmabriefs144 wrote ….. I have some syncretic ideas, and some weird theories, but part of why I loathe Catholicism is that they try to lead people away from written scripture and toward what the Pope (a corrupt man given power through a false teaching that Peter is a stand-in for Jesus).
Nobody can replace Jesus. "It is enough for a disciple to be like his master." Matthew 10:25. I would say that this female Jesus is not canon, except the OP link made a case for why I would be left out, and why other passages suggest it should be in there.

The Anointed Responds ….. Please reveal where it is suggested anywhere in any passage in any book of any religious scriptures, that Jesus might have been a girl?

bulmabriefs144 wrote ….. When we start saying some man in a funny robe is the Holy Father (literally what Pope means), we blaspheme against the true Holy Father (God, Creator of the Heaven and the Earth).

The Anointed Responds ….. well finally, you’ve got something right.

2 Replies

@The Anointed,

I was too late to edit my previous post where I forgot to enter the word (DAYS) in a particular sentence, which I will now rectify, that sentence being; " BS, then what makes you think that Mary had a daughter circumcised at the age of 8 (DAYS).

0 Replies

@The Anointed,

Quote:

And as you believe that the birth of Jesus really happened the way they described it, then you must believe as the Roman church does, and that is the Jesus was some alien life form that existed before he and his father created the Cosmos, and some two thousand years ago, he came down to earth and entered the womb of some supposed ever virgin, where he created for himself a human like body which was not of the seed of Adam and therefore not subject to the death penalty for the sin of Adam which all human beings are supposed to be.

And in that human like body he was able to walk the earth disguised as a human being, until He, (The immortal Son of God, who can never die) took the humanlike body to the cross and had it killed, after which He returned to his eternal heavenly home to be with his eternal father. If such is the case and you believe that the birth of Jesus really happened the way they described it, then you are more gullible that I suspected you to be.

The larger Church believes in "begotten not made" and rejects the notion of Jesus being an avatar. That is Jesus is not a deific being disguised as a human, and is very much capable of suffering from death. Jesus is also born. That is, Jesus is fully human, having been begotten. But Jesus is also fully God, having God's full spiritual power. Jesus can walk on water, calm storms, pass through crowds who are actively trying to kill him, and heal basically any condition. But this does leave his human genes as only those of Mary. There is no bloodline not of the seed of Adam, because Mary's bloodline is the only bloodline here. A perfect clone of Mary with the power of God.

What the Punnett Square of Jesus looks like. You'll notice there is no demigod stuff going on.

https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/816868397836926996/874488793380581436/JesusPunnett.png

The scientists call this parthenogenesis.

Jesus's birth was real. Jesus's death was real. But it wasn't Heli and it wasn't Joseph. So who was Jesus's father?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=41oqY1XdjaQ
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NLUaag24-9w

Yeah that. "There was no father."

Quote:

The Anointed Responds ….. Joseph the biological father of Jesus is not a foreign name, in fact Joseph would be one of the most common names in the Hebrew, do you know how many different Jewish men in the new testament are named Joseph, besides Joseph ben Jacob, a descendant of Solomon and the foster father of Jesus as recorded in Matthew and Joseph ben Heli, a descendant of Nathan and the biological father of Jesus, as recorded in Luke? And when did the man Jesus become incontestably divine? When, as revealed in Acts 3: 13; it is said; "The God of our ancestors, the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, has given divine glory to his servant 'Jesus'.

Heli is a Greek name. Eli is a Hebrew name, and Mary's own father. You seem to be implying father-daughter incest.

https://i1.wp.com/kidsermons.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2015/07/Jesus_Genealogy.jpeg

I'm not cool with that either.

Quote:

The Anointed Responds ….. I see, and at what age would Mary have had her (Female) child circumcised as recorded in the scriptures?

Recall that Jesus fled to Egypt at a very young age. Of the four gospels, only Luke 2 mentions the circumcision of Jesus, but it does not mention Herod trying to kill Jesus or the wise men visiting. Jesus would have been born in a stable, not necessarily have many birth records, as Mary and Joseph stayed in this area for the census. There is at least some likelihood that no priests in the vicinity knew of this, as they were poor family. It's also possible that Jesus was presented to a temple for annunciation, and the priest there did in fact see Jesus's gender during the "circumcision". But Luke itself says that an old widowed woman named Anna and a man named Simon who would not die until he saw the Savior were there. Could the secret have died with them? Could Jesus have been listed among the dead or presumed dead by Herod? Supposing "he" was taken to the Temple in Egypt instead, since it was too busy? Supposing "he" was never taken at all, and the records were lost in the shuffle? After all, you do not need to take a child who is a girl, and they could have told the priests in Egypt that "he" was circumcised while in Judea. What we do know is that when Jesus is twelve, Jesus impresses the Jews in the Temple, and is apparently trained by them, as he is called rabbi as an adult. But nothing of Jesus's teen years, and it sounds like his family ran off before alot of the heavy paperwork was done.

Or as listed above, Jesus could have been sexually ambiguous. His circumcision was seen by two old people. A younger person might have noticed what was really an enlarged clitoris or something. In fact... anyone seeing an "already circumcised" "male" (the clitoral hood can sometimes be mostly open) would indeed conclude that they'd seen the Messiah, as it would be something extremely strange to look at.

Exodus 12:5 ? The passage is from the Passover lamb offering. Leviticus 4 talks about the offering for sins. Yes, Jesus is called the Paschal Lamb, because Jesus died during Passover (and is assumed to be male). But the offering for sins is a female lamb. For everyone but the priests themselves, and any occasion but specifically to celebrate Passover. That is, if Jesus is Paschal Lamb, he is a male Lamb. If Jesus is a sacrifice for our (the common people's) sins, "he" is a female lamb.

Leviticus 4

Quote:

22When a leader sins unintentionally and does what is prohibited by any of the commandments of the LORD his God, he incurs guilt. 23When he becomes aware of the sin he has committed, he must bring an unblemished male goat as his offering. 24He is to lay his hand on the head of the goat and slaughter it at the place where the burnt offering is slaughtered before the LORD. It is a sin offering. 25Then the priest is to take some of the blood of the sin offering with his finger, put it on the horns of the altar of burnt offering, and pour out the rest of the blood at the base of the altar. 26He must burn all its fat on the altar, like the fat of the peace offerings; thus the priest will make atonement for that man’s sin, and he will be forgiven.

27And if one of the common people sins unintentionally and does what is prohibited by any of the LORD’s commandments, he incurs guilt. 28When he becomes aware of the sin he has committed, he must bring an unblemished female goat as his offering for that sin. 29He is to lay his hand on the head of the sin offering and slaughter it at the place of the burnt offering. 30Then the priest is to take some of its blood with his finger, put it on the horns of the altar of burnt offering, and pour out the rest of the blood at the base of the altar. 31Then he is to remove all the fat, just as it is removed from the peace offering, and the priest is to burn it on the altar as a pleasing aroma to the LORD. In this way the priest will make atonement for him, and he will be forgiven.

32If, however, he brings a lamb as a sin offering, he must bring an unblemished female. 33And he is to lay his hand on the head of the sin offering and slaughter it as a sin offering at the place where the burnt offering is slaughtered. 34Then the priest is to take some of the blood of the sin offering with his finger, put it on the horns of the altar of burnt offering, and pour out the rest of its blood at the base of the altar. 35And he shall remove all the fat, just as the fat of the lamb is removed from the peace offerings, and he shall burn it on the altar along with the offerings made by fire to the LORD. In this way the priest will make atonement for him for the sin he has committed, and he will be forgiven.

Only a female raised as a male would meet both categories. Or someone sexually ambiguous.

1 Reply

@bulmabriefs144,

Give up the idiotic belief, that the man Jesus could have been a woman, I'd hate to see you make an absolute fool of yourself.

bulmabriefs144 wrote ….. The larger Church believes in "begotten not made"

The Anointed responds ….. I know, and that’s just another lie that they attempt to perpetrate on the gullible. It is not to be found in their scriptures.

Those lies were never challenged when the church believed that it held the spiritual power over the temporal rulers of the world, which rulers had to beg for an audience with the pope. No one dared to challenge the false teachings of the Roman church, for fear of being condemned as a heretic and burned at the stake.

From the GOOD NEWS STUDY EDITION of the Catholic bible, Acts 3: 19-20; Repent, then, and turn to God, so that he will forgive your sins. If you do, times of spiritual strength will come from the Lord, and he will send Jesus, who is the Messiah he has already ‘CHOSEN’ for you.

Luke 9: 34-35; While he was still speaking, a cloud appeared and covered them with its shadow; and the disciples were afraid as the cloud came over them. A voice said from the cloud, “This is my Son, whom I have ‘CHOSEN’ — listen to him!”

Isaiah 42: 1-2; “Here is my servant, whom I strengthen — the one I have ‘CHOSEN’, with whom I am pleased. I have filled him with my Spirit, and he will bring justice to every nation.

Deuteronomy 18:18-19; YHVH, the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, says to Moses; "I will send them a prophet like you from among their own people; I will put MY WORDS in his mouth, and he shall speak to them all that I command, and whosoever will not heed MY WORDS, which he shall speak in MY NAME, I will punish, etc.

My WORDS are spirit said the Lord.

Peter confirms that Jesus was that man, when, concerning the man Jesus, he says in. Acts 3: 22; For Moses said; "The Lord your God will send you a prophet, just as he sent me, and he will be one of your own people, etc."

Did the people of his day believe that he was the Lord, the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. The God of our ancestors? No, they did not, for on the day of his triumphant entry into Jerusalem, the people escorting him cried out, "BLESSED IS HE WHO COMES IN THE NAME OF THE LORD" Verifying that they believed Jesus to be the one that God had promised Moses that he would choose from among the Israelites, and send to the people to speak in his name.

Acts 17 31; For he has fixed a day in which he will judge the whole world with justice by means of a ‘MAN’ he has ‘CHOSEN’. He has given proof of this to everyone by raising that ‘MAN’ from death!”

Whereas, the scripture twisting theologians of the Roman church of Emperor Constantine, Those who would have you believe that Jesus was a god who became a man, changed the original verse, in Luke 3: 22; which originally read, “and the Holy Spirit came down upon him in bodily form like a dove. And a voice came from heaven, “Thou art my son, THIS DAY I have begotten thee, to; “and the Holy Spirit came down upon him in bodily form like a dove. And a voice came from heaven, “You are my own dear Son. I am pleased with you.”

In Luke 3: 22; (In place of “Thou art my beloved son in who I am well pleased.”) The following authorities of the second, third, and fourth centuries read, “This day I have begotten thee,” vouched for by Codex D, and the most ancient copies of the old latin (a, b. c. ff.I), by Justin Martyr (AD 140), Clemens Alex, (AD. 190), Methodius (AD. 290), among the Greeks. And among the Latins, Lactaitius (AD 300), Hilary (AD) Juvencus (AD. 330), Faustus (AD. 400) and Augustine. All these oldest manuscripts were changed completely. They now read, “This is my son in whom I am well pleased.” Whereas the original variant was, “Thou art my Son. 'THIS DAY' I have begotten thee.”

Hebrew 5: 5; has; “You are my son, ‘TODAY’ I have become your Father.”

Not only do the scripture twisting theologians of the Roman church, change the original scriptures to make them appear to support their false teaching of the supposed virgin birth, the also add their own interpolations.

Luke 3:23; (KJV) And Jesus himself began to be about thirty years of age, being (as was supposed) the son of Joseph, which was the son of Heli.

The (AS WAS SUPPOSED) in brackets, was a later interpolation by those who would have you believe the false teaching of the so-called virgin birth.

In the different translations of the KJV into Arabic, Afrikaan, Zulu, etc and even some of the more modern English translations, such as the Good News Catholic Study Edition Bible, the words (As was supposed) have been retained, but the brackets are removed, thus by, making those words appear to be the declaration of Luke, while the serious biblical student know that they were not written by Luke, but were a later interpolation and a corruption of the Holy Scriptures, by those Christians, who refuse to accept that Jesus was not a God who became a man, but a man, born of human parents, who was later CHOSEN by the Lord our saviour ‘The Son of Man,’ as his heir and successor, and who was given divine glory, as revealed in Acts 3: 13; where it is said that the God of our ancestors, the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, has given divine glory to his servant Jesus etc.

Now, you may be gullible enough to believe the larger Church’s false teaching that Jesus was “begotten not made." But I will continue to believe the Holy Scriptures, which state that Jesus the son of Mary and Joseph ben Alexander Helios =Heli, was ‘CHOSEN’ by the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, as his heir and successor.

1 Reply

@The Anointed,

Actually, this "lie" was proposed after a number of false traditions came forth.

Adoptionism - That Jesus was only a virtuous human, with nothing divine about him at all.
Catharism- Matter is evil, spirit is good , so the spirit must be freed from the mortal body (suicide, I guess)
Antinomianism- Humans are free from all moral laws through grace
Apollinarism- Jesus had a human body, divine mind but only a "lower" soul
Arianism- Jesus was created by the father as a human, and "Son of God" was only a title
Audianism- God has a human form (they also celebrate his dead during the Jewish Passover)
Cicumcellions- Militant social justice warriors before it was cool
Docetism- Jesus's physical body was an illusion. He didn't really get crucified
Dobatism- Martyrdom is the core virtue of Christianity (another suicide cult)
Ebionites- Jesus was the Messiah but not divine. A Jewish sect
Euchites- overemphasis on prayer and spiritual experience at the expense of disregarding the church and its sacrements, especially baptism; and renouncing social and work relations. Basically that you could pray your way into Heaven
Eutychianism- That Christ's humanity wad absorbed into his divinity
Gnosticism- A number of teachings like that the physical world doesn't exist, that physical matter is evil or created by an evil god, etc
Iconoclasm- Not actually a heresy but a strong religious view (iconoclasm is a direct opponent to the sort of statues of the saints and fawning over Mary in the Catholic church). But in trying not to have idolatry, they tend to smash symbols of faith.
Kenosis- Jesus voluntarily gave up some divine attributes in order to do work of redemption
Luciferianism- revering Lucifer not as the devil with ill intent, but as a liberator, guardian, guiding spirit and even as the true God
Macedonianism- while accepting the divinity of Jesus, denied the divinity of the Holy Spirit, sating it was a substance created by the Son
Manichaeism- Offshoot of Gnosticism. Struggle between evil physical world and the good spiritual world
Marcionism- The New Testament God was basically Jesus, the OT "God" was some false lower god.
Modalism- God in Trinity is three distinct forms, none of which exist simultaneously
Monarchianism- God as a single person as opposed to Trinity
Monophysitism- Christ has only one nature (either human, divine, or demigod)
(and so on)

The Nicene Creed was an attempt to combat heresy. Nevermind that Catholicism itself is a heresy, the beliefs from the Nicene Creed are sound and hold up. They hold up, because they declare the basic teaching that:
1. There is a Trinity: Jesus, God the Father, and Holy Spirit
2. Jesus is not a created or "made" being, but existing from the beginning. Jesus was born or "begotten" incarnate through Mary's pregnancy. John 1 supports this claim. And if we maintain that Christ is intended as Chokhmah or Lady Wisdom incarnate, then the mention of Wisdom in proverbs supports this again. Christ was NOT someone who just appeared with his birth, and ceased to exist after his death but preexisted his birth.
3. Jesus was not fully human or fully God or some weird idea that is one of the many heresies, but became human, but is also the very substance of God.
4. The crucifixion happened, and was a meaningful sacrifice for the sins of all. I will believe whatever I need, for this to be so. If a female Lamb is needed, I do not see this idea as foolish. If Jesus is required to be male, that's fine too. The important thing is that the Creed (unlike Islam) asserts that Jesus did in fact die on the cross for our sins.
5. The resurrection happened.
6. Christ ascended into heaven
7. Jesus will come again, to judge the living and the dead

You'll notice nothing in the doctrine of Trinity grants Mary any special privileges. She's not part of the Trinity, and they believe in One God, so there is no wife who is equal in power and able to intercede for sins. Catholicism is a heresy, the Nicene Creed is not.

I won't give up thos Jesus is female "foolishness" because this is how I see Jesus, as a trand person. I think you should give up the notion of Eli being the father though. Incest is something forbidden by the priestly laws. Such a child would be born of sin, and not able to redeem anyone. And won't do this because of a Catholic study bible. The Catholics have had centuries to repent, and even now only grow more perverse. The current Pope is on the record having blessed a pagan idol.
https://veritas-vincit-international.org/2019/12/12/pope-blesses-pachamama/

The word Man in the Bible is from mensch, a German-Jewish word meaning "person". Since the Bible was translated from Hebrew and Greek (with maybe some Aramaic?) to Latin to German, I wouldn't trust that word at all. God says that he has come to save all men from sin. Are women excluded? Or does he mean "all people"?

Yes, Luke 3:23 is "as supposed" meaning he was adopted. But this Heli/Eli thing is not the answer. Jesus is said to have his mother conceive by God through the Holy Spirit. There was no (earthly) father.

Alexander and Helios are both Greek names. You saying that either some Greek man with a Jewish first name slept with her, or Eli (Heli) slept with her. Read the Luke passage again. They mention Joseph as a fake father to whom Jesus has no line (you can see this on the genealogy above). Matthew has Jesus's official genealogy, showing how flawed it is, and immediately telling ud that this isn't the case. This is not saying that Eli is the father. It is saying Mary is the mother of the child, and Eli is her father (they skipped mention of her because women are not mentioned in Jewish genealogical accounts). But the Father of the child Jesus is God.

You say "begotten not made" is a heresy, but unless you want to claim that God the Father created the Son who in turn created the Spirit (way more of a heresy), I'm not sure that you understand the gospel.

1 Reply

@bulmabriefs144,

bulmabriefs144 wrote ….. I won't give up thos Jesus is female "foolishness" because this is how I see Jesus, as a trand person. I think you should give up the notion of Eli being the father though. Incest is something forbidden by the priestly laws. Such a child would be born of sin, and not able to redeem anyone. And won't do this because of a Catholic study bible. The Catholics have had centuries to repent, and even now only grow more perverse. The current Pope is on the record having blessed a pagan idol.

The Anointed Responds ….. I see, so, you believe that Abraham and his half-sister Sarah the parents of Isaac, the son of God’s promise according to the workings of the Holy Spirit, are sinners, do you?

Genesis 20: 11; Abraham answered, “I thought that there would be no one here who has reverence for God and that they would kill me to get my wife. She really is my sister. She is the daughter of my father, but not of my mother, and I married her.”

Galatians 4: 29; “Yet at that time the child (Ishmael) who was born according to the flesh, persecuted He, (Isaac) who was born according to the promise and the workings of the Holy Spirit.

Isaac, who was born according to the promise and the workings of the Holy Spirit, and who was offered up as a sacrifice by his father on the very mountain upon which Jesus was also offered up by our Father, and who was born of a brother-sister relationship, was a prototype of Jesus, who was also born of a brother-sister relationship, according to God’s promise and the workings of the Holy Spirit etc.

And what do you think of Solomon, who was born of Bathsheba an adulterous, and the blood of Uriah the husband of Bathsheba, who was killed at the command of David the adulterer.

Solomon, who was blessed with the rulership of the most glorious period in the history of Israel.

Solomon, of who the Lord says in 2 Samuel 7: 13; “He will be the one to build a temple for me, and I will make sure that his dynasty continues for ever. I will be his father, and he will be my son.

I’m afraid that you don’t think the way that God, the spiritual father of ‘THE MAN’ Jesus, does, do you?

Now you run along and try to find someone who is gullible enough to accept your ridiculous belief that Jesus could have been a female.

1 Reply

@The Anointed,

You don't have to accept it.

I don't debate to persuade others (unless they seem woefully misguided, as in the case of COVID hysteria).

There is defensive argument (upholding your point of view against those who belittle it) and offensive argument (trying to change people's minds).

People who came before Jesus were saved by the law. But this was not enough to save them (his death did this retroactively), and yes they were sinners. All of the Jewish fathers were sinners, redeemed by God. Or do you want to say Jacob was blameless of ripping of his brother's inheritance? We are all sinners, and they kept the law in hopes that God would resolve their sin eventually. But the one who takes away sin must be a Lamb without blemish. This is the official stance of the Christian church.

https://www.gotquestions.org/before-Jesus.html

1 Reply

@bulmabriefs144,

Quote:

I don't debate to persuade others (unless they seem woefully misguided

And would you agree that someone who claimed that Jesus could have been a woman, was woefully misguided?

Quote:

But the one who takes away sin must be a Lamb without blemish. This is the official stance of the Christian church.

And who do you believe is the one year old unblemished MALE Lamb, who takes on the sins of the world?

1 Reply

@The Anointed,

It might be woefully misguided, but it's my woefully misguided.

Every human accepts their own ideals as right.

Except it was a female lamb, as I said before. Your passage was for Passover.

Leviticus 4:32

Quote:

If someone brings a lamb as their sin offering, they are to bring a female without defect.

2 Replies

@bulmabriefs144,

Quote:

Except it was a female lamb, as I said before. Your passage was for Passover.

Correct! And Jesus was the 'MALE' Passover Lamb.

1 Reply

@The Anointed,

Jesus is sometimes called the Passover Lamb. But Jesus is also the Lamb of God who takes away the sins of the world. Sin offerings are done by a female. That Jesus died on Passover is far less important than Jesus dying for sins.

It is important that Jesus is female. Why? Because in a world governed by powerful men, people who throw their weight around, who cause war and destruction (think about how sexist many of the other religions of the world are: Hinduism used to burn wives with their husbands, Islam treats women extremely badly and often forbids them from leaving the house without a male, and Judaism disqualifies Jesus from inheritance despite having the blood of David because his only blood parent is Mary (and women can't inherit)), and who make the laws that oppress others.

The secular world proposes feminism as a solution, to make women be bossy like men. But Jesus proposes an entirely opposite solution, that of complementarianism. That is, men are men and women are women, and they are equal but have different roles. Jesus then turns feminism on its head, showing that actually men should behave less like boorish brutes, and women should not try to copy men, but rather men ought to adopt some of the traits previously reserved of women. Love, forgiveness, fairness, kindness. Men are to become "gentle men" -> "gentlemen."

Jesus says of the macho ruler ideal:

Quote:

25 But Jesus called them aside and said, “You know that the rulers of the Gentiles lord it over them, and their superiors exercise authority over them. 26 It shall not be this way among you. Instead, whoever wants to become great among you must be your servant, 27 and whoever wants to be first among you must be your slave— 28 just as the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give His life as a ransom for many.”

Don't be a lord over others. Be a servant. Be passive, let others guide you. The teaching of Jesus was a decidedly feminine teaching.

To masculinize it is to destroy its meaning. To reduce God to someone like Allah, a big ogre who hands out laws which have no mercy. Who says, "Behave or I send you to Hell." I do not accept such a God, and neither should anyone else. Totalitarians behave this way all around this world. But God calls us to fight such evil, and to expose it as evil. Those who lord over others are false leaders, not those we should call God.

Think of the climate Jesus lived in:
1. Taxes given to the Romans.
2. Laws from the Jews.
3. If you obeyed the Romans and the Jews, you were safe. But you lived in constant conflict between Roman law and (what was said to be) the Law of God. As pointed out with the taxes to Caesar, if you favored God alone, you could be killed by Rome. But if you favored Caesar, you were subject to judgement by God.
4. There are about 600+ laws for Jews to follow. If you fall short or disobey them, you are a sinner and must atone.
6. Atonement involves material sacrifice, either of money or of animals. If you are poor, you lack means of sacrifice, and thus your sins cannot be forgiven and you are effectively excommunicated.
7. So these perpetual sinners were unable to have contact with the Temple, and by the judgement of the priests, were cut off from God.
8. The entire city of Jerusalem was set up a bit like Ba Sing Se. Walls inside of walls.

https://www.conformingtojesus.com/images/webpages/jerusalem_in_jesus_time_map_1.jpg

We have walls around Jerusalem itself. Then walls between the old area and the Mishneh or Second Quarter. Then walls around the Temple Mount. In the Temple Mount there is the Gentile's Court, then a wall around the Temple complex. Inside this wall is the Women's Court, then the Men's Court, followed by the altar and the Temple proper. But wait, there's more! Only the Priest could enter the Temple and there was a room that had a big curtain that God was behind. This is what the significance of the curtain tearing when Jesus died is, the breakdown of this stupid barrier.
9. Oh yeah, and there is leprosy, blindness, demonic possession, and a number of other ailments. Jesus did spent most of ministry healing these. Along with trying to unsettle this sick system of sin and "atonement".

All of this system was the god of Man. The manmade "God" who represented petty laws such as the washing of hands or eating of certain foods. The arbitrary separation between God and mankind. But this here is not actually God. God appeared to Abraham, Noah, Moses, Jacob, all of these in terms of relationship. Not as a "Lord", but as their Creator and the one to show them how to live. And so also did Jesus appear, not to teach more laws, but to return the Jewish people to their real relationship with God.

Jeremiah 3:14

Quote:

“Return, faithless people,” declares the LORD, “for I am your husband. I will choose you—one from a town and two from a clan—and bring you to Zion.

It is more accurate to say that Jesus is of Sukkhot not Passover. For in Sukkhot, God visits the Jews in tents. We are intended to be married to God, not to dwell on danger that passes over. Because Jesus does not promise a life free of ordeal or suffering (quite the contrary). In fact, that Jesus dies on the Passover means that, to him, danger did not pass over. But he did die for our sins.

0 Replies

@bulmabriefs144,

Quote:

It (The belief that Jesus was a woman) might be woefully misguided, but it's "my woefully misguided."

Agreed.

Leviticus 12: 1-4; The LORD gave Moses the following regulations for the people of Israel. For seven days after a woman gives birth to a “SON”, she is ritually unclean, as she is during her monthly period. On the eighth day, the child (THE SON) shall be circumcised. Then it will be 33 more days before she is ritually clean from her loss of blood; she must not touch anything that is holy or enter the sacred Tent until the time of her purification is completed.

Genesis 17: 10-14; You and your descendants must all agree to circumcise ‘EVERY MALE’ among you. From now on you must circumcise every “BABY BOY’ when he is eight days old, including slaves born in your homes and slaves bought from foreigners. This will show that there is a covenant between you and me. Each one must be circumcised, and this will be a physical sign to show that my covenant with you is everlasting. Any ‘MALE’ who has not been circumcised will no longer be considered one of my people, because he has not kept the covenant with me.”

Please reveal where it is written in your bible that an Israelite ‘FEMALE’ must be circumcised, and where and when your “FEMALE” Jesus was circumcised.

If you fail to do so, and you will fail, this will prove to all, that you "ARE WOEFULLY MISGUIDED".

1 Reply

@The Anointed,

You know what hermaphroditism is? I said Jesus technically could be female or a hermaphrodite. I decided against going in the first direction though.

So, if Jesus were female, then this story would be told strictly to confirm that Jesus was not cut off from Israel but fulfilled the law that every male be circumcised. Jesus in this case did fulfill the law that every male be circumcised... by not being male. Jesus was taken there, but something else happened.

The Jewish Talmud recognizes 6 genders:
1. Zachar: Th is term is derived from the word for a pointy sword and refers to a phallus. It is usually translated as “male” in English.
2. Nekevah: Th is term is derived from the word for a crevice and probably refers to a vaginal opening. It is usually translated as “female” in English.
3. Androgynos: A person who has both “male” and “female” sexual characteristics. 149 references in Mishna and Talmud
4. Tumtum : A person whose sexual characteristics are indeterminate or obscured.
5. Ay’lonit: A person who is identifi ed as “female” at birth but develops “male” characteristics at puberty and is infertile.
6. Saris: A person who is identifi ed as “male” at birth but develops “female” characteristics as puberty and/or is lacking a penis. A saris can be “naturally” a saris (saris hamah), or become a eunuch through human intervention (saris adam).

Jewish people had been around enough children that they knew there were more than 2 genders. So let's read the text.

Quote:

21 On the eighth day, when it was time to circumcise the child, he was named Jesus, the name the angel had given him before he was conceived.

22 When the time came for the purification rites required by the Law of Moses, Joseph and Mary took him to Jerusalem to present him to the Lord 23 (as it is written in the Law of the Lord, “Every firstborn male is to be consecrated to the Lord”), 24 and to offer a sacrifice in keeping with what is said in the Law of the Lord: “a pair of doves or two young pigeons.”

25 Now there was a man in Jerusalem called Simeon, who was righteous and devout. He was waiting for the consolation of Israel, and the Holy Spirit was on him. 26 It had been revealed to him by the Holy Spirit that he would not die before he had seen the Lord’s Messiah. 27 Moved by the Spirit, he went into the temple courts. When the parents brought in the child Jesus to do for him what the custom of the Law required, 28 Simeon took him in his arms and praised God, saying:

29
“Sovereign Lord, as you have promised,
you may now dismiss your servant in peace.
30
For my eyes have seen your salvation,
31
which you have prepared in the sight of all nations:
32
a light for revelation to the Gentiles,
and the glory of your people Israel.”

33 The child’s father and mother marveled at what was said about him. 34 Then Simeon blessed them and said to Mary, his mother: “This child is destined to cause the falling and rising of many in Israel, and to be a sign that will be spoken against, 35 so that the thoughts of many hearts will be revealed. And a sword will pierce your own soul too.”

36 There was also a prophet, Anna, the daughter of Penuel, of the tribe of Asher. She was very old; she had lived with her husband seven years after her marriage, 37 and then was a widow until she was eighty-four. She never left the temple but worshiped night and day, fasting and praying. 38 Coming up to them at that very moment, she gave thanks to God and spoke about the child to all who were looking forward to the redemption of Jerusalem.

When reading the Bible, you are not to add events or reinterpret. But the text itself tells us three things.
1. Joseph and Mary felt certain their child was a boy
2. Simeon and Anna saw Jesus during the circumcision. Both of these were regulars in the temple, and had probably seen a few penises in their life. But suddenly they bother speak up about how this is a fulfiller of prophecy and such.
3. This can be the case for with "miraculous genitalia." This can also be the case for a girl with a large clitoris. It would NOT however make much sense for two people to make loud declarations about prophecy during a circumcision if the event was perfectly normal. So something was different about Jesus.

Jesus was likely not an androgynos (hermaphrodite) but she may have been a girl with a clitoris large enough to be mistaken for an "already circumcised" penis.

Btw, the text does not say "Jesus was circumcised." It says two people marveled at Jesus, and that Mary and Joseph did what was required by the law, by taking Jesus to be circumcised.

1 Reply

@bulmabriefs144,

Quote:

Btw, the text does not say "Jesus was circumcised." It says two people marveled at Jesus, and that Mary and Joseph did what was required by the law, by taking Jesus to be circumcised.

Wrong again sunshine. And 'HE' was 8 days old when 'HE' was circumcised and it was 33 days later that Mary took 'HIM' to the Temple in Jerusalem, where she performed the ceremony of purification as was required by the law, revealing that you are totally ignorant to the scriptures, and are woefully misguided.

Luke 2: 21; A week later, when the time came for the baby to be circumcised, 'HE' was named Jesus, the name which the angel had given 'HIM' before'HE' HAD' been circumcised.

Come back with your imaginary scriptures, that Jesus was a woman who was circumcised when she was 8 days old and who died on the cross on the day of preparation to the Jewish Passover festival, when the 'MALE' unblemished lamb was to be killed.

But you can't, can you? Because all that you have said, concerning your erroneous and ridiculous belief that Jesus was a woman, only exists in your woefully misguided mind.

2 Replies

@The Anointed,

Can not wait until you guys begin to disagree over how many Angels can dance on a head or a pin.

0 Replies

@The Anointed,

Quote:

21 On the eighth day, when it was time to circumcise the child, he was named Jesus, the name the angel had given him before he was conceived.

It says that Jesus was taken to the Temple. It says that Mary and Joseph performed their duty (their duty was not to circumcise Jesus, but to bring him to the Temple after Jesus had been circumcised). But then it says that Simeon held Jesus in his arms, and said a prayer about how he had finally seen what he was looking for. It never in any point mentions in the text that Mary and Joseph circumcised Jesus. Because they didn't. Circumcision is usually done by a third party, known as the mohel (basically a surgeon).

FGM is NOT circumcision btw. It is castration of the clitoris, that the Muslims do because they are homophobic about a large (or even medium sized) clitoris. But if a lady has a huge clitoris (they can get to be almost penis sized in some cases), this can actually get mistaken for a penis. Circumcision, contrary to Muslim "circumcision" would simply be removal of any outer skin, which would probably not be much since men and women are built differently.

Here is a woman with an enlarged clitoris. Notice that it looks very much like a penis, and could conceivably be stripped of a foreskin. But underneath this "foreskin" is something quite interesting. There would be a vagina inside that fused labia.

http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/2007/08/01/health/adam/17050.jpg

(Not displaying it here cuz graphic)

1 Reply

Could Christ Have Been A Woman?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know