0
   

Could Christ Have Been A Woman?

 
 
The Anointed
 
  -1  
Wed 18 Aug, 2021 03:39 am
@bulmabriefs144,
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 circumcised.

Quote:
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).


Correct! Jesus was taken to the temple 33 days after ‘HE’ was circumcised, in order that Mary could perform the ceremony of purification as the law of Moses required, and I see you used the correct masculine term for Jesus, “HIM”. Very good.

Quote:
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.


Correct again, my, my you are getting better.

Quote:
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).


Correct again, all the Scriptures state, is that 'HE' was circumcised on the eighth day, there would have undoubtedly been a Mohel in the town of Bethlehem at that time.

Quote:
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.


Correct again, by golly gee, you are on a roll this time aren’t you? The baby boy Jesus was circumcised, and his penis nor his testicles were ever castrated.

Quote:
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.


Correct again, well, well, well, who woulda thunk it.

Quote:
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.


You can say that again, men and women are definitely different, every man knows that, and no enlarged female clitoris has ever yet been known to have developed a foreskin.

Quote:
Here is a woman with an enlarged clitoris. Notice that it looks very much like a penis,


Where, where?

Quote:
and could conceivably be stripped of a foreskin.


What foreskin? Female clitoris’ do not develop foreskins you foolish child.

Quote:
But underneath this "foreskin" is something quite interesting. There would be a vagina inside that fused labia.


Female genital mutilation, can cause fusion of the labia. But 'THE MAN' Jesus was circumcised as an eight years old baby, and no one ever performed FGM on ‘HIM.’

Now you run away and play with your dolls.
NSFW (view)
The Anointed
 
  -2  
Wed 18 Aug, 2021 06:04 am
@bulmabriefs144,
Quote:
Just because the Bible says "He" doesn't mean it is so.


In other words, you believe that no matter what the bible says, it doesn't mean it is so. and you can invent any ridiculous story, such Jesus was a woman and claim your imaginary belief can be supported by the bible. BS.

Pharaohs always had to be hairless when they exposed themselves in public. The postiche beard was thus the only way to wear a beard for the regents of Egypt. False beards were worn during the pharaoh's life as well as in his death, indeed, female pharaohs like Hatshepsut (the first pharaoh of Egypt) wore it.

False beard kid, now go home and play with your dolls.

No foreskin on an enlarged female clitoris, no circumcision, end of story, Good night.
bulmabriefs144
 
  -1  
Wed 18 Aug, 2021 06:14 am
This was probably intentional.

https://www.thetorah.com/article/why-are-there-no-israelite-priestesses

Judaism prohibited many beliefs and practices that were too similar to other nearby cults, lest the Jews get swept up in their customs and forget their own identity. This is a subset of the idea of not having any other gods. For example, the Hittites had a male/female godhead, so they probably put a stop to any worship of female God for precisely this reason. This also why crossdressing is taboo, other faiths nearby had male temple "maidens" and the idea of men being clean-shaven (I think that was the Ishtar cult). Finally, there is the removal of Yahweh's wife or consort (here it calls her Asherah rather than Chokhmah). This is all part of forcing women out of main temple roles into onlooker status, and replacing male/female notions of God with solely male (even if it is understood that God is a being that transcends form and gender, God is now exclusively He).
The Anointed
 
  -1  
Wed 18 Aug, 2021 06:23 am
@bulmabriefs144,
Let me repeat once again: Pharaohs always had to be hairless when they exposed themselves in public. The postiche beard was thus the only way to wear a beard for the regents of Egypt. False beards were worn during the pharaoh's life as well as in his death, indeed, female pharaohs like Hatshepsut (the first pharaoh of Egypt) wore it.

False beard kid, now go home and play with your dolls.

No foreskin on an enlarged female clitoris, no circumcision, end of story. What's up with you? If you can't you find your dolls, there must be something else that you like to play with. Goodnight.
0 Replies
 
bulmabriefs144
 
  -2  
Wed 18 Aug, 2021 06:44 am
@The Anointed,
No, the Bible is mostly accruate. But there was a concerted effort to remove heresy and perceived heresy. And part of this was to remove the idea of anything other than the unity of God. No concept of Trinity (despite several references to the spirit of God in Old Testament), and no duality of male/female God. Wouldn't want to be like Hittites (who similarly had a dualism).

So, when it is time to write the Bible by the period of the Temple, women are shooed from temple function, the genderless God cannot be referred to as It (reserved for objects), so just He and She are left. We won't have any variation of pronouns, so She is cut. Only He is used, despite God occasionally doing feminine things.

I don't have any dolls, sorry. And playtime is over (it's time to duel).

No, you are correct, I don't have much proof. What I do have are the bizarre reactions in ths temple, and the more or less glossing over the fine detail of Jesus's circumcision. It first of all never says Jesus got circumcised but rather that they took him to be circumcised. Maybe something weird happened in the operating room? The Bible tends to do one of two things: redundantly phrase things ( "It was the custom of men to be married at a certain age, so John/David/Joseph went to be married. And John/ David/Joseph was married" showing both the preparation of the event and its successful completion. Or, why the Bible is boring to read) or omission. When they don't phrase the event as having completed but only mention that they were taken to have it done and then abruptly skip to presentation at the temple without mentioning the actual act, it feels like saying "John and Mary Jo went to the parents to ask permission to marry." You could assume they got married. But you can also assume something is not being said, that the marriage didn't go smoothly and the parents said no. We encounter this in History of Peloponnesian War, the account abruptly ends with seeing the oracle at Delphi... (it turns out the oracle predicted they lose, and they do, but the author can't bear to write this).
So when you then skip to Simeon and Anna both having a "this is a miraculous child" reaction just by seeing naked Jesus... unless Jesus is literally GLOWING then the inference of all of this is that they saw something very interesting when looking at a stark naked child.

So you tell me. What did Simeon see, that he bas decided he had seen what he was looking for? Because I interpret this as seeing a very unique child. A female that had been taken to circumcision and the parents were none the wiser would qualify.
The Anointed
 
  -1  
Thu 19 Aug, 2021 08:57 pm
@bulmabriefs144,
What is the feminine equivalent, of "A male Chauvinistic Pig?"

Quote:
No, you are correct, I don't have much proof.


I am correct in saying that you have no proof whatsoever to support your bizarre belief that the man Jesus was a woman.

Quote:
What I do have are the bizarre reactions in ths temple, and the more or less glossing over the fine detail of Jesus's circumcision. It first of all never says Jesus got circumcised but rather that they took him to be circumcised.


They took the baby Jesus ‘NOWHERE’ to be circumcised, he was circumcised 8 days after his birth in Bethlehem in the only residence they could find there.

Concerning the birth of Jesus, all things were done in accordance to the law as given through Moses and recorded in Leviticus 12: 2-4; 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 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/Temple until the time of her purification is completed.

Quote:
Maybe something weird happened in the operating room?


What operating room?

Quote:
And John/ David/Joseph was married" showing both the preparation of the event and its successful completion.


Forget the John/David, ‘Joseph the son of Jacob’ had no sexual relations with the already pregnant Mary until she had given birth to her first born ‘SON’ Jesus, the son of Joseph ben Heli.

Quote:
The Bible tends to do one of two things: redundantly phrase things ( "It was the custom of men to be married at a certain age, so John/David/Joseph went to be married. Or, why the Bible is boring to read) or omission. When they don't phrase the event as having completed but only mention that they were taken to have it done and then abruptly skip to presentation at the temple without mentioning the actual act, it feels like saying "John and Mary Jo went to the parents to ask permission to marry." You could assume they got married. But you can also assume something is not being said, that the marriage didn't go smoothly and the parents said no. We encounter this in History of Peloponnesian War, the account abruptly ends with seeing the oracle at Delphi... (it turns out the oracle predicted they lose, and they do, but the author can't bear to write this).


We can now skip the above and assume that it is no more than a load of biblically unsupported rubbish, and reveal that Jesus was born a bastard, as Mary was unmarried at the time of his birth. Joseph ben Jacob did not consummate his union with Mary until after she had given birth to Jesus, the biological son of her half-brother Joseph ben Heli.
And it is written in Luke 2: 5, that when Joseph ben Jacob went from Nazareth to Bethlehem to be registered on the census, he took with him, Mary his fiancée who was heavy with child.

Quote:
So when you then skip to Simeon and Anna both having a "this is a miraculous child" reaction just by seeing naked Jesus... unless Jesus is literally GLOWING then the inference of all of this is that they saw something very interesting when looking at a stark naked child.


Stark Naked??? Where did that come from?

To Simeon, the Holy Spirit had revealed that the male child of Mary was the promised Messiah who was to deliver Israel. And Anna=Hanna, was the mother of Mary and grand mother to Jesus, who had been raised by the Jewish zealots in Galilee and groomed as the future king to rule on the throne of his ancestor King David, and she spoke of him to all who were waiting for redemption of Israel from the rule of Rome.
bulmabriefs144
 
  -1  
Sat 21 Aug, 2021 05:30 pm
@The Anointed,
Then Jesus wasn't circumcised.

Circumcision is a relatively difficult surgical procedure. Cut wrong and a child gets its sausage cut off. Typically, a special surgeon (mentioned above) handles this as part of Jewish ritual.

Assuming they didn't get anyone to do it for them, this would have been a DIY circumcision. In that case, I would be even less convinced that Mary and Joseph didn't do something screwy like circumcise what they mistakenly thought was a male.
maxdancona
 
  0  
Sat 21 Aug, 2021 07:22 pm
@bulmabriefs144,
Maybe one of the Three Wise Guys was a doctor. They could have done the circumcision.
0 Replies
 
The Anointed
 
  -1  
Sat 21 Aug, 2021 07:25 pm
@bulmabriefs144,
Quote:
Then Jesus wasn't circumcised.


Jesus was circumcised in the town of Bethlehem when he was eight days old according to the law of Moses, as recorded in the Holy Scriptures.

Quote:
Circumcision is a relatively difficult surgical procedure. Cut wrong and a child gets its sausage cut off. Typically, a special surgeon (mentioned above) handles this as part of Jewish ritual.


The residential Mohel in the Jewish town of Bethlehem, where Jesus was circumcised would have preformed hundreds of circumcisions.

Quote:
Assuming they didn't get anyone to do it for them, this would have been a DIY circumcision. In that case, I would be even less convinced that Mary and Joseph didn't do something screwy like circumcise what they mistakenly thought was a male.


Every Jewish town of any size would have had its own residential Mohel, who would have circumcised the SON of Mary, eight days after HE was born, in accordance to the law of Moses as recorded in the Holy Scriptures.

Haven't you ever read the Holy Scriptures bulmabriefs? From the rubbish that you spruik it would appear that is the case as to why you are such a biblical ignoramus.

Of course you are not the only biblical ignoramus posting in this thread, maxdancona who wrote .....
Quote:
"Maybe one of the Three Wise Guys was a doctor. They could have done the circumcision."


Apparently max is ignorant to the fact that Jesus was circumcised eight days after HIS birth, and the wise men (Of no recorded number) didn't arrive in Israel until the young BOY child Jesus, was almost 2 years old.

Night, night, mate.
bulmabriefs144
 
  -1  
Mon 23 Aug, 2021 07:40 am
@The Anointed,
You just said that he didn't go anywhere to get circumcised.

If they didn't go out to call a mohel, they did it themselves. If this was the case, they could easily have botched the process or made a dumb call.

But you're yielding that maybe they went out a bit to let the nearby mohel know. Which was unlikely, as they are staying in the stable, possibly against permission of the innkeeper. If you called a doctor over when you are squatting in a house and maybe there's evidence of drug dealing, this is a recipe to get exposed and arrested. Likewise a mother who isnot related to her husband, and both are sleeping in a barn with animals might indeed be twmpted to do it themselves.

But let's say they took the risk. I live in a small town. We don't have a hospital. I think we don't even have a doctor. Assuming despite all that, they do have a doctor in a small backwater town where there is no room in the inn, exactly how good is that doctor going to be?

I already showed you a picture of how closely an androgen-heavy vagina and clitoris resembles male anatomy. If you're in a small town, you may not have the best person or the best knowledge. They may operate on a little girl because her clit looks like a penis with foreskin. They would have performed hundreds of circumcisions maybe, but they wouldn't have the medical literature that a big city like Jerusalem would have.

https://worldnewsdailyreport.com/nigerian-court-determines-woman/comment-page-3/

Okay, it seems this is a joke news site, but it makes the exact point I'm going for. At some point, those bits get confused.
0 Replies
 
bulmabriefs144
 
  -1  
Mon 23 Aug, 2021 08:11 am
@The Anointed,
Yes, I have read the scriptures.

My assertion is that there is a literary coverup. When this is the case, we cannot trust an account that is only in one Gospel. We must compare it with the others. This is only in Luke so we cannot compare it to others.

Btw, Matthew is the one that discusses the Jewishness of Jesus and how Jesus is supposed to be the answer Jews are looking for. Yet when it comes down to one of the core aspects of life for a Jewish male... strangely silent.
Luke is the medical one, but only mentions briefly about Jesus. One line. And then they move on to presentation at the temple. Isn't that strange to you? That a doctor barely mentions a procedure? They don't even mention that it was completed, just that they went to take Jesus to be circumcised. If I write about a couple who went to ask for her parent's permission for marriage, and I skip to "and they took a honeymoon" there is a gap. Did they get permission ? Did they elope? Was it a Vegas wedding? Just from the honeymoon, we don't know about parent's permission, guest size, or even validity of wedding. I did a wedding for a couple when I am not an ordained priest. It was pagan and weird. When you skip details, sometimes those details are pretty darned important. In Acts, Timothy is circumcised. They still manage to mention that he was not only "taken" to be circumcised, but that it was completed. Not so here.

On the other hand, we have several accounts that Jesus was seen after death and that those seeing did not recognize Jesus. On the other hand, we have several accounts of money being taken, which is 30 pieces of silver (female price, with male being 50). On the other hand, we have old texts which clearly say that the one offered for sins must be female, and the only male offering is during Passover. This was during Passover, but this was an offering for sin.
The Anointed
 
  -1  
Mon 23 Aug, 2021 05:24 pm
@bulmabriefs144,
Quote:
My assertion is that there is a literary coverup. When this is the case, we cannot trust an account that is only in one Gospel. We must compare it with the others. This is only in Luke so we cannot compare it to others.


So then, ‘YOU’ cannot trust Luke who says that Jesus as a young child, went missing, and his parents finally found him back in the temple confounding the Jewish priests with his knowledge of the scriptures, because that is found in no other gospel. Nor can ‘YOU’ trust Matthew who speaks of the wise men coming to Jerusalem from the east two years after seeing the heavenly sign that had heralded 'HIS' birth, to pay homage to the promised Jewish Messiah, because that is found in no other gospel.

We could fill an entire book on what any one of the four gospels record which is not recorded in the other three, so, in essence what you are saying, is the word of God according to the gospels, cannot be trusted.

Quote:
Btw, Matthew is the one that discusses the Jewishness of Jesus and how Jesus is supposed to be the answer Jews are looking for. Yet when it comes down to one of the core aspects of life for a Jewish male... strangely silent.


There is nothing strange about what Matthew has to say about the birth and early life of Jesus. Matthew states that Jesus was born according to the workings of the Holy spirit, (As was Isaac) and that he was born in the town of Bethlehem (to an unmarried female (ALMAH) named Mary from the northern town of Nazareth). To find out why she had left her home town of Nazareth, to give birth to the first of her ‘SONS’ in Bethlehem, you have to go to the gospel of Luke.

Quote:
Luke is the medical one, but only mentions briefly about Jesus. One line. And then they move on to presentation at the temple. Isn't that strange to you? That a doctor barely mentions a procedure? They don't even mention that it was completed, just that they went to take Jesus to be circumcised.


You are rabbiting one with your usual rubbish again. Nowhere is it said that they took Jesus anywhere to be circumcised, only that he was circumcised in Bethlehem 8 days after ‘HE’ was born, (In accordance to the law of Moses) and “HE” was not taken anywhere until 33 days later, when Mary had to go to the temple in Jerusalem to perform the ceremony of purification, and when ‘EVERYTHING’ had been done in accordance to the law of Moses, which included his circumcision 8 days after his birth, the family returned to their home in Nazareth.

Did you notice the word ‘EVERYTHING’, was done concerning the birth of a male child according to Law of Moses, and to read the Law of Moses concerning the birth of a ‘MALE’ child as opposed to a ‘FEMALE child.

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 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.

Now you run along home and play with your little dollies, but don’t try to circumcise the female dolls.
bulmabriefs144
 
  -1  
Tue 24 Aug, 2021 06:13 am
@The Anointed,
In Christianity, we do synoptic reading. We compare the Gospel to itself to see differences and discrepancies. This is NOT to say that something is in only one of the gospels, it didn't happen. Nor is it to say that if Gospels contradict each other that it isn't real.

Rather, we must compare an draw our own conclusions. That it is mentioned only one Gospel, despite it being pretty core to being Jewish (which SHOULD make it part of Matthew), means one of two things:
1. Nothing much happened, completely normal circumcision, nithing to see here folks.
2. There is very much something to see here, but it is not being said.

I trust that Mary and Joseph took Jesus to be circumcised. I trust that whatever happened there, the Bible won't tell us, and immediately skips to presentation at the temple. That is suspicious. I trust that Mary and Joseph thought their baby was normal and had "him" presented to the temple. And trust when both Simeon and Anna say that this is a miraculous child. All of this I trust about Luke's account. However, having seen my share of futanari porn, and knowing about a number of possible intersex (and even non-intersex such as enlarged clitoris) conditions, I'm gonna raise an eyebrow at the omission of the actual act of circumcision never being mentioned. As I mentioned, Acts has Timothy "taken" to circumcision and "was circumcised", Jesus is only "taken" to circumcision.

This entire account is like it's behind a medical screen, and you try to look in, and the doctor shoos you away. "Patient confidentiality," he says. For all we know, Jesus's lower organs might have looked like Cthulhu, and Luke tells us nothing at all. I know personally from being in the trans group that if you're transitioning, you can screen out visitors and hide the fact that you were born biologically male. The records will say female, the doctors will admit you to the female section, and you will be covered by the same sort of screen, with strict instructions that while recovering from cold/flu/broken leg/etc no visitors are allowed.

I'm not saying Luke is a liar. I'm saying you are being entirely too trusting of a single word ( "He") and not focusing enough on the fact that the Bible says that God is not confined to gender, so naturally "his" "son" might not be a son at all, but a daughter. God is "male" not because XY chromosomes but because the Chosen People (and later the Church) is "his" bride.

https://carm.org/about-god/what-is-gods-gender/
https://evidenceforchristianity.org/is-god-male-or-is-he-genderless/

Before I graduated college, I had the pleasure of reading a book called Gender Shock, wherein many screwed up gender related incidents occurred, everything from intersex conditions to medical malpractice. In one, a child is declared a girl, and the mother dutifully dresses her as such. One problem. "She" notices "her" budding penis growing as a young "girl" and pulls up her dress to show it to her mother. Since her son is legally female, she's constrained to play along, and tells the child to pull down her dress and stop looking at it.
In another case, there was a kid named Bruce Reimer, whose penis was lost in a botched circumcision. The doctor instructed the patents to raise the child as a girl named Brenda (in this case, the child was not happy about it, and eventually killed himself).
These things happen. That the Bible chooses not to elaborate, but instead tells of this custom, doesn't mean something weird DIDN'T happen.

Jesus wasn't born in Egypt but he came out of Egypt. Jesus wasn't born in Nazareth but he fulfilled the prophecy of being a Nazarene. Jesus wasn't born of Joseph's line, but was an heir of King David. So far, none of these are as expected.
So, omitting the actual circumcision to instead talk about the tradition of circumcision. Should I suspect that it went without any irregularities? Based on everything before? No.
The Anointed
  Selected Answer
 
  0  
Tue 24 Aug, 2021 06:19 am
@bulmabriefs144,
I have said before and now let me repeat, go and find a biblical ignoramus such as yourself and try to convince them of your ridiculous and biblically unsupported rubbish.

Good night.
bulmabriefs144
 
  -1  
Tue 24 Aug, 2021 06:22 am
@The Anointed,
I Am.

You're the biblical ignoramus I'm trying to convince. Also, what are you doing arguing at night? It's morning here.

Read the link above. God is canonically not necessarily male. But "He" is male in regard to "His" people. So if God has no gender, how then can God's child be male.

XX plus _ _ on any Punnett Square equals XX. Barring a mutation, which would be more of a story than simply being misidentified as male by an older doctor.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Is The Bible Just a Good Book? - Question by anthony1312002
What Is Wrong With Christmas Customs? - Discussion by anthony1312002
Do Christian lives matter? - Discussion by gungasnake
Satan (a discussion) - Question by Smileyrius
"Thy kingdom come". What's that about? - Question by neologist
Where are all the churches in the mist of this? - Discussion by reasoning logic
No God in Christianity - Question by Cyracuz
 
Copyright © 2021 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.04 seconds on 09/20/2021 at 09:13:15