A person on Facebook claims that eunuchs are transgendered people

  • Thread starter Thread starter Holly3278
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
H

Holly3278

Guest
Hey everyone. I need some help with a Bible passage. A person on FAcebook is claiming that a passage in the Bible in which Jesus was speaking which refers to eunuchs is actually referring to transgendered people. I have no idea how to answer this. I think the passage is referring to celibacy but I don’t know for sure. Please help.

For there are eunuchs who have been so from birth, and there are eunuchs who have been made eunuchs by men, and there are eunuchs who have made themselves eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. He who is able to receive this, let him receive it."
(Matthew 19:12 RSV-CE)
 
Hey everyone. I need some help with a Bible passage. A person on FAcebook is claiming that a passage in the Bible in which Jesus was speaking which refers to eunuchs is actually referring to transgendered people. I have no idea how to answer this. I think the passage is referring to celibacy but I don’t know for sure. Please help.

For there are eunuchs who have been so from birth, and there are eunuchs who have been made eunuchs by men, and there are eunuchs who have made themselves eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. He who is able to receive this, let him receive it."
(Matthew 19:12 RSV-CE)
Hi, Holly!

This passage speaks on several levels:
there are eunuchs who have made themselves eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven.
…these are the men that for the sake of service to God have given up interest in women (family); this directly means what we know as celibacy–first noted practice: St. Paul.
there are eunuchs who have been made eunuchs by men,
…it was a practice (don’t know if it has been maintained) to keep harems by those who had the money/power to do so… these harems were guarded by eunuchs (men were castrated so that they could not copulate with the females under their guard).
For there are eunuchs who have been so from birth
…I suspect this is the clause that would be used for homosexual/transgender claims… well… not! The passage does state that there are people who are born as eunuchs… the problem is in the twisting of the meaning… eunuchs are not homosexuals nor transgender people… the meaning in this passage is that there are those who physically cannot engage in sexual intercourse as would a regular-birth person.

Maran atha!

Angel
 
You’ve run into an interesting aspect of Bible study. What did the Bible mean*** then***? and what does the Bible mean now? This is a non-trivial aspect of Bible study. It’s a big question whether the meaning has changed.

We need to study the first question and come up with a satisfactory answer so that we can answer the second question.

The previous post comes close to what I’ve heard said about these verses. But, I don’t think that these verses even hint at the modern questions regarding transgender issues.

I think there’s a relative small number of transgender people, and then there’s everybody else. We ALL have been given a command to respect and love each other, we are all called to holiness.

If somebody puts the issue in their terms or on their turf, it’s your job to rephrase it and put it in the proper turf.

There is a related story in the gospels about people asking Jesus why a certain man was born blind. Jesus told them it was so that the works of God might be revealed in him.

Your challenge is to reveal the works of God in transgender people. The thing you (and everybody else) should be concerned about is not judging them, but in their salvation. Everyone, not just homosexual or transgender people, is not born perfect. But, they are all called to holiness and salvation, to surrender themselves to God.
 
Hey everyone. I need some help with a Bible passage. A person on FAcebook is claiming that a passage in the Bible in which Jesus was speaking which refers to eunuchs is actually referring to transgendered people. I have no idea how to answer this. I think the passage is referring to celibacy but I don’t know for sure. Please help.

For there are eunuchs who have been so from birth, and there are eunuchs who have been made eunuchs by men, and there are eunuchs who have made themselves eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. He who is able to receive this, let him receive it."
(Matthew 19:12 RSV-CE)
This “claimant” has no sense of history. (I’ve heard this argument from LGBTQ people before; they even claim that the Ethiopian eunuch converted by St. Philip was actually LGBTQ. Ugh.)

A eunuch is a man who has been castrated, usually to serve as a harem guard or palace official to an ancient king without any risk of his having “dalliances” with the women there. Eunuchs were identified as (diminished or mutilated) males, not transgenders. *In the passage about the Ethiopian eunuch, the pronoun “he” is clearly in the Biblical text.
*
As for the passage in Matthew 19, it clearly refers to celibacy; it distinguishes between (a) men born with a congenital deformity that makes them impotent or infertile, (b) eunuchs proper who have been castrated as described above, and (c) those who accept voluntary celibacy for the sake of serving God. (c) is elaborated in 1 Corinthians. 👍
 
Just as a side-note on this issue, eunuchs were also seem as valuable ministers of state to rulers of dynasties, as they would not have any sons of their own who might want to overthrow the king.

There were also singing castratos, boys who were castrated before puberty to preserve their high singing voice. The last famous castrato, Alessandro Moreschi died in 1922 and sang in the Sistine choir.
 
…it was a practice (don’t know if it has been maintained) to keep harems by those who had the money/power to do so… these harems were guarded by eunuchs (men were castrated so that they could not copulate with the females under their guard).

Maran atha!

Angel
With sexual dalliances, and general mistrust being so common in our times, I would imagine this sort of thing is still practiced, but I dont think they call them ‘harems’ anymore, I think they refer to this as an entourage now or maybe it goes by a different name.

The only true way to know for sure a bodyguard will not get involved sexually with one of these members, is to chemically make sure it cant happen.
 
For Pete"s sake… Get off of Facebook.its a huge waste of time and a platform for every kook on the planet.
 
For Pete"s sake… Get off of Facebook.its a huge waste of time and a platform for every kook on the planet.
Amen.

The problem with transgender is that it is an unbrella term, so has far too many different meanings, from the sublime to the rediculous. Or as Anderson Cooper says, “the Rediculist”.

Blessings,
Stephie
 
Ver. 12. And there are eunuchs, who have made themselves eunuchs, &c. It is not to be taken in the literal sense, but of such who have taken a firm and commendable resolution of leading a single life. — He that can receive it, let him receive it. Some think that to receive, in this and the foregoing verse, is to understand; and so will have the sense to be, he that can understand what I have said of different eunuchs, let him understand it; as when Christ said elsewhere, he that hath ears to hear, let him hear. But others expound it as an admonition to men and women, not to engage themselves in a vow of living a single life, unless, after a serious deliberation, they have good grounds to think they can duly comply with this vow, otherwise let them not make it. Thus St. Jerome on this place, and St. Chrysostom where they both expressly take notice, that this grace is granted to every one that asketh and beggeth for it by prayer. (Witham) — To the crown and glory of which state, let those aspire who feel themselves called by heaven.
 
You’ve run into an interesting aspect of Bible study. What did the Bible mean*** then***? and what does the Bible mean now? This is a non-trivial aspect of Bible study. It’s a big question whether the meaning has changed.

We need to study the first question and come up with a satisfactory answer so that we can answer the second question.

The previous post comes close to what I’ve heard said about these verses. But, I don’t think that these verses even hint at the modern questions regarding transgender issues.

I think there’s a relative small number of transgender people, and then there’s everybody else. We ALL have been given a command to respect and love each other, we are all called to holiness.

If somebody puts the issue in their terms or on their turf, it’s your job to rephrase it and put it in the proper turf.

There is a related story in the gospels about people asking Jesus why a certain man was born blind. Jesus told them it was so that the works of God might be revealed in him.

Your challenge is to reveal the works of God in transgender people. The thing you (and everybody else) should be concerned about is not judging them, but in their salvation. Everyone, not just homosexual or transgender people, is not born perfect. But, they are all called to holiness and salvation, to surrender themselves to God.
Hi, Sirach!
I don’t think anyone is judging homosexuals or the transgender people. However, to seek Scriptural support for their “choice” of “lifestyle” cannot be supported–no matter how much understanding and love a Christians might want to possess/offer.

The saddest part of this is that the practice of both homosexuality and transgenderism requires willful disobedience to God. The action itself is contrary to the search for Truth since the only Truth that would be accepted is a contrived Truth as the hyper acrobatics used to interpret the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah as God’s punishment because of their “lack of hospitality,” rather than the rampant immorality being practiced.

Maran atha!

Angel
 
For Pete"s sake… Get off of Facebook.its a huge waste of time and a platform for every kook on the planet.
I run several Catholic Facebook pages and I use Facebook to evangelize so I am not going to quit using it.
 
I run several Catholic Facebook pages and I use Facebook to evangelize so I am not going to quit using it.
Good for you! 👍

(But on a more serious note, there are certainly a lot of “way out there” pages and users on facebook. I once had an entertaining conversation with a gentleman who believed that beating up women was part of “national security”. When he realized he couldn’t convert me to his view, he resorted to invective and stormed away. :p)
 
Absurd!

In many cases, particularly in those of the Christian world (think that Origen, a controversial early Church Father) people became eunuchs because of purity, not to seek after anything other than that!

Certainly, however, there were other cases (but I’m doubtful that there were any “LGBT” identities back then in the manner of today!)
 
For Pete"s sake… Get off of Facebook.its a huge waste of time and a platform for every kook on the planet.
Amen.

The problem with transgender is that it is an umbrella term, so has far too many different meanings, from the sublime to the ridiculous. Or as Anderson Cooper says, “the Rediculist”.

Blessings,
Stephie
Yeah because we all know that FB is infallible and unerringly correct all the time and especially on moral and religious issues. NOT
 
Weeeeeell, I wouldn’t say that eunuchs were always associated with purity or with being men. Almost always, yes, but there was one big ancient world exception.

One of the tamer versions of the story of the goddess Cybele was that initially she had both male and female parts, but the gods cut off her male bits. These bits grew into a tree which impregnated a girl, and her son was Attis. Cybele fell in love with Attis and showed up at his wedding, and Attis went crazy and cut off his male bits, as did some of the male onlookers. (There are much much worse stories about Attis, though, where he’s an independent god. So this may be the Cybele religion taking over the Attis religion.)

The priests of the goddess Cybele (also called the Magna Mater) all had to castrate themselves publicly in order to join up. (On a holiday, in a crowd full of frenzy.) There were also Roman rumors that some priests didn’t join up voluntarily, but generally they did.

During most of Roman history, Roman citizens were either strictly prohibited to join up as priests, or were forbidden via a law forbidding castration. This created a situation where castration was regulated by Roman law, and in some provinces it was not permitted except by special permission of the governor. This came into play in Alexandria, when some over-enthusiastic Christian young man applied for permission under a literal interpretation of the “some castrate themselves” saying. (The governor said no.)

Later on, this Alexandrian story got associated with Origen, but that seems to be totally made up. (Especially since his shtick was anything but literal interpretation of Bible sayings. The entire Alexandrian School was like that. It was the guys over in Syria who were into literal and overly literal interpretation.)

Anyway… the priests of Cybele notoriously also dressed up in women’s clothes and wore women’s hairstyles (albeit special priestly versions, not the styles of the day in the country where they lived). Basically the idea was either of total submission to their goddess by trying to become like her, or that Cybele really hated men and liked to see them sacrifice and suffer, or that the priests of Cybele were masochistic pain and dance junkies.) They would dance around with musical instruments, cut or beat themselves, and go into ecstasy (or frenzy). Priests of Atargatis, a similar ecstatic religion from the same area of the world, did similar things, although Atargatis was associated with a lot of worse things, like cannibalism.

(And that’s why the religion of Atargatis got banned at one point, just like the Druids. And those naughty Christians, of course, because everybody knows they eat flesh and drink blood.)

Anyway… I really don’t see the priests of Cybele as any kind of desirable role model. They were creepy, and people feared them. The growth of their religion was seen as a sign that a lot of the Roman Empire had bad psychological issues.
 
Absurd!

In many cases, particularly in those of the Christian world (think that Origen, a controversial early Church Father) people became eunuchs because of purity, not to seek after anything other than that!

Certainly, however, there were other cases (but I’m doubtful that there were any “LGBT” identities back then in the manner of today!)
Hi!
I think that the main difference between yesteryears and today’s homosexuals is that then they did what they did and were embraced or ignored by society and that’s that. Today, they are not content to parade themselves about… they want the Church (which is inclusive of the whole Christian experience) to not only respect their “choice” but to actually accept them as they are (as some “churches” tend to do… the ole ‘God loves you as you are’ fallacy). So they keep looking for authenticity and support even from Sacred Writings.

Maran atha!

Angel
 
Weeeeeell, I wouldn’t say that eunuchs were always associated with purity or with being men. Almost always, yes, but there was one big ancient world exception.

One of the tamer versions of the story of the goddess Cybele was that initially she had both male and female parts, but the gods cut off her male bits. These bits grew into a tree which impregnated a girl, and her son was Attis. Cybele fell in love with Attis and showed up at his wedding, and Attis went crazy and cut off his male bits, as did some of the male onlookers. (There are much much worse stories about Attis, though, where he’s an independent god. So this may be the Cybele religion taking over the Attis religion.)

The priests of the goddess Cybele (also called the Magna Mater) all had to castrate themselves publicly in order to join up. (On a holiday, in a crowd full of frenzy.) There were also Roman rumors that some priests didn’t join up voluntarily, but generally they did.

During most of Roman history, Roman citizens were either strictly prohibited to join up as priests, or were forbidden via a law forbidding castration. This created a situation where castration was regulated by Roman law, and in some provinces it was not permitted except by special permission of the governor. This came into play in Alexandria, when some over-enthusiastic Christian young man applied for permission under a literal interpretation of the “some castrate themselves” saying. (The governor said no.)

Later on, this Alexandrian story got associated with Origen, but that seems to be totally made up. (Especially since his shtick was anything but literal interpretation of Bible sayings. The entire Alexandrian School was like that. It was the guys over in Syria who were into literal and overly literal interpretation.)

Anyway… the priests of Cybele notoriously also dressed up in women’s clothes and wore women’s hairstyles (albeit special priestly versions, not the styles of the day in the country where they lived). Basically the idea was either of total submission to their goddess by trying to become like her, or that Cybele really hated men and liked to see them sacrifice and suffer, or that the priests of Cybele were masochistic pain and dance junkies.) They would dance around with musical instruments, cut or beat themselves, and go into ecstasy (or frenzy). Priests of Atargatis, a similar ecstatic religion from the same area of the world, did similar things, although Atargatis was associated with a lot of worse things, like cannibalism.

(And that’s why the religion of Atargatis got banned at one point, just like the Druids. And those naughty Christians, of course, because everybody knows they eat flesh and drink blood.)

Anyway… I really don’t see the priests of Cybele as any kind of desirable role model. They were creepy, and people feared them. The growth of their religion was seen as a sign that a lot of the Roman Empire had bad psychological issues.
Hi, Mintaka!
…I don’t think anyone is espousing purity with eunuchism–rather, we are asserting that the condition entails, per the passage cited, only three possibilities… none of which determines “choice” of sexual activity, dress code or psyche identification.

Clearly, since society is quite accommodating, it is not improbable that, as many other words, the definition of eunuchism may have expanded to allow for homosexuality and transgenderism.

Maran atha!

Angel
 
Hey everyone. I need some help with a Bible passage. A person on FAcebook is claiming that a passage in the Bible in which Jesus was speaking which refers to eunuchs is actually referring to transgendered people. I have no idea how to answer this. I think the passage is referring to celibacy but I don’t know for sure. Please help.

For there are eunuchs who have been so from birth, and there are eunuchs who have been made eunuchs by men, and there are eunuchs who have made themselves eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. He who is able to receive this, let him receive it."
(Matthew 19:12 RSV-CE)
Look at what’s underlined, and I will tell you, that is the problem.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top