Jesus may have been a hermaphrodite, claims academic

[Cyclone_Ranger]

This is just kooky.

So if a woman of the past didn’t have children, does it mean that “It is not possible to assert with any degree of certainty that the woman was female as we now define femaleness."

Next headline: “Queen Elizabeth May Have Been a Hermaphrodite.”

If anyone were to dare to say that a woman isn’t “female as we now define femaleness” because she didn’t have a child, scholars like this woman would howl for blood. And rightly so, as your maleness or femaleness is not dependent upon the act of reproduction. So to use reproduction as some kind of test for maleness is nuts.

I’m giving this more thought and attention than it deserves. File it in the kooky file.

Easter is coming, so expect all sorts of outrageous headlines about Jesus and Christianity to start popping up.

 

[Robertanthony]

Maybe not; but he was bald, flattering sculptures notwithstanding!
He wasn`t just half bald.

i`m glad you put quotation marks around “blessed”.
Then again, not just any old film director could proudly claim the title of worst film director of all time! Undisputed title!

Plan 9 from Outer Space was more than enough of him!!!

That’s the only movie of him I ever watched. One is usually enough to capture the essence of the guy! The movie about him starring Johnny Depp was just plain hilarious, it’s what gave me the idea to search for any movie from Ed Wood I could watch.

 

[Bix]

Seriously?!

Respectfully, is it possible to change the title of this thread?
It makes me cringe each time I see it pop up with a new post on the main page.

(especially this time of year)

God Bless~

 

[Robertanthony]

This is just kooky.

So if a woman of the past didn’t have children, does it mean that “It is not possible to assert with any degree of certainty that the woman was female as we now define femaleness."

Next headline: “Queen Elizabeth May Have Been a Hermaphrodite.”

If anyone were to dare to say that a woman isn’t “female as we now define femaleness” because she didn’t have a child, scholars like this woman would howl for blood. And rightly so, as your maleness or femaleness is not dependent upon the act of reproduction. So to use reproduction as some kind of test for maleness is nuts.

I’m giving this more thought and attention than it deserves. File it in the kooky file.

Easter is coming, so expect all sorts of outrageous headlines about Jesus and Christianity to start popping up.

You’re so right. It leaves no doubt as to the origin of these “smear campaigns” that they culminate at periods meaningful to Christianity (i.e. the infernal abyss).

 

[TevereNauta]

What on earth is going on in Britain lately? Has something contaminated their water supply? It’s been a slough of anti-Christian nonsense coming from the Sceptered Isle for several weeks now.

Obviously, this story is just flame-bait. I suspect the good professor is up for tenure and needs to get some press, quick, because he has no solid academic record to stand on. A grant, perhaps? Honestly, this is more an indictment of the dismal level to which the Western (especially British) educational establishment is sinking than anything of substance. Rather than anything of substance being published academically, either for or against Christianity, we get this. Thankfully, the Home Secretary and Britain’s cracking Equalities Bird will probably outlaw English soon, as bigoted and homophobic, so we won’t have to read stories like this much longer!

 

[BListon]

I think that since the Holy Scriptures tell us that Jesus came to earth in the form of a human, then he would have been distinctively male, with male parts and all. I know this is a kinda taboo thing to talk about.

 

[Nicko]

It’s part of the “queering” of God by the “post colonial queer liberation theology.”

I agree that Jesus did indeed minister to (and with) the marginalized in Judea, and that He asked us to be like little children. I also agree that God is to be found in brokenness and suffering, but God is NOT brokenness itself. Sin, death and brokenness are a result of sin, and death and brokenness are only redeemed when one aligns one’s suffering with Christ on the cross.

So to be homosexual or intersex is to suffer, but it is not in an of itself redemptive.

However, “queer theology” seeks to make being queer sacred (their words, not mine, so don’t post saying I’m being non-pc!) , and to remake theology in the queer image and likeness, including queer relationships which may be fluid, poly-amorous and orgiastic etc.

And what queer theology does to Hans Urs Von Balthasar’s theology is appalling!

It’s just another heresy in today’s diverse and liberated world.

Just as an aside, hermaphroditic people are not “broken” as you claim. Their bodies are exactly the way their genes “told” them to develop. Hermaphrodites do not suffer as a result of

Your post does not amount to a valid criticism of the hypothesis. Attempting to argue that this hypothesis can’t be right because it would shake Christianity to the core is flawed on two grounds. Firstly, that it constitutes a formal logical fallacy. Your personal attachment to a particular opinion is not an argument for its veracity.

Secondly, and more substantially, I fail to see how Jesus’ message or the supposed redemption of his death would be altered in any meaningful way if He had chosen to have been born in a hermaphroditic body. If His message was the Truth, that Truth cannot be dependent upon what He was packing inside that loincloth.

The actual argument against the hypothesis is that it is absurd. Jesus was supposedly thirty years old when he started preaching. He was born a Jew. That means that he would have had to have been circumcised well before he started preaching. There is no way that hermaphrodism would have escaped notice at this point. Hermaphrodism is such an extraordinary occurrence, that it is inconceivable to me that it would not be remarked upon. Everyone He met would know about it. Yet it is not mentioned. Not once.

Now why would that be?

 

[triumphguy]

Just as an aside, hermaphroditic people are not “broken” as you claim. Their bodies are exactly the way their genes “told” them to develop. Hermaphrodites do not suffer as a result of

OK - obviously my argument is within my personal context of being a Catholic. According to Catholic teaching, homosexuality is a “disorder.” My son has down syndrome because his genes told his body and brain to develop in a certain way, but he still has a disorder (syndrome), though he is in my eyes fully human and fully deserving of respect as a human. (And I am NOT comparing being homosexual or intersex to down syndrome)

Your post does not amount to a valid criticism of the hypothesis. Attempting to argue that this hypothesis can’t be right because it would shake Christianity to the core is flawed on two grounds. Firstly, that it constitutes a formal logical fallacy. Your personal attachment to a particular opinion is not an argument for its veracity.

My argument was that God is being remade in the “queer” image, rather than LBGTQ theologians attempting to place their life experience humbly within the revealed image of God. Of course they are trying to change the story of how God is/was revealed. So that the triune nature of God reveals an unbridled, homoerotic god.

Secondly, and more substantially, I fail to see how Jesus’ message or the supposed redemption of his death would be altered in any meaningful way if He had chosen to have been born in a hermaphroditic body. If His message was the Truth, that Truth cannot be dependent upon what He was packing inside that loincloth.

If He had chosen to be born a hermaphrodite then that would have been the revealed truth. As he wasn’t then it isn’t, and you can’t (rather we shouldn’t though we do, being human) back engineer who God is based on our own biases.

The actual argument against the hypothesis is that it is absurd. Jesus was supposedly thirty years old when he started preaching. He was born a Jew. That means that he would have had to have been circumcised well before he started preaching. There is no way that hermaphrodism would have escaped notice at this point. Hermaphrodism is such an extraordinary occurrence, that it is inconceivable to me that it would not be remarked upon. Everyone He met would know about it. Yet it is not mentioned. Not once.
Excellent argument.

Now why would that be?

 

[Dawnia]

Hmmm…you’d think someone might have noticed this little issue at some point while Jesus was alive.

I know! Maybe aliens came down and wiped their memories so they wouldn’t remember that Jesus had a few too many body parts. And Jesus was just the fake name planted by the aliens in their quest to dominate the world. He was really named Pat.

Uh huh. Someone needs their meds changed.

 

[Richard320]

I think that since the Holy Scriptures tell us that Jesus came to earth in the form of a human, then he would have been distinctively male, with male parts and all. I know this is a kinda taboo thing to talk about.

Not really. Until fairly recently, Catholics celebrated the Feast of the Circumcision.

That alone should smash the hypothesis - I’m sure the mohel would have noticed things weren’t quite right.

 

[po18guy]

It’s certainly a good thing that Mary had Jesus, or the Holy Family would have a surplus of diversity points when applying for federal aid.

 

[Fiasco]

Not really. Until fairly recently, Catholics celebrated the Feast of the Circumcision.

It`s still celebrated in the TLM.

I think that since the Holy Scriptures tell us that Jesus came to earth in the form of a human, then he would have been distinctively male, with male parts and all. I know this is a kinda taboo thing to talk about.

For a start, He had a beard:

“I gave my back to the smiters, and my cheeks to those who tore out the beard.” [Isaiah 50:6]

That’s the only movie of him I ever watched. One is usually enough to capture the essence of the guy! **The movie about him starring Johnny Depp was just **plain hilarious, it’s what gave me the idea to search for any movie from Ed Wood I could watch.

i read somewhere that the UFOs were Buick hubcaps…on a fishing line?

Started to download “Ed Wood” from YouTube; and then pulled out. Thanks: i`ll have to get back to it.
Nothing like high culture!

 

[Tenofovir]

Just as an aside, hermaphroditic people are not “broken” as you claim. Their bodies are exactly the way their genes “told” them to develop.

In this context it would be more than “true hermaphroditism” and even there one can argue that the problem is caused by erroneous fertilisation such as when one egg is fertilised by two sperm or there are defects in the SRY gene. In pseudohermaphroditism the problems can occur at many levels. The latter are also more common. So the genes or chromosomes are not functioning correctly and there may be errors further down the line in terms of hormone production or response to hormones. It’s fair to say that the system is broken at some level as usually enough such people are infertile or sub fertile or have other problems, such as high blood pressure.

Your post does not amount to a valid criticism of the hypothesis. Attempting to argue that this hypothesis can’t be right because it would shake Christianity to the core is flawed on two grounds. Firstly, that it constitutes a formal logical fallacy. Your personal attachment to a particular opinion is not an argument for its veracity.

Not really. If it is a true fact that Jesus is God and for a variety of reasons Jesus was a perfect example of a physical man - i.e. one capable of fathering children - one would say that that is a logically good reason to say this hypothesis is bunk. It’s obviously argued elsewhere why Jesus is God. There is historical even empirical data to prove that. It cannot be therefore any fallacy.

It’s more likely however that an ancient man did not father children in ancient times in the same way a man may not have fathered children 20 years ago, and that is that he did not wish to (more plausible than now) or was unable to attempt to do so. A man may even be infertile if you want to go there or happened to have infertile partners. To say that Jesus had medical condition X is pure speculation and is introducing unnecessary factors for which there is no evidence. It’s far more likely that the Jesus, atheists imagine, would have been a normal male without any intersex conditions. Unless there is real information to think otherwise it makes no sense to introduce such speculation. It’s not parsimonious.

Secondly, and more substantially, I fail to see how Jesus’ message or the supposed redemption of his death would be altered in any meaningful way if He had chosen to have been born in a hermaphroditic body. If His message was the Truth, that Truth cannot be dependent upon what He was packing inside that loincloth.

That’s one way to look at it but just because you don’t see something does not make that something untrue.

The actual argument against the hypothesis is that it is absurd. Jesus was supposedly thirty years old when he started preaching. He was born a Jew. That means that he would have had to have been circumcised well before he started preaching. There is no way that hermaphrodism would have escaped notice at this point. Hermaphrodism is such an extraordinary occurrence, that it is inconceivable to me that it would not be remarked upon. Everyone He met would know about it. Yet it is not mentioned. Not once.

Well not really. Intersex can present in a variety of pictures. Trained doctors sometimes miss intersex conditions.

All in all I think this is an attempt at spreading FUD or someone trying to make a name for himself by being controversial. There have been many controversial claims made about Jesus such as, He did not even exist, He did not Resurrect, He had a twin, He married and fathered children, He moved to France, etc. Lots of silliness there. All wild speculation. Obviously all of these can’t be true.

 

[Pat_Albertson]

Well, there’s nonsense, nonsense on stilts, and then finally there’s stuff so crazy only an academic could believe it . . .

Just my :twocents:

 

[Dan_McVay]

” “I gave my back to the smiters, and my cheeks to those who tore out the beard.” [Isaiah 50:6]”

That is not Jesus speaking. It is part of the Nevi’im, written well before Jesus was even born and it is in the past tense.

Does anyone have any evidence that intersex conditions were caused by the Fall?

 

[Fiasco]

That is not Jesus speaking. It is part of the Nevi’im,** written well before Jesus was even born and it is in the past tense.**

That`s true; but, the Church recognises the following passage (among others) from Isaiah as pointing to the future passion and death of Jesus:
For my part, I made no resistance,
Neither did I turn away.
I offered my back to those who struck me,
My cheeks to those who tore at my beard;
I did not cover my face
Against insult and spittle. [Isaiah 50:5-6}

Your use of "Nevim" suggests a Jewish background. i hadnt seen the word before.

Does anyone have any evidence that intersex conditions were caused by the Fall?

Well…if the Fall hadnt happened, there wouldnt be any abnormal conditions of any sort.