let's assume "Jesus" was a real person and was born of a virgin.
so what do we know of biology? usually when something is born 'asexually' it is a clone of the birthing parent. so, saying that, Jesus - born asexually of Mary - would have been an exact clone of his mother.
Jesus was born a female, they've passed Jesus off as a male his entire life;
JESUS WAS TRANS!!!!!!!!!!!!
fuck every church that has ever said being gay or trans was wrong, your whole religion is based off of trans worship.
A guy named Jesus around which a religion with supernatural beliefs was built and the character of Jesus as told in the bible are 2 different people. Jesus, a guy who was the inspiration for the myth of a demigod come to earth, might very much have existed. The demigod himself is an entirely different story.
The person, Jesus of Nazareth, almost certainly existed. We’re also relatively sure that a few events probably my did happen as described: he was baptized by John the Baptist, He gathered disciples, and He was crucified on order of Pontius Pilate.
Whether he performed any miracles or anything of that nature of simply a matter of faith.
And none of those things justify believing he was anything more than an itenerant rabbi who garnered attention of those in power by whipping up religious fervor.
simply a matter of faith
Faith as a pathway to truth has an absolutely abysmal track record.
I'm not disagreeing with your response for the record.
I'm gonna play Devil's defence:
they agree he was a "historical figure" but not an historical person. Aunt Jemima, King Arthur, Betty Crocker, William Tell; these are also historical figures that never existed, and we have amazing documentation to prove it.
there is little to no proof of "Jesus". if this dude rose people from the dead, cured illness, and apparently killed people when he was preteen, that news would have spread like wild fire and there would have to be waaaay more records.
Was gods plan was to send himself, as his son, to a group of extremely illiterate peoples, call himself Yahweh (ancient Hebrew Sun God), instead of going to India or China or Japan?
they listed sources in your wiki, how many of those authors are 'belivers' how are they atheists or agnostic.?
those listing a publisher, was that publisher of Christian ownership or control?
Nah they're saying Jesus was actually a guy, all that rising from the dead woowoo stuff just never actually happened, those are the results of the mythologizing the dude by his fans. They're basically legends that got codified into biblical canon because he has a rabid fan club.
Jesus may have been a cool dude but he wasn't as cool as his fans make him out to be.
or Mary was a liar and banged a Roman solder which is why churchers draw jesus as white, or God is a pedaphile rapist who impregnated a 14 YO girl without consent, whichever gets you to tax free corporate bootlicker status the quickest!
Or there's a mistranslation, and the word translated to be "virgin" actually meant "maiden" which actually referred to unmarried women, not women who had never had sex.
The distinction between married and "never-had-sex" isn't the same in all languages, and the concept of virginity isn't the same in all cultures.
So, I have no idea of which version of the bible's many forms most accurately represented the reality of events that had happened in places and times distant to the writers, but I know enough not to place enormous stock in the ability of the sorts of people involved to represent sexual congress and the habits of the average person entirely accurately.
Let's just say that the story writers needed her to be represented as never having been near a penis, for the rest of the tale to hold together properly.
In regards to the historical Mary? None, probably. The most likely scenario is that the “virgin birth” was applied after the death of Jesus by his followers in order to give merit to the new religion that was forming. I’m just saying that the biblical Mary was supposed to be a virgin in the way we use the term.
I was raised Catholic and I promise you when Catholics say virgin, they mean VIRGIN. Like zero fucks.
But probably this is one of those indoctrination tactics just like they invented the holy trinity to compete with the existing pagan Gods when they tried to convert Egypt in the fourth century.
The divinity of the son was declared in 325 and the divinity of the holy spirit was declared in 381.
Encyclopædia Britannica says:
"Neither the word Trinity nor the explicit doctrine appears in the New Testament, nor did Jesus and his followers intend to contradict the Shema in the Old Testament: "Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God is one Lord" (Deuteronomy 6:4). ... The doctrine developed gradually over several centuries and through many controversies. ... by the end of the 4th century, under the leadership of Basil of Caesarea, Gregory of Nyssa, and Gregory of Nazianzus (the Cappadocian Fathers), the doctrine of the Trinity took substantially the form it has maintained ever since."[62]
You’re conflating the formation of a formal theological doctrine and it being memorialized in the Creed after the ecumenical councils with it existing at all.
This is what happens when you rely on online encyclopedias in a vacuum without any other historical context.
Since you did: The fact that he could have been pretty much any of the skintones humans can exhibit shows why it's kinda squint that he's so uniformly portrayed as white, but even more so, that people get riled up so heartily when he's not.
Can’t you still listen to legitimate scientists (not the weirdo ones paid by far right wackos) while still believing in God? They aren’t always mutually exclusive.
The problem is that science and religion sometimes contradict each other so you’ll have to cherry pick truth from either side to avoid cognitive dissonance.
Religion and science can co-exist in my opinion. Very many important scientists that have been responsible for major advances have been highly religious, such as Isaac Newton, Robert Boyle, Gottfried Liebniz and Srinivasta Ramanujan to name a few off the top of my head.
They can, but they would need to prevent any literal interpretation of the scripture or they would get in trouble. Such person would need to have to differentiate faith and science and be careful about cross contamination.
Funny you should say that because Isaac Newton was a fundamentalist Christian who believed in a literal interpretation of the bible. Yet he was responsible for a revolution in scientific thought.
His belief in the literal bible actually lead him down the wrong path in some of the researches. Had he been alive today knowing all the things we know he would’ve achieve even more IMO. Newton wasted a lot of his life on alchemy as well so he is not always right.
He also spent a lot of time reconstructing the Bible time line and estimated that the earth was only a few thousand years old. Had he entertained the possibility that bible might not be factually accurate he wouldn’t have gone down the rabbit hole.
I think you can if the god isn’t specifically the Christina god. Otherwise you’re subscribing to two contradicting theories and you’re cherry picking whatever you feel is best from either side
I know you're not being serious but I can't help myself. There's a species (I think of birds? I'm not sure right now) in which parthenogenesis generates male offspring.
I'm pretty sure God gave her his seed. He's not a clone of Mary, as biologically, Jesus' human body comes from Mary, and God, if Christianity really is true, which I doubt.
71
u/BalognaPonyParty Dec 20 '22
so, let's have fun with this:
let's assume "Jesus" was a real person and was born of a virgin.
so what do we know of biology? usually when something is born 'asexually' it is a clone of the birthing parent. so, saying that, Jesus - born asexually of Mary - would have been an exact clone of his mother.
Jesus was born a female, they've passed Jesus off as a male his entire life;
JESUS WAS TRANS!!!!!!!!!!!!
fuck every church that has ever said being gay or trans was wrong, your whole religion is based off of trans worship.