Zone1 Why can't there be a serious intellectual discusion about Jesus' gender and sexuality?

[HaShev]

Well, I don't know what his condition was, but because hemotidrosis is a condition that shows itself when someone is under extreme stress, this would likely be a good explanation.

I don't see anywhere in the Bible that mentions how tall he was, but his height isn't relevant.

Jesus was a carpenter, correct? Not a profession a woman would have in those days.

Everywhere in the Bible He is referred to as a he. He is referred to as the Son of God.

I mean, what other clues would you need?

Ok the carpenter christ was Yeshu of 100 bc but that is not the tax revolter Galilean Christ of King Herod and Lysanias era nor the Jordan river christ of the Pilate AD era. Which is why the combined character had 2 professions (carpenter and fisherman) 2 sentencing and blames (Yeshu was stoned [slew] and hanged as even the NT says-by his elect, but the other 2 christs were crucified by Rome for their revolts)=why the combined character needed a new name which as I stated was used by woman of that era.

 

[HaShev]

The Bible refers to Jesus as a man. Jesus did not sin.

So there's no reason to have any discussion.

then you are saying only he can be deemed Lucifer (the son of perdition)

Ezekiel 28 regarding lucifer (son of perdition) can only be refering to Jesus since no other prophet is ever dared called perfect(sinless) 28:15
or Anointed(christ)
Cherub(guardian in Hebrew=Nazarene)-Ezekiel 28:14

and only Jesus is accounted in perdition (to fall to the pit) Acts 2:27, 1Peter 3:19

 

[Meriweather]

I'm not the one wearing a fishead hat and cape, causing thousands of wars and over millions of murders over a story of a man given a woman's name that they paraded around in holy relic that turned out to be a woman's skeletal remains.

You may be reading the wrong story. Go back to the first century. Stories conjured up in later centuries have nothing to do with what was lived and proclaimed in the first century.

 

[ding]

Really Ding are you serious I have met Michael face to face and he is far from a nut job religious or otherwise however I did see one of yours walking down the street by his lonesome carting a sign with him about how Jesus heals.. Maybe you can remember that the next time you are teeing off and one of shots goes wide and whacks someone in the back of their head while they are lying down on the ground in pain… I still see you have not answered anything except taken pot shots with your trusty club( no not the one in your hand but the club you belong to)

If you attack a rival religion, you're a religious nutjob.

 

[ding]

I'm not the one wearing a fishead hat and cape, causing thousands of wars and over millions of murders over a story of a man given a woman's name that they paraded around in holy relic that turned out to be a woman's skeletal remains.

You're just the one attacking a rival religion.

 

[HaShev]

I don't know know that I believe the gospels were plagiarized but that isn't the issue. I'm just debunking that Jesus was a woman

Yeshu was male, but was the river Jordan Pilate era christ male?

 

[HaShev]

You're just the one attacking a rival religion.

so you admit your faith attacks another and calling it rival is very telling since you are calling the christ figures your rival and it becomes problematic in other ways since for your Christ to actually be Moshiach you'd have to be that rival you so seperate yourself from and have been supporting the murdering and subversion of. -oops!

 

[HaShev]

You may be reading the wrong story. Go back to the first century. Stories conjured up in later centuries have nothing to do with what was lived and proclaimed in the first century.

Some of these clues are in the NT not just gnostic texts. Even in Thomas it discusses switched genders.
The historical Jesus doesn't exist in 1st century historians, but the 3 (trinity) of christs do. Early copies of Josephus have no mention of this character and only at the time of Constantine and Eusebius (the forger liar) does he appear out of sequenced order, out of context and called by a non Jewish name and called christ by a person who was not a Christian and which was not a term Josephus being Jewish would use.

 

[ding]

so you admit your faith attacks another and calling it rival is very telling since you are calling the christ figures your rival and it becomes problematic in other ways since for your Christ to actually be Moshiach you'd have to be that rival you so seperate yourself from and have been supporting the murdering and subversion of. -oops!

I admit you are a religious nutjob.

 

[Meriweather]

the historical Jesus doesn't exist in 1st century historians, but the 3 (trinity) of christs do. Early copies of Josephus have no mention of this character and only at the time of Constantine and Eusebius (the forger liar) does he appear out of sequenced order, out of context and called by a non Jewish name and called christ by a person who was not a Christian and which was not a term Josephus being Jewish would use.

HaShev, you are better than this, or I would like to think so. There is scholarly evidence from historical sources about Jesus. Look it up. Now, let's talk about Abraham, Isaac, Moses...no historical evidence at all for any of them. Are you willing to dismiss all that was written of them by Biblical writers?

I take seriously the accounts of Biblical writers about characters even though there is no backup by sources outside of Biblical accounts. I don't go in search of silly stories written decades, centuries after the fact that have no eye-witness backup dating back to the time of Christ because it is not what serious researchers do. Serious researchers don't waste time following red herrings.

Also disappointing: What is the first thing those who are not serious about someone(s). They find a way to dehumanize them. It was done with slavery. It is being done with abortion. If dehumanization isn't going to take, well, then throw mud at them and their name. Go after their reputation. Indulge in false witnesses and false witnessing.

 

[HaShev]

I admit you are a religious nutjob.

yes all 3 christs, all church elect were using your standard-that includes you but you seem to enjoy the Nhilist idea of rules for thee but not for me.
Who should be the next pope?

 

[ThisIsMe]

Ok the carpenter christ was Yeshu of 100 bc but that is not the tax revolter Galilean Christ of King Herod and Lysanias era nor the Jordan river christ of the Pilate AD era. Which is why the combined character had 2 professions (carpenter and fisherman) 2 sentencing and blames (Yeshu was stoned [slew] and hanged as even the NT says-by his elect, but the other 2 christs were crucified by Rome for their revolts)=why the combined character needed a new name which as I stated was used by woman of that era.

Huh? You're suggesting there were different Christ's? Where does it say that in the Bible?

 

[ThisIsMe]

Yeshu was male, but was the river Jordan Pilate era christ male?

I know of only one Christ. The Bible only ever spoke of one Christ.

 

[HaShev]

HaShev, you are better than this, or I would like to think so. There is scholarly evidence from historical sources about Jesus. Look it up. Now, let's talk about Abraham, Isaac, Moses...no historical evidence at all for any of them. Are you willing to dismiss all that was written of them by Biblical writers?

I take seriously the accounts of Biblical writers about characters even though there is no backup by sources outside of Biblical accounts. I don't go in search of silly stories written decades, centuries after the fact that have no eye-witness backup dating back to the time of Christ because it is not what serious researchers do. Serious researchers don't waste time following red herrings.

Also disappointing: What is the first thing those who are not serious about someone(s). They find a way to dehumanize them. It was done with slavery. It is being done with abortion. If dehumanization isn't going to take, well, then throw mud at them and their name. Go after their reputation. Indulge in false witnesses and false witnessing.

like the Roman commissioned NT does to the Jews?
If there were historical records you'd have named them. The NT self testimony doesn't count because once again they are PROVEN combining characters from various eras.
Example: Lysanias died in 35bc, King Herod 4bc, so how could Jesus be in the Pilate era yet in the Lysanias era. They already had to fudge his birth back 6 years to fit some of king Herod accounts but missed the mark because of the known census dating.
The widows mite coin is a Jannaeus Alexander coin 100bc.
The passover stoning slaying and hanged on tree is too rare someone is sentenced on a holy holiday the description and day shows up as the 100bc Yeshu son of Mary a far cry from the AD era christ who was crucified for his revolt.
NT says he was slew & hanged
Acts 5:30 "Jesus, whom ye slew (stoned)and hanged on a tree" Acts 10:39 "whom they slew and hanged on a tree" Acts 13:29 "they took him down from the tree" 1 Peter 2:24 "who his own self bare our sins in his own body on the tree" Galatians 3:13 "Christ... being made a curse upon us... Cursed is every one that hangeth on a tree" also read Deuteronomy 21:22.

The only hanged christ at passover, was Yeshu of 100bc.

Lastly the false placement of Jesus into fulfilling Zech 12:10 is an admission because there's 2 people confused for each other: they'd miss treat one but
they'd mourn for another is speaking of 2 people confused for each other not a singular person.

 

[HaShev]

I know of only one Christ. The Bible only ever spoke of one Christ.

Not true, Acts(I think chapter 5) talks about Theudas and Yehuda, but mixes up their death sequence.
Josephus talks about them, but not Jesus until it's seemingly placed into later texts around the time of Constantine.

 

[HaShev]

Your 8-8 sign will be Feb 28th

 

[ThisIsMe]

Not true, Acts(I think chapter 5) talks about Theudas and Yehuda, but mixes up their death sequence.
Josephus talks about them, but not Jesus until it's seemingly placed into later texts around the time of Constantine.

No idea who they are. I looked up, theudas was only mentioned once in the Bible. Yehuda (judah?)

 

[HaShev]

No idea who they are. I looked up, theudas was only mentioned once in the Bible. Yehuda (judah?)

Luke mentions him once, in
Acts 5:37, and Josephus several times, once here, sect. 6; and B. XX. ch. 5. sect. 2; Of the War, B. II. ch. 8. sect. 1; and ch. 17. sect. 8

He's the Galilean tax revolter who ransacked the Temple exchange and trades tables hence the story of Jesus overturning the Tables at the Temple and the mentions of rebellion to Caesar's taxes in Mark.

 

[ThisIsMe]

Luke mentions him once, in
Acts 5:37, and Josephus several times, once here, sect. 6; and B. XX. ch. 5. sect. 2; Of the War, B. II. ch. 8. sect. 1; and ch. 17. sect. 8

He's the Galilean tax revolter who ransacked the Temple exchange and trades tables hence the story of Jesus overturning the Tables at the Temple and the mentions of rebellion to Caesar's taxes in Mark.

The book of Josephus isn't in the bible....

 

[HaShev]

The book of Josephus isn't in the bible....

It was pertinant to the topic proving the many figures are mentioned but once again earliest copies have no mention of the compiled figure given a new GREEK name.