so God themself while referred to in English as a he refers to themselves as ’ I am ’ technically I think we should be using they them pronouns but English was traditionally a gendered language.
Jesus on the other hand 100% had a dick. Whether he kept that or not, post ascension that’s up for interpretation but Jesus was 100% biologically male.
Yes, and the church went nuts displaying the “Holy Relic” that was his supposed foreskin for many, many years, in many churches… At the same time. It got so out of control that people started to wonder why the church was so obsessed with Jesus’s dick. So the Pope finally got a clue, commanded a stop to the practice, and threatened to excommunicate anyone who spoke about it afterward. Ah, Christianity. Good times.
In the late 17th century the Vatican librarian Leo Allatius wrote a treatise entitled De Praeputio Domini Nostri Jesu Christi Diatriba (A Discussion of the Foreskin of Our Lord Jesus Christ), claiming that the Holy Prepuce ascended, like Jesus himself, and was transformed into the rings of Saturn.
Jesus on the other hand 100% had a dick. […] Jesus was 100% biologically male.
Oh did they find his body?
Wouldn’t it be more reasonable to conclude that the probability of Jesus being
biologically male equals the human average of males being biologically male? Ie 99.5%.
Couldn’t his radical compassion for outcasts and the downtrodden be related to personal struggles growing up with gender dysphoria?
If you believe he was conceived in a virgin, wouldn’t it be MORE likely that he had XX chromosomes?
The Bible is not accurate regarding Jesus’ early life.
I don’t think it’s wrong to exercise an iota of skepticism.
Was Luke there at the circumcision? What was his source?
Wouldn’t Jesus being trans and Luke being misinformed (or actually trying to avoid outting him) explain why there isn’t really any testimony about Jesus’s life during puberty? It was an incredibly misogynistic era right? Is it inconceivable for a person without a penis to try to pass as a man in that era?
If a person can better appreciate Jesus by understanding him as a trans-man should a christian tell them they’re wrong? Does it put them in spiritual jeopardy? Is it dishonest to say “maybe”? I don’t think so.
My personal head canon is that Jesus was a transgender man (no Y chromosome). The “this is my Son, in whom I am well pleased” marks when God finally accepts his Son’s gender identity, and lets him start his ministry (and hooks him up with HRT).
He could still be intersex AFAB. PCOS/CAH are both extremely common and you can end up with a clitoris that looks pretty close to a peen0r. Admittedly, that doesn’t make the circumscision part that much better - but well realistic, it’s gotta have happened at some point.
Couple of fun facts about this :
so God themself while referred to in English as a he refers to themselves as ’ I am ’ technically I think we should be using they them pronouns but English was traditionally a gendered language.
Jesus on the other hand 100% had a dick. Whether he kept that or not, post ascension that’s up for interpretation but Jesus was 100% biologically male.
Yes, and the church went nuts displaying the “Holy Relic” that was his supposed foreskin for many, many years, in many churches… At the same time. It got so out of control that people started to wonder why the church was so obsessed with Jesus’s dick. So the Pope finally got a clue, commanded a stop to the practice, and threatened to excommunicate anyone who spoke about it afterward. Ah, Christianity. Good times.
In the late 17th century the Vatican librarian Leo Allatius wrote a treatise entitled De Praeputio Domini Nostri Jesu Christi Diatriba (A Discussion of the Foreskin of Our Lord Jesus Christ), claiming that the Holy Prepuce ascended, like Jesus himself, and was transformed into the rings of Saturn.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holy_Prepuce
The article also contains this gem:
Oh did they find his body?
Wouldn’t it be more reasonable to conclude that the probability of Jesus being biologically male equals the human average of males being biologically male? Ie 99.5%.
Couldn’t his radical compassion for outcasts and the downtrodden be related to personal struggles growing up with gender dysphoria?
If you believe he was conceived in a virgin, wouldn’t it be MORE likely that he had XX chromosomes?
He is circumcised according to Luke gospel, so the dick biblically accurate.
The Bible is not accurate regarding Jesus’ early life.
I don’t think it’s wrong to exercise an iota of skepticism.
Was Luke there at the circumcision? What was his source?
Wouldn’t Jesus being trans and Luke being misinformed (or actually trying to avoid outting him) explain why there isn’t really any testimony about Jesus’s life during puberty? It was an incredibly misogynistic era right? Is it inconceivable for a person without a penis to try to pass as a man in that era?
If a person can better appreciate Jesus by understanding him as a trans-man should a christian tell them they’re wrong? Does it put them in spiritual jeopardy? Is it dishonest to say “maybe”? I don’t think so.
We are discussing biological sex as in the parts we are not discussing gender.
Yeah, and I’m positing that the probability he did not have a penis is at least 0.5%.
My personal head canon is that Jesus was a transgender man (no Y chromosome). The “this is my Son, in whom I am well pleased” marks when God finally accepts his Son’s gender identity, and lets him start his ministry (and hooks him up with HRT).
He could still be intersex AFAB. PCOS/CAH are both extremely common and you can end up with a clitoris that looks pretty close to a peen0r. Admittedly, that doesn’t make the circumscision part that much better - but well realistic, it’s gotta have happened at some point.