Could Jesus have been a woman

[XenoFish]

What's more interesting is that this single ideology is a focal point. I'm sure there are a few goddess religions out there. Why switch this one up? It already has an established canon. 

[Jodie.Lynne]

1 hour ago, XenoFish said:

What's more interesting is that this single ideology is a focal point. I'm sure there are a few goddess religions out there. Why switch this one up? It already has an established canon. 

Because some folk just love poking the bear?

[+Desertrat56]

15 hours ago, XenoFish said:

What's more interesting is that this single ideology is a focal point. I'm sure there are a few goddess religions out there. Why switch this one up? It already has an established canon. 

I think it is because people cling to the story and beliefs but hate some part of it, so they change the aspect that they feel denigrates them.  Like using the same beliefe but insisting on saying "Universe" instead of "God", or claiming "God" and "Jesus" were aliens, or in this case "Jesus" was a woman, all of them nonsense because in reality they have not changed any of the rules of their belief,

[XenoFish]

1 hour ago, Desertrat56 said:

I think it is because people cling to the story and beliefs but hate some part of it, so they change the aspect that they feel denigrates them.  Like using the same beliefe but insisting on saying "Universe" instead of "God", or claiming "God" and "Jesus" were aliens, or in this case "Jesus" was a woman, all of them nonsense because in reality they have not changed any of the rules of their belief,

Same cereal different box. That's what I call it. 

[+DieChecker]

On 11/28/2020 at 2:19 PM, Jodie.Lynne said:

I find it ironic that "God" could impregnate a human woman is stated as a "fact", while the same act, attributed to Zeus, Poseidon and other gods is "alleged"..

The next time I run into a followers of Zeus, or Poseidon, I'll be sure to respect their religious beliefs. 

I'm sure you'd just give them snark like you did me. 

[+DieChecker]

On 11/28/2020 at 2:21 PM, Jodie.Lynne said:

Fixed that for you.  

 

You're welcome

Whatever. It still shows her thinking is modern, and thus bias. At least as considers a 2000 year old institution. 

There were female based religions at the time, but the male based Jewish state of the time wouldn't have allowed it at all. 

Edited November 30, 2020 by DieChecker

[+Desertrat56]

20 minutes ago, DieChecker said:

Whatever. It still shows her thinking is modern, and thus bias. At least as considers a 2000 year old institution. 

There were female based religions at the time, but the male based Jewish state of the time wouldn't have allowed it at all. 

not 2000 years, 1700.

[Jodie.Lynne]

21 hours ago, DieChecker said:

The next time I run into a followers of Zeus, or Poseidon, I'll be sure to respect their religious beliefs. 

I'm sure you'd just give them snark like you did me. 

Ahhhh, so longevity is the key!

And, if any followers of Zeus, Poseidon, Odin, Yahweh or Cthulhu could show actual PROOF about their beliefs, then I would respect those beliefs. I wouldn't necessarily adhere to them, but I could respect them, for others. if not myself.

 

But, and here is the gnat in the ointment, YOUR belief in YOUR version of a deity is no better than any other belief in a deity. 

You may claim that the Bible is your authority and provenance, but other faiths, other gods have had their 'sacred texts'.  So why is faith in one 'true' and all others false?

 

Do you actually believe that other people, from other times ( as well as today ) believe what they did (   or do ), because they think it is false?

And a question: If YOUR god is the 'TRUE and only god", why didn't he send the same message across the globe?   Please don't fall back on the "god is mysterious, we can't fathom his methods" BS.

IF, if, if, your god is the true creator of all, why then, did he wait 10's of thousands of years before revealing himself ( itself? ) to an illiterate Middle Eastern peasant?

 

I'm NOT asking you to decipher "god's" methodology, but rather asking you to THINK, rationally, about your beliefs and if they make any sense.

 

 

Edited December 1, 2020 by Jodie.Lynne

[Nnicolette]

The funny thing is everybody says it wrong. I found out this is an old name in my family and it is pronounced Chris-t.

[Big Jim]

No need to get into religion to answer the original question.  Jesus was a historical figure, the same as the other well known names in the story.  To suggest that he was a woman is to suggest that the people he interacted with and who wrote about him did not know the difference between a man and a woman.  At his trial and initial punishment he was stripped nearly naked.  Everyone would have noticed if he was a woman.  They might have even proclaimed it was a miracle.  In any case it would have been recorded along with the many other details that have come down to us.

[Rlyeh]

On 12/3/2020 at 9:32 AM, Nnicolette said:

The funny thing is everybody says it wrong. I found out this is an old name in my family and it is pronounced Chris-t.

Christ wasn't his name though..

[+DieChecker]

On 11/29/2020 at 7:24 PM, Desertrat56 said:

not 2000 years, 1700.

Effectively, Peter starts the "Church" right after Jesus died.

2000 years.

[+DieChecker]

On 11/30/2020 at 4:29 PM, Jodie.Lynne said:

And, if any followers of Zeus, Poseidon, Odin, Yahweh or Cthulhu could show actual PROOF about their beliefs, then I would respect those beliefs. I wouldn't necessarily adhere to them, but I could respect them, for others. if not myself.

So, if there was actual Proof of God, or any other god, you'd still not follow that gods teachings? Must really think something of your own opinions to be so sure.

Quote

But, and here is the gnat in the ointment, YOUR belief in YOUR version of a deity is no better than any other belief in a deity. 

Its not "just" an opinion if its based off 2000 years of history, and 3 billion current believers. Still opinion, sure, but not just my own. 

Quote

You may claim that the Bible is your authority and provenance, but other faiths, other gods have had their 'sacred texts'.  So why is faith in one 'true' and all others false?

I'm sorry... Where did I make this claim? Where did I say other gods were false? I believe I said that I'd respect other gods believers... if they existed. 

Quote

Do you actually believe that other people, from other times ( as well as today ) believe what they did (   or do ), because they think it is false?

No, they believe they are correct, just as I do. They are wrong, according to Christian teachings, but they honestly believe what they believe.

Quote

And a question: If YOUR god is the 'TRUE and only god", why didn't he send the same message across the globe?   Please don't fall back on the "god is mysterious, we can't fathom his methods" BS.

He did. Go look at the travels of the Apostles. Asia, India, Rome, Greece, Africa.... They spread the Gospel to the entire "Known" world.

Quote

IF, if, if, your god is the true creator of all, why then, did he wait 10's of thousands of years before revealing himself ( itself? ) to an illiterate Middle Eastern peasant?

Well, Jesus was likely not illiterate, first of all. And as to why that place and time? Because those were the people who were ready. Or, at least they were supposed to be ready. 

Jesus's coming was preceded by centuries of prophecies. Most of which he fulfilled.

Quote

I'm NOT asking you to decipher "god's" methodology, but rather asking you to THINK, rationally, about your beliefs and if they make any sense.

I think rationally. I have decided to follow the path of loving God, and my neighbor. Rather then following politics, or following human nature.

My beliefs, as laid out in the Bible, if followed as intended, are less damaging then just about any other lifestyle.

[psyche101]

Why not a bigfoot. Nobody ever says could Jesus have been a bigfoot. It might explain an awful lot you know. 

[Jodie.Lynne]

@DieChecker   My apologies, I was not clear who I was referring to.  I meant the father, not the son

[Abramelin]

On 11/21/2020 at 7:58 PM, Bendy Demon said:

Isn't the very name 'Jesus' a variation of Joshua/Joseph?

Not many ladies were named that.

Well, in Dutch Jesus is spelled as Jezus.

Split that up into Je Zus, and you get Your Sister in English...

[Abramelin]

3 hours ago, psyche101 said:

Why not a bigfoot. Nobody ever says could Jesus have been a bigfoot. It might explain an awful lot you know. 

Nah.

Imagine Jesus raising Lazarus from death, and then Lazarus, upon seeing Jesus Bigfoot, gets a heart attack and goes back to being dead.

[psyche101]

1 hour ago, Abramelin said:

Nah.

Imagine Jesus raising Lazarus from death, and then Lazarus, upon seeing Jesus Bigfoot, gets a heart attack and goes back to being dead.

Then he raises him again and goes 

 

See not a fluke. Nahnah.

It would be even better.

Edited December 6, 2020 by psyche101

[+Desertrat56]

11 hours ago, DieChecker said:

Effectively, Peter starts the "Church" right after Jesus died.

2000 years.

But that was a different "church" than Constantine's, which is what is considered christianity nowadays.   Very few even know about Peter's judaic sect or what it taught.

[+DieChecker]

On 12/6/2020 at 9:55 AM, Desertrat56 said:

But that was a different "church" than Constantine's, which is what is considered christianity nowadays.   Very few even know about Peter's judaic sect or what it taught.

Not necessarily so. True that the Apostles Creed and such was from the 3rd century, but the writings of Polycarp and other early writers show that the bedrock of Christianity has always been the same.

Constantine merely collected everything together and published it. The teachings had been common among most Christians long before that. 

[+Desertrat56]

2 hours ago, DieChecker said:

Not necessarily so. True that the Apostles Creed and such was from the 3rd century, but the writings of Polycarp and other early writers show that the bedrock of Christianity has always been the same.

Constantine merely collected everything together and published it. The teachings had been common among most Christians long before that. 

He also edited it and decided to make the roman reprobate Paul, who could not keep from getting locked up in every town he walked in to, as a prolific rule maker and put more of his writings in the bible than any other.    It is not the same.  And most people are not taught that the writings of Pollycarp even exist unless they are religious scholars.   Don't justify anything from your bible to me.   I have read it.

[+DieChecker]

1 hour ago, Desertrat56 said:

He also edited it and decided to make the roman reprobate Paul, who could not keep from getting locked up in every town he walked in to, as a prolific rule maker and put more of his writings in the bible than any other.  

And Paul was active... when? Right, early 1st century.

The basic tenets of Christianity... celebrating the Lords Supper, Baptism, Jesus as the Son of God, Resurrection, Love thy neighbor as thyself,  The Trinity.... All were there starting in the 1st century.

If you mean there wasn't an All Unified church under a supreme leader, then yeah, that didn't exist. But to my knowledge the "Church", is the "Body of Christ on Earth", which is where any two or more gather in His name.

Quote

It is not the same. And most people are not taught that the writings of Pollycarp even exist unless they are religious scholars.  Don't justify anything from your bible to me.  I have read it.

That you have read it means you can have an opinion that can be respected. But, it doesn't make the opinion necessarily correct. Especially if its one opinion versus several billion.

The Bible is just a tool, not an icon. What it says is for teaching and to help prevent previous mistakes. Those who call it the perfect Word of God, without error, are deceiving themselves, or more likely, being led along by some charismatic leader.