• cerement@slrpnk.net
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    17
    ·
    2 days ago

    a virgin birth

    parthenogenesis – Jesus is a clone of Mary – which also make him canonically a trans man

    • lime!@feddit.nu
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      15
      ·
      2 days ago

      the perfect push over the edge for the doubting christian in your life: was Jesus trans or was Mary an adulterer?

        • Enkrod@feddit.org
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          5
          ·
          edit-2
          1 day ago

          Virgin births exist in nature. There are entire species of lizards that are only composed of females, for example the mourning gecko lepidodactylus lugubris only reproduces via virgin birth.

          Due to how parthogenesis works, individuals born through virgin births are always clones of the mother. Thus they are all females.

          If (big if) Jesus existed and IF (even bigger if) he was conceived through a virgin birth, he therefore must have been biologically female since there were no male chromosomes involved in his conception. Hence, Jesus sex must have been female but his gender was male (he/him pronouns)… ergo he was a trans man.

          If Jesus existed and was a biological male, he could not have been conceived through a virgin birth, the best explanation then is that either a) Mary had sex with Joseph, but then why the virgin birth story? Or b) Mary was an adulterer who concocted the “virgin birth” story to hide her adultery from Joseph.

          Since explanation a) falls flat on it’s face, we are left with either 1) trans man or 2) Mary the adulterer.

          Edit: correcting spelling mistakes

          • Flax@feddit.uk
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            arrow-down
            3
            ·
            edit-2
            1 day ago

            Scholars unanimously agree that Jesus existed, was baptised and crucified. His followers had reason to believe that He rose from the dead as well.

            You also left out explanation 0, which is that Jesus was conceived via the Holy Spirit. Jesus did have a Father - God. He is God from God. Joseph was also visited by an angel and I think we could probably take it as fact that they didn’t divorce (as we have records of Jesus being referred to a boy of Joseph) So no, this can’t cause a crisis of faith for a believer.

            Miracles are called miracles for a reason- you are right that a virgin cannot give birth to a male without divine intervention (except from artificial insemination)

            • andros_rex@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              4
              ·
              1 day ago

              Why did God create a bespoke Y chromosome just for Jesus? Why couldn’t Jesus have been born female? What would that change?

              • Flax@feddit.uk
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                arrow-down
                3
                ·
                1 day ago

                Because God is male. Man was created in God’s image, Jesus refers to God in heaven as Father, Jesus is a male (He was circumcised) and the Holy Spirit is also Male (as the Holy Spirit impregnated the Virgin Mary)

                • andros_rex@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  3
                  ·
                  1 day ago

                  Why is God male? Does God have a Y chromosome? Does God produce sperm? Does God have testes?

                  Where is your textual support for the trinity?

                  • Flax@feddit.uk
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    2
                    arrow-down
                    2
                    ·
                    24 hours ago

                    Matthew 28:19

                    Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit,

                    Name is singular, and He is equating the Son and the Holy Spirit to the Father who is clearly God. Jesus also claims to be God numerous times.

            • LookBehindYouNowAndThen@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              edit-2
              1 day ago

              “Miracles” are only compelling to people who already believe.

              They’re utterly unconvincing to anyone not indoctrinated, as proven by the fact that you don’t believe in Hindu, Buddhist, Mormon, or Muslim miracle accounts.

              • Flax@feddit.uk
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                arrow-down
                2
                ·
                edit-2
                1 day ago

                In this scenario, it was with someone who doesn’t believe.

                And even then, if a dude performed a miracle in front of you like rising from the dead, wouldn’t you believe him?

                I don’t believe in Hindu, Buddhist, Mormon or Muslim miracle accounts as I cannot find any compelling ones. I don’t believe in Islam because it completely contradicts the Bible whilst claiming the Bible is a correct revelation from God, and I don’t believe in white islam/mormonism because it hinges on one dude who was a known liar and con artist. Both of these prophets also conveniently lifted the polygamy rule. Hinduism claims Jesus is divine but just another way, while Jesus said He is the only way, and Buddhism claims Jesus was a good teacher and Bodhisvatta when Jesus Himself claimed to be God.

                If you can find me compelling islamic, mormon, buddhist or hindu miracles, I’ll consider it.

                • LookBehindYouNowAndThen@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  3
                  ·
                  1 day ago

                  You missed the whole point.

                  Yours aren’t compelling either, you’ve just been indoctrinated otherwise.

                  If someone “raised from the dead” in front of me I’d need stacks and stacks of evidence to validate it, not merely a narrative from two thousand years ago where the author had an agenda to convince people that the laws of nature briefly stopped in a time when everyone believed in magic.

                  What do you have other than stories written a generation after the purported events by four anonymous authors that contradict in major story-breaking ways?

                  • Flax@feddit.uk
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    2
                    arrow-down
                    4
                    ·
                    24 hours ago

                    There are no “story-breaking” contradictions. The contradiction here is you claiming the authors had an agenda, but then they all contradicted. Which one is it?

                    And what else could I have? Should I expect there to be a 2000 year old VHS tape lying about?

                    Or should I be reasonable about it and expect an abnormal amount of written accounts for a society where paper or writing wasn’t cheap in which most notable people like kings and such have 1 or 2 accounts about them written centuries later, or archaeological evidence and writings from people who lived closer to the time and believed in the events?

            • lime!@feddit.nu
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              3
              ·
              1 day ago

              it doesn’t debunk, it raises additional questions. if you’re all in, “it’s a miracle” is a good enough explanation.