Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Chili · 10-19-2011, 05:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by archibald

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

The Gospels are explicitly militaristic.

Luke alludes to the Defence Budget.

Those who think it possible that the gospels were concocted allegory (perhaps sourcing the OT for a right and proper masculine messiah, in light of a lack of there being one who actually arrived)......

...and those who don't think that need only think Margaret Thatcher.

As regards context, including historical conditions, it may also be simplistic to look for a sudden, overnight switch from patriarchal/masculine to matriarchal/feminine, or to put narrow limits on the definitions of either, or to think that the change would have had to be complete, rather than a (possibly gradual) change of emphasis.

Fair enough but if it is hormone driven you may find that they grow hair on their chest instead and good luck with the fleeting Y.

ideologyhunter · 10-22-2011, 08:36 AM

Bible evidence:
JN 11:35 - Jesus wept. (What a pussy!)

MT 16:18 - Thou art a peter, and upon this cock I will build a battering ram that the gates of Hymen shall not prevail against. Look out, girl friends! (Snap.)

arnoldo · 10-22-2011, 10:02 AM

According to the following source, the original Syriac rendering of John 1:14, which predates the Greek version, uses a feminine term to describe Jesus.

A fragment of the primitive Aramaic gospel text from Jn1v14

Toto · 10-22-2011, 10:19 AM

From your link:

Quote:

Notes on the translation

Since the Syriac word )tLM pronounced 'meltha' which means 'the word' is grammatically feminine, both of the associated Syriac verbs are feminine in grammatical agreement. However, this does not imply that Yeshu`a (Jesus) was feminine, only that the Aramaic word John used to describe him was!

That is a grammatical gender, not an indication of the gender of the person

Chili · 10-22-2011, 11:36 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

From your link:

Quote:

Notes on the translation

Since the Syriac word )tLM pronounced 'meltha' which means 'the word' is grammatically feminine, both of the associated Syriac verbs are feminine in grammatical agreement. However, this does not imply that Yeshu`a (Jesus) was feminine, only that the Aramaic word John used to describe him was!

That is a grammatical gender, not an indication of the gender of the person

A distinction must be made here between gender and sex since 'at heart' every male is a woman simply because the 'heart of Christ' is equal to the 'heart of a woman' and so without the human condition we can be one in Christ and so then 'a Christ' as androgyne God (in who's image we were created male and female instead of male or female). To note here is that in the Gosples Jesus was not human as that was the cross he carried.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

10-22-2011, 08:36 AM	#22
ideologyhunter Senior Member Join Date: Jan 2004 Location: Port Clinton, Ohio Posts: 591	Bible evidence: JN 11:35 - Jesus wept. (What a pussy!) MT 16:18 - Thou art a peter, and upon this cock I will build a battering ram that the gates of Hymen shall not prevail against. Look out, girl friends! (Snap.)

10-22-2011, 10:02 AM	#23
arnoldo Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2008 Location: Latin America Posts: 4,066	According to the following source, the original Syriac rendering of John 1:14, which predates the Greek version, uses a feminine term to describe Jesus. A fragment of the primitive Aramaic gospel text from Jn1v14

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.