Debunking of 'trans' Jesus

While it seems that never a day goes by without new blasphemies against sacred things, the Cult of Queer (gender) theology continues its metastasis into Christendom and false Christianity.  Of course,  it is long foretold that such corruption would occur. What does however come as a shock is the brazenness of this spiritual cancer and its proponents.  It denies both scientific reality and sacred scripture.  The newest scandal of such a blasphemy is the claiming that Jesus was transgender,  not only is such an approach imbecilic from a historical sense, it also goes against all biblical understanding.

 It would appear that to be a theologian in the times we now live, actually requires that one has no faith in God whatsoever,  nor belief in the sanctity of scripture nor any respect for sacred things.  It is fitting that there is a backlash against the claims made by Dr. Michael Banner in defence of the research student Joshua Heath, where he stated “'For myself, I think that speculation was legitimate, whether or not you or I or anyone else disagrees with the interpretation, says something else about that artistic tradition, or resists its application to contemporary questions around transsexualism.'” One could expect of all people  the dean of  one of the most well-known religious schools in the Western Hemisphere, would have at least have  basic  biblical literacy and be willing to defend it.  Apparently this is too much to expect.

Joshua Heath gave a sermon of sorts pertaining to three paintings from the medieval period. Specifically the 14th Century,  which is more than 1,300 years after the death of Christ.  It is not understood why artistic depictions based on the imaginations  of medieval artists can be considered an appropriate appraisal of the gender identity of the Savior of Mankind. 
Heath states “In Christ's simultaneously masculine and feminine body in these works, if the body of Christ as these works suggest the body of all bodies, then his body is also the trans body." A cultural faux pas to say the least.

The fallacy of the statement can quickly be understood by means of an anthropological  investigation of ancient  Judean culture at the time of Christ alongside scripture.  While many medieval depictions of Christ feature him as a light-skinned individual, he was of course a Jew and as such would have appeared bronze or tan in tone, as many Semitic people still appear today.  Further, in Christianity at least,  Christ is viewed as a perfect individual and therefore  not the emasculated  individual seen on much of church iconography, which stems from artists  like those mentioned by Heath.  His hair would not have been long,  as a devout Jew,  Jesus would have cut his hair  short  with a neat beard.

​The comparison of the side wound inflicted upon the body of Christ with a female genital opening seems to originated with the desire of those who follow Queer theology  to twist all and every scripture out of its original context and to somehow align it with queer theory,  thereby nullifying all scriptural and historical trustworthiness. The theology of this cult spreads like a malignant gangrene in opposition  to the natural order,  and sadly it is peddled by those with a very poor or no grasp at all of scripture,  thus they are reduced  to creating arguments based on pure imagination.  It also fetishism of female anatomy in a manner of akin to the debauched views of autogynephiles. These pseudo-Christian arguments of a “trans” Jesus are not only a blasphemy, they are also a debasement of the  female form which violates the admonition found  in 1 Peter 3:7  which states that women (γυναικείῳ) should be honoured (τιμήν) as joint-heirs of the Grace of Life (χάριτος ζωῆς) and that failure to do so on the part of the man could lead to his prayers being hindered (ἐνκόπτεσθαι) that is to say, ignored. The trans theology simultaneously blasphemes against the sacred, and also denigrates women. 

A number who argue in favour of such blasphemies as those discussed at the outset,  claim to base such arguments of scripture,  so then let scripture show them for what they are. What about those claiming that this is an argument over a “fictional character”?
 
Firstly, that Jesus is a historical person is indisputable,  even atheistic archaeologists and critics agree on this point. The ancient historian Josephus, In Antiquities of the Jews, Book 18, Chapter 3 verse 3 says “Now there was about this time Jesus, a wise man, if it be lawful to call him a man; for he was a doer of wonderful works, a teacher of such men as receive the truth with pleasure. He drew over to him both many of the Jews and many of the Gentiles. He was [the] Christ. And when Pilate, at the suggestion of the principal men amongst us, had condemned him to the cross,[9] those that loved him at the first did not forsake him; for he appeared to them alive again the third day;[10] as the divine prophets had foretold these and ten thousand other wonderful things concerning him. And the tribe of Christians, so named from him, are not extinct at this day.” 

 Book 20, Chapter 9, 1 of the Antiquities “Festus was now dead, and Albinus was but upon the road; so he assembled the sanhedrim of judges, and brought before them the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ, whose name was James, and some others, [or, some of his companions]; and when he had formed an accusation against them as breakers of the law, he delivered them to be stoned: but as for those who seemed the most equitable of the citizens, and such as were the most uneasy at the breach of the laws, they disliked what was done; they also sent to the king [Agrippa], desiring him to send to Ananus that he should act so no more, for that what he had already done was not to be justified; nay, some of them went also to meet Albinus, as he was upon his journey from Alexandria, and informed him that it was not lawful for Ananus to assemble a sanhedrim without his consent.” 

Further, Tacitus’ Annals (c. AD 116), book 15, chapter 44, Mara bar Sarapion, Abgar-Tiberius Correspondence, Pliny the Younger , Emperor Trajan, and other sources show that Jesus existed and that Christian were active at the time.

The scriptures also record the full bloodlines of Mary as well as those of Joseph, going so far as to document the circumstances and place of Christ's birth. 

Claims that Jesus could be trans are debunked by reading the actual text and understanding cultural context. Both Mary and Joseph were devout Jews,  as such they followed the Mosaic law and customs of ancient Israel specifically those of Judea, by that time Judaism had begun to differ from the Samaritan belief system. ( The Samaritans were the Ten tribe Kingdom  that had been subjugated by foreign powers and whose religion had been corrupted by pagan teaching).

The Mosaic law required that all boys born in the Jewish nation were required  to be circumcised  on the 8th day after their birth,  the day on which coagulants in the male body are at their highest. Luke 2:21 shows this (περιτεμεῖν) is exactly what Jesus parents did on the 8th day and the verse continually uses  masculine pronouns  in the form of accusative masculine third person singular (αὐτόν)  and a genitive masculine third person singular (αὐτοῦ) when speaking of Jesus (Ἰησοῦς) a name which is itself a normative masculine singular noun. It is interesting to note,  that the Apostle Luke, was in fact, a physician and is referred to in scripture as “the beloved physician” (Col 4:14).  In the gospel bearing his name,  Luke often describes the  diseases or ailments from which people suffered at the time in great detail,   therefore,  if  there were any physiological reasons to doubt that Jesus was a man,  we can be sure that Luke would have alluded to it. Yet, such is not the case. 

In Queer theology it is claimed that Jesus, having no human father, was therefore haploid and therefore trans. The scripture refutes this because when Mary is approached by the angel she is told she will have a son (υἱόν) the word used being an accusative masculine singular. Further, the conception would take place via Holy Spirit (Πνεῦμα Ἅγιον) or God’s actuating force meaning that the creation of a Y chromosome would not be problematic and the imperfection in the human X chromosome would have been engineered out. 

Later we find  that God himself attests to the fact that the Christ was a man.  After the baptism of Christ by John the Baptist,  The holy spirit in the form of a dove descended from heaven and a loud voice was her declaring “and lo, a voice out of the heavens, saying, This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased.” (Matthew 3:17). Here we find the word son (Greek Υἱός / Pronunciation: Huios)   is a Nominative Masculine Singular Noun and clearly shows an individual who is a man or male  within the strict biological parameters of the word. 

When questioned by the Roman Procurator of Judea, Pontius Pilate, Pilate uses the term King (Βασιλεὺς) of the Jews which is a nominative masculine singular. So whether Jew or Greek or Roman, we find no mention of Jesus as anything other than male in scripture. Then what can we conclude?

The basic conclusion that we can form is that queer theology is a demonic corruption which attempts to pollute scriptural  understanding with the perversions of a postmodern philosophy, a philosophy which hates men,  women,  and humanity itself.  A false theology which brings corruption and ruin upon those who practice it,  not only in the spiritual sense,  but also  physically because its adherents rend and mutilate their flesh  contrary to nature  instead of accepting the magnificent human body for what it is. 
I leave you with this closing remark from 2 Timothy 4:3-4 which says “For the time will come when they will not endure the sound doctrine; but, having itching ears, will heap to themselves teachers after their own lusts;and will turn away their ears from the truth, and turn aside unto fables.”

---