Mix one part itching ears with one part false prophets and what do you get? Disaster, delusion, deception and degeneracy compounded. The Bible warns from cover to cover that there will be many who will want to hear only what they want to hear instead of the truth.
And it also tells us that there will be plenty of false prophets, false teachers and false shepherds who will be more than happy to comply. These two groups feed off each other, and both have a mutual blood-sucking relationship to each other.
It is as remarkable as it is tragic when Biblical truth is rejected and lies, falsehoods and deceptions are instead accepted. And I am talking about God’s people here. We expect non-believers to reject truth and swallow myth. But sadly plenty of those who call themselves Christians are up to their ears in this substitution of truth for error.
As I said, the Bible warns about this time and time again. Let me just offer three passages of Paul from his pastoral epistles. In 2 Timothy 4:3-4 we read this: “For the time will come when men will not put up with sound doctrine. Instead, to suit their own desires, they will gather around them a great number of teachers to say what their itching ears want to hear. They will turn their ears away from the truth and turn aside to myths.”
In 1Timothy 4:1-3 we read that “in latter times some will depart from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits and doctrines of devils”. And in 2 Timothy 3:13 it says that “evil men and deceivers shall wax worse, deceiving and being deceived”.
“Deceiving and being deceived” – that pretty well sums it up all right. But there are also some amazingly accurate descriptions of all this found in the Old Testament as well. Let me just mention two. In Jeremiah 5:31 we find these incredible words: “The prophets prophesy falsely, and the priests bear rule by their means; and my people love to have it so: and what will ye do in the end thereof?”
Perhaps even more remarkable and incriminating are the words of Isaiah as found in Is. 30:9-11:
For these are rebellious people, deceitful children,
children unwilling to listen to the LORD’s instruction.
They say to the seers,
“See no more visions!”
and to the prophets,
“Give us no more visions of what is right!
Tell us pleasant things,
prophesy illusions.
Leave this way,
get off this path,
and stop confronting us
with the Holy One of Israel!”
“Tell us pleasant things, prophesy illusions”! “Stop confronting us with the Holy One of Israel!” How up-to-date and totally relevant this is. We have so-called Christians and so-called Christian leaders selling out on one biblical doctrine after another today, and no one seems to bat an eyelash. Yet ‘my people love it this way’!
For example, on so many hot potato social issues the church is caving in big time. Compromise, abandonment of clear biblical teaching, and downright deception characterise so much of contemporary Christianity. Simply take the issue of homosexuality and same-sex marriage. One church after another is falling into deception and deceit here.
I document this all the time on my site. But consider yet one more mind-boggling example of this. It is about as idiotic and nonsensical as it comes. And it certainly comes straight out of the pit of hell. But leave it to religious academics and trendy theologians to come up with such heretical imbecility.
I refer to a story which just broke a few days ago concerning an English theologian who now informs us that Jesus was likely not a male. Yep, you heard me right. He may have been AC-DC or some such thing. Here is how one newspaper has covered the story:
“A feminist theologian has stoked controversy by publishing a paper arguing that Jesus might have been a hermaphrodite. Dr Susannah Cornwall claimed that it is ‘simply a best guess’ that Jesus was male. Her comments, which are bound to provoke fury in some quarters, were published in response to the ongoing debate about women bishops in the Church of England.
“Dr Cornwall, of Manchester University’s Lincoln Theological Institute, describes herself on her blog as specialising in: ‘Research and writing in feminist theology, sexuality, gender, embodiment, ethics and other fun things like that.’ In her paper ‘Intersex & Ontology, A Response to The Church, Women Bishops and Provision’, she argues that it is not possible to know ‘with any certainty’ that Jesus did not suffer from an intersex condition, with both male and female organs.
“In an extraordinary paper she says: ‘It is not possible to assert with any degree of certainty that Jesus was male as we now define maleness. There is no way of knowing for sure that Jesus did not have one of the intersex conditions which would give him a body which appeared externally to be unremarkably male, but which might nonetheless have had some “hidden” female physical features.’
“Dr Cornwall argues that the fact that Jesus is not recorded to have had children made his gender status ‘even more uncertain’. She continues: ‘We cannot know for sure that Jesus was male – since we do not have a body to examine and analyse – it can only be that Jesus’ masculine gender role, rather than his male sex, is having to bear the weight of all this authority’.”
Hey, sounds good to me Susannah. Who am I to judge anyway? And while we are at it, let’s go the whole hog here. Surely we need to stop mucking around, and spill all the beans: Jesus was also most likely a Communist lesbian nuclear-free whale from Neptune. And why not? All things are possible. This sounds just as plausible as what the good professor is telling us.
Talk about deception running rampant. Talk about open academic minds which really need to be closed for repairs. Talk about theologians who are as orthodox and helpful as Judas. This is just another example of demonic deception running rampant in our churches and theological institutions. And the really scary thing is the number of “believers” who will likely lap all this stuff up.
In Luke 18:8 Jesus asks this penetrating question: “When the Son of Man comes, will he find faith on the earth?” Apparently not at the Lincoln Theological Institute at least.
32 Replies to “Itching Ears, False Prophets and a Hermaphrodite Jesus”
“Talk about open academic minds which really need to be closed for repairs.” That is a priceless quote Bill. I guess the same could be said for some so-called Sanger-styled ethicists who recently advocated infanticide.
Alex Burton
Yes it sure could Alex.
Bill Muehlenberg, CultureWatch
Technically, I suppose she’s right in that Jesus could have been a hermaphrodite. However, my question to her would be, who cares? It would change nothing! Jesus was indeed made in the likeness of sinful flesh which could include such genetic abnormalities. Her speculation from silence adds nothing and takes nothing away from the gospel. I’d like to know who paid for this nonsensical research? Don’t be surprised if it was the government, a few years ago I remember a report of someone doing a government funded study into whether Jesus was gay here in Australia.
Luke Belik
In the beginning, God created Man in his image. Ever since then, man has been trying to make God in man’s image. This is another twisted example of the same – if you believe that gender is just something you choose for yourself, then why not believe in a Jesus who had no gender?
Of course, it’s also highly illogical. There is absolutely no evidence to support the idea that Jesus was a hermaphrodite. The practice of reading the meaning you want to see into a historical person or event is horrible “scholarship”. But as you point out, none of that matters. This “theory” will be embraced by plenty of people (yes, including supposed believers in Christ) because it fits what they want to believe. They want to make God in their own image.
Things are so much more comfortable that way. Well, temporarily at least. The end won’t be so comfortable for them.
“Anyone who runs ahead and does not continue in the teaching of Christ does not have God; whoever continues in the teaching has both the Father and the Son.”-2 John 1:9 Those who claim to be Christians, yet jettison the Bible’s teaching about Christ’s person, nature, and purpose, show that they don’t know God after all.
Ronin Akechi
Thanks Luke
But it is not even necessary to concede even that much ground. It is biblically and historically untenable as well as being highly anachronistic. And it is just too great of a stretch to go from Romans 8:3 to Jesus being a hermaphrodite. So I don’t think it is even technically correct at all.
And the truth is, some people really do care about this – primarily the feminist and homosexual lobbies which are both into theological revisionism big time. So for them it is a big deal to twist Scripture like this.
Bill Muehlenberg, CultureWatch
“Feminist theologian calls Mohammed hermaphrodite, thousands dead in rioting so far…”
Not expecting this any time soon, but it’s something our culture should meditate on as they seek to eradicate Christianity by opening the door and laying down the mat for Islam to waltz on in, or apathetically disengage to their own private worlds.
Simon Fox
Yes quite right Simon. Excellent point indeed.
Bill Muehlenberg, CultureWatch
I would have imagined that Dr Susannah Cornwall, as an ‘academic’, would have been aware of the Argument from Silence logical fallacy. Manchester University’s Lincoln Theological Institute sounds like degree mill with very shallow scholarship.
As for Jesus having no children implying this makes his gender ‘even more uncertain’ I wouldn’t advise it but she could make the same comment then about the Islamic revered figure Mohammed. She wouldn’t dare, she wouldn’t dare, which clearly indicates she’s picking on the safe, easy target of the Christian community.
Doug Holland
Thanks Doug
Yes quite so. Her whole line of thought is just so bizarre and thread-bare here. No proof whatsoever – just wild ideological assertions. By this standard, one could say anything about any person in ancient history. And this passes for academia?
Bill Muehlenberg, CultureWatch
Do they use the Bible at the Lincoln Theological Institute? …
For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given: and the government shall be upon his shoulder: and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counseller, The mighty God, The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace. Isaiah 9:6
Behold, a virgin shall be with child, and shall bring forth a son, and they shall call his name Emmanuel, which being interpreted is, God with us. Matt 1:23
Annette Nestor
Good question Annette. By the looks of things, they probably ditched it decades ago.
Bill Muehlenberg, CultureWatch
“On the eighth day when it was time to circumcise Him, they named him Jesus” Luke 2.21 NIV.??????
Ian Brinkworth
Thanks Ian
But hey, what do the Biblical writers know? 21st century feminist academics are obviously so much closer to the truth than those who lived with Jesus.
Bill Muehlenberg, CultureWatch
I find no basis to find that this woman is any of the following, literate, understanding, wise, truthful, honest, nonpolitical, Christian. We cannot know for sure that Dr Cornwall is an academic, or for that matter even human, rather than being a demon. Just an academic thought, using free speach odviously.
Can I get my doctorate now? a PhD or a nice Dr would be uber awesome for my resume.
Neil Waldron
Quite right Neil
I think I will present an academic paper at a theological conference arguing that Dr Susannah Cornwall has never existed – she is just a myth.
Bill Muehlenberg, CultureWatch
Whenever anybody tries to distort the name of Jesus or suggest he was something slightly different than what he was, the result or intended result is always the same. To reduce Gods credibility is the first stage and the second is, there’s no GOD. The old one-two.
Daniel Kempton
The thing that fallen men and women hate more than anything else is the sovereignty of God; that is, the absolute and unchangeable right of the Triune Creator of the Universe to determine anchangeably whatsover He chooses. That is, who will be saved, and who will be damned, who will be male, and who will be female, what is right, and what is wrong, and whatsoever shall come to pass as determined from before the foundation of the world.
It is this God that I surrender to, and it is this God who shall bring every knee to bow before the name of His Son, the Lord Jesus Christ. “Kiss the Son, lest He be angry, and you perish in your way”, all you doctors of whatever, but not of the Scriptures.
Lance A Box
Bizarre. and what a monumental waste of money and media attention. Why do we have to put up with these nutjobs. All through the bible…the son of man, the son of God, God gave His only son. Male. She’s right, we never actually saw His body, because we never saw his genitalia, but surely this is just the same as ANYTHING in the bible that constitutes faith. We believe that he was born of a virgin Mary…we didn’t have to see the strange way God inseminated her body to have faith that it happened.
In the words of Judge Judy (not yet canonised) “Beauty fades, but stupid lasts forever”.
Ben Mathewson
Simply ridiculous. Sounds like something the boys from Monty Python would have dreamed up for a ‘comedy’ routine.
Is this bit of scholarship paving the way for a more inclusive, less truthful translation? As in God the Parent and God the Child? I know some translations have been heading that way with each new edition. Any thoughts on this?
Dan Brinkman
Luke you said:
“Technically, I suppose she’s right in that Jesus could have been a hermaphrodite. However, my question to her would be, who cares?”
But it does matter, because God made man male and female, not hermaphrodite. So this proposition is another “Hath God said…” heresy.
And as soon as we give ground on this point the opponents of the gospel will twist it to their own ends, because we have lost the whole argument.
Let me illustrate with a simple money example. If you and I disagree over say introducing the mining tax, I would say No mining tax and you argue yes, a mining tax at 10%.
But then you come to me and say ‘John, how about we compromise on 5%? That won’t hurt too many miners will it?’
If I agree, I have lost the whole tax argument, by conceding to the existence of the tax (which I had opposed). The compromise on the rate of the tax is merely a red herring.
So in these cases, if we at any stage compromise or concede ground to our opponents on things which should remain fixed, we have lost the whole argument – with devastating effects for the church and society.
The first one is the inerrancy of Scripture, which boils down to “Hath God said…” attacks.
In areas like abortion, IVF, euthanasia, infanticide we lost the argument with the introduction of artificial contraception – we started playing God.
I dare say we may have lost the argument in other areas of medical science too. Major organ transplants are treating people like the sum of their body parts. How do we stop experiments in artificial parts being harvested from animals?
John Angelico
According to her logic, I must be an hermaphrodite too. Currently I am single and have not had any children. I currently about the same age Jesus died when he was on earth, early to mid thirties, so clearly it must be true. Of Jesus could have been an hermaphrodite since he spent much of time around men.
The Bible does say that their conscience will be seared and they lack any feeling in their logic. It is tragic that those who claim to be Christian are often the ones who do the most damage.
Ian Nairn
I think Noah was an alien who drank sea water and that Daniel was a hologram sent back in time.
Where do I collect my qualification? Or do I just download it and print it out – and scan the barcode at the bottom to get into liberal theological conferences?
Mark Rabich
Yes quite right guys. It seems these liberal theologians and loopy academics can say anything they want and get away with it.
Indeed, her claim that we can’t be sure if Jesus was a male could be said about well over 99% of the world’s population. She does not know for sure if I am a male, or if George Washington or Elvis Presley was.
This is just more academic inanity and last days deception which we have to put up with.
Bill Muehlenberg, CultureWatch
I don’t know about her but I still define maleness as it has always been defined, as do the majority of people in the world. The theologian is missing alot with her zealous intersex theory and her attempts to proselytize will get her noticed but in other respects get her nowhere.
Rachel Smith
Jesus didn’t have children. Naturally he didn’t! He was the Son of God, made Man by the Holy Spirit (God) “overshadowing” the Blessed Virgin. He came to redeem Humanity from the terrible effects of Original Sin, by sacrificing his life for us: not to found a dynasty! Saying what she said makes absolutely no sense from a Christian point of view and is simply nonsensical.
Jerome Gonzalez
One other thing is that Jesus is described as our perfect High Priest who intercedes for us. Old Testament law forbad any High Priest who had a deformatory – especially with regard to damaged testicles. Leviticus 21: 16-23 says:
“The LORD said to Moses, “Say to Aaron: ‘For the generations to come none of your descendants who has a defect may come near to offer the food of his God. No man who has any defect may come near: no man who is blind or lame, disfigured or deformed; no man with a crippled foot or hand, or who is a hunchback or a dwarf, or who has any eye defect, or who has festering or running sores or damaged testicles. No descendant of Aaron the priest who has any defect is to come near to present the food offerings to the LORD. He has a defect; he must not come near to offer the food of his God. He may eat the most holy food of his God, as well as the holy food; yet because of his defect, he must not go near the curtain or approach the altar, and so desecrate my sanctuary. I am the LORD, who makes them holy.’”
Philippians 2:6-8 also says:
“Who, being in very nature God, did not consider equality with God something to be used to his own advantage; rather, he made himself nothing by taking the very nature of a servant, being made in human likeness. And being found in appearance as a man,……”
And as Jerome rightly points out, with regard to Christ (Jesus Christ who is the second person of the Trinity), not fathering any children, John 1:1,2 says:
‘Yet to all who did receive him, to those who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God – children born not of natural descent, nor of human decision or a husband’s will, but born of God.’
David Skinner, UK
Many thanks David
You make some very good points indeed, and further show the sheer idiocy of this academic’s argument.
I was recently physically threatened and verbally attacked in a public lecture at Bournemouth University by one of the staff of Winchester University, a Dr Eric Anderson, for objecting to his lecture being laced with obscenity, slander and insult towards Christians and anyone who opposed the gay agenda. http://oxfordstudent.com/2011/05/21/lecturer-or-lecherer-at-lgbt-talk/
The gay lobby have their high priests, like the “lovely” Elizabeth Stuart, saint and archbishop, but they also have their storm troopers like Dr Eric, professor of diversity, tolerance, inclusion, non-discrimination – except of course of towards Christians.
David Skinner, UK
It took me two seconds to come up with one (there must be many more) argument against a non-male Jesus. I bet the teachers of the time would not have tolerated a woman or in-between trying to teach theology. He had to be male to reach that culture.
John Bennett
Crucifixion was a very degrading way to die, I believe the person being crucified was NAKED to add to their degradation. Surely if Jesus was not a full and whole man, the Romans would have a made a mockery of this?
Robin Hill
It is not only the biblical account she is calling into question, but that of secular history as well. I just read an article in Creation Magazine and, though I can’t remember the exact context, but the quote stood out to me as something that would stand testing.
paraphrased it said: One must back up ones theology with history, not the other way round. In other words, I think it says God in his mercy has given us history as an irrefutable and unchangeable constant. It is a rock on which false theories and religions will get shipwrecked. That is why revisionist history is always an element of materialistic humanistic and also false religions social engineering.
Someone who loves truth will always find Jesus as who He really is, the son of God and saviour of the world, for He is the Truth.
Many blessings
Ursula Bennett
This is the sad story of a woman who does not know Jesus Christ, The Man, born of a woman, The Creator, The Redeemer and the “lover of her soul”.
How sad, even non Christians will mock this woman, (those with an agenda will exploit her “work”, but they will laugh as they do).
“Talk about open academic minds which really need to be closed for repairs.” That is a priceless quote Bill. I guess the same could be said for some so-called Sanger-styled ethicists who recently advocated infanticide.
Alex Burton
Yes it sure could Alex.
Bill Muehlenberg, CultureWatch
Technically, I suppose she’s right in that Jesus could have been a hermaphrodite. However, my question to her would be, who cares? It would change nothing! Jesus was indeed made in the likeness of sinful flesh which could include such genetic abnormalities. Her speculation from silence adds nothing and takes nothing away from the gospel. I’d like to know who paid for this nonsensical research? Don’t be surprised if it was the government, a few years ago I remember a report of someone doing a government funded study into whether Jesus was gay here in Australia.
Luke Belik
In the beginning, God created Man in his image. Ever since then, man has been trying to make God in man’s image. This is another twisted example of the same – if you believe that gender is just something you choose for yourself, then why not believe in a Jesus who had no gender?
Of course, it’s also highly illogical. There is absolutely no evidence to support the idea that Jesus was a hermaphrodite. The practice of reading the meaning you want to see into a historical person or event is horrible “scholarship”. But as you point out, none of that matters. This “theory” will be embraced by plenty of people (yes, including supposed believers in Christ) because it fits what they want to believe. They want to make God in their own image.
Things are so much more comfortable that way. Well, temporarily at least. The end won’t be so comfortable for them.
“Anyone who runs ahead and does not continue in the teaching of Christ does not have God; whoever continues in the teaching has both the Father and the Son.”-2 John 1:9 Those who claim to be Christians, yet jettison the Bible’s teaching about Christ’s person, nature, and purpose, show that they don’t know God after all.
Ronin Akechi
Thanks Luke
But it is not even necessary to concede even that much ground. It is biblically and historically untenable as well as being highly anachronistic. And it is just too great of a stretch to go from Romans 8:3 to Jesus being a hermaphrodite. So I don’t think it is even technically correct at all.
And the truth is, some people really do care about this – primarily the feminist and homosexual lobbies which are both into theological revisionism big time. So for them it is a big deal to twist Scripture like this.
Bill Muehlenberg, CultureWatch
“Feminist theologian calls Mohammed hermaphrodite, thousands dead in rioting so far…”
Not expecting this any time soon, but it’s something our culture should meditate on as they seek to eradicate Christianity by opening the door and laying down the mat for Islam to waltz on in, or apathetically disengage to their own private worlds.
Simon Fox
Yes quite right Simon. Excellent point indeed.
Bill Muehlenberg, CultureWatch
I would have imagined that Dr Susannah Cornwall, as an ‘academic’, would have been aware of the Argument from Silence logical fallacy. Manchester University’s Lincoln Theological Institute sounds like degree mill with very shallow scholarship.
As for Jesus having no children implying this makes his gender ‘even more uncertain’ I wouldn’t advise it but she could make the same comment then about the Islamic revered figure Mohammed. She wouldn’t dare, she wouldn’t dare, which clearly indicates she’s picking on the safe, easy target of the Christian community.
Doug Holland
Thanks Doug
Yes quite so. Her whole line of thought is just so bizarre and thread-bare here. No proof whatsoever – just wild ideological assertions. By this standard, one could say anything about any person in ancient history. And this passes for academia?
Bill Muehlenberg, CultureWatch
Do they use the Bible at the Lincoln Theological Institute? …
For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given: and the government shall be upon his shoulder: and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counseller, The mighty God, The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace. Isaiah 9:6
Behold, a virgin shall be with child, and shall bring forth a son, and they shall call his name Emmanuel, which being interpreted is, God with us. Matt 1:23
Annette Nestor
Good question Annette. By the looks of things, they probably ditched it decades ago.
Bill Muehlenberg, CultureWatch
“On the eighth day when it was time to circumcise Him, they named him Jesus” Luke 2.21 NIV.??????
Ian Brinkworth
Thanks Ian
But hey, what do the Biblical writers know? 21st century feminist academics are obviously so much closer to the truth than those who lived with Jesus.
Bill Muehlenberg, CultureWatch
I find no basis to find that this woman is any of the following, literate, understanding, wise, truthful, honest, nonpolitical, Christian. We cannot know for sure that Dr Cornwall is an academic, or for that matter even human, rather than being a demon. Just an academic thought, using free speach odviously.
Can I get my doctorate now? a PhD or a nice Dr would be uber awesome for my resume.
Neil Waldron
Quite right Neil
I think I will present an academic paper at a theological conference arguing that Dr Susannah Cornwall has never existed – she is just a myth.
Bill Muehlenberg, CultureWatch
Whenever anybody tries to distort the name of Jesus or suggest he was something slightly different than what he was, the result or intended result is always the same. To reduce Gods credibility is the first stage and the second is, there’s no GOD. The old one-two.
Daniel Kempton
The thing that fallen men and women hate more than anything else is the sovereignty of God; that is, the absolute and unchangeable right of the Triune Creator of the Universe to determine anchangeably whatsover He chooses. That is, who will be saved, and who will be damned, who will be male, and who will be female, what is right, and what is wrong, and whatsoever shall come to pass as determined from before the foundation of the world.
It is this God that I surrender to, and it is this God who shall bring every knee to bow before the name of His Son, the Lord Jesus Christ. “Kiss the Son, lest He be angry, and you perish in your way”, all you doctors of whatever, but not of the Scriptures.
Lance A Box
Bizarre. and what a monumental waste of money and media attention. Why do we have to put up with these nutjobs. All through the bible…the son of man, the son of God, God gave His only son. Male. She’s right, we never actually saw His body, because we never saw his genitalia, but surely this is just the same as ANYTHING in the bible that constitutes faith. We believe that he was born of a virgin Mary…we didn’t have to see the strange way God inseminated her body to have faith that it happened.
In the words of Judge Judy (not yet canonised) “Beauty fades, but stupid lasts forever”.
Ben Mathewson
Simply ridiculous. Sounds like something the boys from Monty Python would have dreamed up for a ‘comedy’ routine.
Is this bit of scholarship paving the way for a more inclusive, less truthful translation? As in God the Parent and God the Child? I know some translations have been heading that way with each new edition. Any thoughts on this?
Dan Brinkman
Luke you said:
But it does matter, because God made man male and female, not hermaphrodite. So this proposition is another “Hath God said…” heresy.
And as soon as we give ground on this point the opponents of the gospel will twist it to their own ends, because we have lost the whole argument.
Let me illustrate with a simple money example. If you and I disagree over say introducing the mining tax, I would say No mining tax and you argue yes, a mining tax at 10%.
But then you come to me and say ‘John, how about we compromise on 5%? That won’t hurt too many miners will it?’
If I agree, I have lost the whole tax argument, by conceding to the existence of the tax (which I had opposed). The compromise on the rate of the tax is merely a red herring.
So in these cases, if we at any stage compromise or concede ground to our opponents on things which should remain fixed, we have lost the whole argument – with devastating effects for the church and society.
The first one is the inerrancy of Scripture, which boils down to “Hath God said…” attacks.
In areas like abortion, IVF, euthanasia, infanticide we lost the argument with the introduction of artificial contraception – we started playing God.
I dare say we may have lost the argument in other areas of medical science too. Major organ transplants are treating people like the sum of their body parts. How do we stop experiments in artificial parts being harvested from animals?
John Angelico
According to her logic, I must be an hermaphrodite too. Currently I am single and have not had any children. I currently about the same age Jesus died when he was on earth, early to mid thirties, so clearly it must be true. Of Jesus could have been an hermaphrodite since he spent much of time around men.
The Bible does say that their conscience will be seared and they lack any feeling in their logic. It is tragic that those who claim to be Christian are often the ones who do the most damage.
Ian Nairn
I think Noah was an alien who drank sea water and that Daniel was a hologram sent back in time.
Where do I collect my qualification? Or do I just download it and print it out – and scan the barcode at the bottom to get into liberal theological conferences?
Mark Rabich
Yes quite right guys. It seems these liberal theologians and loopy academics can say anything they want and get away with it.
Indeed, her claim that we can’t be sure if Jesus was a male could be said about well over 99% of the world’s population. She does not know for sure if I am a male, or if George Washington or Elvis Presley was.
This is just more academic inanity and last days deception which we have to put up with.
Bill Muehlenberg, CultureWatch
I don’t know about her but I still define maleness as it has always been defined, as do the majority of people in the world. The theologian is missing alot with her zealous intersex theory and her attempts to proselytize will get her noticed but in other respects get her nowhere.
Rachel Smith
Jesus didn’t have children. Naturally he didn’t! He was the Son of God, made Man by the Holy Spirit (God) “overshadowing” the Blessed Virgin. He came to redeem Humanity from the terrible effects of Original Sin, by sacrificing his life for us: not to found a dynasty! Saying what she said makes absolutely no sense from a Christian point of view and is simply nonsensical.
Jerome Gonzalez
One other thing is that Jesus is described as our perfect High Priest who intercedes for us. Old Testament law forbad any High Priest who had a deformatory – especially with regard to damaged testicles. Leviticus 21: 16-23 says:
“The LORD said to Moses, “Say to Aaron: ‘For the generations to come none of your descendants who has a defect may come near to offer the food of his God. No man who has any defect may come near: no man who is blind or lame, disfigured or deformed; no man with a crippled foot or hand, or who is a hunchback or a dwarf, or who has any eye defect, or who has festering or running sores or damaged testicles. No descendant of Aaron the priest who has any defect is to come near to present the food offerings to the LORD. He has a defect; he must not come near to offer the food of his God. He may eat the most holy food of his God, as well as the holy food; yet because of his defect, he must not go near the curtain or approach the altar, and so desecrate my sanctuary. I am the LORD, who makes them holy.’”
Philippians 2:6-8 also says:
“Who, being in very nature God, did not consider equality with God something to be used to his own advantage; rather, he made himself nothing by taking the very nature of a servant, being made in human likeness. And being found in appearance as a man,……”
And as Jerome rightly points out, with regard to Christ (Jesus Christ who is the second person of the Trinity), not fathering any children, John 1:1,2 says:
‘Yet to all who did receive him, to those who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God – children born not of natural descent, nor of human decision or a husband’s will, but born of God.’
David Skinner, UK
Many thanks David
You make some very good points indeed, and further show the sheer idiocy of this academic’s argument.
Bill Muehlenberg, CultureWatch
Though we might laugh at the antics of deranged and deluded, there is a very serious side to all this. They back up their propaganda with thuggish brutality. The diocese of Winchester is regarded as one of the most traditional and “Christian” in Britain and yet its University and teacher training department, that comes directly under the authority of its bishop, has as its pro–vice, chancellor, Dr Elizabeth Stuart. Apparently she is most proud of having been made a saint by the order of the Sisters of Perpetual Indulgence.
http://www.lgbtran.org/Profile.aspx?ID=24
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Sisters_of_Perpetual_Indulgence_at_Rapture_Cafe_in_New_York_2.jpg
http://www.winchester.ac.uk/aboutus/management/Pages/SeniorProViceChancellor.aspx
I was recently physically threatened and verbally attacked in a public lecture at Bournemouth University by one of the staff of Winchester University, a Dr Eric Anderson, for objecting to his lecture being laced with obscenity, slander and insult towards Christians and anyone who opposed the gay agenda.
http://oxfordstudent.com/2011/05/21/lecturer-or-lecherer-at-lgbt-talk/
The gay lobby have their high priests, like the “lovely” Elizabeth Stuart, saint and archbishop, but they also have their storm troopers like Dr Eric, professor of diversity, tolerance, inclusion, non-discrimination – except of course of towards Christians.
David Skinner, UK
It took me two seconds to come up with one (there must be many more) argument against a non-male Jesus. I bet the teachers of the time would not have tolerated a woman or in-between trying to teach theology. He had to be male to reach that culture.
John Bennett
Crucifixion was a very degrading way to die, I believe the person being crucified was NAKED to add to their degradation. Surely if Jesus was not a full and whole man, the Romans would have a made a mockery of this?
Robin Hill
It is not only the biblical account she is calling into question, but that of secular history as well. I just read an article in Creation Magazine and, though I can’t remember the exact context, but the quote stood out to me as something that would stand testing.
paraphrased it said: One must back up ones theology with history, not the other way round. In other words, I think it says God in his mercy has given us history as an irrefutable and unchangeable constant. It is a rock on which false theories and religions will get shipwrecked. That is why revisionist history is always an element of materialistic humanistic and also false religions social engineering.
Someone who loves truth will always find Jesus as who He really is, the son of God and saviour of the world, for He is the Truth.
Many blessings
Ursula Bennett
This is the sad story of a woman who does not know Jesus Christ, The Man, born of a woman, The Creator, The Redeemer and the “lover of her soul”.
How sad, even non Christians will mock this woman, (those with an agenda will exploit her “work”, but they will laugh as they do).
I pray to God that she will know Him.
Nicola Clark