To Seem, Rather Than To Be? (Trans Ideology)

[didactics]

Bingo! Now let's talk about what it means...

Most people ignorant of Jewish culture dismiss this as irrelevant, but nothing could be further from the truth. They write it off because they assume that Jesus simply assumed the family business, as it were.

But Matthew had to clean up the scandal that Mark heavily implied. In ancient Israel, as in most patriarchal societies, you are identified as the son of your father. To identify you as the son of your mother is to imply that paternity is either unknown or in dispute...

But there is no father of Jesus anywhere in Mark... Not so much as a passing mention, even though the crowd names the rest of his family...

(This comes up again in John 8:41, where a hostile crowd heckles Jesus with "We were not born of fornication," implying that Jesus was.)

Now, Matthew lifted heavily from Mark in the writing of his own Gospel... 90% of Mark is contained in Matthew, and a good chunk of ghat is verbatim. Matthew started with Mark, and added onto the beginning (Mark has no birth narrative), and the end (Mark ends at the tomb, with no sightings of the risen Jesus)

With so much Mark in Matthew, anything omitted or altered becomes significant. Matthew is believed to be writing to a more Orthodox audience than Mark, and they're not going to abide even a hint of scandal about their Messiah...

So "the carpenter" becomes "the carpenter's son," Matthew gets to refer back to Joseph (who appears for the first time anywhere in Matthew's Gospel), and Mark's implied scandal gets defused.

You asked for evidence of an alteration; there you go.

“When the New Testament scholar Craig Bloomberg commented that no book has been more subject to intense critical scholarship than the Bible, he added, ‘and no part of that book more than the Gospels’. The problem is that not only are there differences in the order of events, but there are also variations in the recorded words of our Lord.

At least these problems provide evidence that the Gospel writers often worked independently of each other. Many modern critics claim that they used the same sources for their stories and just altered and added to them here and there.” —p. 419



“When we consider how quickly after the death (and often during the lifetime) of a famous person, a cluster of biographies appear in our own day, it seems a remarkably odd assumption that the church would be satisfied with there being no official record of Christ’s life for a couple of centuries, as some claim!” —p. 419, 420



“There is no need to doubt that Matthew, Mark and Luke (John is generally considered to be an independent witness anyway) were each aware of the work of one or more of the others; or if they did use common source material — and Luke 1:1-4 certainly implies that there was no lack of material around — they were obviously aware that some of the material circulating was false.” —p. 420



“We might also wonder why God did not simply give us one Gospel account, on the basis that then there would have been no apparent contradictions. There is, however, a good biblical principle that any matter should be established by two or three witnesses (Matt. 18:16; 1 Tim. 5:19; Rev. 11:3).” —p.420, 421



“Nothing but the truth” By Brian H. Edwards



I just thought I’d like to share that. As far as “the carpenter” I’m not sure why that would sound scandalous in Mark’s account. Like you said, Matthew’s account was more of a Jewish audience, so that’s why he makes mention of his father’s trade. It doesn’t mean Jesus was still doing carpentry up until that point as he was ministering for the last three years of his life.

 

[ottawak]

What does that mean? What is an inner sense of being male of female?

Do you think men are mentally and emotionally the same as women? If not, what parts of that difference is learned and what part innate?

 

[TLK Valentine]

“When the New Testament scholar Craig Bloomberg commented that no book has been more subject to intense critical scholarship than the Bible, he added, ‘and no part of that book more than the Gospels’. The problem is that not only are there differences in the order of events, but there are also variations in the recorded words of our Lord.

At least these problems provide evidence that the Gospel writers often worked independently of each other. Many modern critics claim that they used the same sources for their stories and just altered and added to them here and there.” —p. 419



“When we consider how quickly after the death (and often during the lifetime) of a famous person, a cluster of biographies appear in our own day, it seems a remarkably odd assumption that the church would be satisfied with there being no official record of Christ’s life for a couple of centuries, as some claim!” —p. 419, 420



“There is no need to doubt that Matthew, Mark and Luke (John is generally considered to be an independent witness anyway) were each aware of the work of one or more of the others; or if they did use common source material — and Luke 1:1-4 certainly implies that there was no lack of material around — they were obviously aware that some of the material circulating was false.” —p. 420



“We might also wonder why God did not simply give us one Gospel account, on the basis that then there would have been no apparent contradictions. There is, however, a good biblical principle that any matter should be established by two or three witnesses (Matt. 18:16; 1 Tim. 5:19; Rev. 11:3).” —p.420, 421



“Nothing but the truth” By Brian H. Edwards

These are canned responses which do not address anything I said. You asked for evidence of alterations; I delivered.

I just thought I’d like to share that. As far as “the carpenter” I’m not sure why that would sound scandalous in Mark’s account. Like you said, Matthew’s account was more of a Jewish audience, so that’s why he makes mention of his father’s trade. It doesn’t mean Jesus was still doing carpentry up until that point as he was ministering for the last three years of his life.

I explained the scandal in detail. Did you even read it?

Biblical Israel was Patriarchal. You were the son of your father.
In Mark, the crowd names Jesus as the "son of Mary" -- omitting the father in such an appellation was considered an insult, because you can't name a father unless you know who it is... get the picture?

IOW, the crowd either never heard or didn't buy the "virgin birth" narrative... and they called him out on it.

And why would they? There was no virgin birth in Mark's Gospel. Nor was a virgin birth or any kind of miraculous goings-on mentioned in any of Paul's letters. That story didn't come about until Matthew wrote about it, approximately a decade or so after Mark, and at least two decades after Paul.

Since Matthew has Joseph and a birth narrative in his Gospel, he can alter the crowd's jeering to take out Jesus's questionable paternity... because Matthew took the time to answer that question with the birth story.

 

[TLK Valentine]

Do you think men are mentally and emotionally the same as women? If not, what parts of that difference is learned and what part innate?

Exactly! What makes them different? Biology or society? Nature or nurture?
Almost definitely both, but which is the greater influence?

 

[FireDragon76]

The problem with vague descriptions like "inner sense of being" is that they mean different things to different people.

Of course there is a subjective element, that's implicit in dealing with persons as subjects. That doesn't mean the concept is illegitimate.

 

[ottawak]

Exactly! What makes them different? Biology or society? Nature or nurture?
Almost definitely both, but which is the greater influence?

Maybe we can find out by approaching the problem with compassion rather than an urge to punish.

 

[Moral Orel]

And the verb is to agree in number with the subject, not the predicate.

Right. That's why "They are going to the party" is grammatically correct because the word "they" is plural. And that's why "They is going to the party" is grammatically incorrect because the word "they" is not singular.

 

[FireDragon76]

Maybe we can find out by approaching the problem with compassion rather than an urge to punish.

I am guessing alot of Americans don't know what "compassion" means. Walking a mile in somebody else's shoes, for instance.

 

[Ken-1122]

Do you think men are mentally and emotionally the same as women? If not, what parts of that difference is learned and what part innate?

On average men are emotionally and mentally different than women. But then on average; Japanese men are shorten than black men. But that doesn't mean there aren't exceptions; that is just an average. The same goes for men/women. Do you agree?

 

[Ken-1122]

Of course there is a subjective element, that's implicit in dealing with persons as subjects. That doesn't mean the concept is illegitimate.

So why the problem with articulating what you mean?

 

[TLK Valentine]

Right. That's why "They are going to the party" is grammatically correct because the word "they" is plural. And that's why "They is going to the party" is grammatically incorrect because the word "they" is not singular.

And the word "everybody" is grammatically singular, because it's actually ambiguous. "Everybody" can be many people, or end up being just one.

Similarly, the English pronoun "you" can be singular or plural, but it's grammatically plural -- you are going to the party.

Looking for rhyme or reason? Don't bother; it's English.

 

[didactics]

These are canned responses which do not address anything I said. You asked for evidence of alterations; I delivered.



I explained the scandal in detail. Did you even read it?

Biblical Israel was Patriarchal. You were the son of your father.
In Mark, the crowd names Jesus as the "son of Mary" -- omitting the father in such an appellation was considered an insult, because you can't name a father unless you know who it is... get the picture?

IOW, the crowd either never heard or didn't buy the "virgin birth" narrative... and they called him out on it.

And why would they? There was no virgin birth in Mark's Gospel. Nor was a virgin birth or any kind of miraculous goings-on mentioned in any of Paul's letters. That story didn't come about until Matthew wrote about it, approximately a decade or so after Mark, and at least two decades after Paul.

Since Matthew has Joseph and a birth narrative in his Gospel, he can alter the crowd's jeering to take out Jesus's questionable paternity... because Matthew took the time to answer that question with the birth story.

Yes, it is very possible that the crowd jeered at Jesus as “the son of Mary” because they thought his birth was illegitimate. But I’m not convinced that Matthew’s Gospel was written 10 years later than Mark’s. Hence, I have no reason to doubt the virgin birth. It could just be that, if Joseph was nowhere to be found, then he may have passed away.

 

[TLK Valentine]

Yes, it is very possible that the crowd jeered at Jesus as “the son of Mary” because they thought his birth was illegitimate. But I’m not convinced that Matthew’s Gospel was written 10 years later than Mark’s.

But you can't deny the scriptural evidence that not only was Matthew written after Mark, but that Matthew had Mark's Gospel in front of him as he wrote.

90% of Mark is in Matthew, and 90% of that is nearly verbatim. Coincidence?

Hence, I have no reason to doubt the virgin birth.

You don't need to accept the chronology (although you should on its own merit), to ask questions about the virgin birth narrative.

But if you prefer not to question, that's fine. But it'd be hard for you not to accept that Joseph appears nowhere until Matthew's Gospel. This is significant whether you see it or not.

It could just be that, if Joseph was nowhere to be found, then he may have passed away.

Clearly he was so unimportant that no Gospel author chose to even mention his death... You would think that Jospeh, the man who helped solidify the Jesus prophecy by providing the needed bloodline to King David, would at least merit a "and lo, he died," at some point...

There's another possibility, but I highly doubt that you're ready to accept it, and besides, it's not relevant to the thread.

Truth be told, I've only gone on this long because you're using the Bible as the basis of your beliefs regarding the transgender... So it behooves me to see how deep your knowledge of it goes. After all, if I can't believe you on earthly matters, why should I believe you on heavenly matters?

 

[didactics]

But you can't deny the scriptural evidence that not only was Matthew written after Mark, but that Matthew had Mark's Gospel in front of him as he wrote.

90% of Mark is in Matthew, and 90% of that is nearly verbatim. Coincidence?



You don't need to accept the chronology (although you should on its own merit), to ask questions about the virgin birth narrative.

But if you prefer not to question, that's fine. But it'd be hard for you not to accept that Joseph appears nowhere until Matthew's Gospel. This is significant whether you see it or not.



Clearly he was so unimportant that no Gospel author chose to even mention his death... You would think that Jospeh, the man who helped solidify the Jesus prophecy by providing the needed bloodline to King David, would at least merit a "and lo, he died," at some point...

There's another possibility, but I highly doubt that you're ready to accept it, and besides, it's not relevant to the thread.

Truth be told, I've only gone on this long because you're using the Bible as the basis of your beliefs regarding the transgender... So it behooves me to see how deep your knowledge of it goes. After all, if I can't believe you on earthly matters, why should I believe you on heavenly matters?

Well I know very little about it, but I read in Mark’s outline by MacArther that some allege literary dependence, known as the “Two-Source” theory. The reason I quoted from the book “Nothing but the truth” is because it dealt with that subject and the author showed that the Synoptic Problem is really no problem at all. I understand it this way, that “the Gospel writers often worked independently of each other” yet “there was no lack of material around”.

 

[TLK Valentine]

Well I know very little about it,

It would be a good idea to learn more, from as many sources as possible.

The more you know about the Bible's origins, its history, and the history, culture and knowledge of the peoplebwho wrote it and were expected to read it, the easier it is to discern which parts are timeless truths and which were... well, good ideas at the time.

SPOILER ALERT: the stuff about gender roles? Not timeless.

 

[renniks]

For example, I watched a video of a trans woman explaining that he thought the concept of male and femaleness really was a concept that the colonizers came up with.

That's hilarious! It's been around forever but let's blame everything on the evil colonizers!

 

[PloverWing]

There's another possibility, but I highly doubt that you're ready to accept it, and besides, it's not relevant to the thread.

Can you message me privately about what you have in mind? I don't want to derail the thread, but I'm really curious.

 

[didactics]

It would be nice to not have they/them pronouns (to impose a new language on others to adopt). Even if you want to say it can be used as singular. The issue is that it creates unnecessary verbiage. Less is more.

 

[didactics]

@TLK Valentine and @PloverWing I wanted to suggest that you both watch this video. Share it with someone that you know who identifies as trans, although you'll probably not take me up on that.

 

[Ken-1122]

@TLK Valentine and @PloverWing I wanted to suggest that you both watch this video. Share it with someone that you know who identifies as trans, although you'll probably not take me up on that.

Very interesting video, I thought he made some very good points. That’s why when I refer to somebody, I refer to their biology instead of their gender. Some people have changed the definition of gender to mean something that is not a reference to sex or biology so to refrain from any confusion, I no longer address gender. If I refer to a biological woman as “she” and I am accused of
mis-gendering them, I will make it clear I was not referring to their gender but their biology. Consistent with science, humans are mammals, and all mammals be it dogs, cats, apes, or even humans; are biologically male, female, or intersex (intersex being a deformity) so there is no confusion as to who can or cannot get pregnant, because nobody decides their biology.