I suspect asking if it's fair that Jesus was a nepo baby who only got to where he is because he has a famous dad is the kind of question that could only be cooled down by changing the subject to post Nixon POTUS tax returns.
Does meeting John occur before or after he rides the donkey into Jerusalem?
(I used to think riding a donkey was a sign of humility, but I've recently learned that in biblical times, on state occasions, —kind of like how commoners drive Bugattis but the King rides in a carriage— commoners and lesser lords rode horses but kings rode donkeys, that having been a more archaic mode of transport. cf Absalom)
I think the part in the book of Luke at chapter 2, where Jesus, as a child, stay in the temple after Passover to discuss with the priests and how he answers his parents: "is it that ye sought me? wist ye not that I must be about my Father's business?" (Chap 2, verse 49 of the KJV) seems to indicate that he was already aware of that, even if he then waited his 30s and meeting with John to start his work.
KJV use always seems quite pharasaical to me. So, why? Thanks.
He was made as the image of God. God is mentionned as ´him´ and ´Father´ in English and popular representation, but it´s supposed to be an asexual figure. What about Jesus then ?
Convincing Jesus was a woman is full points, convincing of having both sex gives double the points.
[0] A TV preacher, visibly shaken, comes on stage and proclaims "I have good news and bad news. I just met God ... and She's Black."
There's a lot of male specific words in the bible referring to Jesus and there's the rumours about him having a relationship with Mary Magdalene, so I'd conclude that he identified as male. Similarly, the Christian god is often referred to as male, and the Garden of Eden story suggests that Adam was made in God's image (i.e. male) and then Eve was conjured out of a rib, so presumably that's when females were invented.
My personal take is that our society wants god to be a father figure and Jesus a man, so what was said in ancient scriptures or whatever got lost in translation is probably irrelevant at this point. Culturally I expect to see people distancing from religion will happen faster than seriously debating what sex Jesus was.
From a logical perspective, having a unique god gendered and him sending his son on earth feels so clunky. Even angels are asexual, why would god be more limited. Lucifer having a defined sex probably comes from —-fanfics—-popular litterature ?. On the Adam/Eve split, Adam could become what we know as man _after_ Eve is created from him, it wouldn’t make sense to have a sexed individual with no opposite sex at first.
As an atheist, I'd propose that the bible/scriptures aren't self consistent and I'd describe a lot of stuff as being clunky or not logical within them (though a generous interpretation would be that details have been lost in translation/transcription).
Historically, it seems to me that eunuchs were often considered as the typical asexual gender, and they were made by removing parts from a male, so it could be argued that Abrahamic god was male and the angels were created as less-than-male eunuchs. Of course that doesn't explain angels with breasts.
Edit: read through the thread, it wasn't as long as I first thought. Some fun ideas there, but the side wound being a vagina doesn't sound convincing to me (but then I'm no theologian).