Comments on: Eunuchs in the Bible

By: Ronald (Ron) VanAuken

Ronald (Ron) VanAuken — Sat, 02 Nov 2024 11:52:22 +0000

What is always a concern to me is that we are reading Jesus’ words in Greek. This presumes that a) he actually spoke in Greek, or b) he spoke in Aramaic and what we have in a translation into Greek. If the latter, then we are compelled to ask what Aramaic word or phrase did he use, were they accuraley recalled and were they accurately translated. Anyone who is familiar with languages generally–and this is certainly true of the scriptures, knows that translation is not nearly as precise as we would like to think. It is quite tricky. Personally, I take the words metaphorically as I do not see a literal understanding as being consistent with the rest of his teaching.

By: Jerry

Jerry — Thu, 09 Nov 2023 18:41:14 +0000

In reply to LouiseCA. Amen! :-)

By: Alice Skye

Alice Skye — Sun, 02 Jul 2023 10:46:07 +0000

It meant literal castration and is reference to Isaiah 56:4-5.

Furthermore, at the time of Jesus the dominant religion in Rome was the worship of Cybele we owe much with regards to this passage and costume within the faith to this former powerful religion. It probably is the reason despite these biblical passages that the Christian church continues to attack transgender women today.

By: Carol D Harding

Carol D Harding — Tue, 02 May 2023 21:59:43 +0000

In reply to ใน.

I believe that Christ WAS married here on the Earth ! God in Heaven IS married, and we are his Spiritual Children. All the Prophets of God from Adam on down here on the Earth, have all been married, have all had wives, were required to (commanded to) do so, by God, “Mulitiply and replenish the Earth” (because all mortal souls we know do age and die here on the Earth)…, so why would Christ not be married here on Earth also, because he being the greatest and the most important Prophet on our Earth, and who died as the Sacrificial Lamb so that our bodies would not lie in our graves forever but would be reunited with our Spirits as Christ’s was with his, in the very First Resurrection of any man on Earth, that we celebrate at Easter Time ! Also, HE and the Holy scriptures of his Prophets talk about him ‘SUCCORING US’ in our lifetimes. How can he succor us, now as husbands and wives, and parents, if he had not been married to a wonderful faithful woman equal to his own spiritual strength, like his Prophets were also, and if THEY had not had the experience to be blessed with babes and children (from God too), and maybe lost one of their children, before he was crucified, to know how it feels as parents, to know how to succor us, and HE died for us, so HE as a Heavenly Being can be here to succor us when he is needed in our lives here. ?

By: LouiseCA

LouiseCA — Sat, 24 Jul 2021 18:50:36 +0000

Jesus overcame all sin, became sin for us, sacrificed Himself for us, conquered death, Hell, and the grave, and was raised by the Power of the Holy Spirit. He was able to do that because He was and is God. That’s why He returned to Heaven. Not because he overcame testosterone.

By: Mitch Marich

Mitch Marich — Fri, 23 Jul 2021 15:43:51 +0000

Short saying but important. What would it have been in Aramaic? Why did Jesus go in this direction not directly tied to the marriage question? I have always assumed the first case referred to men born with rare physical inability to have sex, perhaps also those who are “naturally” celebate. The second case would appear to be those forcably castrated, normally slaves or court eunuchs, but maybe those in a cult (but I’m not a scholar and don’t know if that would occur to a common person of that time). I always took the third case to be the choice of celebacy. which frees one to focus more on the Kingdom. I don’t think Jesus was endorsing self-mutilation and he often uses figurative language. There is no reason not to take the first two cases literally.

By: Robert Morgan-Wilde

Robert Morgan-Wilde — Sat, 03 Apr 2021 03:53:14 +0000

In reply to RSJ. This is something I am wondering about. Would "eunuch" have possibly been the way a first century person referred to a homosexual?

By: Rinatus

Rinatus — Tue, 30 Oct 2018 19:40:56 +0000

With what evidence to prove that popes and fathers have secret marriages??

By: fraser Crest

fraser Crest — Sun, 21 Jan 2018 02:19:58 +0000

It does not matter all that much, really. If it was not meant for you, you wouldn’t understand, right? Maybe it does refer to the old practice of castration (didn’t eunuchs attend to princesses and queens, like in “History of the World” by Mel Brooks, where Madeline Khan inspects the eunuchs and a slutty dance is performed in front of the candidates and if they get aroused, then they knew they were not eunuchs? Which only meant their nuts were snipped, it did not mean they had no genitalia at all). That “practice” is virtually unheard of today. Celibacy among the clergy has been a failed experiment since it’s inception to prevent the clergy from willing church property to their children and the church having to support big families. I say “failed” because, throughout its existence within Catholicism, there are reported abuses, including many popes who were married or had mistresses and scads of children, secret marriages, affairs and children as a result, and child sexual abuse and rape, and evidence of infanticide and unmarked graves. It is a failed system.

By: fraser Crest

fraser Crest — Sun, 21 Jan 2018 00:49:46 +0000

so, Jesus had no testosterone…. is that a medical opinion?
So, Jesus was effeminate with feminine attributes– practically transgender, as he was without any testosterone? No natural male muscle definition and no facial hair? Really? Too bad your Jesus wasn’t born much later, I would hook him up with a doctor for testosterone replacement therapy. It would change his life. Which reminds me, I am due for an injection myself.
It is nonsensical to conclude that one can’t have testosterone, a natural substance in males, to enter heaven or that there are no spouses and no families. All this big-to-do about marriage and it being “sacred” and “families” being so important and divorce is a mortal sin, and it is just temporary? So why the hell care? What about estrogen or cholesterol or a pituitary gland or a yeast infection? So, the “whatsoever ye shall bind on earth shall be bound in heaven” was just some b.s. and Adam & Eve’s relationship was meaningless in the afterlife… and the entire idea of marriage and family on earth is meaningless rubbish after death? And the Mother of Jesus, Mary, is nothing but another entity existing on a heavenly plane without familial relations- no cousins or siblings or parents, no children. Why do people assume the terminology of “son” and “father” and “brothers” and “sisters” and “family” are only temporal terms and not eternal? Why set up a system on Earth that is foreign to Heaven and making it “sacred” and that they “become one flesh” and have offspring? Why not simply create all of humanity all at once and have everyone live out their existence as separate individuals all at once? Why would Jesus make it such a point, so often, to use familial terms relating to His Father in Heaven? When he said “My Father who is in Heaven”, he actually was saying, “My Dad, the One who created Me… He is in Heaven. I am His Son and I live on Earth.” Exactly like me saying, My dad is retired and lives in another state and I am his son and I live in Nevada. Jesus said He was doing His Father’s work, and Jesus spoke on behalf of His Father, meaning He only spoke words and taught lessons that were of His Father’s will. All humanity was created by God, and we are therefore all brothers and sisters, regardless of race or national origin. And, apparently, eunuchs and those born with or without genitalia, or born with both genitals or conjoined twins are also included, as are gay children– of them created by God and thus brothers and sisters and God’s children. Familial ties are such on earth because that is the way of Heaven also. I don’t see how that is complicated to anyone– except for some unloving, separatist and arrogant self-righteous who think only THEY are God’s children– confusing “they shall be known as the Children of God”, which is set in the future, after final Judgment, and that is not what I am referring to now. I’d better make sure my dad is drained of all testosterone before he dies just in case…. oh, I won’t care when we’re dead, he will mean nothing to me then, right? B.S.