Monday, September 14, 2020

I reject calling Mary Theotokos because it's UnBiblical

To me that's what should matter to Sola Scriptura Christians. It's technical accuracy or one's opinion on other issues related the Nestorian Schism should be irrelevant.  If you want to call Mary a title it should be something Scripture directly says of her.

This issue is not my only area of affinity or at least sympathy with Theodore of Mopsuesta, Nestorius and the Ancient Church of The East.  The main thing that makes me hesitant to simply identify as a Nestorian is that they like the Miaphysites and Augustine they strongly stress the Platonic doctrine of Divine Impassibility and are thus hostile to the Theopaschite Formula.  To me that it was the "Fullness of the Godhead" and not merely a Man suffering on The Cross is what makes the Atonement truly work, regardless of what theory of Atonement you take.  But I'm not prepared to make a full post on that topic yet.

I've seen people use Luke 1:43 as Biblical support for Theotokos as a title for Mary, where Elizabeth says.
"And whence is this to me, that the mother of my Lord should come to me?"
Problem is if you want to use this verse as your defense of a Greek title for Mary it should be the Greek words used in this verse.  Which are Meter and Kuriou not Theos or Tokos.  

So yes I'm kind of rejecting the Tokos part as well.  We tend to translate this phrase as "Mother of God" (and Nestorius's alternative Christtokos as "Mother of Christ") but that's not truly accurate.  Tokos is a very technical term for the act of carrying a baby, you could equally apply it to a incubator.  Meter is the familial title of Mother which I think is far more fitting to describe Mary's relationship to Jesus.

But back to what people are usually disputing.  Using this verse to defend Theotokos is based on assuming every use of a form of Kurios in the New Testament must be merely the Jewish custom of using it to stand in for the Tetragramaton, the Holy Name of God, Yot-Heh-Vav-Heh which I prefer to pronounce Yahuah.  However I believe that assumption is never correct of any occurrence of "my Lord", I believe "my Lord" is always a translation of the Hebrew Adoni which in pre-masoretic texts is often difficult to distinguish from Adonai.

Psalm 110 in the KJV begins with "The LORD said unto my Lord" which in the Hebrew is "YHWH said unto Adoni".  All three Synoptic Gospels quote this with the "my Lord" being in reference to Melchizedek as a type of Christ.

I want to mention the Peshita briefly.  Luke's Gospel is one of the NT books where I consider there to be no basis for Peshita primacy, the book was definitely originally in Greek.  But looking at a witness to how Early Semitic Speaking Christians translated it can still be useful.  For Kurios verses the Peshita uses Mar-Yah whenever it's a stand in for YHWH but simply a form of Mar when it's merely a form of Adon.  This verse in the Peshita uses Mari (my Lord) not Mar-Yah.

So the Greek title for Mary I would construct from this verse is one using a form of Kurious and a form of Meter.  But as a Weeb I think it'll go with Akaasan-no-Sama.

I agree with the Theolgoy and Christology of the original Nicene Creed including Homousian.  However while The Bible supports Jesus being God in some Trinitarian sense, The New Testament is far more interested in stressing Him as Christ, The Lord and the Son of God.  That's Peter's essential dramatic Confession, and Martha's in John 11 and what the first verse of Mark says, and what 1 John 4:15 says anyone who confesses that God Dwells in them.  

So I do think it's bothersome how often modern Western Christianity obsesses over Jesus as God and forgets to stress that The Trinity is a Family that we are being Adopted into.  The relationship between God and Jesus is that of a Father and Son.  

And as a Weeb I like to refer to The Holy Spirit as Onee-Sama.  Proverbs 7:4 is the basis for calling Wisdom(Sophia) a word for Sister and I've argued elsewhere for her being The Holy Spirit.

Saturday, September 12, 2020

The French Revolution is still one of the most misunderstood subjects of History

The Oversimplified series on YouTube is supposed to an ironic name, the videos are in fact trying to show things aren't as simple as good guys vs bad guys.  But their series on The French Revolution is still genuinely way to over simplified.  And maybe I'd have the same issues with their Russian Revolution series if I were more informed on that subject, but I'm currently not.

Even the frequently praised Revolutions Podcast still leaves important things out.  Marco DiLucheti's book is useful but he still has personal biases one needs to take with a grain of salt.  The way most Conspiracy Theorists tend to talk about it is still heavily influenced by Nesta Webster who was a Fascist, I don't mean that as shorthand for politics I don't like, she was a member of two parties that openly called themselves Fascist, her status as a Fascist is less disputable then the Nazis.

BadMousePorductions videos are not watchable anymore for some reason, but in their video on the Paris Commune they refereed to that as the first trust Leftist Revolution, and while that is kind of true, giving the imprecision the prior Revolutions had no one who would fit a BreadTuber's standard of Leftist is a problem for me.

However the big problem is that the internal disputes of the Revolution were more complicated then just some people being more "radical" then the others.  The conservative critics of the French Revolution want to blame The Terror on Leftist radicalization, however that is absolutely not the case, the proto Communists and Socialists of the that era were generally more likely to be victims of The Terror then perpetrators of it.

The origin of using the words "left" and "right" to describe political ideologies was from the French Revolution, how people tended too be seated in the Assembly.  However what Left and Right meant then is not quite compatible with the way anyone uses it today.  The Right were the Royalists, but by that I don't just mean the strictest definition of Monarchy, I mean in order to be considered on the Right Wing of the Assembly you had to support keeping King Louis on the Throne, and even then you might fail to qualify if you were to much of what we'd today call a Constitutional Monarchist.  In other words no one in Modern American Politics would manage to be Right Wing by that standard, nor would anyone in Wiemar Germany were even the Far Right Nationalists had come to view the deposed Kaiser as either to weak or a traitor.

The people in the French Revolution who were Leftists by any modern standard were Brissiot (who said "Property is Theft" before Proudhon) Nicolas Bonnevile (an Atheist who preached Religious Tolerance), Sylvain Marechal, Francois "Gracchus" Babeuf (in reference to whom the word Communist was first coined), Olympe de Gouges, Thomas Paine, Condorcet (who proposed a form of UBI) and his wife Sophie.  To some degree all future Communist, Socialist and Anarchist revolutionaries descend at least in part from this group.

Brissiot voted agaisnt executing the King because he opposed The Death Penalty period, but was labeled a closet Monarchist by his enemies for that and that is where the derogatory Girondin label comes from.  The same unfair condemnation befell Henry Vane during the English Revolution though I wouldn't call him a Socialist.  Yet even Wikipedia falls into the trap of calling Brissiot more "moderate" then his killers.

The Reign of Terror has three phases the way I look at it.  

The first phase was mainly driven by the Atheists of the Commite of Pubic Safety who wanted to forcibly DeChristianize France.  Their status as Atheists may have been inherently radical at the time, but today these people would be with the YouTube Skeptics who protest to much to being associated with the Alt-Right.  Most if not all of the Socialists I refereed to above were Atheists but they understood the wrongness of trying to abolish religion by force and so opposed the DeChristianization, Nicolas Bonnevile wrote a book about it.

The second phase was the period where Maximilian Robespierre was basically an absolute dictator.  It's hard to define Robespierre ideologically as he kind of flip flopped on everything.  But during The Mountain phase I am more then willing to say that he was a Fascist Demagogue, if anyone pre 1889 is worthy of being described that way it's him.  He constantly accused his enemies of colluding with foreign threats, and was among those who saw the Revolution as restoring some mythical pre-Roman Celtic Utopia, meaning it fits the Palingenetic Ultranationalism test.  And remember both Mussolini and the early Nazis used quasi Socialist rhetoric to get popular support.

The third phase was The Directory, which can often be written off as the most boring phase of the Revolution since most people don't know about The Conspiracy of The Equals.  But basically the Directory was a regime of moderate centrists afraid of the ramifications of extremism.  So they killed anyone wanting to make further change or progress, either to their Left or their Right.  They were Joe Biden.

In the wake of George Flyod's killing many people have become more willing then they were previously to express sympathy for violent rebellion and point out the limitations of Ghandi/MLK style peaceful protests.  And with that I agree, on another blog I wrote "you can't change the world without getting your hands dirty".  But some of these protests have in turn brought out make shift Guillotines and that bothers me.

The Reign of Terror was not violent Rebellion, it was people who were no longer the rebels carrying out state sanctioned violence, and that is something I will oppose without exception.  BTW another little known fact is that the Nazis actually killed more people by Guillotine then the French Revolution did.

Some Revolutions feel the need to execute a captured and helpless King because of the fear that his symbolic value to counter-revolutionaries and foreign powers that may invade on their behalf makes him too dangerous to be keep alive.  But it always backfires, they can always find another heir to the Throne while you've simply made this deposed king a Martyr only increasing his symbolic value.  Yes, the Gandhi Trap can for work for the Right as well.

The Neo-Liberal Centrists are those who would say the French Revolution went wrong the moment they stormed the Bastille, that sentiment I will never support.  

Friday, August 21, 2020

You can be a Zionist and still be critical of the Israeli Government

Of the thing political disagreements I have with my fellow Twitter Leftists, my belief that Israel has the right to exist is perhaps the most contentious.

I am a Zionist, but I am also an Anarchist, I hate all Governments and Israel's treatment of the Palestinians is atrocious.  But as long as Nation-States are going to be a thing on that land it needs to be a Jewish one so the world's most oppressed minority can have a safe heaven to flee to, the Muslims have more then enough.

None the less every time I allow myself to get involved in one of these twitter threads, they keep trying to make me feel ashamed of my Zionism by talking about things the Israeli government is doing which have nothing to do with Zionism as a principle.  Remember these are the same people who don't like seeing Marxism blamed for the Human Rights violations of Stalin and modern China.

I believe all similar major minorities have a right to a home land, the Kurds, the Yazids, the Druze (I would give the Golan Heights to the Druze if I were in charge) the Ainu and Okinawa and every Native American tribe that still exists.  But the "Palestinians" already have one, it's called Jordan.

I am confident that there is enough habitable room in Israel for all of the world's Jews plus twice the number of Gentiles who currently live there.  It is Capitalism not Zionism that is making these people fight over land and resources.  But it is only with Israel where it is appropriate on the Left to say the answer is one of these people groups shouldn't even be allowed to be there.

They keep calling Zionism a form of Colonialism.  It's appropriate to refer to Post-Colonial things you don't like as Colonialism then it's also valid to call Pre-Colonial things as Proto-Colonialism.  And I say it was Proto-Colonialism that removed the Jews from that land and placed Gentile "Holy Sites" in Jerusalem in the first place.

The Jerusalem of the Hasmoneans was basically completely annihilated in 70 AD, then in 132 Hadrian began plans to build a Greco-Roman city on the spot named after himself and that sparked another Jewish uprising which he brutally put down.  Then he built his gentile city and renamed the province and Jews were forbidden to even set foot in the city, a policy that shamefully the Christian Emperors kept.

However Jews were never completely gone from the region, many settled in Galilee where they had a couple revolt agaisnt Christian Emperors.  But when Calif Umar captured Jerusalem he allowed Jews to return there creating what is now known as the Jewish Quarter which has been continuously inhabited by Jews ever since.  However later Calif eventually build Mosques on The Temple Mount.

There have been a lot of controversies lately about the American Government and/or Corporations building things on Sacred Native land.  I don't understand where religions that are inherently younger then Judaism building Churches and Mosques on the only land Judaism considered Sacred isn't viewed the same way?

So yes, religion is a major factor in why this land specifically was the land we gave to the Jews.  Things where go back to their actual founding beliefs, every still existing religion that gives any amount of sacredness to that land 100% agrees on who it belongs to.  The Koran says that the land of Israel belongs to the Children of Israel.  Muslim opposition to Zionism is a product of modern Whabilism funded and prompted by the Saudis.  And New Testament Christianity is not interested in tying itself to any specific pieces of geographical realistic at all.

The cultures that existed in this land before the Ancient Israelites no longer exist, whether or not some Palestinians have a connection to them in terms of genealogical ancestry is irrelevant, they no longer practice the same religion or customs, they are mostly Muslims, some are Christians, some may be Atheists, and I'm sure some Canaanite Neo-Pagan group exists, but there would be no actual continuity there.

Dog Whistles are a term we on the Left use to condemn things not explicitly bigoted as bigotry via guilt by association.  But when it comes to Antisemitism, the only thing constantly said by Antisemites you are NOT allowed to say is inherently Antsemitic is saying the Jews don't have a right to their homeland.  You can't utter the words "international banker" without being called a closet Nazi, but saying something that is definitely unambiguously bigoted when said about any other oppressed minority is perfectly fine.

I think maybe those of us who oppose Capitalism should be concerned about there being an entire subgroup of super rich Capitalists that have become free from criticism because the small group of them who have Ashkenazi surnames are the only ones most people have heard of.  But still it is true 90% of people singling out "international bankers" of all super rich people to complain about are at least indirectly influenced by Antisemitic conspiracy theories.  And likewise Anti-Zionism was founded upon Holcaust Denial and Anti-Rothschild paranoia long before anyone in the west gave a damn about a sub group of Arabs naming themselves after the Hellenized form of the name of a people who haven't existed since Alexander The Great burned their last city to the ground.

And sometimes people will try to use things like the 1933 Transfer Agreement to say "Zionism and Antisemitism actually go together".  Hitler at first tried to just kick the Jews out because he didn't think he'd have the ablity to do the Genocide he always preferred. But that arrangement was one he was inevitably going to back out of just like the pact with Stalin.

The people currently running Israel can go f--- themselves, but I will no apologize for defending The Jews right to their ancient sacred homeland.

Zionism is an inherently Leftist ideology in origin and in fact predates Marxism, the crimes of the Israeli state should not invalidate the ideology of Moses Hess anymore then those of the USSR, Chine and North Korea invalidate Marx and Engles.

BTW you may notice I didn't even bring up any Prophecy.  I actually reject certain Eschatological position assumed to go with being a Christian Zionist.  I'm not Pre-Trib or a proper Dispensationalist and I don't even expect there to be a Third Temple and I view the Gog and Magog Invasion as after the Millennium.  I actually don't currently solidly believe much of anything specific in regards to Israel role in the End Times.  While that geographical land definitely has a role to play in what I think will happen, a modern Jewish State being there is no required at all.  My theories about "the antichrist" focus on their probable relationship with The Church not Judaism.

But at any-rate I don't think the Temple's actually is on either those Mosques, the closest is north of the Dome of The Rock.

Thursday, August 20, 2020

The New Testament is Collectivist not Individualist

First of all to properly understand what I mean by Individualism and Collectivism in this post I suggest you watch this Peter Coffin video Individualism V. Individuality, it's only half an hour.

In the modern world Indivdualism is associated with certain ideologies that in America at least are generally classified as Conservative.  Now t lot of these people are Conservative Atheists, Ayn Rand was an Atheist she knew this brand of Individualism is utterly incompatible with proper Christian values.  But some of these Conservatives are Christians like Jordan Peterson who's technically Canadian but the thing about Canada is if your a Conservative in Canada you probably obsess over America in reaction to how much Canadian Liberalism is founded on hating America.

However a more obscure figure in the modern YouTube Right is a channel called TIK who have made some interesting videos on Hitler and Mussolini being one of the few YouTuber interested in acknowledging their differences, both are bad but they had differences that make Hitler worse but being better then Hitler is not a grand endorsement.  In one video of his I watched he talks about the history of states and power systems from his POV and then says Jesus introduced the concept of the individual.  So I assume that means to him the difference between the Old Testament and the New Testament is that the Old Testament is Collectivist since it's about Israel and New Testament's innovation was that now God made Covenants with Individuals not a Collective.

This view of the New Testament doesn't hold up.  Anything you can make sound Individualist about the New Testament was already there in The Torah, the punishment already punished individuals for example.  The actual innovation of the New Testament is that it's expanding the Collective, or rather returning God's focus to all of Adamkind.

The TNAK starts out about all of Humanity, the first 10 and a half chapter of Genesis. And on occasion YHWH remind Israel that he still cares about the rest of the world like in Ezekiel 16 (the parts about Sodom) and Daniel 2-7.

In Matthew Jesus talks about gentiles entering the Kingdom before some of the Children of the Kingdom, that's not an expression of Individualism but of outsiders being let into the Collective.  The Sheeps and Goats Judgment in Matthew 25 is defined as being of "Nations" not Individuals.

Paul in Romans 5 talks about all being made Sinners because of one Man's Sin, but then all being made righteous because of one Man's righteousness, similar to how he discuses Death and Resurrection in 1 Corinthians 15.  Then in Romans 11 he says the fullness of the "Nations" will grafted into Israel and then ALL Israel shall be Saved.  And that God consigned ALL to disobedience so that He might have Mercy on ALL.

Elsewhere The New Testament talks about The Church being the Bride of Christ and Body of Christ and Temple of God.  Inherently Collectivist symbolism.

It was the advent of Calvinism V. Armianism that laid the foundation of Individualizing The Gospel, in both those system Salvation is a covenant with an Individual they only disagree on who to give the agency.  ColdCrashPictures calls Objectevism "Prosperity Gospel for Atheists" an analogy that immediately reminded me of my own calling Existentialism Atheistic Arminianism.

But not all Collectivist Ideologies are good, Fascism is very Collectivist.  That's why I stress how The Gospel is an Inclusivist Collectivism.

It was Gerrard Winstanley who introduced Universal Salvation to the Modern-English speaking world, and he was also a Communist.  What untied the true Gospel and Communism so naturally is that both are founded on the true Collectivist perspective of The New Testament.

Wednesday, July 22, 2020

The Truth about the Hamiltonian v Jeffersonian Alignment

First of all it's a bit of an oversimplification to make it seem like all the "founding fathers" fell neatly into those two camps.  Even Adams was not quite a pure Hamiltonian.

Meanwhile Thomas Paine was literally a Pre-Marx Communist.  And for nearly 200 years everyone knew that, he was disowned from being counted as a founding father by Patriotic Americans for most of the 19th and 20th Centuries during which time the only people who liked him were Marxists and other Socialists.  But then Ronald Reagan started quoting Paine as if they agreed on anything and only then did even Paine become a founder the modern American right thought they could appropriate.

However the greater point of this post is the absurdity of the desire Americans have to see our current political debates as a neat linear continuation of the debates between Hamilton and Jefferson.

Alexander Hamilton was a big government Conservative while Thomas Jefferson was a small government Liberal.  In modern American politics those terms seem like inherent contradictions, but the historical fact is the modern American way of thinking about that is the aberration.  During the age of Revolutions the idea of being a small government Conservative was a complete and total oxymoron completely unprecedented in 6000 years of human history.

On the modern American political spectrum the closest group we have to modern Jeffersonians are the American Libertarians, but even that analogy has flaws.  Plenty of Libertarians are aware of their overlap with Jefferson and like to then paint the Democrats and Republicans as merely an internal dispute among the Hamiltonians.  However that doesn't pan out.

The modern Democrats and Republicans in addition to each breaking with Hamilton in some way on where they disagree with each other are in fact in even greater conflict with Hamilton in the areas where they agree.  Neither party wants the Presidency to be a lifetime appointment, neither wants to limit the right to vote to only wealthy land owners and both support legal immigration only disagreeing on how much leniency to give "illegal immigrants".

On some of those issues it may seem like many Republicans would like to take Hamilton's position but just know they can't get away with it currently.  But their fundamental belief in "states rights" and "cutting taxes" make them firmly incompatible with Hamiltonian Federalism.  The only modern parties that kind of agree with Hamilton on having a strong federal government are completely opposed to Hamilton in terms of what that government power should be used for.

I'm going to be consistent and not call Hamilton a Fascist since I am someone who criticizes when that term is used too loosely including by my fellow Leftists.  There is at least one core ingredient of Fascism Hamilton was hostile to and that was Populism, Hamilton was disgusted by the very idea of trying to gain political support from the unwashed peasants.  But his actual position on Immigration would get him called a Fascist by most of Tumblr.

There is no actual Hamiltonian party in modern American politics, and no that's not based on allowing any minor disagreement to rule someone out, every Party or Politician capable of gaining even 1% of the vote in a modern election, has some major break with a core foundational principles of Hamilton's ideology.  That's why he was the least celebrated founding father before a certain Rapper decided he weirdly identified with him as that Musical laments at the end.  The last American party that would even have come close was maybe The Silver Legion of America.

However the United States is ironically the only nation where Hamiltonianism is completely dead.  The Party that has dominated Japan for most of it's post-War history the LDP is Hamiltonianism for Japan as purely as any party could be.

Now remember Anime is a Niche interest even in Japan.  Most Art tends towards being at least a little left of the center of the culture that produced it, but Anime in particular makes most of it's money off less then 10% of the total population.  So with few exceptions most Anime is made by people who's political leanings range from Jefferson to Paine.  Though obviously none of them would use American figures to define their politics, Franklin, Jefferson, Paine and Lafayette don't even show up in any of the many Anime depicting The French Revolution (which Hamilton btw absolutely opposed long before the Terror gave him an excuse).

Sunday, July 19, 2020

In what way do I possibly still qualify as an Evangelical?

You can consider this a follow up of sort to What Kind of Christian am I.

That's a question one might ask when they see how Leftist I have become Politically and Progressive Socially with a healthy does of my old Libertarianism still in tact, combined with my now rejecting theologically the traditional view of Hell, and yet I still call myself an Evangelical from time to time.

Religion for Breakfast recently appeared in someone's video about Evangelicals and the Republican party however doing so only to define Evangeliclaism in religious terms separated from the politics.

He laid out four characteristics and I feel I line up with all of them.

1. Born Again Experience

On this one you can argue I'm not semantically since I now believe the Biblical use of Born Again in places like John 3 is about the Bodily Resurrection not something that happens at Conversion. But I still see importance in the Conversion experience, often preferring "Begotten Again" analogizing it to a new Conception rather then Birth.  Because of my Soterology I don't think only believers are Saved, and I don't think every "true believer" has to have a particularly dramatic experience, my own was relatively gradual.  However this conversion importance is why I'm with the Baptists on Baptism at least.

2. The Personal Relationship with Jesus I definitely value, and ironically this is exactly something most Evangelicals have been losing in their obsession with conservative politics.  And my status as a Continuationist makes me more Evangelical then most Baptists interestingly.  Andrew Henry cited Wesley as a founder of Evengelicalism, he condemned Slavery and called out the Founding Fathers on their hypocrisy.

3. Evangelism is another one I may relate to differently as a Universal Salvation believer.  But to me that just means I more accurately know what the Evangelion is.

4. I do believe The Bible is inerrant and the final authority.  The Conservatives are simply interpreting it wrong.  However I am still a Young Earth Creationist and a Pre-Millenial Futurist. 

I'm also a Zionist technically but that doesn't mean I have to think the Israeli government does no wrong, quite the contrary I think Israel's government is as bad as any other Western colonial power and that their treatment of Palestinians and other Muslims within their borders should try harder to follow the advice of Leviticus 19:34.  But on principal I prefer that land be ruled by corrupt authoritarian Jews rather then corrupt authoritarian Muslims who have plenty of lands to rule already.

Friday, June 19, 2020

Facts don't care about your Feelings, but God Does because God Is Love

I think my contribution to the argument that Homosexuality isn't a Sin is my most important Internet accomplishment.  While I certainly think many others could make my arguments more eloquently then I do, only I take the correct perspective on each relevant passage.  And that I approach them from a hyper literalist perspective means lots of people will be more open to my argument then the arguments of more theologically liberal theologians.

I'm not quite so happy with my past attempts to allude to Trans issues on this blog.  My original main argument on the subject was written this month five years ago, weird coincidence since I didn't know about June being Pride Month back in 2015.

Back when I wrote that I didn't yet know that not all Trans people experience Dyphoria or Dysmorphia about their bodies.  Not the only thing I wasn't nearly as informed on as I am now.  That was before the Game Over Charles crisis, before I started following a lot of the Trans and Non-Binary people in the Anime Community on YouTube and Twitter, and before I ever watched a ContraPoints video.  And I'm sure I still have more to learn.  But that issue is most directly relevant to why I feel that post is problematic now.

I made an argument predicated on comparing being Trans to people born with disabilities and other issues and I believe everyone will have the body they're meant to have in The Resurrection.  I know that Trans people don't want to be viewed as a mistake, it's just that in the context of those who feel deeply uncomfortable in their own bodies, that is a problem I don't view as God's intent and still one I feel will be eliminated at The Resurrection.  But those who are okay with or even like having physical features Society says doesn't match their Gender Identity, their situation will probably be different, I don't want to speculate too much.

Of course another thing that has changed since I made that post is I now believe in Universal Salvation.  I no longer believe it is only Trans people who become Christians that will find happiness in Jesus, Jesus Loves and will inevitably bring All of them to Salvation.

The beginning of dealing with any gender issues Biblically should always be the end of Galatians 3, "neither Male or Female" in The Church.  A passage that has been relevant to many posts I've made already.

There are no New Testament verses that are even remotely about Crossdressing.  Some Sermons from independent Baptist Pastors may trick you into thinking otherwise, but there are in fact none.  Deuteronomy 22:5 is the only passage in the entire Bible that is even at face value relevant to that issue.  Here is an article on a Jewish website dealing with the complex history of Jewish interpretations of this verse.

The observation that it should have lead with is how in context the passage is doing it for the purpose of deception.  It is not at all relevant to Crossdressing as self expression.

But let's return to the real question that makes the Trans issue difficult for Christians, how can they exist?

I think most Christians casually take the view on the origins of Souls that they are individually created by God either before or during the bodies formation as a result of sexual reproduction.  However I have already expressed on this blog (but it was another issue I didn't know about 5 years ago) that I take the Traducian view, that our souls reproduce the same way our bodies do.

So since there are sometimes bodies born with "biological sex" ambiguities, there can also be Psyches with Psychological ambiguities and Spirits and Spiritual ambiguities.

InspiringPhilsphy has a video on the scientific evidence that conciseness isn't solely the product of the Brain.

But even if it were, studies have also shown that Transgender people's Brains are wired like their preferred Gender not the assigned Gender.

But such Scientific Justification should be irrelevant because Christian aren't Materialists, not in the Aristotelian sense anyway.  We don't hate and disregard the Flesh the way Gnostics or Marcionites do, or view it merely as a lesser copy of some higher form the way Platonists do, but it is still only part of what we are.  But when it comes to Gender mainstream Western Christians act like Materialists.

When Genesis 1 says God made Adam Male and Female, I think it's referring to all the aspects of Human Gender being there already in the first Man, maybe it could be just referring to him having both Chromosomes.  It was never meant to rule out the possibility that many of Adam's descents will relate to Gender in ways that defy or flat out don't fit into a simply Binary.