Why wasn't Jesus a woman?

[Yellow_Belle]

It’s kind of odvious…? It’s just a well-known sociological fact. Mary was seen as untainted by evil, and at times even righteously strong, militaristic. Such cultural images, especially ones invested with religious significance, have an amount of influence on those within society.

It’s a well-acknowedged fact by psychologists and sociologists, and Carl Jung commented on it.

So I think the Church’s image of Mary had a lot to do with the advancement of womens’ rights in our Western culture (which you have to admit developed womens’ rights long before other cultures.)

Hope this helps.

No, it doesn’t really, since my original post said nothing about Mary or the Church’s image of her.

My point was that many followers of Jesus Christ down through the ages and still today have not always followed Him with respect to His treatment of women. Even Pope John Paul II confessed that many members of the Church, including some in the hierarchy, have acted—and sometimes still act—in ways that fail to express the equality of man and woman:

And if objective blame [for offenses against the dignity of women], especially in particular historical contexts, has belonged to not just a few members of the Church, for this I am truly sorry. May this regret be transformed, on the part of the whole Church, into a renewed commitment of fidelity to the gospel vision. When it comes to setting women free from every kind of exploitation and domination, the gospel contains an ever relevant message **that goes back to the attitude of Jesus Christ himself. **Transcending the established norms of his own culture, **Jesus treated women with openness, respect, acceptance, and tenderness. In this way he honored the dignity that women have always possessed according to God’s plan and in his love. As we look to Christ at the end of this second millennium, it is natural to ask ourselves: How much of his message has been heard and acted upon? **(Letter to Women 3).

Western culture certainly advanced women’s rights earlier than most other cultures but attributing this exclusively to the influence of the Church’s image of Mary is stretching it a bit, I think. The early Brehon Laws in Ireland, which pre-date a widespread conversion to Christianity, arguably gave women greater freedom, independence and rights to property than in other European societies of the time.

 

[Matariel]

Western culture certainly advanced women’s rights earlier than most other cultures but attributing this exclusively to the influence of the Church’s image of Mary is stretching it a bit, I think. The early Brehon Laws in Ireland, which pre-date a widespread conversion to Christianity, arguably gave women greater freedom, independence and rights to property than in other European societies of the time.

I do agree. I think there have been times, sadly, when people within the Church were too harsh, and even sexist towards women.

(By the way, you aren’t one of those “womanpriests” supporters, are you?)

 

[Yellow_Belle]

(By the way, you aren’t one of those “womanpriests” supporters, are you?)

I’m at a loss to know what it is I have written that would lead you to think so (or even if it’s any concern of yours ) but, for the record, no, I’m not.

 

[Fran65]

My understanding is that at that historical period a woman would not have been listened to, taken seriously or followed as a teacher.

This also adds weight to the truth of Jesus’ resurrection, as it was a woman who reported the body missing and reported having met him in the garden of Gethsemane.

If the disciples had been making it up they would have allocated that role to a man.

 

[Matariel]

I’m at a loss to know what it is I have written that would lead you to think so (or even if it’s any concern of yours ) but, for the record, no, I’m not.

Sorry. It’s just that everytime I get into a discussion about women and the Church with a woman on this site, so far they’ve been one of those radical priestess-supportiing people who think that women have to be clones of men in everything to be equal.

Glad you’re orthodox.

 

[Yellow_Belle]

Glad you’re orthodox.

Now, that’s stretching it a bit, too But I guess it depends on how you define orthodox

 

[Scoobyshme]

“Orthodox” means “Right teaching.” It’s not liberal or conservative. It’s whatever the Church teaches, as the Church intends it to be understood.

Does that fit your beliefs?

 

[BJRumph]

I think to try to masculate women this way is wrong and degrading to them, and their femininity.

Yay! I’m not the only person who thinks this!

Too bad there aren’t more “feminists” who recognize this basic issue… 'course being a male, my opinion generally doesn’t count for much in such discussions

 

[Teflon93]

For the same reason that Jesus wasn’t a duck—God isn’t a duck.

Beyond that, what do you think the odds were in 1st century Judea of a woman founding a religion?

 

[Yellow_Belle]

“Orthodox” means “Right teaching.” It’s not liberal or conservative. It’s whatever the Church teaches, as the Church intends it to be understood.

Does that fit your beliefs?

My beliefs fit your definition, as far as I’m aware.

 

[SimonArizona]

Pretty easy answer, yet not the only answer: women in that culture are submissive to men. It would be unseemly for a woman to be parading around, commanding men. Jesus had conflict with his enemies, war isn’t for women, its not natural for her to come and put down her enemies. Or for strong Roman guards to violently beat, drag, and crucify a woman.

 

[Teflon93]

Pretty easy answer, yet not the only answer: women in that culture are submissive to men. It would be unseemly for a woman to be parading around, commanding men. Jesus had conflict with his enemies, war isn’t for women, its not natural for her to come and put down her enemies. Or for strong Roman guards to violently beat, drag, and crucify a woman.

This is quite a good point. I wonder if there’s any evidence for the crucifixion of women in the 1st century?

Had Christ been a woman perhaps there would have been no Cross but rather a stoning.

 

[Yellow_Belle]

=Teflon93;4448769]This is quite a good point. I wonder if there’s any evidence for the crucifixion of women in the 1st century?

According to this thirdmill.org/answers/answer.asp/file/99832.qna/category/ch/page/questions/site/iiim which cites Josephus, crucifixion was an equal opportunities punishment.

Perhaps one of the unique aspects of Jewish crucifixion was that when employed on women, according to the Mishna, they faced the cross whereas men were crucified with their back to the cross. (M. Sanh. 6.4)

joezias.com/CrucifixionAntiquity.html

 

[Teflon93]

Thanks, Yellow Belle—very interesting.

 

[Christine_Lee]

In today’s time promiscuity is the “norm” and is actually expected of us. I have always had the problem of finding a man who is willing to commit their whole life to just one woman. My sister always says that she could not see herself living with the same person for more than 10 years. But this problem is around every corner I look. And I’m the one to be called “Strange” cause I date only virgins and I won’t keep a relationship if I cannot see a long and happy marriage in the future.

 

[Yellow_Belle]

In today’s time promiscuity is the “norm” and is actually expected of us. I have always had the problem of finding a man who is willing to commit their whole life to just one woman. My sister always says that she could not see herself living with the same person for more than 10 years. But this problem is around every corner I look. And I’m the one to be called “Strange” cause I date only virgins and I won’t keep a relationship if I cannot see a long and happy marriage in the future.

Did you mean to reply to a different thread?

 

[Lisa44]

I think we live in a rebellious culture. People want to marry someone of the same sex instead of the obvious choice God created for a mate.
Women want to do men’s jobs and be in a man’s role (ie: a priest).

Men want to stay home and raise children instead of being a provider. So the mother will put her milk in the fridge so that he can feed the babies while she is at work. Or he uses artificial formula.

I don’t mean to insult anyone, but clearly, there is a natural way that is designed by our creator and then there is a way, through artificial means, that humans try to make their own ways.

The bible says that women are men’s “help-mates”.

Who raised Jesus? Did Joseph stay home with Jesus while Mary went to work? Was Mary a carpenter?

Why are there so few stay at home mothers in this day and age?

Now women want to be Priests? Its a logical outcome of our rebellious society.

“oh, its so boring staying at home with kids…” bla bla bla…

Well, thats my opinion anyways. People make their choices and then they live with them.

Nearly everyone I know in the secular world makes their decisions based on money, and his name is Mammon.

 

[Christine_Lee]

Did you mean to reply to a different thread?

No, I was replying to the very first post concerning promiscuity

The simple answer is marriage. What man lacks women makes up for, visa versa. Our culture then goes on to say, “But wait, why should man or woman be forced to stay with the same person for their whole life?” What?!?! Why would any man or woman want to share their most intimate moments with someone that they were not promising to stay with for their whole life? Permiscueness is arbitrary to our best interests, and will only cause us problems down the road.

 

[By_His_Mercy]

Yes, I totally agree with you. You don’t sound liberal at all…this is a conservative Catholic viewpoint, isn’t it?

God bless you!

• BHM

 

[Christine_Lee]

I think we live in a rebellious culture. People want to marry someone of the same sex instead of the obvious choice God created for a mate.
Women want to do men’s jobs and be in a man’s role (ie: a priest).

Men want to stay home and raise children instead of being a provider. So the mother will put her milk in the fridge so that he can feed the babies while she is at work. Or he uses artificial formula.

I don’t mean to insult anyone, but clearly, there is a natural way that is designed by our creator and then there is a way, through artificial means, that humans try to make their own ways.

The bible says that women are men’s “help-mates”.

Who raised Jesus? Did Joseph stay home with Jesus while Mary went to work? Was Mary a carpenter?

Why are there so few stay at home mothers in this day and age?

Now women want to be Priests? Its a logical outcome of our rebellious society.

“oh, its so boring staying at home with kids…” bla bla bla…

Well, thats my opinion anyways. People make their choices and then they live with them.

Nearly everyone I know in the secular world makes their decisions based on money, and his name is Mammon.

I’m for certain women’s rights (I don’t want to go back to being a man’s “property” LoL) but feminism has definately corrupted they way we raise our children. A friend of mine recently had a baby and she’s said that some of her female friends have looked down on her because she breast feeds. Babies were made to be breast fed! My mother stayed at home when my sister and I were born up till we were half way through elementary school. I am gratefull that she stayed home to provide the full care and attention a child needs from its mother, not a babysitter.