a single x would produce a female. female is the default, not male. thus also an xxy produces a female (see jamie lee curtis). now. if jesus was a woman...
it's representative of the greek ideals of purity. now, the greeks were some serious pervs, but they wished and they hoped for purity. and purity meant celibacy. sex within marriage allegedly isn't a sin. all jewish rabbis were (and are as far as i know) REQUIRED to be married and have children so that they would be ABLE to lead their people properly. see, the idea is that bachelors don't understand how real life works. met any very wise bachelors before? i didn't think so. but then why aren't priests allowed? certainly it's not property rights. it has to be theologically defendable. the only reason is that sex is wrong but defendable in marriage to continue making little christians.
of course, if jesus was called 'rabbi' in truth by his disciples, then he would HAVE to be married. maybe not to magdalene, but to some woman. otherwise, someone is telling a lie. rabbi isn't just a word. it's an earned title.
the only other option is that perhaps sex isn't wrong, but being tied to a woman is wrong. this is also a defensible position in the light of greek culture (and in paul's writings). there is no purpose in being near or with a woman outside of squiting out babies. the religion has no place for god's grandchildren, therefore, jesus wasn't married. does this change the potential history? no. but it does change how it is received.
now, you may be asking, what does this have to do with our culture? where do you think we got our love of purity? the sixteenth (or fifteenth if you're hispanic) birthday party type stuff, white clothing (white wedding dresses were victorian, but white itself being the color of purity is greek), virginity. it all came from the greeks. hestia (the goddess of the hearth and ironically family) spurned the love aphrodite created and swore her virginity. her roman counterpart vesta even required her priestesses to be virgins under pain of death. all of our knowledge is based on the greeks: our philosophy, political science, math, science, and also the structure in our religious organizations. the greeks invented it, the romans took it over, and the christians just changed all the innards. the roman church is now exactly what it was before jesus but with a different gospel.
there is absolutely no evidence whatsoever that jesus himself was married. but remember, there's only one piece of evidence (outside the bible) that jesus ever existed. and that is only a passing comment by josephus and is questionable.
ABE i think it would be better if we thought of jesus as married. because then we can ask 'how did jesus treat his wife?' sure they say it now, but they don't mean it. they appropriate jesus' wife being the church. that's not a very good simile for a woman. i know my body doesn't hold many people. (yes i know it's the church polulace. i'm being funny.) if jesus were actually married and say to magdalene, it would be very obvious that his wife would be a good, outspoken jewish lady not a mousey christian wife. do you ever see those women on tbn? they sit there silent at their husband's beckon call. it's gross. he would have respected her personality and her body. he would not have forced himself on her nor would he have neglected her. he would have sought to bring her joy and not just to fill her with babies. a few months ago i made a post about how jesus treated women. he gave them undying respect and consideration. he would have been the same way with his wife. he would have asked her what she thought and he would have led her by helping her lead herself. you know how counselors work? they ask leading questions and wait for you to figure it out. that's what jesus did. and that is how jesus would have treated his wife. he would have respected her mind, her body, her personality, and her individuality. if magdalene was his wife, he clearly didn't lord over her. she was a successful business woman... possibly the funding for his endevours. she was his companion and perhaps his lover. but she was certainly not his servant. i think that might be the real reason they don't like it. it doesn't support the 'submit to your husbands' bit.
Yes, so does that mean Jesus was a woman? Or do Christians believe that God supernaturally inserted a y chromosome
probably the latter. the idea being that adam (presumably) had a y chromosome but was created ex dirt and thus anyone could be created with a y chromosome that wasn't donated by a man and his johnson.
during what I've heard Catholics call the immaculate conception?
no. the virgin birth was jesus. the immaculate conception refers to the fact that mary was also born without the influence of a man. i think. anyways. the idea is that she was also specially formed. and that is uniquely catholic.
i'll buy the jamie lee curtis as bullshit, but i always remembered from class that any kind of abnormality resulted in a female. ah well. but just an X would most likely be a female. i can't imagine it not being such.
I think that the church IS Jesus wife, and that He treats her more than fairly! She is a bit of a waunderer, though.....
yes, but indeed, the OT says that the jews were god's wife. or close enough. there is some precedent. but look at how god treated his wife when she strayed. he beat her until she returned. is that a good example for christian husbands?
I guess that what I'm trying to say in all of this is the opinion that Jesus would have no need for marriage because # He did not need to have communion with a woman to feel completeness in Himself. # He would have no need or purpose to bear natural children.
if he was more complete than ordinary men, then he wasn't wholly man and wholly god. if he was complete in himself, then he was not tempted as man. if he was not lonely (and the bible suggests he sometimes was), then he did not experience humanity.
further, i think we are all complete in ourselves. it is unhealthy to marry to try to fill an emptiness. you marry because you wish for a companion to share the happy road you have discovered.
and, jesus was a jew. jews have a religious requirement to fill the earth and make their numbers as the sand on the shore or the stars in the heavens. they had a promise from god to fulfill. he absolutely had a purpose in having children.
why don't we question plato... well. he founded a school, a physical building with his name on it, that operated for a thousand years after his death. there are people who have written about him, and, more importantly, there is a series of work allegedly produced by him with a common voice (ie, they were in fact written by the same person).
jesus has no writings of his own, jesus didn't do anything physical, and as to writing about him, all you could come up with was 6 little quotes that happen to contain discussion of a bunch of loonies who believe that someone actually raised from the dead. there's more in historical text about the existence of sirens.
you're going to tell me that 6 quotes is sufficient record of something that happened in clear view? jesus was supposed to have cause countless scenes at temples, on beaces, on hilltops. jesus was supposed to have had a MOB proclaim he should die. a mob. and you want me to think that no one but these 6 dudes mentioned it? i'm not talking about james of john or ananias. i'm talking about jesus.
with the result that they despise all worldly goods alike, regarding them merely as common property.”
i think this is a far more important quote. but then i'm a dirty hippie and not a real christian.
Jesus was God, indwelt in the form of man taking on all of our weaknesses and temptations. I'm not sure why this presents such a problem philosophically.
no. jesus was wholly man and wholly god. if he was more complete than ordinary men, then he was not wholly man.
I think you are confusing Genesis 1:28. God was not directing Jews, as there was no such thing as a 'Jew' in those days. God was speaking about all of mankind.
no, i was referring to
Genesis 22: 15 Then the Angel of the Lord called to Abraham a second time out of heaven, 16 and said: "By Myself I have sworn, says the Lord, because you have done this thing, and have not withheld your son, your only son-- 17 blessing I will bless you, and multiplying I will multiply your descendants as the stars of the heaven and as the sand which is on the seashore; and your descendants shall possess the gate of their enemies.
it is a requirement to fill the earth, and i feel this is backed up by the fact that god punished david for having a census which would count the numbers of jews and thus deny the prophecy which is namely to make them uncountable. but that's just my interpretation and i think we've had that particular discussion on this board before. not you and i, but the evc we.
God was specifically speaking to Abraham (Abram) concerning his seed. It was a covenant for his righteousness. This verse isn't concerning Jews, but literally, Abrahams seed and how would relate to the awaited Messiah. Again, there was no such thing as a Jew in Abrahams day. That came through his line shortly after, but at that time there was nothing distinguishing what a Jew was.
just because this nation doesn't exist yet doesn't mean it doesn't refer to it. clearly, the 18th verse (see below) can be interpretted to mean jesus (or einstein. he was jewish right?) but he didn't exist (earthly) at the time either.
god said he would make abraham into a great nation. this great nation is the nation of ISRAEL which is abraham's grandson's name. (crap. i had that verse, now i lost it.) this verse is about how many people will be in this great nation. if there aren't a bazillion jews, then the promise isn't fulfilled. and how do we get a bazillion jews? by the jews we have boning like rabiits (or hyraxes who do chew cud).
the next verse is about how abraham's decendants will make the world better
Genesis 22:18 In your seed all the nations of the earth shall be blessed, because you have obeyed My voice.
thank you for that post. i especially appreciate the detail in word meanings and usage. but i would say you should cite more sources and more 'credentialed' ones like journal articles. it's ass to find though.