If Jesus had been a woman...

bleepp

This came up in discussion. If Jesus had been born into the world as a woman, would we still be saved?

I know the real answer myself but just wondering what folk think.

Peregrinus

bleepp wrote: »

This came up in discussion. If Jesus had been born into the world as a woman, would we still be saved?

Sure. Why not?

Ambersky

Female Jesus would have turned around to God the Father and said,
"Look your going to have to get over this whole Adam and Eve disobedience thing.
Its been too long to be still holding onto that hurt and anyway it was a bit of a set up wasnt it, Pandoras box and all that, you can eat from any tree you like except that one, that one you cant even look at, what did you expect them to do?
And whats this about asking me to go through the most excruciating torturous death known to man in order to make you feel better. Why would that make you feel better is there something wrong with you.
Its not exactly a model of good parenting to be expecting people to kill their sons and now it seems their daughters too in order to prove their obedience to you. Mrs Abraham wasnt too happy about that episode up the mountain with her son either. What were you thinking!
Have you any idea of the model that kind of story could give to abusers of children who put obedience to You and the church before protecting and cherishing children."

And that would be that humans saved.
Oh and the question saved from what would be answered also.

tommy2bad

Cant see what difference it would make, women are still mankind in the sense of being human.
All female priesthood, Our mother who art... their might be contextual changes but the essential salvation would remain the same.
So whats the 'real answer' then?

Ambersky

My answer is the right one of course. It allows for the revolutionary idea that women have souls too and can be considered included as members of mankind and the brotherhood of man etc etc. I know you guys have had arguments about all that in the past and that some are still not too convinced.
It might not be a bad idea for men to have the experience of being on the other end of a language that didnt include them by mention but more by inference.
My answer allows for all that and for women thinking differently and not accepting the obedience or the boy dies routine.
Would the whole thing fall if that were not to happen is it all based on a Father wanting his son killed or else all of humanity will pay for whatever was the matter with him.
Really I am being serious quite a few female theologians think like this I didnt just make it up myself despite how much I would like to take credit for such an original yet an obvious idea.
Nevertheless despite any amount of thought that is put into the gender of Jesus and what would have happened had he been female, its implications for women and men, all that has happened over the last 2012 years etc.... the friends in the pub came up with the correct answer by the nature of things here on boards.

philologos

Ambersky wrote: »

My answer is the right one of course. It allows for the revolutionary idea that women have souls too and can be considered included as members of mankind and the brotherhood of man etc etc. I know you guys have had arguments about all that in the past and that some are still not too convinced.
And yes men would have to get use to being on the other end of language that didnt include them by mention but more by inference.
My answer allows for all that and for women thinking differently and not accepting the obedience or the boy dies routine.
Would the whole thing fall if that were not to happen is it all based on a Father wanting his son killed or else all of humanity will pay for whatever was the matter with him.
Really I am being serious quite a few female theologians think like this I didnt just make it up myself despite how much I would like to take credit for such an original yet an obvious idea.
Nevertheless despite any amount of thought that is put into the gender of Jesus and what would have happened had he been female, its implications for women and men, all that has happened over the last 2012 years etc.... the friends in the pub came up with the correct answer by the nature of things here on boards.

Do you have any interest in having a discussion or was that intended to be a monologue?

A number of us would want to discuss this with you, but if you're more interested in telling us about your position than listening then there's not all that much point.

The Bible firmly considers women a part of humankind. Look to Genesis 1:26-27 or Galatians 3:28. We need to see your position explained thoroughly before we assume this blindly.

Ambersky

bleep says
I know the real answer myself but just wondering what folk think.

Tommy2bad said
So whats the 'real answer' then?

I said
My answer is the right one of course.

I was just following in the spirit of things. No one has the "real" answer to this.

philologos

Ambersky wrote: »

I was just following in the spirit of things. No one has the "real" answer to this.

This is a discussion forum, we post here to discuss and God willing to learn something new. However this requires two parties to be open and ameniable to reasoned and reasonable discussion generally.

golden lane

very soon the eu will decree...that god has to be 40% female......

bleepp

I posed the question because it came up in a group discussion and the majority though that Jesus had to be male in order to be our savior.

What utter nonsense of course, sexuality has nothing to do with the redeeming aspect of Christ. The important thing is that he became human and took on human flesh. He entered into humanity in order to bring us to God, a humanity of male and female.
That's the "real" and answer I alluded to and not with the intention of sounding smart but anyone who thinks otherwise would be flying in the face of Church and Biblical teaching.

philologos

If you think about it, yes, it may be interesting as a side-topic. However, the reality is we know that Jesus was male when He came in the flesh. Therefore hypothetical questions as to what if He were a she are somewhat irrelevant?

bleepp

philologos wrote: »

If you think about it, yes, it may be interesting as a side-topic. However, the reality is we know that Jesus was male when He came in the flesh. Therefore hypothetical questions as to what if He were a she are somewhat irrelevant?

I wouldn't the question as irrelevant at all. It allows people to gain a better understanding of what exactly God is, and probably more importantly how the Church views the nature of God.

If someone thinks Christ had to be male and that God the Father is solely male like the Son, then their level of knowledge of the Almighty is lacking. Questions like this seek to extend our image of God.

I think any avenue of thinking, relevant or not, that leads to a better understanding of faith is only a good thing.

J C

bleepp wrote: »

If Jesus had been a woman...

This came up in discussion. If Jesus had been born into the world as a woman, would we still be saved?

I know the real answer myself but just wondering what folk think.

The fact is that Jesus wasn't a woman ... and was God.
... no other man and no woman is God ... although many behave as if they are!!!:)

Ambersky

bleep I dont think the question in irrelevant either, but I think that our answers ( including mine) to your question reveal more about ourselves than about God.
It is said that humans tend to make God in our own image and likeness. I think that is true. If you believe in God, giving God a gender is very limiting and a very simple and literal way of thinking. It may have been necessary for some human minds but what would God want with a penis. I mean there is God all alone in the Universe, or as the Universe, animals, plants, water, haven’t been invented yet, God doesn’t eat or drink, God doesn’t need to urinate and doesn’t have sex with anyone. Why have a penis or any other genitals for that matter?


There are quite a few women who are interested in this question what it would have been like if Jesus had been a woman. That’s a very different question than would “mankind” still be saved if Jesus had been a woman. The reluctance to see Divinity as both female and male really does say to women that they may be considered human but not in the image and likeness of God.
Personally I have no interest in discussions on whether or not I am human or have a soul but discussions on these issues and the position of women in the church did lead me to where I am now.
I found some comfort initially in the fact that not all Christians insisted on the maleness of God and had a more inclusive message. It sounds like you bleep are one of those. But many Christians including the catholic hierarchy do insist on Gods maleness and although they will tell you it’s not really important and that God is beyond gender or definition they will still insist that God or dare I say Goddess is male.
From that insistence of the maleness of God, out of that male world view, comes the patriarchal nature of the churches and the second class nature of women in the churches.

Anyway through my given life experience I have had the opportunity to see things, including the Christian story, differently.
I do actually think that if Jesus had been a woman she would have seen the world differently and that there would now be a very different Christian church.
But I am interested in such surmising because of who I am and because of my experiences, it’s not unique, but it’s probably not where posters on this Christian forum are coming from.

J C

It never ceases to amaze me that people who protest the equality of women with men ... then turn around and claim that the world or the church or whatever would be a much better place if it was run by women.

The equality of women doesn't rest on their superiority to men ... because they're not ...
... they are just the same as men ... with the same abilities to do great things ... and to make glorious mess-ups, with the best of them!!!:eek::)

... women are just as fallen as any man ... and they can be Saved just as easily as any man, as well !!!:)

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

"If"...??

Seriously, though, what would it have made a difference? Most of the disparaging of women comes from religion, rather then Jesus.

Ambersky

It never ceases to amaze me how often it is that when a woman talks about equality she is read as saying superior or better than.

JC said
It never ceases to amaze me that people who protest the equality of women with men ... then turn around and claim that the world or the church or whatever would be a much better place if it was run by women.
he equality of women doesn't rest on their superiority to men ... because they're not ...
... they are just the same as men ... with the same abilities to do great things ... and to make glorious mess-ups, with the best of them!!!

Who said run by women. Who said replaced by women. Who said better than men. Where did all that come from?

I guess it is because the dominant non dominant relationship is so familiar it is hard for some people to imagine anything else.
I actually said there was a

reluctance to see Divinity as both female and male

I suggested that if Jesus were a woman she would see things differently and that if the word God is gender neutral so too could the word Goddess.
I suggested that it wouldnt be a bad idea for men to have the experience of being at the end of a language that didnt mention them by name but rather by inference.
Is what I am saying still so threatening in this the 21st Century.

I did not say or suggest a female replacement for all things male.
But as usual equality is so feared it is read as superiority.

J C

Ambersky wrote: »

It never ceases to amaze me how often it is that when a woman talks about equality she is read as saying superior or better than

... equality is equal to ... not better than or worse than ... that was my point.

Ambersky wrote: »

Who said run by women. Who said replaced by women. Who said better than men. Where did all that come from?

I guess it is because the dominant non dominant relationship is so familiar it is hard for some people to imagine anything else.
I actually said there was a


I suggested that if Jesus were a woman she would see things differently

... here you go talking about about women seeing things (and doing things) 'differently' ... which is code for better ... unless you are saying that the 'differences' result in a worse out-turn!!!

Ambersky wrote: »

and that if the word God is gender neutral so too could the word Goddess.

... only by making the English language completely meaningless!!!:)

Ambersky wrote: »

I suggested that it wouldnt be a bad idea for men to have the experience of being at the end of a language that didnt mention them by name but rather by inference.
Is what I am saying still so threatening in this the 21st Century.

I did not say or suggest a female replacement for all things male.
But as usual equality is so feared it is read as superiority.

If women are to achieve equality ... they must inevitably replace men in every position of authority within each Church ... and I have no problem with that ... when they are orthodox ... and competent ... and Saved.

Peregrinus

Ambersky wrote: »

. . . I found some comfort initially in the fact that not all Christians insisted on the maleness of God and had a more inclusive message. It sounds like you bleep are one of those. But many Christians including the catholic hierarchy do insist on Gods maleness and although they will tell you it’s not really important and that God is beyond gender or definition they will still insist that God or dare I say Goddess is male.

From that insistence of the maleness of God, out of that male world view, comes the patriarchal nature of the churches and the second class nature of women in the churches.

I share your distaste for patriarchy and the oppression of women, Ambersky, but if we’re going to consider this problem we have to face it as it is, and not create some caricature of it.

It’s just not the case that the Catholic hierarchy insist on God’s maleness. On the contrary, Catholic teaching (and all mainstream Christian teaching) is, and always has been, very clear that God has no gender, and that men and women are equally made in God’s image. Whatever the roots of Christian patriarchy may be, they are not to be found in any teaching that God is male, or that maleness is in the image of God.

It’s true that the Judeo-Christian tradition has mostly preferred masculine language and imagery for God over feminine (though both are found in the tradition), but I think what’s going on here is the opposite of what you suggest. People are not taking masculine qualities and projecting them on to God; rather they are taking the qualities they believe God to possess, and claiming them for men. In a society in which God was imaged in primarily female terms, perhaps divine characteristics would be claimed for women, but in both cases the gendered imaging of God is the outcome of ideas about gender¸ not their source.

Ambersky wrote: »

Anyway through my given life experience I have had the opportunity to see things, including the Christian story, differently.

I do actually think that if Jesus had been a woman she would have seen the world differently and that there would now be a very different Christian church.

But I am interested in such surmising because of who I am and because of my experiences, it’s not unique, but it’s probably not where posters on this Christian forum are coming from.

We’ve no reason to think that any other first-century Jewish woman challenged the masculine language and imagery used for God in the Jewish tradition; what makes you so sure that a female Jesus of Nazareth would have done so? We all tend to project our own desires onto God; are you sure you’re not just doing that?

The actual Jesus entirely accepted and affirmed Jewish thinking about God, and ways of speaking of God; what he challenged was Jewish thinking about the Messiah. And in many ways he claimed for himself and urged on his followers qualities and characteristics usually seen as stereotypically female. For example he rejected the idea that the Messiah would be a conquering, victorious military and political leader, and he claimed for himself a form of leadership which was rooted not in command or in status, but in humble and sometimes humiliating service. He rejected the exercise of power, embraced weakness and defeat and encouraged his followers to do the same. His ultimate victory was rooted in a complete surrender of himself. This is pretty much the polar opposite of conventional masculinism.

The other point to make is that we have no reason to think that embracing feminine language and imagery for considering God in fact makes for the kind of egalitarianism that you are speaking of. There are plenty of religions which image divinity in feminine terms; the societies where those religions predominate are not noticeably egalitarian. For example Hinduism has no difficulty at all seeing divinity manifested in both masculine and feminine forms; the Hindu pantheon has as many goddesses as gods. But we know that Hinduism co-existed for centuries with forced marriages, concubinage, purdah and the widespread practice of widow-burning.

If women are perceived to share qualities with the gods, this doesn’t necessarily increase their status, or make them more esteemed or loved; it can just as easily make them more feared and resented. I don’t think it’s a complete coincidence that, the undoubted patriarchy of the church notwithstanding, the society which has come closest to egalitarianism is our own, which has been heavily influenced by a monotheist understanding in which, ultimately, God has no gender.

Ambersky

It’s just not the case that the Catholic hierarchy insist on God’s maleness.

I dont know what would have happend had Jesus been a woman and yes I am projecting my own fantasies onto that fantasy because that's all we can do with something that didnt happen.
Roman Catholic teaching does indeed talk about God being beyond gender and the equality of the sexes. The last Pope called himself a real feminist.
People can say what they like but I would prefer to see how do those beliefs work in practice.
Despite the talk about God being beyond gender, some of the priests who have been using inclusive language and referring to the Motherhood of God etc have been silenced. They may say God is beyond gender but that genderless God had better be referred to as HE.

There is currently a very active conservative movement towards a return to old language and values.
God the Father and God the Son are the only models available in the new liturgy of the mass which never misses an opportunity to use the term "men" to describe human beings.
There have been reports of other silencings of those who want to use inclusive language and of course there is no discussion allowed on women priests.

If God is a creator and higher power who revealed “himself” to mankind, then the whole concept of a gender does not apply. God should really be androgynous – that is, no sex. So why all the masculine references? Sister Elizabeth Johnson, a prominent Catholic female theologian and a professor at Fordham University, asked this question in her recent book Quest for the Living God: Mapping the Frontiers in the Theology of God which has now been banned by the US Conference of Catholic Bishops

http://www.cobourgatheist.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=1079:catholic-bishops-affirm-god-is-male&catid=29:catholics-general&Itemid=126
http://old.usccb.org/comm/archives/2011/11-063.shtml

The same natural resemblance is required for persons as for things: when Christ's role in the Eucharist is to be expressed sacramentally, there would not be this 'natural resemblance' which must exist between Christ and his minister if the role of Christ were not taken by a man: in such a case it would be difficult to see in the minister the image of Christ. For Christ himself was and remains a man.
His Holiness Pope Paul VI,

http://www.papalencyclicals.net/Paul06/p6interi.htm

Female priests 'as sinful' as child abuse, says Vatican

http://www.irishcentral.com/news/Female-priests-as-sinful-as-child-abuse-says-Vatican-98596864.html#ixzz2AkFMQ500

Peregrinus

Ambersky wrote: »

I dont know what would have happend had Jesus been a woman and yes I am projecting my own fantasies onto that fantasy because that's all we can do with something that didnt happen.
Roman Catholic teaching does indeed talk about God being beyond gender and the equality of the sexes. The last Pope called himself a real feminist.
People can say what they like but I would prefer to see how do those beliefs work in practice.
Despite the talk about God being beyond gender, some of the priests who have been using inclusive language and referring to the Motherhood of God etc have been silenced. There is currently a very active conservative movement towards a return to old language and values.
God the Father and God the Son are the only models available in the new liturgy of the mass which never misses an opportunity to use the term "men" to describe human beings.
There have been reports of other silencings of those who want to use inclusive language and of course there is no discussion allowed on women priests.

Sure. I’m not denying any of that, or trying to downplay it. My point is just that the causes of this are not found in any teaching that God is male; they lie elsewhere.

endacl

Ikky Poo2 wrote: »

"If"...??

Seriously, though, what would it have made a difference?

I'd imagine, given the status of women at the time, she would have been married off at 12/13 and would never have been heard of again. Poor girl would have been too busy having babies to find the time to gather disciples. Of course, if Jesus had been a woman, feeding the multitudes with bugger all resources wouldn't have seemed so miraculous...

tommy2bad

if Jesus had been a woman, feeding the multitudes with bugger all resources wouldn't have seemed so miraculous...

So, so true!

endacl

endacl wrote: »

I'd imagine, given the status of women at the time, she would have been married off at 12/13 and would never have been heard of again. Poor girl would have been too busy having babies to find the time to gather disciples.

That's it, really

Ambersky

JC said
... here you go talking about about women seeing things (and doing things) 'differently' ... which is code for better ... unless you are saying that the 'differences' result in a worse out-turn!!!

Yes JC I am saying that differently could turn out worse. Things are not always black and white, good and bad. Different is just that different, it doesnt necessarily mean better than. Women are just as capable of messing things up or getting things right. Their different approach however might just enrich things. Heres a thought, men and women could work together, worship together, equally.

JC said
If women are to achieve equality ... they must inevitably replace men in every position of authority within each Church ... and I have no problem with that ... when they are orthodox ... and competent ... and Saved.

I dont think it is necessary to replace men in everything. Equality would mean equal opportunity to work alongside at all levels and to be believed competent and able to do so.
I have moved far away from wanting to work for change in any Christian church and as I have said I now think so differently from where I began that you couldnt call me a Christian.
There are women who have remained faithful and want to change things more subtly .
I know there are many women who would have loved to do so and that in the Catholic Church there have been many feminists struggling to stay and change it from within. It is particularly difficult to do so at the moment.

Peregrenus said
Sure. I’m not denying any of that, or trying to downplay it. My point is just that the causes of this are not found in any teaching that God is male; they lie elsewhere.

I dont think it is a case of finding one cause for the secondary position of women. There are social conditions too but it is a kind of chicken and egg situation as to which comes first. A male God just in itself doesn't cause it but it probably affirms the superiority of men. The maleness of God has been used, as I have cited, to keep women out of the priesthood in the RC church and there are quite a few objectors even in other churches where a female priesthood is allowed.
Some more Bible based Christians here would probably not allow for a genderless God at all believing that God Divinely revealed himself as Father and as male. They might have also have a more traditional belief about the role of women in the family, in marriage and in churches, as insistence on Gods maleness and literal translations of the Bible seems to have that knock on affect .

endacl is right, despite my fantasies of changing the world and allowing for a female perspective with a female Jesus at that time she wouldnt have made it past 12 or 13.

tommy2bad

Ambersky;
endacl is right, despite my fantasies of changing the world and allowing for a female perspective with a female Jesus at that time she wouldnt have made it past 12 or 13.

I duno about that, Jesus didn't look that promising as the illegitimate son of a carpenter, from a village that few had heard of and living in an occupied country. Being a woman wouldn't have been anymore a problem than those already heaped on him.
What would be different is how She would have went about it, more Mary Magdalen than John the Baptiste. Their are a lot of strong women in the bible, because it's written from a male point of view they tend to get underplayed but that doesn't mean that they are not their.

lmaopml

Ambersky wrote: »

It never ceases to amaze me how often it is that when a woman talks about equality she is read as saying superior or better than.

In my short life span, I have seen a 'battle' of the sexes that has nothing got to do with Christianity.

Who said run by women. Who said replaced by women. Who said better than men. Where did all that come from?

Why so defensive? WE know as women that we work very friggin hard and derserve equality - but exactly what that has to do with Christianity is beyond me.

I guess it is because the dominant non dominant relationship is so familiar it is hard for some people to imagine anything else.
I actually said there was a


I suggested that if Jesus were a woman she would see things differently and that if the word God is gender neutral so too could the word Goddess.
I suggested that it wouldnt be a bad idea for men to have the experience of being at the end of a language that didnt mention them by name but rather by inference.
Is what I am saying still so threatening in this the 21st Century.

I did not say or suggest a female replacement for all things male.
But as usual equality is so feared it is read as superiority.

I think there is a 'fear' here that is being misrepresented! There are females that are very very confident and this is not a 'gender' war...after all we are co-dependant! No man or woman is an island -

I think taking out this particular tension of feminist spirit is misdirected - Jesus is not somebody who said that your 'gender' makes you 'less'....

In fact, as far as not 'worldy' things are concerned he inspired the Apostle to say that there is 'No' male or female, no slave or free man...etc. etc. He was talking about 'higher' things - not in particular 'mens' pride or 'womens' pride movements - that's totally different.

I'm female, I know this.

Peregrinus

Ambersky wrote: »

The maleness of God has been used, as I have cited, to keep women out of the priesthood in the RC church and there are quite a few objectors even in other churches where a female priesthood is allowed.

No, no, no - the maleness of Jesus. But Jesus, remember, in the Christian view, had two natures - divine nature and human nature. Maleness is a characteristic of human nature only, and the Catholic tradition is clear that it’s an error to treat the maleness of Jesus as a divine characteristic. (It’s a heresy, in fact - it’s monophysitism.)

Ambersky

divine nature and human nature. Maleness is a characteristic of human nature only

Its not me you need to be convincing of that argument Peregrinus
Remember the OPs question was at such a basic level about the position of women that the OPs friends were arguing could we be saved if Jesus had been a woman. Remember the OP said that out of that group of friends the majority thought that Jesus had to be male in order to be our savior. Heresy! I say Heresy.
I dont really care about all the complexities of the RC churches arguments about the genderless God that they supposedly believe in, because in practice they have silenced priests who have used feminine descriptions of God, changed the liturgy to an old form of language that uses even more non inclusive language and banned any discussion even of women priests. Actions speak louder than words as far as I am concerned but I know there are others who will continue to argue from within the RC church for equality between the sexes and good luck to them. There are also women and men happy with the way things are now. The question of a female Jesus is just something that raises this issue for some women, it did for me, but I acknowledge that isnt probably the way for many posters here on this forum.
Discussions like this with different perspectives might change opinions or they may help to clarify ones own positions which remain the same or even get stronger.

philologos

Ambersky wrote: »

Its not me you need to be convincing of that argument Peregrinus
Remember the OPs question was at such a basic level about the position of women that the OPs friends were arguing could we be saved if Jesus had been a woman. Remember the OP said that out of that group of friends the majority thought that Jesus had to be male in order to be our savior. Heresy! I say Heresy.
I dont really care about all the complexities of the RC churches arguments about the genderless God that they supposedly believe in, because in practice they have silenced priests who have used feminine descriptions of God, changed the liturgy to an old form of language that uses even more non inclusive language and banned any discussion even of women priests. Actions speak louder than words as far as I am concerned but I know there are others who will continue to argue from within the RC church for equality between the sexes and good luck to them. There are also women and men happy with the way things are now. The question of a female Jesus is just something that raises this issue for some women, it did for me, but I acknowledge that isnt probably the way for many posters here on this forum.
Discussions like this with different perspectives might change opinions or they may help to clarify ones own positions which remain the same or even get stronger.

None of that has anything to do with Jesus or His gender. This is why I suspect this is a non-topic. If the Gospel is from God it isn't ours to change. The Gospel (not the Roman Catholic Church) holds women highly already

Surely if you want to ask us about women clergy create a new thread to discuss that specifically or even RCC teaching about women.

This has turned into the meaningless hypothetical I knew it would become.

Juza1973

bleepp wrote: »

This came up in discussion. If Jesus had been born into the world as a woman, would we still be saved?

I know the real answer myself but just wondering what folk think.

There is no "if" in the history of salvation. Nobody could have designed a way to save man apart from God. Everything went as it should have been, as described in the prophecies. It has no sense to create a theology out of "ifs".