Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: wideawake

Christ lived in a male dominated society. Things are different now. If he chose the 21st century to reveal himself I can guarantee you that women would be chosen.Fact is that in his entourage women played major roles but the writers of the gospels, all men never reported on those events. Again the male dominated society. Mary Magdaline was a major player and it was she who first witnessed the risen Christ. So here Christ elevates women to the same level as men. Get the message?


157 posted on 11/16/2006 12:03:29 PM PST by Courdeleon02
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 143 | View Replies ]


To: Courdeleon02
Christ lived in a male dominated society. Things are different now. If he chose the 21st century to reveal himself I can guarantee you that women would be chosen.Fact is that in his entourage women played major roles but the writers of the gospels, all men never reported on those events. Again the male dominated society. Mary Magdaline was a major player and it was she who first witnessed the risen Christ. So here Christ elevates women to the same level as men. Get the message?

**************

I know I am. You're not a Catholic.

160 posted on 11/16/2006 12:06:38 PM PST by trisham (Zen is not easy. It takes effort to attain nothingness. And then what do you have? Bupkis.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 157 | View Replies ]

To: Courdeleon02
"Are you free from a wife? Do not seek marriage. . . . Those who marry will have worldly troubles, and I would spare you that. . . . The unmarried man is anxious about the affairs of the Lord, how to please the Lord; but the married man is anxious about worldly affairs, how to please his wife, and his interests are divided" (7:27-34).

What an absurd idea. Have you ever considered that God chose the time and place where he would reveal himself, and perhaps he had reasons NOT to choose the 21st Century?

161 posted on 11/16/2006 12:08:00 PM PST by The Old Hoosier (Right makes might.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 157 | View Replies ]

To: Courdeleon02
Oops, mis-post. I meant to quote you, not St. Paul.

Here's what I meant to say:

Things are different now. If he chose the 21st century to reveal himself I can guarantee you that women would be chosen.

What an absurd idea. Have you ever considered that God chose the time and place where he would reveal himself, and perhaps he had reasons NOT to choose the 21st Century?

169 posted on 11/16/2006 12:09:45 PM PST by The Old Hoosier (Right makes might.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 157 | View Replies ]

To: Courdeleon02
If he chose the 21st century to reveal himself I can guarantee you that women would be chosen.

That is some statement there.

173 posted on 11/16/2006 12:11:49 PM PST by frogjerk (REUTERS: We give smoke and mirrors a bad name)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 157 | View Replies ]

To: Courdeleon02
Christ lived in a male dominated society.

A meaningless feminist trope meant to denigrate historical cultures who did not hold to the false feminist nostrum that men and women are identical and have identical roles in society.

Things are different now.

Truth does not change with the times.

If he chose the 21st century to reveal himself I can guarantee you that women would be chosen.

What an inordinately prideful statement - on what authority do you provide a guarantee of the actions of the sovereign Lord of the universe?

Fact is that in his entourage women played major roles but the writers of the gospels, all men never reported on those events.

I didn't know the Anointed One of Israel was a hip hop celebrity with an "entourage."

Unless you have some special knowledge that no one else is privy to, what we do know about the events of Christ's life on earth are set down in the Gospels - so your supposed "facts" are not facts at all, but your own fanciful imaginings without any historical basis.

Basically, you are saying that either:

(1) God is a liar, because the Scriptures He revealed to us give us a false picture of His earthly ministry

or

(2) God is powerless to prevent mortal men from distorting His Scriptures - His Word - with lies and omissions.

Again the male dominated society.

Again the anachronistic feminist trope.

Mary Magdaline was a major player and it was she who first witnessed the risen Christ.

A "major player?" Did she option Paul's epistles for publication or negotiate an agency fee for Peter's appointment as Prince of the Apostles?

Mary Magdalene was a faithful and humble follower of Jesus. She was not a "player" in some earthly game of power or position or prestige.

So here Christ elevates women to the same level as men.

In point of fact, Christ placed one woman - His mother - on a level of grace higher than He gave to any man who ever lived.

Men and women are not "equal" any more than up and down are "equal" - people are not equivalent units to be shuffled around interchangeably.

Every human being is a unique individual with a purpose and a vocation who was created specifically and specially by God.

Get the message?

If the message is that Christ somehow ordained Mary Magdalene because he vouchsafed to her the vision of His risen glory, you have missed the entire point of the Gospels.

No one has a right to demand anything of Christ - the sons of Zebedee were taught that lesson.

No one has any right to be ordained.

It is a privilege.

And let me step back and contextualize how preposterous your notion of the "Jesus, the helplessly timebound Messiah" is.

First, the Jewish tradition venerated women - Jews made pilgrimages to the tombs of the holy matriarchs and counted Deborah as one of the judges of Israel. Zipporah rescued Moses himself from beinmg destroyed by God's wrath. Judith rescued Jerusalem from Nebuchadnezzar. Every year the Jews celebrated a special festival in honor of Esther, who rescued the exiled Jewish people from destruction.

The list of Jewish venerations for holy women could go on for ages.

So the Jews were not averse at all to the notion of God appointing holy women. It surely would not have offended them.

The pagan peoples around the Jews had entire priesthoods that were open only to women, priesthoods like that of the great goddess Cybele, whose priestesses were waited on hand and foot by castrated male slaves and who decided when sowing and harvest were permitted - i.e. they had the power to feed or starve the people.

So the pagan peoples around the Jews would not have hesitated for a second to accept women religious leaders.

So even if Jesus was truly worried about not offending anyone's sensibilities he would have had no cause to worry by naming women as his emissaries (Apostles).

Of course, Jesus did not care at all about offending the sensibilities of anyone, Jew or pagan.

He commanded His Apostles to violate the Sabbath by gathering grain on the Sabbath.

He publicly violated the Sabbath by healing a man in the synagogue of Caphernaum in the presence of the synagogue's leaders.

He publicly claimed to be God Almighty - the worst blasphemy possible among the Jews and a scarcely more respectable claim among the pagans.

He publicly advocated cannibalism in the minds of the Jews by offering them His blood to drink and His flesh to eat - the worst kind of uncleanness possible according to the Law.

Jesus was not constrained at all by any social mores.

He ate with publicans and with prostitutes - offenses the Jewish community normally responded to with shunning and excommunication from the synagogue.

Jesus appointed whom He appointed because it pleased Him and His heavenly Father to do so.

The Lord of the universe was not motivated by any timidity or peevishness regarding social opinions.

211 posted on 11/16/2006 12:46:01 PM PST by wideawake ("The nation which forgets its defenders will itself be forgotten." - Calvin Coolidge)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 157 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson