Prophet, Priest, and Queen

In my theology class this semester, my instructor briefly brought up the "scandal of particularity", that is, the idea that God, in a human form, had to limit himself to a particular gender, race, time period, etc. In actuality, God is outside and beyond all these limitations. So men, don't be so smug to assume that this choice God made to send the Son as a male somehow elevated the gender for all time. I believe Maria had the best insight in her comments on my last post: sending a woman messiah to deliver the message would have slowed down the entire process of bringing the kingdom. But just so you understand that by choosing a man for the "job", God did not in the least consider women less competent, notice who our role model for being a disciple is and consider who God chose to be the first person to be resurrected, body and soul, into heaven: his mother, Mary. Not Peter, not Paul, not John.

Anyway, this shouldn't deteriorate into an argument on which gender is "better". I asked a legitimate question in my last post. I don't feel I received any responses of a deeply thoughtful, intellectual nature. Let's try again, shall we?

As far as the whole "prophet, priest, and king" deal... I am equally anointed, as is every other Christian, through my baptism. My Church limits my "priestly" participation, but no more so than anyone else who does not choose to be ordained. In this regard, I am as much a priest as all other baptized Catholics, male and female, and have a responsibility to celebrate liturgically and bring this practice to others.

So, I'm still left considering, could Christ have been a woman? Are there "negative repercussions" of that possibility? And why does this question threaten men?

MISS-iah?

So today I'm having a conversation with mi amigo Dan. He's one of the best people to talk with cause he seriously entertains even my most bizarre questions and comments (and he doesn't let on that they're bizarre either). And the topic today was "Did Jesus have to be a male?"

So humor me on this one. Why couldn't Jesus have been a woman? It seems the only real requirement for the Messiah that was expected was to be of the house of David. Jesus, as it turned out, was not the kind of Messiah that everyone was waiting for. He wasn't about the politcal power. So the Jewish people largely rejected him and kept waiting for the "real thing" to show up.

Now, if the point was for the Messiah to ultimately be rejected (or "misunderstood" in today's lingo), then why couldn't Jesus have been a woman? As we all know (well, at least as most women and a few enlightened men know), who is regularly more misunderstood and/or overlooked in favor of something better coming along than "a woman"?

I could use some "serious" insights on this one. But I don't want anything too deeply couched in theological or philosophical language (nature of being, blah, blah, blah...).

My ultimate conclusion? As I said to Dan, I don't mean to second guess God, but He may have screwed up on this one.

Roadkill

Isn't technology great? It allows clueless people like me to accidently and really without prior knowledge (or present knowledge for that matter) to stumble onto that internet superhighway system.

Oh my gosh... there's roadkill here.