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.
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.
posted by CAL at
8:03 PM
3 Comments:
Well, this isn't really an answer, but it's an interesting observation:
If we assume that the Church is right in saying that women aren't called to the priesthood then Christ being a man is at very least consistent with this position, given the whole "prophet, priest and king" thing. Ooh, "king thing." It rhymes.
By
Matthew B. Novak, at 2:18 AM
I think it was just God's way of not showing up the people in power too much. i mean seriously, guys all speak the samae language and since they were the chauvinist pigs who had teh power he had to send a man. I mean seriously, they didn't understand what Jesus was saying in the first place, have a woman say it and man would they have been lost(it's the higher intellect thing)
By
Lady, at 11:15 AM
hmmm..... Cindy..... Cindy..... Cindy....... A woman? clearly God did not mess anything up.... Jesus was a man becasue he was supposed to be. If God wanted HIM to be a lady then clearly it would have been done that way. Oh, by the way.... what was su amigo dans response?
By
Eric Michael Peterson, at 10:03 AM
Post a Comment
<< Home