Giddyup
Not to beat a dead horse, but if Jesus had been a woman, would he have said "mommy" instead of "Abba?"
posted by CAL at
10:07 AM
About
About Me
- Name: CAL
- Location: Coon Rapids, Minnesota, United States
Finished my Masters degree in Religious Education. Switched jobs to Sr. High Youth Programs at Pax Christi Catholic Church in Eden Prairie. Continuing to adjust to life.
Previous
36 Comments:
But then wouldn't Jesus have two mommies? Wouldn't that lead to problems?
By
Alan, at 10:46 AM
Doesn't he have two dads?
By
Matthew B. Novak, at 11:49 AM
Hmm, where have I heard this one before?
By
empeterson, at 12:44 PM
He does have Joseph as a sort of step father, but Jesus was concieved by the Holy Spirit. I don't think they wanted to bend the rules so much as to have Mary impregnated by another woman. Dunno. If you think about the genetics of it things get a little nuts. The Holy Spirit's addition of some kind of genetic material to create a human person. Whatever.
By
Alan, at 2:37 PM
Okay, you're all overlooking that Jesus was FULLY human, and FULLY divine, not like 50% human, 50% Holy Spirit. So his DNA wasn't half a strand, it was complete. As in earthly mother and father contributing. And I'm not suggesting that Mary had sex to acheive this. But ponder it for awhile.
So, what if Jesus had come to earth as a woman, with an earthly father and mother... would that make him/her less the Messiah?
By
CAL, at 9:09 PM
So you're saying Jesus was a sort of divine test tube baby?
By
Alan, at 9:42 PM
No. It's just a mystery that He was both fully divine and fully human. And no, He wouldn't have been any less the Messiah. The gender wasn't important to that.
The one thing I had said early about the priesthood I think needs to be clarified though... The Church's position is that for some reason or other God doesn't call women to be ordained priests. If this is true, and one of Jesus' roles was as an ordained priest, then it would be consistent for him to be male. I'm not saying that his being male proves women aren't called to be ordained, or anything like that, just that it would be consistent.
Just for the record, I don't see a very strong argument on either side of the women priest debate. There is only weak circumstancial evidence to support the claim that God doesn't call women to be ordained. And on the opposite side, "women can do anything men can do" has no direct bearing on revealing Divine Will. So basically I think we're left in the dark on this issue, with no real evidence one way or the other as to whether God calls women to be ordained.
And if anyone tries to assert that Church's position is something other than what I presented it as I'm going to intellectually beat that person over the head with a 2x4; even if people make other arguments this is the only real argument the Church has, and it is easily their strongest.
By
Matthew B. Novak, at 8:36 AM
i like how you describe Tradition as "weak circumstancial evidence".... just something to think about....
By
Eric Michael Peterson, at 8:40 AM
Well, in this case, there's a whole lot of question about whether it is Tradition, or just tradition. And that's a lot of the problem.
By
Matthew B. Novak, at 9:12 AM
i have always seen it referred to as Tradition, where have you seen it as tradition???? and where is the debate between the two coming from?
By
Eric Michael Peterson, at 12:08 PM
The debate comes from all over. Also, I would push the T/tradition issue by asking if it falls into the same sorts of things as other Inspired Tradition. I mean, what else qualifies as Inspired Tradition? The Assumption of Mary, Saints, stuff like that, right? This sure seems different from those sorts of issues - I guess it seems to me that women as priests is a policy thing, and not necessarily a theology thing, though it may be a theology thing too. I don't know if it falls into big-T or little-T (what begins with T?) tradition. So, I guess I'm just saying, I don't know, and frankly, I don't think anyone really knows right now, because there hasn't been enough discourse on the topic.
By
Matthew B. Novak, at 2:25 PM
ok, the genetics of it wouldn't work at all. See you need two gametes (egg/sperm) to have any genes at all. Those genes on the egg/sperm combine and then undergo crossing over in meiosis and then from there they undergo mitosis and divide into other cells and eventually thse cells form tissues and then a human is formed. So, you can't have genes without two gametes, a male version and a female version. It just doesn't work. So instead of being totally messed up, it just straight up would not happen. Like Matt's post on physics and speed, two different things. Need more information there are 3 scientist, 2 pure, in the family who should know this stuff.
By
Kendrick Novak, at 3:31 PM
now i do not think that is right, i think there has been a great deal of discourse on the topic, i dont think that you, or i, necessarily know what all of it is though. i firmly believe that it is Tradition with a big T, but that is what i believe, and i guess i believe that based on what i know, what i have learned, and what i have heard as an explanation....
By
Eric Michael Peterson, at 3:33 PM
First of all, Kendrick, I think your scientific observations, while stunning and way over my head, are less important than you make them, because as it is, the Holy Spirit doesn't have any physical being, so it already had to overcome physical impossibilities, and the whole gender one could have been overcome too. Also, see my page again for a further clarification/question on the speed/temperature thing.
And, to Eric - Just because there has been a great deal of discourse doesn't mean we've arrived at a solution, or, more importantly, the right solution. As for me, I don't know/believe one way or the other as to whether it is big T or little t tradition. And I base my lack of a conclusion on the same things you do - "what I know, what I have learned, and what I have heard" aren't enough for a conclusion. The explanations out there aren't convincing. I'd suggest being open to not having a conclusion.
By
Matthew B. Novak, at 4:02 PM
Ah see my scientific stuff was just to say that he couldn't have had 2 moms or 2 dads because you need of each to make a kid, unless it was just put into the mother like as in jesus's case (or something like that)
By
Kendrick Novak, at 4:49 PM
i like your point kendrick.... matt.... i am not sure that i can be open on this.... in some things i can be... but i have to believe that 2000 years of Tradition, big T or little t mean something. its what the Catholic Church is... its scripture and tradition, working together to reveal God.... i have to stand with the Church on this one.... and i will continue to...
By
Eric Michael Peterson, at 7:13 PM
Eric, the Church wants us to keep thinking about these things. And that's why there haven't been "conclusions" or solutions to MANY of these discussions. And there may never be. It's always ok to question, discuss, disagree, pose alternative ideas. This is not rejecting our faith or Church teaching. I think it's dangerous to accept hook, line, and sinker (in the name of being a good, faithful, ORTHODOX Catholic) everything presented in that same name, without thoroughly examining it for ourselves and understanding what meaning it holds for us.
Kendrick, yeah, you're showing good thinking with the genetics thing. That's my point: to be fully human, you need that male/ female thing. So we know Jesus WAS fully human; what are the repercussions of that? On a related note, into the early centuries, the common understanding was that MEN created the child in the womb, and that women were simply the vessel holding/ carrying the child: they did not contribute "material" to the baby. Obviously we know differently now, but it goes a ways in showing why it was so important that Jesus somehow be connected to a human father. Even though it was common knowledge that Jesus was illegitimate (not Joseph's son). I have to wonder, why even bother? To keep Mary from being stoned?
By
CAL, at 8:25 PM
ok, my deal is this... i am not open on this because... i believe that men, not women are called to the priesthood, i have never bought anything in my life with out first looking at it. i make rash decisions from time to time, but not in my faith (at least i try not to). in my belief on this, i look at the tradition of the Church, the scripture, the boatloads of teaching, and then, like in any other matter i pray and work in out for myself. this is the same process that i use for any teaching or beliefs that i do not understand. i didnt make it clear before, but i wish to now. i believe what i do through the use of scripture tradition and revelation... i am not saying that because someone else says its right then it is.... to go about life like that, to take everything as is without the least bit of questioning is ignorance. to be clear, this is what i believe, and this is how i have come to it.
several times i have proven to be less then clear in my comments... i hope this is not one of those times.
By
Eric Michael Peterson, at 10:54 PM
No, you're clear. I think you're missing the fact, however, that the Tradition is arguably only tradition, and therefore not something on which to base your decision. Also, the Scripture and "boatloads of teachings" on the subject all stres the fact that Christ called only men to be apostles. Just because the 12 apostles were all men does not mean that only men were called. Now if it is true that only men are called to be ordained then, yes, this evidence is consistent with this fact. But this evidence doesn't PROVE the fact.
So I guess what I'm saying is that nobody doubts your very sincere attempts to come to a position on this, but that I feel not having a position on this is better than having one. Go ahead and lean slightly one way or the other - I do, though I'm not fond of revealing which way I lean - but don't have a position when the evidence is so weak. And if you are being honest about your coming to a conclusion, then you'll see that the evidence really is weak. On both sides.
By
Matthew B. Novak, at 9:05 AM
i have come to my conclusion even though the evidence as you have put it is week, however so, i have drawn my conclusion, and for good or ill, i have an answer to the question... you may call it folly, but its what i believe.
By
Eric Michael Peterson, at 9:38 AM
You can change you know... I used to have an answer to the question too. Then I had the other answer. Now I have none. And I'm better for it.
By
Matthew B. Novak, at 11:25 AM
WHERE'D THE HORSE COME FROM? YOU SAID NOT TO BEAT A DEAD HORSE, WHAT HORSE? AAAAAHHHHHH!
By
Lady, at 11:52 AM
I rode a horse this year!!
By
Kendrick Novak, at 1:31 PM
i know i change... especially now... im a college kid.... thats what life is about now, growth and change. i have my answer.... its what i see as the truth.... i can not speak for what i will believe five years from now... the truth is i do not know (and i am not closed to the possibility of change). however, i would like to thank you (matt) and of course cindy too, for the chance to think a little bit more about what i believe and why i do. thank you for challenging me.... and please always do, challenge encourages thought, and growth.... thats it... im done.
By
Eric Michael Peterson, at 7:48 PM
Final word: Save a horse, ride a cowboy!
By
CAL, at 8:16 PM
Final, FINAL word: or a cowGIRL.
By
CAL, at 8:17 PM
Wow reading all of this makes my head hurt...It's certainly interesting stuff though...
By
Emily Powell, at 11:05 PM
Ride a cow girl eh? Now you're making sense.
By
Alan, at 10:23 PM
ALAN! ugh, what a typical male response. jk
By
Lady, at 2:03 PM
*cough*showoff*cough*.... what... did someone say something?
By
Alan, at 10:06 AM
Isn't wisdom how they often referred to The Holy Spirit, wouldn't that give the Holy Spirit a sort of female presona?
By
Alan, at 10:08 AM
Think of it this way. Jesus could have just as easily been made a woman or a man, however, as a woman he would have had a huge cultural and tradition gap to breach in order to "spread the word". Raised a a jewish GIRL in that time period would have included being married off at a young age to a suiter of her parents choosing. Womens roll in society was as second class citizens and she would have had no credibility. Any wisdom she spoke would have been attributed to her husband. Claiming to be the daughter of Jehova would have been not only blasphemy, but also laughable to the Jews of this time period. The disciples would not have followed a women, it would have been unheard of and unprecedented. While it is true that all things are possible for God, I feel that it was neccessary for Jesus to be a man. There is also the little factor of fullfilling the prophecies, which you will recall claim the mesiah to be the SON of david. It is an interesting thought provoking question, but I think we can all agree that GOD is infallible and things are the way they are for a reason.
By
Nate, at 4:46 PM
Close, Nate, close.
"Women's role in society WAS as second class citizens." Okay, so where's the progress??
By
CAL, at 8:20 PM
So anyway, that's why I love talking to Dan. He can make some good points!
By
CAL, at 8:23 PM
Whatever happened to the "final word" and then the "final final word" doesn't that make the subject closed? Although, Dan, that was so cool. I think I'm going to print that and post it somewhere.
By
empeterson, at 8:56 PM
dan... dan... dan... you know, i did not catch this the first time through... however, when you say.....
"Is it me or do guys in general have a problem answering a question as it is asked? They seem to decide what they would like the question to be and go from there."
The question to which you are commenting is not "what if Jesus was a woman" although it did involve that. the question was.... "if Jesus was a woman would Jesus have said mother instead of 'abba'?" that is the question... so i say to you dan lockwood.... welcome to the club... you can not answer a question as asked either...
By
Eric Michael Peterson, at 10:49 PM
Post a Comment
<< Home