Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 3
WiseWoman

Was Jesus a woman?

45 posts in this topic

Posted (edited)

Shocking Archaeology discovery: Jesus was a girl!

http://www.nobeliefs...s/JesusGirl.htm

"Zahi Mazar, the head of the Institute of Biblical Archaeology at the Shalem Center in Jerusalem and the leader of the dig, exclaimed, "We are amazed!," noting that a painting, a brass relief, and a cylinder object were found in the dig that is actually from a contemporary period, made during the life of Jesus. "It was something we did not plan on," Mazar said. "

http://www.guardian....23/usa.religion

The point, she says, is "that in orthodox Christianity you don't assign gender to God. 'Father' is simply a metaphor for a figure of authority" - which doesn't make God a man, but makes it more important that His feminine qualities - gentleness and nurturing - be emphasised. The same goes for Jesus: regardless of his actual sex, "son of God" is a metaphor for an all-encompassing filial relationship

What do you think?

Edited by WiseWoman
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No, it shows he was a raptor

3 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

well there's a load of gender pronouns associated with Jesus.

well three - him, his and he.

other then thst, yeah why not.

mind you, that makes Mary her lesbian lover. so at least it gets rid of that ridiculous "blood line of Christ" theory.

3 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

Jesus was a girl!

What do you think?

Yes, but only on "tequila Tuesday(s)"...

Edited by lilthor

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I certainly do not think Jesus was a Raptor! lol But there have been so many theories, that I do feel the topic is up for debate. Ahh Tequila Tuesdays...I have to wait unfortunatly until the end of the week to have a drink! lol! :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

In describing the painting, Ephraim Balzar, a professor emeritus at Tel Aviv University, depicted the mural as, "Jesus with flowers in her hair, wearing a pearl necklace and a beaded anklet (ankle bracelet). And note Christ wearing the red lipstick." Also in the painting, "you can see a vertical ichthys that had a special meaning in ancient religions."

Ichthys is Greek for fish, and is represented by two intersecting arcs, commonly known today as the Christian Fish symbol. The Ichthys symbol was commonly depicted by pagans in a vertical fashion to represent the vagina, a symbol of the Great Mother' entrance to the womb. "You have to realize," Balzar said, "that the first Christians were pagans. And since they met and saw Jesus, they certainly would have known if she was a girl or not."

From WiseWoman's first link.

I'm wondering what makes these archeologists think these items depict early Christianity? They could as well have been pagan artifacts.

As far as Jesus being a woman, it's possible I suppose. Early Christian art depicts Jesus as a clean-shaven handsome youth, even boyish in appearance. Some of the first depictions of Jesus were made to look feminine as well, though this doesn't suggest Jesus was actually a woman.

It was not until later under Constantine that Jesus was depicted as a more mature person with a beard.

Edit: I have a link to this but I don't know how to link to it without posting the video. "BBC's The Dark Ages: And Age of Light - The Clash of the Gods(Episode 1)" on Youtube.

Edited by StarMountainKid

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Cheese,

You are obviously a scholar. Of course it could be just pagan depictions, but how to know for sure is the question. Jesus has been depicted as feminine throughout history. I have seen it it my travels throughout Central America. I am going to watch this program BBC ...The Dark Ages: And Age of Light. Thank you for your post! Blessings! :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Edit: I have a link to this but I don't know how to link to it without posting the video. "BBC's The Dark Ages: And Age of Light - The Clash of the Gods(Episode 1)" on Youtube.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EK1KTqjbAjE

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks,

Abramelin! Tomorrow I will watch it. Who know what I will learn... Isn't that the beauty of life? Learning something every day and connecting with humanity? Not everything, but something to look forward to...:)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Joking apart... the Ichthys or fish symbol may well be an important symbol from long before the time of Jesus because it is representative of the geometric shape that results from two overlapping circles which produces the ancient sacred symbol of the Vesica Piscis. The link to early Christianity is pretty clear and indicated by biblical stories about 'fish' but the meaning behind this is clearly a geometric message. It is at the Sea of Galilee, probably near Magdala, that we hear about the miraculous catch of '153' fish.

This number '153' is a numerical sign for the Vesica Piscis as many people know and a strong clue that we should be looking for this geometric shape as it must have had a particular significance in early Christianity and presumably to Jesus. It also had much earlier 'holy' status probably linked to the Goddess.

It makes on wonder how many people know this when they display it on their cars etc...?

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Source of the ICHTHYS symbol: http://ichthys.com/ichthys-explanation.htm

I'm a little doubtful if the crucifix would have been associated with Jesus this early: he/she was called the Christ during his/her life not because of being crucified (around AD 30-36, scholars' best guess AD 33) but because he/she represented the crossing of the divine and mundane in one being.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh come on now damn it! Jesus was no friggin girl, he wasn't even a man. Everyone knows that Jesus Christ was indeed a mushroom!

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Every group wants to claim him as their own. But they don't realize that the spirit is the important thing, not the container.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Shocking Archaeology discovery: Jesus was a girl!

http://www.nobeliefs...s/JesusGirl.htm

"Zahi Mazar, the head of the Institute of Biblical Archaeology at the Shalem Center in Jerusalem and the leader of the dig, exclaimed, "We are amazed!," noting that a painting, a brass relief, and a cylinder object were found in the dig that is actually from a contemporary period, made during the life of Jesus. "It was something we did not plan on," Mazar said. "

http://www.guardian....23/usa.religion

The point, she says, is "that in orthodox Christianity you don't assign gender to God. 'Father' is simply a metaphor for a figure of authority" - which doesn't make God a man, but makes it more important that His feminine qualities - gentleness and nurturing - be emphasised. The same goes for Jesus: regardless of his actual sex, "son of God" is a metaphor for an all-encompassing filial relationship

What do you think?

Seriously? Just stop already. Stop.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why stop? This is a good question..was he a she or a he? No one know's for sure, but who is anyone to dismiss it? Still up for debate. :)

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh come on now damn it! Jesus was no friggin girl, he wasn't even a man. Everyone knows that Jesus the Christ was indeed sexless! (born without genitalia)

Fixed that for you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don’t see why this is so hard to believe really I mean think about it Jesus lived (if you are religious and believe) in a time that women were little more than a commodity and the records were written by men so it follows logic that if such a person was around performing “miracles” that it would be spun in history as it being a man it has happened before.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why stop? This is a good question..was he a she or a he? No one know's for sure, but who is anyone to dismiss it? Still up for debate. :)

The first part of your question ( a bit of April Tomfoolery?) on the gender of Jesus is probably best answered by a glance at bible stories where he/she is clearly depicted as a he but with a special affinity to women and Samaritans. This comes together at the incident of the Samaritan women at the well in John 4 : 1-42 which is a very important account of his delibrate breaking of strong taboos in chatting to this lady and asking her for a drink from her cup. This all happened at Shechem ( called Sychar in the text) which is an ancient holy sanctuary from thousands of years before the time of Jesus and next to the holy mountain of the Samaritans which Jesus refers to in the passage so he is clearly drawing attention to this ancient sacred location and its links to the feminine. His disciples were shocked by his actions which would not have been the case if he was a she?

The second part of your topic on the gender of 'god' is related to the above incident because the ancient sacred sites of the Holy Land were dedicated to Gods and Goddesses, deities of both genders, which of course was overturned by the incoming belief in one male deity. Jesus by his actions and close companionship with Mary of Magdala, Mary Magdalene, was apparently making his position clear at this ancient sanctuary. The Jerusalem hierarchy were strong supporters of the 'one male deity' position and in John 8: 48-49 say to Jesus

'Are we not right in saying that you are a Samaritan and that you are possessed ?'

Jesus replies that he is not possessed but does not respond to the charge of being a Samaritan.

The sacred mountain of the Samaritans,where they believed the main Temple should be, was Mount Gerizim not Jerusalem, and is the one refered to by Jesus in the text and you may note that Jesus says that the mountain and Jerusalem would not in the end be of future importance as places of worship...'we worship what we know', he says.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The first part of your question ( a bit of April Tomfoolery?) on the gender of Jesus is probably best answered by a glance at bible stories where he/she is clearly depicted as a he but with a special affinity to women and Samaritans. This comes together at the incident of the Samaritan women at the well in John 4 : 1-42 which is a very important account of his delibrate breaking of strong taboos in chatting to this lady and asking her for a drink from her cup. This all happened at Shechem ( called Sychar in the text) which is an ancient holy sanctuary from thousands of years before the time of Jesus and next to the holy mountain of the Samaritans which Jesus refers to in the passage so he is clearly drawing attention to this ancient sacred location and its links to the feminine. His disciples were shocked by his actions which would not have been the case if he was a she?

The second part of your topic on the gender of 'god' is related to the above incident because the ancient sacred sites of the Holy Land were dedicated to Gods and Goddesses, deities of both genders, which of course was overturned by the incoming belief in one male deity. Jesus by his actions and close companionship with Mary of Magdala, Mary Magdalene, was apparently making his position clear at this ancient sanctuary. The Jerusalem hierarchy were strong supporters of the 'one male deity' position and in John 8: 48-49 say to Jesus

'Are we not right in saying that you are a Samaritan and that you are possessed ?'

Jesus replies that he is not possessed but does not respond to the charge of being a Samaritan.

The sacred mountain of the Samaritans,where they believed the main Temple should be, was Mount Gerizim not Jerusalem, and is the one refered to by Jesus in the text and you may note that Jesus says that the mountain and Jerusalem would not in the end be of future importance as places of worship...'we worship what we know', he says.

You have good references but you like many have missed one thing, that the bible was written by men and as a record of historical events is taken in faith of the truth obviously this is not an issue but is does give a point of view given by man in a time that women were little more than a commodity and being such the accounts could have been easily written as a man, that said I am by no means saying that the bible is a falsified group of stories but I am saying that you must accept that there is a large room for interpretation as wide as anything a person can think of.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You have good references but you like many have missed one thing, that the bible was written by men and as a record of historical events is taken in faith of the truth obviously this is not an issue but is does give a point of view given by man in a time that women were little more than a commodity and being such the accounts could have been easily written as a man, that said I am by no means saying that the bible is a falsified group of stories but I am saying that you must accept that there is a large room for interpretation as wide as anything a person can think of.

I quite accept that the bible being written by men must have had a big impact on the way stories in it will have been recorded, from oral traditions, with a strong male bias and it seems to me that, for example, the role of Mary of Magdala has been treated in this way from other texts that have come to light. This was clearly encouraged by the church over many years who wanted the 'official' Jesus to meet their criteria and perpetuate a notion of male superiority.

The story of 'the Samaritan women at the Well', depending on how much we can rely on it, is very interesting for several reasons but particularly that Jesus apparently had no qualms about breaking the taboos about Samaritans, talking to a women and asking for a drink from her cup. She was also apparently 5 times married and at the time of the meeting 'living in sin' with a man who was not her husband. None of this seemed to bother Jesus at all who stayed for days at this Samaritan location.

It makes one wonder not so much whether Jesus was a woman but whether the 'Good Samaritan' of another famous biblical story was in fact a woman, a woman of compassion. The attitude of Jesus to Samaritans is highly interesting as he was apparently a southern Jew and the Samaritans should have been treated as the 'enemy'.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

hummm..god a male or female? well if god took a mans rib and made a female and we'r made in his image...wouldnt god be both sexs thatd make him whats the word i'm thinking of here.?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

.

Perhaps Leonardo da Vinci was trying to tell something with his painting The Last Supper....

Where the figure to the right of 'Jesus' (his right).......

Is a female figure...with the left hand of Peter? slicing at her throat......and holding a knife in a concealed fashion in his other hand.

The reproductions of the painting don't show the left hand in so much of a slicing way....but the original looks more slicing....to me.

And we all know what that gesture means.....knife slicing the throat.

A symbol of the killing off of the female Jesus? Perhaps?

Or that Mary Magdalene was the actual 'Jesus' of the bible stories..

The others are in some kind of uproar....gesturing all over the place

The painting can be examined in this link..

http://www.jaydax.co.../lastsupper.htm

.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

.

Perhaps Leonardo da Vinci was trying to tell something with his painting The Last Supper....

Where the figure to the right of 'Jesus' (his right).......

Is a female figure...with the left hand of Peter? slicing at her throat......and holding a knife in a concealed fashion in his other hand.

The reproductions of the painting don't show the left hand in so much of a slicing way....but the original looks more slicing....to me.

And we all know what that gesture means.....knife slicing the throat.

A symbol of the killing off of the female Jesus? Perhaps?

Or that Mary Magdalene was the actual 'Jesus' of the bible stories..

The others are in some kind of uproar....gesturing all over the place

The painting can be examined in this link..

http://www.jaydax.co.../lastsupper.htm

.

From the Gnostic texts the role of Mary Magdalene as companion and confidant of Jesus was a problem to some of the disciples notably Peter.

Leonardo may well have been aware of this element of the biblical stories when painting the Last Supper hence the knife at the throat of Mary.

But looking at the picture you post... who put the doorway below the centre of the painting after it was completed and removing the detail below Jesus and Mary?

Was there a bit of 'footsie footsie' going on under the table which was considered so overt it had to be removed by the 'church' ?

The position of the figures of Jesus and 'Mary' would suggest that something was going on under the table ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

From the Gnostic texts the role of Mary Magdalene as companion and confidant of Jesus was a problem to some of the disciples notably Peter.

Leonardo may well have been aware of this element of the biblical stories when painting the Last Supper hence the knife at the throat of Mary.

But looking at the picture you post... who put the doorway below the centre of the painting after it was completed and removing the detail below Jesus and Mary?

Was there a bit of 'footsie footsie' going on under the table which was considered so overt it had to be removed by the 'church' ?

The position of the figures of Jesus and 'Mary' would suggest that something was going on under the table ?

:o

Lol..... it's a conspiracy....

but of course we don't know what that bit under the table showed.

Re. Peter...... according to the bible and interpretations.....

http://www.online-bi...ostle-peter.htm

Andrew introduced his brother Simon to Jesus. The name Peter, meaning 'rock', was selected by Jesus to indicate the he would be the rock-like foundation on which the Church would be built.

and Da Vinci did his famous painting....Virgin of the Rocks....with more enigmatic pointing and hand gestures.

http://en.wikipedia....e,_c._1480).jpg

Perhaps this was another hint?.......that someone called Mary should have been the 'rock-like foundation' on which the Church would be built.

:huh:

.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

:o

Lol..... it's a conspiracy....

but of course we don't know what that bit under the table showed.

Re. Peter...... according to the bible and interpretations.....

http://www.online-bi...ostle-peter.htm

and Da Vinci did his famous painting....Virgin of the Rocks....with more enigmatic pointing and hand gestures.

http://en.wikipedia....e,_c._1480).jpg

Perhaps this was another hint?.......that someone called Mary should have been the 'rock-like foundation' on which the Church would be built.

:huh:

.

The bit about the possible sub-table activity is just an observation as I noted some time ago that this doorway was put in I think about 100 years after Leonardo did the painting and it is a curious thing to do to the work of a master artist, is it not ?

It only seemed important when various authors interpreted the figure next to Jesus as Mary Magdalene which only recieved wide publicity with the Dan Brown book about the artist and the later film of the book.

The feet of Jesus and 'Mary' must have been in very close proximity... and it just makes one wonder ?

The Gnostic gospels clearly indicate animosity between Peter and Mary who was obviously the close companion and confidant of Jesus, she was also his messenger and leader of the disciples who directed them to Galilee for a final meeting with Christ. The anti - Mary, anti - women Peter must have been a strong influence on how the early church viewed the role of women which seems to be very different to real attitude of Jesus.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 3

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.