Is There A Reason Why Jesus Was Male?

[Kia ora]

As opposed to female?

 

I know that the prophecies call for a son of David, but my thinking is that they're prophecies, looking ahead to what will come to pass. If what will come to pass was a daughter of David, they'd presumably change their tune.

 

My secondary question, and the one I really wanted to discuss (which is why I didn't put it in the Ask a scholar section), is if Jesus was a woman, do you think it would have been better for Christianity?

 

I hope you all had a merry Christmas!

Edited December 26, 2012 by Kia ora

[4588686]

As opposed to female?

 

I know that the prophecies call for a son of David, but they're prophecies, looking ahead to what will come to pass. If what wil come to pass was a daughter of David, they'd presumably change their tune.

 

If Jesus was a woman, do you think it would have been better for Christianity?

 

I hope you all had a merry Christmas!

 

Because Judaism at that time was a patriarchal religion.  

[Kia ora]

Does that matter? Most of the people at the time didn't accept Jesus even though he was male.

[4588686]

Does that matter? Most of the people at the time didn't accept Jesus even though he was male.

 

Yes.  Since Jesus was Jewish and the first Christians were Jewish.  A comparable figure could have come out of a different faith tradition and have been female.  In fact that did happen with the elevation of Mary into a sort of vaguely goddess like figure as the Church was expanding east.  

[KnightofChrist]

This lengthy but informative article explains why God the Father is referred to as a father rather than mother. Much of the same reasons are why Christ was born male rather than female. God the Father and God the Son and God the Holy Ghost are one God in three person, so the reasoning why one is referred to in the masculine is the same for the others. Maybe after Christmas I can give a better answer than just posting a article. Merry Christmas!

http://www.catholicculture.org/culture/library/view.cfm?recnum=8279

[arfink]

To the OP: Well, I think it's always a rather silly thing to try to argue one way or another for what would have been, because such arguments never carry any weight. They are forever bound to speculation. Would it have been better or worse? I don't think anyone can really say much about it.

[KnightofChrist]

The word "Catholic" can be used as a adjective of or involving or relating to the Catholic Church, or as noun a individual member of the Catholic Church. Therefor anti-catholic can be used for someone that attacks the Church or a individual member of the Church.

 

Real world source: http://www.thefreedictionary.com/Catholic

 

Yes, if one attacks another individal because of his or her faith that's bigotry, no matter how many friends of that faith that person may have. Similarly if one attacks an individal because of the pigmentation of his or her skin, that would be also bigotry, no matter how many friends that person may have with the same pigmentation.

 

Any other posts on this subject will be ignored by myself.

Edited December 26, 2012 by KnightofChrist

[Anastasia13]

World English Dictionary

anti-Catholic   — adj 1. opposed to the beliefs, practices, and adherents of the Roman Catholic Church   — n 2. someone opposed to the Roman Catholic Church and its adherents: he called him an anti-Catholic

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/anti-catholic?s=t

[Anastasia13]

Yes.  Since Jesus was Jewish and the first Christians were Jewish.  A comparable figure could have come out of a different faith tradition and have been female.  In fact that did happen with the elevation of Mary into a sort of vaguely goddess like figure as the Church was expanding east.  

 

Actually, from a philosophical and anthropological view point, this has some validity. While the merits/truth/divinity of such another figure would be less qualified, the gender-bias of a society does make it more receptive to the teachings of an individual. The reason for this may have also originated in the natural roles that God has given us, such as the man being the head of a household, Adam coming before Eve, etc. Christ has been compared to a second Adam, and Adam did not have a sex change in history. Similarly, Mary, though highly regarded, is not equally revered.

Edited December 26, 2012 by Light and Truth

[Nihil Obstat]

For OP: Does your question seem clearer if you frame it differently? Specifically: Did God just roll the proverbial dice when deciding if the Christ would be male or female? Or is it even possible that the Incarnation could have been any more effective than it was?

To both, I say no.

[Kia ora]

For OP: Does your question seem clearer if you frame it differently? Specifically: Did God just roll the proverbial dice when deciding if the Christ would be male or female? Or is it even possible that the Incarnation could have been any more effective than it was?

To both, I say no.

 

 

Could have been more effective in its soterological, salvicatory capacity, maybe not. But I didn't use that word effective, I just meant could it have been a good thing, for the Church and for everyone.

 

I can't be the only one to think that if the Saviour of the world was a woman, then gender relations in Western societies for the last two thousand years could have been different.

 

 

To the OP: Well, I think it's always a rather silly thing to try to argue one way or another for what would have been, because such arguments never carry any weight. They are forever bound to speculation. Would it have been better or worse? I don't think anyone can really say much about it.

 

 

I freely admit that it's speculation, but I don't think it's idle speculation. I think crazy questions like these helps me better understand Christianity.

 

For example, what do you think about the first question? Is there anything inherently in Christology that makes a woman saviour impossible or plausible?

[Anomaly]

Whether myth or historical reality, the important thing is god is interacting with humans empathetically as a fellow human.  Gender choice is really only interpreted as relative to societal understanding, acceptance, and understanding are and is generally superfluous.

[Anomaly]

Whether myth or historical reality, the important thing is god is interacting with humans empathetically as a fellow human.  Gender choice is really only interpreted as relative to societal understanding, acceptance, and seems to be generally superfluous to the fundamental empathetic relationship with the whole of humanity.

 

[CountrySteve21]

Personally i think it would have been best for Him to be male, after all, God knows best, and He willed that His Son be male, so it must have been the best, after all  God's Divine Wisdom is far greater than our own feeble minds can understand.

[KnightofChrist]

Had Christ been born a woman, the masculinity of God the Father would then be seriously questioned, if not reseaonably rejected, and the unity of the Trinity as well, since all three Persons of the Trinity are one being. Had Christ been born female it would have be a revelation that God the Father was God the Mother, and this Jesus would have had two mothers rather than one making the relationship between the two mothers spiritual lesbianism. Christ's marriage relationship with Mother Church would also be spiritual lesbianism. God was not born male because of the culture, Christ as man had absolutely no problem rejecting and defying the culture of the time. In defiance of the sexist culture He had women disciples, spoke to women in public, saved women from being stoned for adultery, and first revealed Himself after His resurrection to women rather than men. To argue that God became man because of the culture is to accuse God of the sin of sexism.

 

 

Edited December 26, 2012 by KnightofChrist