Are you kidding? Do you really believe a female espousing the same views as Hitler could have led Germany in that era?
I think it’s ultimately ignorant of history to believe that Jesus being born as a female would ultimately have had any noticeable effect on his/her achievements. After all, it’s a pretty important part of Jesus’ life that he had disciples to begin with, not just that he was executed (note: a lot of people were executed by the Romans); I’m afraid I seriously doubt a woman would have garnered that respect. Look at the early Church. Are a significant number of church leaders and figures female? Why aren’t any of the apostles female?
While I admire (and share) your philosophy that says
in general, I’m afraid that gender really IS relevant in how society treats you. Do you think that it wouldn’t have mattered if Alexander the Great, or Julius Caesar, or George Washington, or whomever was a female? They would have achieved just as much that way? If so, what does it say about women that so few notable leaders and historical figures are female?
Most human societies are vigorously patriarchal. The Hebrews were certainly no exception.
I Googled the net very hard and Asked Jeeves, too, and I couldn’t come up with a cite, though I came up with enough stuff that that they did in Biblical times that I’m confident in my general notion that they were a vicious lot. I rememeber being surprised at the hot iron treatment being in the Bible myself – didn’t seem the sort of thing that would get into the Bible. Then again, the part where the Israelis are told by God to kill all the menfolk and all the women who’ve had sex in a tribe and keep all the female virgins as their “servants” also seems unapologetically brutal, but it’s in there.
Anybody else come across this reference? I went to Baptist churches as a kid and I suppose it COULD be something some deranged hellfire preacher made up to make Hell seem more convincing.
You’re absolutely right about the fact that the generals mostly despised her at the beginning, but from what I understand the common troops adored her. They truly thought she was blessed by God with true visions, which was how she got the attention of the King in the first place. Kings (or Dauphins as he was then) do not, as a rule, speak with peasant girls because they’ve asked politely. She already had a rep when she got her first command, and he flat-out used that credibility to inspire his otherwise demoralized troops. Otherwise he would’ve been forced, between the armies of Burgundy and England, to concede either vast chunks of territory or the throne of France to one of the Henrys.
All this, of course, is just one take on what happened, and I’m sure someone is chomping at the bit to call me wrong, so I’ll just toss in the obvious caveat: I Am Not A Historian.
I mentioned it in my first post but I’ll mention it again…
If God sent a woman to earth to be the messiah could she have failed? Could Jesus have failed? What does that say of God?
In another thread here, Who Was Jesus To YouJack Batty answered, * "Jesus Christ - Who was he: A charismatic Jew, who had a lot of really great ideas about love; a well-spoken teacher and leader who was wrongly persecuted and had a religion started in his name.
Jesus Christ - Who is he now: A charismatic Jew, who had a lot of really great ideas about love; a well-spoken teacher and leader who was wrongly persecuted and had a religion started in his name – whose been dead for about 2000 years." *
Personally I agreed with that definition and the assumption of that the messiah must be a man only reinforces my opinoin that this is correct. If you lived back then and were poking about with forming a new religion you wouldn’t even think twice about whether your messiah should be a man or a woman…a man is the only reasonable choice if you hoped to succeed.
However, if a woman was truly the daughter of God and pulling off miracles why couldn’t she succeed as well? If you saw a full-blown miracle occur in front of you would you even hesitate being in awe of the person who did it because the person who did it was a female? Certainly some polytheistic religions were alive and well at the time and included female deities so would they really have had trouble accepting a female messiah if she was producing evidence of her divinity?
As long as we’re playing Whjat If, let’s move Jessica Christ from Palestine to the British Isles, about sixty years earlier, when Caeser was deposing Queen Boadicea and turning Brittania from a matriarchal society to a patriarchal one. This might have been a fortuitous time for a female saviour to make an appearance, spread Her word out among Celtic northern Europe, and make essentially the same impact with a slightly different message.
Today, the Cathoilic church would be run by nuns, whose sexual predations on teenaged boys would go largely unreported. Abortion would be discouraged, but not completely proscribed. Outlaw women in Utah would have numerous submissive husbands. Sarah MacLaghlan would be the top draw in Vegas. Eric Bogosian would dear up a photo of Pope (or would that be Mere?) Sinead on SNL. Sacramental wine would be Guinness.
It’s certainly a different question depending on whether one believes in the divinity of Christ or not. Presumably, if (Judith?) Christ was in fact the daughter of God, that would signify that God felt that a female Savior would spread the Word more effectively. That would also likely imply that the Old Testament would be different at various points, particularly those passages that prophesy a male Messiah. So if she had God on her side, it’s hard to see how she could fail to establish herself. Otherwise, it does seem a lot less likely, though perhaps not impossible. I’m not aware of any Hebrew tradition of the time that allowed for the female equivalent of the itinerant rabbi, so I guess that she would have had to have kept a lower profile in the beginning to avoid stoning. ("…are there any women here today?"–Life of Brian)
It’s interesting to speculate how this would have affected her following. Would she have been more likely to gather female Apostles? Of course, Jesus was famous for catering to the poor and dispossessed, so maybe there wouldn’t have been that much difference. But perhaps her ministry would have taken a form closer to the Eastern mystery cults, with priestesses and secret rites.
Assuming that Christianity eventually established itself, it’s tempting to speculate that the Church might have been less misogynistic with a female Savior, but I’m not entirely convinced that would be the case. In actual, historical Christianity, the figure of the Virgin Mary is reverenced greatly, even in some areas more prominently than Jesus, yet I don’t get the sense that there’s any strong correlation with the status of women in those cultures. Generally it’s still a man who gives the sermons.
And of course, one other difference-- there’d be at least one Catholic Church with a reliquary containing the Menstrual Cloth of Christ.
I think a part of the problem with this discussion is that we’re putting too much of our modern consciousness into ancient people. Now, I certainly hope and expect that I wouldn’t be swayed by the person’s gender, but then my views of gender differences are a mighty bit different than those of the average first century CE Hebrew.
There are polytheistic religions around today, but I can’t say they really sway most monotheistic Westerners. I imagine about the same would hold for the Hebrews of the day.
I also tend to think there’s a pretty big difference between worshipping a pantheon of gods that includes females, and accepting that a female human who is preaching in your society is the incarnation of a single God.
I think Terrifel makes a point central to the issue:
**
As a non-Christian, I’m making certain assumptions. Even assuming the divinity of Christ, most people wouldn’t have had a chance to see divine miracles. Christianity thriving is based on faith, and the small group of people that surrounded Jesus aside, virtually all Christians then and since did not have the chance to see any miracles (true or not). Would, then, Christianity still exist if Christ had been female? I doubt it. After all a large part of Christianity taking hold as a world religion is becoming the state religion of Rome, and Rome was just as patriarchal and hostile to women (if not more so) than the Hebrews.