-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Was Jesus Androgynous?
- Thread starter Fool
- Start date
Buddha Dharma
Dharma Practitioner
Not sure about that, but the Gospel of Phillip claims Jesus appeared to everyone just as they thought him to be- as an old man, child, etc.
However, you would think if Jesus were God and Genesis is correct- Jesus being both follows...
The Gospel of Luke has the Temple rites for a newborn male child performed. Presumably Mary looked at some point.
The mohel would have said something I am sure
Skwim
Veteran Member
It would appear so. And because Jesus didn't have female breasts, but rather the chest of a male, I think it's logical he compensated by not having a
wee wee pee pee, but rather a 'gina.
This is where you were headed, wasn't it?
.
Jesus was circumcised according to the Gospel of Luke. Therefore, he had a penis, manly parts. This event, when Jesus was brought under the law of Moses like every Jewish male by having his foreskin cut off, is a sacred feast in traditional Christian churches:
Feast of the Circumcision of Christ - Wikipedia
Actually, there was a very ancient but now (for rather obvious reasons given modern sensibilities) largely under-emphasised tradition of venerating Jesus's "Holy Foreskin":
Holy Prepuce - Wikipedia
So, undoubtedly, Jesus was "all man".
But he was a man who wasn't afraid to refer to himself using feminine imagery. For instance, he described himself as a mother hen:
Feast of the Circumcision of Christ - Wikipedia
The Feast of the Circumcision of Christ is a Christian celebration of the circumcision of Jesus in accordance with Jewish tradition, eight days (according to the Semitic and southern European calculation of intervals of days)[1] after his birth, the occasion on which the child was formally given his name.[2][3]
The feast day appears on 1 January in the liturgical calendar of the Eastern Orthodox Church.[4] In the General Roman Calendar, the 1 January feast, which from 1568 to 1960 was called "The Circumcision of the Lord and the Octave of the Nativity".
It is celebrated by some churches of the Anglican Communion and virtually all Lutheran churches
The feast day appears on 1 January in the liturgical calendar of the Eastern Orthodox Church.[4] In the General Roman Calendar, the 1 January feast, which from 1568 to 1960 was called "The Circumcision of the Lord and the Octave of the Nativity".
It is celebrated by some churches of the Anglican Communion and virtually all Lutheran churches
Actually, there was a very ancient but now (for rather obvious reasons given modern sensibilities) largely under-emphasised tradition of venerating Jesus's "Holy Foreskin":
Holy Prepuce - Wikipedia
The Holy Prepuce, or Holy Foreskin (Latin præputium or prepucium), is one of several relics attributed to Jesus, a product of the circumcision of Jesus. At various points in history, a number of churches in Europe have claimed to possess Jesus' foreskin, sometimes at the same time. Various miraculous powers have been ascribed to it.
Mary Dzon says that for many people during the Medieval period, devotion to the Holy Prepuce reflected a focus on the humanity of Jesus.[4]
According to Farley, "Depending on what you read, there were eight, twelve, fourteen, or even 18 different holy foreskins in various European towns during the Middle Ages."[6] In addition to the Holy Foreskin of Rome (later Calcata), other claimants included the Cathedral of Le Puy-en-Velay, Santiago de Compostela, the city of Antwerp, Coulombs in the diocese of Chartres, as well as Chartres itself, and churches in Besançon, Metz, Hildesheim, Charroux.[9]Conques, Langres, Fécamp, and two in Auvergne.
Mary Dzon says that for many people during the Medieval period, devotion to the Holy Prepuce reflected a focus on the humanity of Jesus.[4]
According to Farley, "Depending on what you read, there were eight, twelve, fourteen, or even 18 different holy foreskins in various European towns during the Middle Ages."[6] In addition to the Holy Foreskin of Rome (later Calcata), other claimants included the Cathedral of Le Puy-en-Velay, Santiago de Compostela, the city of Antwerp, Coulombs in the diocese of Chartres, as well as Chartres itself, and churches in Besançon, Metz, Hildesheim, Charroux.[9]Conques, Langres, Fécamp, and two in Auvergne.
So, undoubtedly, Jesus was "all man".
But he was a man who wasn't afraid to refer to himself using feminine imagery. For instance, he described himself as a mother hen:
Matthew 23:37 and Luke 13:34 God as a Mother Hen
Jesus: “Jerusalem, Jerusalem, the city that kills the prophets and stones those who are sent to it! How often have I desired to gather your children together as a hen gathers her brood under her wings, and you were not willing!”
You might say, therefore, that Jesus was in touch with his "feminine" side. But no - he wasn't androgynous, he was male.Jesus: “Jerusalem, Jerusalem, the city that kills the prophets and stones those who are sent to it! How often have I desired to gather your children together as a hen gathers her brood under her wings, and you were not willing!”
Kelly of the Phoenix
Well-Known Member
Didn't look at his DNA to confirm gender identity.
Buddha Dharma
Dharma Practitioner
1) We know from nature one can have manly parts and female parts. It can happen.
2) This opens what the OP mentioned to be discussed- that Genesis claims male and female are in God's image
jesus was to adam what mary was to eve.
jesus said, "mother, i couldn't stay another day longer"
behold thy mother
When Jesus saw his mother there, and the disciple whom he loved standing nearby, he said to her, "Woman, here is your son,"
Buddha Dharma
Dharma Practitioner
Wouldn't male and female being made in the image of, assuming it means physical image- have that as a given?
Hmm I thought it was seen as bigotry to debate someone else's gender?
I recall a RF member not so long ago claiming that someone's gender is not up for debate.
Do you regularly participate in these activities @Fool ?
i would think so. it doesn't imply otherwise because of the conjunction.
the angels were sometimes painted as such and thought as such.
naw
the idea was that if God is androgynous then if Jesus was exclusively god then was he too?
as some posters have shown, he wasn't physically androgynous. the spirit of god is considered to be a feminine aspect in hebrew and the manifestation a masculine one.
adam = jesus & eve = mary.
only after the kingdom was divided did it fall
I don't regard Jesus' gender as being of overriding importance. The crucial factoid is that he became incarnate in human form. Nonetheless, as a simple point of historical accuracy, it would be plainly untrue to claim that he was anything other than male.
In his highly conservative first century Judean cultural context, he simply had to be male - all male - to enable his message to get heard. Had he been a hermaphrodite, prejudicial people of the era wouldn't have followed him. This was a period when women - perfectly normal women - were considered unclean and untouchable for having a period, something Jesus stood up against. Can you imagine how they would have treated hermaphrodites? One shudders to think what people must have endured.
That Genesis verse is not referring to literal androgyny. Consider what it actually says:
"God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him, male and female he created them."
It explains that human beings were created in God's image and posses it no matter their gender. What is this image, exactly? God is a pure, imageless, sexless Spirit-Being transcending gender. To be made in His Image is to posses something in one's heart, at the core of your being - your mind - which is beyond distinction of gender, which makes us completely equal with other human beings.
The Catechism of the Catholic Church says,
“In no way is God in man’s image. [God] is neither man nor woman. God is pure spirit in which there is no place for the difference between the sexes. But the respective ‘perfections’ of man and woman reflect something of the infinite perfection of God: those of a mother and those of a father and husband” (CCC, 370).
Last edited:
and that is a beautiful thing to see, and even to experience.
22. Jesus saw some babies nursing. He said to his disciples, "These nursing babies are like those who enter the (Father's) kingdom."
They said to him, "Then shall we enter the (Father's) kingdom as babies?"
Jesus said to them, "When you make the two into one, and when you make the inner like the outer and the outer like the inner, and the upper like the lower, and when you make male and female into a single one, so that the male will not be male nor the female be female, when you make eyes in place of an eye, a hand in place of a hand, a foot in place of a foot, an image in place of an image, then you will enter [the kingdom]."
what does love look like? a man? a woman?
yes, with LOVE all things are
I AM that kingdom
There was an interesting book written by a Catholic scholar a number of years back that argued Jesus, in the context of his time, was a "feminist" or "proto-feminist". See here:
https://www.amazon.co.uk/Jesus-Was-Feminist-Revolutionary-Perspective/dp/1580512186
To me, his attitude towards women and his attempt to ameliorate their condition are infinitely more important than ahistorical attempts (however well-motivated) to deny his manhood, or at least to androgynize him.
He was a man who believed women were equal to men and personally acted upon that belief in his treatment of women. And he was man enough to be open and frank about his feminine side, in a heavily patriarchal era. That's enough, surely?
The plain fact of the matter is that he was a bloke. An egalitarian bloke who occasionally spoke about himself using feminine terminology but a bloke nonetheless.
BTW his most beautiful use of feminine imagery, I think, was when he compared himself and his disciples to a woman giving birth:
https://www.amazon.co.uk/Jesus-Was-Feminist-Revolutionary-Perspective/dp/1580512186
To me, his attitude towards women and his attempt to ameliorate their condition are infinitely more important than ahistorical attempts (however well-motivated) to deny his manhood, or at least to androgynize him.
He was a man who believed women were equal to men and personally acted upon that belief in his treatment of women. And he was man enough to be open and frank about his feminine side, in a heavily patriarchal era. That's enough, surely?
The plain fact of the matter is that he was a bloke. An egalitarian bloke who occasionally spoke about himself using feminine terminology but a bloke nonetheless.
BTW his most beautiful use of feminine imagery, I think, was when he compared himself and his disciples to a woman giving birth:
John 16:21 (NRSV)
Jesus said: When a woman is in labor, she has pain, because her hour has come. But when her child is born, she no longer remembers the anguish because of the joy of having brought a human being into the world. So you have pain now; but I will see you again, and your hearts will rejoice, and no one will take your joy from you.
Jesus said: When a woman is in labor, she has pain, because her hour has come. But when her child is born, she no longer remembers the anguish because of the joy of having brought a human being into the world. So you have pain now; but I will see you again, and your hearts will rejoice, and no one will take your joy from you.
Last edited:
Orbit
I'm a planet
But is Jesus God?