Is it wrong that a female portray Jesus Christ?

[Kangaroo Feathers]

The early Church needed to portray Jesuis as both genders. It was reversing itself in to Roman culture and theology and female dieties were as important as male dieties.

An example is this early picture of Jesus (the baptism?) where he has child bearing hips and most delicate features. A woman could model this Jesus better than a man, I think.
View attachment 31106

But if Western Christians p[refer a true portrayal of Jesus then pictures like this next one are just a joke.
View attachment 31107

Jesus was not made of tiles or paint! These images are sacrilegious!

 

[Jonathan Bailey]

We do not live in 1993 anymore, this is now the 21st century if somebody hasn't informed you yet.

The definition of sex and gender doesn't change with the centuries.

The English alphabet is no different in 2019 as it was in 1919.

The number 5 has been the same old number 5 for thousands of years.

The sun and moon rise and set no differently now than they did 5,000 years ago.

I believe male and female were created by God for all of time or at least as long as life on earth as we know it shall continue. Don't tell me life as we once knew it is no more.

Some things never should change.

 

[SomeRandom]

The definition of sex and gender doesn't change with the centuries.

The English alphabet is no different in 2019 as it was in 1919.

The number 5 has been the same old number 5 for thousands of years.

The sun and moon rise and set no differently now than they did 5,000 years ago.

I believe male and female were created by God for all of time or at least as long as life on earth as we know it shall continue. Don't tell me life as we once knew it is no more.

Some things never should change.

Considering the staggering transformation the English language has gone through (modern kids have a hard time with Shakespeare for gods sake) I’d be more reticent on the language comparisons if I were you.
lol

 

[Neutral Name]

​

Yup

An illustration of what Jesus was more likely to have looked like.

View attachment 31100
​

And his probable height.

View attachment 31099


​

All in all

View attachment 31101 ​

. ​

Thank you my brother. I have seen that picture of Jesus before. I think it was National Geographic. I know that it is very accurate to how Jesus would have looked. I always think of Jesus that way and marvel that artists and even modern film producers have never realized this.

 

[Neutral Name]

Yeah, what is up with people not getting offended when it comes to white guys portraying a brown-skinned Asiatic Middle Eastern Palestinian Jew?

I agree, absolutely!

 

[Quintessence]

Sorry, I was tempted to throw that little fun fact of nature out there. The point was to show that I have no trouble accepting things of nature though some people may consider some such things weird. Yes, the main objective of my thread is to scorn the mocking of Jesus. It's nasty, quite impious, to mock such a holy person.

Hmm. I'm sorry that you see it as a mockery, because I can bet that in the overwhelming majority of cases, that is not the intention of those depicting him or other gods as female. I hope you can come to understand that and let go of your hatred.

 

[oldbadger]

The Catholic Church is not the same as the Apostolic Church.
It had its holy days, physical altar, return-to-the-law, worldly
ambitions.... etc.. Things that Jude, Peter, John and Paul
warned the congregation against. Read Romans and Hebrews.

Do you know how many Apostolic Christians there are?
I'm just interested.

 

[oldbadger]

Jesus was not made of tiles or paint! These images are sacrilegious!

Why?
I don't understand 'why'.....

Mostly every Christian chapel, church, cathedral, book, pamphlet, has pictures that represent Jesus. So I don't understand it when a Christian is so offended by them.

Even the huge doorway to Canterbury Cathedral has this huge carved image above it's gates (I'm guessing that is Jesus).

Can you explain ....... ?

 

[Kangaroo Feathers]

Why?
I don't understand 'why'.....

Mostly every Christian chapel, church, cathedral, book, pamphlet, has pictures that represent Jesus. So I don't understand it when a Christian is so offended by them.

Even the huge doorway to Canterbury Cathedral has this huge carved image above it's gates (I'm guessing that is Jesus).

Can you explain ....... ?

Was I being too subtle? I was riffing on OP's apparent inability to distinguish between the person playing a part, and the actual person the part represents. If a woman plays Jesus, no one's saying Jesus was a woman, it's just a woman playing a part, yet OP seems deeply troubled by the concept. I was trying to show that the depiction of a thing is not the thing. Of course there's nothing wrong depicting Jesus through the medium of paint, just like there's nothing wrong depicting Jesus through the medium of a female actor.

I mean, a woman actor playing Jesus is no less "the real Jesus" than a man playing him would be. They're both actors portraying someone, no one thinks the actor IS the person they're portraying.

Not usually, anyway *squints at OP*

Of course, if one were to claim ANY depiction of Jesus was wrong, I can sort of see the logic, but saying it's wrong in this one highly specific case suggests to me there is some other issue at play here.

 

[Sand Dancer]

Some of us think He was married. Maybe. Or at least, some of us wouldn't call 'BLASPHEMY!" if it turned out that He was.

I totally could see him and Mary Magdalene being sweet on each other.

 

[PruePhillip]

Do you know how many Apostolic Christians there are?
I'm just interested.

No way to know. There were more than seven churches in Revelations, we know that.
I did some sums to show there were well over a hundred men and women going out
preaching at the end of the First Century.
We also know many were under siege, not without but from within. Read the "foolish
Galatians" and Peter's warnings of what would happen after he was gone. Pretty soon
people who worshiped as the Apostolic Church did incurred the wrath of the early
Catholic church.

 

[oldbadger]

Was I being too subtle? I was riffing on OP's apparent inability to distinguish between the person playing a part, and the actual person the part represents. If a woman plays Jesus, no one's saying Jesus was a woman, it's just a woman playing a part, yet OP seems deeply troubled by the concept. I was trying to show that the depiction of a thing is not the thing. Of course there's nothing wrong depicting Jesus through the medium of paint, just like there's nothing wrong depicting Jesus through the medium of a female actor.

I mean, a woman actor playing Jesus is no less "the real Jesus" than a man playing him would be. They're both actors portraying someone, no one thinks the actor IS the person they're portraying.

Not usually, anyway *squints at OP*

Of course, if one were to claim ANY depiction of Jesus was wrong, I can sort of see the logic, but saying it's wrong in this one highly specific case suggests to me there is some other issue at play here.

Ah.......
Ummmm.......
I fink I've just won the weekly RF award for daftness...
You really had me going there.

 

[oldbadger]

No way to know. There were more than seven churches in Revelations, we know that.
I did some sums to show there were well over a hundred men and women going out
preaching at the end of the First Century.
We also know many were under siege, not without but from within. Read the "foolish
Galatians" and Peter's warnings of what would happen after he was gone. Pretty soon
people who worshiped as the Apostolic Church did incurred the wrath of the early
Catholic church.

Ok, but this does suggest that the majority of Christians today feel less severely about depictions of Jesus. True?

As you mentioned earlier, Christianity is more spiritual? Let's just leave folks to celebrate Jesus as they feel is best. No?

 

[Muffled]

Mother Angelica thought so in 1993.
I think so too.

I think it was an embarrassment to America when the Pope visited Denver to see a broad portraying Christ.

I do believe that God has one and only one begotten Son. No begotten daughters of God are ever mentioned in the Good Book.

Can you imagine a woman playing Babe Ruth in a film or even Neil Armstrong?
Can you imagine a girl playing Pinocchio?
Can you imagine a boy playing Mary, the Mother of Jesus (except in Shakespeare's time)?
Can you imagine a muscle man like Hulk Hogan, Arnold Schwarzenegger or the Iron Sheik playing Queen Victoria?

I believe it is not wrong but it certainly wouldn't be authentic. The truth is that God could have chosen a woman to be his body because his agenda was not gender.

 

[Muffled]

You think that's bad?
Now there's talk of a handicapped differently abled black
Hasidic Jewish gender questioning transfemale James Bond.
Er...."Jamie" Bond.

I believe a Jasmine Bond would be cool.

 

[Muffled]

Any female that dares portray Our Lord and Savior is not worthy of the title "lady".

It's utter perversion. It's an abominable blasphemy. It's the devil's very own craft.

It makes a mockery of Christ. It vainly tries to cheapen divinity.

I believe there is no logic behind your statements.

 

[dianaiad]

Now I do know that boys once played female parts in the theater as in Shakespearean times. Women were once not allowed in the theater at all. Boys have higher voices before puberty and a general softness of complexion so they could the play the parts quite well under feminine dress.

A woman or girl could probably play a boy character OK given the softness of younger boys.

It is quite awkward for a female to play a grown man due to man's deep voice, muscularity and ruggedness of complexion. It's totally disrespectful for a woman to assume to role of God's only begotten Son in a mime act or a play. A man can play the proper Jesus Christ character in drama or film if it is done reverently (seriously) and with biblical accuracy.

OK, that bugs me a bit.

It isn't any more disrespectful for a woman to 'assume the role of God's only begotten Son in a mime act or a play," than it is for any man to do it, if the intent is to portray Him as He is. In this case, that includes "male." There isn't a man born who is 'qualified,' that is, pure enough of good enough or ethical enough or moral enough or 'respectful' enough to present himself as "the Son of God.'

You SEEM to be saying that there is something intrinsically evil/wrong/blasphemous about a woman portraying a male role, especially if that role is Jesus...BECAUSE SHE IS FEMALE.

I object to that. Now, when and if you can find some perfect man to portray the Perfect Son of God, you might want to tell the rest of us that it is intrinsically disrespectful of any of us to do so, but simply because we are women?

No.

I believe that it is wrong for Jesus to be portrayed AS a female, which is what Mother Angelica, in the OP link, objected to. He is/was not female. it would be especially inaccurate for someone in my faith tradition to think that was OK, given our position on the priesthood. For us, the role of sex (or gender...) is important. We do NOT believe that God is 'sexless,' and that He...and His Son...are definitely male. So for me it's a matter of accuracy.

However, that doesn't mean that the female half of the human race is 'lesser,' or somehow not deserving, or is committing blasphemy if one of us portrays Jesus (as a male) in some event.

That's as silly as claiming that the puppet nativity show I saw several years ago is blasphemy because all the puppeteers were women. Get a grip there.

And please be aware that there IS a difference between portraying Him as female, and having a female portray HIM. As a 'him.'

 

[dianaiad]

What this is implying is that the Gospels are man-made construct (feminists
won't say a "woman-made construct", like the devil, some things remain male.)
A female Jesus is a political statement, devoid of religious respect.

You are quite right. there is absolutely no respect for religion in such a statement.

 

[dianaiad]

Was I being too subtle? I was riffing on OP's apparent inability to distinguish between the person playing a part, and the actual person the part represents. If a woman plays Jesus, no one's saying Jesus was a woman, it's just a woman playing a part, yet OP seems deeply troubled by the concept.

Please check out that video again. the objection Mother Angelica had was not about having a woman portray Jesus. It was about portraying Jesus as a woman. This is very clearly stated very early in the video...about 1:30 into it, right after she is introduced. I have pointed this out to you before.

There is a very big difference between the two concepts.

I was trying to show that the depiction of a thing is not the thing. Of course there's nothing wrong depicting Jesus through the medium of paint, just like there's nothing wrong depicting Jesus through the medium of a female actor.

I mean, a woman actor playing Jesus is no less "the real Jesus" than a man playing him would be. They're both actors portraying someone, no one thinks the actor IS the person they're portraying.

I agree with you. However, that wasn't the problem.

Not usually, anyway *squints at OP*

Squint harder. listen to the point of the video that shows up at about a minute and a half in, where Mother Angelica is extremely clear about what her problem is.

Of course, if one were to claim ANY depiction of Jesus was wrong, I can sort of see the logic, but saying it's wrong in this one highly specific case suggests to me there is some other issue at play here.

Perhaps this analogy will help.

Mother Angelica was a nun. She spent her life in convents of one type or another, and lived mostly in a world of women. I know that many of these convents have their own pageants and events, etc.,....and in them, if Jesus is portrayed, He WILL be portrayed by a woman.

Nobody has a problem with this.

Her objection was to Jesus being portrayed AS a woman, not BY a woman.

 

[Epic Beard Man]

Any female that dares portray Our Lord and Savior is not worthy of the title "lady".

It's utter perversion. It's an abominable blasphemy. It's the devil's very own craft.

It makes a mockery of Christ. It vainly tries to cheapen divinity.

Jesus (may he rest in peace and bliss) did not speak like that.