Was Jesus Himself an Actual "Feminist" in a way? Yes or no?

[JackRT]

I didn't relate that it was Biblical in any relation to what God said to Adam. The verses come from elsewhere in the Bible, after Jesus so we can have the relationship if the Trinity and Godhead as reference.
1 Corinthians 11:3
3 But I want you to understand that the head of every man is Christ, and the head of the woman is man, and the head of Christ is God.
Ephesians 5:23
For the husband is head of the wife, just as Christ is the head of the church, His body, of which He is the Savior.

1 Corinthians 3:23
and you belong to Christ, and Christ belongs to God.

Ephesians 5:22
Wives, submit to your husbands as to the Lord.

Colossians 3:18
Wives, submit to your husbands, as is fitting in the Lord.

1 Peter 3:2
when they see your pure and reverent demeanor.

1 Peter 3:7
Husbands, in the same way, treat your wives with consideration as a delicate vessel, and with honor as fellow heirs of the gracious gift of life, so that your prayers will not be hindered.

In my view, patriarchy was the only cultural understanding available in Biblical times in the Mediterranean world. It was simply impossible to think of gender relationships in any other way. In fact, most people would probably have felt that it was God's intent. I regard Biblical patriarchy as reflective of this cultural understanding and not a directive of God. Today we know women to be as intelligent and as spiritually worthy as the male. Society is now slowly adjusting itself to that reality.

 

[ToBeLoved]

In my view, patriarchy was the only cultural understanding available in Biblical times in the Mediterranean world. It was simply impossible to think of gender relationships in any other way. In fact, most people would probably have felt that it was God's intent. I regard Biblical patriarchy as reflective of this cultural understanding and not a directive of God. Today we know women to be as intelligent and as spiritually worthy as the male. Society is now slowly adjusting itself to that reality.

God’s Word has been for 1800 years. The topic is at the forefront of society but that doesn’t mean that God changed His mind.

 

[Paidiske]

The same is true for "feminism." Rather than trying to say, "what I mean by 'feminism'..." it's better to understand that what was on Jesus' mind is not what's on the mind of people who are now running with the term "feminism." The term is not useful for Christians.

I feel differently, for two reasons. One is dialogue with secular feminists; if I am a feminist, then I can be part of that wider feminist discourse, not taking pot shots at it from the outside. I can claim a valid place for a genuinely Christian feminism within that discourse, and - as every contributor to it hopes to do - hope to shape that in accordance with my particular take on ultimate concern (in this case, the claims of the gospel).

The other is dialogue within the Church. The Church has been, in many places, too quick to dismiss and fail to address the real problems in the way it has treated women. Feminism already has some traction in that regard, and speaking in and to the Church as a feminist gives me a head start on having to start from scratch with beginning to raise consciousness and create shared vocabulary.

@Lik3, you might also find the Egalitarian forum on here a helpful resource as you think about some of these things. Have you checked it out?

 

[compassion 4 humanity]

Not all feminists support abortion just as not all Christians are against abortion. You paint with far too broad a brush.

Exceptions to the rule don’t change the rule. Your snide remark is therefore misinformed.

Obviously, I know there are misguided women who call themselves feminists and oppose abortion. But that doesn’t change the fact that the majority of feminists support abortion “rights” for women. By the same token, there are misguided Christians who are “pro-choice,” many of them from anti-Biblical liberal denominations like the United Church of Christ. But that doesn’t change the fact that the majority of Christians support the word of God and oppose abortion.

Quit acting self-righteously by trying to point out errors where none exist. It’s very annoying.

 

[Paidiske]

Folks, please remember to be courteous and respectful of those with whom you disagree.

I'd hate to have to get out a mod hat...

 

[JackRT]

Exceptions to the rule don’t change the rule. Your snide remark is therefore misinformed.

If a rule has exceptions, it makes it difficult to regard it as a rule. The brush is still too broad.

 

[JackRT]

Folks, please remember to be courteous and respectful of those with whom you disagree.

I'd hate to have to get out a mod hat...

That mod hat --- does it have flowers, butterflies and peacocks on it?

 

[ToBeLoved]

Exceptions to the rule don’t change the rule. Your snide remark is therefore misinformed.

Obviously, I know there are misguided women who call themselves feminists and oppose abortion. But that doesn’t change the fact that the majority of feminists support abortion “rights” for women. By the same token, there are misguided Christians who are “pro-choice,” many of them from anti-Biblical liberal denominations like the United Church of Christ. But that doesn’t change the fact that the majority of Christians support the word of God and oppose abortion.

Quit acting self-righteously by trying to point out errors where none exist. It’s very annoying.

Most of us realize ‘thou shalt not kill’ means babies.

 

[Paidiske]

That mod hat --- does it have flowers, butterflies and peacocks on it?

You mean like this?

 

[JackRT]

You mean like this?
View attachment 215678

Now you're talking!

 

[redleghunter]

John Dominic Crossan has provided a detailed classification of our sources for the historical Jesus according to the chronological stratification of the traditions. For a brief discussion of each source, including the reasons for its proposed dating, see John Dominic Crossan, The Historical Jesus (HarperCollins, 1991) Appendix 1, pp. 427-50. All dates shown are C.E. (Common Era).

First Stratum [30 to 60 C.E.]

1. First Letter of Paul to the Thessalonians (late 40s)

2. Letter of Paul to the Galatians (winter of 52/53)

3. First Letter of Paul to the Corinthians (winter of 53/54.)

4. Letter of Paul to the Romans (winter of 55/56)

5. Gospel of Thomas I (earliest layer of Thomas, composed in 50s)

6. Egerton Gospel (50s)

7. P. Vienna G. 2325 (50s)

8. P. Oxyrhynchus 1224 (50s)

9. Gospel of the Hebrews (Egypt, 50s)

10. Sayings Gospel Q (50s)

11. Miracles Collection (50s)

12. Apocalyptic Scenario (50s)

13. Cross Gospel (50s)


Second Stratum [60 to 80 C.E.]

14. Gospel of the Egyptians (60s)

15. Secret Gospel of Mark (early 70s)

16. Gospel of Mark (late 70s)

17. P. Oxyrhynchus 840 (?80s)

18. Gospel of Thomas II (later layers, 70s)

19. Dialogue Collection (70s)

20. Signs Gospel, or Book of Signs (70s)

21. Letter to the Colossians (70s)


Third Stratum [80 to 120 C.E.]

22. Gospel of Matthew (90)

23. Gospel of Luke (90s)

24. Revelation/Apocalypse of John (late 90s)

25. First Letter of Clement (late 90s)

26. Epistle of Barnabas (end first century)

27. Didache (other than 1:3b2:1, 16:35) (end first century)

28. Shepherd of Hermas (100)

29. Letter of James (100)

30. Gospel of John I (early second century)

31. Letter of Ignatius, To the Ephesians (110)

32. Letter of Ignatius, To the Magnesians (110)

33. Letter of Ignatius, To the Trallians (110)

34. Letter of Ignatius, To the Romans (110)

35. Letter of Ignatius, To the Philadelphians (110)

36. Letter of Ignatius, To the Smyrneans (110)

37. Letter of Ignatius, To Polycarp (110)

38. First Letter of Peter (112)

39. Letter of Polycarp, To the Philippians, 1314 (115)

40. First Letter of John (115)


Fourth Stratum [120 to 150 C.E.]

41. Gospel of John II (after 120)

42. Acts of the Apostles (after 120)

43. Apocryphon of James (before 150)

44. First Letter to Timothy (after 120)

45. Second Letter to Timothy (after 120)

46. Letter to Titus (after 120)

47. Second Letter of Peter (between 125 and 150)

48. Letter of Polycarp to the Philippians, 112 (140)

49. Second Letter of Clement (150)

50. Gospel of the Nazoreans (middle second century)

51. Gospel of the Ebionites (middle second century)

52. Didache, 1:3b2:1 (middle second century)

53. Gospel of Peter (middle second century)

Familiar with the Jesus Seminar notes.

I hope you know the Jesus Seminar denies the Resurrection of Jesus Christ. Therefore your source is not Christian. The subject of the OP is about if Jesus was a feminist. Your source agrees with the skeptic Jesus Seminar which believes Jesus only said 20% of what the NT attributed to Him. They also deny the deity of Christ, the Incarnation and as aforementioned deny the bodily resurrection of Christ.

Your own source would not be able to use the Christian label here at CF.

If anyone else would like credible theologians who are actually experts in their field, I highly recommmed Lee Strobel's Case for Christ.

Now this is what the real experts think.


A Chronological Order of The New Testament Books

 

[redleghunter]

Why are you including non-canon, gnostic texts ? and everything under the sun if he asked about the pastoral epistles?

There are maybe 5 pastoral epistles, tops.

And why the CE date references. So confusing.

How can 1 Timothy be dated at 150?

Seems like you chose the least Biblical way to answer his question.

It's the rubbish from the secular skeptic Jesus Seminar

Considering Polycarp and other very early church fathers quote the pastoral epistles tells me right there the info is bogus.

For example Polycarp wrote an epistle to the Philippians ca.110-120AD and quoted from the pastoral epistles.

CHURCH FATHERS: Epistle to the Philippians (Polycarp)

Notice the link has inserted which NT epistles Polycarp drew from.


What the Jesus Seminar wants people to believe is the church fathers made up the pastoral epistles. Which their claim is bogus.

 

[redleghunter]

More on the Jesus Seminar.

The Jesus Seminar | Effectual Grace

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

Yes, almost everywhere on earth, by far, most 'authorities' quoted, followed, and/or believed today are fake. That's mankind for you, just as Yahweh says.

 

[ToBeLoved]

......and insulting.

Sorry you feel that way. I hope it motivates you to read and study God’s Word for yourself. Maybe you’ll come to a better understanding of who God is by reading the words He left for us all

 

[ToBeLoved]

I feel differently, for two reasons. One is dialogue with secular feminists; if I am a feminist, then I can be part of that wider feminist discourse, not taking pot shots at it from the outside. I can claim a valid place for a genuinely Christian feminism within that discourse, and - as every contributor to it hopes to do - hope to shape that in accordance with my particular take on ultimate concern (in this case, the claims of the gospel).

The other is dialogue within the Church. The Church has been, in many places, too quick to dismiss and fail to address the real problems in the way it has treated women. Feminism already has some traction in that regard, and speaking in and to the Church as a feminist gives me a head start on having to start from scratch with beginning to raise consciousness and create shared vocabulary.

@Lik3, you might also find the Egalitarian forum on here a helpful resource as you think about some of these things. Have you checked it out?

So then did you become a feminist for dialog reasons and taught yourself feminism or are you a feminist?

 

[RDKirk]

I feel differently, for two reasons. One is dialogue with secular feminists; if I am a feminist, then I can be part of that wider feminist discourse, not taking pot shots at it from the outside. I can claim a valid place for a genuinely Christian feminism within that discourse, and - as every contributor to it hopes to do - hope to shape that in accordance with my particular take on ultimate concern (in this case, the claims of the gospel).

The other is dialogue within the Church. The Church has been, in many places, too quick to dismiss and fail to address the real problems in the way it has treated women. Feminism already has some traction in that regard, and speaking in and to the Church as a feminist gives me a head start on having to start from scratch with beginning to raise consciousness and create shared vocabulary.

@Lik3, you might also find the Egalitarian forum on here a helpful resource as you think about some of these things. Have you checked it out?

The problem with that is that secular feminists have no solution for gender problems in the Body of Christ. In the same way, secular liberals have no solution for racial problems in the Body of Christ. Problems in the Body of Christ are resolved through the Holy Spirit.

I don't know if they have the saying in Australia: "If you try to walk the center line, you get hit by cars from both directions."

Better to acknowledge that one is on a different road.

 

[Thir7ySev3n]

I find any attempt to construe Jesus as being remotely feminist incredible, as Jesus rather overtly reinforced patriarchy. Firstly, He selected exclusively 12 men to be His closest disciples who would be of eye witnesses from the beginning of all things, and who would be charged as the heads of the spread of Gospel to all nations. The response to this is always the same and is highly ignorant: "If this demonstrates that women are to not be teachers and in positions of authority, then this also proves Gentiles to be in submission to Jews because all 12 were Jewish!"

There are two fundamental problem with this argument:

1. Salvation is actually from the Jews (Jesus' words, John 4:22) and they were to be the light to the Gentiles (Isaiah 42:6). And,
2. While salvation was from the Jews, there were plenty of Jewish women in Jesus' time and yet not one selected for the twelve, as the rock on which He would build His church, or divinely intercepted on the road to Damascus.

That second point is especially important when you consider that the rock on which He would build His church, Peter (Matthew 16:8), reinforced patriarchy (1 Peter 3:1-6), designating submissive women as holy and imitators of the holy women of the past (demonstrating it's timeless holy quality). Additionally, the man divinely intercepted on the road to Damascus reinforced patriarchy in many places overtly (1 Corinthians 11:3, Ephesians 5:22-24, 1 Timothy 2:11-14, Titus 2:3-5, etc).

Claims to cultural context are eliminated by the authors themselves, Peter referring to a submissive woman as holy like women of the past, and Paul when he multiply clarified that the context was the order of creation, emphasizing that woman was made for man and to be his glory. Women who don't appreciate this diminish the relationship of the Father and the Son, since Jesus is equal in value to His Father and yet His Father is greater (John 14:28) and Jesus submits to His Father gladly (John 4:34), without grasping on to His equality of intrinsic nature but accepting His weaker vessel (Philippians 2:5-8).

Someone may say, "but submitting to God is not the same because He's perfect." Except the woman submitting to the man is submitting to God since it is His creative decree and order. Someone else may complain, "But submitting to God is easier. If my husband was better I could submit to him without complaint." Two points could be argued against this:

1. Have you ever sinned since coming to Christ? If Christ's perfection makes obedience easy, then by the complaint of this person it should be no problem ceasing from any and every sin from this moment on, as submission to a perfect man is incomparably easy (which is demonstrably absurd).
2. I would argue that submission to an imperfect man is actually easier, since an imperfect man will likely have much less or even trivial standards, and will likely issue less commands and can sometimes be nagged out of the "constraints", unlike Jesus (Matthew 8:18-22, Matthew 19:16-23, Luke 6:46-49).

The real problem on this issue is not false claims to an equivocal text or cultural context, but exactly what Paul warned about long ago:

"For the time is coming when people will not endure sound teaching, but having itching ears they will accumulate for themselves teachers to suit their own passions, and will turn away from listening to the truth and wander off into myths." (2 Timothy 4:3-4)

 

[redleghunter]

Yes, almost everywhere on earth, by far, most 'authorities' quoted, followed, and/or believed today are fake. That's mankind for you, just as Yahweh says.

Yes and we must know their scheme to warn others.

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

I don't know if they have the saying in Australia: "If you try to walk the center line, you get hit by cars from both directions."

Better to acknowledge that one is on a different road.

Until the last couple years, walking down the center of the road (a real road with cars going both ways), the drivers were courteous or observant enough to go around us.

As to acknowledging that one is on a different road, that would be nice, but it is against forum/site rules . (if someone says they are on the same road, we cannot say they are not)