We know that the disciples were fishermen, as a result they did not have a lot education. However, the messiah theme was the most common theme of that era and you didn't want considerably education to recognize the messiah and adhere to him since it was according to stories and prophecies told and retold generation right after generation amongst these easy people. On the other hand just because they didn't have significantly education, they couldn't possess the ability to know gestures like "washing feet" as a philosophical way to say "you must be humble." Consequently the explanation why Jesus created this gesture in the final supper was a significantly a lot more "down to Earth" reason. It's something that typical men of that era would comprehend: Women wash men's feet.
Considering that the conversation continued and no arguments were recorded in between Jesus and "his" disciples, then we could assume something really crucial was shared that evening. Let's assume the conversation would have continued one thing like this "I am washing your feet within a gesture to show you my correct identity. I am a woman and however I'm your messiah. Yes, the messiah is actually a human, above all a lady, because she will be the bearer of very good news along with the bearer of life. The life in me is the salvation for all of you. The truth in regards to the kingdom of God that was shared with me first and after that I had a duty to share it with you was only 1 component with the messianic job" and so on and so on. When the conversation was some thing like this doesn't every little thing else make sense now? Jesus had a bigger secret than whatever was shared in public. This final secret was specified in the final supper. This final secret must happen to be that Jesus was a lady right after all, and because of this explanation she had a special spot in the future kingdom of God on Earth. This final secret will be elaborated a lot more in my subsequent post.
Let's take a swift look at the partnership amongst Jesus and also other women. Historians have accomplished a greater job than myself in this regard, but I need to point out right here that only if we accept that Jesus was a woman it would make sense why Jesus had private conversations with Mary Magdalene. Would not a woman need an additional lady to share womanhood secrets that could not be shared with male companions, specifically at that era. Several records also show that Jesus did not mind being touched by other females in public. If we use the common sense criteria, guys of that era would have been offended if that happened, but we understand that Jesus was usually accompanied by three females everywhere she went. All these details now make sense and fit the typical sense criteria. It's also well known that on numerous occasions Jesus wept. I'm not saying that guys do not weep occasionally but I am saying that it really is a far far more widespread occurrence amongst females. We understand that Jesus cries far more than when in stories told in the bible.
Now let's appear at the moment of judgement recorded inside the gospel of Mark 14 versus 53 to 65. Reminder that the gospel of Mark is regarded as among the gospels that was written at a time that is certainly closer to that era than the other 3 gospels and is for that reason regarded as far more historically accurate. Here is what's written in these verses: They took Jesus towards the high priest, and each of the chief priests, the elders and also the teachers of the law came with each other. Peter followed him at a distance, right in to the courtyard of the high priest. There he sat with the guards and warmed himself at the fire. 55 The chief priests and the whole Sanhedrin had been searching for evidence against Jesus in order that they could place him to death, but they did not locate any. Several testified falsely against him, but their statements didn't agree. Then some stood up and gave this false testimony against him: "We heard him say, I will destroy this temple made with human hands and in 3 days will construct another, not produced with hands.'" Yet even then their testimony did not agree. Then the high priest stood up ahead of them and asked Jesus, "Are you not going to answer? What exactly is this testimony that these males are bringing against you?" But Jesus remained silent and gave no answer. Once again the high priest asked him, "Are you the Messiah, the Son of the Blessed One particular?" "I am," stated Jesus. "And you'll see the Son of Man sitting in the correct hand from the Mighty One and coming on the clouds of heaven." The high priest tore his clothing. "Why do we need to have any more witnesses?" he asked. "You have heard the blasphemy. What do you believe?" They all condemned him as worthy of death. Then some started to spit at him; they blindfolded him, struck him with their fists, and stated, "Prophesy!" Along with the guards took him and beat him.
One of the most essential line within this story is: The high priest tore his clothes and said "Why do we require any far more witnesses?" What do you believe he saw when he tore Jesus' clothes in order to make it obvious that Jesus was lying? As we see from these lines that it's a little odd that tearing Jesus' clothing was the ultimate accusation for Jesus to become condemned. None with the other testimonies was regarded as robust sufficient to accuse Jesus. This story told in one of the earliest gospels could be considered an historical fact because it fits the dissimilarity criteria. Because tearing clothing apart doesn't actually make any sense and above all makes no valid point for Christians the truth that this action was recorded regardless, indicates there must be some truth telling right here. Additionally, it passes the frequent sense criteria simply because in the event the tearing of clothes will be the final straw to calling somebody a liar, then they must have had some evidence in their hands for performing so. As a result the evidence could have already been that Jesus was a woman and not a man.
You'll find a lot more reality that we could bring towards the table that employing these two criteria would prove that Jesus was a lady. But I can not cease and analyze all of them in 1 write-up. Nonetheless, I'd like to mention two a lot more details concerning this secret. The initial one that strikes me odd will be the fact that many documents located of that era have pages ripped off, as if a person was trying to hide some thing. It truly is not that these documents had been destroyed throughout the years because of age or corrosion however it appears as if these who hid these documents purposefully left some components and destroyed other individuals. 1 such document will be the gospel of Peter which is not integrated inside the bible. The document starts in the middle of a sentence and it also ends in the middle of a sentence. Why didn't the other pages make it? What could be the purpose for the monk who hid the gospel of Peter to hide only some pages and not the entire account? It is apparent that these historical documents ought to have undergone some vandalism either before they were hidden or following someone located them and buried them again.
Another account that I would prefer to mention in favour of this hypothesis that Jesus was a woman is probably the writings of Josephus in 70 C.E. Josephus was a historian that was paid by the Roman common Vespasian to write about the events of that time by appointing him the court historian. This document is closer in time for the actual events than all other historical documents written about Jesus. It is also a document that we are able to count on since many other historical events are also depending on Josephus' writings. Reading Mr. Ehrman's book "Jesus Apocalyptic Prophet in the new Millennium" I understood that this account of Josephus about Jesus (even though it truly is just a short passage) has perplexed historians and scholars for the simple purpose that Josephus remained a devoted Jew all his life but he mentioned in among his writings that Jesus was the messiah. Above all, inside the 1st sentence of this passage Josephus provides a hint that Jesus was not a man. This sentence is translated as follows "At this time there appeared Jesus, a wise man, if indeed 1 must call him a man." Unfortunately, Christians use this sentence in their favour assuming that Josephus is accepting Jesus to be much more than a man, consequently accepting Jesus to be the Son of God. But then historians are contradicting this conclusion by mentioning the straightforward reality that Josephus never ever changed his belief. Josephus by no means became a Christian, as a result Josephus didn't believe that Jesus was the Son of God. He only believed that Jesus was the Messiah and he was not a man. On the other hand if Josephus believed that Jesus was not a man consequently was the Son of God then Jesus' mission should have been regarded by him an historical occasion and considering that it was his duty to record historical events of this importance, then he would have written more than just a passage. But he did not. All we find is this short passage that starts together with the sentence "At this time appeared Jesus, a wise man, if indeed 1 really should call him a man."
I feel several queries are brewing at this moment among which a single stands out: Why would the messiah (the news bringer not the saviour) be a woman? To show that females are critical? To show that a lady could be the very first one to carry life and expertise? Or simply since it is simpler to help keep a secret, a secret that may remain a secret until the time is right? Perhaps the answer to this question is: all of the above. I'm planning to go over it all in my next report.
No comments:
Post a Comment