Some bishops, priests and pastors think they can kick LGBT + people out of the church. Reality check. Theology check. Lesbian, gay, bisexual, trans and asexual people are the church. LGBT people cannot be kicked out of the church, because LGBT people are the church.
It is definitely a hurtful experience to be rejected by a church community, and if you feel alienated from the Church as a whole for a while, that is absolutely understandable. However, the Church of Christ’s Body, the True Church as He envisions it, will never reject you. You belong! You are wanted and even needed! And there are plenty of faith communities who will see that and welcome you in. We are the Church, indeed. <3
You can’t part of something you actively live against. I don’t understand— how can you be gay AND claim to be of Christ?
Some bishops, priests and pastors think they can kick LGBT + people out of the church. Reality check. Theology check. Lesbian, gay, bisexual, trans and asexual people are the church. LGBT people cannot be kicked out of the church, because LGBT people are the church.
It is definitely a hurtful experience to be rejected by a church community, and if you feel alienated from the Church as a whole for a while, that is absolutely understandable. However, the Church of Christ’s Body, the True Church as He envisions it, will never reject you. You belong! You are wanted and even needed! And there are plenty of faith communities who will see that and welcome you in. We are the Church, indeed. <3
You can’t part of something you actively live against. I don’t understand— how can you be gay AND claim to be of Christ?
do you ever just think about Jesus living here on earth
i think sometimes we tend to think He just bounced from one miracle to another and everyday was a Bible story but His ministry lasted for three years and the Gospels don’t actually cover that much so
imagine all those ordinary days??
He probably had favorite foods and morning routines and sore dirty feet from walking while sweat ran in His eyes in the hot Judean sun and He got blisters and hiccups and colds and maybe He snored
all the times He laughed till He cried and i bet He had inside jokes with His disciples. imagine having an inside joke with the person who gives you breath to laugh in the first place
and He had human skills He knew how to build a house and cook and wash his clothes and read
passing food at the dinner table and bumping hands with Jesus
talking about silly inconsequential things like the weather
maybe some nights John was sleepy and he leaned against Jesus and could hear His heartbeat
maybe some nights a disciple had insomnia and he climbed out of his bedroll to find Jesus sitting against a rock, looking up at heaven, and they sat and watched the stars together
(the God of the universe looking up through short-sighted eyes at His creation, and the disciple wants so badly to ask what it was like to shape each star, but he looks at those calloused human hands and something in him trembles)
do you ever think that the ordinary days so far outnumbered the miraculous ones that the disciples, sometimes, almost forgot
and then He goes and turns water into wine and feeds five thousand people from a kid’s lunch and brings dead Lazarus walking alive out of the tomb and they just kind of lose their breath
not because they didn’t expect deity to accomplish the impossible but because this God has been livingwith them
it’s not the miracles that are unthinkable
Wow…never thought of Him that way. I guess a lot of us forget that He was a man like us in many ways other than just flesh.
do you ever just think about Jesus living here on earth
i think sometimes we tend to think He just bounced from one miracle to another and everyday was a Bible story but His ministry lasted for three years and the Gospels don’t actually cover that much so
imagine all those ordinary days??
He probably had favorite foods and morning routines and sore dirty feet from walking while sweat ran in His eyes in the hot Judean sun and He got blisters and hiccups and colds and maybe He snored
all the times He laughed till He cried and i bet He had inside jokes with His disciples. imagine having an inside joke with the person who gives you breath to laugh in the first place
and He had human skills He knew how to build a house and cook and wash his clothes and read
passing food at the dinner table and bumping hands with Jesus
talking about silly inconsequential things like the weather
maybe some nights John was sleepy and he leaned against Jesus and could hear His heartbeat
maybe some nights a disciple had insomnia and he climbed out of his bedroll to find Jesus sitting against a rock, looking up at heaven, and they sat and watched the stars together
(the God of the universe looking up through short-sighted eyes at His creation, and the disciple wants so badly to ask what it was like to shape each star, but he looks at those calloused human hands and something in him trembles)
do you ever think that the ordinary days so far outnumbered the miraculous ones that the disciples, sometimes, almost forgot
and then He goes and turns water into wine and feeds five thousand people from a kid’s lunch and brings dead Lazarus walking alive out of the tomb and they just kind of lose their breath
not because they didn’t expect deity to accomplish the impossible but because this God has been livingwith them
it’s not the miracles that are unthinkable
Wow…never thought of Him that way. I guess a lot of us forget that He was a man like us in many ways other than just flesh.
The bible, and the Catholic Church’s/Christianity’s interpretation of it over the years, is the original version of whitewashing.
Why?
Take your time. You might as well, I will cook any goose you bring to this fair either way. But give it a shot.
A depiction of Jesus done by the BBC, using forensics(you know, that pesky thing called science that is based on proven principles and empirical evidence), early artistic portrayals and ethnic traits to get a
better idea of what Jesus (and his apostles and relatives by extension) may have looked like, and which is probably pretty close to reality:
Catholic Church and (European-centric) Christianity version of Jesus:
And LISTEN. I’m not saying anything revolutionary here. I’m not the first person to say this, or note that the whitewashing of Jesus and his disciples has been used for centuries to oppress and erase the histories of people of color. Nor am I the first to note the use of white = pure and good and black = sin and evil in the Bible, which has also been used to bolster racism and oppression of people of color for centuries.
This is not some magical revelation. This post came about because I was sitting in my family’s living room, my mother and sister were once again watching EWTN, the “global catholic television network,” at top volume (so loud I could hear it even through my noise-canceling earphones), which was playing the movie Jesus of Nazareth, which gave us this image:
Hence, whitewashing.
Um…genius…we have no dna of jesus. There was never a body found. that is kinda the point….Genius
That’s a yazidi child
What, did the evil catholic church white wash her?
How about Bashar Assad?
Did the evil catholics white wash him?
That’s Korean Jesus. Was he…yellow washed???
Or could it be that Different Cultures make art depicting themselves?
*gasp*
So what has become of your stupid little argument? There is no DNA to go on (you appealed to a guesstimation) and Mideasterners can be downright WHITE.
So using a CG GUESS, you have claimed that the BIBLE and the Churches INTERPRETATION of it were the original whitewashing because of ART.
Really? Since when does a painting = the BIBLE and the whole interpretation of it??????
GTFO
A CG guess? I suppose that could apply in broad terms. They used the skulls of several first century Jews, and the earliest paintings/depictions of Jesus, dating back to the first couple of centuries A.D., which showed Jesus and his disciples to have dark, short hair, dark beards, and dark skin…
example: Roman catacombs fresco, dated from 4th century A.D.
So you could call that a CG guess if you’re speaking in broad terms. No, it’s not 100% proof, but it’s the closet we’re going to get without a time machine.
And you countered with…a modern-day Yazidi child (cherry-picking the whitest-looking one you could find, I might add) and one of the whitest-skinned modern Jews you could find. Do you not understand the genetic differences between the Jews of Judea in Biblical times and the Jews of the modern day? Do you not understand that there’s a 2,000 year difference there? Do you not understand how appearance can change over time? Do you not understand that modern-day Jerusalem is populated by the descendants of the Diaspora, and the effects that had on their genetics and appearance?
Then there’s the documented fact that as Romans/Gentiles took over Christianity, they began distancing themselves from the Jews, to the point they tried to deny Jesus’s Jewish status/ancestry as much as they could, including white-washing him. That is the early history of the Catholic Church. Which, yanno, is responsible for commissioning much of the art throughout history that depicts Jesus, his disciples and the women around him. Hence “a painting = the BIBLE and the whole interpretation of it”, and that art being a concrete example of the Catholic Churchwhitewashing Jesus.
So to recap…you’ve tried to make counter-arguments with so-called “evidence” that doesn’t apply, and crowed about how that somehow means you’ve accomplished something, when in reality you’ve accomplished nothing.
Feel free to try again. I’ll wait.
Distance themselves from what Jews? The Jews living in Europe, that looked like other Europeans? Europeans that included many Mediterranean peoples?
Bashar Al Assad is an Arab genius.
And that wasn’t the whitest looking Yazidi
Face the facts, People from the middle east can be WHITE. Europeans, just like Asians, painted Jesus with a familiar face.
You provided no evidence of the Catholic Church trying to distance itself from any Jews.
Did you know, there’s this website called google, where if you put in a search term like “early catholic church distancing itself from the Jews,” it will give you the information you’re looking for?
Of course then you have to apply critical thinking to those results to weed out the good sources from the bad/biased, which I’m sure is difficult for you being a conservative Christian and all, but do give it a try.
Now that that’s accomplished – and I do hope you go and read those sources – let me give you a little biology lesson, using myself as an example.
I am, like, one of the whitest girls out there. Very pale skin – what a lot of people have called a “peaches and cream complexion” – light brown hair, and blue eyes.
That is just a 3 (or 4, depending on how you look at it) generation gap between me and my Native American ancestors (who also looked very First Peoples, dark coloration and all.)
However – and this is the important part of the example, pay attention – my whiteness does not somehow magically erase my Native American ancestry, nor does it somehow magically make my Native American ancestors white. Just like the physical appearances of my brother and sister, who are of a darker complexion than me, don’t somehow magically erase the other parts of our family’s ancestry, the Acadians/French and the Scotch-Irish.
Hence my rebuttal of your attempt at using modern Jews and Yazidi children to attempt to demonstrate that Biblical Jews, Jesus and his apostles in particular, were white/white-looking. 2000 years – that’s about 66 generations, using a conservative estimate of 30 years per generation (it’s probably more like 15-20 years per generation, making it 100 – 133 generations). That’s at least 66 generations of living in more northern climes (slowly losing the darker coloration of their skin), intermarrying people with whiter genetics, etc, which happened because of the Diaspora, that influences the genetics, and modern appearance, of the Jewish people.
Genetics is also why people in the modern-day Middle East can be white/white-looking.
Furthermore, claiming that white-washing is a “natural” consequence of people painting people that look like them is hogwash, because a)it’s not like the Jews of Biblical times weren’t there to look at, as evidenced by that Roman catacombs fresco, b)the early Catholics were (mostly) converted Jews, the church was not legally recognized by Rome until Constantine in the 4th century AD, who is the one who moved the headquarters of the church to Rome and gave the Papacy it’s temporal power (there is conflict about this among scholars, some camps say the Papal Donation was a forgery, however without the legitimization and legalization of Catholicism/Christianity and appointing it as the state religion of the Roman Empire by Constantine, the Papacy would likely not have had the temporal power it has had) and b)is the foundation of modern white washing and it’s component/basis in racism.
(Yes, there’s Oriental Jesus. It doesn’t have the same implications/impact because it’s not backed by thousands of years of oppression and fundamental power structures that white Europeans created.)
I mean, come on, I know education and science are anathema to conservative Christians, but would it kill you to pick up a history book? A science book? Neither you nor the book will automatically burst into flames when you touch it, you know. I promise.
Oh I love Education. I went to school for a hard science. Don’t even go thee squit. Especially when I have to correct something as basic as your frikkin reading comprehension.
Your argument that No Mideasterners were light colored until recently is pure horseshit. So don’t come at me about education your ignorant, illiterate little punk.
Moving on…
This darker skinned christ was painted in 151…ooops you’re full of shit.
Oh look at that, there wasn’t actually any medieval white washing of Christ, or even early Roman White washing of Christ! You were just lying! I realized that when I realized how LATE the images you picked were in time.
Go get a job flipping burgers.
And your links…they don’t help. They show anti-semitism among europeans,against other EUROPEANS (just like I guessed). That does not = white washing genius.
BZZZZZTTTTT! Wrong again! Wrong, wrong wrong.
You can’t even read captions right. (This is getting downright hilarious, BTW. At least you’re amusing.)
Caption reads: “Isenheim Altarpiece” The
Crucifixion, centre panel of the Isenheim Altarpiece (closed view), by
Matthias Grunewald, 1515; in the Unterlinden Museum, Colmar, France.
Of course, even comprehending the article you were citing instead of clicking the image gallery (included with the article) would have done it too, since it was featured in the Middle Ages section of the article, not the 2nd century as you’re trying to claim.
It was also painted in Germany, and allow me to clue you in on something that happens to art from the middle ages. It darkens over time. The original painting/colors are light-skinned/white.
The Macedonian Image, Christ Pantocrator painted by Mitropolitian Jovan Zograf in 1384, the style of it did not originate with Mitropolitian Jovan Zograf, but rather he was following the style of this icon that was established in the early days of Christianity/The Catholic Church. You know, based off the Jews of that era. It’s a miracle that he didn’t whitewash this iconic image too in his painting, like so many other Medieval artists did. Of course, much like a white-looking descendant does not automatically make their ancient ancestors white, the paintings of the Middle Ages that didn’t white-wash Jesus does not somehow miraculously negate the fact that the white-washing was taking place, both in other pieces of art from that period and the Church itself.
Speaking of reading comprehension – don’t you source your images? And don’t you read your own links before referencing them? I mean, DUDE. This is BASIC STUFF.
The first “Egyptian” image is from the Tomb of the Lionesses, an Etruscan tomb, and is showing the intermarriage and intermixing of Latin (you know, Greek and Roman) peoples with the Etruscans. The Etruscans lived in Italy, and this is from an Etruscan tomb in Italy. Not Egyptian, not African.
The second image is from Egypt, but it depicts captives of the raiding Sea Peoples – which are posited by scholars to have originated in the Aegean Sea area, specifically the Greek part and, as your own link pointed out, likely the remnants of Troy – raiders/pirates who harried the coasts of Egypt and Africa around the 5th century B.C.. You know, not Egyptian. And captives, not citizens of Egypt.
The third image I’ll give you. It’s an image of Faience tiles from the royal palace of Ramses the III, and depicts prisoners from the raiding population of the Berbers in neighboring Libya. The Burbese come from all over including Europe, but yes, they were living in Africa at the time. However, still not Egyptian. And their existence does not somehow magically make Jesus, his relatives or his apostles white.
And again with the failure of reading comprehension. From my first link:
“Hebrew roots scholar, Dr. Ron Moseley has part of the answer to this question in his book, published in 1996, entitled, Yeshua—A Guide to the Real Jesus of the Original Church.
He says, “After the Temple was destroyed in A.D. 70, two new religious
organizations grew out of the Judaism of Jesus’ and Paul’s day. The
Pharisees had fled Jerusalem to Yavneh and were spared, while the Jewish
followers of Jesus had fled to the mountains of Pella and also survived
(Matthew 24:16).
From these two groups came two separate religions known as Rabbinic
Judaism and the Christian Church. Today, neither Rabbinic Judaism nor
the Church, which formed much of its theology from fourth-century Roman
ideas, hold the same views as the pre-[A.D. ]70 Judaism of Jesus’ and
Paul’s day” (p. 69). Christian Hebrew roots scholar, professor and
theologian Marvin Wilson argues the same points in his 1989 book, Our Father Abraham—Jewish Roots of the Christian Faith.
He writes, “A cursory look at the beginnings of Christianity reveals a
Church that was made up exclusively of Jews. Indeed, the Church was
viewed as a sect within Judaism, as the book of Acts makes clear in
referring to early followers of Jesus as the ‘sect of the Nazarenes’ (Acts 24:5).
They seemed to function easily within Judaism in that they were
described as ‘enjoying the favor of all the people’ (2:47)” (p. 47).
Wilson then goes on to write that between A.D. 70 when the Roman army
destroyed the Temple in Jerusalem and A.D. 135 when the Second Jewish
revolt against Roman occupation of their country occurred the
first-century Messianic congregation began to leave its Jewish roots.”
…I’m not sure how you got “They show anti-semitism among europeans,against other EUROPEANS.” from that. I mean, unless you never actually read the article. The other articles reference the same time period, so….
Speaking of the “lateness of my images,” did you know? Their style is traced back to the time of Leonardo da Vinci, who painted his lover, Cesare Borgia, one of the many illegitimate children of Pope Alexander VI (late 15th century). Pope Alexander VI was one of the most corrupt popes in history, and chose to use da Vinci’s painting of his son Cesare Borgia as a new image of Christ for the church.
He wasn’t the first church official to whitewash Jesus, not by a long shot, but he certainly “went for the gold” by whitewashing Jesus in a hugely nepotistic way. *facepalm*
And then countless artists began creating images of Jesus in that style, which led to the first images I posted.
Where Jesus and his apostles have already been whitewashed to have lighter/whiter skin and Latin/Roman features.
Distort the facts all you want, doesn’t make what you say true. But I figured going in that that’s exactly what you’d try to do.
ORLY? If the paint darkened with Age…
Then what color did the face of the guy on the left, and the robes of the woman on the left darken from? That guy’s face is white you absolute imbecile
Yes, the sea Peoples….such as the PHILISTINES.
You are still laboring under the idiotic preconception that all the Jews in medieval Europe were dark. They weren’t idiot. They were white
The diaspora took place in 70 AD, and mixing takes place FAST.
Also, you have yet to deal with the FACT that your claim that all mideasterners were dark, is a lie, as can be seen by ancient art.
There was no white washing. Deal with it and move on with your life.
Philistines =/= Jews
Therefore (stay with me now)
The appearance of the Philistines of Jesus’s time does not have any bearing on the appearance of the Jews of Jesus’s time, or on the appearance of Jesus himself.
I never claimed that all the Jews in medieval Europe were dark-complexioned. I never claimed that all middle-easterners, of any time period, were dark. (That was your reading comprehension/assumption, and you ran with it.) Go back and read it again. I even referenced that the Romans/Gentiles of the time were white, and doing the white-washing to portray Jesus to look they way they looked, to deny Jesus’s Jewish origins. (You know, white washing.)
I claimed that the Jews, in the Middle East, in Jesus’s time, specifically Jesus, his disciples and his relatives, were dark-complexioned. That’s it.
You were the one to bring in the argument that other people of the Middle East in Jesus’s time were white, and tried to base your claim of Jesus having been white/not been white-washed on that. As if the skin complexion of other people of different ancestry has any bearing on the ancestry, appearance and complexion of Jesus. Much like how Jews having white complexions today does not, at all, disprove that Jesus was dark skinned. Yes, that particular diaspora took place that long ago. Hence me mentioning it before on why the complexion of modern Jews has no bearing on the complexion of Jesus or his disciples.
And again with the failure to, yanno, read up on stuff before talking about it, and once again sticking your foot in your mouth. (How’s that shoe leather tasting, BTW?)
The Isenheim Altarpiece underwent “unorthodox” restoration in Colmar, France. To quote from this article about it:
“Mitterrand and his colleagues at the C2RMF (Centre de recherche et de
restauration des musées de France), France’s main body of art
conservators and restorers, have thus far observed the rapid, one might
consider careless, work on the altarpiece. The yellowed varnish, found
to be from 1946, has been mostly removed from the surface, and the C2RMF
has exhibited fears that the solvent used could move towards the top
layers of the paint.“
So there’s a possible answer to your inquiry of why the other people in the painting have light-colored skin. Art restoration is (usually) a slow process, done by hand, one section of a painting at a time. It also has a checkered history, passing back and forth between Germany and France, notable during WW1 and WW2. Who knows what happened to it during those times. (Especially since the varnish mentioned above was dated to 1946, 1 year after WW2 ended)
(That was a test, BTW. I knew about it when I mentioned the painting in my last response, but didn’t mention the fumbled restoration, or the history, to see what you’d do. And I knew you’d fuck it up. As you did.)
I mean, come on. This is basic stuff you’re fumbling.
Oh so they removed varnish from the Dog, from the book in the guy’s hand, from the woman’s clothes and from the guy’s face specifically…
I never said the Philistines = the Jews moron. I thought, since you think you know it all, that you;d know that mixing took place between them and Israelites LONG before Christ’s time.
That was a test, you failed (dontcha love that game?)
The point, idiot, is that you have no idea what Color Jesus was, of what color his family was, or what color his pals were. There were absolutely light toned Jews in Jesus’ time.
There were even MORE light toned Jews after they migrated to Europe.
And thus your claim that Europeans white washed the bible to distance themselves from Jews makes NO SENSE.
They were represented on the Egyptian monuments with fair skins, light hair, blue eyes, curved or hooked noses, and pointed beards. They were supposed to have been of great stature.
Just curious, did your nose grow a few inches just then?
And JULIUS FUCKING CAESAR, how many times do I have to say it? DO YOUR FUCKING RESEARCH. DO YOUR FUCKING RESEARCH. DO YOUR FUCKING RESEARCH.
Seriously, this should have already been drilled into your head during your “education in a hard science.” How on earth did you come out of college education without learning this?
“Remember that it’s hard to distinguish between dirt in the varnish, dirt
on the paintings, and actual pigments put on the painting by the
artist. And even if you do know it, there’s no way to be sure that
whatever you pick to clean it will only get the dirt. Two different da
Vinci paintings have been damaged by attempts to clean them. One
painting at the Louvre got several shades lighter when cleaned, and had
the details washed out by extreme soft-focus. It was like the Virgin and
Saint Anne, in the painting, wanted to airbrush out their wrinkles. A
lost sketch by da Vinci of Orpheus being tormented by the Furies was
destroyed when restorers dipped the sketch in alcohol and distilled
water which took out the ink.“
And as this article shows, this restoration process is done by hand, one small area at a time. And different pigments can react differently to the same solvent. Hence the varying results.
But sure, keep spinning your wheels there, Jr, and convince yourself you’re actually going anywhere.
Yes genius, some people were light skinned. One of the reasons some of the Jews might have been lighter in tone (assuming they were all dark to begin with )was mixing between them and the Philistines (and amorites).
You need a bigger jar of fail sauce.
Alternate scenario…they painted Jesus darker….
Your entire premise has been that evil Europeans did white paintings to cut dark Jews off from the bible. Your premise has been destroyed because it has been proven that even in the Levant, long before Christ, Light peoples inhabited canaan (this includes Jews who mixed in). Add to this the fact that long before your hated paintings, they had migrated to Europe, and mixed more. Thus Europeans couldn’t use white skin vs dark skin to separate themselves from Jews….because of all the white Jews
There was no white washing.
I’m done with your idiocy
And yet, the forensic recreation of Jesus’s face, and the earliest known artwork of Jesus, shows him to be dark-skinned. As I’ve already mentioned.
That’s the facts.
Facts trump suppositions. (Really, I’m starting to seriously doubt the existence of your higher education here.)
And again with the failure of reading comprehension. My premise:
The bible, and the Catholic Church’s/Christianity’s interpretation of it
over the years, is the original version of whitewashing.
(Seriously. It’s right fucking there in the original post, and all the reblogs.)
That’s not just Europeans. That’s Romans/Gentiles, too. That’s also from the founding of Christianity and the Catholic church.
And aw, come on. Don’t be a sore loser. I thought you were going to “ cook any goose you bring to this fair.” Still looking pretty uncooked…
But if you must go – BYE CARTMAN.
Oh so your dumbass wants more thrashing. Fine.
So that CG image of Christ you keep foisting was made from SKULLS> To get skin tone, then said they used some art. They didn’t say what exactly, so I had to go looking. I found a lot of synagogue art from israel and from in Syria.
OMG, the Jews…
…where white washing……
…themselves!!!!
Get a life loser. You have NO EVIDENCE of dominate skin tone in Israel at the time. You are appealing to an image made from three skulls, with colors chosen from unnamed art.
Here’s a task for you. God find this unnamed art.
Assuming OP is a “Christian”, why do you care if Jesus is white or not? He’s our Lord and Savior. Why do people bring up His skin color as if that means anything? Like with a lot of black people. Are you not gonna worship Him if He was white? How silly is that?!
The bible, and the Catholic Church’s/Christianity’s interpretation of it over the years, is the original version of whitewashing.
Why?
Take your time. You might as well, I will cook any goose you bring to this fair either way. But give it a shot.
A depiction of Jesus done by the BBC, using forensics(you know, that pesky thing called science that is based on proven principles and empirical evidence), early artistic portrayals and ethnic traits to get a
better idea of what Jesus (and his apostles and relatives by extension) may have looked like, and which is probably pretty close to reality:
Catholic Church and (European-centric) Christianity version of Jesus:
And LISTEN. I’m not saying anything revolutionary here. I’m not the first person to say this, or note that the whitewashing of Jesus and his disciples has been used for centuries to oppress and erase the histories of people of color. Nor am I the first to note the use of white = pure and good and black = sin and evil in the Bible, which has also been used to bolster racism and oppression of people of color for centuries.
This is not some magical revelation. This post came about because I was sitting in my family’s living room, my mother and sister were once again watching EWTN, the “global catholic television network,” at top volume (so loud I could hear it even through my noise-canceling earphones), which was playing the movie Jesus of Nazareth, which gave us this image:
Hence, whitewashing.
Um…genius…we have no dna of jesus. There was never a body found. that is kinda the point….Genius
That’s a yazidi child
What, did the evil catholic church white wash her?
How about Bashar Assad?
Did the evil catholics white wash him?
That’s Korean Jesus. Was he…yellow washed???
Or could it be that Different Cultures make art depicting themselves?
*gasp*
So what has become of your stupid little argument? There is no DNA to go on (you appealed to a guesstimation) and Mideasterners can be downright WHITE.
So using a CG GUESS, you have claimed that the BIBLE and the Churches INTERPRETATION of it were the original whitewashing because of ART.
Really? Since when does a painting = the BIBLE and the whole interpretation of it??????
GTFO
A CG guess? I suppose that could apply in broad terms. They used the skulls of several first century Jews, and the earliest paintings/depictions of Jesus, dating back to the first couple of centuries A.D., which showed Jesus and his disciples to have dark, short hair, dark beards, and dark skin…
example: Roman catacombs fresco, dated from 4th century A.D.
So you could call that a CG guess if you’re speaking in broad terms. No, it’s not 100% proof, but it’s the closet we’re going to get without a time machine.
And you countered with…a modern-day Yazidi child (cherry-picking the whitest-looking one you could find, I might add) and one of the whitest-skinned modern Jews you could find. Do you not understand the genetic differences between the Jews of Judea in Biblical times and the Jews of the modern day? Do you not understand that there’s a 2,000 year difference there? Do you not understand how appearance can change over time? Do you not understand that modern-day Jerusalem is populated by the descendants of the Diaspora, and the effects that had on their genetics and appearance?
Then there’s the documented fact that as Romans/Gentiles took over Christianity, they began distancing themselves from the Jews, to the point they tried to deny Jesus’s Jewish status/ancestry as much as they could, including white-washing him. That is the early history of the Catholic Church. Which, yanno, is responsible for commissioning much of the art throughout history that depicts Jesus, his disciples and the women around him. Hence “a painting = the BIBLE and the whole interpretation of it”, and that art being a concrete example of the Catholic Churchwhitewashing Jesus.
So to recap…you’ve tried to make counter-arguments with so-called “evidence” that doesn’t apply, and crowed about how that somehow means you’ve accomplished something, when in reality you’ve accomplished nothing.
Feel free to try again. I’ll wait.
Distance themselves from what Jews? The Jews living in Europe, that looked like other Europeans? Europeans that included many Mediterranean peoples?
Bashar Al Assad is an Arab genius.
And that wasn’t the whitest looking Yazidi
Face the facts, People from the middle east can be WHITE. Europeans, just like Asians, painted Jesus with a familiar face.
You provided no evidence of the Catholic Church trying to distance itself from any Jews.
Did you know, there’s this website called google, where if you put in a search term like “early catholic church distancing itself from the Jews,” it will give you the information you’re looking for?
Of course then you have to apply critical thinking to those results to weed out the good sources from the bad/biased, which I’m sure is difficult for you being a conservative Christian and all, but do give it a try.
Now that that’s accomplished – and I do hope you go and read those sources – let me give you a little biology lesson, using myself as an example.
I am, like, one of the whitest girls out there. Very pale skin – what a lot of people have called a “peaches and cream complexion” – light brown hair, and blue eyes.
That is just a 3 (or 4, depending on how you look at it) generation gap between me and my Native American ancestors (who also looked very First Peoples, dark coloration and all.)
However – and this is the important part of the example, pay attention – my whiteness does not somehow magically erase my Native American ancestry, nor does it somehow magically make my Native American ancestors white. Just like the physical appearances of my brother and sister, who are of a darker complexion than me, don’t somehow magically erase the other parts of our family’s ancestry, the Acadians/French and the Scotch-Irish.
Hence my rebuttal of your attempt at using modern Jews and Yazidi children to attempt to demonstrate that Biblical Jews, Jesus and his apostles in particular, were white/white-looking. 2000 years – that’s about 66 generations, using a conservative estimate of 30 years per generation (it’s probably more like 15-20 years per generation, making it 100 – 133 generations). That’s at least 66 generations of living in more northern climes (slowly losing the darker coloration of their skin), intermarrying people with whiter genetics, etc, which happened because of the Diaspora, that influences the genetics, and modern appearance, of the Jewish people.
Genetics is also why people in the modern-day Middle East can be white/white-looking.
Furthermore, claiming that white-washing is a “natural” consequence of people painting people that look like them is hogwash, because a)it’s not like the Jews of Biblical times weren’t there to look at, as evidenced by that Roman catacombs fresco, b)the early Catholics were (mostly) converted Jews, the church was not legally recognized by Rome until Constantine in the 4th century AD, who is the one who moved the headquarters of the church to Rome and gave the Papacy it’s temporal power (there is conflict about this among scholars, some camps say the Papal Donation was a forgery, however without the legitimization and legalization of Catholicism/Christianity and appointing it as the state religion of the Roman Empire by Constantine, the Papacy would likely not have had the temporal power it has had) and b)is the foundation of modern white washing and it’s component/basis in racism.
(Yes, there’s Oriental Jesus. It doesn’t have the same implications/impact because it’s not backed by thousands of years of oppression and fundamental power structures that white Europeans created.)
I mean, come on, I know education and science are anathema to conservative Christians, but would it kill you to pick up a history book? A science book? Neither you nor the book will automatically burst into flames when you touch it, you know. I promise.
Oh I love Education. I went to school for a hard science. Don’t even go thee squit. Especially when I have to correct something as basic as your frikkin reading comprehension.
Your argument that No Mideasterners were light colored until recently is pure horseshit. So don’t come at me about education your ignorant, illiterate little punk.
Moving on…
This darker skinned christ was painted in 151…ooops you’re full of shit.
Oh look at that, there wasn’t actually any medieval white washing of Christ, or even early Roman White washing of Christ! You were just lying! I realized that when I realized how LATE the images you picked were in time.
Go get a job flipping burgers.
And your links…they don’t help. They show anti-semitism among europeans,against other EUROPEANS (just like I guessed). That does not = white washing genius.
BZZZZZTTTTT! Wrong again! Wrong, wrong wrong.
You can’t even read captions right. (This is getting downright hilarious, BTW. At least you’re amusing.)
Caption reads: “Isenheim Altarpiece” The
Crucifixion, centre panel of the Isenheim Altarpiece (closed view), by
Matthias Grunewald, 1515; in the Unterlinden Museum, Colmar, France.
Of course, even comprehending the article you were citing instead of clicking the image gallery (included with the article) would have done it too, since it was featured in the Middle Ages section of the article, not the 2nd century as you’re trying to claim.
It was also painted in Germany, and allow me to clue you in on something that happens to art from the middle ages. It darkens over time. The original painting/colors are light-skinned/white.
The Macedonian Image, Christ Pantocrator painted by Mitropolitian Jovan Zograf in 1384, the style of it did not originate with Mitropolitian Jovan Zograf, but rather he was following the style of this icon that was established in the early days of Christianity/The Catholic Church. You know, based off the Jews of that era. It’s a miracle that he didn’t whitewash this iconic image too in his painting, like so many other Medieval artists did. Of course, much like a white-looking descendant does not automatically make their ancient ancestors white, the paintings of the Middle Ages that didn’t white-wash Jesus does not somehow miraculously negate the fact that the white-washing was taking place, both in other pieces of art from that period and the Church itself.
Speaking of reading comprehension – don’t you source your images? And don’t you read your own links before referencing them? I mean, DUDE. This is BASIC STUFF.
The first “Egyptian” image is from the Tomb of the Lionesses, an Etruscan tomb, and is showing the intermarriage and intermixing of Latin (you know, Greek and Roman) peoples with the Etruscans. The Etruscans lived in Italy, and this is from an Etruscan tomb in Italy. Not Egyptian, not African.
The second image is from Egypt, but it depicts captives of the raiding Sea Peoples – which are posited by scholars to have originated in the Aegean Sea area, specifically the Greek part and, as your own link pointed out, likely the remnants of Troy – raiders/pirates who harried the coasts of Egypt and Africa around the 5th century B.C.. You know, not Egyptian. And captives, not citizens of Egypt.
The third image I’ll give you. It’s an image of Faience tiles from the royal palace of Ramses the III, and depicts prisoners from the raiding population of the Berbers in neighboring Libya. The Burbese come from all over including Europe, but yes, they were living in Africa at the time. However, still not Egyptian. And their existence does not somehow magically make Jesus, his relatives or his apostles white.
And again with the failure of reading comprehension. From my first link:
“Hebrew roots scholar, Dr. Ron Moseley has part of the answer to this question in his book, published in 1996, entitled, Yeshua—A Guide to the Real Jesus of the Original Church.
He says, “After the Temple was destroyed in A.D. 70, two new religious
organizations grew out of the Judaism of Jesus’ and Paul’s day. The
Pharisees had fled Jerusalem to Yavneh and were spared, while the Jewish
followers of Jesus had fled to the mountains of Pella and also survived
(Matthew 24:16).
From these two groups came two separate religions known as Rabbinic
Judaism and the Christian Church. Today, neither Rabbinic Judaism nor
the Church, which formed much of its theology from fourth-century Roman
ideas, hold the same views as the pre-[A.D. ]70 Judaism of Jesus’ and
Paul’s day” (p. 69). Christian Hebrew roots scholar, professor and
theologian Marvin Wilson argues the same points in his 1989 book, Our Father Abraham—Jewish Roots of the Christian Faith.
He writes, “A cursory look at the beginnings of Christianity reveals a
Church that was made up exclusively of Jews. Indeed, the Church was
viewed as a sect within Judaism, as the book of Acts makes clear in
referring to early followers of Jesus as the ‘sect of the Nazarenes’ (Acts 24:5).
They seemed to function easily within Judaism in that they were
described as ‘enjoying the favor of all the people’ (2:47)” (p. 47).
Wilson then goes on to write that between A.D. 70 when the Roman army
destroyed the Temple in Jerusalem and A.D. 135 when the Second Jewish
revolt against Roman occupation of their country occurred the
first-century Messianic congregation began to leave its Jewish roots.”
…I’m not sure how you got “They show anti-semitism among europeans,against other EUROPEANS.” from that. I mean, unless you never actually read the article. The other articles reference the same time period, so….
Speaking of the “lateness of my images,” did you know? Their style is traced back to the time of Leonardo da Vinci, who painted his lover, Cesare Borgia, one of the many illegitimate children of Pope Alexander VI (late 15th century). Pope Alexander VI was one of the most corrupt popes in history, and chose to use da Vinci’s painting of his son Cesare Borgia as a new image of Christ for the church.
He wasn’t the first church official to whitewash Jesus, not by a long shot, but he certainly “went for the gold” by whitewashing Jesus in a hugely nepotistic way. *facepalm*
And then countless artists began creating images of Jesus in that style, which led to the first images I posted.
Where Jesus and his apostles have already been whitewashed to have lighter/whiter skin and Latin/Roman features.
Distort the facts all you want, doesn’t make what you say true. But I figured going in that that’s exactly what you’d try to do.
ORLY? If the paint darkened with Age…
Then what color did the face of the guy on the left, and the robes of the woman on the left darken from? That guy’s face is white you absolute imbecile
Yes, the sea Peoples….such as the PHILISTINES.
You are still laboring under the idiotic preconception that all the Jews in medieval Europe were dark. They weren’t idiot. They were white
The diaspora took place in 70 AD, and mixing takes place FAST.
Also, you have yet to deal with the FACT that your claim that all mideasterners were dark, is a lie, as can be seen by ancient art.
There was no white washing. Deal with it and move on with your life.
Philistines =/= Jews
Therefore (stay with me now)
The appearance of the Philistines of Jesus’s time does not have any bearing on the appearance of the Jews of Jesus’s time, or on the appearance of Jesus himself.
I never claimed that all the Jews in medieval Europe were dark-complexioned. I never claimed that all middle-easterners, of any time period, were dark. (That was your reading comprehension/assumption, and you ran with it.) Go back and read it again. I even referenced that the Romans/Gentiles of the time were white, and doing the white-washing to portray Jesus to look they way they looked, to deny Jesus’s Jewish origins. (You know, white washing.)
I claimed that the Jews, in the Middle East, in Jesus’s time, specifically Jesus, his disciples and his relatives, were dark-complexioned. That’s it.
You were the one to bring in the argument that other people of the Middle East in Jesus’s time were white, and tried to base your claim of Jesus having been white/not been white-washed on that. As if the skin complexion of other people of different ancestry has any bearing on the ancestry, appearance and complexion of Jesus. Much like how Jews having white complexions today does not, at all, disprove that Jesus was dark skinned. Yes, that particular diaspora took place that long ago. Hence me mentioning it before on why the complexion of modern Jews has no bearing on the complexion of Jesus or his disciples.
And again with the failure to, yanno, read up on stuff before talking about it, and once again sticking your foot in your mouth. (How’s that shoe leather tasting, BTW?)
The Isenheim Altarpiece underwent “unorthodox” restoration in Colmar, France. To quote from this article about it:
“Mitterrand and his colleagues at the C2RMF (Centre de recherche et de
restauration des musées de France), France’s main body of art
conservators and restorers, have thus far observed the rapid, one might
consider careless, work on the altarpiece. The yellowed varnish, found
to be from 1946, has been mostly removed from the surface, and the C2RMF
has exhibited fears that the solvent used could move towards the top
layers of the paint.“
So there’s a possible answer to your inquiry of why the other people in the painting have light-colored skin. Art restoration is (usually) a slow process, done by hand, one section of a painting at a time. It also has a checkered history, passing back and forth between Germany and France, notable during WW1 and WW2. Who knows what happened to it during those times. (Especially since the varnish mentioned above was dated to 1946, 1 year after WW2 ended)
(That was a test, BTW. I knew about it when I mentioned the painting in my last response, but didn’t mention the fumbled restoration, or the history, to see what you’d do. And I knew you’d fuck it up. As you did.)
I mean, come on. This is basic stuff you’re fumbling.
Oh so they removed varnish from the Dog, from the book in the guy’s hand, from the woman’s clothes and from the guy’s face specifically…
I never said the Philistines = the Jews moron. I thought, since you think you know it all, that you;d know that mixing took place between them and Israelites LONG before Christ’s time.
That was a test, you failed (dontcha love that game?)
The point, idiot, is that you have no idea what Color Jesus was, of what color his family was, or what color his pals were. There were absolutely light toned Jews in Jesus’ time.
There were even MORE light toned Jews after they migrated to Europe.
And thus your claim that Europeans white washed the bible to distance themselves from Jews makes NO SENSE.
They were represented on the Egyptian monuments with fair skins, light hair, blue eyes, curved or hooked noses, and pointed beards. They were supposed to have been of great stature.
Just curious, did your nose grow a few inches just then?
And JULIUS FUCKING CAESAR, how many times do I have to say it? DO YOUR FUCKING RESEARCH. DO YOUR FUCKING RESEARCH. DO YOUR FUCKING RESEARCH.
Seriously, this should have already been drilled into your head during your “education in a hard science.” How on earth did you come out of college education without learning this?
“Remember that it’s hard to distinguish between dirt in the varnish, dirt
on the paintings, and actual pigments put on the painting by the
artist. And even if you do know it, there’s no way to be sure that
whatever you pick to clean it will only get the dirt. Two different da
Vinci paintings have been damaged by attempts to clean them. One
painting at the Louvre got several shades lighter when cleaned, and had
the details washed out by extreme soft-focus. It was like the Virgin and
Saint Anne, in the painting, wanted to airbrush out their wrinkles. A
lost sketch by da Vinci of Orpheus being tormented by the Furies was
destroyed when restorers dipped the sketch in alcohol and distilled
water which took out the ink.“
And as this article shows, this restoration process is done by hand, one small area at a time. And different pigments can react differently to the same solvent. Hence the varying results.
But sure, keep spinning your wheels there, Jr, and convince yourself you’re actually going anywhere.
Yes genius, some people were light skinned. One of the reasons some of the Jews might have been lighter in tone (assuming they were all dark to begin with )was mixing between them and the Philistines (and amorites).
You need a bigger jar of fail sauce.
Alternate scenario…they painted Jesus darker….
Your entire premise has been that evil Europeans did white paintings to cut dark Jews off from the bible. Your premise has been destroyed because it has been proven that even in the Levant, long before Christ, Light peoples inhabited canaan (this includes Jews who mixed in). Add to this the fact that long before your hated paintings, they had migrated to Europe, and mixed more. Thus Europeans couldn’t use white skin vs dark skin to separate themselves from Jews….because of all the white Jews
There was no white washing.
I’m done with your idiocy
And yet, the forensic recreation of Jesus’s face, and the earliest known artwork of Jesus, shows him to be dark-skinned. As I’ve already mentioned.
That’s the facts.
Facts trump suppositions. (Really, I’m starting to seriously doubt the existence of your higher education here.)
And again with the failure of reading comprehension. My premise:
The bible, and the Catholic Church’s/Christianity’s interpretation of it
over the years, is the original version of whitewashing.
(Seriously. It’s right fucking there in the original post, and all the reblogs.)
That’s not just Europeans. That’s Romans/Gentiles, too. That’s also from the founding of Christianity and the Catholic church.
And aw, come on. Don’t be a sore loser. I thought you were going to “ cook any goose you bring to this fair.” Still looking pretty uncooked…
But if you must go – BYE CARTMAN.
Oh so your dumbass wants more thrashing. Fine.
So that CG image of Christ you keep foisting was made from SKULLS> To get skin tone, then said they used some art. They didn’t say what exactly, so I had to go looking. I found a lot of synagogue art from israel and from in Syria.
OMG, the Jews…
…where white washing……
…themselves!!!!
Get a life loser. You have NO EVIDENCE of dominate skin tone in Israel at the time. You are appealing to an image made from three skulls, with colors chosen from unnamed art.
Here’s a task for you. God find this unnamed art.
Assuming OP is a “Christian”, why do you care if Jesus is white or not? He’s our Lord and Savior. Why do people bring up His skin color as if that means anything? Like with a lot of black people. Are you not gonna worship Him if He was white? How silly is that?!
“Women, Thou Art Noosed” – what TD Jakes should’ve named his book.
Initially, I thought this was patriarchy telling women what to think/believe again, then I realised it was pointing out one of the tools that allow/ed patriarchy to be exist.
#Religion #Bible #Religion #Atheism
There are so many things wrong with this and I’m not nearly patient enough of a person to even get started on pointing all of them out.
Me neither, but as usual, it’s (materialistic) atheists nit-picking Bible verses and taking them away from their context.
Nihil novo sub sole.
*cracks knuckles* Okay, here we go. Let’s start with the rebuttals, moving clockwise from the top left:
“Submit to your husband”
Context: Ephesians 5:21-33: “Be subject to one another out of reverence for Christ. Wives, be subject to your husbands as to the Lord. For the husband is the head of wife as Christ is the head of the Church, his body, and is himself its Savior. As the Church is subject to Christ, so let wives also be subject in everything to their husbands. Husbands, love your wives, as Christ loved the Church and gave himself up for her, that he might sanctify her, having cleansed her by the washing of water with the word, that he might present the Church to himself in splendor, without spot or wrinkle or any such thing, that she might be holy and without blemish. Even so, husbands should love their wives as their own bodies. He who loves his wife loves himself. For no man ever hates his own flesh, but nourishes and cherishes it, as Christ does the Church, because we are members of his body. For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh. This is a great mystery, and I mean in reference to Christ and the Church; however, let each one of you love his wife as himself, and let the wife see that she respects her husband.”
Basically, St. Paul is not describing the ideal marriage as one in which the wife passively obeys a tyrannical husband, but as one in which the husband loves the wife completely and sacrificially, and the wife in turn is respectful and obedient towards him. Each spouse is expected to put the needs of the other before their own.
Consider also St. John Chrysostom’s (c. 349-407 AD) homily on this passage: “Thou hast seen the measure of obedience, hear also the measure of love. Wouldest thou have thy wife obedient unto thee, as the Church is to Christ? Take then thyself the same provident care for her, as Christ takes for the Church. Yea, even if it shall be needful for thee to give thy life for her, yea, and to be cut into pieces ten thousand times, yea, and to endure and undergo any suffering whatever,—refuse it not. […] A servant, indeed, one will be able, perhaps, to bind down by fear; nay not even him, for he will soon start away and be gone. But the partner of one’s life, the mother of one’s children, the foundation of one’s every joy, one ought never to chain down by fear and menaces, but with love and good temper. For what sort of union is that, where the wife trembles at her husband? And what sort of pleasure will the husband himself enjoy, if he dwells with his wife as with a slave, and not as with a free-woman? Yea, though thou shouldest suffer anything on her account, do not upbraid her; for neither did Christ do this.”
Elsewhere Chrysostom further explains: “When we speak about a wife obeying the husband, we normally think of obedience in military or political terms: the husband giving orders and the wife obeying them. But while this type of obedience may be appropriate in the army, it is ridiculous in the intimate relationship of marriage. The obedient wife does not wait for orders. Rather she tries to discern her husband’s needs and feelings and responds in love. When she sees her husband is weary, she encourages him to rest; when she sees him agitated, she soothes him; when he is ill, she nurses and comforts him; when he is happy and elated, she shares his joy. Yet such obedience should not be confined to the wife; the husband should be obedient in the same way… Thus a good marriage is not a matter of one partner obeying the other, but of both partners obeying each other.”
More recently, Pope John Paul II writes in Familiaris Consortio (1981): “Authentic conjugal love presupposes and requires that a man have a profound respect for the equal dignity of his wife: “You are not her master,” writes St. Ambrose, “but her husband; she was not given to you to be your slave, but your wife…. Reciprocate her attentiveness to you and be grateful to her for her love.””
“[Women should be] seen and not heard”
This phrase does not originate in the Bible, but in a 15th century homily which cites it as “an English saying”. It referred specifically to young women, not all women generally, leading to its later more common form: “Children should be seen and not heard.”
I’m not really going to defend this one; it’s not a noble sentiment whether aimed at women or children. But it’s hardly a tenant of Christianity, either.
“The woman shall be saved through child-bearing”
1 Timothy 2:15: “Yet the woman will be saved through bearing children, if she continues in faith and love and holiness, with modesty.”
This verse follows the distinction between Adam’s sin and Eve’s (see below). The point is not that childbearing is a woman’s only hope of salvation (or else the countless virgin saints who never bore children would not exist; more on that later), but rather that childbearing is a means of sanctification which is reserved to women.
This is a profound statement, really. In Genesis 3:16, after the fall, the pains of childbirth are presented as Eve’s punishment for her sin. But in the New Testament, after the coming of Christ, this very same uniquely female form of suffering becomes a cause for hope.
“Home Sweet Home”
The title of a 19th century song about longing for the comforts of home, not remotely related to anything particularly Christian or religious, and I’m not even sure what the problem with this one is supposed to be? Moving right along…
“A woman’s place is in the home”
Sayings of this nature predate Christianity, with the first attested in the 5th century BC.
Proverbs 31:10-31 describes the duties of an ideal wife, which are domestic in nature but hardly keep her confined to the house. These include: procuring food for the household (ver. 14), buying land and working it (ver. 16), selling and delivering goods she has made (ver. 18 and 24), and distributing alms to the poor (ver. 20). Women are clearly expected to participate in commerce and society, not just cook and clean while their husbands take care of everything else. The domestic labor of women is not a degrading or secondary station, but an important role in society.
Turning to Familiaris Consortio again: “There is no doubt that the equal dignity and responsibility of men and women fully justifies women’s access to public functions. On the other hand the true advancement of women requires that clear recognition be given to the value of their maternal and family role, by comparison with all other public roles and all other professions. Furthermore, these roles and professions should be harmoniously combined, if we wish the evolution of society and culture to be truly and fully human. […] While it must be recognized that women have the same right as men to perform various public functions, society must be structured in such a way that wives and mothers are not in practice compelled to work outside the home, and that their families can live and prosper in a dignified way even when they themselves devote their full time to their own family. Furthermore, the mentality which honors women more for their work outside the home than for their work within the family must be overcome. This requires that men should truly esteem and love women with total respect for their personal dignity, and that society should create and develop conditions favoring work in the home.
In short, Christian women have every right to work outside the home, but why should whether or not they do so have any bearing on their perceived worth?
“As the weaker partner, and…”
1 Peter 3:7 in my NRSV-CE Bible reads: “Likewise, you husbands, live considerately with your wives, bestowing honor on the woman as the weaker sex, since you are joint heirs of the grace of life, in order that your prayers may not be hindered.”
This passage from 1 Peter 3 is very similar to Ephesians 5 (see above), and the verse in question is telling husbands to treat their wives with respect, since Christian men and women alike are heirs to the promises of Christ.
Christian tradition has long held that women are in some ways weaker than men, but Christianity has never equated strength with dignity, or weakness with a lack thereof. Rather we are told, “Blessed are the meek, for they shall inherit the earth.” (Matthew 5:5) Biblical references to women as the weaker sex are not intended as judgements of value or holiness.
“Do not let your beauty be external.”
1 Peter 3:3: “Let not yours be the outward adorning with braiding of hair, decoration of gold, and wearing of robes, but let it be the hidden person of the heart with the imperishable jewel of a gentle and quiet spirit, which in God’s sight is very precious.”
This verse is part of the same passage as the previous one. St. Peter is telling wives to prioritize the state of their souls over the adornment of their bodies. Basically, focus on being a virtuous person and don’t get distracted by material vanity.
The Bible contains numerous condemnations of vanity of all kinds addressed to both men and women. Luke 20:46-47 is one example of male vanity being criticized: “Beware of the scribes, who like to go about in long robes, and love salutations in the market places and the best seats in the synagogues and the places of honor at feasts, who devour widows’ houses and for a pretense make long prayers. They will receive the greater condemnation.”
“It [was the] woman w[ho was] deceived.”
1 Timothy 2:14; “Adam was not deceived, but the woman was deceived and became a transgressor.”
St. John Chrysostom’s homily on this passage explains: “But how was Adam not deceived? If he was not deceived, he did not then transgress? Attend carefully. The woman said, “The serpent beguiled me.” But the man did not say, The woman deceived me, but, “she gave me of the tree, and I did eat.” Now it is not the same thing to be deceived by a fellow-creature, one of the same kind, as by an inferior and subordinate animal. This is truly to be deceived. Compared therefore with the woman, he is spoken of as “not deceived.” For she was beguiled by an inferior and subject, he by an equal. Again, it is not said of the man, that he “saw the tree was good for food,” but of the woman, and that she “did eat, and gave it to her husband”: so that he transgressed, not captivated by appetite, but merely from the persuasion of his wife.”
Adam’s sin is not being excused or blamed on Eve, but Eve is being held accountable for trusting the word of the serpent, which Adam did not do, at least not directly.
“Charity begins at home.”
This is another phrase that does not come from the Bible, though the basic idea behind it – that caring for one’s family should be a priority – is expressed in 1 Timothy 5:8: “If any one does not provide for his relatives, and especially for his own family, he has disowned the faith and is worse than an unbeliever.” Note that this verse is addressed towards men, and has nothing to do with women allegedly being confined in the home or any such nonsense.
“I do not permit a woman to teach.”
1 Timothy 2:12: “I permit no woman to teach or to have authority over men; she is to keep silent.”
This passage is specifically giving instructions for the liturgy/communal prayer, and St. Paul is writing to St. Timothy, the bishop of Ephesus. The following passages also deal with the qualifications for bishops and deacons. It therefore seems likely that St. Paul means that women can not perform the liturgical functions of the clergy, since they can not be ordained. (The whys and wherefores of that could be another post entirely; for a basic primer see here and here.)
Proverbs 31:26 includes among the qualities of the ideal wife: “She opens her mouth with wisdom, and the teaching of kindness is on her tongue.”
St. Mary Magdalene has long been called the “apostle to the apostles” because of her role in bringing the news of Christ’s resurrection to his male followers, and another ancient tradition says that Mary Magdalene went on to preach the Gospel to the Roman Emperor Tiberius.
A similar story surrounds St. Catherine of Alexandria, who was said to have won debates against the best pagan scholars of her day and brought many converts to the faith through her teaching.
So much for that then. Now, a few counterpoints to consider:
The Witness of the Virgin Saints
Christian women can and do achieve holiness without being married or bearing children. Consecrated virginity has been regarded as a sacred vocation since the earliest days of the Church, and there are numerous virgin saints throughout the centuries.
Many of the earliest virgin saints specifically rejected suitors or refused the marriages their families tried to arrange, including Saint Lucy, Saint Agnes, and Saint Agatha.
This tradition is kept alive today by the numerous unmarried Christian women, whether they take religious vows or not, who devote their lives to prayer, works of charity, and scholarship.
The Queen of Heaven
The greatest of all the saints is a woman, Mary, the mother of God. Talk to Catholic or Orthodox Christians about their faith and you’ll quickly realize how important she is.
No woman will ever be pope, but no pope will ever surpass this woman.
Mary is the most perfect example of what it means to be a follower of Christ. All Christians, both male and female, are meant to follow her example.
The Word of God
Aside from the Virgin Mary and Mary Magdalene, there are numerous other holy women found throughout scripture: Miriam, Deborah, Esther, Judith, Jael, Ruth, Elizabeth, Anna, Martha, Priscilla, Lydia, and Joanna, among others. None of them bear the slightest resemblance to the helpless victim of the patriarchy depicted above.
Galatians 3:27-28: “For as many of you as were baptized into Christ have put on Christ. There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus.” I’ve talked more about this verse here, but the relevant point is that all believers have equal dignity through their baptism in Christ, regardless of race, class, or gender.
Finally, some recommended further reading, written by people a lot smarter than me:
I already pointed out the “women not speaking in churches” thing in another post, but I agree with most everything here. I remember seeing that picture a while ago and just remembered it, and how stupid it was. I’m so glad somebody tore this cherry-picked collage of disaster down.
“Women, Thou Art Noosed” – what TD Jakes should’ve named his book.
Initially, I thought this was patriarchy telling women what to think/believe again, then I realised it was pointing out one of the tools that allow/ed patriarchy to be exist.
#Religion #Bible #Religion #Atheism
There are so many things wrong with this and I’m not nearly patient enough of a person to even get started on pointing all of them out.
Me neither, but as usual, it’s (materialistic) atheists nit-picking Bible verses and taking them away from their context.
Nihil novo sub sole.
*cracks knuckles* Okay, here we go. Let’s start with the rebuttals, moving clockwise from the top left:
“Submit to your husband”
Context: Ephesians 5:21-33: “Be subject to one another out of reverence for Christ. Wives, be subject to your husbands as to the Lord. For the husband is the head of wife as Christ is the head of the Church, his body, and is himself its Savior. As the Church is subject to Christ, so let wives also be subject in everything to their husbands. Husbands, love your wives, as Christ loved the Church and gave himself up for her, that he might sanctify her, having cleansed her by the washing of water with the word, that he might present the Church to himself in splendor, without spot or wrinkle or any such thing, that she might be holy and without blemish. Even so, husbands should love their wives as their own bodies. He who loves his wife loves himself. For no man ever hates his own flesh, but nourishes and cherishes it, as Christ does the Church, because we are members of his body. For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh. This is a great mystery, and I mean in reference to Christ and the Church; however, let each one of you love his wife as himself, and let the wife see that she respects her husband.”
Basically, St. Paul is not describing the ideal marriage as one in which the wife passively obeys a tyrannical husband, but as one in which the husband loves the wife completely and sacrificially, and the wife in turn is respectful and obedient towards him. Each spouse is expected to put the needs of the other before their own.
Consider also St. John Chrysostom’s (c. 349-407 AD) homily on this passage: “Thou hast seen the measure of obedience, hear also the measure of love. Wouldest thou have thy wife obedient unto thee, as the Church is to Christ? Take then thyself the same provident care for her, as Christ takes for the Church. Yea, even if it shall be needful for thee to give thy life for her, yea, and to be cut into pieces ten thousand times, yea, and to endure and undergo any suffering whatever,—refuse it not. […] A servant, indeed, one will be able, perhaps, to bind down by fear; nay not even him, for he will soon start away and be gone. But the partner of one’s life, the mother of one’s children, the foundation of one’s every joy, one ought never to chain down by fear and menaces, but with love and good temper. For what sort of union is that, where the wife trembles at her husband? And what sort of pleasure will the husband himself enjoy, if he dwells with his wife as with a slave, and not as with a free-woman? Yea, though thou shouldest suffer anything on her account, do not upbraid her; for neither did Christ do this.”
Elsewhere Chrysostom further explains: “When we speak about a wife obeying the husband, we normally think of obedience in military or political terms: the husband giving orders and the wife obeying them. But while this type of obedience may be appropriate in the army, it is ridiculous in the intimate relationship of marriage. The obedient wife does not wait for orders. Rather she tries to discern her husband’s needs and feelings and responds in love. When she sees her husband is weary, she encourages him to rest; when she sees him agitated, she soothes him; when he is ill, she nurses and comforts him; when he is happy and elated, she shares his joy. Yet such obedience should not be confined to the wife; the husband should be obedient in the same way… Thus a good marriage is not a matter of one partner obeying the other, but of both partners obeying each other.”
More recently, Pope John Paul II writes in Familiaris Consortio (1981): “Authentic conjugal love presupposes and requires that a man have a profound respect for the equal dignity of his wife: “You are not her master,” writes St. Ambrose, “but her husband; she was not given to you to be your slave, but your wife…. Reciprocate her attentiveness to you and be grateful to her for her love.””
“[Women should be] seen and not heard”
This phrase does not originate in the Bible, but in a 15th century homily which cites it as “an English saying”. It referred specifically to young women, not all women generally, leading to its later more common form: “Children should be seen and not heard.”
I’m not really going to defend this one; it’s not a noble sentiment whether aimed at women or children. But it’s hardly a tenant of Christianity, either.
“The woman shall be saved through child-bearing”
1 Timothy 2:15: “Yet the woman will be saved through bearing children, if she continues in faith and love and holiness, with modesty.”
This verse follows the distinction between Adam’s sin and Eve’s (see below). The point is not that childbearing is a woman’s only hope of salvation (or else the countless virgin saints who never bore children would not exist; more on that later), but rather that childbearing is a means of sanctification which is reserved to women.
This is a profound statement, really. In Genesis 3:16, after the fall, the pains of childbirth are presented as Eve’s punishment for her sin. But in the New Testament, after the coming of Christ, this very same uniquely female form of suffering becomes a cause for hope.
“Home Sweet Home”
The title of a 19th century song about longing for the comforts of home, not remotely related to anything particularly Christian or religious, and I’m not even sure what the problem with this one is supposed to be? Moving right along…
“A woman’s place is in the home”
Sayings of this nature predate Christianity, with the first attested in the 5th century BC.
Proverbs 31:10-31 describes the duties of an ideal wife, which are domestic in nature but hardly keep her confined to the house. These include: procuring food for the household (ver. 14), buying land and working it (ver. 16), selling and delivering goods she has made (ver. 18 and 24), and distributing alms to the poor (ver. 20). Women are clearly expected to participate in commerce and society, not just cook and clean while their husbands take care of everything else. The domestic labor of women is not a degrading or secondary station, but an important role in society.
Turning to Familiaris Consortio again: “There is no doubt that the equal dignity and responsibility of men and women fully justifies women’s access to public functions. On the other hand the true advancement of women requires that clear recognition be given to the value of their maternal and family role, by comparison with all other public roles and all other professions. Furthermore, these roles and professions should be harmoniously combined, if we wish the evolution of society and culture to be truly and fully human. […] While it must be recognized that women have the same right as men to perform various public functions, society must be structured in such a way that wives and mothers are not in practice compelled to work outside the home, and that their families can live and prosper in a dignified way even when they themselves devote their full time to their own family. Furthermore, the mentality which honors women more for their work outside the home than for their work within the family must be overcome. This requires that men should truly esteem and love women with total respect for their personal dignity, and that society should create and develop conditions favoring work in the home.
In short, Christian women have every right to work outside the home, but why should whether or not they do so have any bearing on their perceived worth?
“As the weaker partner, and…”
1 Peter 3:7 in my NRSV-CE Bible reads: “Likewise, you husbands, live considerately with your wives, bestowing honor on the woman as the weaker sex, since you are joint heirs of the grace of life, in order that your prayers may not be hindered.”
This passage from 1 Peter 3 is very similar to Ephesians 5 (see above), and the verse in question is telling husbands to treat their wives with respect, since Christian men and women alike are heirs to the promises of Christ.
Christian tradition has long held that women are in some ways weaker than men, but Christianity has never equated strength with dignity, or weakness with a lack thereof. Rather we are told, “Blessed are the meek, for they shall inherit the earth.” (Matthew 5:5) Biblical references to women as the weaker sex are not intended as judgements of value or holiness.
“Do not let your beauty be external.”
1 Peter 3:3: “Let not yours be the outward adorning with braiding of hair, decoration of gold, and wearing of robes, but let it be the hidden person of the heart with the imperishable jewel of a gentle and quiet spirit, which in God’s sight is very precious.”
This verse is part of the same passage as the previous one. St. Peter is telling wives to prioritize the state of their souls over the adornment of their bodies. Basically, focus on being a virtuous person and don’t get distracted by material vanity.
The Bible contains numerous condemnations of vanity of all kinds addressed to both men and women. Luke 20:46-47 is one example of male vanity being criticized: “Beware of the scribes, who like to go about in long robes, and love salutations in the market places and the best seats in the synagogues and the places of honor at feasts, who devour widows’ houses and for a pretense make long prayers. They will receive the greater condemnation.”
“It [was the] woman w[ho was] deceived.”
1 Timothy 2:14; “Adam was not deceived, but the woman was deceived and became a transgressor.”
St. John Chrysostom’s homily on this passage explains: “But how was Adam not deceived? If he was not deceived, he did not then transgress? Attend carefully. The woman said, “The serpent beguiled me.” But the man did not say, The woman deceived me, but, “she gave me of the tree, and I did eat.” Now it is not the same thing to be deceived by a fellow-creature, one of the same kind, as by an inferior and subordinate animal. This is truly to be deceived. Compared therefore with the woman, he is spoken of as “not deceived.” For she was beguiled by an inferior and subject, he by an equal. Again, it is not said of the man, that he “saw the tree was good for food,” but of the woman, and that she “did eat, and gave it to her husband”: so that he transgressed, not captivated by appetite, but merely from the persuasion of his wife.”
Adam’s sin is not being excused or blamed on Eve, but Eve is being held accountable for trusting the word of the serpent, which Adam did not do, at least not directly.
“Charity begins at home.”
This is another phrase that does not come from the Bible, though the basic idea behind it – that caring for one’s family should be a priority – is expressed in 1 Timothy 5:8: “If any one does not provide for his relatives, and especially for his own family, he has disowned the faith and is worse than an unbeliever.” Note that this verse is addressed towards men, and has nothing to do with women allegedly being confined in the home or any such nonsense.
“I do not permit a woman to teach.”
1 Timothy 2:12: “I permit no woman to teach or to have authority over men; she is to keep silent.”
This passage is specifically giving instructions for the liturgy/communal prayer, and St. Paul is writing to St. Timothy, the bishop of Ephesus. The following passages also deal with the qualifications for bishops and deacons. It therefore seems likely that St. Paul means that women can not perform the liturgical functions of the clergy, since they can not be ordained. (The whys and wherefores of that could be another post entirely; for a basic primer see here and here.)
Proverbs 31:26 includes among the qualities of the ideal wife: “She opens her mouth with wisdom, and the teaching of kindness is on her tongue.”
St. Mary Magdalene has long been called the “apostle to the apostles” because of her role in bringing the news of Christ’s resurrection to his male followers, and another ancient tradition says that Mary Magdalene went on to preach the Gospel to the Roman Emperor Tiberius.
A similar story surrounds St. Catherine of Alexandria, who was said to have won debates against the best pagan scholars of her day and brought many converts to the faith through her teaching.
So much for that then. Now, a few counterpoints to consider:
The Witness of the Virgin Saints
Christian women can and do achieve holiness without being married or bearing children. Consecrated virginity has been regarded as a sacred vocation since the earliest days of the Church, and there are numerous virgin saints throughout the centuries.
Many of the earliest virgin saints specifically rejected suitors or refused the marriages their families tried to arrange, including Saint Lucy, Saint Agnes, and Saint Agatha.
This tradition is kept alive today by the numerous unmarried Christian women, whether they take religious vows or not, who devote their lives to prayer, works of charity, and scholarship.
The Queen of Heaven
The greatest of all the saints is a woman, Mary, the mother of God. Talk to Catholic or Orthodox Christians about their faith and you’ll quickly realize how important she is.
No woman will ever be pope, but no pope will ever surpass this woman.
Mary is the most perfect example of what it means to be a follower of Christ. All Christians, both male and female, are meant to follow her example.
The Word of God
Aside from the Virgin Mary and Mary Magdalene, there are numerous other holy women found throughout scripture: Miriam, Deborah, Esther, Judith, Jael, Ruth, Elizabeth, Anna, Martha, Priscilla, Lydia, and Joanna, among others. None of them bear the slightest resemblance to the helpless victim of the patriarchy depicted above.
Galatians 3:27-28: “For as many of you as were baptized into Christ have put on Christ. There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus.” I’ve talked more about this verse here, but the relevant point is that all believers have equal dignity through their baptism in Christ, regardless of race, class, or gender.
Finally, some recommended further reading, written by people a lot smarter than me:
I already pointed out the “women not speaking in churches” thing in another post, but I agree with most everything here. I remember seeing that picture a while ago and just remembered it, and how stupid it was. I’m so glad somebody tore this cherry-picked collage of disaster down.
