Elijah

The religious authority (like a lot of people) use the law as a way to judge oppress and persecute people. Believing in following the law and believing that it’s ok to use the law as a weapon against people is completely different.
That’s fine as long as it’s clear your position is based on an assumption not evidence. You want to use “proto-feminism”? Ok I figure that understanding the words in the context of the story and time would be a fairly easy ability but it definitely seems to give people more problems than I expect.

Again, he’s not accepting the status quo he is trying to create a meme to change it to a more equal society that didn’t exclude women in the plan.
I don’t know how that’s possible. I think you mean you don’t see a quote given to you that says directly he was there for equality or treated women equally.
Why is Socrates considered a sexist now? He said specifically about not bothering women with having to wash a dead body. It’s about accepting your death. Like Jesus did.
Women are treated favorably. The overall point of the story is to provide salvation for humanity. If you need him to spell out what all that includes; for you to believe that it includes women not being beaten down in the new day, I’m sorry it’s not there. But since your position is just based on assumption and not evidence then I’ll stick with the rational position.

As far as female apostles here’s a response of mine from earlier in the post.
You are still playing the same games and failing to present your position to eliminate the possibility of a false dichotomy. What was Jesus again if he’s not a feminist or a sexist??? Oh yea he’s a Jew. No wait a theist; that explains it perfectly.
Yes the rulers always use what the people believe in to control them, but blaming the religion instead of the ruler is as dumb as believing in the ruler because of the religion. All you can see is the bible and the cross the rulers are holding and are failing to see the ruler himself.

I’m not talking about democracy. The authority can serve the people in any system I would guess. It’s just only likely if the people have some democratic control over their leaders but not necessary.
Or knew that ticking off the authority would get him killed and planned using it to his advantage.
Because the author wanted to show that he could save his life but didn’t to show the reader that was part of the intent and that this wasn’t just a normal killing of a prophet but a sacrifice.
I’m not conceding anything. It’s you who are operating on assumptions. I’ve provided my evidence for belief that he was a female friendly savior/proto-feminist. Your only response is that you’re not convinced. No evidence of him believing them to be less than equal or planned for them to have a lower place in the society he was trying to create.
An average Joe sacrificing his life. I don’t understand why from the mythicist perspective you are unable to read the story as it is presented and have to imagine some other scenario and individual then what is presented in the story.

You use some critical thinking to determine what the point of all this is. If it was clear and straightforward then there wouldn’t be all this confusion would there? The vine/plan may not have come to fruition yet but I can see the faith spreading through the gentiles into Rome all the way to make a Christian nation in a new world as growth of the vine. It’s not like the final word on Christ has been decided nor his final influence.

Elijah

The Modern feminism movement began in 1970. The idea of female equality goes back to as soon as someone suggested they weren’t. Women haven’t had the chance to visibly unite and argue for their freedom until just recently. Until then they had to do more covert operations like champion more female friendly men or men who were pushing forward ideas that could benefit them. Sound like anyone you can think of?

Matthew 5:17 "Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. For truly, I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not an iota, not a dot, will pass from the Law until all is accomplished. Therefore whoever relaxes one of the least of these commandments and teaches others to do the same will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever does them and teaches them will be called great in the kingdom of heaven. For I tell you, unless your righteousness exceeds that of the scribes and Pharisees, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven.

He said they wouldn’t pass until all that was accomplished not that he wouldn’t have changed them if he could but the reality is they are static no matter which understanding of the law you are using. Which commandments should he have relaxed specifically to prove he was for equality? He eased up on punishing the adulteress and said that men shouldn’t be able to just divorce their wives and said Moses only allowed divorce because of the hardness of their hearts. John 8:7 Matthew 19:18

Toto

The modern feminist movement began in the 19th century, and most of the early feminists spent their time fighting the sexism inherent in organized religion. 1970 was the second wave of feminism, and Jewish and Christian feminists had to explain why searching for equality in religion was not like blacks asking for an equal opportunity to join the KKK.

Did you just make this up? It has no basis in history that I know of. Women in the Roman Empire identified first with their class and family. Aristocratic women had more opportunities than lower class men, even if they had fewer rights that aristocratic men; they had their own roads to power. There was no concept of social or political equality among men, let alone equality between men and women.

Jesus did not criticize Judaism for refusing to make women priests. He didn't call for women to be able to divorce abusive husbands. The law against adultery only applied to wives; Jesus didn't call for equality in enforcing the law, only a little humanity in how it was enforced (as most Jews in fact did.)

rcscwc

There are two major sources about Krishna: Bhagwat Puran an Mahabharat. The latter gives a very detailed information about the astronomical conditions on the eve of the Battle of Mahabharata. These conditions can be analsed by the modern astronomical software, and it has been done too. The date of Mahabharata turns out to be about 3200 Bc or so.


Question arises: Is that information authentic? Did someone later cook it up? For cooking and back calculation of a given disposition you need sophisticated soft ware or real SUPER BRAINS. Only conclusion is that they WERE observed as they were and recorded 5200 years ago. And Krishna has quite a prominent role in that Battle.



In case of Rama too such data exists, pointing to His time being about 7000 BC.

But in case of Jesus no data exists which can be analysed.

Treatment of stories and underlying evidence are two different things. In case of Jesus no evidence exists. It is surprising for a much prophecied saviour.

bacht

Isn't everyone equal in the kingdom of heaven? If the end was near then all social and economic distinctions would soon be obsolete. After God's messiah had triumphed over evil, the new world would be home to all God's children forever, isn't that the basic messianic vision?

kcdad

In Hebrew Y'shua. In Aramaic, Ieshoo.

When did he die? You want a date or physiological definition? The date would be ~early April or late March, in one of the years 27 thru 30 CE. (The exact date could be interpolated from the dates of Passover in that year. Is the exact date important?)
When did he die? When the Romans hung him on a cross and the weight of his body compressed his diaphragm so that he suffocated and no oxygen got to his brain for a period of 3-5 minutes.

For anyone interested in Jesus, my belief is that the only thing that is important is what he taught... just like Martin Luther King Jr, in 100 years, no one is going to care if he was human or diety, saint or sinner... all that matters is what he led his followers to create in society.

show_no_mercy

Yashua (Joshua) is Hebrew/Aramaic. Iesous (Jesus) is Greek.

Death by crucifixion lasted for hours, closer to days. That was the entire point of crucifixion. No one would die from being on a cross for only 3 hours unless they were already sickly or unhealthy to begin with.

ripley

Actually it depends mostly on the manner of crucifixion, which no doubt varied from time to time, place to place, execution to execution.

http://www.centuryone.org/crucifixion2.html

show_no_mercy

Agreed, but I'm only using the popular imagery of Jesus' crucifixion. We actually don't know how he was crucified, if at all. All we have is a story.

ripley

I could be mistaken, but isn't Jesus usually portrayed on the cross with his ankles nailed? If that's how he was actually crucified, then his diaphragm would have been none too happy. And I think the humiliation/deterrent factor is fulfilled by the process of being nailed. How long someone lasts on the cross, after having a shaft of iron run through their ankles, probably doesn't matter so much.