Freethought & Rationalism Archive

sorompio · 04-23-2005, 04:00 AM

Then took Mary a pound of ointment of spikenard, very costly, and anointed the feet of Jesus, and wiped his feet with her hair: and the house was filled with the odour of the ointment. (Jhn, 12:3)

I could never digest these odd acts of the Jesus portrayed in the NT. What explanations about Hebrew customs and habits can we give me about this behaviour? Why Jesus allows such a cruel humiliation from a woman, to wipe his feet with her hair? So much he despised women? Just as much as the rest of his contemporaries in that patriarchal community?

He riseth from supper, and laid aside his garments; and took a towel, and girded himself. After that he poureth water into a bason, and began to wash the disciples' feet, and to wipe [them] with the towel wherewith he was girded. Then cometh he to Simon Peter: and Peter saith unto him, Lord, dost thou wash my feet? Jesus answered and said unto him, What I do thou knowest not now; but thou shalt know hereafter. Peter saith unto him, Thou shalt never wash my feet. Jesus answered him, If I wash thee not, thou hast no part with me. Simon Peter saith unto him, Lord, not my feet only, but also [my] hands and [my] head. Jesus saith to him, He that is washed needeth not save to wash [his] feet, but is clean every whit: and ye are clean, but not all. [...] If I then, [your] Lord and Master, have washed your feet; ye also ought to wash one another's feet. For I have given you an example, that ye should do as I have done to you. Verily, verily, I say unto you, The servant is not greater than his lord; neither he that is sent greater than he that sent him. If ye know these things, happy are ye if ye do them.

He washes the feet of the apostles. For me this always meant a great suspicion of homosexual behaviour in Jesus, but anyway he didn't humiliate himself to the point of wiping their feet with his hair. And therefore this makes a profound difference between sexes that he made. He didn't wipe women's feet, and maybe he was stating subtlety that women were way inferior to men and he wouldn't perform humility to that extreme.

What do you think about the whole thing?

Zeichman · 04-23-2005, 08:18 AM

Me? I think your forcing 21st century Western Standards on a first-century Mid-east man.

sorompio · 04-23-2005, 09:52 AM

But, shouldn't those teachings supposed to be universal, for all times and places?

Zeichman · 04-23-2005, 03:14 PM

If I actually thought Jesus said those things, I may be inclined to agree. The dialogue in John is hardly a reliable source for the historical Jesus.

Even if it is accurate, it says nothing about him only washing guys' feet. Most scholars believe that Jesus did have female disciples, too. You'd have to show me that washing feet was considered homo-erotic in the first century, which you've made no attempt to do. The subtext of the scene in John is servitude, with which the foot-washing fits fairly well: Jesus is doing the work commonly left for the lowly slaves, despite the fact the author believes him to be the Son of God. You yourself admit that the behavior was rather humiliating in one context and then inexplicably you change it to mean that he was gay. Why?

However, it WAS a male-dominated society. Jesus, if he approved of the status quo, certainly could not have been considered sexist at the time.

sharon45 · 04-23-2005, 05:36 PM

I am even much more interested in what the NT's editors took out.

Zeichman · 04-23-2005, 05:44 PM

is that an argument from silence?

"because there's nothing gay in the NT it means something gay must've been it."

If so, it's pretty unimpressive.

Toto · 04-23-2005, 07:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sorompio

. . . What explanations about Hebrew customs and habits can we give me about this behaviour? . . .

Foot washing was something that was done in 1st c. Palestine and is still done in most areas of the world where people walk around in sandals on dusty ground. There is a certain amount of humility associated with it, but not degradation or sexuality, AFAIK.

The Catholic Church still has a foot washing ritual performed on Holy Thursday. They claim:

Quote:

In biblical times it was prescribed that the host of a banquet was to provide water (and a basin) so that his guests could wash their hands before sitting down to table. Although a host might also provide water for travelers to wash their own feet before entering the house, the host himself would not wash the feet of his guests. According to the Talmud the washing of feet was forbidden to any Jew except those in slavery.

In the controversies between Hillel and Shammai (cf. Shabbat 14a-b) Shammai ruled that guests were to wash their hands to correct "tumat yadayim" or "impurity of hands" (cf. Ex 30, 17 and Lv 15, 11). Priests were always to wash their hands before eating consecrated meals. The Pharisees held that all meals were in a certain sense "consecrated" because of table fellowship.

Jesus' action of washing the feet of his disciples was unusual for his gesture went beyond the required laws of hospitality (washing of hands) to what was, in appearance, a menial task. The Lord's action was probably unrelated to matters of ritual purity according to the Law.

The question of whether women may participate in this foot washing ceremony has been a hotly contended topic.

sharon45 · 04-23-2005, 10:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Zeichman

is that an argument from silence?

"because there's nothing gay in the NT it means something gay must've been it."

If so, it's pretty unimpressive.

If you are talking to me,(I don't see myself as being addressed), I am commenting on the fact that john's gospel spends most of it text having jesus parade around doing magic tricks announcing ungrounded assertions of how great he is with hardly any parables spoken. Because he has some moments of appearing to act humble, hardly makes up for the most of the time that he is obviously not.

John A. Broussard · 04-23-2005, 11:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sorompio

[I]
What do you think about the whole thing?

It seems far less demeaning to a woman than to suddenly be told she is going to bear a child to a divine being--like it or not. You'll note that Mary was not asked to have Jesus--she was told in no uncertain terms.

Chili · 04-23-2005, 11:51 PM

Foot washing is for males only in recongnition of completion on Holy Thursday. It is a high degree of achievement and worthy of the best purfumes the Mary's could supply for they were the cause of the steps made by the apostels that charmed them unto this end. Mary is the greater serpent that strikes at the head of Magdalene who in her turn strikes at the heel of man, and this is where their trail comes to an end.

04-23-2005, 04:00 AM	#1
sorompio Junior Member Join Date: Oct 2004 Location: Spain Posts: 58	Jesus the Fetishist Then took Mary a pound of ointment of spikenard, very costly, and anointed the feet of Jesus, and wiped his feet with her hair: and the house was filled with the odour of the ointment. (Jhn, 12:3) I could never digest these odd acts of the Jesus portrayed in the NT. What explanations about Hebrew customs and habits can we give me about this behaviour? Why Jesus allows such a cruel humiliation from a woman, to wipe his feet with her hair? So much he despised women? Just as much as the rest of his contemporaries in that patriarchal community? He riseth from supper, and laid aside his garments; and took a towel, and girded himself. After that he poureth water into a bason, and began to wash the disciples' feet, and to wipe [them] with the towel wherewith he was girded. Then cometh he to Simon Peter: and Peter saith unto him, Lord, dost thou wash my feet? Jesus answered and said unto him, What I do thou knowest not now; but thou shalt know hereafter. Peter saith unto him, Thou shalt never wash my feet. Jesus answered him, If I wash thee not, thou hast no part with me. Simon Peter saith unto him, Lord, not my feet only, but also [my] hands and [my] head. Jesus saith to him, He that is washed needeth not save to wash [his] feet, but is clean every whit: and ye are clean, but not all. [...] If I then, [your] Lord and Master, have washed your feet; ye also ought to wash one another's feet. For I have given you an example, that ye should do as I have done to you. Verily, verily, I say unto you, The servant is not greater than his lord; neither he that is sent greater than he that sent him. If ye know these things, happy are ye if ye do them. He washes the feet of the apostles. For me this always meant a great suspicion of homosexual behaviour in Jesus, but anyway he didn't humiliate himself to the point of wiping their feet with his hair. And therefore this makes a profound difference between sexes that he made. He didn't wipe women's feet, and maybe he was stating subtlety that women were way inferior to men and he wouldn't perform humility to that extreme. What do you think about the whole thing?

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

04-23-2005, 08:18 AM	#2
Zeichman Senior Member Join Date: Mar 2005 Location: USA Posts: 562	Me? I think your forcing 21st century Western Standards on a first-century Mid-east man.

04-23-2005, 09:52 AM	#3
sorompio Junior Member Join Date: Oct 2004 Location: Spain Posts: 58	But, shouldn't those teachings supposed to be universal, for all times and places?

04-23-2005, 03:14 PM	#4
Zeichman Senior Member Join Date: Mar 2005 Location: USA Posts: 562	If I actually thought Jesus said those things, I may be inclined to agree. The dialogue in John is hardly a reliable source for the historical Jesus. Even if it is accurate, it says nothing about him only washing guys' feet. Most scholars believe that Jesus did have female disciples, too. You'd have to show me that washing feet was considered homo-erotic in the first century, which you've made no attempt to do. The subtext of the scene in John is servitude, with which the foot-washing fits fairly well: Jesus is doing the work commonly left for the lowly slaves, despite the fact the author believes him to be the Son of God. You yourself admit that the behavior was rather humiliating in one context and then inexplicably you change it to mean that he was gay. Why? However, it WAS a male-dominated society. Jesus, if he approved of the status quo, certainly could not have been considered sexist at the time.

04-23-2005, 05:36 PM	#5
sharon45 Veteran Member Join Date: Apr 2003 Location: Southwest, US Posts: 8,759	I am even much more interested in what the NT's editors took out.

04-23-2005, 05:44 PM	#6
Zeichman Senior Member Join Date: Mar 2005 Location: USA Posts: 562	is that an argument from silence? "because there's nothing gay in the NT it means something gay must've been it." If so, it's pretty unimpressive.

04-23-2005, 11:51 PM	#10
Chili Banned Join Date: Apr 2004 Location: Alberta Posts: 11,885	Foot washing is for males only in recongnition of completion on Holy Thursday. It is a high degree of achievement and worthy of the best purfumes the Mary's could supply for they were the cause of the steps made by the apostels that charmed them unto this end. Mary is the greater serpent that strikes at the head of Magdalene who in her turn strikes at the heel of man, and this is where their trail comes to an end.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.