In my opinion, Jesus was a woman. In my previous article I mentioned that Jesus' first secret was that Jesus did not die on the cross. Why was it kept secret, and whose agenda did Jesus' death fit? In this article I want to analyze again Jesus' life and mission in an effort to figure out who he really was. Why? Because like many others I believe I see a different Jesus from what Catholic Church has been introducing to us. Therefore I am sharing my opinion and my arguments on this matter in hoping that this will bring us closer to the truth and not create even more confusion. I see life as a ball that holds a mystery in its core. Someone opens a hole, a little tiny hole to see what's inside it. Another one opens another hole on the other side of the ball. Now there are two opposing view with two different opinions about life and its mysteries. The more holes that open in between the more new opinions are created. Am I opening a new hole in Jesus' matter? Not really. Things that I will say in this article are not something that had never been heard before. In fact I moved myself from one hole to another and I think I have finally created an idea of what the whole picture may look like. So, I invite you to do the same.
As in the previous article, I will use the same two criteria: criteria of dissimilarity and criteria of common sense. Criteria of dissimilarity is based on information and facts that are said to happen which do not fit any particular religious agenda, therefore they could be closer to the historical truth. The other criteria of common sense is based on how humans would normally behave in situations as the one of Jesus' life and death. Obviously we have to keep in mind the customs, knowledge and beliefs of that particular area and region. However, I am not going to repeat the arguments that historians have already covered. The work that is done so far by historians and scholars is marvelous. The documents that are found are precious. I am not going to reinvent the wheel in that sense. On the contrary, I will try to illuminate the story and life of Jesus from many different angles. In this attempt, I arrived at the conclusion that Jesus was not a man, Jesus may have been a woman. Let's see if this will in fact makes any sense with all that we know about Jesus and what "he" did and said.
Starting with the last supper, a gesture that doesn't make quite sense is the fact that Jesus washed his disciples' feet. Christian religion is trying to interpret this fact as symbolic. From the angle that I see this gesture, similar to how others saw it too, I came to the conclusion that it wasn't done to show humiliation or service. This gesture was done to show that Jesus was a woman instead. The common sense criteria tells us that since washing feet was considered a chore for women only (at that era in that region), then this gesture could have been used as a conversation starter to show the disciples that "he" was in fact a she. For example if anyone nowadays tries to change gender, and finally after plastic surgery and hormone treatments manages to transform himself from a man into a woman, then he (now she) would invite all friends over for dinner to share the secret or the news. And the first thing that we would expect our friend to do is to put on some high heels, carry a cute purse, dresses up like a woman and walk around to show us that she fits perfectly into womanhood. Two thousand years ago must not have been any different in terms of how human psychology worked. 2000 years ago chores and duties between men and women in a family, were quite different. The most distinguishing job for women was washing men's feet. Therefore I believe what some others also believe that this gesture is done to show "his" disciples that Jesus was a woman. This episode in Jesus' life doesn't fit into Christian agenda. But why can't we accept the Christian explanation that Jesus was, according to the, teaching his disciples to be humble servants like him? Because it doesn't fit the common sense criteria. If a leader is about to be arrested and sentenced to death and the he tells his followers "just do as I do, be humble, and serve others" the normal human reaction would be "Are you crazy?" and they would not believe or follow their leader. The normal reaction would be to run away from that leader. But Jesus' followers did not run away and they did not call Jesus crazy. They just waited quietly for their turn to have their feet washed. What could have wowed them so much that they waited in silence to hear more and see more of this craziness? Perhaps what Jesus could have said next is the answer and I believe it could be related to even more secrets which I am going to discuss in my future articles. Why didn't the disciples argue with Jesus? Were they brainwashed?
We know the true fact that Jesus' disciples were fishermen, therefore they did not have much education. However, the messiah theme was the most common theme of that era and you did not need much education to recognize the messiah and follow him because it was based on stories and prophecies told and retold generation after generation among these simple people. On the other hand, because they did not have much education, they could not have the ability to understand gestures like "washing feet" as a philosophical way to say "be humble." Therefore the reason why Jesus made this gesture at the last supper was a much more "down to Earth" reason. It is something that common men of that era would understand: Women wash men's feet.
Since the conversation continued and no arguments were recorded between Jesus and "his" disciples, then we could assume something very important was shared that night. Let's assume the conversation would have continued something like this "I am washing your feet in a gesture to show you my true identity. I am a woman and yet I am your messiah. The messiah is in fact human (as prophesies already indicate), but especially messiah must be a woman, because she is the bearer of good news and the bearer of life... The truth about the kingdom of God that was shared with me first and then I had a duty to share with you, was only one part of this messianic job," and so on and so on. If the conversation were something like this then everything else make sense now. Jesus had bigger secrets than those that were shared in public.
Let's take a quick look at the relationship between Jesus and other women. Historians have done a better job than myself in this regard, but I want to point out here that only if we accept that Jesus was a woman it would make sense why Jesus had private conversations with other women, and why Jesus was so closed to Mary Magdalene. Many records also show that Jesus did not mind being touched by other women in public. If we use the common sense criteria, men of that era would have been offended if that happened, but we know that Jesus was always accompanied by three women everywhere "he" went. All these facts now make sense and fit the common sense criteria. It is also well known that on many occasions Jesus wept. I am not saying that men don't weep sometimes but I am saying that it is a far more common occurrence among women. We know that Jesus cries more than once in public, in those stories told in the bible.
Now let's look at the moment of judgement recorded in the gospel of Mark 14 versus 53 to 65. I would like to mention here that the gospel of Mark is considered as one of the gospels that was written at a time closer to Jesus' era and is therefore considered more historically accurate. Here is what's written in these verses: They took Jesus to the high priest, and all the chief priests, the elders and the teachers of the law came together. Peter followed him at a distance, right into the courtyard of the high priest. There he sat with the guards and warmed himself at the fire. 55 The chief priests and the whole Sanhedrin were looking for evidence against Jesus so that they could put him to death, but they did not find any. Many testified falsely against him, but their statements did not agree. Then some stood up and gave this false testimony against him: "We heard him say, ‘I will destroy this temple made with human hands and in three days will build another, not made with hands.'" Yet even then their testimony did not agree. Then the high priest stood up before them and asked Jesus, "Are you not going to answer? What is this testimony that these men are bringing against you?" But Jesus remained silent and gave no answer. Again the high priest asked him, "Are you the Messiah, the Son of the Blessed One?" "I am," said Jesus. "And you will see the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of the Mighty One and coming on the clouds of heaven." The high priest tore his clothes. "Why do we need any more witnesses?" he asked. "You have heard the blasphemy. What do you think?" They all condemned him as worthy of death. Then some began to spit at him; they blindfolded him, struck him with their fists, and said, "Prophesy!" And the guards took him and beat him.
The most important line in this story is: The high priest tore his clothes and said "Why do we need any more witnesses?" What could have this high priest and others seen when they tore Jesus' clothes? What was it that made it so obvious that Jesus was lying? Could the exposing of a man's breast be a way to judge whether someone is telling the truth or not? As we see from these lines, it is a bit odd that tearing Jesus' clothes was the only and ultimate accusation for Jesus to be condemned. None of the other testimonies, as we can see from the story, was considered strong enough to accuse Jesus. This story told in one of the earliest gospels could be considered an historical fact because it fits the dissimilarity criteria. It also passes the common sense criteria because if the tearing of clothes would be the final straw to calling someone a liar, then they must have had some evidence in their hands after exposing Jesus' naked body. This evidence could have been that Jesus was a woman and not a man.
There are a lot more fact that we could bring to the table that using these two criteria would prove that Jesus was a woman. But I cannot stop and analyze all of them in one article. However, I would like to mention two more facts regarding this secret. The first one that strikes me odd is the fact that many documents found of that era have pages ripped off, as if someone was trying to hide facts. It is not that these documents were destroyed during the years because of age or corrosion but it seems as if those who hid these documents purposefully left some parts and destroyed others. One such document is the gospel of Peter which is not included in the bible. The document starts in the middle of a sentence and it also ends in the middle of a sentence. Why didn't the other pages make it? What could be the reason for the monk who hid the gospel of Peter to hide only some pages and not the whole account? It is obvious that these historical documents must have undergone some vandalism either before they were hidden or after someone found them and buried them again.
Another account that I would like to mention in favor of this hypothesis that Jesus may have been a woman is one of the documents discovered among Josephus' recordings from 70 C.E. Josephus was a historian that was paid by the Roman general Vespasian to write about the events of that time by appointing him the court historian. This document is closer in time to the actual events than all other historical documents written about Jesus. It is also a document that we can count on since many other historical events are also based on Josephus' writings. Reading Mr. Ehrman's book "Jesus – Apocalyptic Prophet of the new Millennium" I understood that this account of Josephus about Jesus (even though it is just a short passage) has perplexed historians and scholars for the simple reason that Josephus remained a devoted Jew all his life yet he mentioned in one of his writings that Jesus was the messiah. Above all, in the first sentence of this passage Josephus gives a hint that Jesus was not a man. This passage, translated in English (not by me but by other historians and scholars of course) says "At this time there appeared Jesus, a wise man, if indeed one should call him a man." Unfortunately, Christians use this sentence in their favor assuming that Josephus is accepting Jesus to be more than a man, therefore accepting Jesus to be the Son of God. But then historians are contradicting this conclusion by mentioning the simple fact that Josephus never changed his belief. Josephus never became a Christian, therefore Josephus did not believe that Jesus was the Son of God. He only believed that Jesus was the Messiah and he was not a man. On the other hand if Josephus believed that Jesus was not a man therefore was the Son of God then Jesus' mission should have been considered by him an historical event and since it was his duty to record historical events of this importance, then he would have written more than just a passage. But he didn't. All we find is this short passage that starts with the sentence "At this time appeared Jesus, a wise man, if indeed one should call him a man."
I believe many questions are brewing at this moment among which one stands out: Why would the messiah (the news bringer) be a woman? To show that women are important too? To show that a woman is the first one to carry life and knowledge? Or just because it is easier to keep a secret, a secret that will remain a secret until the time is right? Maybe the answer to this question is: all of the above. I am planning to discuss some of them in my next articles.
As in the previous article, I will use the same two criteria: criteria of dissimilarity and criteria of common sense. Criteria of dissimilarity is based on information and facts that are said to happen which do not fit any particular religious agenda, therefore they could be closer to the historical truth. The other criteria of common sense is based on how humans would normally behave in situations as the one of Jesus' life and death. Obviously we have to keep in mind the customs, knowledge and beliefs of that particular area and region. However, I am not going to repeat the arguments that historians have already covered. The work that is done so far by historians and scholars is marvelous. The documents that are found are precious. I am not going to reinvent the wheel in that sense. On the contrary, I will try to illuminate the story and life of Jesus from many different angles. In this attempt, I arrived at the conclusion that Jesus was not a man, Jesus may have been a woman. Let's see if this will in fact makes any sense with all that we know about Jesus and what "he" did and said.
Starting with the last supper, a gesture that doesn't make quite sense is the fact that Jesus washed his disciples' feet. Christian religion is trying to interpret this fact as symbolic. From the angle that I see this gesture, similar to how others saw it too, I came to the conclusion that it wasn't done to show humiliation or service. This gesture was done to show that Jesus was a woman instead. The common sense criteria tells us that since washing feet was considered a chore for women only (at that era in that region), then this gesture could have been used as a conversation starter to show the disciples that "he" was in fact a she. For example if anyone nowadays tries to change gender, and finally after plastic surgery and hormone treatments manages to transform himself from a man into a woman, then he (now she) would invite all friends over for dinner to share the secret or the news. And the first thing that we would expect our friend to do is to put on some high heels, carry a cute purse, dresses up like a woman and walk around to show us that she fits perfectly into womanhood. Two thousand years ago must not have been any different in terms of how human psychology worked. 2000 years ago chores and duties between men and women in a family, were quite different. The most distinguishing job for women was washing men's feet. Therefore I believe what some others also believe that this gesture is done to show "his" disciples that Jesus was a woman. This episode in Jesus' life doesn't fit into Christian agenda. But why can't we accept the Christian explanation that Jesus was, according to the, teaching his disciples to be humble servants like him? Because it doesn't fit the common sense criteria. If a leader is about to be arrested and sentenced to death and the he tells his followers "just do as I do, be humble, and serve others" the normal human reaction would be "Are you crazy?" and they would not believe or follow their leader. The normal reaction would be to run away from that leader. But Jesus' followers did not run away and they did not call Jesus crazy. They just waited quietly for their turn to have their feet washed. What could have wowed them so much that they waited in silence to hear more and see more of this craziness? Perhaps what Jesus could have said next is the answer and I believe it could be related to even more secrets which I am going to discuss in my future articles. Why didn't the disciples argue with Jesus? Were they brainwashed?
We know the true fact that Jesus' disciples were fishermen, therefore they did not have much education. However, the messiah theme was the most common theme of that era and you did not need much education to recognize the messiah and follow him because it was based on stories and prophecies told and retold generation after generation among these simple people. On the other hand, because they did not have much education, they could not have the ability to understand gestures like "washing feet" as a philosophical way to say "be humble." Therefore the reason why Jesus made this gesture at the last supper was a much more "down to Earth" reason. It is something that common men of that era would understand: Women wash men's feet.
Since the conversation continued and no arguments were recorded between Jesus and "his" disciples, then we could assume something very important was shared that night. Let's assume the conversation would have continued something like this "I am washing your feet in a gesture to show you my true identity. I am a woman and yet I am your messiah. The messiah is in fact human (as prophesies already indicate), but especially messiah must be a woman, because she is the bearer of good news and the bearer of life... The truth about the kingdom of God that was shared with me first and then I had a duty to share with you, was only one part of this messianic job," and so on and so on. If the conversation were something like this then everything else make sense now. Jesus had bigger secrets than those that were shared in public.
Let's take a quick look at the relationship between Jesus and other women. Historians have done a better job than myself in this regard, but I want to point out here that only if we accept that Jesus was a woman it would make sense why Jesus had private conversations with other women, and why Jesus was so closed to Mary Magdalene. Many records also show that Jesus did not mind being touched by other women in public. If we use the common sense criteria, men of that era would have been offended if that happened, but we know that Jesus was always accompanied by three women everywhere "he" went. All these facts now make sense and fit the common sense criteria. It is also well known that on many occasions Jesus wept. I am not saying that men don't weep sometimes but I am saying that it is a far more common occurrence among women. We know that Jesus cries more than once in public, in those stories told in the bible.
Now let's look at the moment of judgement recorded in the gospel of Mark 14 versus 53 to 65. I would like to mention here that the gospel of Mark is considered as one of the gospels that was written at a time closer to Jesus' era and is therefore considered more historically accurate. Here is what's written in these verses: They took Jesus to the high priest, and all the chief priests, the elders and the teachers of the law came together. Peter followed him at a distance, right into the courtyard of the high priest. There he sat with the guards and warmed himself at the fire. 55 The chief priests and the whole Sanhedrin were looking for evidence against Jesus so that they could put him to death, but they did not find any. Many testified falsely against him, but their statements did not agree. Then some stood up and gave this false testimony against him: "We heard him say, ‘I will destroy this temple made with human hands and in three days will build another, not made with hands.'" Yet even then their testimony did not agree. Then the high priest stood up before them and asked Jesus, "Are you not going to answer? What is this testimony that these men are bringing against you?" But Jesus remained silent and gave no answer. Again the high priest asked him, "Are you the Messiah, the Son of the Blessed One?" "I am," said Jesus. "And you will see the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of the Mighty One and coming on the clouds of heaven." The high priest tore his clothes. "Why do we need any more witnesses?" he asked. "You have heard the blasphemy. What do you think?" They all condemned him as worthy of death. Then some began to spit at him; they blindfolded him, struck him with their fists, and said, "Prophesy!" And the guards took him and beat him.
The most important line in this story is: The high priest tore his clothes and said "Why do we need any more witnesses?" What could have this high priest and others seen when they tore Jesus' clothes? What was it that made it so obvious that Jesus was lying? Could the exposing of a man's breast be a way to judge whether someone is telling the truth or not? As we see from these lines, it is a bit odd that tearing Jesus' clothes was the only and ultimate accusation for Jesus to be condemned. None of the other testimonies, as we can see from the story, was considered strong enough to accuse Jesus. This story told in one of the earliest gospels could be considered an historical fact because it fits the dissimilarity criteria. It also passes the common sense criteria because if the tearing of clothes would be the final straw to calling someone a liar, then they must have had some evidence in their hands after exposing Jesus' naked body. This evidence could have been that Jesus was a woman and not a man.
There are a lot more fact that we could bring to the table that using these two criteria would prove that Jesus was a woman. But I cannot stop and analyze all of them in one article. However, I would like to mention two more facts regarding this secret. The first one that strikes me odd is the fact that many documents found of that era have pages ripped off, as if someone was trying to hide facts. It is not that these documents were destroyed during the years because of age or corrosion but it seems as if those who hid these documents purposefully left some parts and destroyed others. One such document is the gospel of Peter which is not included in the bible. The document starts in the middle of a sentence and it also ends in the middle of a sentence. Why didn't the other pages make it? What could be the reason for the monk who hid the gospel of Peter to hide only some pages and not the whole account? It is obvious that these historical documents must have undergone some vandalism either before they were hidden or after someone found them and buried them again.
Another account that I would like to mention in favor of this hypothesis that Jesus may have been a woman is one of the documents discovered among Josephus' recordings from 70 C.E. Josephus was a historian that was paid by the Roman general Vespasian to write about the events of that time by appointing him the court historian. This document is closer in time to the actual events than all other historical documents written about Jesus. It is also a document that we can count on since many other historical events are also based on Josephus' writings. Reading Mr. Ehrman's book "Jesus – Apocalyptic Prophet of the new Millennium" I understood that this account of Josephus about Jesus (even though it is just a short passage) has perplexed historians and scholars for the simple reason that Josephus remained a devoted Jew all his life yet he mentioned in one of his writings that Jesus was the messiah. Above all, in the first sentence of this passage Josephus gives a hint that Jesus was not a man. This passage, translated in English (not by me but by other historians and scholars of course) says "At this time there appeared Jesus, a wise man, if indeed one should call him a man." Unfortunately, Christians use this sentence in their favor assuming that Josephus is accepting Jesus to be more than a man, therefore accepting Jesus to be the Son of God. But then historians are contradicting this conclusion by mentioning the simple fact that Josephus never changed his belief. Josephus never became a Christian, therefore Josephus did not believe that Jesus was the Son of God. He only believed that Jesus was the Messiah and he was not a man. On the other hand if Josephus believed that Jesus was not a man therefore was the Son of God then Jesus' mission should have been considered by him an historical event and since it was his duty to record historical events of this importance, then he would have written more than just a passage. But he didn't. All we find is this short passage that starts with the sentence "At this time appeared Jesus, a wise man, if indeed one should call him a man."
I believe many questions are brewing at this moment among which one stands out: Why would the messiah (the news bringer) be a woman? To show that women are important too? To show that a woman is the first one to carry life and knowledge? Or just because it is easier to keep a secret, a secret that will remain a secret until the time is right? Maybe the answer to this question is: all of the above. I am planning to discuss some of them in my next articles.
SHARE
