Answering those who say that Patriarchy Icon Jesus was no misogynist

If you are really for women, you do not lie and cover up for misogynists.  You cannot condemn patriarchy and make exceptions of the likes of Jesus.  He said the fruits show what the tree is so as he left patriarchy in his wake he was patriarchal himself.

The marriage vows about love until death are a Christian invention. When Jesus thought of marriage it was when a naive female child was taken to the groom's house. They were left alone and the groom had to prove sex took place. If she didn't bleed she was made an outcast and stoned to death and the marriage declared null.  The Bible he had commands this in the name of God.  None of this stopped him from saying marriage is unbreakable and lifelong and it is adulterous to end a marriage.  He reinforced the patriarchal horrors of marriage.  The girls had the right to divorce morally.  But the nation only allowed men to divorce.  Despite this he said that whoever divorces her husband is an adulteress.  He had many staunch Jewish followers who would have taken this as putting divorcing women under the death penalty for adultery.  Those Jews were quite powerful in the early Jesus movement.  Paul slams them as Judaisers.  Jesus did not care.  And the penalty for adultery as laid down by his god was stoning to death.

Not once did Jesus ask women to leave traditional roles.  He visited two sisters and let one slave for him and encouraged her sister to listen to his god-talk instead of helping her.  He put his mother in her place when she simply said there was no wine at a wedding.  He helped a Roman Centurion and his slave right away while a pagan woman got called a dog after being ignored by him until she forced her way to him.  His racism was inconsistent but obviously he was going to bootlick the Romans out of fear.  Back to the woman, we are merely told that he fixed her situation but no evidence is given.  We are not told there was any evidence or witnesses.  He probably did not help her at all.  If he did, you can read this as him being the kind of racist who still was more likely to help males over females of different races and cultures.  Remember, the woman also belonged to a religion that was also her race just like you have to have Indian blood to be truly Hindu.

Jesus degraded the people he ministered to who were being oppressed by the Romans.  Women and children suffered the most but he said nothing.  He just picked on the Jewish leaders.  In Matthew 23 he told them they were murderers and would finish him off, a clear attempt to provoke violence against them in the guise of self-defence.  Those men had wives and children.

He went as far as to say his flock were an evil generation and it was remarkable that anybody could give a hungry child bread and not a stone.  He said in the first gospel that he would not be called Good Teacher for only God is good.  To call everybody's motives that dangerous and evil is to justify patriarchal reasoning.  We all know male sex pests who think that the women they molest secretly like it.  Making out we are godless deep inside as Jesus did, virtually demands that.

There is no doubt that Christianity generally always has and always will downgrade women and worships Jesus for being as bad.  In the book Toxic Jesus, My Journey from Holy Shit to Spiritual Healing (Marc-Henri Sandoz Paradella), regarding Jesus the misogynist, we are told, “the historic Jesus treated women with respect and consideration, giving them a place among his supporters and even among his nearest disciples and apostles”.  That would be shallow of him considering he said it was a sin to revise or soften any Old Testament law in Matthew 5 and a more woman hating law cannot be imagined.  There is no evidence that Jesus was that close to any woman in his entourage.  No deep conversations are recorded.

He snapped at his mother at Cana.  He was asked by her to help with the wine and he said no and did it anyway as if to say, "I am helping but it is my idea not hers." 

He let a woman debase herself by washing his feet like she was dirt with perfume and tears and  he said he forgave her sexual immorality.  He did not tell her he forgave her and to hold her head up high and that he would wash her feet.  Feet washing was the work of a slave. 

He told a pagan woman she and her daughter were animals and thus risked - or invited perhaps? - racist attacks on her for she was Canaanite.  There is no evidence that this was an object lesson and the gospel would say if it were.  He praised her faith but this faith was faith as in, "He has the power to do a miracle cure for my daughter".  He knew such faith is cruel to encourage as many do not get their miracles.  

Men have always had dogs and called women dogs.  Jesus is an example of an ancient figure calling a woman and her daughter b****hes.  Remember the gospel says Jesus and the others were annoyed by her so that explains the outburst and does not excuse it.

Why did he take the woman at her word when she said her daughter was full of demons and needed them cast out?  Because he hated her for her race so it was easy to do that.  And the girls consent does not matter either to this bigot.

The gospel says the woman went back home to find her daughter well.  But that means little when Jesus said that if the person shows signs again of possession it's because they invited the demons back in.  A perfect loophole.

The woman had to plead and plead and humiliate herself for Jesus would not listen to her.  He was on a break.  Jesus being indifferent and looking the other way made her more adamant. She would have been calling for help for he possessed child and may have thought death was near.  If Jesus had been bothered by the woman he would not have ignored her making her beg harder and get noisier. The Church argues that the point of the story is about unwavering faith and persistence.  The account does mention her determination but does not say it is about it.

Now the apostles were tired of her as well.  The apostles didn’t say to Jesus, “It only takes a second. Get it out”. They showed what they thought of his power then. Not much in other words. Instead they told him to, “Tell her to go away.” They meant scare her off for she was clearly not going to listen otherwise. They hated her on race grounds. Jesus by prolonging was complicit in this hate.

He disowned his mother in Mark for the whole family including her thought he was mentally disturbed - the crafty gospel does not tell us that in those days insanity was equated with possession.  Jesus tried to make out that anybody who thought his exorcisms were satanic tricks was a lost cause guilty of a sin that would never ever be forgiven. 

Magdalene is described as the first apostle to see his resurrection and tell the disciples. In the gospel of John, Jesus appears saying to her, 'Do not hold on to me, for I have not yet ascended to the Father. Go instead to my brothers and tell them, ‘I am ascending to my Father and your Father, to my God and your God.’ Some hold that this was only Jesus' spirit.  By ascending he is saying the body had not being revived yet where ever it was.  Early gospel strata shows that resurrection and exaltation to God's presence, a form of ascension, are two sides of the same coin.  So she did not see the risen Jesus.  He is standoffish with her as if he is all about the apostles and they get a different reception and Jesus supposedly ordains them as messengers who forgive sins and gives them the Holy Spirit.  The other gospels only have the women telling the apostles to prepare for seeing Jesus for themselves which makes sense in a culture where women could not count as sufficient witnesses.  Luke goes as far as to omit Jesus appearing to the women.  Mark has a forged ending where the women speak about the risen Jesus but the original ends with the women saying nothing.

You are told rubbish by some that Magdalene was in a sense the Church for a time.  They add that Jesus appears to her and makes her the apostle of his resurrection when there was nobody else.  She alone then at that time understood the gospel of the death and resurrection of Jesus.

First the other gospels say the men in white were there before her and they told her.  The implication is that they were the first to see him.

Second, she was not alone.

Third, she did not proclaim a gospel message.  She treated the return of Jesus in a fact way.  There is a difference between saying you seen a dead Jesus come back to life and preaching, "Jesus has risen believe and repent and convert!"  She did not claim to have received the Holy Spirit, an essential if you want to be an apostle.

If the apostles are accused of taking the women's witness from them and making it their own and by declaring, "WE have decided this is valid" then how reliable and holy are they?  The women by tolerating that showed they were not reliable spiritual authorities either.

Jesus lived in and went along with and even validated that age.  An age where underage marriage for girls was the cruel norm.  It was a norm that meant most first time mothers died in childbirth as their bodies were not ready.  Though women could not divorce, perhaps for many of them were too young to be able to assert themselves, he cruelly banned them from initiating divorce.  He blocked any conversation there.  He blocked progress. 

The Jews asked him about Moses tolerating divorce and wondered how liberal this should be.  He said the law must not be used for God from the beginning set up man to unite in one body with woman for life and that is marriage.  He called any woman trying to divorce an adulteress.  Considering that the culture of the time wanted to kill women like that this is clear hate speech.

He did not stand with his own mother who was a mere child perhaps of 11 or 12 who owing to her hardship would have been more like an 8 year old and who was pregnant.

He had no right to even mention the sexual choices of the Samaritan woman to her or tell her her religion was wrong. “Salvation is from the Jews and you worship on the wrong mountain.” She was clearly under the "wrong" patriarchal" authority.  Alarmingly Jesus himself was oppressed by his leaders and he wanted women subjected to that! It was patriarchy on steroids in those days.

When the adulteress was brought to him to see if he would agree with God's law about stoning her (John 8), all he had to do was shake his head and walk away for those who wanted to stone her were only a mob and only testing him and could not stone her anyway. But he dragged it out and told her at the end she was guilty of that sin meaning she could have been stoned legally later.  He made sure this woman was tormented.  The mob saved her for they chose to walk away when he said, "If you have no sin then throw a stone at her".  We don't know if Jesus was happy about this or disappointed.  What right had he to take their word for it and accuse her himself?  He told her to avoid the sin of adultery in future!

He had a purse and there is no hint that it was ever used to feed any poor woman.  That purse if he was as popular as the gospels make out had to be bursting.  Was Jesus like a socialist in the sense that he wanted wealth redistributed so that the rich were no longer better off then the power and all had what they needed? No. He never once asked anybody in authority to implement that. Asking individuals to do it is not the same thing. And he unfairly asked some to do it not all. His teaching that only the kingdom of God mattered did untold harm by putting his followers off campaigning for social change. He clearly expected a speedy end of the world so he was going to do nothing for the poor.  The main victims of his insanity were women and children.  That is who suffer most when wealth is not fairly distributed.


No Copyright