beatrice_otter: Dali's Christ of St. John of the Cross (St. John of the Cross)
beatrice_otter ([personal profile] beatrice_otter) wrote in [personal profile] melannen 2012-04-04 04:39 pm (UTC)

Well. Depending on how you define "canon." Personally, I'm pretty sure it was a Gnostic forgery of the second century, for reasons I mention above.

As to the intersex thing, well, I had a professor of the Old Testament that claimed that one of the reasons for prohibiting statues of God was to prevent too-strict gender identification of the divine. I mean, there are a surprising amount of gender-neutral or feminine metaphors for God in both the Hebrew Bible and the New Testament, when you consider how incredibly patriarchal, sexist, and misogynist their society was. Her phrase for it was "It's about he-ness, not the penis." I don't think there's enough evidence one way or the other about Jesus' sex/gender, and frankly there are more important battles to be fought regarding sexuality and identification in the church (Sodom and Gomorrah don't mean what you think they mean, no really). But it is interesting to speculate about.

Just, please, if you fic it, don't put explicit sex in. Or if you do, clearly state that ahead of time and don't link me to it. I can accept that Jesus being "truly human" would include sexuality, but I don't really want to know about it. Which perhaps has something to do with the fact that I'm an Ace, and thus what it means for me if Jesus was a sexual being is just about opposite to what it means for most people. (I.e. it wouldn't be unifying/provide closeness, it would be distancing.)

Post a comment in response:

If you don't have an account you can create one now.
HTML doesn't work in the subject.
More info about formatting

If you are unable to use this captcha for any reason, please contact us by email at support@dreamwidth.org