Comment on JeSUS

Battle_Masker@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago

• FourPacketsOfPeanuts@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago

  He washed all the disciples feet ;)

  source

  • A_Union_of_Kobolds@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago

    No, washing feet was a common thing - they wore sandals or walked barefoot most of the time, it was a common hygiene practice. It was just a task for “submissive”-classed people - the wife would wash the husband’s feet, and so on.

    Jesus was subverting social norms in multiple ways.

    source

    • EldritchFeminity@lemmy.blahaj.zone ⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago

      So what you’re saying is… Jesus was a bottom.

      source

      • nightofmichelinstars@sopuli.xyz ⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago

        Service sub

        source
    • danc4498@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago

      Jesus seemed like a great dude. Shame that none of his followers pay attention to the lessons he taught.

      source
    • FourPacketsOfPeanuts@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago

      I know I just thought it was funny

      source
• MissJinx@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago

  Agree he had an obsession with washing peoples feet. As I see it, as a evolved and enlightened human he was probably a pan sexual with a feet washing fetish

  source

  • bstix@feddit.dk ⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago

    There are claims that the translation of the bible is wrong on this though.

    bycommonconsent.com/…/weird-ot-euphemisms-uncover….)

    In short, feet might mean genitalia. I really have no opinion on it, but it makes a lot of sense. The purpose of even describing the submissive act of washing feet aligns well with the old Greek teacher and pupil relationships to present Jesus as a stand up guy who will go down on anybody, men or women, regardless of their status. He took your sins and such.

    The message is the same anyway, so I suppose it has been whitewashed a bit throughout the years.

    The reason why I want to believe it is that it would also explain why he was so popular that contemporary writers would bother writing anything about him.

    source

    • andros_rex@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago

      Dan McClellan has a good breakdown of why that is extremely unlikely.

      source

      • bstix@feddit.dk ⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago

        He didn’t really break it down much, did he? Basically just spent 4 minutes saying that people who study the bible don’t agree on it.

        source

        • -> View More Comments
    • hemko@lemmy.dbzer0.com ⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago

      This sounds heretic as fuck so I’m gonna roll with it

      source
• Snowclone@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago

  You gotta be careful though, because the Bible basically called every woman that is featured in it a whore. A lot of this is actually more modern translation stuff, clerics of the dark ages loved adding whore to ever female description

  source

  • HeyThisIsntTheYMCA@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago

    clerics when they see a woman:
    hooors

    source
  • spireghost@lemmy.zip ⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago

    clerics of the dark ages loved adding whore to ever female description

    Holy shit they were based in 500 AD?

    source
• frezik@midwest.social ⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago

  There’s nothing that points to Mary Magdalene being a prostitute. She’s conflated with another character who was, but they aren’t directly connected.

  source