Brides of Christ: Jesus' Discourses with Women in the Gospel of John

[@francishein7939]

Thank you Dr. Lewis, you ability to present such complex texts so clearly is much appreciated.

[@aldenscottcrow]

Powerful talk - thank you Dr. Lewis!

[@StudentsBunnyHome]

Beautiful conference!!!!

[@StudentsBunnyHome]

Could be possible a special edition about the Song of songs, by Saint Bernard?

[@ElizabethDMadison]

My question was whether anything in the Gospels themselves calls for categorizing chaste celibate women about whether they are virgins, accepting them based on whether they are literally virgins, or valuing them differently based on whether they are literally virgins. Some authors make claims about virginity based on the Gospels, even when the Gospels show no sign they are commenting on this concept (the only reference by Jesus to parthenoi is the parable of the 10 virgins, which even St Jerome says is not a commentary about virginity but is about all the Faithful; though arguably one could also conclude that being a virgin is neutral but being prudent is important). But even in considering the family of Bethany, clearly the sacred author did not consider it important to tell us whether any of them are "virgins". They could certainly be widowed, or could be "not virgin" because of some other reason. It's easy to interpret the Samaritan woman accepting Jesus (who incredibly reveals to her that "I who speak with you am he", after she mentions the Messiah) as her seventh and perfect "husband" (in chastity/continence, clearly), then after the apostles show up with food He is not hungry for that but (with an ambiguous color) seems to experience some type of satiety in this encounter He's had. Someone's worthiness to be a bride in the normal sense is not the criteria for acceptance by Christ the Bridegroom. This is also seen when Jesus arrestingly challenges Simon the Pharisee's estimation of "what kind of woman this is"; in Jesus' reframing of "what kind of woman" she is, she is the kind of woman who has welcomed Him and His forgiveness with love. While whether a woman is a "bethula" or a "parthenos" is very important in the Rabbinic judaism of the Mishnah (where a woman who isn't a virgin is worth only half the bride price), and it was important to the Greeks and Romans (who have so many stories about goddesses or other females defending their threatened virginity that it's difficult to pick a few to mention, had traditions of virgin priestesses of Vesta and of Artemis, and the Julian laws on adultery established by Caesar Augustus heightened the legal necessity of girls' virginity), it's irrelevant to understanding women's relationship with Jesus, whose love for us is not literally sexual, and I think THAT'S important. The nuptial analogy of the union of the Church and Christ is an analogy, and the nuptial analogy of the union of the soul and God is an analogy for something much higher than conjugal union. It is very noticeable when we see the makeup of the group of women led by St Mary Magdalene who followed Jesus and provided for Him out of their own funds, there is no evidence of virgins being preferred or even present (at the time, this meant young girls who would be in their family homes under watchful eyes, until they were married). One looks in vain for any preference Jesus would have for people based on virginity or never having sinned in the first place. Doing the will of the Father right now, and from now on, seems to be the criterion of being accounted His brother, sister, or mother. Instead, those who have been forgiven much love much, and even prostitutes are entering the kingdom of heaven before the diligent followers of the law. A preferential option for innocent virgins would contradict the message of the Gospel (which is surely both/and; Jesus loves us all so very much, all in His fold have received His mercy and been justified with His justice). I have found from speaking with religious (whom anyone would call "conservative" religious) that their communities and any others of which they are aware do not consider literal virginity a requirement for being a Sister or a "bride of Christ." Certainly in spiritual theology such as St John of the Cross, the nuptial analogy for union with God in love is what all are called to, and he wrote his treatise "The Living Flame of Love" on the most intimate marriage of the soul and God, not addressed to nuns but a the request of and addressed to a widow who had also been sexually abused by a relative (in the Carmelite mystics, a spirituality of being a "bride of Christ" has absolutely nothing to do with virginity as such. Essentially St John of the Cross' sole spiritual theology related allusion to virginity is an allusion to the appendix to the Summa Theologiae that speculates virgins will have a special "aureole" in heaven). The early Church made widows important ecclesial figures almost immediately, while Saint Paul said that, regarding virgins (the standard Greek way of referring to unmarried women of marriageable age, in a way that is absolutely not the case in English where it tends to be a more technical sexual or erotic concept), he has no instruction from the Lord.

[@francishein7939]

why is the Chinese screen upside down?

[@eaglespiritlovecloud4729]

❤

[@StudentsBunnyHome]

55:00 VIRGINITY Please a LIVE STREAM on this topic!!!

[@dominicflamiano452]

So, arguably, the first Apostles were women, the Samaritan woman at the well who convinced others because he knew all about her, and Mary Magdalene, who upon seeing the Risen Jesus, is commissioned to tell the brothers, after letting go.