Jesus Died For Somebody’s Sins But Not Mine
And the tower bells chime, ‘ding dong’ they chime
They’re singing, ‘jesus died for somebody’s sins but not mine.’– Patti Smith, “Gloria”
All systems returned to normal.
For those of you who missed it, well, you missed it. It’s probably for the best. But you can still experience a little of the magic here.
17 Responses to “Jesus Died For Somebody’s Sins But Not Mine”
-
Paul Tergeist says:
TESTING THE FAITH
Was Jesus Christ
really a woman?
New version of Gospels changes gender of ‘Son of God’ to female
Posted: June 3, 2005
1:00 a.m. Eastern© 2005 WorldNetDaily.com
A publisher is touting a new edition of the Gospels that identifies Christ as a woman named Judith Christ of Nazareth.
LBI Institute says its version, Judith Christ of Nazareth, The Gospels of the Bible, Corrected to Reflect that Christ Was a Woman, Extracted from Matthew, Mark, Luke and John, takes Thomas Jefferson’s edited Gospel one step futher by “correcting” the gender of Christ and God.
“This long-awaited revised text of the Gospels makes the moral message of Christ more accessible to many, and more illuminating to all,” says Billie Shakespeare, vice president for the publisher, in a statement. “It is empowering. We published this new Bible to acknowledge the rise of women in society.”
WND sought comment from the LBI Institute’s Stephen Glazier, but he did not return messages.
The new version, according to the publisher, revises familiar stories, tranforming the “Prodigal Son” into the “Prodigal Daughter” and the “Lord’s Prayer” into the “Lady’s Prayer.”
A passage compiled from Luke 2, with corresponding verses at the beginning of each sentence, says: “4 And Joseph went to Bethlehem. 5 To be enrolled with Mary, his wife, who was then pregnant. 7 And she brought forth her firstborn child. 21 And her name was chosen to be Judith.”
A passage on the crucifixion, from John 19, says: “17 And She bearing her cross went forth. 18 There they crucified Judith.”
A resurrection passage from Matthew 28 states: “1 Mary Magdalene and the other Mary came to see the tomb. 5 But the angel said to the women, “Do not be afraid, for I know that you seek Judith who was crucified.” 6 “She is not here; for She is risen.”
The book’s foreword says, “The Jefferson Bible is faithfully followed by the present book, with the corrections in the name and gender of Christ, the gender of God, and some of the parables.”
The publisher explains Jefferson used extracts of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John rather than the complete books, in order to tell a “linear, complete, organized story” that emphasizes the moral teachings of Christ.
The foreword says, “Events in the Gospel that do not relate to the moral teachings of Christ are often omitted. However, the basic narrative of Christ’s life, death and resurrection is maintained.”
Reader reviews on the book’s Amazon.com page included these:
* “One star because there is nothing lower. May the Lord have mercy on the writers!”
* “A friend with a Hebrew doctorate noted to me: ‘There is no feminine form of the name Jesus (or Joshua). Judith is the feminine form of the name Juda – or Judas.’ How perfectly fitting!”
* Reading the other reviews here, I can’t believe that this is being touted as being an advance for women’s rights. That is just not true. God sent his only SON, not his daughter. It is also true that God loves all of us, male and female the same. He created each of us as we are. We should not strive to become something we are not. This book truly offends me. I agree with the other reviewer, those that produced this book will be held responsible for those they deceive. I pray for each of them.
* May the Lord God punish the author of this translation and its publishers if they do not withdraw this herectic bible from print Amen.
April 4th, 2006 at 3:01 pm EST -
Alon Levy says:
I’d much rather Dominionists pray for sorrows to come to heretics than for them to create these sorrows themselves.
-
flawedplan says:
Hiya Dr. S,
Hope all is well. One thing about Patti though, and it’s not an apology or defense, just a nit-picking fact, prolly trivia in some circles, but she changed that, in live shows she now sings “Jesus Died for Somebody’s Sins, Why Not Mine?” Funny how people change.
Something else about god and women I’m learning, a friend does research psychology on women and self-esteem and she’s shown me the data; women who perceive of god as female have higher value of self than women who see god as male. I was raised catholic, and am no longer religious, but of course bear the residue, and lately when speculating on god, am deliberately switching the gender to female, and notice significant and good change in my estimation of women in general, including me. Odd but true. Anyways, hope I’m not derailing here, and I’m not endorsing, just exploring. Love this blog, can’t say it enough!
-
Alon Levy says:
Something else about god and women I’m learning, a friend does research psychology on women and self-esteem and she’s shown me the data; women who perceive of god as female have higher value of self than women who see god as male.
What do you mean, “perceive god as”? Do you mean, “believe in a religion where god is,” so that atheists are excluded, or do you include people who’ve apostated from a religion but still think of a hypothetical god as male/female?
Personally, when I talk about a hypothetical god, I always use “it” instead of either gendered pronoun; when I talk of specific deities, I use the gender they’re typically assigned.
-
Violet says:
flawedplan, I’ve had the same experience — and Alon, maybe this will explain it:
I’m not a theist, but being an American I am unavoidably awash in imagery of God the Father, our Heavenly Father, etc., etc., etc. About 12 years ago I began mentally thinking of God as She, God the Mother, etc. I don’t mean that I suddenly started believing in god, because I didn’t. I just mean that I started editing my mental language when thinking of the Judeo-Christian god. And the interesting thing was that doing this actually reduced my innate hostility to the Judeo-Christian religions. The imagery of “God the Father” is so oppressive and negative for many women (including me) that just re-imaging God as female makes the whole thing more psychologically tolerable (though not more believable).
-
will says:
Oh please. If God is a she, how did she inpregnant Mary?@?@??@?@?
That ruins your theory.
-
Alon Levy says:
But the Christian god is in fact God the Father (the term “Judeo-Christian” is an invention of Christian fundamentalists who didn’t want to appear anti-Semitic), and the Christian religion does in fact view women as inferior to men.
For me, the inherent sexism of the world’s major religions (and its major quasi-religion, Confucianism) is simply yet another black mark on them, a good reason to abandon them completely. For me it’s one more item on the list that includes the mass murder, the abject hierarchism, the intolerance, and the economic subjugation they entail.
-
Violet says:
the term “Judeo-Christian” is an invention of Christian fundamentalists who didn’t want to appear anti-Semitic
Regardless of its origins, it’s long served as a useful shorthand among historians. It’s just so much quicker than saying “the god of the Bible, whom Christians believe is the same god worshipped by Christians and Jews although many Jews might dispute this.”
Orthodox Judaism has just as much sexism in it as fundamentalist Christianity, if not more, though of course Reform Jews generally have jettisoned that crap (as have liberal Christians).
-
CR says:
That’s very interesting about percieving God as female. I tried it just now and by golly, it’s true. That was amazing. If there is a God I don’t think It will mind one way or the other. And if there isn’t a God, who cares anyway.
Alot of Catholics mentally have also done this with their praying or appealing to Mother Mary instead of Jesus. It’s a common thing. It’s starting to make more sense to me now.
Again, I’m not religious- just don’t have too much problem with any of it right now. It can be oppressive to woman and also to men- no doubt. It can also do alot of good for some people too in certain circumstances. It’s how they are taking it.
Do they call it Judeo Christian becuase Christians are like a sect of Judism who believe that the Massiah has already arrived while regular Jews are still waiting?
-
Alon Levy says:
Orthodox Judaism has just as much sexism in it as fundamentalist Christianity, if not more, though of course Reform Jews generally has jettisoned that crap (as have liberal Christians).
Yeah, I know about Orthodox Judaism, but then there arises the question of why Islam isn’t included; in its conception of what god is, Judaism is closer to Islam than to Christianity, mostly because of the lack of a trinity.
Reform Jews are fairly gender-egalitarian, but they don’t refer to god as a she; after all, the Hebrew Bible uses the masculine gender when referring to god (“Elohim hu,” not “Elohim hi”).
Do they call it Judeo Christian becuase Christians are like a sect of Judism who believe that the Massiah has already arrived while regular Jews are still waiting?
Some people view it that way – for instance, a few years ago I read an article joking about how Jews and Christians should just wait for the Messiah to come and announce either, “Nice to meet you” or “How nice it is to see you again.” But I’ve read an account – possibly on this blog in a post I no longer remember – of how Christianity is in fact a very Hellenized religion, and how even what Paul was advocating couldn’t succeed in Roman civilization without Hellenization/Romanization.
-
Violet says:
but then there arises the question of why Islam isn’t included; in its conception of what god is, Judaism is closer to Islam than to Christianity, mostly because of the lack of a trinity.
This is true, but the gap between Islam and the other two Abrahamic religions is real. It’s partly just cultural in the West, because of settlement patterns and historical antagonism. But it’s also scriptural: Jews and Christians both use the Hebrew Bible, with a slightly different canon. Muslims honor the Bible but in fact they don’t use it. The Koran is their scripture. And where the Koran relates Biblical stories differently from how they’re told in the Bible, the Koran is considered correct and the Bible corrupt.
-
CR says:
Thanks Alon, I enjoyed reading what you said. And I was smiling at it. But now I have to go look up what Hellanized means. You have sent me to my dictionary once again, Alon.
-
Alon Levy says:
Well, that’s true, but I presume that you can find such gaps between each Abrahamic religion and the other two – for example, Judaism has a very localistic and racist flavor because of the “Jews are the chosen people” part, whereas Christianity and Islam are universal and missionary. It’s just that in its conception of god Christianity happens to be the odd one out.
-
Violet says:
Maybe it seems different to you as an Israeli, but my lived experience has always been that Christians and Jews have a tremendous common heritage in the Hebrew Bible. Jews don’t share in the New Testament and Christians don’t share in the Talmud, but both groups do share the same bedrock scripture in the Tanakh/Old Testament. Christians and Jews can and do discuss all the same Bible stories, exchange the same quotations, look to the exact same heritage of law and prophecy. In Western editions of Christian Bibles there are always rabbis and Judaic scholars on the editorial staff, and this isn’t window dressing. It is common for Jewish and Christian scholars to collaborate on understanding the Hebrew scriptures, while acknowledging that Christians impart an eschatological meaning to certain texts that Jews traditionally do not.
None of this is possible between Christians and Muslims or between Jews and Muslims. There is simply no common text, no shared sacral or literary tradition.
-
Older says:
Will — do you mean that you think God actually came down there in the flesh and stuck his dick, oh excuse me, His Dick, into Mary to initiate the pregnancy? Just askin.
-
will says:
Will — do you mean that you think God actually came down there in the flesh and stuck his dick, oh excuse me, His Dick, into Mary to initiate the pregnancy? Just askin.
Isnt that what the Bible says? What else do you think could have happened? His Sperm magically appeared at her eggs? geez, what kind of idiot are you?!?!?!?
-
Paul Tergeist says:
to 16: That is NOT at all what the Bible says. God sent the Holy Spirit to ‘come upon’ Mary.
