A single parent family?

[Tween]

Hi, I trust that this is the correct place for this post.... could any Christian explain to me why the Bible ONLY speaks about God the Father? Where is our Mother in all of this? Why is it that the Biblical model of the supreme ultimate family, is a motherless one?

With love from a former "Motherless"(read Christian) child, Tween

[Pilgrim]

The Bible does actually refer to God as mother on occasion. Psalms and proverbs for instance. So maybe that answers your question? Your understanding that it does not is actually not a correct one.

The reason why it doesn't come up more, I would guess, is because the culture in which scripture was written was a patriarchal one. Those are the terms in which the culture of that day would have taken the most comfort or would have understood the concepts best.

I think that to use the obviously male dominant language of scripture as an excuse to invalidate any truth statements about the Bible would be an act of anachronism. It would also to be culturally insensative because it would place unreasonable standards on the semetic culture of that time.

[Tween]

The Bible does actually refer to God as mother on occasion. Psalms and proverbs for instance. So maybe that answers your question? Your understanding that it does not is actually not a correct one.

The reason why it doesn't come up more, I would guess, is because the culture in which scripture was written was a patriarchal one. Those are the terms in which the culture of that day would have taken the most comfort or would have understood the concepts best.

I think that to use the obviously male dominant language of scripture as an excuse to invalidate any truth statements about the Bible would be an act of anachronism. It would also to be culturally insensative because it would place unreasonable standards on the semetic culture of that time.

Really, I have never been told this, very interesting....could you give me a reference, I would like to check this one out.

The cultures that surrounded the Hebrews in that day were totally at ease with the mother goddess idea. The religion of the Egyptians, for example revered the mother goddess Isis.

The Hebrews followed the religion of the Egyptians. I don't believe that Moses, being an Egyptian priest, would have felt out of place expressing God as both mother and father at all. (But then we get into another issue of the authorship of the first books of the Bible ...)

It is not the male dominant language that I have a problem with it is the absence of the entire concept of motherhood as being part of God that bothers me.

Your answers are not convincing me. If the Bible is the word of God, s/he would not have allowed semantics to have come in the way of letting us know that we have a mother as well as a father in heaven.

[Pilgrim]

Out of curiosity, what does "Tween" mean.

Really, I have never been told this,
Well, maybe the lesson is to not simply beleive what you are told but to read for yourself?


very interesting....could you give me a reference, I would like to check this one out.

Sure, glad to...
12For thus says the LORD, "Behold, I extend (AB)peace to her like a river,
And the (AC)glory of the nations like an overflowing stream;
And you will be nursed, you will be (AD)carried on the hip and fondled on the knees.
13"As one whom his mother comforts, so I will (AE)comfort you;
And you will be comforted in Jerusalem."

O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, you who kill the prophets and stone those sent to you, how often I have longed to gather your children together, as a hen gathers her chicks under her wings, but you were not willing.


The cultures that surrounded the Hebrews in that day were totally at ease with the mother goddess idea. The religion of the Egyptians, for example revered the mother goddess Isis.The Hebrews followed the religion of the Egyptians.

That one culture you mean. Not cultures. It's important to be precise. And the Hebrews were not a part of that culture, they were slaves to it. Also, the idea that the Egyptians considered Isis to be "Mother Goddess" in the same way modern (20th/21st century) paganism understands it is debatable and, frankly, smacks of revisionism.


I don't believe that Moses, being an Egyptian priest, would have felt out of place expressing God as both mother and father at all.

Moses as Egyptian priest is debatable and far from a given. Again, that smacks of revisionist history and frankly, is not considered to be true in the larger world of ancient near eastern history/archeology and theology.


(But then we get into another issue of the authorship of the first books of the Bible ...)

Indeed. And most accredited seminaries do not teach Mosaic authorship anymore. For the most part some form of source criticism is applied to the Torah and subsequent books. Though on TWeb I would imagine that you'd find a disproportionate number of folks subscribing to Mosaic Authorship.


It is not the male dominant language that I have a problem with it is the absence of the entire concept of motherhood as being part of God that bothers me.

The language expresses the concept. You can't have one with out the other if you think about it.


Your answers are not convincing me.
Do you really want to be convinced or is this you simply espressing your view on the matter? Judging by your responses and the information you provided in them it would seem you've already made up your mind on the matter.


If the Bible is the word of God, s/he would not have allowed semantics to have come in the way of letting us know that we have a mother as well as a father in heaven.

How do you mean "word of God?" It seems you have picked a definitino that suits your argument. That would be a bit of straw man since many Christians probably don't define it the way you are. Are you saying the Christian Bible is given to people in the same way that Islam understands the Koran to be given? That is, directly from the mouth of God, word for word? If so, that's not the majority opinion of Christianity. Most Christians consider that the Bible is filtered through the cultureal milleu into which it was given. Then, as humanity advances and applies the truths contained in the text we begin to understand how they apply more universally.

Let me give you an example that shows how the language expresses a concept. The difference between teknon and uioV The first means children in genereal and the second means sons specifically. Paul uses uioV wuite often because in the culture he was writing to, it carried the idea of inheritance. That is to say, males primarily inherited property and prestige from the parents. Now, as we apply that to the larger context of the canon of scripture we see the statement "There is now therefore nolonger jew and gentile, male and female, master and slave..." And we realize the idea of inheritance applies to more than just male children but that Paul used the masculine terminology to introduce the idea. Because people would immediately understand the inheritance implied in Paul's words.

So I know you want to think the worst possible about Christianity but maybe rethink it a little from a more reasonable position.

[NeilUnreal]

The liberal Christian view is in line with most mainstream scholarship on this topic. The Hebrew conception of God arose out of cultures with multiple gods and demigods. In many cases, this consortium was probably view as being ruled over by a husband/wife pair.

For some reason, as the Hebrews developed their monotheistic expression of God, the husband side of this pair was selected to represent that expression. Who knows why? It may have been because of their patriarchal notions of society. Perhaps it was a polemic against other cultures who elevated the wife side of the pair to supreme god. Maybe they just so wanted to emphasize the monotheistic nature of God that they picked one of the pair – the male image – for reasons that may be lost forever to history.

In any event, the expression made its way down to us Christians through our Jewish theological heritage and shared scriptures. Jesus and the early church extended the metaphor with the notion of Christ as the husband and the Church as the bride.

I think the important thing for us today is to realize that God is intimate enough that we can conceive of God in terms of the most intimate of human relationships: spouse, sibling, mother, father. Yet at the same time that God fulfills any and all of these notions, God is also beyond any objectification or conceptualization.

In the West – outside of a smattering of mysticism – we have never been comfortable with the notion that the all can be embodied in the one, and the one in the all. Paradoxically, our discomfort with the idea that a thing cannot just be itself, gives rise to a twin discomfort that everything cannot indeed be everything. This leads us to individualize God in the wrong way: we treat God as the ultimate expression of a category (supreme being), rather than as simply God (being, “I am”).

This is a very important view because it shows us that – in order to treat others as we would Christ – we must treat them as unique individual beings and not objects or categories. Every act, every relationship is unique, and yet at the same time, while it is ongoing, it is all the universe we have.

What other self-description could God possibly give than "I am." Viewed this way, it's not an assertion of power, or pre-eminence, it's simply the only thing God can say. It gives me great hope and comfort that at least one great Christian thinker saw that same "I am" as synonymous with "God is Love."

So that way, I can recognize in both the terms "mother" and "father" (embued with love as they were for me by my flesh-and-blood parents) aspects of God.

-Neil

[Pilgrim]

Tween?

[Tween]

Tween is just my nickname from childhood, it means nothing really other than one who is learning to be a Brownie (I think in the US you would call them girl scouts)

Sorry I need to take some time to read your responses, and think about them. I most certainly do read for myself, which is why I am no longer satisfied with Christianity as being the truth.

When I was part of the whole re-born religion, I most certainly did read and study the BIBle, but the topic under discussion was never mentioned from the pulpit or in any Bible study classes which I attended and therefore as a Christian I never thought to look for any references to it. It is only now that I have started to think, read and question for myself that so many of the tenets of the Bible and Christianity make no sense.

I am enjoying this discussion, pilgrim, so I will respond to your statements tomorrow, promise.

Tween

[spiritmech]

:popcorn:

[Tween]

Out of curiosity, what does "Tween" mean.

Well, maybe the lesson is to not simply beleive what you are told but to read for yourself?



Sure, glad to...
12For thus says the LORD, "Behold, I extend (AB)peace to her like a river,
And the (AC)glory of the nations like an overflowing stream;
And you will be nursed, you will be (AD)carried on the hip and fondled on the knees.
13"As one whom his mother comforts, so I will (AE)comfort you;
And you will be comforted in Jerusalem."

O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, you who kill the prophets and stone those sent to you, how often I have longed to gather your children together, as a hen gathers her chicks under her wings, but you were not willing.


This does not mean that we have a mother in heaven, god the Father will comfort as a mother does, is the same as saying that in a single parent family, the father takes on the role of mother, this says to me that there is still an absence of mother.

That one culture you mean. Not cultures. It's important to be precise. And the Hebrews were not a part of that culture, they were slaves to it. Also, the idea that the Egyptians considered Isis to be "Mother Goddess" in the same way modern (20th/21st century) paganism understands it is debatable and, frankly, smacks of revisionism.


Isis, Osiris and Horus formed the holy trinity of the Egyptian religion, a trinity which I find that I relate to far more that Father, son and the Holy spirit

Moses as Egyptian priest is debatable and far from a given. Again, that smacks of revisionist history and frankly, is not considered to be true in the larger world of ancient near eastern history/archeology and theology.


According to The Aegyptiaca by Manetho, advisor to pharoah Ptolemy 1 +- 300BC, Moses is recoreded as having been an Egyptian priest at Heliopolis.

Indeed. And most accredited seminaries do not teach Mosaic authorship anymore. For the most part some form of source criticism is applied to the Torah and subsequent books. Though on TWeb I would imagine that you'd find a disproportionate number of folks subscribing to Mosaic Authorship.


Remember that the majority of good Christians believe what their pastors teach, and up until the time I left the Church, that is what my pastor and all the Bible study leaders were teaching.

The language expresses the concept. You can't have one with out the other if you think about it.


Any language has the ability to express something as vital as mother.

Do you really want to be convinced or is this you simply espressing your view on the matter? Judging by your responses and the information you provided in them it would seem you've already made up your mind on the matter.


Perhaps my choice of vocab was incorrect, I am not looking to be convinced, I am looking for the truth, which I never found in Christianity.

How do you mean "word of God?" It seems you have picked a definitino that suits your argument. That would be a bit of straw man since many Christians probably don't define it the way you are. Are you saying the Christian Bible is given to people in the same way that Islam understands the Koran to be given? That is, directly from the mouth of God, word for word? If so, that's not the majority opinion of Christianity. Most Christians consider that the Bible is filtered through the cultureal milleu into which it was given. Then, as humanity advances and applies the truths contained in the text we begin to understand how they apply more universally.


I was taught 2 Timothy 3:16 "All scripture is God breathed and is usefull for..... (another aside question - sorry -Paul here was writing before the New Testament was put together in its current form, so was he including the Gnostic scriptures and all those not eventually chosen by Constantine and his friends?)

Let me give you an example that shows how the language expresses a concept. The difference between teknon and uioV The first means children in genereal and the second means sons specifically. Paul uses uioV wuite often because in the culture he was writing to, it carried the idea of inheritance. That is to say, males primarily inherited property and prestige from the parents. Now, as we apply that to the larger context of the canon of scripture we see the statement "There is now therefore nolonger jew and gentile, male and female, master and slave..." And we realize the idea of inheritance applies to more than just male children but that Paul used the masculine terminology to introduce the idea. Because people would immediately understand the inheritance implied in Paul's words.


We are not dealing with a concept that can be confusing due to nuances of language, we are talking about having a mother AND a father

So I know you want to think the worst possible about Christianity but maybe rethink it a little from a more reasonable position.

I don't want to think anything, I want to know. I WAS a Christian for many years, but I had to keep convincing my heart to believe. I tried to convince myself for years and years (20 to be exact),that I was just not praying, reading, giving myself over to the Spirit enough. Now that I have chosen to find the truth for myself, my heart knows it when I find it.

With much love

[spiritmech]

Well. I have a Mother. She is not deity, but she is created, a creature. She is the Holy Mother of God. Theotokos. You may know her as Mary.

I also have a Father. He created the Mother. The Mother is dependent on Him just as any creature is dependent on his Creator. In relation to God, we creatures take on the feminine role/position. Even as a man, when I compare myself to God, He is the man, and I take the feminine position.

[Pilgrim]

I don't want to think anything, I want to know. I WAS a Christian for many years, but I had to keep convincing my heart to believe. I tried to convince myself for years and years (20 to be exact),that I was just not praying, reading, giving myself over to the Spirit enough. Now that I have chosen to find the truth for myself, my heart knows it when I find it.

With much love
The Aegyptiaca of Manetho was written a thousand years after the Exodus and is quoted by Josephus much later.

Just before the portion of the Aegyptiaca that mentions the preist (CAp I.250), Manetho is recounting the written literary sources he was borrowing from.(I.229; cf. I.287) - on the expulsion of Seth and his allies during Dynasty XIX. Then Manetho start talking about the 'current talk about the Jews' (I.229), which is to say, he's now not talking about his historical literary sources but is talking about the opinions of his contemporaries in regards to the Jews in Egypt 1000 years earier. In other words, tales or legends, as josephus called them. To make this perfectly clear, Manetho's literary source said nothing of Moses, but some people in Manetho's day claimed that the Osarseph of this Egyptian tale referred to Moses.

It's far from a given conclusion that Osarseph was Moses. Although it is a very interesting possibility and would, if it could be proven show that the Hebrews were actually in Egypt.

In regards to the discriptions of God's being described in feminine characteristics you raise a good point. The Christian idea is that God, being pure spirit, trancends such things as gender and encompasses, in attitude and practice, traits of both. Does that make sense at all?

In other words, God or god, can not be described merely in terms of gender lables. God, being spirit, is above those things. In action and expression God will demonstrate both male and female traits. There is no duality, it is a unity. That's the best I can explain it right now. At any rate, it shows a respect for both male and female characteristics and traits, and more than that, shows the need for both. And more than that, shows that those traits do not have to be expressed in a duality but can be unified.

Peace,
Pilgrim

[Tween]

The Aegyptiaca of Manetho was written a thousand years after the Exodus and is quoted by Josephus much later.

Just before the portion of the Aegyptiaca that mentions the preist (CAp I.250), Manetho is recounting the written literary sources he was borrowing from.(I.229; cf. I.287) - on the expulsion of Seth and his allies during Dynasty XIX. Then Manetho start talking about the 'current talk about the Jews' (I.229), which is to say, he's now not talking about his historical literary sources but is talking about the opinions of his contemporaries in regards to the Jews in Egypt 1000 years earier. In other words, tales or legends, as josephus called them. To make this perfectly clear, Manetho's literary source said nothing of Moses, but some people in Manetho's day claimed that the Osarseph of this Egyptian tale referred to Moses.

It's far from a given conclusion that Osarseph was Moses. Although it is a very interesting possibility and would, if it could be proven show that the Hebrews were actually in Egypt.

In regards to the discriptions of God's being described in feminine characteristics you raise a good point. The Christian idea is that God, being pure spirit, trancends such things as gender and encompasses, in attitude and practice, traits of both. Does that make sense at all?

In other words, God or god, can not be described merely in terms of gender lables. God, being spirit, is above those things. In action and expression God will demonstrate both male and female traits. There is no duality, it is a unity. That's the best I can explain it right now. At any rate, it shows a respect for both male and female characteristics and traits, and more than that, shows the need for both. And more than that, shows that those traits do not have to be expressed in a duality but can be unified.

Peace,
Pilgrim

I do understand that God is a unity, that is the God of my truth, but in my experience, the Christian faith which claims to have the one and only path to this unity has not understood God in this way, or at least very rarely expresses this idea.

Thanks for the discussion, Pilgirim, sure to be seeing you in a few more soonish.

Tween

[1.61803399]

Well. I have a Mother. She is not deity, but she is created, a creature. She is the Holy Mother of God. Theotokos. You may know her as Mary.

I also have a Father. He created the Mother. The Mother is dependent on Him just as any creature is dependent on his Creator. In relation to God, we creatures take on the feminine role/position. Even as a man, when I compare myself to God, He is the man, and I take the feminine position.

Awww... Some one beat me to it. :wink:

Mary, the reason for Creation...

Pax Christi!

i hear drums...drums in the deep :eek:

[Pilgrim]

I do understand that God is a unity, that is the God of my truth, but in my experience, the Christian faith which claims to have the one and only path to this unity has not understood God in this way, or at least very rarely expresses this idea.

Thanks for the discussion, Pilgirim, sure to be seeing you in a few more soonish.

Tween
Well, I might suggest that your experience is limited. Anecdotal evidence is always suspect.

You have been presented with clear evidence that these concepts you thought were not a part of Christianity are in fact a part of Christianity. What you do with that evidence is your own perogative.

Let me point out that your last statement is no longer logically true. You have now experience me and this web site where Christians to express that idea. Your experience has now changed and been added to. What will you do with that? If you really have not made up your mind on the matter and are really looking for the truth then I hope you reevaluate your understanding and not just dismiss the new information out of personal preference.

And you're welcome. I think this may have been the first time in three years at TWeb that I've been able to pull out the Aegyptica. That's always worth it!

[RumTumTugger]

Tween is just my nickname from childhood, it means nothing really other than one who is learning to be a Brownie (I think in the US you would call them girl scouts)

We have Brownies here to which is to the Girls Scouts what Cub Scouts is.

I used to be a Brownie never went further though. :sad: