Announcement

Collapse

Ecclesiology 201 Guidelines

Discussion on matters of general mainstream Christian churches. What are the differences between Catholics and protestants? How has the charismatic movement affected the church? Are Southern baptists different from fundamentalist baptists? It is also for discussions about the nature of the church.

This forum is primarily for Christians to discuss matters of Christian doctrine, and is not the area for debate between atheists (or those opposing orthodox Christianity) and theists. Inquiring atheists (or sincere seekers/doubters/unorthodox) seeking only Christian participation and having demonstrated a manner that does not seek to undermine the orthodox Christian faith of others are also welcome, but must seek Moderator permission first. When defining “Christian” for purposes of this section, we mean persons holding to the core essentials of the historic Christian faith such as the Trinity, the Creatorship of God, the virgin birth, the bodily resurrection of Christ, the atonement, the future bodily return of Christ, the future bodily resurrection of the just and the unjust, and the final judgment. Persons not holding to these core doctrines are welcome to participate in the Comparative Religions section without restriction, in Theology 201 as regards to the nature of God and salvation with limited restrictions, and in Christology for issues surrounding the person of Christ and the Trinity. Atheists are welcome to discuss and debate these issues in the Apologetics 301 forum without such restrictions. Additionally, there may be some topics that within the Moderator's discretion fall so outside the bounds of mainstream orthodox doctrine that may be more appropriately placed within Comparative Religions 101.

Forum Rules: Here
See more
See less

Women Priests, the thin end of the wedge?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #16
    Originally posted by Starlight View Post
    I was expecting this thread to be satire, given the title. Apparently not.


    The bible has no qualms about using "mother" analogies for God or Jesus. eg:
    “As a mother comforts her child, so will I [God] comfort you; and you will be comforted over Jerusalem.” (Isa. 66:13)
    “Can a mother forget the baby at her breast and have no compassion on the child she has borne? Though she may forget, I [God] will not forget you!” (Isa. 49:15)
    “Jerusalem, Jerusalem, the city that kills the prophets and stones those who are sent to it! How often have I desired to gather your children together as a hen gathers her brood under her wings, and you were not willing!” (Matthew 23:37)

    The creation account tells us that both masculinity and femininity stem from a reflection of God:
    "So God created mankind in his own image, in the image of God he created them; male and female he created them." (Gen 1:27)

    Presumably, while incarnate, Jesus had male chromosomes and male genitalia. But equally presumably God the 'Father' lacks such chromosomes or genitalia, and the more commonly masculine language that the bible uses reflects ancient social values connecting men with power, with the metaphor being that God is a powerful parent. But that doesn't appear to mean that God can't also express feminine characteristics, since the Bible also uses feminine language about God on multiple occasions.
    He's comparing himself to a woman but he never says he's a women.
    "Kahahaha! Let's get lunatic!"-Add LP
    "And the Devil did grin, for his darling sin is pride that apes humility"-Samuel Taylor Coleridge
    Oh ye of little fiber. Do you not know what I've done for you? You will obey. ~Cerealman for Prez.

    Comment


    • #17
      Originally posted by Starlight View Post
      "So God created mankind in his own image, in the image of God he created them; male and female he created them." (Gen 1:27)
      Young's Literal Translation: And God prepareth the man in His image; in the image of God He prepared him, a male and a female He prepared them.
      Darby: And God created Man in his image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.

      It appears the emphasis is on God creating man in His image -- and he also made male and female.
      The first to state his case seems right until another comes and cross-examines him.

      Comment


      • #18
        Originally posted by Cerebrum123 View Post
        So you think that Jesus was both being absurd, and had no reason to call His Father "he"? Or do you just think He was calling His Father that because He was "used to it"?
        I think Jesus was referring to God in the culturally-accepted way of the time, since the concept of "My co-equal being of whom I am solely begotten" would not have made much sense to his audience. Although, as noted previously, God's wisdom was often referred to in feminine form and was even equated with the Holy Spirit. So Trinitarians should argue that God has been historically noted as both "He" and "She" ... arguing that the "He" is superior to the "She", or vice versa, would be a touch of heresy.

        It is absurd to insist that God, in His eternal Spirit, can be divided into this sexual identity or that. Efforts to do so are entirely human and entirely understandable. There's nothing wrong with referring to God as "He", just as there's nothing wrong with referring to God as "She". We all should, as Lewis' Screwtape mused, have the phrase "Not what I think you are but that which thy know thyself to be" at the front of our minds when contemplating God.
        "I wonder about the trees. / Why do we wish to bear / Forever the noise of these / More than another noise / So close to our dwelling place?" — Robert Frost, "The Sound of Trees"

        Comment


        • #19
          Originally posted by Cerealman View Post
          He's comparing himself to a woman but he never says he's a women.
          Right. And Jesus says he's a man because he became incarnate as a man, but why does God or the Holy Spirit need to be referred to in male terms?
          Learn to do right; seek justice. Defend the oppressed. Take up the cause of the fatherless; plead the case of the widow.--Isaiah 1:17

          I don't think that all forms o[f] slavery are inherently immoral.--seer

          Comment


          • #20
            In the same vein, I'll note that most of us probably grew up looking at pictures of a very Aryan Jesus. And that's cool. There's nothing wrong with adapting the person of Jesus to something people more naturally accept, so long as the truth is kept in the back of one's mind, just as there's nothing wrong adapting the gender descriptions of God.
            "I wonder about the trees. / Why do we wish to bear / Forever the noise of these / More than another noise / So close to our dwelling place?" — Robert Frost, "The Sound of Trees"

            Comment


            • #21
              Originally posted by fm93 View Post
              Right. And Jesus says he's a man because he became incarnate as a man, but why does God or the Holy Spirit need to be referred to in male terms?
              Because that's what Jesus and God called themselves(though God is a spirit) and again the Holy Spirit was also used in comparison to a woman.
              "Kahahaha! Let's get lunatic!"-Add LP
              "And the Devil did grin, for his darling sin is pride that apes humility"-Samuel Taylor Coleridge
              Oh ye of little fiber. Do you not know what I've done for you? You will obey. ~Cerealman for Prez.

              Comment


              • #22
                Originally posted by Sam View Post
                In the same vein, I'll note that most of us probably grew up looking at pictures of a very Aryan Jesus. And that's cool. There's nothing wrong with adapting the person of Jesus to something people more naturally accept, so long as the truth is kept in the back of one's mind, just as there's nothing wrong adapting the gender descriptions of God.
                There's nothing wrong with adapting a new bible saying it's okay to sin.
                Last edited by Cerealman; 05-31-2015, 08:08 PM.
                "Kahahaha! Let's get lunatic!"-Add LP
                "And the Devil did grin, for his darling sin is pride that apes humility"-Samuel Taylor Coleridge
                Oh ye of little fiber. Do you not know what I've done for you? You will obey. ~Cerealman for Prez.

                Comment


                • #23
                  Originally posted by Cow Poke View Post
                  Young's Literal Translation: And God prepareth the man in His image; in the image of God He prepared him, a male and a female He prepared them.
                  Darby: And God created Man in his image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.

                  It appears the emphasis is on God creating man in His image -- and he also made male and female.
                  While I agree that the traditional understanding of God in masculine terms is appropriate (especially in our relationship to him as his Bride), I don't think we can use Genesis 1:27 to further that sort of argument.

                  Source: Word Biblical Commentary, Genesis 1-15 by Gordon J. Wenham

                  Whereas v 26 used the anarthrous אָדָ֛ם, here in v 27 the definite article הָֽאָדָם֙ is used, and clearly mankind in general, "male and female," not an individual is meant. The fulfillment of the divine command is recorded in three brief sentences specifying the most significant aspects of human existence:

                  So God created man in his own image,
                  in the image of God he created him:
                  male and female he created them.

                  The three clauses are in apposition. The first two are arranged chiastically and emphasize the divine image in man, while the third specifies that women also bear the divine image (on apposition clauses c.f. SBH, 55).

                  © Copyright Original Source

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Originally posted by Adrift View Post
                    While I agree that the traditional understanding of God in masculine terms is appropriate (especially in our relationship to him as his Bride), I don't think we can use Genesis 1:27 to further that sort of argument.
                    I agree - it's not a proof text for the sex or gender of God for either side.
                    The first to state his case seems right until another comes and cross-examines him.

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Originally posted by Cow Poke View Post
                      I agree - it's not a proof text for the sex or gender of God for either side.
                      Ah, ok. I guess I misunderstood what you were getting at then.

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Originally posted by Adrift View Post
                        Ah, ok. I guess I misunderstood what you were getting at then.
                        Yeah, I shoulda been more clear, or I shoulda just pointed out that that's a poor choice of scripture to prove that point.
                        The first to state his case seems right until another comes and cross-examines him.

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          Originally posted by Starlight View Post
                          I was expecting this thread to be satire, given the title. Apparently not.


                          The bible has no qualms about using "mother" analogies for God or Jesus. eg:
                          “As a mother comforts her child, so will I [God] comfort you; and you will be comforted over Jerusalem.” (Isa. 66:13)
                          “Can a mother forget the baby at her breast and have no compassion on the child she has borne? Though she may forget, I [God] will not forget you!” (Isa. 49:15)
                          “Jerusalem, Jerusalem, the city that kills the prophets and stones those who are sent to it! How often have I desired to gather your children together as a hen gathers her brood under her wings, and you were not willing!” (Matthew 23:37)

                          The creation account tells us that both masculinity and femininity stem from a reflection of God:
                          "So God created mankind in his own image, in the image of God he created them; male and female he created them." (Gen 1:27)

                          Presumably, while incarnate, Jesus had male chromosomes and male genitalia. But equally presumably God the 'Father' lacks such chromosomes or genitalia, and the more commonly masculine language that the bible uses reflects ancient social values connecting men with power, with the metaphor being that God is a powerful parent. But that doesn't appear to mean that God can't also express feminine characteristics, since the Bible also uses feminine language about God on multiple occasions.
                          Though the key word there is 'comforter'. The analogy given is one of a mother with her baby, soothing the baby and being able to nourish the baby because of her specially tailored role (breasts). In John 14:16, the word Comforter refers to the Holy Spirit and means 'called alongside'. Jesus was also a comforter because He was physically alongside us during His earthly ministry. So yes, there are elements in the Trinity which could be likened to femininity, but the purpose of this is because of the roles being performed by each member. The Father is likened to a male and a father since that role signifies authority, power, strength and protection. It is through these things which we understand more about how the Trinity functions and how the members intertwine. There is no envy between the members of the Trinity so for these women to project their own envy onto the members of the Trinity and try and garble up the different roles is, as Teallaura pointed out, disrespectful and also takes away from how the Bible leads us to understand God at this present time.

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            Originally posted by Abigail View Post
                            Though the key word there is 'comforter'. The analogy given is one of a mother with her baby, soothing the baby and being able to nourish the baby because of her specially tailored role (breasts). In John 14:16, the word Comforter refers to the Holy Spirit and means 'called alongside'. Jesus was also a comforter because He was physically alongside us during His earthly ministry. So yes, there are elements in the Trinity which could be likened to femininity, but the purpose of this is because of the roles being performed by each member. The Father is likened to a male and a father since that role signifies authority, power, strength and protection. It is through these things which we understand more about how the Trinity functions and how the members intertwine. There is no envy between the members of the Trinity so for these women to project their own envy onto the members of the Trinity and try and garble up the different roles is, as Teallaura pointed out, disrespectful and also takes away from how the Bible leads us to understand God at this present time.
                            Again, not definitively advocating for anything here, but what if a missionary was trying to present the message to a newly discovered society that's long been matriarchal? Is there any reason the missionary can't refer to God as Heavenly Mother and Jesus as The Daughter of God, if in that society it's the role of the mother that signifies authority, power, strength and protection?
                            Learn to do right; seek justice. Defend the oppressed. Take up the cause of the fatherless; plead the case of the widow.--Isaiah 1:17

                            I don't think that all forms o[f] slavery are inherently immoral.--seer

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              Originally posted by fm93 View Post
                              Again, not definitively advocating for anything here, but what if a missionary was trying to present the message to a newly discovered society that's long been matriarchal? Is there any reason the missionary can't refer to God as Heavenly Mother and Jesus as The Daughter of God, if in that society it's the role of the mother that signifies authority, power, strength and protection?

                              As above, that's just creating a god in a preferred image.

                              There's no reason to accommodate such beliefs, just as there's no reason for missionaries to tell other tribes that they can be Christian and continue worshipping and sacrificing to the spirits and gods they've followed for many generations.

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                Originally posted by fm93 View Post
                                Again, not definitively advocating for anything here, but what if a missionary was trying to present the message to a newly discovered society that's long been matriarchal? Is there any reason the missionary can't refer to God as Heavenly Mother and Jesus as The Daughter of God, if in that society it's the role of the mother that signifies authority, power, strength and protection?
                                If the missionary was attempting to teach this matriarchal society about the historical Jesus, about how a real man suffered and died for us in the body of a man, changing the sex would be needlessly confusing, and, well, a lie. And anyways, there are matriarchal societies that are predominately Christian and reference God and Jesus in male terms (the Akan and the Nagovisi for example).

                                Comment

                                widgetinstance 221 (Related Threads) skipped due to lack of content & hide_module_if_empty option.
                                Working...
                                X