|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: There is no male and female in Christ
|
Patdys
Iron Wannabe
RooK-Annoyer
# 9397
|
Posted
'There is no male and female in Christ'.
From another thread...
I struggle with this conceptually. In my theological understanding, Christ is unequivocally male, with all his bits intact. Fully human kind of demands it really.
Still, I am happy to learn. What do you think?
--------------------
Marathon run. Next Dream. Australian this time.
Posts: 3511 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Galilit
Shipmate
# 16470
|
Posted
My mother told me c.1964 when I was 8 or so this was meant "for when the Kingdom comes"
Can't really list or vouch for her academic or other theological credentials though she was a very good mother and housewife by the standards of the time and place.
I still think she was right however.
--------------------
She who does Her Son's will in all things can rely on me to do Hers.
Posts: 624 | From: a Galilee far, far away | Registered: Jun 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
Paul doesn't mean there are literally no males or females any more than he means there are literally no Gentiles or Jews.
He means that in Christ, these distinctions don't count, i.e. God does not accord special treatment to any category of person based on whether they are male, female, slave, free, and so on. In the language of the same passage (Galatians 3:26-29) we are all "heirs under the promise" - not just a select group.
I think it's "in the Kingdom of God" inasmuch as it reflects a value of the Kingdom and one that, in a "now but not yet" way, we are called to reflect as of now.
--------------------
Let's remember that we are to build the Kingdom of God, not drive people away - pastor Frank Pomeroy
Posts: 17944 | From: 528491 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Arethosemyfeet
Shipmate
# 17047
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Patdys:
'There is no male and female in Christ'.
From another thread...
I struggle with this conceptually. In my theological understanding, Christ is unequivocally male, with all his bits intact. Fully human kind of demands it really.
Still, I am happy to learn. What do you think?
Just out of curiosity, would there be a theological impact if Christ was in some way intersex physically? Would it make him less human?
Posts: 2933 | From: Hebrides | Registered: Apr 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mark Betts
Ship's Navigation Light
# 17074
|
Posted
I think too much is made of this verse, particularly the "male and female". All it means is that after baptism we are all heirs of the promise given to Abraham - nothing more. But then, why should we want more?
--------------------
"We are not some casual and meaningless product of evolution. Each of us is the result of a thought of God. Each of us is willed, each of us is loved, each of us is necessary."
Posts: 2080 | From: Leicester | Registered: Apr 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ender's Shadow
Shipmate
# 2272
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
Paul doesn't mean there are literally no males or females any more than he means there are literally no Gentiles or Jews.
He means that in Christ, these distinctions don't count, i.e. God does not accord special treatment to any category of person based on whether they are male, female, slave, free, and so on. In the language of the same passage (Galatians 3:26-29) we are all "heirs under the promise" - not just a select group.
I think it's "in the Kingdom of God" inasmuch as it reflects a value of the Kingdom and one that, in a "now but not yet" way, we are called to reflect as of now.
However given that Paul does elsewhere distinguish men and women in his comments, it clearly can't mean the simplistic equality that the proponents of OoW take from it.
--------------------
Test everything. Hold on to the good.
Please don't refer to me as 'Ender' - the whole point of Ender's Shadow is that he isn't Ender.
Posts: 5018 | From: Manchester, England | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Patdys
Iron Wannabe
RooK-Annoyer
# 9397
|
Posted
Thankyou, I would concur theologically.
Intersex.
Hmmm.
What makes us truly human?
The capacity for relationship with God and each other.(flawed to lesser and greater degrees)
Do I have a problem with intersex?
No.
The way I read the other post suggested to me that Christ was not fully human. But by my own understanding theologically, I couldn't argue against the statement anyway.
--------------------
Marathon run. Next Dream. Australian this time.
Posts: 3511 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
The Scrumpmeister
Ship’s Taverner
# 5638
|
Posted
[x-post]
quote:
Originally posted by Patdys:
'There is no male and female in Christ'.
From another thread...
I struggle with this conceptually. In my theological understanding, Christ is unequivocally male, with all his bits intact. Fully human kind of demands it really.
Still, I am happy to learn. What do you think?
quote:
Originally posted by Mark Betts:
I think too much is made of this verse, particularly the "male and female". All it means is that after baptism we are all heirs of the promise given to Abraham - nothing more.
Exactly.
Patdys, taken in context, the verse isn't talking about the sex of the incarnate God-man Jesus Christ. Rather it is talking about the Christian race, specifically addressing baptism. The grace of baptism grafts all who receive into the Body of Christ - we are made in Christ - fully and without distinction according to our differences. That doesn't take away our genetics, sex, gender, ethnicity, and so forth, but then, that isn't what the Apostle is saying.
[ 01. September 2012, 07:43: Message edited by: The Scrumpmeister ]
--------------------
If Christ is not fully human, humankind is not fully saved. - St John of Saint-Denis
Posts: 14741 | From: Greater Manchester, UK | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Arethosemyfeet
Shipmate
# 17047
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by The Scrumpmeister:
Exactly.
Patdys, taken in context, the verse isn't talking about the sex of the incarnate God-man Jesus Christ. Rather it is talking about the Christian race, specifically addressing baptism. The grace of baptism grafts all who receive into the Body of Christ - we are made in Christ - fully and without distinction according to our differences. That doesn't take away our genetics, sex, gender, ethnicity, and so forth, but then, that isn't what the Apostle is saying.
Without wanting to further disturb the deceased equine, would we not look askance at anyone who tried to claim that, for example, only those who can prove Jewish descent should be priests? If you consider gender to be of such defining character that it is of vital importance as to whether one can be a priest, is it not also of vital importance that you be Jewish. After all, Jesus was Jewish, and so were all of the 12, which is at least part of the argument used by those who oppose OOW.
I suppose the question is whether, at times, the Holy Spirit inspired Paul to write things that ultimately imply things that he himself would have disagreed with, without realising. Whether, in trying to reveal a truth he understood, he actually exposed a truth which he did not and has only gradually been understood.
Posts: 2933 | From: Hebrides | Registered: Apr 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Vaticanchic
Shipmate
# 13869
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
Just out of curiosity, would there be a theological impact if Christ was in some way intersex physically? Would it make him less human?
Correct me if I'm wrong but I think, genetically, however we look or whatever bits appear where, we are always one or the other.
--------------------
"Sink, Burn or Take Her a Prize"
Posts: 697 | From: UK | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
daisymay
St Elmo's Fire
# 1480
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Patdys:
The grace of baptism grafts all who receive into the Body of Christ - we are made in Christ - fully and without distinction according to our differences. That doesn't take away our genetics, sex, gender, ethnicity, and so forth, but then, that isn't what the Apostle is saying. [/QB]
But we end up in the "total" of God, which includes female and male, as bits of all are in the Bible. And we will be male and female as Jung also says about us nowadays.
--------------------
London
Flickr fotos
Posts: 11224 | From: London - originally Dundee, Blairgowrie etc... | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Schroedinger's cat
Ship's cool cat
# 64
|
Posted
I'm with Eutychus, that teh real meaning of this passage is that the differences are not important. More specifically, the attitude that divides people based on labels - male/female, Jew/gentile, slave/free. All of these were used in the 1st Century to divide or - more importantly - exclude people.
Paul is saying that these purely human divisions are not longer important in Christ - that means now and in the church and Christian world today, not just in the future. He is saying that we should not exclude people based on human restrictions and divisions. Something that you can clearly see in the church today - not.
It does not mean that these features are no longer present, or that Jesus was not fully and genuinely male. It does mean that his gender is relevant, but not the most important aspect of him., The most important aspect is that he was human.
--------------------
Blog
Music for your enjoyment
Lord may all my hard times be healing times
take out this broken heart and renew my mind.
Posts: 18859 | From: At the bottom of a deep dark well. | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
Christ is also God, and in God there is no gender.
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Patdys
Iron Wannabe
RooK-Annoyer
# 9397
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Christ is also God, and in God there is no gender.
Not in the Father or the Spirit, but the Son clearly has a gender. This is the difficulty in fully Human and fully God.
--------------------
Marathon run. Next Dream. Australian this time.
Posts: 3511 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Patdys
Iron Wannabe
RooK-Annoyer
# 9397
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Vaticanchic:
quote:
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
Just out of curiosity, would there be a theological impact if Christ was in some way intersex physically? Would it make him less human?
Correct me if I'm wrong but I think, genetically, however we look or whatever bits appear where, we are always one or the other.
It is not always that straight forward. Genetics is not always that simple.
--------------------
Marathon run. Next Dream. Australian this time.
Posts: 3511 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Patdys:
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Christ is also God, and in God there is no gender.
Not in the Father or the Spirit, but the Son clearly has a gender. This is the difficulty in fully Human and fully God.
Good point. But if I see the image of Christ in another human, must this be excluded for women, children and black people?
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Arethosemyfeet
Shipmate
# 17047
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Vaticanchic:
quote:
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
Just out of curiosity, would there be a theological impact if Christ was in some way intersex physically? Would it make him less human?
Correct me if I'm wrong but I think, genetically, however we look or whatever bits appear where, we are always one or the other.
No, as I understand it (and I'm really not an expert) intersex covers a number of conditions covering both external and genetic ambiguities. It is, for example, possible to have a third sex chromosome, having XXY instead of XX or XY, and present largely as male. Equally, as you say, it is possible to be XX genetically but present as male.
Posts: 2933 | From: Hebrides | Registered: Apr 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Evensong
Shipmate
# 14696
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Patdys:
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Christ is also God, and in God there is no gender.
Not in the Father or the Spirit, but the Son clearly has a gender.
No. God the Son has no gender.
God the Son exists co-eternally with the Father and the Spirit before time. There is no such things as gender in the Godhead.
The incarnation of God the Son has a gender, but not God the Son.
--------------------
a theological scrapbook
Posts: 9481 | From: Australia | Registered: Apr 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
The Scrumpmeister
Ship’s Taverner
# 5638
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
quote:
Originally posted by The Scrumpmeister:
Exactly.
Patdys, taken in context, the verse isn't talking about the sex of the incarnate God-man Jesus Christ. Rather it is talking about the Christian race, specifically addressing baptism. The grace of baptism grafts all who receive into the Body of Christ - we are made in Christ - fully and without distinction according to our differences. That doesn't take away our genetics, sex, gender, ethnicity, and so forth, but then, that isn't what the Apostle is saying.
Without wanting to further disturb the deceased equine, would we not look askance at anyone who tried to claim that, for example, only those who can prove Jewish descent should be priests?
Yes, but not because of anything in this passage of Scripture, which deals specifically with baptism and not with who may receive which sacraments once baptised, which I think is the point to which Mark Betts was alluding above.
I think that responding in any depth to the rest will get me told off by the hosts. However, I'll say that as somebody who belongs to a Church that does not ordain women and while this makes sense to me, I do not have any strong personal feeling about the matter, which allows me to look at some of the arguments with some degree of dispassion, and the line of reasoning that says that if a priest must be male then he must also be Jewish is one that I just don't find very convincing. It is based on assumptions to which I suppose I just don't subscribe.
--------------------
If Christ is not fully human, humankind is not fully saved. - St John of Saint-Denis
Posts: 14741 | From: Greater Manchester, UK | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
CL
Shipmate
# 16145
|
Posted
Paul was talking about salvation, not physical distinctions.
[ 01. September 2012, 11:09: Message edited by: CL ]
--------------------
"Even if Catholics faithful to Tradition are reduced to a handful, they are the ones who are the true Church of Jesus Christ." - Athanasius of Alexandria
Posts: 647 | From: Ireland | Registered: Jan 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Garasu
Shipmate
# 17152
|
Posted
Is there no salvation for physical reality, then?
--------------------
"Could I believe in the doctrine without believing in the deity?". - Modesitt, L. E., Jr., 1943- Imager.
Posts: 889 | From: Surrey Heath (England) | Registered: Jun 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Patdys
Iron Wannabe
RooK-Annoyer
# 9397
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
quote:
Originally posted by Patdys:
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Christ is also God, and in God there is no gender.
Not in the Father or the Spirit, but the Son clearly has a gender.
No. God the Son has no gender.
God the Son exists co-eternally with the Father and the Spirit before time. There is no such things as gender in the Godhead.
The incarnation of God the Son has a gender, but not God the Son.
Half of me says 'of course, thanks', but the other half says 'well if you live in and outside time and space then the incarnation coexists for all time as well. Proleptic tension cuts both ways.'
All of me is quietly digesting a stein of beer however. Tomorrow.
--------------------
Marathon run. Next Dream. Australian this time.
Posts: 3511 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Freddy
Shipmate
# 365
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
quote:
Originally posted by Patdys:
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Christ is also God, and in God there is no gender.
Not in the Father or the Spirit, but the Son clearly has a gender.
No. God the Son has no gender.
God the Son exists co-eternally with the Father and the Spirit before time. There is no such things as gender in the Godhead.
The incarnation of God the Son has a gender, but not God the Son.
I would say that Jesus is the Son.
But clearly the words used - "Son" "Father" - are gendered anyway.
My answer is that God as He exists in Himself is above all gender. Both males and females are created equally in the image of God.
Still, for some reason God has consistently presented Himself to our eyes, in virtually every religion, as if He is male. Why? ![[Confused]](confused.gif)
I believe there are two reasons for this: - 1. A non-gendered God would not seem human, and would not be comprehended or worshiped.
- 2. God is made up of love and wisdom, or love clothed in wisdom. While love is invisible and unknowable, it can be grasped by means of wisdom. This is why Jesus is the Word - the truth incarnate. In humans this dichotomy is represented by males and females: love is depicted as female and wisdom is depicted as male.
This, of course, assumes the reality of divine revelation, as opposed to purely human thoughts put to paper, with prejudices intact.
That said, what I like about this explanation is that it gives a reason for Jesus to be male even though God is recognized as being beyond all gender. It is also a reason why it is OK to speak of God as if He is male, even though we know that He is not.
Of course it is surely irritating to some to depict love as female and wisdom as male because these are cultural stereotypes which can easily become demeaning.
But I say that this is our own stuff and that it is pointless to argue with ancient archetypes. ![[Biased]](wink.gif)
--------------------
"Consequently nothing is of greater importance to a person than knowing what the truth is." Swedenborg
Posts: 12845 | From: Bryn Athyn | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Freddy
Shipmate
# 365
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
Doesn't Proverbs describe wisdom as female?
Yes. Sophia. The archetypes are found with a great deal of variety. Still, I think there is a pattern that can be seen. I'm sure there are other ways to see it too.
--------------------
"Consequently nothing is of greater importance to a person than knowing what the truth is." Swedenborg
Posts: 12845 | From: Bryn Athyn | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
John D. Ward
Shipmate
# 1378
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:
1. A non-gendered God would not seem human, and would not be comprehended or worshiped.
Neither Judaism or Islam have a problem with this.
Posts: 208 | From: Swansea, Wales, U.K. | Registered: Sep 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Freddy
Shipmate
# 365
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by hatless:
Arguing with ancient archetypes is the whole of literature, and all of theology. It's what life is for.
Yea. I guess that's true. ![[Paranoid]](graemlins/paranoid.gif)
--------------------
"Consequently nothing is of greater importance to a person than knowing what the truth is." Swedenborg
Posts: 12845 | From: Bryn Athyn | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Evensong
Shipmate
# 14696
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Patdys:
quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
quote:
Originally posted by Patdys:
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Christ is also God, and in God there is no gender.
Not in the Father or the Spirit, but the Son clearly has a gender.
No. God the Son has no gender.
God the Son exists co-eternally with the Father and the Spirit before time. There is no such things as gender in the Godhead.
The incarnation of God the Son has a gender, but not God the Son.
Half of me says 'of course, thanks', but the other half says 'well if you live in and outside time and space then the incarnation coexists for all time as well. Proleptic tension cuts both ways.'
Sure.
The definition of the two natures of Christ at Chalcedon in the mid fourth century identifies him with two natures.
He is fully God (ungendered) and fully human (gendered).
Christ is only male in his human nature, not his God nature.
An important distinction to make in the Trinity for such an issue is the difference between the immanent Trinity and the economic Trinity.
Father, Son, Spirit exist before creation and time and in co-equality. This is the immanent Trinity.
The economic Trinity is how the immanent Trinity reveals itself in the history of salvation with humankind.
The two kind of explain how Christ can be both God and man and therefore ungendered and gendered.
--------------------
a theological scrapbook
Posts: 9481 | From: Australia | Registered: Apr 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Evensong
Shipmate
# 14696
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:
I would say that Jesus is the Son.
Yes he is. God the Son. Incarnate.
The term "Son of God" in the scriptures however is a different term. It refers to sonship in a Davidic lineage sense.
quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:
But clearly the words used - "Son" "Father" - are gendered anyway.
They are analogous terms to express a relationship of "begotenness" in the immanent Trinity - the Trinity that exists before time and creation. God the Son is begotten of the Father. As human children are begotten of their parents. And yet because the "begottenness" is outside time there is no before and after, first and second etc. i.e. they retain their coequality (hence eternally begotten in the creed).
--------------------
a theological scrapbook
Posts: 9481 | From: Australia | Registered: Apr 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Evensong
Shipmate
# 14696
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by John D. Ward:
quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:
1. A non-gendered God would not seem human, and would not be comprehended or worshiped.
Neither Judaism or Islam have a problem with this.
Indeed.
--------------------
a theological scrapbook
Posts: 9481 | From: Australia | Registered: Apr 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
The5thMary
Shipmate
# 12953
|
Posted
I have come to my own conclusion about why we think of and refer to God as masculine. Well, most of us, anyway. I jettisoned the idea of an exclusively masculine God somewhere around 1986. I experience God as mostly a female Presence....
Anyway, getting back to my original point (and I do have one, somewhere...), sexism is at the root of the insistence that God is only masculine. Well, that's stupid if you've just stated that God is genderless! That always killed me when (mostly) men would froth at the mouth, hastily reiterating that God is genderless but He is still Lord/King/Father/etc.
Some people can say God is genderless but in actuality, I think they're confused/frightened/put off in some way by not seeing God in their own image. And having God be a male, why, that's just a go-ahead to do whatever the hell you wanted to do in the first place because, after all, God is the Lord of Armies, or some such rot.
I experience God as BOTH feminine and masculine sometimes but primarily feminine as I stated earlier. Here's a radical thought: What if Jesus had come to this world as a female? Well, for one thing, being born into a patriarchal society, no one would have listened to her. What Jewish male or any male of that time frame would have followed her teachings? She wouldn't have gotten very far. And things today aren't that much better. She would be killed a lot quicker than Jesus was. What sexist man is going to accept Jesus as his personal Lady and Savior? Well, if she has big boobs and long legs, maybe he'll consider worshiping her but is he going to trust her with his soul?
God knew what She was doing when He was born as a male.
--------------------
God gave me my face but She let me pick my nose.
Posts: 3451 | From: Tacoma, WA USA | Registered: Aug 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Freddy
Shipmate
# 365
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
quote:
Originally posted by John D. Ward:
quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:
1. A non-gendered God would not seem human, and would not be comprehended or worshiped.
Neither Judaism or Islam have a problem with this.
Indeed.
I never knew this. This Wikipedia article is helpful in explaining how various religions think about the gender of God.
I think that the way the article describes the Jewish position is what I believe:
quote:
Although God is referred to in the Hebrew Bible with masculine imagery and grammatical forms, Jewish philosophy does not attribute to God either sex or gender.
I think this is the truth, and it is what I was saying above.
Masculine imagery and grammatical forms are used for the sake of presenting a God who seems human and comprehensible. But God is not really either masculine or feminine.
--------------------
"Consequently nothing is of greater importance to a person than knowing what the truth is." Swedenborg
Posts: 12845 | From: Bryn Athyn | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
cliffdweller
Shipmate
# 13338
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Christ is also God, and in God there is no gender.
I think Gen. 1:27 suggests that rather than no gender, in God there is all genders.
--------------------
"Here is the world. Beautiful and terrible things will happen. Don't be afraid." -Frederick Buechner
Posts: 11242 | From: a small canyon overlooking the city | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Freddy
Shipmate
# 365
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Christ is also God, and in God there is no gender.
I think Gen. 1:27 suggests that rather than no gender, in God there is all genders.
That's right.
I think, though, that God has presented Himself in Scripture as male for a reason, and that He was born into the world as a male for a reason.
So although God is not really male or female it is not wrong to speak about Him as if He were.
--------------------
"Consequently nothing is of greater importance to a person than knowing what the truth is." Swedenborg
Posts: 12845 | From: Bryn Athyn | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
HCH
Shipmate
# 14313
|
Posted
"Christ is unequivocally male, with all his bits intact. Fully human kind of demands it really."
I take issue with this, as I do not regard females as anything less than fully human.
As a distraction: Perhaps Dan Brown should write a thriller about the notion that Jesus was actually female, impersonating a male. (That would make sense if Jesus was the parthenogenetic child of Mary alone.)
Posts: 1540 | From: Illinois, USA | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Schroedinger's cat
Ship's cool cat
# 64
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Garasu:
Is there no salvation for physical reality, then?
Not if you follow Evensongs approach, which I don't.
I would argue that Jesus the son of God eternally, and is eternally male, because that being completely human is part of who he is eternally. It does not mean that females are not fully human, just that to be fully human includes being of a particular gender.
I would say that only if Jesus was resurrected and ascended as male does it make sense for our physical reality to be saved through death. If we are not gendered after death then we are not the people we are before. Much as, I hate to say it, we may have some of our disabilities after death, just not the problems and pain that this involves.
--------------------
Blog
Music for your enjoyment
Lord may all my hard times be healing times
take out this broken heart and renew my mind.
Posts: 18859 | From: At the bottom of a deep dark well. | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Freddy
Shipmate
# 365
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Schroedinger's cat:
If we are not gendered after death then we are not the people we are before.
I'm happy to hear this. It amazes me that Christianity has often taught that we lose our gender at death.
--------------------
"Consequently nothing is of greater importance to a person than knowing what the truth is." Swedenborg
Posts: 12845 | From: Bryn Athyn | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lamb Chopped
Ship's kebab
# 5528
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
quote:
Originally posted by Patdys:
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Christ is also God, and in God there is no gender.
Not in the Father or the Spirit, but the Son clearly has a gender.
No. God the Son has no gender.
God the Son exists co-eternally with the Father and the Spirit before time. There is no such things as gender in the Godhead.
The incarnation of God the Son has a gender, but not God the Son.
Splitting the incarnate Jesus Christ, Son-of-God-and-Son-of-Man into two parts is just not done (except I suppose when explaining heavy theology). I mean, it's like putting catsup on trout.
I believe there's some fancy name for that heresy, but it escapes me just now.
[ 01. September 2012, 21:11: Message edited by: Lamb Chopped ]
--------------------
Er, this is what I've been up to (book).
Oh, that you would rend the heavens and come down!
Posts: 20059 | From: off in left field somewhere | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mark Betts
Ship's Navigation Light
# 17074
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
I believe there's some fancy name for that heresy, but it escapes me just now.
I think it's Nestorianism (1st Council of Ephesus dealt with this.)
--------------------
"We are not some casual and meaningless product of evolution. Each of us is the result of a thought of God. Each of us is willed, each of us is loved, each of us is necessary."
Posts: 2080 | From: Leicester | Registered: Apr 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
cliffdweller
Shipmate
# 13338
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Christ is also God, and in God there is no gender.
I think Gen. 1:27 suggests that rather than no gender, in God there is all genders.
That's right.
I think, though, that God has presented Himself in Scripture as male for a reason, and that He was born into the world as a male for a reason.
So although God is not really male or female it is not wrong to speak about Him as if He were.
But God does not present himself (oops, there I'm doing it...) only as male in Scripture. The primary or most common images are male, but there are enough female images for God to counter your statement, I think, especially given how counter-cultural that imagery would be at the time.
Using male pronouns for God is an angst-ridden subject and I'm sure a topic of another thread somewhere, but I would say while we will need to use male imagery/pronouns in some times/places, to use exclusively only male imagery/pronouns for God is wrong, at least in this point of time where words like "he" and "men" no longer mean "men and women".
--------------------
"Here is the world. Beautiful and terrible things will happen. Don't be afraid." -Frederick Buechner
Posts: 11242 | From: a small canyon overlooking the city | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Kwesi
Shipmate
# 10274
|
Posted
ISTM that much of this discussion suffers from a confusion of sex with gender. As I understand it, the biological difference between man and woman is a matter of sex, whereas gender is a reference to masculine and feminine, socially constructed roles.
Though, as we know, the binary distinction between male and female is not always clear, Christ probably had to be one or the other in his incarnation, though not necessarily. If in heaven there is no sexual intercourse then the genitalia of the resurrected, if they remain, are purely vestigial and of no consequence. On the other hand.......
As to whether God is masculine or feminine, the picture is more complicated, because the definition of masculine and feminine differs from one society to another and from one period in time to another. Furthermore, many would consider a fully rounded masculine male would need to be in touch with his feminine side in order to be a properly integrated person, and the reverse to be the case with females.
For me, the best statement we have in the bible is Genesis 1:27
which implies that when humans were created in the image of God "male and female" created he them. God clearly transcends the distinction between the two, and perhaps it is only in resurrection that humans achieve that same perfected state: a true humanity.
Posts: 1641 | From: South Ofankor | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Freddy
Shipmate
# 365
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
But God does not present himself (oops, there I'm doing it...) only as male in Scripture. The primary or most common images are male, but there are enough female images for God to counter your statement,
Sure. I just mean that this is the most common imagery.
--------------------
"Consequently nothing is of greater importance to a person than knowing what the truth is." Swedenborg
Posts: 12845 | From: Bryn Athyn | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Evensong
Shipmate
# 14696
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
Splitting the incarnate Jesus Christ, Son-of-God-and-Son-of-Man into two parts is just not done (except I suppose when explaining heavy theology). I mean, it's like putting catsup on trout.
I pointed out he had two natures. One is gendered, one is not.
What that makes his "Person" is anybody's guess when it comes to gender because the properties of both natures are preserved in the one. They are not mixed up.
*shrug*
--------------------
a theological scrapbook
Posts: 9481 | From: Australia | Registered: Apr 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sir Pellinore
Quester Emeritus
# 12163
|
Posted
Jesus was human. The gender role was necessary in his time.
Father and Son are ways of describing the Almighty. To suggest the Almighty is limited to ascribed human gender roles is a bit off the mark to me.
--------------------
Well...
Posts: 5108 | From: The Deep North, Oz | Registered: Dec 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Moo
Ship's tough old bird
# 107
|
Posted
There is a post in Keryg which points to God's feminine side.
Moo
--------------------
Kerygmania host
---------------------
See you later, alligator.
Posts: 20365 | From: Alleghany Mountains of Virginia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
GodWithUs
Apprentice
# 15919
|
Posted
There's a whole lot of conflating of two different concepts in this thread. Gender and biological sex are two completely different things. Sex is determined by your genitals and chromosomal makeup. Gender is about behavior, roles, and such.
Jesus, as a fully human person, had a biological sex, male. Whether or not he had a gender is highly debatable. He certainly didn't conform to typical gender roles of the period. For example, by all accounts except Dan Brown's he didn't marry or even seem interested in continuing his family line in any way. In the same vein, one can also see God as fulfilling all the different roles and behaviors of both men and women at different times in the Bible, leaving aside the obvious fact that a non-physical entity cannot have a sex either. One could easily see God as Mother as well as Father. I think the only reason for preferring Father as a moniker is simple prejudice, as in Biblical times fathers were seen as far more important than mothers in pretty much every respect.
That said, I agree with those above me who say that the passage in question is saying that human distinctions don't make a difference in our salvation, rather than trying to say that either sex or gender don't exist. I would however go so far as to say Paul was unintentionally revealing a greater truth than he was willing to accept himself: that God Itself doesn't differentiate between male and female. Such human distinctions as gender don't matter from the eternal viewpoint, especially when one considers that God Itself is either genderless or all-gendered (which is essentially the same thing).
Posts: 41 | From: Brea, CA, USA | Registered: Sep 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
the long ranger
Shipmate
# 17109
|
Posted
I'd say it wasn't really about salvation or about the gender of God. The early church was deeply divided about circumcision, whether Christianity was a Jewish sect (and hence whether it was possible to be a Jewish Christian or a Gentile Christian), the role of women.
In Galatians, the writer seems to be clearly saying that these divisions are irrelevant and that all are free to relate to each other and God. God is not judging you on your appearance, your status in society or your gender. The church is an ekklesia, a city council, where each citizen is entitled to add their voice to the decision-making of the whole.
The Paul of other epistles appears to say different things because they are not written by Paul, in my opinion.
--------------------
"..into the outer darkness where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth,” “But Rabbi, how can this happen for those who have no teeth?”
"..If some have no teeth, then teeth will be provided.”
Posts: 1310 | Registered: May 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Emendator Liturgia
Shipmate
# 17245
|
Posted
I find it interesting that there is so much discussion about Jesus' masculinity, when surely the primary locus is his humanity?
As for the images of God - there is such a wide range: the Genesis passage already commented on a number of times says clearly that we are made in God’s image. But what does this mean? After all, God is imaged throughout scripture in so different ways, some of which have nother gender in mind: God is imaged as judge, midwife, dew, gardener, rock, fortress, and deliverer, daddy or father, comforting mother, baker woman, lion, leopard or mother bear, and even as a woman in labour giving birth to creation.
There is another image of God that runs throughout scripture and this one probably won’t surprise you - the image of God as love.
In the 5th century, St. Augustine wrote of the trinity of Lover, Beloved, and the Love that Exists Between Them. He went on to write that "all love involves the trinity of lover, beloved, and love."
--------------------
Don't judge all Anglicans in Sydney by prevailing Diocesan standards!
Posts: 401 | From: Sydney, Australia | Registered: Jul 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sir Pellinore
Quester Emeritus
# 12163
|
Posted
Ultimately, one has to let go of all images of God, otherwise they will interfere with our apprehension of Him say the hesychasts.
I think we need to be careful of projecting our views of human sexuality/gender on Him because these are our own limited concepts.
Both Dante and Aquinas had a vision of the Almighty but they were unable to describe much in words.
Perhaps because there are so many clerics; wannabe clerics or theological students on these boards there is an overemphasis on precise literary definition and fine distinction.
God, Jesus are far more than subjects for discussion. If you think they are I think you miss the point.
--------------------
Well...
Posts: 5108 | From: The Deep North, Oz | Registered: Dec 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
