|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Priestly genitalia [Ordination of Women]
|
Avila Troy
Shipmate
# 13990
|
Posted
May I make two points.
First of all picking up a point Father Gregory made ages ago (but I am new): I think, FG, you are suggesting that Jewishness is a less deep, less ontological matter than gender?
To a Jew (& I am part Jewish) this is not so. In fact for a Jew one's Jewishness is more fundamental to one's nature than one's sex.
I know my Jewish cousins would far rather I had changed sex than become Christian - in fact they say that I am living a lie in that I cannot stop being Jewish whether I want to or not.
My second point is for everyone to consider: Do we always know what sex someone is? Partly as a result of fertility treatments and partly as we learn more about a genetic make-up the number of people who are known to be 'intersex' is growing. I know a young man with all his 'bits' working who went for fertility treatment when his wife did not conceive. He discovered that he has XX chromosomes and no Y chromosome. Is he male or is he female? And presuming God called him/her would you ordain him/her? And he tells me there are women in the same position whose organs are female yet have XY chromosomes.
[ 26. October 2008, 16:12: Message edited by: Avila Troy ]
--------------------
All shall be well and all shall be well said sweet Mother Jesus
Posts: 81 | From: London | Registered: Aug 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Luke
Soli Deo Gloria
# 306
|
Posted
If the immanent Trinity correspondences to the economic Trinity, in other words everything about Jesus of Nazareth tells us something about the Son of God, then the maleness and Jewishness of Jesus are very significant.
--------------------
Emily's Voice
Posts: 822 | From: Australia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
The Great Gumby
Ship's Brain Surgeon
# 10989
|
Posted
And if it doesn't, then they aren't. Wow, that got us a long way.
BTW, "correspondences"? Remember, kids: Verbing Weirds Language.
--------------------
The first principle is that you must not fool yourself, and you are the easiest person to fool. - Richard Feynman
A letter to my son about death
Posts: 5382 | From: Home for shot clergy spouses | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Luke
Soli Deo Gloria
# 306
|
Posted
But it does, otherwise your Docetic or an Arian.
--------------------
Emily's Voice
Posts: 822 | From: Australia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
Posted
Well, Jesus had nose hairs, but I don't see what that tells me about the Trinity.
--------------------
Ken
L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Luke
Soli Deo Gloria
# 306
|
Posted
Hi Ken,
I don't have all the answers but the whole point of Chalcedon was to affirm both Jesus' divinity and his humanity. Both are equally important. If we say some things about Jesus were strictly human then we begin to sound like Arius or if we say Jesus just appeared to be human then we are sliding into Doceticism. Sure I don't know what Jesus going to the toilet tells us about his Sonship but I think the clues on what we are meant to pick up on are in the New Testament. Two of the big clues, amoung several others, were Jesus' maleness and Jewishness. I know it might irk some people but the Son of God was deliberately incarnated as a Jewish male.
--------------------
Emily's Voice
Posts: 822 | From: Australia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
The Great Gumby
Ship's Brain Surgeon
# 10989
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Luke:
But it does, otherwise your Docetic or an Arian.
Nope. God is just about universally considered not to correspond to human notions of sex, i.e. it would be wrong to say that God is male, or that God is female. But humanity is made up of male and female. Therefore, the incarnation cannot possibly be a true and complete reflection of God's entire nature.
It may be that Jesus' human nature can tell us something about God, or it may not. We can't tell. Was he Jewish because God's Jewish, because God wants everyone else to be Jewish, or because the Jews were the Chosen People? Was he male because God's male, because a woman preacher was unlikely to be taken seriously in 1st Century Palestine, or to correspond with OT imagery? Did he have earwax because God does? What does the size of Jesus' wang tell us about God? How do you decide what's significant and what isn't?
--------------------
The first principle is that you must not fool yourself, and you are the easiest person to fool. - Richard Feynman
A letter to my son about death
Posts: 5382 | From: Home for shot clergy spouses | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Luke
Soli Deo Gloria
# 306
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by The Great Gumby: Nope. God is just about universally considered not to correspond to human notions of sex i.e. it would be wrong to say that God is male, or that God is female.
Where did I say God is male? (Although you'll find the second person of the Trinity is a male.)
quote:
It may be that Jesus' human nature can tell us something about God, or it may not. We can't tell. ... How do you decide what's significant and what isn't?
Based on the priorities of Scripture. Take the gospel narratives for example, they describe the key parts of Jesus' life and climax in Jerusalem at Golgotha. There are a cluster of important things about Jesus' humanity in relation to his work on the Cross, among them for example are his roles of 'Prophet, Priest and King,' which guide us in determining what is important about Jesus' humanity. In some ways the biggest question of why the Jews and why in the form of a man as opposed to an Easter Islander woman aren't answered by the Bible, however they are both deliberate, significant actions of God.
--------------------
Emily's Voice
Posts: 822 | From: Australia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Knopwood
Shipmate
# 11596
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Luke:
(Although you'll find the second person of the Trinity is a male.)
Hmmm. Jesus certainly walked the earth as a male, but was the Logos male prior to the Incarnation?
Posts: 6806 | From: Tio'tia:ke | Registered: Jun 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Luke
Soli Deo Gloria
# 306
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by LQ:
quote:
Originally posted by Luke:
(Although you'll find the second person of the Trinity is a male.)
Hmmm. Jesus certainly walked the earth as a male, but was the Logos male prior to the Incarnation?
That's a tricky question that I don't have a direct answer to but the Scriptural evidence is that the ascended Jesus is male. Certainly the fact that the logos became 'male' flesh has a connection to something in the pre-existent Son of God.
quote:
Originally posted by leo: No, she was Sophia = Wisdom.
Precision Leo, who are you talking about?
--------------------
Emily's Voice
Posts: 822 | From: Australia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Knopwood
Shipmate
# 11596
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
No, she was Sophia = Wisdom.
I was referring to the Second Person of the Trinity. I take Wisdom to be identified with the Third.
Posts: 6806 | From: Tio'tia:ke | Registered: Jun 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
leo
Shipmate
# 1458
|
Posted
YOU make take it thus but the christology worked out by the early fathers quoted extensively from Proverbs and related it to the Son. The liturgy still does.
Posts: 23198 | From: Bristol | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Bullfrog.
Prophetic Amphibian
# 11014
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Luke:
Certainly the fact that the logos became 'male' flesh has a connection to something in the pre-existent Son of God.
Why is this certain?
--------------------
Some say that man is the root of all evil
Others say God's a drunkard for pain
Me, I believe that the Garden of Eden
Was burned to make way for a train. --Josh Ritter, Harrisburg
Posts: 7522 | From: Chicago | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Luke
Soli Deo Gloria
# 306
|
Posted
Leo, Wisdom is personified in Proverbs, and is revealed in the New Testament and church tradition to be the Holy Spirit. For example in the Didache, bishop Clement, Ignatius of Antioch and Polycarp all keep the Holy Spirit and the Son of God separate and we haven't even got to the end of the second century! You might be thinking of Hermas who stumbles into heresy by saying "the spirit is the son of God." (The Trinity: Olson and Hall) This all tangential but the fact remains Jesus and the Spirit were, are and will be separate persons.
quote:
Originally posted by Bullfrog.:
quote:
Originally posted by Luke:
Certainly the fact that the logos became 'male' flesh has a connection to something in the pre-existent Son of God.
Why is this certain?
That I am certain the logos became male or that being male has a connection to something in the pre-existent Son of God? I take it you mean the second question.
While I believe there is a certain degree of mystery about God, I wouldn't go as nearly as far as Rahner in saying "the immanent Trinity is the economic Trinity and the economic Trinity is the immanent Trinity," I do think that Barth is on to something when he says that in Jesus we meet God fully. That there isn't a secret part of the Son in heaven that is quarantined from us. If it's true that the Son reveals the Father and that Jesus is truly divine then it makes sense to assume everything about Jesus of Nazareth is important and tells us something about the pre-existent Son.
--------------------
Emily's Voice
Posts: 822 | From: Australia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Bullfrog.
Prophetic Amphibian
# 11014
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Luke: quote:
Originally posted by Bullfrog.:
quote:
Originally posted by Luke:
Certainly the fact that the logos became 'male' flesh has a connection to something in the pre-existent Son of God.
Why is this certain?
That I am certain the logos became male or that being male has a connection to something in the pre-existent Son of God? I take it you mean the second question.
While I believe there is a certain degree of mystery about God, I wouldn't go as nearly as far as Rahner in saying "the immanent Trinity is the economic Trinity and the economic Trinity is the immanent Trinity," I do think that Barth is on to something when he says that in Jesus we meet God fully. That there isn't a secret part of the Son in heaven that is quarantined from us. If it's true that the Son reveals the Father and that Jesus is truly divine then it makes sense to assume everything about Jesus of Nazareth is important and tells us something about the pre-existent Son.
So...how does the malenss relate to the eternal Son of God? Assuming you're right, why does it matter that God incarnate can only be male and not female? And what does such a God have to offer females?
On a sidenote, what does the Rahner mean by the "Economic Trinity" and the "Immanent Treaty"? I've an intuition it has something to do with the "Jesus of Nazareth versus the Risen Jesus Christ," but I'd like to be sure. I've not encountered that terminology before.
--------------------
Some say that man is the root of all evil
Others say God's a drunkard for pain
Me, I believe that the Garden of Eden
Was burned to make way for a train. --Josh Ritter, Harrisburg
Posts: 7522 | From: Chicago | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
leo
Shipmate
# 1458
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Luke:
Leo, Wisdom is personified in Proverbs, and is revealed in the New Testament and church tradition to be the Holy Spirit. For example in the Didache, bishop Clement, Ignatius of Antioch and Polycarp all keep the Holy Spirit and the Son of God separate and we haven't even got to the end of the second century!
So I will do it for you:
Athanasius: In which humanity He was crucified and died for us, and rose from the dead, and was taken up into the heavens, having been created as the beginning of ways for us (Prov. viii. 22) - cited from here.
Enagrius also identifies Wisdom with Christ - see The Logoi of Providence and Judgement in the Exegetical Writings of Evagrius Ponticus by Luke Dysinger.
quote:
The NT writers evidently regarded the "wisdom" of Prov 8 as more than personification; it is hypostatization that finds fulfillment in the person of Jesus Christ….Justin Martyr (d. 166), in his Dialogue with Trypho, gave Prov 8:22 an (allegorical/typological) christological interpretation, showing that Christ (or the Holy Spirit) was always with the Father and emphasizing the distinction between the Logos and the Father and the priority of the Logos over Creation.
Athenagoras, in his Supplication for the Christians (ca. 177),5 and Tertullian (ca. 160-220), in his Against Praxeas,6 follow Justin in identifying Logos (=Wisdom) with the eternal Son of God, but use Prov 8 as part of their two-stage history of the Logos to depict the Logos passing
from an "immanent" state in the mind of God to an "expressed" state sent forth for the purpose of creation...
[snipped for copyright violation by host]
See the rest of Section I A 2-4, from Proverbs 8 and the Place of Christ in the Trinity by Richard M. Davidson of Andrews University, for the remainder of the quote.
See also:William C Davis, 'The Claims of Wisdom in Proverbs 8:1-36'
quote:
The ancient church controversy over the deity of Christ involved the church fathers in a discussion of the implications of Proverbs 8:22-31 for Christology. Their formulation located Christ, the Wisdom of God (I Cor. 1:24,30), in the Proverbs account of creation. However, the Christological import of Proverbs 8 is not exhausted in the references to Christ as creator. The writer of Proverbs also presents the Wisdom of God as claiming to be the Way and the Life as well. In the course of this exposition of Proverbs 8:1-36, connections will be drawn between the claims of Lady Wisdom and the reality of Jesus Christ…..isdom is also found identifying with the creation, specifically the sons of men. This may rightly be taken as a shadowy figuring of the incarnation. Further, it is profitable to consider the extent to which the New Testament picks up on this account of creation and applies it to Christ. John 1:1-14 presents a pre-existent Word that is the agent of creation. Hebrews 1:1-4 also presents Christ as the creator. But it is Colossians 1:15-20 that makes the most extensive use of this passage and as a result sheds some light on the difficult word "architect" (v. 30a)….. Throughout this passage Wisdom identifies herself with deity by using the "I am" formula derived from God's name-revelation to Moses (Ex. 3). It is significant that John's gospel, the gospel most clear on the creative activity of the Wisdom of God, would also be the gospel that makes the most use of the "I am" formula: "I am" the light (Jn. 8:12); the bread of life (6:35,48); the door (10:7,9); the resurrection and the life (11:25); the way, the truth and life (14:6); the true vine (15:1,5); and the Alpha and Omega (Rev. 1:17). This is no accidental pattern and Jesus did not make these claims without Old Testament precedent for the various types employed.
See also
Geneva Notes: quote:
Some read, a chief worker signifying that this wisdom, Christ Jesus, was equal with God his father, and created, preserves and still works with him, as in John 5:17.'
See also Ralph W. Klein, Lutheran School of Theology at Chicago:
quote:
This chapter features the full personification of wisdom, and verses 22-31 played a prominent role in early christological controversies. The Arians argued that since the Lord created wisdom = Christ, Christ was not God in the same way that the Father was God. The orthodox countered that the verb in v 22 should not be translated created but "possessed." Athanasius even asserted that what was created was not Christ, but his position as the first of God's works or ways.
See also John Wesley on Wisdom quote:
It is a great question what this wisdom is. Some understand it of the Divine wisdom; others of the second person in the Godhead: and it cannot be denied that some passages best agree to the former, and others to the latter opinion. Possibly both may be joined together, and the chapter may be understood of Christ considered partly in his personal capacity, and partly in regard of his office, which was to impart the mind and will of God to mankind...The LORD possessed me in the beginning of his way, before his works of old. Possessed me — As his son by eternal generation, before the beginning. Of old — His works of creation…..I was set up from everlasting, from the beginning, or ever the earth was. Set up — Heb. anointed, constituted to be the person by whom the Father resolved to do all his works, to create, to uphold and govern and judge, to redeem and save the world.
And also: Matthew Henry quote:
The Son of God declares himself to have been engaged in the creation of the world. How able, how fit is the Son of God to be the Saviour of the world, who was the Creator of it! The Son of God was ordained, before the world, to that great work. Does he delight in saving wretched sinners, and shall not we delight in his salvation?.... Christ is Wisdom
Also here quote:
Wisdom, here is Christ, in whom are all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge; it is Christ in the word, and Christ in the heart; not only Christ revealed to us, but Christ revealed in us. All prudence and skill are from the Lord.
[Leo, please use the practice thread in The Styx to learn how to use the URL function and quotes to format your posts in a readable manner. Please also do not quote large chunks of copyrighted works - this is a commandment 7 violation. - Louise, Dead Horses Host]
[ 01. November 2008, 04:07: Message edited by: Louise ]
--------------------
My Jewish-positive lectionary blog is at http://recognisingjewishrootsinthelectionary.wordpress.com/
My reviews at http://layreadersbookreviews.wordpress.com
Posts: 23198 | From: Bristol | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Luke
Soli Deo Gloria
# 306
|
Posted
Leo,
I have no idea what your list of quotes proves about the persons of the Trinity. You should have begun your post with a statement of what you were trying to prove and then indicated how each quote supported your original statement. If you wish we can argue on another thread 'that the historical belief of orthodox Christianity has and is that the Son and the Spirit are separate persons.'
--------------------
Emily's Voice
Posts: 822 | From: Australia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Luke
Soli Deo Gloria
# 306
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Bullfrog.:
So...how does the malenss relate to the eternal Son of God? Assuming you're right, why does it matter that God incarnate can only be male and not female? And what does such a God have to offer females?
On a sidenote, what does the Rahner mean by the "Economic Trinity" and the "Immanent Treaty"? I've an intuition it has something to do with the "Jesus of Nazareth versus the Risen Jesus Christ," but I'd like to be sure. I've not encountered that terminology before.
To preface my comments I'd say what we know about God comes only through revelation. Therefore we can't say the eternal Son of God has quality "X" which we can then observe in Jesus, unless revelation tells us this somehow. We can only say about God what revelation tells us about God, otherwise we'd be outside this world and know the measure of God.
Here are some examples of how the maleness of Jesus is significant for understanding God. I'd say Jesus is a man because Adam was a man and Jesus is the new or second Adam. God deliberately for reasons of his own, made a male first and gave him leadership. Abraham was chosen by God and Jesus is born a Jew and like all male Jews is circumcised. (I believe this one of the Great Gumby's earlier points.) Jesus being a man also models the Old Testament male-female relationship between God and his chosen people, a theme followed through in Revelation. So basically I'd work my way through Scripture and infer from Jesus' roles, being, words and actions things about the eternal Son of God.
Given that Jesus is male I still wouldn't want to reduce the completeness of men and women together. In sense Jesus being Jewish completely excludes anything South America had to offer. However this doesn't mean that Jesus didn't die just as meaningfully for South Americans as he did for other people.
Regarding Rahner: I take the phrase as summarizing Rahner's idea that everything in revelation about the Trinity is everything that the Trinity is, unlike saying that we only know a little about the Son and a tiny amount about the rest of the Trinity. So yes he'd say the Jesus of Nazareth was the same as the pre-existent Son and is the same as the Risen Jesus.
--------------------
Emily's Voice
Posts: 822 | From: Australia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
leo
Shipmate
# 1458
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Luke:
Leo,
I have no idea what your list of quotes proves about the persons of the Trinity. You should have begun your post with a statement of what you were trying to prove and then indicated how each quote supported your original statement. If you wish we can argue on another thread 'that the historical belief of orthodox Christianity has and is that the Son and the Spirit are separate persons.'
They prove that you were wrong when you stated, above: Leo, Wisdom is personified in Proverbs, and is revealed in the New Testament and church tradition to be the Holy Spirit. For example in the Didache, bishop Clement, Ignatius of Antioch and Polycarp all keep the Holy Spirit and the Son of God separate and we haven't even got to the end of the second century!
--------------------
My Jewish-positive lectionary blog is at http://recognisingjewishrootsinthelectionary.wordpress.com/
My reviews at http://layreadersbookreviews.wordpress.com
Posts: 23198 | From: Bristol | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Luke
Soli Deo Gloria
# 306
|
Posted
So your arguing the use of Proverbs 8 proves your earlier point that the pre-existent Son of God is a female personified as wisdom?
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
No, she was Sophia = Wisdom.
It's quite a jump Leo from saying that Proverbs 8 gives us insight into the pre-existence of the Trinity to saying that prior to the incarnation the Son of God existed as the 'female personification of wisdom.' Christ being associated with wisdom prior to his incarnation does not prove he existed as the 'female personification of wisdom' before his arrival in this world.
--------------------
Emily's Voice
Posts: 822 | From: Australia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Bullfrog.
Prophetic Amphibian
# 11014
|
Posted
Luke:
First, whose revelation is authoritative? If revelation is something totally alien to reality, how can we realistically discern what that is? It sounds like the sort of loophole that one could shove any argument through with sufficient imagination. I could say that God revealed to me that women are equally able to serve as priests just as Peter had it revealed to him that non-kosher food was good to eat. I could even provide exegeses to back it up (though doubtless you'd reject them just as I'd be inclined to reject yours).
Second, I don't think it follows from the bible being written in a patriarchal context that from the bible we must enforce patriarchal ideas for all eternity. The fact that men were for the most part the only ones empowered enough to write scripture doesn't mean that scripture has to be used to justify the continual enthronement of masculinity. This is probably a fundamental in our exegeses.
So, Jesus' maleness excludes anything women have to offer to the church? One could just as easily argue that Jesus' Jewishness excludes anything any of us have to offer, since I imagine very few of us are Jewish by blood, let alone by religion!
Thanks for clarifying Rahner. I think I might agree that in Jesus we meet God (otherwise unapproachable). I just don't believe that maleness is necessary to either party. Or as Gwai just observed...would you say that if it can be shown that Jesus had type AB blood, that God must have type AB blood? Would such a "revelation" have anything to do with God? Would we require our priests to undergo blood tests so that they could more perfectly reflect the divine blood of the father?
--------------------
Some say that man is the root of all evil
Others say God's a drunkard for pain
Me, I believe that the Garden of Eden
Was burned to make way for a train. --Josh Ritter, Harrisburg
Posts: 7522 | From: Chicago | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Louise
Shipmate
# 30
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Bullfrog.:
So, Jesus' maleness excludes anything women have to offer to the church? One could just as easily argue that Jesus' Jewishness excludes anything any of us have to offer, since I imagine very few of us are Jewish by blood, let alone by religion!
Although that sort of thinking could have some quite amusing consequences. I'm sure there are Palestinian Christians born in Bethlehem who have some excellent experience of poverty, persecution and dealing with occupying imperial forces in the neighbourhood just like Jesus - what better models! Clearly these are the only people qualified to be priests, because God decided the messiah had to be an oppressed bloke from Bethlehem.
Step aside Jensens! ![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
--------------------
Now you need never click a Daily Mail link again! Kittenblock replaces Mail links with calming pics of tea and kittens! http://www.teaandkittens.co.uk/ Click under 'other stuff' to find it.
Posts: 6918 | From: Scotland | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Luke
Soli Deo Gloria
# 306
|
Posted
Bullfrog, just because something is one thing doesn't automatically make it discriminatory against everything it isn't. Just because Jesus is male, Jewish, a carpenter, born in Bethlehem etc doesn't automatically make females, gentiles, non-carpenters, people born everywhere else less valuable! To truly be everything to everybody Jesus would be become some vague cosmic force. One of the beauties of Jesus is he is God become a specific individual of a specific race in a specific time and place.
I agree the trick with exegesis is to follow the principle and not the exact form the principle arrived in otherwise for example we'd have to travel to the Red Sea every time we wanted to talk about the Exodus. However I think there is close link between the symbol and the thing being signified, so I wouldn't want to go all vague and cosmic either.
Which brings us to revelation. I think there are things about God we can know from natural revelation (Romans) but the self-assertion of special revelation is that that's where most the information about God is located. This is the stuff of worldviews now but I believe special revelation is the starting point for our knowledge of God. (Cornelius Van Til, Gerald Bray, Peter Jensen etc)
--------------------
Emily's Voice
Posts: 822 | From: Australia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
leo
Shipmate
# 1458
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Luke:
So your arguing the use of Proverbs 8 proves your earlier point that the pre-existent Son of God is a female personified as wisdom?
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
No, she was Sophia = Wisdom.
It's quite a jump Leo from saying that Proverbs 8 gives us insight into the pre-existence of the Trinity to saying that prior to the incarnation the Son of God existed as the 'female personification of wisdom.' Christ being associated with wisdom prior to his incarnation does not prove he existed as the 'female personification of wisdom' before his arrival in this world.
A 'jump' made by major exegetes down the ages.
--------------------
My Jewish-positive lectionary blog is at http://recognisingjewishrootsinthelectionary.wordpress.com/
My reviews at http://layreadersbookreviews.wordpress.com
Posts: 23198 | From: Bristol | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Luke
Soli Deo Gloria
# 306
|
Posted
A jump you failed to explain or demonstrate.
All your previous quotes were about how Proverbs 8 has been used to prove some aspect of the Trinity and not about the female personification of the pre-existent son. Athanasius of course does not see the pre-existent Son as female and only uses Proverbs 8 as proof text. Evagrius Ponticus is hardly a good example of an early and orthodox church father. William C Davis writes in his opening paragraph from the link you posted "connections will be drawn between the claims of Lady Wisdom and the reality of Jesus Christ." hardly a ringing endorsement for your thesis that the son was a female before the incarnation. Calvin finds evidence for eternal existence of Christ but does not find that Jesus was female before he was male. Wesley's speculation focuses on the pre-existence of Christ. Your Matthew Henry quote merely showed that Matthew Henry thought Jesus was wisdom, not that the pre-existent Christ was a female.
I'm curious Leo, if what your saying is true why didn't it come up at Nicea or Chalcedon? Surely if it's true it would be more of a part of orthodox trinitarian theology!
--------------------
Emily's Voice
Posts: 822 | From: Australia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
leo
Shipmate
# 1458
|
Posted
Sorry - I DID demonstrate it - but on a different thread - see Jesus appears in Old Testament times? in Kerygmania.
We were discussing this topic at my Christian/Jewish group. There are several whose Greek and Hebrew are better than mine and said that the gender didn't preclude a feminine word being used of a male because Hebrew, Greek and Aramaic all have different ways of doing gender.
Thus John 1 echoes Torah, Shekinah, Sophia, Ruach.
These take up Genesis 1, Proverbs 8, Wisdom 7 and Sirach 24
--------------------
My Jewish-positive lectionary blog is at http://recognisingjewishrootsinthelectionary.wordpress.com/
My reviews at http://layreadersbookreviews.wordpress.com
Posts: 23198 | From: Bristol | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Luke
Soli Deo Gloria
# 306
|
Posted
However even in that thread you didn't show that the pre-existent Christ was the female wisdom of Proverbs. If was Christ was indeed a female before the incarnation my question in the post before still remains, unanswered.
quote:
I'm curious Leo, if what your saying is true why didn't it come up at Nicea or Chalcedon? Surely if it's true it would be more of a part of orthodox trinitarian theology!
--------------------
Emily's Voice
Posts: 822 | From: Australia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Divine Outlaw
Gin-soaked boy
# 2252
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Luke:
While I believe there is a certain degree of mystery about God, I wouldn't go as nearly as far as Rahner in saying "the immanent Trinity is the economic Trinity and the economic Trinity is the immanent Trinity,"
I'm not entirely sure to make of the claim that they're distinct. I think Rahner thought that he was drawing our attention to something pretty obvious - the Father who we encounter in prayer through Christ, say, is not a different Father from the one who reigns in eternal aseity.
--------------------
insert amusing sig. here
Posts: 8705 | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
leo
Shipmate
# 1458
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Luke:
However even in that thread you didn't show that the pre-existent Christ was the female wisdom of Proverbs. If was Christ was indeed a female before the incarnation my question in the post before still remains, unanswered.
quote:
I'm curious Leo, if what your saying is true why didn't it come up at Nicea or Chalcedon? Surely if it's true it would be more of a part of orthodox trinitarian theology!
I find your way of thinking very strange and literalist - 'If Christ was a female...' - I did not say that. I said something on the libes of gender being expressed differently in different languages.
The Councils were to define what was NOT orthodox more than what was.
--------------------
My Jewish-positive lectionary blog is at http://recognisingjewishrootsinthelectionary.wordpress.com/
My reviews at http://layreadersbookreviews.wordpress.com
Posts: 23198 | From: Bristol | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Luke
Soli Deo Gloria
# 306
|
Posted
Um, but didn't you say something very literal here:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
No, she was Sophia = Wisdom.
Something that has so far turned out to be unsubstantiated! If the pre-existent Christ was a female (which is about the only way to read your statement above) we'd hear about it in the creeds and it would be a substantial part of Trinitarian theology.
--------------------
Emily's Voice
Posts: 822 | From: Australia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Luke
Soli Deo Gloria
# 306
|
Posted
Leo, I don't mean to be belligerent but you have been evasive in your responses to my questions and vague in your argumentation. I'll re-examine the thread on Kerygmania, but since it's not exactly about the topic at hand, your initial claim remains unfounded. However I may have misunderstood you. This is what in summary I've understood you to be saying so far. You claimed that the female personification of wisdom in Proverbs 8 is the pre-existent Christ. I initially thought you were deliberately confusing the second and third members of the trinity and then realised you actually believe the pre-existent Christ is a female. If you don't actually believe this, I stand corrected. If you do, you haven't provided much evidence for it or responded well to my challenges.
--------------------
Emily's Voice
Posts: 822 | From: Australia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
leo
Shipmate
# 1458
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Luke:
Leo, I don't mean to be belligerent but you have been evasive in your responses to my questions and vague in your argumentation. I'll re-examine the thread on Kerygmania, but since it's not exactly about the topic at hand, your initial claim remains unfounded. However I may have misunderstood you. This is what in summary I've understood you to be saying so far. You claimed that the female personification of wisdom in Proverbs 8 is the pre-existent Christ. I initially thought you were deliberately confusing the second and third members of the trinity and then realised you actually believe the pre-existent Christ is a female. If you don't actually believe this, I stand corrected. If you do, you haven't provided much evidence for it or responded well to my challenges.
Give me strenmgth!!!!
I do NOT believe the pre-existent Christ is female - how many more times?
Read the other thread carefully, read the comments by the fathers of the church, who have been consistent.
Get some grasp that something male in Greek can be rendered female in Hebrew and/or Aramaic.
Christ's gender does not change in any case, God has no gender).
The different languages in scripture have different gender-endings.
The language changes, God doesn't.
--------------------
My Jewish-positive lectionary blog is at http://recognisingjewishrootsinthelectionary.wordpress.com/
My reviews at http://layreadersbookreviews.wordpress.com
Posts: 23198 | From: Bristol | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Luke
Soli Deo Gloria
# 306
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by leo: I do NOT believe the pre-existent Christ is female
Thanks Leo, that's cool, it was a misunderstanding, we are of one mind on this then.
quote:
Christ's gender does not change in any case, ...
Yes!
quote:
... God has no gender.
A qualified no. (Jesus, the second person of the Trinity is a Jewish male.)
--------------------
Emily's Voice
Posts: 822 | From: Australia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Luke
Soli Deo Gloria
# 306
|
Posted
I wouldn't want to over-emphasize the distinction between Christ's divine and human natures.
--------------------
Emily's Voice
Posts: 822 | From: Australia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Luke
Soli Deo Gloria
# 306
|
Posted
When the disciples eat with Jesus after the resurrection he is still thoroughly human, Jewish and male. Then in 1 Cor 15 Paul talks about how if Christ resurrected then we will too, implying that our physical bodies will be renewed much like Jesus' was, since he is the first fruits. I don't think Jesus in any way sheds his humanness when he ascends to heaven. This is borne out indirectly by the author to the Hebrews who in Hebrews 4 it says we have a great high Priest who understands us.
quote:
Christ assumed all human nature, not just maleness or Jewishness - that is what anhypostasia is about.
Which means this isn't strictly true. For example only Jewish men were allowed to read in the synagogue, which Jesus did. Neither is there evidence Jesus suddenly became androgynous when he ascended.
quote:
Hence Paul wrote about there being, in Christ, neither male nor female etc.
I think you mean Gal 3, which isn't about the nature of Christ but the relationship between law and faith. Verse 26 says we are all adopted children of God despite the law discussion of the earlier part of the chapter and then verse 28 says we are "one in Christ," but surely this isn't a cosmic oneness, because the next verse says "if you belong to Christ, then you are Abraham's seed and hiers according to the promise." Obviously the preceding verses then were about our new status as adopted children of God.
--------------------
Emily's Voice
Posts: 822 | From: Australia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Luke
Soli Deo Gloria
# 306
|
Posted
Leo, when you say "picky and literalistic" I hear careful and compassionate! Seriously, you used Gal 3 as a proof-text, you should at least defend your use of it.
I'm afraid we'll get caught in another loop of misunderstanding. So your claiming that 'Jesus, after the ascension is androgynous and this is made clear at the Council of Constantinople?'
--------------------
Emily's Voice
Posts: 822 | From: Australia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
leo
Shipmate
# 1458
|
Posted
anhypostasia refers to the whole incarantion, not just to post-Ascension.
Posts: 23198 | From: Bristol | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Luke
Soli Deo Gloria
# 306
|
Posted
I think we're at the oblique stage of the argument.
At Chalcedon 451 AD, Jesus is affirmed as having a both a human and a divine nature.
quote:
Following the holy Fathers, we unanimously teach and confess one and the same Son, our Lord Jesus Christ: the same perfect in divinity and perfect in humanity, the same truly God and truly man, composed of rational soul and body; consubstantial with the Father as to his divinity and consubstantial with us as to his humanity; "like us in all things but sin." He was begotten from the Father before all ages as to his divinity and in these last days, for us and for our salvation, was born as to his humanity of the virgin Mary, the Mother of God.
We confess that one and the same Christ, Lord, and only-begotten Son, is to be acknowledged in two natures without confusion, change, division, or separation. The distinction between natures was never abolished by their union, but rather the character proper to each of the two natures was preserved as they came together in one person and one hypostasis.
(wikipedia)
That is why the human characteristics of Jesus, including his race and gender, are important.
--------------------
Emily's Voice
Posts: 822 | From: Australia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
leo
Shipmate
# 1458
|
Posted
Don't disagree - but you don't seem to have grasped that the Second person of the Trinity took upon Himself entire human nature as well as being particularly make, Jewish etc.
Otherwise only Jewish males would be saved.
Thought you might like a protestant reference -for Karl Barth, the ancient doctrine of anhypostasia — the notion, as Donald Baillie describes it in God Was in Christ p. 85.), that “Christ is not a human person, but a Divine Person who assumed human nature without assuming human personality” — must be upheld.
--------------------
My Jewish-positive lectionary blog is at http://recognisingjewishrootsinthelectionary.wordpress.com/
My reviews at http://layreadersbookreviews.wordpress.com
Posts: 23198 | From: Bristol | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Luke
Soli Deo Gloria
# 306
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
Don't disagree - but you don't seem to have grasped that the Second person of the Trinity took upon Himself entire human nature as well as being particularly make, Jewish etc.
Otherwise only Jewish males would be saved.
No as I've already pointed out on this thread, Christ is able to be a Jewish male and be everyone's high-priest equally. While on earth Jesus was a Jewish male. After the Resurrection Jesus' race and gender hadn't changed. Then after the ascension as per 1 Cor 15, Jesus is still the same Jewish male he was while he was in the world.
quote:
Thought you might like a protestant reference -for Karl Barth, the ancient doctrine of anhypostasia — the notion, as Donald Baillie describes it in God Was in Christ p. 85.), that "Christ is not a human person, but a Divine Person who assumed human nature without assuming human personality" — must be upheld.
As Chalcedon clearly points out Christ is fully human and divine, the moment we subordinate one aspect of Christ to the other as you are in the quote above we loose this orthodox balance. Your elevating, like the docetics, the divine nature while downplaying the human nature. Furthermore I'd be very surprised if Barth said anywhere that Jesus was androgynous at any point, either during the incarnation or after the ascension.
--------------------
Emily's Voice
Posts: 822 | From: Australia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Luke
Soli Deo Gloria
# 306
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
Sorry but I am no longer going to respond to this tangent.
I do not know how much theology you know and what sort it is but you seem to be obssessed with gender and not to understand orthodox Christology.
Well this thread is about the gender of priests and I have been focused on the subtopic of Jesus' gender and race.
While your probably more knowledgeable then me about theology, you need to communicate more clearly. (Present clearer augments, organise your supporting evidence better and respond more directly to criticism.)
For example You never adequately explained what you meant by this comment
quote:
Christ assumed all human nature, not just maleness or Jewishness - that is what anhypostasia is about.
In the next couple of posts I assumed you were saying Jesus was androgynous. That was when you should have explained you meant something about the union of personality and nature within Christology. Etc.
bon vogue till our next fisticuffs.
--------------------
Emily's Voice
Posts: 822 | From: Australia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Bullfrog.
Prophetic Amphibian
# 11014
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Luke:
Bullfrog, just because something is one thing doesn't automatically make it discriminatory against everything it isn't. Just because Jesus is male, Jewish, a carpenter, born in Bethlehem etc doesn't automatically make females, gentiles, non-carpenters, people born everywhere else less valuable! To truly be everything to everybody Jesus would be become some vague cosmic force. One of the beauties of Jesus is he is God become a specific individual of a specific race in a specific time and place.
OK, then Jesus' being male doesn't mean you have to discriminate against women who are called by God to serve the church in a sacramental fashion. I also don't think the eternal Word that became flesh is limited to a specific time and place. quote:
I agree the trick with exegesis is to follow the principle and not the exact form the principle arrived in otherwise for example we'd have to travel to the Red Sea every time we wanted to talk about the Exodus. However I think there is close link between the symbol and the thing being signified, so I wouldn't want to go all vague and cosmic either.
So, we're in a fuzzy grey area between being too particular and too vague. Seems reasonable. quote:
Which brings us to revelation. I think there are things about God we can know from natural revelation (Romans) but the self-assertion of special revelation is that that's where most the information about God is located. This is the stuff of worldviews now but I believe special revelation is the starting point for our knowledge of God. (Cornelius Van Til, Gerald Bray, Peter Jensen etc)
So, again, how can one verify anything that's "special revelation"? What makes one person's revelation special and another's heretical (if not delusional)? I've definitely known women who feel their call to ordained ministry is a "special revelation." How can you argue with that?
--------------------
Some say that man is the root of all evil
Others say God's a drunkard for pain
Me, I believe that the Garden of Eden
Was burned to make way for a train. --Josh Ritter, Harrisburg
Posts: 7522 | From: Chicago | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Luke
Soli Deo Gloria
# 306
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Bullfrog.:
I also don't think the eternal Word that became flesh is limited to a specific time and place.
Yes and no, I get the impression from the gospel accounts he was, but now that he is seated at the right hand of God where I guess he is beyond our local experience of time and place.
quote:
So, we're in a fuzzy grey area between being too particular and too vague. Seems reasonable.
Although you could say everything exists in that fuzzy area, "through a glass darkly." It's kind a like that ancient Greek maths problem about the arrow approaching the target, you can keep halving the distance ad infitum, yet the arrow eventually reaches the target somehow. I think therefore we can operate with for all intents and purposes using fairly clear parameters in a world that may appear fuzzy.
quote:
So, again, how can one verify anything that's "special revelation"? What makes one person's revelation special and another's heretical (if not delusional)? I've definitely known women who feel their call to ordained ministry is a "special revelation." How can you argue with that?
That's a massive topic that I'm probably not equipped to deal with however it'll probably come down to a difference of world views between us. For starters I don't think any old person saying they have a special revelation can be accepted, the bar needs to be set a little higher then that. However for the first part of your question all I can say is I have the presupposition that God exists, he makes himself known and special revelation is the record of his gracious intervention into our natural world. From this of course follows questions about the canon, authenticity of Scripture and mode of revelation. (About the only other thing I can think of at the moment is that I'd also distinguish between the inspiration of the Holy Spirit and the illumination of the Holy Spirit that is occurring up to this day.)
--------------------
Emily's Voice
Posts: 822 | From: Australia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
