Page 2 of 11 FirstFirst 123456 ... LastLast
Results 21 to 40 of 202

Thread: Aspects of the feminine divine in 'modern' religions

  1. #21
    Registered User andystyle's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Glesgae!
    Posts
    582
    Rep Power
    9

    Re: Aspects of the feminine divine in 'modern' religions

    I see what you're saying, but it's down to each person to choose to believe whether or not Jesus was the Messiah - when he came, people believed he was and the Christian faith was born. However, I'm not debating whether or not Jesus is the Messiah. Barry stated words to the effect that not even Christians believe that Jesus being born was the result of a prophecy seen throughout the OT, when in actual fact this is the basis of the Christian faith.


  2. #22
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    Southampton
    Posts
    6,709
    Rep Power
    13

    Re: Aspects of the feminine divine in 'modern' religions

    Quote Originally Posted by andystyle View Post
    Actually, it was.
    If that is a response to my post, then I'm sorry but you are mistaken.

    Jesus' birth was not the result of those prophecies. It was either the result of divine decree or of sexual congress. The prophecies did not lead to his birth, one way or the other.

    I'm pretty sure that Christians do not believe the fact that the Messiah was prophesied in the OT caused a Messiah to be born. It now seems clear that that wasn't what you intended to write, but then for heaven's sake write clearly, for otherwise the implication will be that you are not thinking clearly.

  3. #23
    Registered User andystyle's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Glesgae!
    Posts
    582
    Rep Power
    9

    Re: Aspects of the feminine divine in 'modern' religions

    I apologise if I mistook your meaning, but in all fairness you quoted the entire sentence and didn't draw particular attention to the semantics. Hence why I took your statement to be referring to the theology.

    I will re-word the offending sentence. Jesus' birth was predicted by prophecy found in the OT.

  4. #24
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Location
    Worcester, UK
    Posts
    4,157
    Rep Power
    12

    Re: Aspects of the feminine divine in 'modern' religions

    Quote Originally Posted by Baruch View Post
    It's highly unlikely that a large group of people who revered a particular book as holy scripture would have accepted any major additions. There will of course have been copying errors over time, but the basic text will have remained more or less intact.
    By comparing the xtian Old Testament to the Jewish Tanakh, we can determine that people feel free to make significant deliberate edits to holy scripture that they purport to revere.

  5. #25
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    Southampton
    Posts
    6,709
    Rep Power
    13

    Re: Aspects of the feminine divine in 'modern' religions

    Quote Originally Posted by andystyle View Post
    I apologise if I mistook your meaning, but in all fairness you quoted the entire sentence and didn't draw particular attention to the semantics. Hence why I took your statement to be referring to the theology.

    I will re-word the offending sentence. Jesus' birth was predicted by prophecy found in the OT.
    There you go! Thought that's what you meant. You are right, I quoted the whole sentence; I thought that reading it in isolation you would see what you had written.

  6. #26
    Registered User Baruch's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Location
    Pontllanfraith
    Posts
    2,261
    Rep Power
    11

    Re: Aspects of the feminine divine in 'modern' religions

    Quote Originally Posted by Dreadful Scathe View Post
    It does a bit, which makes me wonder why you brought it up? We did notice you dropped the M you know
    Eh?

    Quote Originally Posted by Dreadful Scathe View Post
    Quite the opposite, it would stand to reason there would be no references. The Catholic Church was run by people who had a particular agenda as regards their teachings, writings and structures within their church.
    The books of the New Testament were written before that "agenda" was formulated. Besides, as I said, the marital status of Jesus would have no impact whatsoever on Christian doctrine, so there would be no reason to cover it up. As for the status of women, the books of the New Testament in general show a higher status for women than was allowed in the mediaeval Catholic society,. which would be odd if they had been censored by the leaders of that society.

  7. #27
    Registered User Baruch's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Location
    Pontllanfraith
    Posts
    2,261
    Rep Power
    11

    Re: Aspects of the feminine divine in 'modern' religions

    Quote Originally Posted by andystyle View Post
    It's probably splitting hairs, but as soon as people began to follow Christ, they followed his teachings and not those of the OT - therefore were not within Judaism.
    That's not historically accurate. In the first century there were many different sects of Judaism, and initially Christianity was regarded by both its adherents and others as another Jewish sect, though of course its adherents saw it as the only true path. Certainly both Jesus and the apostles are recorded as both worshipping and teaching at the Jewish Temple in Jerusalem. Problems were caused when more and more non-Jews began to convert to Christianity, leading to the Council of Jerusalem (recorded in Acts chapter 15) which debated whether or not converts should be circumcised (i.e. become Jewish). In the end it was decided that this wasn't necessary, and over time the Church became more gentile and less Jewish in character.

    When Judaism was "normalised" into one main form after the destruction of the Temple in A.D. 70, Christianity began to be seen as "outside the fold" of Judaism. The final cut-off point may have come when the ethnically Jewish Christian community refused to support the Bar Kokhba rebellion against Rome, due to its leader claiming to be the Messiah. They were widely regarded by the rest of the Jewish community as traitors because of this, which marked the final parting of the ways.

  8. #28
    Registered User Baruch's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Location
    Pontllanfraith
    Posts
    2,261
    Rep Power
    11

    Re: Aspects of the feminine divine in 'modern' religions

    Quote Originally Posted by MartinHarper View Post
    By comparing the xtian Old Testament to the Jewish Tanakh, we can determine that people feel free to make significant deliberate edits to holy scripture that they purport to revere.
    I would dispute that claim. Can you give examples? Both Christian and Jewish scholars accept the original Hebrew text, rather than a translation, as authoritative. Differences in translation are bound to appear, as where there are two possible translations of a sentence each group will choose the one that fits its own theological bias, but that is not evidence of "significant deliberate edits to holy scripture".

  9. #29
    Papa Smurf
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Location
    Planet Scathe
    Posts
    12,528
    Blog Entries
    6
    Rep Power
    18

    Re: Aspects of the feminine divine in 'modern' religions

    Quote Originally Posted by Baruch View Post
    Eh?
    He said "many means" it appeared that you changed it to "any means" which give it a COMPLETELY different meaning.

    The books of the New Testament were written before that "agenda" was formulated. Besides, as I said, the marital status of Jesus would have no impact whatsoever on Christian doctrine, so there would be no reason to cover it up. As for the status of women, the books of the New Testament in general show a higher status for women than was allowed in the mediaeval Catholic society,. which would be odd if they had been censored by the leaders of that society.
    Fair point, it did get a bit worse. Which does show just how liberal Catholicism in the middle ages actually was i.e. not!

  10. #30
    Registered User Baruch's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Location
    Pontllanfraith
    Posts
    2,261
    Rep Power
    11

    Re: Aspects of the feminine divine in 'modern' religions

    Quote Originally Posted by Dreadful Scathe View Post
    He said "many means" it appeared that you changed it to "any means" which give it a COMPLETELY different meaning.
    Oops! It was a mis-reading on my part, honest! Apologies to Magic Hans.

  11. #31
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    Southampton
    Posts
    6,709
    Rep Power
    13

    Re: Aspects of the feminine divine in 'modern' religions

    Quote Originally Posted by Baruch View Post
    The books of the New Testament were written before that "agenda" was formulated.
    Hmmm...maybe the original versions were, but the manuscripts on which the current NT is based were quite a lot later than that, were they not?
    Besides, as I said, the marital status of Jesus would have no impact whatsoever on Christian doctrine, so there would be no reason to cover it up.
    Well, it might have had one hell of an impact on the Church of the dark ages as it began to formulate the idea that priests must be unmarried and celibate. This might have been very tricky to enforce if Jesus had been known to have married, etc. Goodness knows how the Church might be different if it had been a family affair rather than a rigidly masculine hierarchical exclusive organisation!!

  12. #32
    Registered User andystyle's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Glesgae!
    Posts
    582
    Rep Power
    9

    Re: Aspects of the feminine divine in 'modern' religions

    Quote Originally Posted by Barry Shnikov View Post
    Well, it might have had one hell of an impact on the Church of the dark ages as it began to formulate the idea that priests must be unmarried and celibate. This might have been very tricky to enforce if Jesus had been known to have married, etc. Goodness knows how the Church might be different if it had been a family affair rather than a rigidly masculine hierarchical exclusive organisation!!
    I think the key phrase here is "it began to formulate". What was the situation beforehand with priests? Could they marry and have children? If the Church decided that this should not be the case, then that's a decision for the Church to make...for whatever reason, they wanted their priests to be celibate and unmarried. Even if Jesus was married, does that detract at all from the weight and impact of his teachings?

  13. #33
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    Southampton
    Posts
    6,709
    Rep Power
    13

    Re: Aspects of the feminine divine in 'modern' religions

    Quote Originally Posted by andystyle View Post
    I think the key phrase here is "it began to formulate". What was the situation beforehand with priests? Could they marry and have children? If the Church decided that this should not be the case, then that's a decision for the Church to make...for whatever reason, they wanted their priests to be celibate and unmarried. Even if Jesus was married, does that detract at all from the weight and impact of his teachings?
    Sorry chum, I think you've missed the point. Baruch wrote that Jesus' marital status would have had no impact on doctrine; I simply pointed out that the effect may well have been subtle in principle but significant in application. It's unlikely that a Church thinker will announce: "This doctrine applies because Jesus wasn't married..." but it might well be that people thought: 'Jesus was unmarried partly because he needed to devote himself to his mission, so the men who carry on that mission, the priests, must be unmarried also'. Of course it's a decision for the Church to make - that's the point! Why it made that decision is the issue that's being addressed.

    If he had been married - well, for a start off, it's difficult to see how the Puritan tradition could have arisen. Stories about what a great time Jesus had at his wedding and how much he loved his children would have had a humungously profound impression on the way Christianity evolved over its first 1000 years. Baruch's assertion - it appeared to me - followed no thought on the matter at all.

  14. #34
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Location
    Worcester, UK
    Posts
    4,157
    Rep Power
    12

    Re: Aspects of the feminine divine in 'modern' religions

    Quote Originally Posted by Baruch View Post
    I would dispute that claim. Can you give examples?
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bible#D..._Old_Testament

    Quote Originally Posted by Wikipedia
    The Christian Old Testament, while having most or all books in common with the Jewish Tanakh, varies from Judaism in the emphasis it places and the interpretations it gives them. The books come in a slightly different order. In addition, some Christian groups recognize additional books as canonical members of the Old Testament, and they may use a different text as the canonical basis for translations.

    Differing Christian usages of the Old Testament

    The Septuagint (Greek translation, from Alexandria in Egypt under the Ptolemies) was generally abandoned in favor of the Masoretic text as the basis for translations of the Old Testament into Western languages from Saint Jerome's Vulgate to the present day. In Eastern Christianity, translations based on the Septuagint still prevail. Some modern Western translations make use of the Septuagint to clarify passages in the Masoretic text, where the Septuagint preserves an ancient understanding of the text. They also sometimes adopt variants that appear in texts discovered among the Dead Sea Scrolls.

    A number of books which are part of the Greek Septuagint but are not found in the Hebrew Bible are often referred to as deuterocanonical books by Roman Catholics referring to a later secondary (i.e. deutero) canonisation. Most Protestants term these books as apocrypha. Evangelicals and those of the Modern Protestant traditions do not accept the deuterocanonical books as canonical, although Protestant Bibles included them until around the 1820s. However the Roman Catholic, Anglican Church, Eastern Orthodox, and Oriental Orthodox Churches include these books as part of their Old Testament. The Roman Catholic Church recognizes seven such books (Tobit, Judith, 1 Maccabees, 2 Maccabees, Wisdom of Solomon, Ecclesiasticus, and Baruch), as well as some passages in Esther and Daniel. Various Orthodox Churches include a few others, typically 3 Maccabees, Psalm 151, 1 Esdras, Odes, Psalms of Solomon, and occasionally 4 Maccabees.

  15. #35
    Registered User andystyle's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Glesgae!
    Posts
    582
    Rep Power
    9

    Re: Aspects of the feminine divine in 'modern' religions

    Quote Originally Posted by Barry Shnikov View Post
    Sorry chum, I think you've missed the point. Baruch wrote that Jesus' marital status would have had no impact on doctrine; I simply pointed out that the effect may well have been subtle in principle but significant in application. It's unlikely that a Church thinker will announce: "This doctrine applies because Jesus wasn't married..." but it might well be that people thought: 'Jesus was unmarried partly because he needed to devote himself to his mission, so the men who carry on that mission, the priests, must be unmarried also'. Of course it's a decision for the Church to make - that's the point! Why it made that decision is the issue that's being addressed. If he had been married - well, for a start off, it's difficult to see how the Puritan tradition could have arisen. Stories about what a great time Jesus had at his wedding and how much he loved his children would have had a humungously profound impression on the way Christianity evolved over its first 1000 years.
    Even if Christ was married, it's entirely possible that the Puritan tradition would have formed anyway. Christ is unique as he had no sin, but died for our sins - no human can hope to be the same. So it's possible that priests would STILL be celibate and unmarried in order for them to attempt to become closer to Christ without the temptation/distraction of the flesh, no matter Christ's marital status. I'm not sure that Christ being married, having a good time at his wedding and loving his children fiercely would have made a massive impression - why would it? He would still be Christ and act in the way that he did throughout the NT, thus setting the standard.

    Baruch's assertion - it appeared to me - followed no thought on the matter at all.
    My understanding is that Baruch is talking about the early Christian doctrine from the NT and the times following on from the crucifiction. I think he has a point - whether Christ was married or not, his followers believed he was the Messiah, therefore it is possible that him being married would be considered an insignificant footnote in his life on earth as compared to who he was and what his arrival meant. Thus the doctrine they established in light of this may not even consider if he was married or not. True, the doctrine of the Church in the Dark Ages might have been very different if it was written Jesus was married...but then again, it may not have been.

    At the end of the day, it's an academic point with no right or wrong answer - but is interesting to consider.

  16. #36
    Formerly known as DavidJames David Bailey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    Norf Lundin
    Posts
    17,001
    Blog Entries
    1
    Rep Power
    18

    Re: Aspects of the feminine divine in 'modern' religions

    Quote Originally Posted by Magic Hans View Post
    Which would quite suit a male dominated power base. Might the powers that be have simply hidden or debunked any evidence?
    Sorry, but you can use that "It's all a conspiracy" argument for anything ("There's no proof? Aha! That means it's been hidden, it must be a conspiracy, I was right all along, hahahahaha..." etc. )

    Quote Originally Posted by Magic Hans View Post
    With respect, as has been mentioned in another thread, how many additions, versions, translations of any of the testaments books has their been?
    A lot. More to the point, what we call the Bible is a selection of appropriate gospels, determined as being divinely-influenced. Over the centuries, dozens of works were lost, excluded, declared apocryphal, heretical etc. The amazing thing (I would say "miracle" in other circumstances ) is that it still presents a relatively consistent message at all.

    According to the Catholic Encyclopedia article on the Canon of the New Testament:
    The idea of a complete and clear-cut canon of the New Testament existing from the beginning, that is from Apostolic times, has no foundation in history. The Canon of the New Testament, like that of the Old, is the result of a development, of a process at once stimulated by disputes with doubters, both within and without the Church, and retarded by certain obscurities and natural hesitations, and which did not reach its final term until the dogmatic definition of the Tridentine Council
    There's a list of these "apocyphal" here - very interesting reading.

  17. #37
    Papa Smurf
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Location
    Planet Scathe
    Posts
    12,528
    Blog Entries
    6
    Rep Power
    18

    Re: Aspects of the feminine divine in 'modern' religions

    Quote Originally Posted by andystyle View Post
    I'm not sure that Christ being married, having a good time at his wedding and loving his children fiercely would have made a massive impression - why would it?
    Because it brings Christ closer to the rest of us i.e. he may have been the son of god but he was married and had kids. It gives family a "good rep" by association and puts a positive spin on sex, if you like. Barry was pointing out, I believe, that we can at least acknowledge it could have made some difference to the growth of Christianity.

    True, the doctrine of the Church in the Dark Ages might have been very different if it was written Jesus was married...but then again, it may not have been.
    So you agree then

    At the end of the day, it's an academic point with no right or wrong answer - but is interesting to consider.
    So Barry was right then ?

  18. #38
    Registered User andystyle's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Glesgae!
    Posts
    582
    Rep Power
    9

    Re: Aspects of the feminine divine in 'modern' religions

    Quote Originally Posted by MartinHarper View Post
    By comparing the xtian Old Testament to the Jewish Tanakh, we can determine that people feel free to make significant deliberate edits to holy scripture that they purport to revere.
    The Wikipedia post you've linked states that the difference between the Jewish Tanakh and the Christian OT is that there is a difference in emphasis and interpretation, and that the books come in a slightly different order. First off, as Christianity came from Judaism, would the OT and Tanakh not be the same up until that point? So when the religions eventually split due to one recognising Jesus as the Messiah and one not, the Christian viewpoint on scripture would be different from the Jewish one, hence differing emphasis in subsequent translations/writings. Nowadays, different bible translations try and come at scripture from various angles, hence differences in translation, emphasis etc. I hardly think this qualifies as a 'significant deliberate edits'. The important thing is that the message is the same. As for the order of books, the Bible isn't meant to be read from start to finish - it's a guide book, not a novel so I don't think this is terribly fundamental either.

    You do have a point with the difference between the Catholic and the Protestant versions of the Bible - I've always wondered if the extra books can still be taken as the Word of God (I'm Protestant, btw) even if they aren't in the bible I have. Although the general faith is the same, Catholic and Protestant theologies vary, for example Catholic prayers for the dead as an act of intersession. It would likely have something to do with this. However, there would have had to have been a very good reason for removing these books and it would have been a matter of serious debate - not something taken lightly.

  19. #39
    Registered User andystyle's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Glesgae!
    Posts
    582
    Rep Power
    9

    Re: Aspects of the feminine divine in 'modern' religions

    Quote Originally Posted by Dreadful Scathe View Post
    Because it brings Christ closer to the rest of us i.e. he may have been the son of god but he was married and had kids. It gives family a "good rep" by association and puts a positive spin on sex, if you like. Barry was pointing out, I believe, that we can at least acknowledge it could have made some difference to the growth of Christianity.
    I'm not saying it categorically wouldn't have had an impression had Jesus been married with all that entails - I'm just not convinced that the impression would have been as profound as Barry suggests. I see what you're getting at, but I don't see it as terribly significant...even if he was married, does that detract from feeding a lot of folk from not very much food, turning water to wine, walking on water, healing cripples, restoring hearing and sight etc etc? Yes, it would bring Christ closer to the rest of us...he was sent to earth to be close to us! He was so close to us, he died for us!

    Oh, and although the Bible frowns upon sex outside of marriage, it doesn't condemn it - in fact, it actually suggests that married women shouldn't withold it!

    So you agree then
    So Barry was right then ?
    I said "True, the doctrine of the Church in the Dark Ages might have been very different if it was written Jesus was married...but then again, it may not have been." and "At the end of the day, it's an academic point with no right or wrong answer - but is interesting to consider."

    I'm neither agreeing nor disagreeing - like I said, it's an academic point. There's not a right or wrong answer.

  20. #40
    Registered User andystyle's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Glesgae!
    Posts
    582
    Rep Power
    9

    Re: Aspects of the feminine divine in 'modern' religions

    Just re-read my post and realised the following seemed very sexist!

    "Oh, and although the Bible frowns upon sex outside of marriage, it doesn't condemn it - in fact, it actually suggests that married women shouldn't withold it!"

    It also states that men should treat their women fairly. Wasn't as clear I could have been, my apologies.

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. The Ten Commandments of Modern Jive
    By Baruch in forum Let's talk about dance
    Replies: 34
    Last Post: 3rd-November-2006, 06:12 PM
  2. Ceroc and Modern Jive Champs - Sydney 2005
    By Julie G in forum Let's talk about dance
    Replies: 7
    Last Post: 22nd-June-2005, 02:26 PM
  3. Ballroom meets Modern Jive
    By Minnie M in forum The Land of a 1000 dances
    Replies: 9
    Last Post: 29th-March-2005, 03:13 AM
  4. Timing in Modern Jive
    By DavidB in forum Intermediate Corner
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: 4th-September-2002, 04:14 PM

Tags for this Thread

Bookmarks

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •