Theological Opinions , PART II

[GreyMouser]

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

This appears to be what I was referring to - does the actual pronoun in GREEK (the original language) have a gender? There are several references to "He" in John 16; do those pronouns have a gender? Do ANY pronouns referring to the HSpirit have a gender in the original language? (English doesn't matter) They only mention John 14 in the article.

Since John 14 and 16 are directly quoting Jesus, shouldn't the question be about pronoun genders in Aramaic? And the problems of translating into Greek?

[GreyMouser]

Found this:

I was teaching advanced Hebrew, and I had decided to take the class through the book of Judges. As we read along, I noticed something odd about Judges 3:10:

The Spirit of Yahweh came upon Caleb's younger brother...

In English, this passage from Judges doesn't appear startling, but in Hebrew something strange leapt out at me: "came upon" was a third person FEMININE verb, indicating it's subject "Spirit" was being understood as a feminine noun. Hebrew is not like Aramaic in its use of the word "spirit". While the word is exclusively feminine in Aramaic, in Hebrew it is sometimes masculine. Therefore, the question that came to mind was why had the author of Judges chosen here to make the Spirit of Yahweh feminine, when he could just as easily have made it masculine? Oh well.

I just shrugged my shoulders and went on, not overly concerned. Occasionally, I thought, one finds something inexplicable in the Bible: no big deal. But then came Judges 6:34. Again, "Spirit of Yahweh" was feminine.

At this point I decided to consult the concordance. Much to my surprise, every occurrence of "Spirit of Yahweh" in Judges is feminine. As I pondered that, I recalled Genesis 1:2, the first occurrence of "Spirit of God" in the Bible, and realized to my shock that it too is feminine.

Back to the concordance. Out of 84 OT uses of the word "spirit", in contexts traditionally assumed to be references to the Holy Spirit, 75 times it is either explicitly feminine or indeterminable (due to lack of a verb or adjective). Only nine times can "spirit" be construed as masculine, and in those cases it is unclear that it is a reference to God's Holy Spirit anyway. (Please see Appendix 3 for a complete list and detailed discussion of the usages.)

The New Testament references to the Holy Spirit are not helpful for conclusively deciding on the gender of the Holy Spirit, since "spirit" in Greek is neuter, and so is referred to as "it" by the New Testament writers.

The conclusion of all this is that our traditional assumption of a masculine Spirit is questionable; in fact, the evidence seems overwhelming that the Spirit should be viewed as "She", which does seem to make sense, since the other two members of the Godhead are labeled "Father" and "Son".

(my bold)

http://www.theology.edu/journal/volume3/spirit.htm

[Radagast The Brown]

In Modern Hebrew at least the word 'spirit', 'ruwach', is used much more often in feminine than masculine; I never refer to wind as a masculine noun, only as feminine. So I don't see this like proof, or even evidence... it's simply the natural way of saying it.

[Spock]

Indeed!

[Rían]

Originally Posted by GreyMouser

Since John 14 and 16 are directly quoting Jesus, shouldn't the question be about pronoun genders in Aramaic? And the problems of translating into Greek?

I don't think the quotes were written down in Aramaic when John wrote his gospel, though, although they were originally spoken that way, I'm assuming. Unfortunately we don't have recordings of Jesus speaking, so I imagine we'll never know the actual Aramaic.

And I know that in Spanish, at least, there are some words whose gender doesn't seem to match the word, so using a word like "Spirit" that is a feminine noun doesn't necessarily mean that the Holy Spirit is feminine.

But it's interesting to think about!

[Gwaimir Windgem]

On a related and humourous note, the Latin noun virtus, meaning among other things 'manliness', is a feminine noun.

Virtus feminea est.

But anyway, to contribute to the discussion, there are words in Latin (I assume the same is true of Spanish), such as poeta, agricola, nauta, etc., which look feminine, but are in fact masculine (i.e. you use masculine adjective and pronouns with them). Is it possible that you're thinking of something like this?

[inked]

Elfhelm wrote on the GLB thread:
"The reason we were told not to judge other people is because it was SUPPOSED to be a personal relationship between you and God, and sin, which is mostly from pride, is harmful TO THAT RELATIONSHIP because it puts distance between you. But the false version, the perversion of Jesus' teachings has included the establishment of an intervening priesthood, the creation of a political agenda, and the unceasing judgement of fellow beings - which in my book is a sin in itself. It is caused by pride. You can hem and haw, but I am not fooled. I'm too old to fall for verbal shenanigans. Read the Book and have your personal relationship with God. And keep your judgements to yourself. Thank you."

I need to address several theological points in this, Elfhlem. I doubt we get to them all in any depth in a single post, so I'll list the ones I see that I think I can make an attempt to address.
I) the issue of judge not that ye be not judged;
II) the relations between God and the individual : positive and negative;
III) perversion of Jesus' teachings;
IV) the nature of priesthood;
V) political agenda establishment by whomsoever about whatsoever;
VI) actual judgments of behavior/persons/belief systems;
VII) pride;
VIII) reading the Bible;and,
IX) my relationship with God and making judgments.

Let's see. There are 3 for the Father, 3 for the Son, and 3 for the Holy Ghost.

Since some flow from others rather reasonably, I think I'll start with II and see how we progress. Obviously, I am laying claim to being a Trinitarian Christian in the orthodox Anglican understanding of that Faith once received. So, I can refer you to the Apostle's, Nicene, and Athanasian Creed (so-called), and the Definition of Chalcedon for basics about the God/human interactions, the 39 Articles, and the Book of Common Prayer (1549 to current ECUSA, but the CoE standard is 1662 and that is the basis for most PB's in use however aligned to local conditions). Just so you'll know my primary mode of thought. Of course, these are understood to be the traditional Christian understandings of the Bible, which they summarize and employ.

God, Great One-in-Three and Three-in-One,
Source of all, Creator;
Son, co-equal in Godhood, Incarnate of Mary Virgin, truly God and truly Man,
Redeemer by life, death, burial, resurrection, and ascension;
Spirit, co-equal in Godhood, Gift and Gifter, Indwelling Advocate

made all that exists, physical and spiritual,
and humanity in His own image: male and female created He them, placed them in a world made good, and sought them for companions

Humanity rebelled against God, falling from the Good to the rejection of the good because it didn't suit them (pride, putting themselves in the place of God - sin) and they willed disobedience.

God took steps to rescue humanity from this sin and all sequelae because humanity could not repair the breach made by sin.

Jesus of Nazareth, son of Mary, son of God, step-fathered by Joseph, lived the sinless life Adam and Eve rejected with all their heirs, suffered under Pontius Pilate, was crucified, dead, and buried, descended into Hell, was resurrected, and ascended to the right hand of the Father, having made one, full, perfect oblation and satisfaction for the sin of the world, renewing the Creation and regenerating Humanity, which event is made present and effectual by the Holy Spirit, Who indwells believers, joining them into the life of the Blessed Trinity by faith.

Short version: God made all good, including humanity. Humanity, head of all creation, chose disobedience/sin/pride and all humanity and all creation fell from right relation with God. God loved all persons so much that He made the restitution of humanity and creation possible by His own actions. All who receive His free gift are redeemed and creation is being renewed in that process. All who so choose may still refuse the Good and persist in rebellion and refusal of their true nature. In the end, God wins and all persons are accepting or rejecting of Him and so choose their eternal place: those who say to God, "THY will be done," and those to whom God says, "Thy will be done."

Since, therefore, God who made us and redeemed us, gives us free will that is truly free, we may accept Him or reject Him, and it counts. So, human decisions and will are fraught with creative power of eternal consequence. There are no mere mortals, as CS LEWIS observed in The Weight of Glory but everlasting splendours or horrors.

So, now you can see how I do VIII. I read the Bible under the guidance of the Holy Spirit in the Church and in my heart. Therefore, IX and VI should fall into place. My priesthood is that of a believer, a member of a royal priesthood and a holy nation which instituted an ordered ministry of people like me (laity), diakonos (deacon), presbyter (priest), and episcopos (bishop) in general terms. The individuals in these orders are subject to the Body of Christ in the Holy Spirit. And all are subject to God, Who is no respecter of person (least not of His Own person given the Redemption!).

Pride is my besetting sin. I still think that God needs my advice to run the world. Fortunately, He has a sense of humour about that, and a great deal of forgiveness and patience. I may be making a little progress, but probably not as much as I think. (VII).

Which means I am responsible for acting out my beliefs in the political system I'm in - a democracy which gives me one vote. Fortunately (or not, perhaps, depending on your view point), I am allowed to reason my positions from the natural order and revelation to all and sundry who listen. Since, as do you, I find others do not agree, we may align with like-minded folks to achieve our political ends in a consistent moral, ethical, and legal fashion. (V).

Which leaves (I) and (III).

What perversion of Jesus' teachings are you alleging? - so I can respond accurately.

The answer to that may well reveal (I).

Ciao for now!

[Elfhelm]

It's nice to hear what you believe, and I know it's supported by tradition. I don't believe tradition is correct on a number of these issues. But since I do believe that Jesus came to teach us to have a personal relationship with God, and since I believe that Jesus didn't want me to waste my time arguing esoterica, I'm not going to even attempt to "instruct" you to think like me.

Yet it remains true that on a different thread I pointed out that judging other people is something he said not to do. And the reason why is because it's not our job to live other people's lives. It's our job to live our own lives properly. For instance, Matt 7:5.

I really can go on for hours about what I have discovered about how the Church has altered Jesus' teachings, but it will do no good. You have made up your mind and so have I.

I know you have encountered people who think like me before and you probably have all kinds of arguments you would like to have. To me that whole pursuit is about as pointless as the trivial arguments that Jesus criticized the Pharisees about. Maybe he didn't realize it, but that was their way of having fun. Well, I think people who enjoy that kind of fun should hang out together. I'm not one of them.

Needless to say, I'm not into the Sadducee thing either. As I said, I think he opposed the idea of a priesthood.

You know darn well there were 40 other gospels. They are also worth reading, as well as the Apocrypha, as well as Kung Fu Tse and Lao Tse and Plato.

Personally, I consider modern Christianity anti-Christ. I'm sure you've heard me say that before. Most people think I'm a crackpot. Let's just leave it at that, OK?

[inked]

You are allowed to leave it anywhere you wish, Elfhelm.

Forty other gospels? That is, quite frankly, an astonishing allegation. Elaine Pagels doesn't believe in that many, does she? She didn't when I read her latest ... but that was 2 yrs ago, I admit.

And, truthfully, Elfhelm, I have never met anyone like you. You are unique, as is ever human on this planet, in history, and in the future that remains! However, I do NOT recall having met anyone with quite the collage of thoughts/beliefs you temporarily put on display in the last post.

I rather gather we would be at odds over some of them, but if you mean by traditional the equivalent of fundamentalist in the pejorative sense of that world as used by popular media and low-wattage 'liberal thinkers', I doubt I qualify.

Oh, well, you know the old saw about leading a horse to water.....

[Elfhelm]

or casting pearls...

[Lief Erikson]

If one considers every book from that time period to be a simple story that we can learn from, possibly full of errors but with the message rather than the accuracy being the point, then it makes sense to add the 40 to the canon.

If we say that books have to be absolutely true in order to be part of the canon though, only the scriptures in the Bible pass the test. There is a great deal of evidence supporting their historical reliability. Accuracy is important.

[Elfhelm]

"But what remains is astonishing: some fifty-two texts from the early centuries of the Christian era--including a collection of early Christian gospels, previously unknown." - Elaine Pagels

Sorry, guess I underestimated

[hectorberlioz]

Originally Posted by Elfhelm

"But what remains is astonishing: some fifty-two texts from the early centuries of the Christian era--including a collection of early Christian gospels, previously unknown." - Elaine Pagels

Sorry, guess I underestimated

Do you know who Elain Pagels is

[Elfhelm]

Sure. One of many people who use the discoveries at Nag Hammadi to advance her cause. I must point out that it was inked, and not me, who brought her up. I do not use her as a reference. inked said he read her book a few years ago and she hadn't said there were as many 40 books found there. I simply pointed out that she said there were 52.

The book I have, which is actual translations, has only 39 texts.

[Gwaimir Windgem]

I would point out, Elfhelm, that aside from the four canonical Gospels, few if any predated St. Ignatius of Antioch writing "Let no man do anything connected with the Church without the bishop" and "It is well to reverence both God and the bishop. He who honours the bishop has been honoured by God". Being prior, it sorta seems like this is the authentic descendants of the teaching of Christ, and not the other view. Not that it necessarily must be, but I wonder why one would choose to believe in later views which suddenly spring up as opposed to going as far back as possible (which in fact is the Didache and the synoptic Gospels).

[inked]

Originally Posted by Elfhelm

Sure. One of many people who use the discoveries at Nag Hammadi to advance her cause. I must point out that it was inked, and not me, who brought her up. I do not use her as a reference. inked said he read her book a few years ago and she hadn't said there were as many 40 books found there. I simply pointed out that she said there were 52.

The book I have, which is actual translations, has only 39 texts.

I believe I qualified my remarks with IIRC and indicated I was working with a two year old recollection, Elfhelm.

But what you refer to, and Pagels, are late 2nd to 4th century productions, and are not on a time par with the canonical gospels. Of course, any port in a storm....

Many of the productions are clearly deviant productions by special interest groups. To imply that they are equivalent in value is absurd unless you regularly attribute value to von Daniken et alia as science research.

[Rían]

slight rabbit trail - re Lief's female Holy Spirit thing -

I just heard a few weeks ago that in John's gospel, John (un-grammatically!) specifically uses the masculine article to refer to the H.S. in a few places.

[Elfhelm]

You brought her up, inked, not me. Do you think I am a follower of this person? I don't follow. I study.

[GreyMouser]

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

If we say that books have to be absolutely true in order to be part of the canon though, only the scriptures in the Bible pass the test. There is a great deal of evidence supporting their historical reliability. Accuracy is important.

Okay, no snark, this is something I came across recently, and it has left me puzzled- I've searched for Fundamentalist answers, but haven't come across any, which I'm sure must mean I'm looking in the wrong places.

In Luke 2 we have the familiar story of the census under Qirinius, Joseph and Mary's travel from their home town of Nazareth, and the birth of Jesus in the manger. Then:

21On the eighth day, when it was time to circumcise him, he was named Jesus, the name the angel had given him before he had been conceived.

22When the time of their purification according to the Law of Moses had been completed, Joseph and Mary took him to Jerusalem to present him to the Lord 23(as it is written in the Law of the Lord, "Every firstborn male is to be consecrated to the Lord"[b]), 24and to offer a sacrifice in keeping with what is said in the Law of the Lord: "a pair of doves or two young pigeons."[c]

25Now there was a man in Jerusalem called Simeon, who was righteous and devout. He was waiting for the consolation of Israel, and the Holy Spirit was upon him. 26It had been revealed to him by the Holy Spirit that he would not die before he had seen the Lord's Christ. 27Moved by the Spirit, he went into the temple courts. When the parents brought in the child Jesus to do for him what the custom of the Law required, 28Simeon took him in his arms and praised God, saying:
29"Sovereign Lord, as you have promised,
you now dismiss[d] your servant in peace.
30For my eyes have seen your salvation,
31which you have prepared in the sight of all people,
32a light for revelation to the Gentiles
and for glory to your people Israel."

33The child's father and mother marveled at what was said about him. 34Then Simeon blessed them and said to Mary, his mother: "This child is destined to cause the falling and rising of many in Israel, and to be a sign that will be spoken against, 35so that the thoughts of many hearts will be revealed. And a sword will pierce your own soul too."

36There was also a prophetess, Anna, the daughter of Phanuel, of the tribe of Asher. She was very old; she had lived with her husband seven years after her marriage, 37and then was a widow until she was eighty-four.[e] She never left the temple but worshiped night and day, fasting and praying. 38Coming up to them at that very moment, she gave thanks to God and spoke about the child to all who were looking forward to the redemption of Jerusalem.

39When Joseph and Mary had done everything required by the Law of the Lord, they returned to Galilee to their own town of Nazareth. 40And the child grew and became strong; he was filled with wisdom, and the grace of God was upon him.
The Boy Jesus at the Temple
41Every year his parents went to Jerusalem for the Feast of the Passover.

Matthew- no mention of Nazareth or the census,

1After Jesus was born in Bethlehem in Judea, during the time of King Herod, Magi[a] from the east came to Jerusalem 2and asked, "Where is the one who has been born king of the Jews? We saw his star in the east[b] and have come to worship him."

3When King Herod heard this he was disturbed, and all Jerusalem with him. 4When he had called together all the people's chief priests and teachers of the law, he asked them where the Christ[c] was to be born. 5"In Bethlehem in Judea," they replied, "for this is what the prophet has written:
6" 'But you, Bethlehem, in the land of Judah,
are by no means least among the rulers of Judah;
for out of you will come a ruler
who will be the shepherd of my people Israel.'[d]"

7Then Herod called the Magi secretly and found out from them the exact time the star had appeared. 8He sent them to Bethlehem and said, "Go and make a careful search for the child. As soon as you find him, report to me, so that I too may go and worship him."

9After they had heard the king, they went on their way, and the star they had seen in the east[e] went ahead of them until it stopped over the place where the child was. 10When they saw the star, they were overjoyed. 11On coming to the house, they saw the child with his mother Mary, and they bowed down and worshiped him. Then they opened their treasures and presented him with gifts of gold and of incense and of myrrh. 12And having been warned in a dream not to go back to Herod, they returned to their country by another route.
The Escape to Egypt
13When they had gone, an angel of the Lord appeared to Joseph in a dream. "Get up," he said, "take the child and his mother and escape to Egypt. Stay there until I tell you, for Herod is going to search for the child to kill him." 14So he got up, took the child and his mother during the night and left for Egypt, 15where he stayed until the death of Herod. And so was fulfilled what the Lord had said through the prophet: "Out of Egypt I called my son."[f]

16When Herod realized that he had been outwitted by the Magi, he was furious, and he gave orders to kill all the boys in Bethlehem and its vicinity who were two years old and under, in accordance with the time he had learned from the Magi. 17Then what was said through the prophet Jeremiah was fulfilled:
18"A voice is heard in Ramah,
weeping and great mourning,
Rachel weeping for her children
and refusing to be comforted,
because they are no more."[g]
The Return to Nazareth
19After Herod died, an angel of the Lord appeared in a dream to Joseph in Egypt 20and said, "Get up, take the child and his mother and go to the land of Israel, for those who were trying to take the child's life are dead."

21So he got up, took the child and his mother and went to the land of Israel. 22But when he heard that Archelaus was reigning in Judea in place of his father Herod, he was afraid to go there. Having been warned in a dream, he withdrew to the district of Galilee, 23and he went and lived in a town called Nazareth. So was fulfilled what was said through the prophets: "He will be called a Nazarene."

Can these two accounts be reconciled?

[Elfhelm]

Originally Posted by Gwaimir Windgem

Not that it necessarily must be, but I wonder why one would choose to believe in later views which suddenly spring up as opposed to going as far back as possible (which in fact is the Didache and the synoptic Gospels).

I think that James is about as far back as you can go, and I think there was some sort of falling out between James and Paul over just this topic. But I do have more to learn on this. As always. So far it seems to me that James, while the leader of the faith in Israel, did not function as an intercedent between a worshipper and God. And it seems to me that he was reluctant to interpret, but did so only because he didn't like the way things were going with Paul, especially the syncretism with the Neo-Platonic idea of the Logos. But I admit I do not have enough evidence to support these theories. Paul, Luke, and others, (edit: here I'll stick in John "by way of Justin Martyr and Iranaeus"), pretty much won out over James. But I can't help but think that James, being Jesus' brother, had a better sense of what Jesus was about.

My interest in the Gnostics is limited to seeking clues about early Christian thought. I personally consider all that business about a demiurge, whether via Marcion, the Gnostics, the Manicheans, or the Cathars, to be yet another syncretized mythology of purely intellectual interest.

I do admit that certain Marcionist tendencies do exist in my own thought. I have never really been comfortable with the massacres at Jericho or of the Canaanites.