Re: [Norton AntiSpam] Re: [Norton AntiSpam] Re: Vatican

From: <RFaussette@aol.com>
Date: Wed Nov 09 2005 - 13:23:32 EST

In a message dated 11/9/2005 10:52:25 AM Eastern Standard Time,
rjschn39@bellsouth.net writes:
On God's "gender": there are feminine images of God in the OT, as biblical
scholars have pointed out. And from early times, Christian theology has
insisted that God is beyond gender. When my (usually male) students insist that God
is masculine, I tell them that they are making God in their own image.

However, as I pointed out to my students in my NT Lit. classes yesterday, the
correct translation for Gal. 3:28 is "...not 'male and female'." As N. T.
Wright and others point out, Paul is clearly referencing Gen. 1:27. They
interpret Paul to mean that in Christ gender distinctions no longer obtain, because
believers are "one" in a "new creation." The shift also contains an implicit
rejection of all patriarchial systems of gender discrimination. Ephesians
carries this forward in 5:21ff with "Be mutually submissive to one another out of
reverence for Christ," and includes husbands and wives under that rubric.

Bob
Jewish theology posits the messiah to be male and female. The reasoning goes
this way: Before Eve was created from Adam's rib, Adam contained both male and
female principles and therefore had NO DESIRE. Once Adam and Eve were
separated, each lacked something the other had and desire was born. It was desire
that caused the eating of the apple.
Jesus is portrayed as celibate, like the pre-fall Adam the messiah has no
desire. He is complete in himself.
I do not see Christian theology departing from this schema. Also, the nag
hammadi texts make much mention of male becoming female and female becoming male
to enter the kingdom.
For background see Gershom Scholem's the messianic idea in Judaism
rich faussette
Received on Wed Nov 9 13:26:44 2005

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Wed Nov 09 2005 - 13:26:44 EST