God's Wife Edited Out of the Bible? - Page 3

[PatienceAndLove]

Originally Posted by Purple Sage 

Originally Posted by PatienceAndLove 

OH1 They referenced one of the readings at my wedding- Ephesians 5, my favorite!

My very favorite bit: "So also ought men to love their wives as their own bodies. He that loveth his wife, loveth himself. For no man ever hated his own flesh; but nourisheth and cherisheth it, as also Christ doth the church"

I find your sources to be incredibly biased.

Context is everything.

The verse which keeps coming to mind for me regarding this thread is Matthew 7:6.

Context is everything. That is why threads like this frustrate me. People cherry pick out "wives be submissive to your husbands", but neglect to continue on with the passage, which extorts men to love and cherish their wives.

What does Matt 7:6 come to mind? 

This is what I found when I looked for the passage:

Give not that which is holy to dogs; neither cast ye your pearls before swine, lest perhaps they trample them under their feet, and turning upon you, they tear you.

[Purple Sage]

Because sometimes it isn't worth discussing these things with people who will not be receptive to them at all. At least that's how I feel about it.

[PatienceAndLove]

Originally Posted by Purple Sage 

Because sometimes it isn't worth discussing these things with people who will not be receptive to them at all. At least that's how I feel about it.

True.

I am actually finding this to be exceptionally true over the last few days on various boards.  I think I may need to take a message board break.

[zinemama]

Originally Posted by dalasmueller 

However, the ancient Jewish religion, for all intensive purposes, is the Christian religion of today. This is what the Christian Church claims and believes.

As a Jew, I don't know whether to laugh, cry or just shake my head at this. The practice of Judaism may have changed since "ancient" times, but it did not ever involve worshiping Jesus. I have never heard anyone claim that modern Christianity is equivalent to ancient Judaism, but there's a first time for everything, I guess!

Also (can't help it; I'm an editor) the phrase is "for all intents and purposes."

As for God having a wife, I don't know about that, but the Torah certainly speaks of the Shekhinah, or dwelling presence of God; the Hebrew word is definitely feminine and the term is interpreted by some to mean a God's feminine aspect. It is also associated with the concept of Shabbat as a bride.

[dalasmueller]

Originally Posted by zinemama 

Originally Posted by dalasmueller 

However, the ancient Jewish religion, for all intensive purposes, is the Christian religion of today. This is what the Christian Church claims and believes.

As a Jew, I don't know whether to laugh, cry or just shake my head at this. The practice of Judaism may have changed since "ancient" times, but it did not ever involve worshiping Jesus. I have never heard anyone claim that modern Christianity is equivalent to ancient Judaism, but there's a first time for everything, I guess!

Also (can't help it; I'm an editor) the phrase is "for all intents and purposes."

As for God having a wife, I don't know about that, but the Torah certainly speaks of the Shekhinah, or dwelling presence of God; the Hebrew word is definitely feminine and the term is interpreted by some to mean a God's feminine aspect. It is also associated with the concept of Shabbat as a bride.

Oops! Sorry for the grammatical error there...

Coming from a Christian perspective on the Old Testament, not only would I say that the Jewish Scriptures point clearly to Jesus as Messiah and the Trinitarian God, but I would also say that Jesus appears multiple times in the Old Testament to His people in his pre-incarnate form.  The Angel of the Lord in the Old Testament is, in fact, the same Jesus Christ of the New Testament.  So, I would argue, that yes, Judaism did include the worship of the entire Trinitarian God, including the pre-incarnate second person of the Trinity.

Historically speaking, the first Christians claimed to be the true Jews, because they believed in the promises given to Abraham, Isaac and Jacob.  They worshiped the True God of their Forefathers, whereas those Jews who rejected the Messiah had already hardened their hearts against the promises of God.  The first Christians saw themselves as Jews who had not fallen away, but who remained steadfast in the one true faith.  They continued to worship at the synagogues and even made sacrifices in the temples.  After all, they were Jews!  Politically it was a debate between the Jews and Christians as to who was able to worship freely, since Judaism was the only religion granted that right.  Depending on where you were the government either recognized Christians as the true Jews or those who rejected Jesus as the true Jews.  The point, of course, being that Christianity has always claimed to be the proper continuance of the Jewish faith.

The Bible itself claims that those who followed Jesus are the true descendants of Abraham and will receive the inheritance promised to Abraham's children.  Even those, Jesus claimed, who were in the physical bloodline of Abraham and rejected Him would be condemned while people of all nations who believed in Jesus as the True God and Messiah would receive the blessings promised to Israel.  You can read John 8:31-47 to find Jesus own words on the matter.  The Church is the new Israel.  This is the orthodox, historical docrtine of the Christian faith.

Why you have not yet heard this, I can only guess, but your reaction does not surprise me.  The religious leaders in Jesus' day had the same reaction when He taught the very same message.  They did not know whether to mock Him or to stone Him, although they did try both!  The event that first comes to my mind is the one in which Jesus takes for His own the title God bestowed on Himself at the burning bush "I AM" (John 8:58).  The Jews rightly understood this as a claim not only to deity, but as a claim to being the One True God of Israel.

[philomom]

Originally Posted by PatienceAndLove 

I find your sources to be incredibly biased.

I doubt that you would find any site that contradicted your beliefs to be acceptable. But that's the nature of fundamentalist xtianity.. the believers find it hard to think outside the box because doing so would be "wrong" or "sinful".

http://www.religioustolerance.org/fem_bibl.htm
Edited by philomom - 3/31/11 at 9:29am

[dalasmueller]

Originally Posted by philomom 

Originally Posted by PatienceAndLove 

I find your sources to be incredibly biased.

I doubt that you would find any site that contradicted your beliefs to be acceptable. But that's the nature of fundamentalist xtianity.. the believers find it hard to think outside the box because doing so would be "wrong" or "sinful".

http://www.religioustolerance.org/fem_bibl.htm

I took a look at the sources you posted earlier.  The article at the Australian Atheist website cited quite a few Bible verses to prove their point.  I have a viable response to each one of their statements, but it was a rather long article and I would really have to write a book.  In general, the problem with their application of the text is that it does not take into account the entirety of Biblical narrative, which really must be read as a whole and in light of the Gospel which it is intended to point toward.  Furthermore, they seem to ignore the many places in the Biblical account where women are lifted up and given great honor, contrary to society's practice at the time.

Although I will not answer any of their accusations specifically, I am interested in having a dialogue with you.  What passages in the Bible that discuss women and femininity are most concerning to you personally?  If you are willing, I would love to talk with you about them and perhaps give you a fresh perspective on their meaning.  I hope you are willing to think outside of the box a little bit 

[holyhelianthus]

Originally Posted by philomom 

Originally Posted by PatienceAndLove 

I find your sources to be incredibly biased.

I doubt that you would find any site that contradicted your beliefs to be acceptable. But that's the nature of fundamentalist xtianity.. the believers find it hard to think outside the box because doing so would be "wrong" or "sinful".

http://www.religioustolerance.org/fem_bibl.htm

Those are some pretty big assumptions you are making there. Generalizations and stereotyping. Let's flip that around: "you wouldn't be willing to look at Christianity in any way that may be positive because that would mean Pagans and Atheists would have to admit to the flaws in their arguments which their egos don't allow them to do". Untrue, yes? If you have a problem with the two posters you are debating address them, don't presume to know all Christians, fundamentalist or otherwise, based on your own prejudices. 

I do think there are some valid argument for the abuse of women in the Bible and Christianity as a whole but the sites you link to don't make them. They grasp at straws by cherry picking verses and not taking the whole of the scripture into account (not talking about the religious tolerance one you posted as I have yet to read it). I think the main issue with the abuses found in Christianity is Bible literalism. However that is not to say that all Bible literalist are abusers. 

[holyhelianthus]

Originally Posted by dalasmueller 
Although I will not answer any of their accusations specifically, I am interested in having a dialogue with you.  What passages in the Bible that discuss women and femininity are most concerning to you personally?  If you are willing, I would love to talk with you about them and perhaps give you a fresh perspective on their meaning.  I hope you are willing to think outside of the box a little bit 

Yes, I am very interested as well! I will share some of the beliefs and practices in the Bible I have issues as well with as I am very interested in some alternative views on them:

Women being "unclean" during menstruation. 

Women being told to submit to their husbands but men told only to love- is this a bit of separate but equal (and how is it equal?) or does "love" require a level of submission as well? Meaning are men also being asked to submit? 

Eve being "cursed" for partaking of the fruit- does that curse fall on all women? Why? And what exactly is that curse? 

I do know the standard answers to these questions but I also am aware that they vary from denomination to denomination, religion to religion, individual to individual. 

I am most interested in how you as a person and a religious person in particular view women and womanhood. 

[zinemama]

Originally Posted by dalasmueller 

Oops! Sorry for the grammatical error there...

Coming from a Christian perspective on the Old Testament, not only would I say that the Jewish Scriptures point clearly to Jesus as Messiah and the Trinitarian God, but I would also say that Jesus appears multiple times in the Old Testament to His people in his pre-incarnate form.  The Angel of the Lord in the Old Testament is, in fact, the same Jesus Christ of the New Testament.  So, I would argue, that yes, Judaism did include the worship of the entire Trinitarian God, including the pre-incarnate second person of the Trinity.

Historically speaking, the first Christians claimed to be the true Jews, because they believed in the promises given to Abraham, Isaac and Jacob.  They worshiped the True God of their Forefathers, whereas those Jews who rejected the Messiah had already hardened their hearts against the promises of God.  The first Christians saw themselves as Jews who had not fallen away, but who remained steadfast in the one true faith.  They continued to worship at the synagogues and even made sacrifices in the temples.  After all, they were Jews!  Politically it was a debate between the Jews and Christians as to who was able to worship freely, since Judaism was the only religion granted that right.  Depending on where you were the government either recognized Christians as the true Jews or those who rejected Jesus as the true Jews.  The point, of course, being that Christianity has always claimed to be the proper continuance of the Jewish faith.

The Bible itself claims that those who followed Jesus are the true descendants of Abraham and will receive the inheritance promised to Abraham's children.  Even those, Jesus claimed, who were in the physical bloodline of Abraham and rejected Him would be condemned while people of all nations who believed in Jesus as the True God and Messiah would receive the blessings promised to Israel.  You can read John 8:31-47 to find Jesus own words on the matter.  The Church is the new Israel.  This is the orthodox, historical docrtine of the Christian faith.

Why you have not yet heard this, I can only guess, but your reaction does not surprise me.  The religious leaders in Jesus' day had the same reaction when He taught the very same message.  They did not know whether to mock Him or to stone Him, although they did try both!  The event that first comes to my mind is the one in which Jesus takes for His own the title God bestowed on Himself at the burning bush "I AM" (John 8:58).  The Jews rightly understood this as a claim not only to deity, but as a claim to being the One True God of Israel.

Yes, I am aware that Christians interpret the the Hebrew Bible to accord with their own beliefs. I know that these include the belief that Jesus was the Jewish messiah and that the early Christians were Jews (heretics, their contemporaries would put it). But no, I'd never heard the claim that ancient Jews are the equivalent of modern Christians because, all unbeknownst to themselves, they were actually worshipping Jesus the whole time. (Although, now that I think of that scene in The Last Battle with Emeth being told he was worshipping Aslan all along, not Tash, maybe I have heard it after all...).

Of course, given that this interpretation is based on Christian scripture and belief, which have no bearing whatsoever on the practice or beliefs of Judaism, it doesn't cut a lot of ice with me. But it's certainly an...interesting perspective.

[PatienceAndLove]

Originally Posted by philomom 

Originally Posted by PatienceAndLove 

I find your sources to be incredibly biased.

I doubt that you would find any site that contradicted your beliefs to be acceptable. But that's the nature of fundamentalist xtianity.. the believers find it hard to think outside the box because doing so would be "wrong" or "sinful".

http://www.religioustolerance.org/fem_bibl.htm

I have no issues with having my beliefs contradicted.  I have issues with shoddy scholarship.

[rhianna813]

I am coming at this subject with opinion that all religions and gods were created equal. We just pick the one that speaks to us. I know others believe very differently.  

In many cultures and in the middle east God and Goddess pairs were worshipped. They had different regionally names but similar traits. As people traveled around they merged, blended and changed.

I believe the God of Jews, Muslims and Christians is shared, but I am not sure if they agree to that. I feel at the very least the belief in this particular God came from a shared people and background. And probably came from one of the Gods identified as Yahwah or perhaps another variation of this name. It is difficult to believe the abrahamic God had zero connection to any other local deity. I mean didn’t these local guys have some of the same stories/myths as mentioned in the bible (IE: creation, big flood) But clearly this God continued to change and even hive off into 3 different religions.

It is highly possible that early God had a Goddess wife. Because this was common historically at that time. It also seems that over time changes in culture and religion the worship of a Goddess waned and focus on the God increased. I believe Isis is main middle east Goddess that remained popular for the longest time. When abrahamic God was finally put to scripture it is possible any mention of a wife was never added. It is also highly possible she was removed.

On a personal belief level I believe that “god” is a genderless energy that is far beyond our understanding. The world we physically live in is filled with examples of masculine and feminine. People have chosen to approach deity as masculine and feminine – in many different ways. Both has separate beings (Goddess and God) and perhaps as one God having masculine and feminine sides (as zinemama mentioned Shekhinah) or just a feminine presence like a “church”. Either way the presence is there. For me I chose to honor a separate Goddess and God.

Rhianna

[Bluegoat]

Originally Posted by holyhelianthus 

Yes, I am very interested as well! I will share some of the beliefs and practices in the Bible I have issues as well with as I am very interested in some alternative views on them:

Women being "unclean" during menstruation. 

Women being told to submit to their husbands but men told only to love- is this a bit of separate but equal (and how is it equal?) or does "love" require a level of submission as well? Meaning are men also being asked to submit? 

Eve being "cursed" for partaking of the fruit- does that curse fall on all women? Why? And what exactly is that curse? 

I do know the standard answers to these questions but I also am aware that they vary from denomination to denomination, religion to religion, individual to individual. 

I am most interested in how you as a person and a religious person in particular view women and womanhood. 

I hope you don't mind if I give my answers to your questions - I think they are very interesting.

The first question is probably the one I have the least of an answer for, as most Christians do not consider that we are under that aspect of the Law any longer.  So it isn't really a practical issue for modern Christians.  I think that to answer it would require looking at some larger issues - what is the Law, and why did God give it for an example.  I'd also think it would be necessary to explore what was really meant by "unclean".  The term tends to have some nasty connotations for us, but was that really the case at the time it was written in the same way? 

I am not sure of the answer to that, but I do know that scholars have suggested a few things about this idea about menstruation.  One is that is was "unclean" because it was, really, kind of messy when you live in the desert in the ancient world.  Others have pointed out that some of the ritual separations around the menses were not necessarily unpleasant for the women involved.  I don't really know what God had in mind, but I can't get all worked up about it either - I find it is too removed from my experience and knowledge to judge it.

As far as Eve - actually, both Adam and Eve were cursed.  Both were cursed with death, and Eve with pain in childbirth, and Adam with pain in toiling to make  living. (However, these were not curses in the sense of "I'm annoyed so I'll curse you.  Death is the result of choosing to separate themselves from God who is the source of life.  Pain in childbirth and other physical ailments are also part of the same problem - corruption, disease and so on are part of the path from life to death.  Toil in working with creation is because creation also falls through the fall of humanity - it no longer works correctly.)

It is the Christian understanding that we are all inheritors of this problem.  Some people of course take the creation account from a literalist fashion, others as what might be called a true allegory, but either way, in this separation it is human nature itself that is cut off from God, and of course we all share in human nature.

With regard to men loving, while women submit - yes, I think loving will often involve quite a lot of submitting, or perhaps better to say subordinating one's will to the beloved.  I don't think it would always mean that perhaps.   As far as "equal but different" I would say, maybe.  It is a way of expressing it that I suspect would have been foreign to earlier Christians - men and women were quite evident ally different to them, and I think they would say complimentary.  Certainly according to the creation account both were made in the image of God, which says that God needed two sexes to represent him fully - both lack something alone.  But it does still suggest that the relationship between them was not direct and simple.  On a personal level, I think this is true - men and women are different, biologically, psychologically, maybe even spiritually.  I think both are loved by God and capable of great good and great evil.  I think that in general, the idea of equality between people (of any sex) is a bit of a (necessary) legal fiction.

One thing I have wondered is why women are not told to love their husbands.  The bar is pretty high for love in Christianity "A greater love hath no man than to lay down his life for his friends"; that is what men must be prepared to do for their wives, but does it mean to say that women need not go so far?  I wonder if perhaps women are meant to lay down their lives for their children rather than their husbands?  In any case, if love means submitting to death, I think it will often also mean submitting to the wife's wishes/ideas etc.  I don't think I can define when it would not be appropriate to do so, it isn't a situation that I personally have encountered. (Not that my husband always does what I want.)  I think most Christians also agree there are occasions when submission to the husband would be wrong for the wife.

[Bluegoat]

With regard to the OP - I don't think these findings are odd or unexpected, but the headline claim if over-reaching and irrational.  Showing that paganism was mixed in with Jewish worship in some times and places is no surprise to anyone.   Also, the people living in that area often shared language.

As far as the Bible being edited to keep this secret, it is pretty well accepted that the people one might call proto-Hebrews did worship a pantheon, and that some of the older stories have their origins in that time and still contain traces of the earlier belief system.  Of course, since they no longer believed those things, the stories stopped reflecting them.  What is interesting is that the redactors left in the things they did.

What is really shocking and amazing is that a reputable archaeologist wouldn't know these things.  Either the newspaper editors were editing the info to create the story they wanted, or the "scholar" was.  Either way it is rather ironic.

[Purple Sage]

Regarding submission, I think that is one of the major themes for all Christians, not just in marriage but in our relationship with God and our fellow Christians, as well.  Submission to one another out of love is a humble act, a practice in humility which is one of the greatest virtues.  Christ Himself demonstrated perfect submission.  I believe the primary purpose of marriage is to help one another spiritually, and the call for husbands and wives to submit to each other is one way to do just that.  Focusing on the verses which only pertain to wives submitting to their husbands kind of misses the whole point.

Good to "see" you again, Bluegoat!

[holyhelianthus]

Thank you, Bluegoat. I agree with a lot of what you said and you have given me a bit of food for thought. 

[holyhelianthus]

Originally Posted by Purple Sage 

Regarding submission, I think that is one of the major themes for all Christians, not just in marriage but in our relationship with God and our fellow Christians, as well.  Submission to one another out of love is a humble act, a practice in humility which is one of the greatest virtues.  Christ Himself demonstrated perfect submission.  I believe the primary purpose of marriage is to help one another spiritually, and the call for husbands and wives to submit to each other is one way to do just that.  Focusing on the verses which only pertain to wives submitting to their husbands kind of misses the whole point.

I have really noticed this, too. I am a strong willed and hard headed woman and when I have chosen to submit to the will of my husband or children or uncontrollable force (etc etc) I have found that that lesson has made submission to God and His plan more accessible for me. You have to be humble in order to practice humility. 

As far as the bolded bit goes I very much agree. 

[lilyka]

Originally Posted by holyhelianthus 

Yes, I am very interested as well! I will share some of the beliefs and practices in the Bible I have issues as well with as I am very interested in some alternative views on them:

Women being "unclean" during menstruation. 

Women being told to submit to their husbands but men told only to love- is this a bit of separate but equal (and how is it equal?) or does "love" require a level of submission as well? Meaning are men also being asked to submit? 

Eve being "cursed" for partaking of the fruit- does that curse fall on all women? Why? And what exactly is that curse? 

I do know the standard answers to these questions but I also am aware that they vary from denomination to denomination, religion to religion, individual to individual. 

I am most interested in how you as a person and a religious person in particular view women and womanhood. 

Menstruation - any flow of blood or body fluid was considered unclean.   I also read somewhere, and I can't remember where or if it is true,  but that menstruation represented death.  Each month we contain a form of life in our wombs, the potential for life and with our flow, that potential is gone.  I don't know if there is any truth to that but I thought it was beautiful.  

Women submit - All Christians were called to submit even to non Christians.  Slaves were told to submit to their masters.  In all cases regardless of those with athourity were Christians or not we are told to submit and by doing so bring glory to God through our humility and love.  Men are not just told to "love" there wives as Christ loved the church even unto death.  This is an active, sacrificial, unearned, often unreturned love. No it is not equal.  Men have it much harder.   I will take just submitting any day thank you very much.  I believe marriages sole purpose is to help us die to ourselves and submit fully to God.  Our husband/wife is merely a tool to lead us unto salvation.  The humility and dying to self and sacrificial love will do much help us on our journey to holiness.

The curse - Adam and Eve were both cursed and that curse fall on everyone.  The curse is death.  We have all been delivered of that curse through Christ victory over death.

[kittywitty]

Originally Posted by zinemama 


Yes, I am aware that Christians interpret the the Hebrew Bible to accord with their own beliefs. I know that these include the belief that Jesus was the Jewish messiah and that the early Christians were Jews (heretics, their contemporaries would put it). But no, I'd never heard the claim that ancient Jews are the equivalent of modern Christians because, all unbeknownst to themselves, they were actually worshipping Jesus the whole time. (Although, now that I think of that scene in The Last Battle with Emeth being told he was worshipping Aslan all along, not Tash, maybe I have heard it after all...).

Of course, given that this interpretation is based on Christian scripture and belief, which have no bearing whatsoever on the practice or beliefs of Judaism, it doesn't cut a lot of ice with me. But it's certainly an...interesting perspective.

I agree. I was raised Jewish and I have to laugh at all of the assumptions many Christians make about Judaism. I find all of this talk hilarious about women not being treated badly in the bible. I mean-look at your sources! Context? Read the whole passage. I mean, really. This is not shoddy scholarship, these are your own first hand sources for your beliefs. So are we picking and choosing here exactly what is to be taken literally and what is not? Personally, I was taught it was not to be taken literally (the Torah) the way most Fundamentalists today believe. But you also need to look at your source and the editing that has been done on it for thousands of years. At least do your research before you claim it's impossible for early Judaism to have been more than monotheistic. Even I was taught G-d had a female side, so that's not a far stretch from Asherah, IMO.

"When thou goest forth to war against thine enemies, and the Lord thy God hath delivered them into thine hands, and thou hast taken them captive, And seest among the captives a beautiful woman, and hast a desire unto her, that thou wouldest have her to thy wife; Then thou shalt bring her home to thine house; and she shall shave her head, and pare her nails; And she shall put the raiment of her captivity from off her, and shall remain in thine house, and bewail her father and her mother a full month: and after that thou shalt go in unto her, and be her husband, and she shall by thy wife. And it shall be, if thou have no delight in her, then thou shalt let her go whither she will; but thou shalt not sell her at all for money, thou shalt not make merchandise of her, because thou hast humbled her." (Deuteronomy 21:10-14).

"What is the difference whether it is in a wife or a mother, it is still Eve the temptress that we must beware of in any woman......I fail to see what use woman can be to man, if one excludes the function of bearing children." (Saint Augustine)

"And the daughter of any priest, if she profane herself by playing the whore, she profaneth her father: she shall be burnt with fire." (Leviticus 21:9)

"Speak unto the children of Israel, saying, If a woman have conceived seed, and born a man child: then she shall be unclean seven days; according to the days of the separation for her infirmity shall she be unclean." (Leviticus 12:2)

"But if she bear a maid child, then she shall be unclean two weeks, as in her separation: and she shall continue in the blood of her purifying threescore and six days." (Leviticus 12:5)

"Let the women learn in silence with all subjection. But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence. For Adam was first formed, then Eve. And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression." (I Timothy 2:11-14)

"Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but they are commanded to be under obedience, as also saith the law. And if they will learn any thing, let them ask their husbands at home: for it is a shame for women to speak in the church." (I Corinthians 14:34-35)

"Samaria shall become desolate; for she hath rebelled against her God: they shall fall by the sword: their infants shall be dashed in pieces, and their women with child shall be ripped up." (Hosea 13:16)

"If they [women] become tired or even die, that does not matter. Let them die in childbirth, that's why they are there." (Martin Luther)

"As regards the individual nature, woman is defective and misbegotten, for the active force in the male seed tends to the production of a perfect likeness in the masculine sex; while the production of woman comes from a defect in the active force or from some material indisposition, or even from some external influence." (Saint Thomas Aquinas)

[kittywitty]

I do want to add that I did not quote the above to make anyone feel bad or to attack. But if we're talking about the treatment of women in the bible, it is not very nice. That's just a fact. You can take from it what you will in our modern society. In most denominations, women are treated well compared to biblical treatment. But this comes from a more modern interpretation-not from the first source.