Masculinity of God

[Apotheoun]

[quote name='Semperviva' date='Jul 13 2005, 01:59 PM']coolness...yes i was forgetting about all that...yes  the Ark of the Covannent- BTW

important question for baptist friend of mine (who will not long be Baptist, LOL )

......what is the Greek equivalent of the Hebrew [i]Shekinah[/i], used by St. Luke to describe the "[i]overshadowing[/i]" of the Holy Spirit upon Mary....Luke deliberetely uses the same TERMINOLOGY   in Luke's Gospel AS when David danced before the Ark of the Covanent, I believe, in order to show how MARY is the NEW ark of the covanent...NOW,  what is the Greek word for "overshadow" ????????? anyone?
[right][snapback]642342[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
Although I am not positive about this, I believe that Parousia may be the equivalent of Shekinah. Both words to the best of my knowledge mean "presence" or "manifestation."

In the Byzantine tradition it is likely that the overshadowing of Mary by the Holy Spirit is not to be understood hypostatically, i.e., as an overshadowing of Mary by the hypostasis of the Spirit, but as the overshadowing of the Mary by the Holy Spirit manifested as divine energy.

The Greek word used in Luke 1:35 is [i]episkiazo[/i] (overshadow).

[infinitelord1]

i really dont know what is going on this thread but i will continue to express my opinion about who i think mary is..........i dont think mary was divine. I think that before god created the cosmos he knew that there would be a woman named mary who chose to do the right thing. Furthermore, knowing this, he chose mary to be the one to give birth to a divine being (jesus).

[Quietfire]

[quote name='Semperviva' date='Jul 13 2005, 04:51 PM']
hhhhhhhhhmmm, interesting, well, i dunno, I guess the whole desire for authority over men just doesn't appeal to me then...(except authority in a different sense, authority to help change hearts towards God, a more subtle directing if you will, not a domination) .....at all...ok well, feminists, it seems to me, they want a distorted form of equality rather headship, or maybe they do want headship, in that case, you are perfectly right and i just don't understand modern feminism at all...
[right][snapback]642326[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
Hit the nail on the head.
Feminism doesnt even know what femenism should be. so confusion ensues.
But your first remark...
[quote]...(except authority in a different sense, authority to help change hearts towards God, a more subtle directing if you will, not a domination) .....[/quote]
Other than motherhood, is a womans greatest gift in the life of mankind.

[Guest JeffCR07]

No catholic thinks that Mary has divinity from herself. We think that she was born in a state of supernatural grace and was confirmed in her faith by the Grace of God from the moment of her conception. She is only referenced as being divine in the sense that she has attained Final Theosis and has been divinized by God.

We do not believe her to be a part of the Godhead, or God.

[Semperviva]

[quote name='Socrates' date='Jul 13 2005, 03:31 PM']Not sure exactly what you're trying to get at here, but I see nothing in the gospels to indicate that Christ was weak or feminine.  Jesus allowed Himself to take on weak human nature (He was able to suffer physical exhaustion and weakness like any other man - as He experienced the Passion), but this does not mean he was particularly weak or unmanly.  (As Mel Gibson said, He had to be God to take all that!)
I'm not saying He looked like Ahhnold, or some 'roid-head, but He had to withstand the rigors of a tough life of wandering, and previously worked as carpenter (when all work had to be done by muscle.), and He withstood 40 days fasting in the desert - a lot tougher than me there!  So it is highly unlikely that He was some soft, effeminate, androgynous type, as portrayed in those sappy pastel holy-card images.
[right][snapback]642301[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
>>>>>>.LOL<<<<<<<<<<
haha i totally agree, in life he was totally strong...i'm not saying he was weak IN LIFE but that Christ allows himself to become weak....for the sake of making us strong with his life...
my point is if he truly revealed and kept his strength at the time leading up to and during the passion, he would have had more male disciples around when he died........they fled for a reason....they had[i] seen[/i] many many times his miraculous power, had they not? So what need they have feared......unless Christ appeared so weakened as to not be able to defend them........Now, when Christ revealed his true glory at the transfiguration.....he was doing this.... why? for one reason among others, because he knew the disciples would need [i]re-assurance that he was truly God[/i]...why...cause he was about to look like,
not just a [i]man, [/i]
but the weakest of men,
and this weakness he was taking on for the sake of his Bride the Church. So I am [i]not [/i]saying Christ was inherently weak, but that he took on weakness....and most certainly [i]looked weak[/i] and almost dead, at points...most especially he must have been weak, just from a biological perspective after sweating blood and bleeding so much....Christ not only made himself weak, but he [i]makes himself [/i]completely powerless on the cross...in the Eucharist, continually, powerless.....and I think the holy cards u reference are not accurate to display Christ's true self, but to show, like i said his act of [i]receiving[/i] our love, a more feminine attribute....

[Semperviva]

[quote name='Apotheoun' date='Jul 13 2005, 04:07 PM']divine energy.

The Greek word used in Luke 1:35 is [i]episkiazo[/i] (overshadow).
[right][snapback]642354[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
YES, thats the one!

grazie!

[Semperviva]

[quote name='JeffCR07' date='Jul 13 2005, 03:48 PM']Jake, the following quote, which you posted, defeats your interpretation:
If the order of submission was, as you claim it to be, an [i]effect[/i] of Original sin, then clearly there was no order of submission before that sin. If there was no order of submission before sin, then no order was reversed, for reversal implies an existing thing which changes.

But, as your quote shows, there [i]was[/i] reversal. Therefore, Eve's curse is not her submission to her husband, or desire for submission to her husband, because that is precisely what was reversed by her sin, and no effect can be the cause of its own cause.
[right][snapback]642320[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
well then what is the correct interpretation of this verse

saying your desire will be for your husband and then saying he will rule over you seem to be discussing two different things in the same sentence...

[Jake Huether]

[quote name='JeffCR07' date='Jul 13 2005, 02:48 PM']Jake, the following quote, which you posted, defeats your interpretation:
If the order of submission was, as you claim it to be, an [i]effect[/i] of Original sin, then clearly there was no order of submission before that sin. If there was no order of submission before sin, then no order was reversed, for reversal implies an existing thing which changes.

But, as your quote shows, there [i]was[/i] reversal. Therefore, Eve's curse is not her submission to her husband, or desire for submission to her husband, because that is precisely what was reversed by her sin, and no effect can be the cause of its own cause.
[right][snapback]642320[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

Jeff,

If the quote defeats my interpretation, then I'm sure that I must have written my interpretation such that it appears to be something that isn't what I thought to be my interpretation. I'm kinda confused. I'm sure there is some form of missunderstanding, either in reading what I wrote - or me in writing what I was thinking.


[quote]If the order of submission was, as you claim it to be, an [i]effect[/i] of Original sin, then clearly there was no order of submission before that sin.[/quote]

I don't remember ever saying that there was no order of submission before the sin, for there indeed was. I was saying that the disorder of submission (its reversal that is) was an effect of Original sin. I stated that God cursed Eve with a desire for her husband - which is clear in the Book of Genesis. And I clarified in my second post that this wasn't God chaning Eve (an active Curse - which would mean that God caused a disorder). It was a curse that Eve recieved by her own action - eating the fruite. And I don't ever remember saying that Eve was cursed with "submission to her husband, or desire for submission to her husband". On the contrary, I said that Eve's curse was a desire for her husband to submit to her - the reversal of the original order! She want's his role, but won't have it.

If I caused any confusion, I apologize, and again didn't want to hijack the thread.

If it's still coming out funky. Just don't listen to me, but read what Papa said... That's what I meant. Haha.

God bless.

[Don John of Austria]

[quote name='Apotheoun' date='Jul 13 2005, 02:40 PM']You misunderstood my comment, or perhaps I didn't explain the Eastern position as well as I should have.

The Eastern Churches, both Orthodox and Catholic, believe that the ancestral sin of Adam has effected humanity for the worse, because by his sin Adam lost the deifying grace that he had been given contingently at the time of his creation. 

What Eastern Christians reject is the idea that human nature has been "stained" by the fall.  It has been wounded in its natural faculties, but there is no existing "stain" or evil inherently present in man, because that would be akin to the Manicheaen heresy.  Original sin is not a positive existing thing (i.e., a stain); instead, it is a lack of deifying (sanctifying) grace in the soul.  In other words, original sin is a privation of a supernatural reality, and Christ became incarnate in order to restore that gift of grace to man.
[right][snapback]642213[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

Alright I understand what you are saying, however I have heard Eastern not so Orthodox I suppose --Orthodox explain Original Sin away into nothingness of course that that was false shouldn't suprise me look at all of the people who claim to be Catholic and teach garbage. However I guess it's just my western outlook I can't help but agree with Augustine on this one. It is a real thing which needs to be washed away not simply the absense of a good thing which we desire.

[Jake Huether]

[quote name='Semperviva' date='Jul 13 2005, 03:21 PM']well then what is the correct interpretation of this verse

saying your desire will be for your husband and then saying he will rule over you seem to be discussing two different things in the same sentence...
[right][snapback]642391[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]


In the begining, the order of things was as St. Paul depicted it: The husband should be the head of his wife, as Christ is the head of the Church. Adam had the responsibility to be the authority, the guide for his wife. He was to do all, even to death, for her. And she was to submit to him, as the Church submits to Christ.

But in the fall, both Adam and Eve reversed this order. Eve, therefore, was told by God that she would desire (what she had already chosen to do) her husband (i.e. his authority... his role), but that Adam would rule over her.

In otherwords... "you will desire to rule over your husband, and he will rule over you."

But again, I would point you to the link I had posted earlier. Card. Ratzinger has wonderful insight.

God bless.

[Semperviva]

[quote name='Jake Huether' date='Jul 13 2005, 04:40 PM']In the begining, the order of things was as St. Paul depicted it:  The husband should be the head of his wife, as Christ is the head of the Church.  Adam had the responsibility to be the authority, the guide for his wife.  He was to do all, even to death, for her.  And she was to submit to him, as the Church submits to Christ.

But in the fall, both Adam and Eve reversed this order.  Eve, therefore, was told by God that she would desire (what she had already chosen to do) her husband (i.e. his authority... his role), but that Adam would rule over her. 

In otherwords... "you will desire to rule over your husband, and he will rule over you."

But again, I would point you to the link I had posted earlier.  Card. Ratzinger has wonderful insight.

God bless.
[right][snapback]642414[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
ok.
i mean, what you says makes total sense, but i still don't feel the desire to "rule over men" and if that is the curse of Eve i should feel that desire...but i honestly don't...LOL, what is up with this curse?

i don't really think any woman inherently desires to[i] rule[/i] over men....woman desire[i] love [/i]from man...and if a wman is loved by a man, she'll do anything he wants.....is this not obvious? the curse is that, in men still being over woman in authoruty.....she will still be UNDER him, THAT is NOT the curse......but his authority over her will become corrupted and his authority will no longer be an authority of love and sacrifice, in that he will use his authority for his own end, since the woman's desire is still for the man...and she will always desire him....but she is cursed in that his authority is tainted......which may lead some woman to think they need to become a caricature of men in seeking apporval....notice this..... A WOMAN, no matter how feminist, WILL STILL MAKE HERSELF by choice SUBSERVIENT TO A MAN'S LUST....i think this is the curse...[b]she desires him, even though he abuses her.....[/b]

[infinitelord1]

[quote name='JeffCR07' date='Jul 13 2005, 04:11 PM']No catholic thinks that Mary has divinity from herself. We think that she was born in a state of supernatural grace and was confirmed in her faith by the Grace of God from the moment of her conception. She is only referenced as being divine in the sense that she has attained Final Theosis and has been divinized by God.

We do not believe her to be a part of the Godhead, or God.
[right][snapback]642367[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
i dont think she was supernatural either......i think that she lived her life morally perfect. What are the odds of that? Well, besides jesus she was probably the only person to ever live her life like that. She was the only person who used her freewill perfectly. Jesus had free will just as god does but they will only choose to do what is right because they know the answer to everything. Mary didnt. Thats just what i believe though i really dont know.

[Jake Huether]

I think it's great that you don't feel that desire.

Remember though, Christ restored the order. In Christ, we are restored. Through baptism, Original Sin has no hold on us any longer. And if we are faithful to Christ in His Teachings and in His Sacraments, then we are not bound by Eve's curse.

But there remains the tendancy toward disorder, in that while we are washed from Original Sin, in baptism, if we do not protect and nourish the Life giving Grace within us, we can still fall for the temptations of the Devil and sin... And when we lose the Life of Grace within us, we are suseptable to fall into the same disorder that Eve did, or worse (i.e. women staying with husbands that beat / abuse them, etc.).

To sum: In Baptism we are loosed from the bonds of the curse of Eve (and Adam); Original Sin that is. But unless we continually grow in the Sacramental Life, devoting ourselves to Christ, then we are not invinsible to the same sin and the same curse. It still exists, and through movements such as modern "feminism", we know that it's there.

Hope that makes sense.

[infinitelord1]

[quote name='infinitelord1' date='Jul 13 2005, 05:10 PM']i dont think she was supernatural either......i think that she lived her life morally perfect. What are the odds of that? Well, besides jesus she was probably the only person to ever live her life like that. She was the only person who used her freewill perfectly. Jesus had free will just as god does but they will only choose to do what is right because they know the answer to everything. Mary didnt. Thats just what i believe though i really dont know.
[right][snapback]642445[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
I dont believe mary was perfect either.........i think she was born into original sin just like everyone else.

[Don John of Austria]

[quote name='infinitelord1' date='Jul 13 2005, 05:14 PM']I dont believe mary was perfect either.........i think she was born into original sin just like everyone else.
[right][snapback]642450[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]


Well there is a differance between being born without original sin and being perfect. Noone claims Mary was perfect, i am sure she occasionaly messed up while sowing and had an imperfection in her body somewhere however having original sin would have made it difficult to cartry God within her.