Masculinity of God

[Apotheoun]

[quote name='Semperviva' date='Jul 13 2005, 04:17 PM']"Jerusalem, Jerusalem, the city that kills the prophets and stones those who are sent to it!
[i]How often have I desired to gather your children together as a mother hen gathers her brood under her wings,[/i] and you were not willing!" (Luke 13:34).

Analogous, yes.  Christ references himself in feminine terms nonetheless.
[right][snapback]642483[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
In this text Jesus says that "[b]as[/b] a mother hen gathers her brood under her wings . . .," but He does not say that He [b]is[/b] a mother hen. God [b]is[/b] Father, and God [b]is[/b] Son, but He is not mother, although He can be described as a mother in the form of a simile, and of course a simile is a comparison of two things that are dissimilar.

[Semperviva]

Perhaps, what I am getting at more is....what do you mean when you say atttribute in a totally theological non-mystical way? Because I want to know, how can something tuely be correct in mystical thinking and theologically wrong. One could then infer that the mystic is being deceived in his/her understanding of God and that all mystical revelations are just "straw" which in one sense they are, but I am sincerely confused as to where the difference between a revelation that becomes true Theology and a revelation just seen as straw comes in? So much of Theology is a process of logical thought being followed through, and really, mystical theology does the same thing only in a somewhat differenet manner, but its really hard to see the conflict if God is the source of both inspirations.


I think, then, what i I mean is, calling Christ "Lamb" is not meant to confuse but to aid us in seeing Christ more deeply. And when Christ refers to himself in an analogous term, well, I mean, he really was the Lamb of God....he did everything the Lamb did except BE lamb, and had every aspect of sacrificial lamb-ness except biological lamb-ness. My point here is, if Christ has most aspects attributed to lambness, meek, innocent, without blemish, trusting, he also had the aspects of mother hen-ness without being mother hen. Guarding like a mother, nourishing, soothing, bringing into himself, gathering, etc....I don't mean we must define it as part Christ's nature in theological text, but, why should we not at least discover what does this really mean? this may sound wacked butI am totaly serious...why do we discuss Christ as Sacrificial Lamb and never as Mother Hen------- he says it himself? I did not mean by definition as a man Christ is also womanly, but in his personhood, he does contain qualities more often characteristic of a mother..

Edited July 14, 2005 by Semperviva

[Semperviva]

[quote name='Apotheoun' date='Jul 14 2005, 12:19 PM']In this text Jesus says that "[b]as[/b] a mother hen gathers her brood under her wings . . .," but He does not say that He [b]is[/b] a mother hen.  God [b]is[/b] Father, and God [b]is[/b] Son, but He is not mother, although He can be described as a mother in the form of a simile, and of course a simile is a comparison of two things that are dissimilar.
[right][snapback]643299[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
That is exactly what i mean....AS.....i don't mean he IS a mother. But the lamb reveals some aspect of his nature, does it not? So it would seem, does the hen.

[Apotheoun]

In Christian theology one does not simply attribute Fatherhood and Sonship to God as a metaphor, or in some sort of analogous manner; instead, God is Father, and He is Son, for both of these are divine names that reveal the divine hypostatic relations. Motherhood is not used in that way when speaking about God.

[Apotheoun]

[quote name='Semperviva' date='Jul 14 2005, 10:27 AM']That is exactly what i mean....AS.....i don't mean he IS a mother.  But the lamb reveals some aspect of his nature, does it not? So it would seem, does the hen.
[right][snapback]643310[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
No, that is precisely the opposite of what a simile does. It is comparing two things that are unlike each other, and so it doesn't reveal the essence of a thing. Besides, it is impossible to know anything about the divine essence or nature.

[Apotheoun]

It is not possible to know the essence or nature of a thing; instead, man comes to know a thing through its energies, which reveal and manifest it. The following quotation from Fr. Romanides will help to clarify what I mean:

[quote]In both the Cappadocian and Alexandrian traditions the [i]ousia[/i] of God is beyond all categories of thought in a radical manner and therefore not only beyond definition of any kind, but also beyond the predication of any name whatsoever, to such an extent that God is [i]hyper-onymos[/i], [i]hyper-ousios[/i], and even [i]hyper-theos[/i].  Within this Biblical tradition the [i]ousia[/i] of man also remains a mystery.  Only the energies and powers of both God and man can be known.  In this sense the term [i]ousia[/i] is used not in the Greek philosophical sense of the definable and knowable immutable inner reality of a thing, but as a concrete unknowable reality known only in its acts.  In contrast to Antiochene and Latin tradition (the Augustinian one), the term [i]ousia[/i] as applied to the Holy Trinity by the Cappadocian and Alexandrian Fathers is neither a Platonic superstratal genus, nor an Aristotelian substratal material in which the hypostases or persons of the Holy Trinity participate. [Fr. Romanides, [i]Greek Orthodox Theological Review[/i], vol. 10, no. 2, winter 1964-1965; page 103)[/quote]

[Socrates]

[quote name='Semperviva' date='Jul 14 2005, 12:25 PM']Perhaps, what I am getting at more is....what do you mean when you say atttribute in a totally theological non-mystical way?  Because I want to know, how can something tuely be correct in mystical thinking and theologically wrong.  One could then infer that the mystic is being deceived in his/her understanding of God and that all mystical revelations are just "straw" which in one sense they are, but I am sincerely confused as to where the difference between a revelation that becomes true Theology and a revelation just seen as straw comes in?  So much of Theology is a process of logical thought being followed through, and really, mystical theology does the same thing only in a somewhat differenet manner, but its really hard to see the conflict if God is the source of both inspirations.
                I think, then, what i I mean is, calling Christ "Lamb" is not meant to confuse but to aid us in seeing Christ more deeply.  And when Christ refers to himself in an analogous term, well, I mean, he really was the Lamb of God....he did everything the Lamb did except  BE lamb, and had every aspect of sacrificial lamb-ness except biological lamb-ness.  My point here is, if Christ has most aspects attributed to lambness, meek, innocent, without blemish, trusting, he also had the aspects of mother hen-ness without being mother hen.  Guarding like a mother, nourishing,  soothing, bringing into himself, gathering, etc....I don't mean we must define it as part Christ's nature in theological text, but, why should we not at least discover what does this really mean?  this may sound wacked butI am totaly serious...why do we discuss Christ as Sacrificial Lamb and never as Mother Hen------- he says it himself?  I did not mean by definition as a man Christ is also womanly, but in his personhood, he does contain qualities more often characteristic of a mother..
[right][snapback]643305[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

Pardon my bluntness here, but why in the hell are we all so desperate to prove that Our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ was in some manner feminine?

It is obvious when Christ is talking about His nature, and when He is plainly using metaphor and simile. If we are to take the "mother hen" analagy to show that Christ is feminine and motherly, must we also use this to mean that Christ is some way birdlike, or has the nature of a barnyard fowl?
No, Christ is simply comparing his actions to that of the hen (i.e. protecting and defending). If you've ever seen a mother bird or animal protect her young, you know how fearless and fierce they can be. This is not implying feminine characteristics in the Savior.

And Christ is the Lamb of God, because He is the Sacrificial Victim to God, not because He is somehow bestial, or has the nature of a farm animal. The image of the Sacrificial Lamb had obvious meaning to the Jews, and showed the fulfiment of the Old Covenant in the New, and how Christ's sacrifice was the perfect sacrifice.

Is the analogy of the Vine and the Branches to mean we ought to focus on the plant-like or vegetative aspects of Our Lord?

C'mon folks, this is getting silly. Feminism be damned!

[Apotheoun]

Christ isn't feminine, nor is He literally a lamb, although scripture does say that Christ [i]is[/i] the Lamb of God, while it never says that Christ [i]is[/i] a mother hen. From this it is clear that the two terms are being used in different ways. Christ is literally a sacrificial victim and that is why He is called the Lamb of God, and this is of a different order than the reference where He is described [i]as[/i] a mother hen.

[Socrates]

[quote name='Apotheoun' date='Jul 14 2005, 12:55 PM']Christ isn't feminine, nor is He literally a lamb, although scripture does say that Christ [i]is[/i] the Lamb of God, while it never says that Christ [i]is[/i] a mother hen. From this it is clear that the two terms are being used in different ways. Christ is literally a sacrificial victim and that is why He is called the Lamb of God, and this is of a different order than the reference where He is described [i]as[/i] a mother hen.
[right][snapback]643329[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

Agreed. This was a point I was trying to make. Christ is the Lamb of God because He is the Sacrificial Victim, not because He has "lamb-like qualities."

[Apotheoun]

[quote name='Socrates' date='Jul 14 2005, 10:59 AM']Agreed.  This was a point I was trying to make.  Christ is the Lamb of God because He is the Sacrificial Victim, not because He has "lamb-like qualities."
[right][snapback]643334[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
Yep.