The gender/race of god

fable · Post by **fable** » Mon Sep 03, 2001 5:45 pm

Originally posted by Sailor Saturn:
Ne? The book of John in my Bible was translated from Greek. I never said John was written in Hebrew. I said that Jesus spoke in Hebrew. It does not matter what the aramaic(or greek) for "father" was used in the example that Eminem used. You wanted to know becuase you wanted to know if that was a relevant example of God's gender. Though I do not know what Aramaic or Greek was used in John, I do know that at some point in the four gospels, Jesus spoke to God calling him "Abba," of which I have already mentioned the meaning a couple of times.

How do you know that Jesus spoke in Hebrew, rather than Aramaic? The latter was the, um, Koine of the realm, so to speak. (I'll get killed for that bad pun if anybody understands it.) Hebrew is not the language of the NT; most scholars differ on whether Greek or Aramaic were commonly used by him, with the latter being generally preferred. Consider: in Mark 9:43, the Valley of Hinon is named in Aramaic-inflected Greek. Proper names are almost always given in the Aramaic, except the few instances where they are given in Greek (John I:42, Jesus uses "Cephas," the Greek, instead, of "Cepha," the Aramaic.) Then, there's the word play (Jesus does love puns) between Peter and petros.

However, nearly a hundred of the contemporary Dead Sea Scrolls were written in the venacular Aramaic of Judea, which was the language spoken in the land where Jesus spent much of his time.

There's a pretty decent if basic webpage on a socio-cultural overview of Aramaic, if you're interested: [url="http://www.srr.axbridge.org.uk/syriac_language.html."]http://www.srr.axbridge.org.uk/syriac_language.html.[/url]

Sailor Saturn · Post by **Sailor Saturn** » Mon Sep 03, 2001 6:14 pm

Originally posted by fable:
How do you know that Jesus spoke in Hebrew, rather than Aramaic? The latter was the, um, Koine of the realm, so to speak. (I'll get killed for that bad pun if anybody understands it.) Hebrew is not the language of the NT; most scholars differ on whether Greek or Aramaic were commonly used by him, with the latter being generally preferred. Consider: in Mark 9:43, the Valley of Hinon is named in Aramaic-inflected Greek. Proper names are almost always given in the Aramaic, except the few instances where they are given in Greek (John I:42, Jesus uses "Cephas," the Greek, instead, of "Cepha," the Aramaic.) Then, there's the word play (Jesus does love puns) between Peter and petros.

*returns from gathering more information from her source to make up for the lack of information she previously had*

Jesus most likely spoke Aramaic, though the language of the Jews is and was Hebrew. Thus, he spoke that when speaking to those close to him that were also Jewish. That still does not change the fact that Jesus spoke to God and called God "Abba." Why do you keep ignoring that, ne?

Word · Post by **Word** » Mon Sep 03, 2001 6:28 pm

Eureka!! Lilith thats it I forgot her name!! thanx T!!

@SS how am I supposed to show you proof over the internet. Also guys you are forgetting that the Greek manuscripts had to be recopied and since when did ahuman become a perfect manchine of writting. ONe could make so many mistakes(examples).

1)mispelled words (taking on different meaning ie too to two)
2)Unreadable handwritting
3)Guess work
4)Change in sentence structure
5)Maniplution to fit ones personal beliefs

All these things could completely change something in the new testement and your point about the New Testament being in Greek is moot because I'm talking about the Old Testament in this example.

EMINEM · Post by **EMINEM** » Mon Sep 03, 2001 6:30 pm

FYI only:

"Abba" is an Aramaic word (which may be derived from "ab," the Hebrew word for "father"). It occurrs in three NT passages: Mark 14:36, Romans 8:15, and Galatians 4:6. In the Gemara (a Rabbinical commentary on the Mishna, the traditional teaching of the Jews) it is stated that slaves were forbidden to address the head of the family by this title. It approximates to a personal name, in contrast to "Father," with which it is always joined in the New Testament. This is probably due to the fact that, "abba" having practically become a proper name, Greek-speaking Jews added the Greek word "pater" fom the language they used. "Abba" is the word framed by the lips of infants, and betokens unreasoning trust; "father" expresses an intlligent apprehension of the relationship. The two together, however, express the love and intelligent confience of the child.

Speaking of Abba, has anyone seen "Mamma Mia" performed? I hear it's quite the spectacle.

GBG!

fable · Post by **fable** » Mon Sep 03, 2001 6:36 pm

Originally posted by Sailor Saturn:
*returns from gathering more information from her source to make up for the lack of information she previously had*

Jesus most likely spoke Aramaic, though the language of the Jews is and was Hebrew. Thus, he spoke that when speaking to those close to him that were also Jewish. That still does not change the fact that Jesus spoke to God and called God "Abba." Why do you keep ignoring that, ne?

I'm ignoring nothing you've written, @SS: you ought to know by now I wouldn't do that.

I'm just approaching each thing separately, to make posts clearer.

Yes, Jesus does, according to Mark, use "Abba." Abba occurs elsewhere in the bible. Does that mean God is automatically limited to an anthopomorphic male form? There are Christian sects that believe this, but I'm not inclined to think that was the intent of the bible. (Loner72 should be answering this, since I'm neither a Christian, nor a Lawful Good character.)

One of three possibilities arise immediately to what's left of my mind:

1) Jesus, being born into an extremely paternalistic culture (and you really can't anymore paternalistic than Semitic cultures), naturally chose to address his God in masculine terms.

2) Jesus, as reported in the gospels by members of a paternalistic culture, was reported as addressing his God in masculine terms.

3) Jesus, in addressing his God, appealed to that aspect of Deity which is commonly thought of as masculine: its outflowing, expansive aspect. This last would be in line with appeals made in Roman Catholic communities to Jesus as The Son of God, The Prince of Peace, the Sword of Light, The Sin Eater, etc. Different aspects, all within an ideation of God.

If 1) is accurate, than Jesus is presumably disagreeing with the Genesis quotes I listed, above. This wouldn't surprise me, nor give me concern for inconsistency--Judeo/Christian/Islamic culture has traditionally turned a blind eye to these quotes, which may in fact date from an earlier version of the bible, when the culture it supported was more sexually balanced in its role models.

fable · Post by **fable** » Mon Sep 03, 2001 6:36 pm

This double post has been consumed by the Beast, commonly known as 666, or Donny Osmond.

[ 09-03-2001: Message edited by: fable ]

fable · Post by **fable** » Mon Sep 03, 2001 6:39 pm

Nice exegesis, @Eminem. And particularly telling in the mouth of one who is about to die.

Sailor Saturn · Post by **Sailor Saturn** » Mon Sep 03, 2001 6:46 pm

Originally posted by Word:
Eureka!! Lilith thats it I forgot her name!! thanx T!!

@SS how am I supposed to show you proof over the internet. Also guys you are forgetting that the Greek manuscripts had to be recopied and since when did ahuman become a perfect manchine of writting. ONe could make so many mistakes(examples).

1)mispelled words (taking on different meaning ie too to two)
2)Unreadable handwritting
3)Guess work
4)Change in sentence structure
5)Maniplution to fit ones personal beliefs

All these things could completely change something in the new testement and your point about the New Testament being in Greek is moot because I'm talking about the Old Testament in this example.

That is why they translate from the oldest known manuscripts, to get more accurate. The King James Version is translated from newer, less accurate manuscripts.

They do not have all of the original manuscripts, but they do have the original manuscripts for many of the books of the Bible.

@Eminem thank you for posting that. Obviously, my memory is not 100% accurate, but I do the best I can with it. The fact that I remembered it at all is amazing.

Don't expect me to believe you without that proof, Word. Neither do I expect you to believe me without proof.

Another thing, you can't assume that spelling mistakes would necessarily change translations unless you can give actual examples in the languages of the Bible. Same with "grammatical errors." Also, if someone sees "too" instead of "two" they're most likely(unless they are mentally challenged or too young to know) going to realize that "two" was the word they meant to use.

fable · Post by **fable** » Mon Sep 03, 2001 6:58 pm

I assume you will return the favor, @SS, and not ignore my reply to your remarks.

EMINEM · Post by **EMINEM** » Mon Sep 03, 2001 7:05 pm

Originally posted by Word:
Eureka!! Lilith thats it I forgot her name!! thanx T!!

@SS how am I supposed to show you proof over the internet. Also guys you are forgetting that the Greek manuscripts had to be recopied and since when did ahuman become a perfect manchine of writting. ONe could make so many mistakes(examples).

1)mispelled words (taking on different meaning ie too to two)
2)Unreadable handwritting
3)Guess work
4)Change in sentence structure
5)Maniplution to fit ones personal beliefs

All these things could completely change something in the new testement and your point about the New Testament being in Greek is moot because I'm talking about the Old Testament in this example.

The existing manuscripts of the New Testament are accurate copies of the original ones. The writers of these documents (specifically the Gospels, Acts, and 1 Corinthians) were either eyewitnesses or contemporaries of the eyewitnesses providing an accurate account of Jesus' life on earth.

The documentary evidence for the reliability of the New Testament is greater than that for any other book from the ancient world.

Let me say that again.

The documentary evidence for the reliability of the New Testament is greater than that for any other book from the ancient world.

Hence, employing the same criteria used on other ancient documents, the New Testament is an accurate representation of the first century original. Three lines of evidence combine to demonstrate this conclusion. First, the New Testament has more manuscripts. It is not uncommon for great classics to survive on only a handful of manuscripts. We have about nine or ten good copies of Caesar's Gallic Wars, twenty copies of Livy's Roman History, two copies of Tacitus' Annals, eight copies of Thucydides' History. The most documented secular work from the ancient world is Homer's Illiad -- surviving on 643 manuscript copies. By contrast, there are over 5,366 Greek manuscripts of the New Testament, most of which include the Gospels! The New Testament is the most highly documented book from the ancient world.

Second, the New Testament has earlier manuscripts. One of the marks of a good manuscript is its age -- generally, the older the better, since the closer to the time of the original composition the less likely it is that the text has been corrupted. Most books from the ancient world survive only in a handful of manuscripts that were written about 1,000 years after the end of the first century. And one portion of the Gospel of John survives from within about a generation of the time it was composed. No other book from the ancient world has as small a time gap between composition and the earliest manuscript copies as the New Testament has.

Third, the New Testament is more accurately copied. The New Testament is one of the most -- if not the most -- accurately copied books from the ancient world. The great Greek scholar A.T. Robertson said that the real concern is only with a thousandth part of the entire text. This would make the New Testament 99.9% free of significant variants. The noted historian Philip Schaff calculated that of the variants known in his day, only 50 were of real significance, and not even one affected an article of faith or a precept of duty. By comparison with the New Testament, most other books from the ancient world are not nearly so well authenticated. Professor Bruce Metzger, of Princeton, estimated that the Mahabharata of Hinduism is copied with only about 90% accuracy and Homer's Illiad with 95%. By comparison, he calculated that the New Testament is about 99.5% accurate. So even by conservative standards, the New Testament survives in a 99+% reconstructed text with all the essential truths about the life, death and resurrection of Christ not being affected.

GO! DUBYA GO!

Sailor Saturn · Post by **Sailor Saturn** » Mon Sep 03, 2001 7:19 pm

Originally posted by fable:
I'm ignoring nothing you've written, @SS: you ought to know by now I wouldn't do that. I'm just approaching each thing separately, to make posts clearer.

Hn, well, it seems like you're ignoring stuff, somtimes.

Originally posted by fable:
Yes, Jesus does, according to Mark, use "Abba." Abba occurs elsewhere in the bible. Does that mean God is automatically limited to an anthopomorphic male form? There are Christian sects that believe this, but I'm not inclined to think that was the intent of the bible. (Loner72 should be answering this, since I'm neither a Christian, nor a Lawful Good character.)

God is, of course, not limited to any one form. He is omnipresent(?)(everywhere). The "God made man in his own image" suggests that God's essence(for lack of a better term) is humanoid in form.

Originally posted by fable:
One of three possibilities arise immediately to what's left of my mind:

1) Jesus, being born into an extremely paternalistic culture (and you really can't anymore paternalistic than Semitic cultures), naturally chose to address his God in masculine terms.

God was being addressed in masculine terms long before Jesus was born on Earth. Also, Jesus is God.

Originally posted by fable:
2) Jesus, as reported in the gospels by members of a paternalistic culture, was reported as addressing his God in masculine terms.

Obviously. Because God is male.

Originally posted by fable:
3) Jesus, in addressing his God, appealed to that aspect of Deity which is commonly thought of as masculine: its outflowing, expansive aspect. This last would be in line with appeals made in Roman Catholic communities to Jesus as The Son of God, The Prince of Peace, the Sword of Light, The Sin Eater, etc. Different aspects, all within an ideation of God.
You keep saying that Jesus addressed his God. Yes, Jesus did refer to God as his God; but the point is that God is Jesus' Father.

Originally posted by fable:
If 1) is accurate, than Jesus is presumably disagreeing with the Genesis quotes I listed, above. This wouldn't surprise me, nor give me concern for inconsistency--Judeo/Christian/Islamic culture has traditionally turned a blind eye to these quotes, which may in fact date from an earlier version of the bible, when the culture it supported was more sexually balanced in its role models.

Could you explain what you mean here more clearly? What Genesis quotes?

Sailor Saturn · Post by **Sailor Saturn** » Mon Sep 03, 2001 7:25 pm

Originally posted by fable:
I assume you will return the favor, @SS, and not ignore my reply to your remarks.

Oh, I'm doing my best to reply to everything you say.

Just keep in mind that I'm also replying to things Word says, as well as participating in two RPGs on AIM, plus, I have a slow connection, so it takes me a while to reply, even with my fast typing speed.

fable · Post by **fable** » Mon Sep 03, 2001 7:26 pm

I don't really have time to do a lot of research this evening, so let me just discuss a single point, @Eminem:

First, the New Testament has more manuscripts. It is not uncommon for great classics to survive on only a handful of manuscripts. We have about nine or ten good copies of Caesar's Gallic Wars, twenty copies of Livy's Roman History, two copies of Tacitus' Annals, eight copies of Thucydides' History. The most documented secular work from the ancient world is Homer's Illiad -- surviving on 643 manuscript copies. By contrast, there are over 5,366 Greek manuscripts of the New Testament, most of which include the Gospels! The New Testament is the most highly documented book from the ancient world.

The number of surviving copies of a given manuscript aren't a testimony to its internal reliability, as you suggest, but to its popularity. Nearly all those copies date from a time when Orthodox Christianity had become one of the most powerful forces in the Roman Empire, and later--of course its adherents made endless transcripts of various religious documents, some of which made it into the recognized NT, and some of which were eventually excluded. They had the means, and they had the enthusiasm. Unlike previous Mesopotamian religions, they didn't consider their practices the subject of secret or restricted copying (and that includes the Jews).

But please recall, if we're discussing the Gospels, their reliability as factual documents is no more attested by the number of copies than the lack of such a number means Caesar never went to Gaul.

I'll try to get to your other points as soon as I can.

fable · Post by **fable** » Mon Sep 03, 2001 7:41 pm

Originally posted by Sailor Saturn:
Could you explain what you mean here more clearly? What Genesis quotes?

I'm kinda busy for the next part of the night, so here they are, duplicated from my post, above:

I've been doing a bit of looking up, myself, as well; and Genesis 1:27 states: "And God created man to his own image: to the image of God he created him: male and female he created them."

This is reiterated in Genesis 5:2: "He created them male/masculine and female/feminine; and blessed them; and called their name Adam, in the day when they were created." Sometimes male is used, sometimes masculine; sometimes Adam is used, sometimes Man. (I'm looking at translations by Jerome, the Douay Bible, and the Oxford Annotated.)

My point is, Genesis seems to indicate that by being created in "His" image, Man (or perhaps for modern appreciation, Mankind) was being created male and female.

God was being addressed in masculine terms long before Jesus was born on Earth. Also, Jesus is God.

The bible generally does address its god in masculine terms, true; but there are times, as in the Genesis passages above, when the matter is cloudy.

Would you show me, please, where it states in the Gospels that Jesus is God, or where Jesus proclaims that he is God?

God is, of course, not limited to any one form. He is omnipresent(?)(everywhere). The "God made man in his own image" suggests that God's essence(for lack of a better term) is humanoid in form.

Then the all-encompassing Deity can subsume both masculine and feminine, and therefore be both father and mother to the universe, and all within it?

Gwalchmai · Post by **Gwalchmai** » Mon Sep 03, 2001 8:00 pm

Originally posted by fable:
Now, that's not true. Why, my wife and I...that is to say, I haven't...well...

Suffice to say, I haven't thought about sex for at least three hours. So there.

Feh. I've got you beat by a mile. Unfortunately.

Originally posted by fable:
How do you know that Jesus spoke in Hebrew, rather than Aramaic? The latter was the, um, Koine of the realm, so to speak. (I'll get killed for that bad pun if anybody understands it.)

Is this a reference to Koine Greek, the dialect of Greek that was used about the time of Jesus, about 500 years after the time of Classical Greek, differing from the latter in a few subtle ways, one of which that comes to mind (IIRC) being the use of the double sigma within words in place of the double theta? If so, a bad pun indeed.

If not, just pretend I'm not here.

Sailor Saturn · Post by **Sailor Saturn** » Mon Sep 03, 2001 8:15 pm

Originally posted by fable:
Now, that's not true. Why, my wife and I...that is to say, I haven't...well...

Suffice to say, I haven't thought about sex for at least three hours. So there.

Going without sex and thinking about sex are two different things.

EMINEM · Post by **EMINEM** » Mon Sep 03, 2001 8:29 pm

Originally posted by fable:
I don't really have time to do a lot of research this evening, so let me just discuss a single point, @Eminem:

First, the New Testament has more manuscripts. It is not uncommon for great classics to survive on only a handful of manuscripts. We have about nine or ten good copies of Caesar's Gallic Wars, twenty copies of Livy's Roman History, two copies of Tacitus' Annals, eight copies of Thucydides' History. The most documented secular work from the ancient world is Homer's Illiad -- surviving on 643 manuscript copies. By contrast, there are over 5,366 Greek manuscripts of the New Testament, most of which include the Gospels! The New Testament is the most highly documented book from the ancient world.

The number of surviving copies of a given manuscript aren't a testimony to its internal reliability, as you suggest, but to its popularity. Nearly all those copies date from a time when Orthodox Christianity had become one of the most powerful forces in the Roman Empire, and later--of course its adherents made endless transcripts of various religious documents, some of which made it into the recognized NT, and some of which were eventually excluded. They had the means, and they had the enthusiasm. Unlike previous Mesopotamian religions, they didn't consider their practices the subject of secret or restricted copying (and that includes the Jews).

But please recall, if we're discussing the Gospels, their reliability as factual documents is no more attested by the number of copies than the lack of such a number means Caesar never went to Gaul.

I'll try to get to your other points as soon as I can.

The internal reliability of the New Testament can be supported by a whole host of factors, which I won't get into here (unless pressed to do so

). But it simply wasn't the case (according to Word) that the MSS were illegible or contained so many copyists errors and spelling mistakes as to render an incorrect and/or ambiguous interpretation of the text.

GDG!

EMINEM · Post by **EMINEM** » Mon Sep 03, 2001 8:47 pm

Ignore this post. 'Just updating my profile and sig.

Sailor Saturn · Post by **Sailor Saturn** » Mon Sep 03, 2001 9:01 pm

Originally posted by fable:
I'm kinda busy for the next part of the night, so here they are, duplicated from my post, above:

I've been doing a bit of looking up, myself, as well; and Genesis 1:27 states: "And God created man to his own image: to the image of God he created him: male and female he created them."

"So God created people in his own image; God patterned them after himself; male and female he created them." ~Genesis 1:27, NLT(New Living Translation)

Seems quite obvious there that God is referred to as "he." As far as appearance, all that does is state God as humanoid. I could "create"(like a writer does) a humanoid male and pattern him after myself, but that doesn't make me male.

Originally posted by fable:
This is reiterated in Genesis 5:2: "He created them male/masculine and female/feminine; and blessed them; and called their name Adam, in the day when they were created." Sometimes male is used, sometimes masculine; sometimes Adam is used, sometimes Man. (I'm looking at translations by Jerome, the Douay Bible, and the Oxford Annotated.)

"He created them male and female, and he blessed them and called them 'human.'" ~Genesis 5:2, NLT

"Adam" means "Man" and was used in the Bible talking about "mankind" or "humans" because of the "male dominated" society. The NLT purposely uses gender generic terms in place of the gender specific terms such as "Man"(refering to humans in general).

Originally posted by fable:
My point is, Genesis seems to indicate that by being created in "His" image, Man (or perhaps for modern appreciation, Mankind) was being created male and female.

And your point is...?

Originally posted by fable:
God was being addressed in masculine terms long before Jesus was born on Earth. Also, Jesus is God.

The bible generally does address its god in masculine terms, true; but there are times, as in the Genesis passages above, when the matter is cloudy.

What's cloudy about it? Maybe it won't be cloudy after what I said about it.

Originally posted by fable:
Would you show me, please, where it states in the Gospels that Jesus is God, or where Jesus proclaims that he is God?

"In the beginning the Word already existed. He was with God, and he was God. He was in the beginning with God. He created everything there is. Nothing exists that he didn't make. Life itself was in him, and this life gives light to everyone. The light shines through the darkness, and the darkness can never extinguish it."~John 1:1-5, NLT
The "Word" is Jesus.

I don't have time to look up anymore because I would specifically have to find them because I do not have the references, nor the exact verses memorized.

Originally posted by fable:
God is, of course, not limited to any one form. He is omnipresent(?)(everywhere). The "God made man in his own image" suggests that God's essence(for lack of a better term) is humanoid in form.

Then the all-encompassing Deity can subsume both masculine and feminine, and therefore be both father and mother to the universe, and all within it?

God can take on any shape or form he wants. That is not what we are debating. We are debating what his "natural" form is.

However, I find that the most important question of all has yet to be mentioned, much less answered.

Why does it matter? God is far beyond our comprehension. We merely must believe the facts that we have(unless you refuse to believe the Bible at all, then God's gender would matter even less, I should think). Considering the fact that God is already beyond our comprehension, why would you men wish to make God even more difficult for you to understand by saying he's female?

fable · Post by **fable** » Mon Sep 03, 2001 9:08 pm

I wrote:

How do you know that Jesus spoke in Hebrew, rather than Aramaic? The latter was the, um, Koine of the realm, so to speak. (I'll get killed for that bad pun if anybody understands it.)

Gwalchmai replies:

Is this a reference to Koine Greek, the dialect of Greek that was used about the time of Jesus, about 500 years after the time of Classical Greek, differing from the latter in a few subtle ways, one of which that comes to mind (IIRC) being the use of the double sigma within words in place of the double theta? If so, a bad pun indeed. If not, just pretend I'm not here.

You're right, and it's a bad pun.