Gospel Of Thomas Assassin Parable

[FredP]

>I like Thomas, because: 1) it is a relatively new enlightenment, which was not not "censored" by "early church" "fathers", and 2) concentrates on Jesus' "sayings" and therefore teachings, rather than his birth and death.  BUT, we have to recognize, that it was written at least contemporaneous to, and possibly after, Gospel John (120-240 AD).  As such, it DOES have questionable, if not interesting, insights into Jesus' teachings.  The question in my mind remains open as to the authenticity and relevancy of this particular Logia (98?).  If we are Christians (little followers of Christ [Jesus]), we should care about what he ACTUALLY said, not what people think he said, whether 200 AD or 2100 AD.

Des, where was this quoted from? I took a quick look but didn't find it.

 

Well what Jesus *actually* said, no one actually knows. I think all the scriptures were written at least 50 years afterwards. SO I don't know why Thomas is more inaccurate than the Gospels in the Bible used today.

I think there is a pretty decent subset of Jesus' sayings for which we can have a reasonably good confidence in their authenticity (as much as history can give us, anyway). Less than 100% confidence doesn't mean 0% confidence or even 50%. But the above citation does seem to make the easy presumption that the canonical gospels are where we find what Jesus ACTUALLY said. In that sense, the compositional structure of John probably makes it the least historically "accurate," in terms of sayings of Jesus, even compared to Thomas.

 

But canonicity isn't just about authenticity or "accuracy." It's about relevance and coherence with the overall outlook that was emerging in the early church and its understanding of Jesus. Yes, that outlook had ramifications for the church's authority structure, too, but it wasn't all about that.

 

It seems to me that, if I had to offer a charitable reconstruction of why the early church preferred John to Thomas, I would say that Thomas has appeal for those who are more esoterically oriented in their spiritual understanding, but that's always been the minority demographic. It would arguably be very confusing -- maybe even a stumbling block -- to many Christians of a more conventional bent. John, on the other hand, strikes me as more accessible across the entire range of spiritual understanding, and therefore was probably more universally used and loved.

 

To me personally, both texts have great value, but I'm not counting on Thomas being canonized anytime real soon. But then, in this day and age, the people who are interested in studying it don't care that much about its canonical status anyway.

[flowperson]

Yes, I agree that John is probably more satisfying and familiar in the traditional sense. And likewise it probably also was way back when in the day that it was canonized into the four. Since scholars largely agree that John came from the Jewish-mystical side of things, it would have been a more acceptable mythical narrative explaining the transitions of belief that were taking place back then.

Until Thomas was discovered, beginning with the uncovering of fragments in the 19th century, we ( as Pagels points out in Adam,Eve, and the Serpent) could only surmise what might be the content of writings labeled as gnostic by the virulent attacks upon such literature and their authors by the early orthodox church leaders, such as Irenaeus the bishop of Lyon. The intent of these attacks was, of course, to root out heresies that might "confuse" people, and lead them to question the orthodox reasoning and traditional hiearchy of the early church. Blue sky thinking, when it came to whatever the "true" nature of the man Jesus might have been should never be pursued or allowed, and the taboo continues to this day in the conservative christian world.

But today, and beginning with the pursuit of serious biblical scholarship, we have new avenues to pursue and research in the twentieth century, not to mention the appearance on the map of the Dead Sea Scrolls, The Nag Hammadi Library, and the late Morton Smith's book, Jesus the Magician. The existing " narrative myths" that we have at hand concerning Jesus and his works are excellent ones. And myths are the deepest ""truths" that may be composed about the "sacred" beginnings of things in cultural history.

When Jesus appeared it was a sacred event in the history of a profane world. The late Mircea Eliade, the preeminent historian of religion wrote that "the sacred always manifests itself as a reality of a wholly different order from natural realities." Once the sacred descends into the profane world, it is changed into whatever observers think and believe that they witnessed; and, then their imagination and artistic abilities must flesh-out new stories. Hence the doctrinal conflicts that continue to this day.

We participate in a "progressive " forum on the nature of Christ and Christianity so that MORE truth might be uncovered in the passage of time. At least that's the way I see things. But then I've been exposed to things in the world of science and technology that make me question more and more the realities of the things that I observe each day. I do not believe in many "coincidences" any more. I'm genetically tuned to an analog and linear world. Non-linear events that "coincidentally" happen and change the course of events in mostly negative ways are wrong if they are causative in their nature.

In my way of pursuing the "truth" of all this I am more inclined to accept the fictions of Salman Rushdie, Dan Brown, and Martin Scorsese as better starting points in my pursuit of sacred truths than those produced by Mel Gibson and his ilk. However, I thought he was really great in Mad Max and Beyond Thunderdome.

[des]

>Fred

 

someone said:

>>>I like Thomas, because: 1) it is a relatively new enlightenment, which was not not "censored" by "early church" "fathers", and 2) concentrates on Jesus' "sayings" and therefore teachings, rather than his birth and death.  BUT, we have to recognize, that it was written at least contemporaneous to, and possibly after, Gospel John (120-240 AD).  As such, it DOES have questionable, if not interesting, insights into Jesus' teachings.  The question in my mind remains open as to the authenticity and relevancy of this particular Logia (98?).  If we are Christians (little followers of Christ [Jesus]), we should care about what he ACTUALLY said, not what people think he said, whether 200 AD or 2100 AD.

 

Fred said:

>Des, where was this quoted from? I took a quick look but didn't find it.

 

me:

Uh, I didn't say it. You mixed me up, easy to do with all these quotes and things.

 

des said:

>>Well what Jesus *actually* said, no one actually knows. I think all the scriptures were written at least 50 years afterwards. SO I don't know why Thomas is more inaccurate than the Gospels in the Bible used today.

 

Fred said:

>I think there is a pretty decent subset of Jesus' sayings for which we can have a reasonably good confidence in their authenticity (as much as history can give us, anyway). Less than 100% confidence doesn't mean 0% confidence or even 50%. But the above citation does seem to make the easy presumption that the canonical gospels are where we find what Jesus ACTUALLY said. In that sense, the compositional structure of John probably makes it the least historically "accurate," in terms of sayings of Jesus, even compared to Thomas.

 

me:

Well unless you think God was dictating the scriptures, no one was around with notebook and pen. OTOH, what Jesus said must have been highly memorable. I think John wasn't meant to be an accurate word by word, but more of a spiritual ideal (if that is the term). All the I AM phrases, etc. So yes, I'd agree. (I would not be troubled by the concept of Jesus not really saying exactly what any of the scripture say.)

 

Fred:

>But canonicity isn't just about authenticity or "accuracy." It's about relevance and coherence with the overall outlook that was emerging in the early church and its understanding of Jesus.

(snip)

It seems to me that, if I had to offer a charitable reconstruction of why the early church preferred John to Thomas, I would say that Thomas has appeal for those who are more esoterically oriented in their spiritual understanding, but that's always been the minority demographic. It would arguably be very confusing -- maybe even a stumbling block -- to many Christians of a more conventional bent. John, on the other hand, strikes me as more accessible across the entire range of spiritual understanding, and therefore was probably more universally used and loved.

 

me:

You are being charitable. :-)

I'm sure you are right in some ways, but I don't doubt that some of the scriptures left out were left out due to political reasons as much as "coherence and relevance to the emerging church". Of course I don't see why these two aren't the same in some cases. :-)

 

 

--des

Edited August 26, 2005 by des

[DCJ]

She relates the doubting Thomas story as a smear tactic to increase numbers who followed John

Thomas is actually one of my "heroes" of the Bible. When told about Jesus' resurrection, Thomas says he won't believe until he physically puts his fingers into the holes of Jesus' crucified hands. He won't make a blind leap of faith; he wants evidence. And when he gets that evidence, his response is the most moving of all: "My Lord, and my God!"

 

I had to offer a charitable reconstruction of why the early church preferred John to Thomas, I would say that Thomas has appeal for those who are more esoterically oriented in their spiritual understanding

The intent of these attacks was, of course, to root out heresies that might "confuse" people, and lead them to question the orthodox reasoning and traditional hiearchy of the early church.

Or, maybe the early church rejected it because it just wasn't representative of their beliefs?

 

On a side note, it's interesting that progressives generally look fondly on a book that strikes me as misogynistic, e.g. GoT 114:

Simon Peter said to them, "Let Mary leave us, for women are not worthy of life." Jesus said, "I myself shall lead her in order to make her male, so that she too may become a living spirit resembling you males. For every woman who will make herself male will enter the kingdom of heaven."

[FredP]

Or, maybe the early church rejected it because it just wasn't representative of their beliefs?

I also said:

 

... canonicity ... [is] about relevance and coherence with the overall outlook that was emerging in the early church and its understanding of Jesus.

 

On a side note, it's interesting that progressives generally look fondly on a book that strikes me as misogynistic, e.g. GoT 114:

Simon Peter said to them, "Let Mary leave us, for women are not worthy of life." Jesus said, "I myself shall lead her in order to make her male, so that she too may become a living spirit resembling you males. For every woman who will make herself male will enter the kingdom of heaven."

Many of us look fondly on the letters of Paul as well, which contain plenty of teachings that one would be hard-pressed to call egalitarian.

[CJF]

The quoted text was mine (CJF).

 

My perspective was that when comparing the limited source material we have about what Jesus "actually said," there are sayings or parables which appear in more than one text, and some that appear in only one. I do not recall who did the study, but I know I have seen a scholarly work which attempts to rank the authenticity by how often the same or similar quotations appear in the various works. I agree that just because a saying appears only once, it does not invalidate its authenticity. Nor does the fact that a particular Gospel was canonized validate its authenticity. But I think frequency should be considered, especially when ranking the significance of the saying.

 

Unfortunately, Jesus, to our knowledge, never "wrote" anything himself. Some have suggested that this was intentional: "Progressive Christians have explained that Jesus never wrote anything down because God never intended a text-based Christianity." http://socialgospel.blogspot.com/2004/10/w...te-it-down.html In any event, no matter what the source, we are forced to live with hearsay accounts and memories.

 

Dating the Gospels is another issue that is all over the map, and so I wanted to respond the issue raised about John being written in competition with Thomas. "I believe that it was in Beyond Belief by Elaine Pagels that the Gospel of Thomas and the Gospel of John were in competition, being written about the same time. " - Des.

 

I have not read that work, so I am not familiar with the arguments, but it sounds interesting. My NIV dates the cannonical gospels at Mark: 55 AD; Matthew (pre-Jerusalem destrustion), i.e., before 70 AD; Luke: between 50 and 63 AD [Matthew and Luke relying in part on Mark's account and commonly upon the Q source]; and John: 85 AD or later. NIV dates I John, which in its introduction states was written to combat the Gnostics, at around 90 AD. There is debate as to whether this Gospel is truly Gnostic (http://home.epix.net/~miser17/faq.html).

 

The Nag Hammadi version of Thomas (written in Coptic and the most complete we have) is believed to date to the fourth century, with text dating back to 140 AD. See: Burton H. Throckmorton, Jr., Gospel Parallels, A Synopsis of the First Three Gospels (4th Ed.) at xvi, and http://home.epix.net/~miser17/faq.html, supra: "Portions of Greek versions of the Gospel of Thomas were found in Oxyrhynchus Egypt about one hundred years ago and these can be dated to about 140 A.D. or somewhat before. A complete version in Coptic (the native Egyptian language written in an alphabet derived from the Greek alphabet) was found in Nag Hammadi Egypt in 1945. That version can be dated to about 340 A.D. The Coptic version is a translation of the Greek version. Thus most, if not all, of the Gospel of Thomas was written prior to 140 A. D." Who knows what changes were made to the original Greek sayings over time, or lost in translation? Look at the differences in the King James and NIV versions of the Bible, and also the additions to Mark at 16:9-20 and John 7:53-8:11.

 

If John was written to compete with Thomas, as opposed to Gnostics in general, it would seem that there would have to have been an earlier version than what we have, and it assumes that one exists. I am just glad we have the Nag Hammadi version, because it provides interesting insights when compared with the Cannonical texts. I like the focus on sayings, rather than an attempt at a historical narrative of Jesus' life. I like Mark, because it starts with Jesus' baptism and ministry, and ends with the discovery at the tomb Mark 16:6-8.

 

~ CJF

[flowperson]

It is interesting to note that Morton Smith, author of the previously mentioned book-Jesus The Magician, posits in his research that only about one third of the original book of Mark ended up in the canonical gospels, and that the missing part(s) probably contained some secrets just too explosive to share with any but Jesus' closest confidants. This would square with some of the asides in the gnostic gospels pertaining to Jesus' sharing of certain "secrets" with but a few of his followers. Smith also states that the only copy(s) of the missing two thirds of Mark's writings probably went up in smoke when the library at Alexandria Egypt burned. Smith traces Mark's movements from Rome to Alexandria after Peter's upsidedown crucifiction in the colisseum. Mark was reputedly Peter's secretary during the time that he was the first prelate of the church in Rome.

[MOW]

After reading some of the more recent posts I got to imagining what Christianity

might be like if it had been Matthew ,Mark, Luke, and Thomas. It probably would be much smaller like Jainism. It might not even be called Christianity.

 

It would be difficult to link the Jesus in the Gospel of Thomas with the Christ of Faith envisioned by Paul.

 

In fact modern Christianity is difficult to imagine without the Gospel of John.

There would be no" In the beginning was the Word, no I am the living bread which came down from heaven(which might mean no Communion),no Woman at the well, no Nicodemus, no born again Christians( OK no snide remarks ) .

 

However The Gospel of John does pose some problems. The " no one comes to the Father but by me " is problematic I'm sure for progressives , Non-Christians and indigenous peoples. There is also the problem of perceived anti -semitism. In one of his books Peter Gomes mentions how a choral conducting friend of his needed singers for a performence of Bach"s St John's Passion. The conductor hired a young Jewish singer to help out the soprano section. Gomes relates that the girl told him that during the performance she was in tears. She felt conflicted. Bach's music was so beautiful but she was singing these horrible things about herself.

 

 

MOW

[des]

>Unfortunately, Jesus, to our knowledge, never "wrote" anything himself. Some have suggested that this was intentional: "Progressive Christians have explained that Jesus never wrote anything down because God never intended a text-based Christianity." http://socialgospel.blogspot.com/2004/10/w...te-it-down.html In any event, no matter what the source, we are forced to live with hearsay accounts and memories.

 

I find that one hard to swallow. I just don't think MOST people communicated by writing. If you were supposed to go out among the people and live with the people, how would you do it by writing? I'd assume that maybe Jesus was literate but I think at this point people were not literate, and the poor to whom he preached and worked were certainly not literate. Today we think about things like almost universal literacy, that we assume people read and wrote. I think this is a very poor assumption. I take exception from "progressive Christians have explained" as I have never even heard this assumption before, let alone ever thought it. Now I don't think he intended to start a "religion", and I think that might be a more shared belief. This reminds me kind of of "if man were meant to fly he would be given wings sort of argument. Of course, I realize you are quoting from blogs and so forth.

 

BTW, I snipped it, but someone misappropriated (if that's the term) someone else's statements to me yet again. I'm not at all upset. But if someone did this on a website with all my comments up there and everything seems to me it looks like it would have been pretty hard to get anyone's comments right that were made 50-100 years later. :-)

 

 

~ CJF

 

 

--des

[Socius]

Could one reason why Jesus never wrote anything was because his ministry proposed the end of all things? His ministry was apocalyptic in nature, therefore there would be no need to write anything down because he believed his message was only for his people and his generation. Jesus seemed unwilling to go beyond Israel with his message and talked about an immanent consumation of all things. As years passed and the end did not seem to come, his followers chose to write the gospels in order to pass down Jesus' teaching.

[des]

To my knowledge, apocolyptical writing was something of a writing style, and imo not so much in the Gospels (maybe a bit in John). I don't see a great apocolyptical theme. He doesn't say to the disciples, oh well not much you can do boys. He tells them specifics of what to do and how to go out. The later Gospel stories dont' focus on how the disciples are preparing for end times, but how the disciples saw Jesus and so forth. Revelation was written some 100+ years after Jesus and many people think it is about Rome- not some future event in a style that was fashionable at the times.

 

Either Jesus wrote things down and they disappeared (notes on napkins?); Jesus did not write as most people did not write (though it seems he must have been doing something in the 30 years before his ministry); Jesus was a primarily preaching to the people, most of whom were not literate. Had he written his ideas down, the vast majority of people would have been unable to read it. Universal or near universal literacy was just not there. In fact literacy would have been unusual and mostly with the priests and scholars (my only reason that Jesus might have been literate). There wasn't a need to read and write.

 

 

--des

[FredP]

To my knowledge, apocolyptical writing was something of a writing style, and imo not so much in the Gospels (maybe a bit in John). [...] Revelation was written some 100+ years after Jesus and many people think it is about Rome- not some future event in a style that was fashionable at the times.

Yes, apocalypse is a literary genre; Daniel is a good O.T. example, and Revelation is the consummate N.T. example. Frequently, apocalyptical writings are pseudonymous, so as to appear to be written prophetically in the past. As far as I know, the reality of such pseudo-authorships was pretty well-known, i.e. not indended to deceive the reader, but to be used as a literary device. It would be analogous to someone today writing a warning to the United States, that appeared to be the last words of Thomas Jefferson, dicated to a close friend on his death bed. (Hmm, that gives me an idea...) Anyway, even most evangelical scholarship that would be conservative about Revelation's authorship, would regard it as applying direclty to Rome, not the late great planet Earth.

 

At the same time, though, if the work was only about an event in the past, it would have faded away long ago into oblivion; but quite to the contrary, it only seems to get more and more popular as time goes by -- especially when the world seems to be at a critical crossroads. While it does speak from an event in the past, it deals with deep archetypal themes: namely, the great battle between the old and new forms of being, and the great wedding of heaven and earth. Many (progressives especially) are embarrassed by the violent themes of the book -- I still am, when those themes get literalized and used to justify atrocities -- but I think it's impossible to overstate just how fiercely and violently the old forms of being lash out against the emergence of the Kingdom of God wherever it appears.

[AletheiaRivers]

Anyway, even most evangelical scholarship that would be conservative about Revelation's authorship, would regard it as applying direclty to Rome, not the late great planet Earth.

 

So would you say that viewing Revelation from a preterist or partial preterist view is the NORM rather than the exception?

 

I only ask because until I came on this board, the only interpretation of Revelation I'd heard of is that Revelation fortells "the end of this world".

 

What Christian denominations hold a fully future view of Revelation? Any? Or are JW's unique in that regard?

 

And do you have a book you'd recommend that discusses Revelation from a preterist or partial preterist point of view? (If I've asked that of you in the past, I apologize, I don't remember.)

[AletheiaRivers]

PS - Or is is mostly scholars (of all Christian bents - conservative, moderate and liberal) that view Revelation as applying to Rome, while most lay people people believe otherwise?

[FredP]

So would you say that viewing Revelation from a preterist or partial preterist view is the NORM rather than the exception?

There are so many discrete views that it's hard to say there's any kind of "norm." If you count laypeople, or scholars, or denominations, or ..., you'll probably come up with completely different sets of numbers.

 

What Christian denominations hold a fully future view of Revelation? Any? Or are JW's unique in that regard?

Conservative Baptists, and most similar brands of fundamentalism, take Revelation to be basically, blow-by-blow, about the "end times." The broader Evangelical community would say that Revelation definitely has prophetic implications, but it would be impossible to make any kind of direct mapping between the symbolism in Revelation, and specific events, places, etc. Additionally, they would also regard Revelation as having a historical meaning, since they don't have as strong an investment in an end times interpretation. The Catholic Church takes this multiple-readings view as well. Still, for all these groups, there will be a "second coming," but they don't specify what kind of event, or sequence of events, that will be. Only fundamentalists, in my experience, get into such heated arguments over premillennial vs. postmillennial vs. amillennial views of the rapture, etc. (Most groups would look at the whole debate and say, "Rapture? You're kidding, right?")

 

I do think the parousia -- that's theological technospeak for rapture, please hold your oohs and ahhs until afterwards -- has important spiritual and psychological meanings, but people with bumper stickers that say, "In case of rapture this car will be unmanned," really scare me. (My initial thought is, your skull is already unmanned.)

 

And do you have a book you'd recommend that discusses Revelation from a preterist or partial preterist point of view? (If I've asked that of you in the past, I apologize, I don't remember.)

I have no books about Revelation from any point of view.

[AletheiaRivers]

Thanks Fred. Good to know. All my life I've thought that everyone believes Revelation to be a "blow by blow" of future end time events.

 

I'll have to do a google search on a book. The amateur scholar in me wonders what some of the symbolism in Revelation might mean from a historical perspective as it applied to Rome.

[flowperson]

All of this just further convinces me that the bible was intended to be totally open to interpretation by the beholder, and I for one fully intend, as a progressive, to continue to do just that. After all, I am what I am.

It is interesting to note, further to our discussion of some sort of at least parallel track for The Gospel of John and The Gospel of Thomas, that The Book of Revelations was supposedly written by John in his final years in a cave on the Greek Isle of Samos (or maybe Patmos?). In the second Blues Brother movie, he was referred to as John the Revelator in one of the closing numbers. The first BB movie was much more inspirational, and the music was way better. After all they WERE on a mission from God, and they DID save the penguins.

[DCJ]

And do you have a book you'd recommend that discusses Revelation from a preterist or partial preterist point of view?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Try "Revelation - Four Views" by Steve Gregg

[AletheiaRivers]

Awesome DCJ! Thank you!

[FredP]

There's a nice big tome out there called End-Time Prophecies of the Bible, by David Haggith (who is evangelical, by the way). From the title, the book is clearly interested in exploring prophetic meanings throughout the entire Bible; but the intention is just to introduce you to this dizzying array of prophetic passages so you can have the resources to put the pieces together for yourself. I'm plugging it because David and I were actually corresponding by e-mail for awhile while he was finishing it up, and had some nice exchanges about literal vs. symbolic meanings in Scripture, and well, he was a really nice guy, and interesting to talk to... so I'm sure it's worth the read.

[DCJ]

Many of us look fondly on the letters of Paul as well, which contain plenty of teachings that one would be hard-pressed to call egalitarian.

Perhaps, but I'd say there's a qualitative difference between (maybe antiquated) instructions on church order, and declaring that a whole class of people is unworthy of eternal life. Plus, it was Paul who said that in Christ there is "neither male nor female." So we have Jesus supposedly saying that women must become men, and Paul saying that all are equal in Christ. My money's with Paul. I think he knew about the real Jesus, who ministered to women and welcomed them into the kingdom of God. If Thomas is wrong this time, how trustworthy can its other unique sayings be?

[FredP]

So we have Jesus supposedly saying that women must become men, and Paul saying that all are equal in Christ.  My money's with Paul.  I think he knew about the real Jesus, who ministered to women and welcomed them into the kingdom of God.  If Thomas is wrong this time, how trustworthy can its other unique sayings be?

Well, frankly my money is with Paul on this one too. (I feel like a bit of a black sheep in Progressive circles for believing that Pauline theology is essentially right on the mark in so many respects. I'm not on the current progressive "everybody gang up on Paul" bandwagon.) But I also don't disqualify texts from any consideration just because they may have problematic teachings, nor do I believe that there are any texts which are completely immune from error.

[October's Autumn]

So we have Jesus supposedly saying that women must become men, and Paul saying that all are equal in Christ.  My money's with Paul.  I think he knew about the real Jesus, who ministered to women and welcomed them into the kingdom of God.  If Thomas is wrong this time, how trustworthy can its other unique sayings be?

Well, frankly my money is with Paul on this one too. (I feel like a bit of a black sheep in Progressive circles for believing that Pauline theology is essentially right on the mark in so many respects. I'm not on the current progressive "everybody gang up on Paul" bandwagon.) But I also don't disqualify texts from any consideration just because they may have problematic teachings, nor do I believe that there are any texts which are completely immune from error.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

Paul is less of a problem when I broke away from my need to see the bible as infallilable and *the* word of God.

[MOW]

I've been away for awhile and thought I'd post something.

You seem to be discussing saying 114

"Simon Peter said to them" Let Mary leave us because women are not worthy of life.' Jesus said, "look I shall lead her so that I can make her male in order that she also may become a living sprit resembling you males. For every woman who makes herself male will enter the Kingdom of God "

I don't think this has anything to do with physical gender identification. In Paul's Galatians reference where he says we're neither male or female in Christ Jesus he prefaces it by calling his audience "Son's of the Father" The later revised standard versions change that to more modern "children of the Father".

 

This saying brings to mind a letter I read in an advice column in a Chicago newspaper. The letter was written by a man praising his wife. When they first married he was a successful businessman and she was a pretty, fragile trophy wife. He grew disgusted with her because all she seemed to want to do is shop spend money and never save. As time went on he considered divorce. As fate would have it he suffered a massive stroke and was totally disabled . He was sure she would leave him. To his amazement she took on the breadwinner (male ) role taking care of him and their children,working a full time job and even changing his diapers as he could no longer use the bathroom unassisted.

In light of saying 114 I wonder what that man and his wife would say about "male" and "female" spiritual roles.

 

MOW

[MOW]

In light of saying 114 I got to thinking about something else.

Some comentators on this saying says it has something to do with masculine and feminine aspects of spirituality and that we're usually deficient in one or the other.

 

I've been a church musician for over 30 years and I usually have to play for the annual Christmas pageant. It's always interesting to me that the boys are happy to play the Magi or the shepherds but never the angels. Somewhere somehow from Mother Culture they have the idea that angels are feminine. You can talk about Gabriel and Michael to you're blue in the face but they're not playing no angels.

 

Even though Gabriel and Michael have masculine names, in paintings they seem to have female features. Satan the fallen angel is almost always portrayed as male.

 

Just wondering

 

MOW