Okay, I'm going to add a bit more on the Shekhinah topic, while the kids are out sledding. The LINK HERE that Sir posted in the other thread actually has some very good information. So I'm cheating a bit and will cut and paste a few pieces from it. Then I will go look for more. :)
Mark, this part is especially for you, because you seem to like word studies. The word is contained within the OT. However, I suspect if you were to limit your interest to only that which is within the OT, you will end up with a rather one-dimensional view of the word.
Shekhinah is derived from the Hebrew verb שכן. In Biblical Hebrew the word means literally to settle, inhabit, or dwell, and is used frequently in the Hebrew Bible. (See Exodus 40:35, "Moses could not enter the Tent of Meeting, for the cloud rested [shakhan] upon it, and the glory of the Lord filled the Tabernacle." See also e.g. Genesis 9:27, 14:13, Psalms 37:3, Jeremiah 33:16), as well as the weekly Shabbat blessing recited in the Temple in Jerusalem ("May He who causes His name to dwell [shochan] in this House, cause to dwell among you love and brotherliness, peace and friendship").
Accordingly, in classic Jewish thought, the Shekhinah refers to a dwelling or settling in a special sense, a dwelling or settling of divine presence, to the effect that, while in proximity to the Shekhinah, the connection to God is more readily perceivable
and
The Talmud reports that the Shekhinah is what caused prophets to prophesy and King David to compose his Psalms
It is this line of thought that causes me to connect the concept of Shekhinah with the Christian concept of "holy spirit."
The Shekhinah is held by some to represent the feminine attributes of the presence of God (shekhinah being a feminine word in Hebrew), based especially on readings of the Talmud
The Talmud contains the rabbinical arguments about the meanings of verses, how the laws are to be applied, etc. It's writings are central to ALL Jewish belief, regardless of sect. The first part of the Talmud also contains the Mishna, which are the oral laws.
Have you heard of the term "split apart?" in reference to soul mates? I first heard it during a movie I was watching many many years ago. That concept actually comes from a Jewish oral tradition. The story is that when Adam was first created, he was created as both male and female in one. God then split him apart when he made Eve. So the Chassidics and some other sects teach that we too were once one with a soul mate and we were split apart before birth. Thus, somewhere out there is one perfect soul mate for us.
I think this story sort of fits with the male/female aspects of God and the idea of man being made in "our image"
As I'm sure you know, the Shekhina is not exactly the same concept as the Spirit of God. Do any of the Midrash or Rabbinical sources have a different understanding of the Spirit (ruach) of God from what I posted today in the Holy Spirit thread? Note, what I posted is not how most Christians perceive the Holy Spirit. From what reading I've done I got the impression that what I described there is closer to the Jewish understanding of God's spirit than to the traditional Christian view.
The Talmud contains the rabbinical arguments about the meanings of verses, how the laws are to be applied, etc. It's writings are central to ALL Jewish belief, regardless of sect. The first part of the Talmud also contains the Mishna, which are the oral laws.
Weren't/aren't there some very strict sects that followed only the Torah and not the Talmud?
At the time of Christ, weren't there some who adhered to the Tanakh but not the Rabbinical interpretations of it?
I will have to re-read your posts there to answer the first part of your question. With respect to the latter, I have not specifically studied the various Jewish sects that existed during Jesus' time. But I suppose you make a point about my use of the word "all." As with Christianity, or any other religion for that matter, there will never be an "all". :D
So I wouldn't doubt that there are those who only follow the Torah and there are probably those who only follow the oral traditions (in fact, I think the gnostics came from that group??? I could be mistaken). But in GENERAL, most Jewish sects see both the Torah and the Talmud as a vital part of study and practice. This would include ultra-orthodox, orthodox, conservative, reform, and reconstruction.
Okay, I'll be back. Kids are home and playing guitar hero, so my focus is a bit off. It is really hard to think deep thoughts when you are listening to "Slow Ride" for the 100,000th time. :blink:
P-Mosh, I'm still looking for the reference to God having a wife. From what I have found so far, I'd say that Asherah was believed by many of the Israelites to be the wife of God. Whether this was a part of Judaism from day one or incorporated from other religions is impossible to say.
However, even a reading of the OT will make it clear that Israel did worship Asherah, though such worship was also spoken against. If my understanding is correct, at some point in time over the course of history, some groups modified Asherah into Shekinah (the female aspect of god).
I guess it goes back to my earlier chicken and egg question, we may never know which came first.
Mark...i'm trying to stay away from your other thread...as you obviously have something you really want to teach and share...and a specific method you want to explore...though you seem to have stopped at the first few lines of this one for some reason...and arguing points of the other thread here...so here we go, i guess...
to claim that the hebrew text somehow defines it's self...and then refer to dictionaries and other writers for those definitions...seems a clear contradiction. The bible simply does not interpret it's self. Even if we read hebrew fluently, we cant help but play a big role in our own interpretation of it. We cant help but inquire into all the many overlapping contexts that are outside of the texts.
because so much of what the text is referring to is simply NOT in the text...and so one must leave the bounds of scriptures (and mere definitions of words) in order to find out what is being referred to. And by "leaving the bounds" ...not only do i mean reading material outside of the text, but even more so, actually practicing breathing, for example, using ancient jewish methods. Those who do so are more likely to understand the hebrew text as it pertains to the breath of life. No amount of mere textual research will disclose this information. One must actually go there themselves. Faith without works is dead...yada yada.
and there are many other areas of practice referred to in the OT and NT whose methods and injunctions are NOT explained in much detail in the text, or in the definitions of hebrew words...such as dreaming, fasting, prayerful song, community ritual and rites, oral tradition/transmission, soulful dialogue, etc...and jewish and christian lineages (that are also outside of the text) have developed these arts (by practice) over the millenia (B.C. and A.D.) ...but are largely ignored by recent developments in christianity
like ive said before, somewhat playfully...if you can, go sit in quiet contemplative prayer for over a week ..or a month...then come tell everyone what "really happened" on pentecost, or in the wilderness
one of my constant complaints is that so much of our christianity has disintegrated into being strictly mental...strictly translative...and strictly masculine on masculine seeking seeking seeking...and so our spirituality almost never leaves the head...almost never leaves the realm of thinking and concept and imagination and theology and belief ...never leaves what we think of the pages of words of books and mythologies of beings and realities that are seperate from our selves...so there is little to no experience of practicing and embodying what the text is merely pointing at...and so we suffer from an exotic variety of inflated faith claims
and myth versus myth versus myth versus myth versus myth...and all the silly circular competitive conflicts caused by that
...not only religion versus religion versus religion...but denomination versus denomination versus denomination
and cult versus cult versus cult
but like i attempted to point at in the opening post of this thread...
one can directly experience what is known as "Spirit" for themselves
...with a little practice...perhaps some discipline and luck
but most of all..practice
...
...back later with some comments on the "I-I" of the legendary "I Am"
btw...this article on the Essenes may provide some insight into some little known Gospel-era jewish lineages
...perhaps even related to John the Baptist and the mysterious "men in white"
To just breath and be quiet, a very difficult thing in our culture! Funny, when a woman lights the sabbath candles, before she says the blessing she uses her hands to draw the light to herself and takes a deep breath.
As I'm sure you know, the Shekhina is not exactly the same concept as the Spirit of God. Do any of the Midrash or Rabbinical sources have a different understanding of the Spirit (ruach) of God from what I posted today in the Holy Spirit thread? Note, what I posted is not how most Christians perceive the Holy Spirit. From what reading I've done I got the impression that what I described there is closer to the Jewish understanding of God's spirit than to the traditional Christian view.
Mark, from my understanding I would say Shekhina is very very similar to the concept of "holy spirit" as taught within TWI. No, Jewish people wouldn't say it was "Christ in you the hope of glory" but many could understand it as the aspect of God that dwells within.
Also, please keep in mind, when studying Judaism (especially the more mystical, non-legalistic aspects) we are often cautioned to remember that at best all we can come up with is bits and pieces/aspects of God. So, for instance, when referring to Shekhina as the female aspect there needs to be emphasis on aspect. It is but one part of a much much much larger whole. The same would be said of referring to God as a father. It is an aspect, a part, it is not the whole. They are descriptive words we use because we need descriptive words to communicate ideas.
I haven't studied ruach. I will try to find some time to do so. But here are a couple of my thoughts from your posts so far.
So the spirit of God is not a separate person from God, any more than my spirit is a separate person from me.
I would agree with this. But I would take it a step further, because I do believe that spirit of God does also dwell in each of us. Therefore, though we may appear to be physically separated, we are also connected (despite our numerous and differing beliefs). This is one of the reasons I love comparative religion studies. It reminds me of just how connected we truly are. It also saddens me at times, to realize that we often try to separate ourselves over differences that are really unimportant to the bigger picture. IMO, of course.
He created all things by His breath, or His Word, according to Psalm 33:6 - "By the word of the LORD were the heavens made; and all the host of them by the breath of his mouth." The breath of God is one way the Scriptures refer to His power being exercised (Exodus 15:8; Job 4:9; 37:10). God breathed life into man (Genesis 2:7; Job 27:3; 33:4), and His Word (which is "God breathed" according to II Timothy 3:16) is living and powerful (Hebrews 4:12). God's breath or spirit communicates His Word and exercises His almighty power.
This is a very Jewish concept, Mark! In fact, Lashan Hora (evil speech) is often cautioned against for this very reason!! Words can be very powerful!!
Finally, I thought you might find it interesting to know that in Hebrew "Ruach Hakodesh" is the term for divine inspiration.
And now it is time for me to enjoy the sabbath candles and spend time with my family. I'll be back over the weekend though. :)
To just breath and be quiet, a very difficult thing in our culture!
so true, Abi.
regarding silence...
Ever notice how uncomfortable most anyone gets when there is a 10-second or so lull in conversation? There is a sense that something is wrong, and so we rush to fill the silence with more words. Ive seen the results of research that show the average maximum time that people can sit quietly together. I recall that it was less than a half of a half minute. They even broke it down per culture...and this is funny, but jews were the worst at 6 seconds. Of course, most of the rabbis in the room where this was presented laughed and nodded.
Some precious things i learned from practicing with Quakers, and using Quaker principles/assumptions for soulful communication...Not only do they begin all meetings with a 5 minute or more period of silence, they treat such "silence" as a member of the group, and allow more room for silence between responses. I found, as they said, that as we re-condition ourselves to allow for such moments, we find that our "soul" has a lot more to say about a matter. Things that would not otherwise be said, or heard. Not even by the speaker.
Also...in some contemplative practices and traditions...20 minutes is often considered a minimum period of time for the mind to begin to become quiet, and various brain waves to settle down...over an hour for to reach other states of mind...and then hours and days and weeks and such to "witness" all the many thoughts and feelings going on in the dark of the self. Which eventually leads to an awareness of why it takes months and years of routine practice to fully sit and let all those voices have their say and become unfolded and untangled.
Of course, the challenge is to stay awake while practicing quieting the mind, being still, and closing the eyes. We typically fall asleep pretty quick, and have to come up with some sort of mental or physical routine. Like the PFAL version of "speaking in tongues." Or watching TV. Or ingesting a stimulant. We are mostly naturally incapable of staying wide awake while "trying to do" absolutely nothing.
This is where paying attention to the breath comes in (not controlling it, but noticing it). Particularly the exhale, like Jesus pointed out. Something natural and sacred and life giving that we are already doing anyway.
John 20:22 ...from the Complete Jewish Bible
Having said this, he breathed on them and said to them, "Receive the Ruach HaKodesh!
So the spirit of God is not a separate person from God, any more than my spirit is a separate person from me.
I would agree with this. But I would take it a step further, because I do believe that spirit of God does also dwell in each of us. Therefore, though we may appear to be physically separated, we are also connected (despite our numerous and differing beliefs). This is one of the reasons I love comparative religion studies. It reminds me of just how connected we truly are. It also saddens me at times, to realize that we often try to separate ourselves over differences that are really unimportant to the bigger picture. IMO, of course.
even a step further...
if Spirit is like the ocean
and we are like a wave of that ocean
...if one looks at the ocean...do we not include every wave in the definition of that ocean?
if Spirit is like a tree
and we are like a leaf of that tree
...if one looks at a tree...do we not include all the leaves in the definition of that tree?
when we speak of our "self"
are we not speaking of a part of God?
as if we are only separate from God by some occasion of language and context
...or perhaps even a natural self-deception
Also, please keep in mind, when studying Judaism (especially the more mystical, non-legalistic aspects) we are often cautioned to remember that at best all we can come up with is bits and pieces/aspects of God. So, for instance, when referring to Shekhina as the female aspect there needs to be emphasis on aspect. It is but one part of a much much much larger whole. The same would be said of referring to God as a father. It is an aspect, a part, it is not the whole. They are descriptive words we use because we need descriptive words to communicate ideas.
reminds me ...ive heard rabbis metaphorically describe Ruach HaKodesh as a cosmic-sized woman, veiled and hidden under layers upon layers of garments
...where, at first, we may only see the naked tip of the tip of the tip of her fingertips
in time...we may see an entire finger...perhaps even up to her wrist
...and even this is no small occasion..worth celebrating
the radical prophets of old were the kind who gave up all hope of a conventional life and entered the desert for years...decades
...so that may see an entire arm
of course, this "woman" is not a supernatural woman at all, but the receptive womblike and "hollow" nature of Spirit we must enter into to be born again
"I am" can refer to a common Biblical translation of an Aramaic idiom. In the original language, it translates in an interlinear, direct fashion as: "I I" (Aramaic uses a double reference to self when being emphatic about an action verb; e.g., "I-baptize-I you with water..." from Matthew 3:11 of the Aramaic Pe....ta; however "I I" -- with everything and nothing between the "I"s -- is what is translated into English as "I am", with accompanying spiritual meaning; the first occurrence of "I I" in the New Testament is in Matthew 14:27 of the Pe....ta). The first person singular present tense form of the main copular verb in English (to be). Some scholars believe it is the most meaningful English translation of Yahweh in Hebrew ('YHVH', יהוה), but this interpretation is disputed
in Genesis too, 28:16 - Jacob wakes after dreaming of seeing his self at the base of an angel-filled ladder
..."Surely, God was in this place and I, I did not know"
ive heard and read many rabbis expound on this. How one's spiritual view of one's self is referred to with two "I"s...two selves...the "i" of the person, and the "I" of the universe, and finding God and worshipping God is another way of saying that we have found our self to be fully inside of God, and our self has been found to be fully inside of God. And God is ALL IN ALL. We have been located from God's point of view, and this temporary ego that God has found is but a bit of paint on the tip of the tip of God's fingernail.
Like when Jesus said "I am the way" ...it was more like saying "I, i is the way." Which is not a statement of his personal exclusive supernatural power to grant access to the divine...but a statement that points to what "he" (both He and God as "I and I" in one) knew to be true about coming to the source and root cause of all existence. Where it can be said that there is no other way for anyone to realize God directly except by waking up to this "I, i." Not that Jesus's life and purpose was not unique and unforgettably worldshaking...he was pointing to that which is already always true in any tongue, any time, any place. And he pointed to it with his very life and death...and mysterious resurrection.
here, too...
Romans 8:16
The Spirit itself beareth witness with our spirit, that we are the children of God:
Just as our body and soul move from being subject (an "I") to object (an "it"),
our wide open self as formless Spirit moves from subject to object.
So that which is clear also becomes an "it."
Then there is found a "paradox in a mirror" that simply shatters our perspective into something new and bigger,
where not only do we find our selves to be that spiritual clearing in which body and soul arise
...but that which is clear observes that which is clear
God can see God in us, and we see can our self in God.
so with practice, discipline...perhaps even via grace in the face of adversity...
our perspective shifts to that of Spirit observing Spirit in everything
...the simplest flicker of our attention
though it will only be a glimpse, a downpayment, a taste of a death to come that is not death at all
it will quickly fade...and our rattled ego will snap back to interpret the experience
...though we may never see our selves the same way again
More regarding “the Trinity” (and the tri-unity i mentioned in the first post) in light of The Spirit…
Like ive posted on around here b4, there seems an entire spectrum of faith development possible, and therefore a spectrum of different ways we interpret the very same texts, as well as how we interpret other theologies...and life in general.
But not all "trinitarians" are at a textual literalist stage of faith. Rather than 3 literal beings, many see (and experience) a Trinity as a profound metaphor for all 3 facets of Divine process...some then further divide the 3 by 3...resulting in 9 manifestations, and 9 fruitions, etc...
…
and too...i see much confusion and illogic (and the resulting suffering) in much of Christianity from trying to understand divine conception and birth in strictly masculine terms….and not just from the odd absence of any reference to the feminine role of Holy Spirit...but an active denial of the possibility of any vital feminine face of the divine…sometimes even agressive to the point of oppressing and killing people…as both history and current events show (from the ole' burning “witches” to the current extreme right's cutting funding and support for childcare, healthcare, education, and social and community motherly arenas)
I would venture to say that masculine-only approaches to God are like "blasphemy against the Holy Spirit"...”unforgivable” perhaps, because rejecting Spirit’s motherness = a “barren womb” = spiritual infertility = no new birth
all competition and striving and perfection…seeking seeking seeking
...no embrace…no reception... no conception...no incubation = no spiritual child
God as “the Father” is an active principle ... the seed planter ... the initiator…a bright and fiery purifier ..who very badly wants to "get inside" and "put something inside”...seeking feminine (consciously or unconsciously)
but God as “the Holy Spirit” is a passive principle...receptive and nurturing...the ground in which the seed is planted...the comfort of a shady place…very badly “wants to bring something outside”...aka spiritual midwifery
though ultimately…they are One…just as the Child is One with them
father + mother + offspring = continuity
but father alone = no offspring = no continuity
…
honestly…
how can we even talk of being "born again" without speaking of a womb?
how can we even talk of being a child of God without speaking of a mother's role?
how can we claim to understand the nature of "the son of man" without spending some time contemplating the role of divine feminine?
who does all the work of seed-transformation?
who gives birth to children? a Father?!?
Who can doubt that a descending dove is a feminine, motherly symbol?
…which also makes me wonder if the "this is my beloved son" could have been heard in a woman's voice
… pleased, for one, that her very long labor is over
…
We see the results of this masculine-only approach to spiritual practice in vpw/pfal/twi type theologies
…where a strictly masculine/anti-feminine spiritual interpretation and practice =
- all intellectualization…no real wisdom or “felt-intelligence”
- all the theoretical headiness of Love…no real living embodiment of that Love
- anti feminine-natured men… anti-gay men ... anti-crying ...anti-emotion
- grooming women to act masculine..and serve masculine...to support masculine-only spirituality
- an imbalanced and twisted view of sexuality resulting in abuse and perversion
- highly competitive in relationships with other beliefs (and other scriptural territorial pi$$ing)
- mistaking the magical bliss of mere spiritual conception (a man’s view…”the inside job”) for the painful developmental process of spiritual birth (a woman’s view…”the outside job”)
Not arguing here, Sirguessalot, just wondering what you make of Matt. 1:18 & 20 and Luke 1:35 which speak of the Holy Spirit conceiving a child in Mary's womb. Would that not indicate the masculine role of the Holy Spirit, while the human Mary is the mother?
Matt. 1:
18 Now the birth of Jesus Christ was on this wise: When as his mother Mary was espoused to Joseph, before they came together, she was found with child of the Holy Ghost.
19 Then Joseph her husband, being a just man, and not willing to make her a publick example, was minded to put her away privily.
20 But while he thought on these things, behold, the angel of the Lord appeared unto him in a dream, saying, Joseph, thou son of David, fear not to take unto thee Mary thy wife: for that which is conceived in her is of the Holy Ghost.
Luke 1:
34 Then said Mary unto the angel, How shall this be, seeing I know not a man?
35 And the angel answered and said unto her, The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee: therefore also that holy thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God.
I really liked your first post and found soooo much to relate with in my understanding of God. Bet you thought you would never hear that. I wonder what you think of the term or reference Perichoresis. Similar to what you were describing in we humans is what we find in the Godhead. A dance if you will.
Instead of an ocean, I would describe the Spirit. . . or Holy Spirit. . . as the one(person) who allows the community of all three. . . so, not so different I guess.
It IS about community but even more so, perfect community. Perfect communion and perfect love, where there is an overflowing of joy. God is actually glorified within Himself. We were created out of that abundance. Out of that love and overflowing nature of God.
Much nicer than "Gee, God was lonely". Much deeper and more full understanding of God. Beautiful really. Thanks for that.
We are made for community. . . with the Godhead or God. . . and with each other. Which is why Abi, it is so important for a community of belivers or Christians to understand this doctrine. You wonder why I pick? This is why. So different from the dry and "Seemingly" intellectual dessert of so called, monotheism in Cults. (Christianity is a montheistic faith. God is one.)The endless debate and emptiness of it. Which is for the most part rejected. . . . for the fuller and more scriptural Godhead. Not unlike what moved you here on this thread.
This is EXACTLY what gets me about God. Moves me too. This is what makes me so filled. His nature.
More Sirguessalot. . . . I am pretty interested in what you are saying. Very close to what I understand about God. Very cool.
Just to add. . . because I read on. . . LOL. . . God is described as a Mother, Father, A woman in Labor, in Luke 15 referred to as the woman with the lost coin, a woman who does not forget her nursing child. . . on goes the list.
. . . . Sorry Abi, take this for what you want. :)
"The Greek phrase translated “the restrainer” is literally “he who restrains” and is obviously in the Masculine gender. The Greek phrase for Holy Spirit is Hagios Pneuma, and Pneuma is a neuter noun.
Although the Hebrew word Ruach (Spirit) is of the feminine gender, the idea of the Holy Spirit being a female presence probably stems from the Hebrew Shekinah, a feminine noun based on the verb shachan (to dwell) that doesn’t appear in the Bible but which was coined by Post-biblical Rabbinic scholars to describe God’s Presence."
Does the gender of a word in greek or Hebrew have to do with gender identity?? I don't think so? I am no scholar though. But, the idea of God unanimously described as male in the bible, is wrong. He is described as both male and female. Not referred to as both. . . described. It is to relate himself to us?? Male and female. No? . . . . The bible says He is Spirit.
Seems kind of a silly distinction. . . . was God the male or female part in the conception? . . . He is God.
The word man has always been used to describe US man and woman. . . we have the word mankind in English.
"God said, "Let us make humankind in our image, after our likeness," and then "God created humankind in his own image, in the image of God he created them, male and female he created them." Thus, the image of God was male and female - not simply one or the other. This is further confirmed in Genesis 5:2 which can be literally translated as "He created them male and female; when they were created, he blessed them and named them Adam." The Hebrew term "adam" means "man" - the context showing whether it means "man" (as opposed to woman) or "mankind" (in the collective sense). Therefore, to whatever degree humanity is made in the image of God, gender is not an issue."
You can't discount the masculine imagery in the bible, the masculine names of God, and the revelation of God as man in Jesus. Which is why the Holy Spirit is referred to as a He as part of God.
One more thing. This is exactly the kind of thing revealed in scripture. Not overtly, it has to be seen as a whole. It is revealed. The nature of God. I am so happy someone FINALLY FINALLY FINALLY articulated this a bit for me. Although I would tweak the first post. . . . the concept or understanding from scripture is there. That is what trinitarians are on about. That is the whole triune nature of God and man thing. . . . made in His image.
It is soooo beautiful and sooooo amazing. If we focus so hard on trying to relate to God by our ownselves, what we understand, instead of letting God relate Himself to us. . . . we miss it. It becomes dry and dull and empty. We make God in our image.
I love this thread. It isn't exactly what I understand, but so much CLOSER than I have been able to articulate.
This is why we have worship. . . . how can you not praise such an amazing God.
Recommended Posts
Abigail
The weekend is here!!!!
Okay, I'm going to add a bit more on the Shekhinah topic, while the kids are out sledding. The LINK HERE that Sir posted in the other thread actually has some very good information. So I'm cheating a bit and will cut and paste a few pieces from it. Then I will go look for more. :)
Mark, this part is especially for you, because you seem to like word studies. The word is contained within the OT. However, I suspect if you were to limit your interest to only that which is within the OT, you will end up with a rather one-dimensional view of the word.
andIt is this line of thought that causes me to connect the concept of Shekhinah with the Christian concept of "holy spirit."
The Talmud contains the rabbinical arguments about the meanings of verses, how the laws are to be applied, etc. It's writings are central to ALL Jewish belief, regardless of sect. The first part of the Talmud also contains the Mishna, which are the oral laws.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Abigail
SLIGHTLY
Have you heard of the term "split apart?" in reference to soul mates? I first heard it during a movie I was watching many many years ago. That concept actually comes from a Jewish oral tradition. The story is that when Adam was first created, he was created as both male and female in one. God then split him apart when he made Eve. So the Chassidics and some other sects teach that we too were once one with a soul mate and we were split apart before birth. Thus, somewhere out there is one perfect soul mate for us.
I think this story sort of fits with the male/female aspects of God and the idea of man being made in "our image"
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mark Clarke
Abi,
As I'm sure you know, the Shekhina is not exactly the same concept as the Spirit of God. Do any of the Midrash or Rabbinical sources have a different understanding of the Spirit (ruach) of God from what I posted today in the Holy Spirit thread? Note, what I posted is not how most Christians perceive the Holy Spirit. From what reading I've done I got the impression that what I described there is closer to the Jewish understanding of God's spirit than to the traditional Christian view.
Weren't/aren't there some very strict sects that followed only the Torah and not the Talmud?
At the time of Christ, weren't there some who adhered to the Tanakh but not the Rabbinical interpretations of it?
Edited by Mark ClarkeLink to comment
Share on other sites
Abigail
Mark,
I will have to re-read your posts there to answer the first part of your question. With respect to the latter, I have not specifically studied the various Jewish sects that existed during Jesus' time. But I suppose you make a point about my use of the word "all." As with Christianity, or any other religion for that matter, there will never be an "all". :D
So I wouldn't doubt that there are those who only follow the Torah and there are probably those who only follow the oral traditions (in fact, I think the gnostics came from that group??? I could be mistaken). But in GENERAL, most Jewish sects see both the Torah and the Talmud as a vital part of study and practice. This would include ultra-orthodox, orthodox, conservative, reform, and reconstruction.
Okay, I'll be back. Kids are home and playing guitar hero, so my focus is a bit off. It is really hard to think deep thoughts when you are listening to "Slow Ride" for the 100,000th time. :blink:
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Abigail
P-Mosh, I'm still looking for the reference to God having a wife. From what I have found so far, I'd say that Asherah was believed by many of the Israelites to be the wife of God. Whether this was a part of Judaism from day one or incorporated from other religions is impossible to say.
However, even a reading of the OT will make it clear that Israel did worship Asherah, though such worship was also spoken against. If my understanding is correct, at some point in time over the course of history, some groups modified Asherah into Shekinah (the female aspect of god).
I guess it goes back to my earlier chicken and egg question, we may never know which came first.
HERE IS an article you may find interesting.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
sirguessalot
Mark...i'm trying to stay away from your other thread...as you obviously have something you really want to teach and share...and a specific method you want to explore...though you seem to have stopped at the first few lines of this one for some reason...and arguing points of the other thread here...so here we go, i guess...
to claim that the hebrew text somehow defines it's self...and then refer to dictionaries and other writers for those definitions...seems a clear contradiction. The bible simply does not interpret it's self. Even if we read hebrew fluently, we cant help but play a big role in our own interpretation of it. We cant help but inquire into all the many overlapping contexts that are outside of the texts.
because so much of what the text is referring to is simply NOT in the text...and so one must leave the bounds of scriptures (and mere definitions of words) in order to find out what is being referred to. And by "leaving the bounds" ...not only do i mean reading material outside of the text, but even more so, actually practicing breathing, for example, using ancient jewish methods. Those who do so are more likely to understand the hebrew text as it pertains to the breath of life. No amount of mere textual research will disclose this information. One must actually go there themselves. Faith without works is dead...yada yada.
and there are many other areas of practice referred to in the OT and NT whose methods and injunctions are NOT explained in much detail in the text, or in the definitions of hebrew words...such as dreaming, fasting, prayerful song, community ritual and rites, oral tradition/transmission, soulful dialogue, etc...and jewish and christian lineages (that are also outside of the text) have developed these arts (by practice) over the millenia (B.C. and A.D.) ...but are largely ignored by recent developments in christianity
like ive said before, somewhat playfully...if you can, go sit in quiet contemplative prayer for over a week ..or a month...then come tell everyone what "really happened" on pentecost, or in the wilderness
one of my constant complaints is that so much of our christianity has disintegrated into being strictly mental...strictly translative...and strictly masculine on masculine seeking seeking seeking...and so our spirituality almost never leaves the head...almost never leaves the realm of thinking and concept and imagination and theology and belief ...never leaves what we think of the pages of words of books and mythologies of beings and realities that are seperate from our selves...so there is little to no experience of practicing and embodying what the text is merely pointing at...and so we suffer from an exotic variety of inflated faith claims
and myth versus myth versus myth versus myth versus myth...and all the silly circular competitive conflicts caused by that
...not only religion versus religion versus religion...but denomination versus denomination versus denomination
and cult versus cult versus cult
but like i attempted to point at in the opening post of this thread...
one can directly experience what is known as "Spirit" for themselves
...with a little practice...perhaps some discipline and luck
but most of all..practice
...
...back later with some comments on the "I-I" of the legendary "I Am"
btw...this article on the Essenes may provide some insight into some little known Gospel-era jewish lineages
...perhaps even related to John the Baptist and the mysterious "men in white"
Edited by sirguessalotLink to comment
Share on other sites
Abigail
To just breath and be quiet, a very difficult thing in our culture! Funny, when a woman lights the sabbath candles, before she says the blessing she uses her hands to draw the light to herself and takes a deep breath.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Abigail
Mark, from my understanding I would say Shekhina is very very similar to the concept of "holy spirit" as taught within TWI. No, Jewish people wouldn't say it was "Christ in you the hope of glory" but many could understand it as the aspect of God that dwells within.
Also, please keep in mind, when studying Judaism (especially the more mystical, non-legalistic aspects) we are often cautioned to remember that at best all we can come up with is bits and pieces/aspects of God. So, for instance, when referring to Shekhina as the female aspect there needs to be emphasis on aspect. It is but one part of a much much much larger whole. The same would be said of referring to God as a father. It is an aspect, a part, it is not the whole. They are descriptive words we use because we need descriptive words to communicate ideas.
I haven't studied ruach. I will try to find some time to do so. But here are a couple of my thoughts from your posts so far.
I would agree with this. But I would take it a step further, because I do believe that spirit of God does also dwell in each of us. Therefore, though we may appear to be physically separated, we are also connected (despite our numerous and differing beliefs). This is one of the reasons I love comparative religion studies. It reminds me of just how connected we truly are. It also saddens me at times, to realize that we often try to separate ourselves over differences that are really unimportant to the bigger picture. IMO, of course.
This is a very Jewish concept, Mark! In fact, Lashan Hora (evil speech) is often cautioned against for this very reason!! Words can be very powerful!!
Finally, I thought you might find it interesting to know that in Hebrew "Ruach Hakodesh" is the term for divine inspiration.
And now it is time for me to enjoy the sabbath candles and spend time with my family. I'll be back over the weekend though. :)
Link to comment
Share on other sites
sirguessalot
so true, Abi.
regarding silence...
Ever notice how uncomfortable most anyone gets when there is a 10-second or so lull in conversation? There is a sense that something is wrong, and so we rush to fill the silence with more words. Ive seen the results of research that show the average maximum time that people can sit quietly together. I recall that it was less than a half of a half minute. They even broke it down per culture...and this is funny, but jews were the worst at 6 seconds. Of course, most of the rabbis in the room where this was presented laughed and nodded.
Some precious things i learned from practicing with Quakers, and using Quaker principles/assumptions for soulful communication...Not only do they begin all meetings with a 5 minute or more period of silence, they treat such "silence" as a member of the group, and allow more room for silence between responses. I found, as they said, that as we re-condition ourselves to allow for such moments, we find that our "soul" has a lot more to say about a matter. Things that would not otherwise be said, or heard. Not even by the speaker.
Also...in some contemplative practices and traditions...20 minutes is often considered a minimum period of time for the mind to begin to become quiet, and various brain waves to settle down...over an hour for to reach other states of mind...and then hours and days and weeks and such to "witness" all the many thoughts and feelings going on in the dark of the self. Which eventually leads to an awareness of why it takes months and years of routine practice to fully sit and let all those voices have their say and become unfolded and untangled.
Of course, the challenge is to stay awake while practicing quieting the mind, being still, and closing the eyes. We typically fall asleep pretty quick, and have to come up with some sort of mental or physical routine. Like the PFAL version of "speaking in tongues." Or watching TV. Or ingesting a stimulant. We are mostly naturally incapable of staying wide awake while "trying to do" absolutely nothing.
This is where paying attention to the breath comes in (not controlling it, but noticing it). Particularly the exhale, like Jesus pointed out. Something natural and sacred and life giving that we are already doing anyway.
John 20:22 ...from the Complete Jewish Bible
Having said this, he breathed on them and said to them, "Receive the Ruach HaKodesh!
Edited by sirguessalotLink to comment
Share on other sites
cman
To think from the spirit...
Requires not thinking I think :).
To get to the place that self has dissolved.
And the greater work is seen takes some Quiet.
Cause that work, is there....able....working...
Then to communicate with others about it...
kind of a challenge.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
sirguessalot
indeed, cman
feeling parabolic tonight...
even a step further...
if Spirit is like the ocean
and we are like a wave of that ocean
...if one looks at the ocean...do we not include every wave in the definition of that ocean?
if Spirit is like a tree
and we are like a leaf of that tree
...if one looks at a tree...do we not include all the leaves in the definition of that tree?
when we speak of our "self"
are we not speaking of a part of God?
as if we are only separate from God by some occasion of language and context
...or perhaps even a natural self-deception
reminds me ...ive heard rabbis metaphorically describe Ruach HaKodesh as a cosmic-sized woman, veiled and hidden under layers upon layers of garments
...where, at first, we may only see the naked tip of the tip of the tip of her fingertips
in time...we may see an entire finger...perhaps even up to her wrist
...and even this is no small occasion..worth celebrating
the radical prophets of old were the kind who gave up all hope of a conventional life and entered the desert for years...decades
...so that may see an entire arm
of course, this "woman" is not a supernatural woman at all, but the receptive womblike and "hollow" nature of Spirit we must enter into to be born again
Link to comment
Share on other sites
sirguessalot
back to "I-I"...
in Genesis too, 28:16 - Jacob wakes after dreaming of seeing his self at the base of an angel-filled ladder
..."Surely, God was in this place and I, I did not know"
ive heard and read many rabbis expound on this. How one's spiritual view of one's self is referred to with two "I"s...two selves...the "i" of the person, and the "I" of the universe, and finding God and worshipping God is another way of saying that we have found our self to be fully inside of God, and our self has been found to be fully inside of God. And God is ALL IN ALL. We have been located from God's point of view, and this temporary ego that God has found is but a bit of paint on the tip of the tip of God's fingernail.
Like when Jesus said "I am the way" ...it was more like saying "I, i is the way." Which is not a statement of his personal exclusive supernatural power to grant access to the divine...but a statement that points to what "he" (both He and God as "I and I" in one) knew to be true about coming to the source and root cause of all existence. Where it can be said that there is no other way for anyone to realize God directly except by waking up to this "I, i." Not that Jesus's life and purpose was not unique and unforgettably worldshaking...he was pointing to that which is already always true in any tongue, any time, any place. And he pointed to it with his very life and death...and mysterious resurrection.
here, too...
Romans 8:16
The Spirit itself beareth witness with our spirit, that we are the children of God:
Just as our body and soul move from being subject (an "I") to object (an "it"),
our wide open self as formless Spirit moves from subject to object.
So that which is clear also becomes an "it."
Then there is found a "paradox in a mirror" that simply shatters our perspective into something new and bigger,
where not only do we find our selves to be that spiritual clearing in which body and soul arise
...but that which is clear observes that which is clear
God can see God in us, and we see can our self in God.
so with practice, discipline...perhaps even via grace in the face of adversity...
our perspective shifts to that of Spirit observing Spirit in everything
...the simplest flicker of our attention
though it will only be a glimpse, a downpayment, a taste of a death to come that is not death at all
it will quickly fade...and our rattled ego will snap back to interpret the experience
...though we may never see our selves the same way again
Edited by sirguessalotLink to comment
Share on other sites
sirguessalot
More regarding “the Trinity” (and the tri-unity i mentioned in the first post) in light of The Spirit…
Like ive posted on around here b4, there seems an entire spectrum of faith development possible, and therefore a spectrum of different ways we interpret the very same texts, as well as how we interpret other theologies...and life in general.
But not all "trinitarians" are at a textual literalist stage of faith. Rather than 3 literal beings, many see (and experience) a Trinity as a profound metaphor for all 3 facets of Divine process...some then further divide the 3 by 3...resulting in 9 manifestations, and 9 fruitions, etc...
…
and too...i see much confusion and illogic (and the resulting suffering) in much of Christianity from trying to understand divine conception and birth in strictly masculine terms….and not just from the odd absence of any reference to the feminine role of Holy Spirit...but an active denial of the possibility of any vital feminine face of the divine…sometimes even agressive to the point of oppressing and killing people…as both history and current events show (from the ole' burning “witches” to the current extreme right's cutting funding and support for childcare, healthcare, education, and social and community motherly arenas)
I would venture to say that masculine-only approaches to God are like "blasphemy against the Holy Spirit"...”unforgivable” perhaps, because rejecting Spirit’s motherness = a “barren womb” = spiritual infertility = no new birth
all competition and striving and perfection…seeking seeking seeking
...no embrace…no reception... no conception...no incubation = no spiritual child
God as “the Father” is an active principle ... the seed planter ... the initiator…a bright and fiery purifier ..who very badly wants to "get inside" and "put something inside”...seeking feminine (consciously or unconsciously)
but God as “the Holy Spirit” is a passive principle...receptive and nurturing...the ground in which the seed is planted...the comfort of a shady place…very badly “wants to bring something outside”...aka spiritual midwifery
though ultimately…they are One…just as the Child is One with them
father + mother + offspring = continuity
but father alone = no offspring = no continuity
…
honestly…
how can we even talk of being "born again" without speaking of a womb?
how can we even talk of being a child of God without speaking of a mother's role?
how can we claim to understand the nature of "the son of man" without spending some time contemplating the role of divine feminine?
who does all the work of seed-transformation?
who gives birth to children? a Father?!?
Who can doubt that a descending dove is a feminine, motherly symbol?
…which also makes me wonder if the "this is my beloved son" could have been heard in a woman's voice
… pleased, for one, that her very long labor is over
…
We see the results of this masculine-only approach to spiritual practice in vpw/pfal/twi type theologies
…where a strictly masculine/anti-feminine spiritual interpretation and practice =
- all intellectualization…no real wisdom or “felt-intelligence”
- all the theoretical headiness of Love…no real living embodiment of that Love
- anti feminine-natured men… anti-gay men ... anti-crying ...anti-emotion
- grooming women to act masculine..and serve masculine...to support masculine-only spirituality
- an imbalanced and twisted view of sexuality resulting in abuse and perversion
- highly competitive in relationships with other beliefs (and other scriptural territorial pi$$ing)
- mistaking the magical bliss of mere spiritual conception (a man’s view…”the inside job”) for the painful developmental process of spiritual birth (a woman’s view…”the outside job”)
- the list goes on
Edited by sirguessalotLink to comment
Share on other sites
cman
Yeah, hm,
can both do different things and be one
i can
is creation the same as birth? birthing?
Revelation 12
1And there appeared a great wonder in heaven; a woman clothed with the sun, and the moon under her feet, and upon her head a crown of twelve stars:
2And she being with child cried, travailing in birth, and pained to be delivered.
I'd say that's a woman.
And not just about Jesus' Christ.
A man MUST be born of water and spirit.
Are they separate or one act in a period of time to us.
In the bigger space there is a time for no time.
The feminine holy spirit and the masculine father god, spirit also.
Living, breathing.....just like us. Just like one humankind.
Who's seed is after itself.
As in the beginning it continues....
The pouring out of the father and mother in union, in sensual adornment.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mark Clarke
Not arguing here, Sirguessalot, just wondering what you make of Matt. 1:18 & 20 and Luke 1:35 which speak of the Holy Spirit conceiving a child in Mary's womb. Would that not indicate the masculine role of the Holy Spirit, while the human Mary is the mother?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
sirguessalot
Thanks Mark
Not necessarily
from reading the text in greek and various english versions,
and including all the other things ive mentioned in this thread
as well as the perspectives of a number of rabbis ive been blessed to encounter
it seems quite possible to me...
that the Child came to Mary from the womb of the Holy Spirit
because Mary herself was "enveloped in the womb of" Holy Spirit
as if the Holy Spirit was already pregnant with the highest potential
and Mary was the vehicle for the feminine principle of God
out of the womb of creation ...and into/through the womb of Mary
...who was not only physically feminine...but spiritually feminine
now...if the text read "...she was found with child of God the Father"
or "...that which is conceived in her is of God the Father..."
...well, we would probably be wondering different things anyway
Edited by sirguessalotLink to comment
Share on other sites
cman
'of' is different from 'by' anyway
'for that which is conceived in her is of the Holy Ghost'
if it included Mary then why not Joseph
what Joseph contributed became part of Mary
while in the womb of the spirit
just looking at 'overshadow' and 'of' should be attention to detail
look 'em up
Mary thy wife
Holy Spirit ain't going to put sperm in Joseph's wife.
What would that be doing?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
cman
afraid of the shadows, the dark secrets
not even approaching the light hidden, seen in the dark
relying on others, not confident in what is already within
fear of loneliness or themselves
closing the ear and eye
looking at that which is seen
Link to comment
Share on other sites
geisha779
Sirguessalot,
I really liked your first post and found soooo much to relate with in my understanding of God. Bet you thought you would never hear that. I wonder what you think of the term or reference Perichoresis. Similar to what you were describing in we humans is what we find in the Godhead. A dance if you will.
Instead of an ocean, I would describe the Spirit. . . or Holy Spirit. . . as the one(person) who allows the community of all three. . . so, not so different I guess.
It IS about community but even more so, perfect community. Perfect communion and perfect love, where there is an overflowing of joy. God is actually glorified within Himself. We were created out of that abundance. Out of that love and overflowing nature of God.
Much nicer than "Gee, God was lonely". Much deeper and more full understanding of God. Beautiful really. Thanks for that.
We are made for community. . . with the Godhead or God. . . and with each other. Which is why Abi, it is so important for a community of belivers or Christians to understand this doctrine. You wonder why I pick? This is why. So different from the dry and "Seemingly" intellectual dessert of so called, monotheism in Cults. (Christianity is a montheistic faith. God is one.)The endless debate and emptiness of it. Which is for the most part rejected. . . . for the fuller and more scriptural Godhead. Not unlike what moved you here on this thread.
This is EXACTLY what gets me about God. Moves me too. This is what makes me so filled. His nature.
More Sirguessalot. . . . I am pretty interested in what you are saying. Very close to what I understand about God. Very cool.
Edited by geisha779Link to comment
Share on other sites
geisha779
Just to add. . . because I read on. . . LOL. . . God is described as a Mother, Father, A woman in Labor, in Luke 15 referred to as the woman with the lost coin, a woman who does not forget her nursing child. . . on goes the list.
. . . . Sorry Abi, take this for what you want. :)
"The Greek phrase translated “the restrainer” is literally “he who restrains” and is obviously in the Masculine gender. The Greek phrase for Holy Spirit is Hagios Pneuma, and Pneuma is a neuter noun.
Although the Hebrew word Ruach (Spirit) is of the feminine gender, the idea of the Holy Spirit being a female presence probably stems from the Hebrew Shekinah, a feminine noun based on the verb shachan (to dwell) that doesn’t appear in the Bible but which was coined by Post-biblical Rabbinic scholars to describe God’s Presence."
Does the gender of a word in greek or Hebrew have to do with gender identity?? I don't think so? I am no scholar though. But, the idea of God unanimously described as male in the bible, is wrong. He is described as both male and female. Not referred to as both. . . described. It is to relate himself to us?? Male and female. No? . . . . The bible says He is Spirit.
Seems kind of a silly distinction. . . . was God the male or female part in the conception? . . . He is God.
The word man has always been used to describe US man and woman. . . we have the word mankind in English.
"God said, "Let us make humankind in our image, after our likeness," and then "God created humankind in his own image, in the image of God he created them, male and female he created them." Thus, the image of God was male and female - not simply one or the other. This is further confirmed in Genesis 5:2 which can be literally translated as "He created them male and female; when they were created, he blessed them and named them Adam." The Hebrew term "adam" means "man" - the context showing whether it means "man" (as opposed to woman) or "mankind" (in the collective sense). Therefore, to whatever degree humanity is made in the image of God, gender is not an issue."
You can't discount the masculine imagery in the bible, the masculine names of God, and the revelation of God as man in Jesus. Which is why the Holy Spirit is referred to as a He as part of God.
Edited by geisha779Link to comment
Share on other sites
geisha779
One more thing. This is exactly the kind of thing revealed in scripture. Not overtly, it has to be seen as a whole. It is revealed. The nature of God. I am so happy someone FINALLY FINALLY FINALLY articulated this a bit for me. Although I would tweak the first post. . . . the concept or understanding from scripture is there. That is what trinitarians are on about. That is the whole triune nature of God and man thing. . . . made in His image.
It is soooo beautiful and sooooo amazing. If we focus so hard on trying to relate to God by our ownselves, what we understand, instead of letting God relate Himself to us. . . . we miss it. It becomes dry and dull and empty. We make God in our image.
I love this thread. It isn't exactly what I understand, but so much CLOSER than I have been able to articulate.
This is why we have worship. . . . how can you not praise such an amazing God.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
sirguessalot
thanks Geisha...i am truly delighted that some patch of common ground has been found
and yeah...life seems full of surprises
... so full of unexpected occasions that perhaps one can even always expect more surprises
i was even dreaming of composing something to add and expand when you posted
but i am soaking in your recent contributions a bit first, letting them re-orient me a bit before i continue
thanks again
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.