judge

Well some Christians may have followed Philo but not all.
The Aramaic speaking Christians outside the Roman Empire were seperated geographically, ecclesiastically and theologically from those inside the empire.

It might be that we in the west tend to think of christianity as that which came from or is in communion with the Roman Catholic Church, but of course from earliest times there were believers who had nothing to do with the RCC, or those communities that became part of the RCC.

The Christians in the Parthian empire did not attend the Christological councils within the Roman Empire, they had their own councils where they asserted their independence.

This group is small today partly as they don't agressively proselitise but also because they suffered decimation under Tamerlane.

1000 years ago the "nestorian" church was said to have outnumbered both the Roman and greek churches combined.
But this does not seem relevant to western christians today particularly protestants who really think they arte chosen and that they possess the inerrant authority (whether it be the pope or the bible)

Aquila Pacis

First I'd like to say hi since this is my first post on this board. Peace y'all...

I liked what Loomis wrote in his first post. One should first of all look into what's written...and the passage that he quotes seems to give a clear hint.

But in general it's always about the KIND of god that one looks at, the PERIOD that one deals with and the religion in general. Greek and Romans had several gods, some of them male (Mars, Jupiter etc.), some of them female (Venus, Victoria etc.). Then there's the problem of "personification" of attributes, e.g. Victoria, Clementia etc. pp. Depending on the zeitgeist, attributes might well turn out male, sometimes female, probably depending on the gender of the current ruler, who supervises the personification - or the alteration of a pre-existing god(ess) respectively.

With the monotheistic religions it only seems to be difficult. As I recall, Jesus calls his god "abba", which means father. And the likeness-thing: well if god created man (= the human), this would include male and female. The common denominator is homo sapiens, not the sex. Most rulers of ancient times were male, so it's logical that they turned out male in divine form as well. Cleopatra - as a god - surely was NOT male. Why should SHE have been anything else? Maia, god mother of the Earth, same thing. In Rome everyone saw Amon Zeus as a male god, because they knew he had been Alexander the Great as a human...although: he may have been a suitable first candidate for a mixed gender form. He-he.

Not a lot of writings have survived. So images are often superior, especially since they were the primary form of propaganda and "news broadcast" for the common people, the "believers", in the form of coins, reliefs etc. Jesus (who is a god btw) was always depicted as male, his father (!) as well. The popularity of "Mother of God" Maria in most southern countries seems to be not feminist compensation, but a clue that in earliest christian times, Maria (or her progenitor) might have had the status of a god, female that is. (Btw, for a lot of christians the holy trinity knows no father, but only Maria-Jesus-HolySpirit. Think about it.)

Since religion also always meant politics, one should look in different places too. In Rome the founders of a state, a civilization etc. received the title pater patriae (father of the fatherland), Romulus for example. But that was the male form (because he WAS male); the official title however was "parens patriae" ("parent"), which comprises both male and female. A god is also a founder, founder of religion, of a "kingdom of god" etc., and a parent - to stay with the analogy...(and with Adam and Eve for that matter.)

Of course, if you belong to this (huge) group of people who see gods as something being not from and not in this world, then even the term "asexual" wouldn't fit, because "asexual" is something that is very real. I personally like the pragmatic approach: gods are something human and logical. We made them ourselves. So they have a gender. It may be undefined if we're dealing with a very ancient god, but for the modern gods like Jahwe, Jesus etc. it's pretty clear: most of them are male...sorry ladies!

Tybalt

I have a question~ Wasn't early christianity celebrated with orgies staged by priests as a way to be in touch with god, or is that just a rumour? Also, if the bible is true, it mentions women as property way too many times for 'god' to be female.

Toto

Sounds like a rumor, or you've been reading popular fiction.

Where would those mentions be?

Ancient societies were heirarchical. Slaves were property, and women were subordinate members of the patriarchal society, but both of these conditions were also true of neighboring societies that did have goddesses as part of their pantheons.

Aquila Pacis

If it's "rumor", it's a very old one. I vaguely remember reading something in a book about christian apocryphal writings (maybe it was Schneemelcher...have to look that up). As far as I can recall some of the apocryphal writings originated from an early-christian sect in Egypt that was SAID to perform sexual orgies. The orgy-thing need not be true, but it's what was written about the authors of those apocryphal gospels. Propaganda, launched by the auteurs of today's christianity? It was probably just a rumor back then, but nonetheless exploited to propagate "true" Christendom. Either way, this definitely seems to be no more than a side aspect.

True if you take up a man's point of view. Women, of course, were not powerless. In terms of religion they had their own rituals and closed circles, something that for example Christianity is lacking. They were true citizens like their men...there were female entrepreneurs (and I DON'T mean prostitutes!!)...but as Toto rightly said they were part of a patriarchal society, and there were limitations, similar to a son still living in his father's house. But very often they used their sons, their men, to gain power for their gens, and often power for themselves. If one looks at ancient rulers, one should not underestimate the role of the woman at his side. Very often SHE was the one putting the pieces together for the people (in religious, i.e. political terms) while HE was busy fighting his war.

Aquila Pacis

I've looked it up and it's not a rumor, it wasn't even a rumor in early Christian times. There were some dissipated gnostic sects in Egypt (Nicolaites, Borborians etc.), some of them pretty esoteric, who on the one hand refrained from bodily pleasure, but on the other hand included obscene practices in their liturgy as rites of redemption. Some scholars see these practices as prototypes of later eucharistic rites. In the sects' apocryphal gospels, e.g. the "Questions of Maria", Jesus is the "revelator" of these obscene rites, having sexual intercourse with Maria (not his mother, but most probably Magdalene or Maria Salome). Epiphanius also writes about this episode from the apocryphal gospel, and on other "obscene gnostic sects" and their writings as well, e.g. "The Book of Jeû". An interesting gospel is the "Gospel of Maria" which clearly states the subordinate role of women in the sects' (religious) society. Andreas and Simon Peter don't believe Maria's testimony. Peter even asks the other disciples a rhetorical question: "Has he [Jesus] spoken with her secretly? [...] Has he favored her over us?" Similar attitudes can be found in the "Pistis Sophia"-gospel (see also below) and in the Gospel of Thomas, where Peter says: "Maria shall leave us, because women are not worthy of life."

Another interesting thing on (the christian) god's gender - at least as seen by some gnostics - is the "Pistis Sophia". For K. R. Koestlin, Sophia is a fallen, penitent entity; E. Renan translates "Pistis Sophia" with "the believing wisdom" (personification!); for R. Eisler Sophia is the entity living alongside God, as "faith", "faithfulness" and "belief" and as an intervening element during creation. The most logical explanation is given by C. Schmidt and W. Schneemelcher, who trace the Pistis Sophia back to a letter by Eugnostos and yet another gospel called "The Sophia of Jesus Christ" (Nag Hammadi codex). There Jesus manifests himself as male and female: his manliness is called the "redeemer", the "creator of a all things"; his femininity is the "Sophia, all-mother, called 'the Pistis' by some." In Eugnostos' letter there is some additional information: Pistis Sophia is defined (i) as the redeemer's companion, forming a pair and (ii) as the female designation of his sixth emanation.

(cf. Schneemelcher 290 ff. & 311 ff.)

Malintent

God, as the "creator", is female by definition. That which creates life is female.

Secondly, the biblical god does not exist. There is no question (not to say that is why there is NO god...just that it is clear that the biblical god is literary crap) that the biblical god is male (Him). That is just more reason to understand that "He" dosen't exist (at least not as a "creator")

Berthold

In the many instances in the OT when God says, "I am the Lord", is Lord male in the original?

Aquila Pacis

I'm an artist and I must firmly contradict. I believe the notion of anything "creative" being "female" to be complete nonsense. If you reduce the term "creation" to a mere "giving birth" in a human context and by conventional means (no cloning etc.), then yes, this form of "creation" can be labeled "female". But to create life in general, the woman alone will be of no use. Moreover, nature knows ways of creating life asexually.

In addition, if you regard the religious creation of the "world" not physically (big bang) or metaphorically (Eden etc.) but as a creation and foundation of God's kingdom on Earth, the forming of a unifiying state of culture, belief, war and politics, a meta-kingdom so to speak, an uber-empire etc., then I don't see any reason, why a creator in this context needs to be female "by definition". Chances are higher that he is male (patriarchal societies, see above).

If there are people believing in god, he MUST exist (or she, depending on which god they believe in). I'm going to repeat myself: "existing" means being in this world and from this world, even if it only means "being" in the minds and/or hearts of the people. God as an entity that "is" outside our cosmic realm (i.e. our universe) "is not" and will have no means of influence.

Let's agree on messed-up literature, patchwork, self-contradictory etc. pp.

Toto

Definitely in the Greek = KYRIOS, not KYRIA.

I don't think that there is any question that the Bible uses male pronouns and male imagery to refer to god (father, abba, etc.) The question is - why did Dennis Prager say the the Judeo-Christian god is the "first god in history entirely devoid of sexual characteristics or sexual behavior?" Is this true?