My Mother, the Holy Spirit...

a reply to: BELIEVERpriest



The type of person who says men should lead unless they (ALL) fail, which is impossible btw as a man will always be competent as will a woman, but under your belief system would never get the chance to lead because lesser qualified men are prefered to more competent and qualified women, because they are men.

And women should only lead when men fail you say. How misogynistic and misguided you are. You can't say that and say you believe in equality, you said ''I believe men should be leaders" unless they fail.

Men have been failing in this country for hundreds of years and only relatively recently were women allowed to vote, after African American men, and never mind hold office, and now they almost had a President who was a woman.

So your views are out of touch and women can now fail politically just like men have been doing for ever, and, if any politician ever does, suceed too.

You don't think women or Muslim men are fit to or should lead?

How...insane. Men should lead, but not Muslim men, is your view, and I am supposed to just not say how ignorant that is of a thing to say?

Not doing it. It's people like you who are low key about their intolerance and hate of other cultures, who twist logic and apply different standards for people of different religions as if you are being political and not biggoted and ignorant who are the problem in America, not Muslims.

You are why other white European nations think Americans are stupid and uneducated, because of saying things that are very offensive and thinking yourself justified because of a lack of education about Islam or a problem with honesty.

a reply to: SethTsaddik

First, you are making wild assumptions about my character.

You are hypersensitive and assuming I have it out for women and Islam. Just calm down.

originally posted by: BELIEVERpriest
a reply to: SethTsaddik

First, you are making wild assumptions about my character.

You are hypersensitive and assuming I have it out for women and Islam. Just calm down.

I don't have to assume, you provided your views on women leaders and Islam and in both cases you have a twisted ideology you think is justified.

I don't want to know any more.

a reply to: SethTsaddik

That's fine, nor do I need to know you. But here is a piece of advice: The sooner you stop assuming that people with opposing opinions are really out to antagonize you and your personal belief system, the better. The universe is not centered on you.

a reply to: BELIEVERpriest


May Allah bless you with Wisdom.

Salaam.

a reply to: SethTsaddik

Originally posted by SethTsaddik
It's reported by ''Church father" Origen, that the Jewish Gospel of the Hebrews, said by other fathers to be at one time the Gospel of Matthew but interpolated and edited, the virgin birth being excised and this fascinating bit of information.

Origen, Commentary on John, 2.6

"If anyone should lend credence to the Gospel of the Hebrews, where the Saviour Himself says:

"My Mother, the Holy Spirit took me just now by one of my hairs and carried me off to the great Mt. Tabor."

Whatever the “Gospel of Hebrews” was originally, it clearly contained a similar verse that is uniquely exclusive to the “Gospel of Thomas”…and we know that verse is not found in the Gospel of Matthew…so the Church Fathers clearly made a mistake…

Also history appears to point towards “Epiphanius of Salamis”, as being the one who misidentified the “Gospel of the Ebionites”, as being a modified version of the “Gospel of Matthew”…

Originally posted by SethTsaddik
The fact that they are Jewish and not Roman, called Nazarenes and Ebionites and not Christians, were the historical losers, I don't believe that the winners had the legitimate claim as Romans to a Jewish religion that had almost no Jews after the 5th century because they were persecuted out of existence, I believe the Jewish version is correct.

Originally posted by SethTsaddik
"If anyone should lend credence to the Gospel of the Hebrews, where the Saviour Himself says:

"My Mother, the Holy Spirit took me just now by one of my hairs and carried me off to the great Mt. Tabor."

Yes, I think the Jewish version is the correct one too. I also think it more likely that the Ebionites rejected only the “Literal” interpretation of the “virgin birth”, because they understood the deeper esoteric meanings of the story/parable…

They were essentially persecuted for not accepting the strict literalism enforced by the early Roman Church doctrines…because they understood the original meanings behind the parables.

Originally posted bySethTsaddik
On that basis I accept the Gospel of the Hebrews tradition of the Holy Spirit being Jesus Mother, the Divine Feminine that scares so many, as the original tradition.

In the King James Bible the “Holy Spirit” is more often translated as the “Spirit of God”

When a person receives the Spirit of God, they become born again; and they become a New creation. Symbolically this is regarded as becoming a New Son because the Spirit has now birthed them into the Kingdom…

Because the Spirit of God or Holy Spirit symbolically gives birth to the Son, this is the reason why the Holy Spirit has so often been feminised in various sources found outside of the Bible…And of course a Mother gives birth to a Son…

I believe the Ebionites and the Nazarenes understood the true esoteric meanings behind why the Holy Spirit was called Mother; but early Christianity because of incorrect literalistic interpretations rejected those teachings.


- JC

a reply to: Joecroft

Indeed.

I have compared this Mother Holy Spirit to the Shekinah and Sophia, as both are identified with the Holy Spirit in their respective writings.

I also provided some Zohar quotes in some bozos thread about Lilith who was fact shamed into hiding. Check it out.

a reply to: SethTsaddik

Originally posted bySethTsaddik
Indeed.

I have compared this Mother Holy Spirit to the Shekinah and Sophia, as both are identified with the Holy Spirit in their respective writings.

I also provided some Zohar quotes in some bozos thread about Lilith who was fact shamed into hiding. Check it out.

Yeah, I’ve been reading a few of your posts in that thread; some pretty ridiculous opinions from the posters you were discussing it with…IMO…

This isn’t fairly well known, but in the pantheon of Canaan the God Ale had a wife, a female God Consort, who's name was Asherah. And Asherah worship is mentioned quite a few times (in the OT) taking place within Jerusalem.

In fact there was a recent Canaanite dig site (discovered around 30 years ago) where archaeologists discovered an artefact which contained an inscription of both the names Yahweh and his Consort Asherah together…which dates to about the 8th century BC.

Many people aren’t aware of the Canaanite history or even how difficult it is to separate an Israelite from a Canaanite based solely on the historical evidence.


- JC

a reply to: Joecroft

Yes, I discussed Asherah thoroughly in that thread. It's actually El or Illu, not to be a spelling nazi but just so you know, Canaanite is given as Ill or Illu while Hebrew is El. Illhim is also the Host of Heaven and not a name as Elohim is said to be or used as, and plural at that plus masculine and feminine.

Asherah is also Athirat or something but they are the same. Thats how it started as the OP said Asherah and Lilith were the same thing as well as Lucifer and Sophia.

Not the brightest bulb.


Nowadays Elohim is called Mercy and feminine while Yahweh is Judgement and masculine.

Well, the Church was stupid to admit many times that the groups that used this Gospel said it was written by Matthew and were Nazarenes and Ebionites (Poor), two sects mentioned briefly in the New Testament, in the Gospels Jesus is called a Nazarene and the term is even used for Paul, though they rejected him as an apostate according to Eusebius, and Paul says James requested Paul "Remember the poor"(Ebionim/Ebionites) and Jesus also uses the term.

The term Nazarenes comes from Nazar (netser) meaning "shoot" or "sprout" so Jesus the Nazarene implies he was the bringing of truth. Unfortunately that may have been lost on latter writers of Gospels that thought Nazareth was a town. There is no historic reference to a town called Nazareth ever existed in 1AD outside the NT nor was Nazareth ever mentioned in Torah by prophets as written in Matthew 2.23.

Its possible that the early followers of Jesus were called Nazarenes (aka Chrisitians) or the bringers of truth. And from that, latter writers of Gospels (Greeks and Romans) incorrectly assumed that they were from Nazareth. Gospel of Mark never mentions Jesus birth nor resurection, its probably is the oldest Gospel in which the others fabricated the virgin birth and resurection to empower Rome, as Gods spokesman on earth.

On that basis I accept the Gospel of the Hebrews tradition of the Holy Spirit being Jesus Mother, the Divine Feminine that scares so many, as the original tradition.

If one accepts that GOD is everything, then anything else one believes, is insignificant in comparison.

a reply to: glend

I think Nazarene more than likely is related to a term in the DSS Nozrei ha Berit or Keepers of the Covenant and Nozrim is is Hebrew for Nazarene and Christian.

The irony is that Christianity denies the Covenant for the New Covenant or Testament, something the sect of the Scrolls was looking forward to without abandoning the old as a reward for keeping it. It didn't quite work out that way.

It also was the name of John the Baptist's movement prior to Christ and after for centuries. So I think it may also be related to the word Nazirite, though not the same thing, James was a Nazirite and John sounds like one too.

It may just be a corruption of Nazirite too. Branch of Jesse, or root of, that is really where I think it comes from.

originally posted by: DeathSlayer

originally posted by: dfnj2015
a reply to: SethTsaddik

God is definitely a woman. How else can you explain why women are so beautiful?

Yet Jesus talks only about his Father in heaven and NOT a word about his mother in heaven.

hmmmmmm....

Greetings and Namaste, friends. The reason why Master Jesus mostly talked about our Father is due to his particular mission on Earth at that time. I say "mostly" because he did talk about the feminine aspect of God (Mother), but only to teach his disciples deeper mysteries. But to the public, he always talked about Father. As for his mission, Master Jesus is different from mankind because he existed in Heaven before he came here. He had other missions on other planets and worlds. Each mission was represented by a different aspect of God--it can be from Father, Mother, or even by the Son. When a mission is represented by an aspect of God, the Master will mostly talk about that aspect.

As for the Holy Spirit being male or female, he/she is both. It all depends what the Holy Spirit is doing at the moment. For example, when we are speaking of the Holy Spirit as a helper, comforter, or healer for mankind, he is masculine. But when we are talking about the creation of mankind, she is female or a Mother if it's easier to understand. The Holy Spirit is, like you and I, a fragment of God sent to help various worlds. Although the difference is that we were born imperfect and need to evolve, while the Holy Spirit has a beginning as a perfect being.

Peace be with you all.

a reply to: ctophil

I am going to have to disagree, for the obvious reasons I mentioned in my OP.

The Holy Spirit is feminine, like Sophia and the Shekinah, they are all the same thing but through different traditions.

Unfortunately Christianity is male centered and no Orthodox Christian believes this (or most).

But... what the hell do they know?

0.

a reply to: glend

The term Nazarenes comes from Nazar (netser) meaning "shoot" or "sprout" so Jesus the Nazarene implies he was the bringing of truth. Unfortunately that may have been lost on latter writers of Gospels that thought Nazareth was a town. There is no historic reference to a town called Nazareth ever existed in 1AD outside the NT nor was Nazareth ever mentioned in Torah by prophets as written in Matthew 2.23. Its possible that the early followers of Jesus were called Nazarenes (aka Chrisitians) or the bringers of truth. And from that, latter writers of Gospels (Greeks and Romans) incorrectly assumed that they were from Nazareth. Gospel of Mark never mentions Jesus birth nor resurection, its probably is the oldest Gospel in which the others fabricated the virgin birth and resurection to empower Rome, as Gods spokesman on earth.

Not true at all.

Bart Ehrman Blog - 3/1/15

Quote
There is an even bigger problem however. There are numerous compelling pieces of archaeological evidence that in fact Nazareth did exist in Jesus’ day, and that like other villages and towns in that part of Galilee, it was built on the hillside, near where the later rock-cut kokh tombs were built. For one thing, archaeologists have excavated a farm connected with the village, and it dates to the time of Jesus. Salm disputes the finding of the archaeologists who did the excavation (it needs to be remembered, he himself is not an archaeologist but is simply basing his views on what the real archaeologists – all of whom disagree with him — have to say). For one thing, when archaeologist Yardena Alexandre indicated that 165 coins were found in this excavation, she specified in the report that some of them were late, from the fourteenth or fifteenth centuries. This suits Salm’s purposes just fine. But as it turns out, there were among the coins some that date to the Hellenistic, Hasmonean, and early Roman period, that is, the days of Jesus. Salm objected that this was not in Alexandre’s report, but Alexandre has verbally confirmed (to me personally) that in fact it is the case: there were coins in the collection that date to the time prior to the Jewish uprising.

Salm also claims that the pottery found on the site that is dated to the time of Jesus is not really from this period, even though he is not an expert on pottery. Two archaeologists who reply to Salm’s protestations say the following: “Salm’s personal evaluation of the pottery … reveals his lack of expertise in the area as well as his lack of serious research in the sources.” They go on to state: “By ignoring or dismissing solid ceramic, numismatic [that is, coins], and literary evidence for Nazareth’s existence during the Late Hellenisitic and Early Roman period, it would appear that the analysis which René Salm includes in his review, and his recent book must, in itself, be relegated to the realm of ‘myth.’”

But there is more. As it turns out, another discovery was made in ancient Nazareth, a year after Salm’s book appeared. It is a house that dates to the days of Jesus. Again the principal archaeologist was Yardena Alexandre, the excavations director at the Israel Antiquity Authority, whom I again wrote. She has confirmed the news report. The house is located on the hill slopes. Pottery remains connected to the house range from roughly 100 BCE to 100 CE (i.e., the days of Jesus). There is nothing in the house to suggest that the persons inhabiting it over this time had any wealth: there is no glass and no imported products. The vessels are made of clay and chalk.
Unquote

Read this article before further uninformed comments.

Source ehrmanblog.org...

a reply to: SethTsaddik

I am going to have to disagree, for the obvious reasons I mentioned in my OP. The Holy Spirit is feminine, like Sophia and the Shekinah, they are all the same thing but through different traditions. Unfortunately Christianity is male centered and no Orthodox Christian believes this (or most). But... what the hell do they know?

And in this event may I ask what do you know? You may think you know but you know very little the same as all other creatures of the creation of Jesus the Christ know. No one knows the substance or the existence of the Holy Spirit. The Most High El is the Spirit of holiness and nothing of this creation can truthfully say what Spirit is. No one can boast that he/she has the answer to the Spirit of the Most High. Really shows your pride and ignorance.

Male centered cultures as well as female centered cultures are numerous in the history of this creation and to smear a pun to Christianity is as stupid as claiming that the Most High El is as this creation. In lite of this, what the hell do you know?

originally posted by: Seede
a reply to: SethTsaddik

I am going to have to disagree, for the obvious reasons I mentioned in my OP. The Holy Spirit is feminine, like Sophia and the Shekinah, they are all the same thing but through different traditions. Unfortunately Christianity is male centered and no Orthodox Christian believes this (or most). But... what the hell do they know?

And in this event may I ask what do you know? You may think you know but you know very little the same as all other creatures of the creation of Jesus the Christ know. No one knows the substance or the existence of the Holy Spirit. The Most High El is the Spirit of holiness and nothing of this creation can truthfully say what Spirit is. No one can boast that he/she has the answer to the Spirit of the Most High. Really shows your pride and ignorance.

Male centered cultures as well as female centered cultures are numerous in the history of this creation and to smear a pun to Christianity is as stupid as claiming that the Most High El is as this creation. In lite of this, what the hell do you know?

What the hell does anyone know?

I choose to follow the "Gospel of the Hebrews" and believe that the Holy Spirit was Jesus "Mother."

Your problem with this is...?

a reply to: glend

Don't worry about Seede, he is the typical Christian mime, who reiterates all the official Church beliefs always but is usually wrong when it comes to what the Bible actually says and little facts like he thinks he is correcting you on.

You had it right. Netzer for branch of Jesse, who Jesus was a descendant of, probably became Notz-rim or Nazarenes.

Nozrei ha Brit or Keepers of the covenant could also have an influence.

Nazirite is also a good candidate, although not the same thing James and John the Baptist were definitely and probably Nazirites, respectively according to the information we have.

He his a heresy hunter, but factually speaking he is not on point very often.

a reply to: Seede

I have found the article here from Israel Antiquities Authority Site concerning "Residential Building from the Time of Jesus was Exposed in the Heart of Nazareth".

That puts to rest any suggestion that Nazareth was a hypothetical Greek term used to refer to Jesus instead of being his home town.

Thanks for correcting.

You and I agree on so many things Seth and I'm not sure why. I'm not a Muslim and to be honest hearing you makes me realize I really don't know what a Muslim is. That's a completely different conversation though. I'm not a Christian either, though there is a lot of truth in the bible. But here, where I appreciate your knowledge, you affirm my own experience.
I would disagree that we can't know for sure how the female holy spirit or sophia.. works. But I can describe pretty well how it works for me.
This happens almost as much as I can allow it at times, and at other times it's more elusive. Like the wind, it would come and go. But I would say it's my constant state now. But the female part for me is complete immersion in an overwhelming love. It's so strong that I weep for joy. It can go for hours or as long as I like. The caresses themselves are waves and waves of ecstasy. This is all completely without drugs. It is co comforting, such inexplicable joy. It varies in intensity and like fingers can massage and it's all over my body. Like an orgasm, but everywhere and it way eclipses sex. This happens everywhere. Driving, at work, everywhere. I even wake early. It's by choice though and I can go in and out of it almost instantly. But I love to be there so much. She works with Him. Most of the time it's like melting into one. But usually there's thoughts, mostly wordless concepts or memories of past things or epiphany and She confirms it with a spike. Harder to describe than I thought. But that's how it works for me and has been for quite some time.
Anyway... really like the way you answer. Your knowledge is way more than mine but somehow we see things very similar. Appreciated.

a reply to: SethTsaddik

I am sure you and Seede seek truth. Without original documents from the first century, the Codex Sinaiticus and nag hammadi documents remain the only source of real information on early Christianity available. Hopefully older sources still remain hidden.