It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Mary - The androgynous mother of God incarnated.

page: 1
2
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 31 2018 @ 11:15 AM
link   
Genesis 1:27
And God created Man at His image and likeness; male and female He create them.

I interpret this verse as God creating one being with 2 sexes. A dual being that do not have the need for a couple. I came to that conclusion because
there is a distinction made; He created Man (not necessarily a male, but a being called Man). After that says He made them male and female.
This Man is both male and female. Although the text uses the word "them" this just implies a duality.

Genesis 5:1 and 2
1 This is the book of the generations of Adam. The day God created Man, as His image God created it.
2 Male and female created them; and blessed them, and call their name Adam, the day they were created.

On this chapter the distinctions about Man, male and female are used again. So my take is this Man was an androgynous being having both male and female sexes. But at some moment they were separated (the Hebrew word used in the bible is tsela meaning side). And this act became the original sin. Man became human.

How that relates to title of this post?
Well, God in order to show us the way to acquire divinity and eternal life needed to become human as well. But for that He needed a perfect being. One that could withstand His power without killing it.
So there appears Mary a perfect being; without sin because she had both sexes. Like the prayer says: "Hail Mary, without sin conceived...".
The stage has being properly set for Jesus to be born out of a perfect being.
That is the reason Jesus always refer to himself as the Son of Man.




posted on Jan, 31 2018 @ 11:30 AM
link   
a reply to: Abednego


Genesis 1:27
And God created Man at His image and likeness; male and female He create them.

I always thought the "And Female" part was an addendum . The patriarchy got too many complaints so they 'changed it', sort of.

Not the God created man "First" part, anyway.



posted on Jan, 31 2018 @ 12:06 PM
link   
a reply to: intrptr

The patriarch conspiracy (who would have though so).


On a serious note:

Any student of the occult will tell you about the importance of the female sex. They carry the organ that is able to bring life.

The cup that holds life. The female sex is the one that more probably can evolve to have offspring without the male counterpart.

What is easier to evolve? A tiny little spermatozoid or a whole womb.



posted on Jan, 31 2018 @ 12:07 PM
link   
a reply to: Abednego

Is that how you read that verse?

I don't.

Mary was a natural woman, who married a natural man, quite young, and bore three other boys and at least two girls before he passed away.

She self-identified as female (handmaiden of God) and that the Spirit of God had 'fathered' Jesus.

She doesn't appear to be recorded as androgynous, or to have produced Jesus by parthenogenesis in the Gospels.



posted on Jan, 31 2018 @ 12:27 PM
link   
a reply to: chr0naut

- Parthenogenesis can be inferred by the fact that she became pregnant while being virgin.


- If any physiological problem were exposed even at her birth, this would has been considered an abomination. So her parents might have look for ways for hiding her and teach her about not speaking of her "problem"
(of course this a supposition)

But who knows.



posted on Jan, 31 2018 @ 02:16 PM
link   
a reply to: Abednego

What about Adam's first wife?

"In the beginning was Adam(u) and Lilith created from the same dirt..." (read: EQUAL)

Sometimes things get lost in translation, now when The Quorum got together to copy things they deemed appropriate some 200+ years after the main character roamed about, imagine the items they didn't allow in??


Here is one You can research on Your own: Gilgamesh is TheBible's™ who? Which character?



posted on Jan, 31 2018 @ 02:23 PM
link   
a reply to: Abednego


Genesis 1:27 And God created Man at His image and likeness; male and female He create them.

I interpret this verse as God creating one being with 2 sexes. A dual being that do not have the need for a couple. I came to that conclusion because there is a distinction made; He created Man (not necessarily a male, but a being called Man). After that says He made them male and female. This Man is both male and female. Although the text uses the word "them" this just implies a duality.

Why did you present only a partial verse? The entire verse reads ----

Gen 1:27 So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.

Are you aware that the usage of a semicolon, in this instance, denotes two interconnected statements? You are trying to make the author say something that he is not saying. That is disingenuous to say the least.

The scriptures describe that God created man as one complete act. As man became in need of a companion, God then made woman from the man. This was another complete and separate act. Just as Genesis 1:27 has been written, the semicolon depicts the two acts. The man was made from the created substances while outside of the Gan Eden. The woman was made from the man inside of Gan Eden. The time between these two acts is not given. You cannot present a complete intent of an author without presenting the complete texts and in the contextual thought.



posted on Jan, 31 2018 @ 02:29 PM
link   
ohh hermaphrodite god

sweet

probably a gem in the swing community



posted on Jan, 31 2018 @ 02:55 PM
link   
a reply to: Abednego


Any student of the occult will tell you about the importance of the female sex. They carry the organ that is able to bring life.

I agree, but not for occult reasons either. Women are the engine of life.

Men and women compliment each other to make a whole.


What is easier to evolve? A tiny little spermatozoid or a whole womb.

The magic of the womb, DNA, eggs and cell division are to complex to just have 'evolved' , imo.

On a sillier note, it just struck me, how can God have a mother? That means that God isn't The Father either.
What tangled webs men weave.



posted on Jan, 31 2018 @ 02:56 PM
link   
a reply to: Seede

I translated from Spanish to English (and that was the punctuation) and you use the direct text from the English. I'll take that. Thanks.



posted on Jan, 31 2018 @ 03:19 PM
link   
Mary was originally described as a young woman. Originally she was not described as being a virgin. We actually can't know if she was a virgin or not, we can only assume this, based on how was a woman supposed to be before marriage, for thousands of years.
Only later, translators and interpreters of the Scriptures thought that if she was young, she must have been a virgin too.
Saying a "young pregnant woman [or Mary]" doesn't have the same impact as "a virgin and pregnant woman [or Mary]", does it?

Personally, I want to believe she was a virgin ... but im not sure how to feel at the thought of her being a hermaphrodite...



posted on Jan, 31 2018 @ 03:22 PM
link   
a reply to: JimNasium

That would be another thread.

The Hebrew word adam can be translated as human or ground too. And not necessarily a male human. So there is something missing here. About Lillith is supposed to be a demon or at least that her most noticeable attribute. But if we look at the root of the word demon - daimon or daemon - it may mean a lesser spirit, divine spirit, internal struggle. There is no 100% agreement on the real meaning.


Gilgamesh= Noah


Sorry if I take too much time answering. I'm at work.



posted on Jan, 31 2018 @ 03:27 PM
link   
a reply to: Lysergic


Sounds weird, I know. But is not like that.



posted on Jan, 31 2018 @ 03:54 PM
link   

originally posted by: intrptr
a reply to: Abednego


Any student of the occult will tell you about the importance of the female sex. They carry the organ that is able to bring life.

I agree, but not for occult reasons either. Women are the engine of life.

Men and women compliment each other to make a whole.


What is easier to evolve? A tiny little spermatozoid or a whole womb.

The magic of the womb, DNA, eggs and cell division are to complex to just have 'evolved' , imo.

On a sillier note, it just struck me, how can God have a mother? That means that God isn't The Father either.
What tangled webs men weave.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

There is no occult reason. But the thing is that the sexual intercourse is the representation of the unity of God, the duality that becomes 1.

God is All, He does not have a mother He is Self Begotten.

The heck we do not even know if God is a male or female looking being.



posted on Jan, 31 2018 @ 04:06 PM
link   
a reply to: Kryscent

I get that feeling every time my mind comes with this kind of stuff. I usually call my instructor and tell him what I'm thinking and he respond with a "yes", "maybe" or "go read this book and we will discuss it later".



posted on Jan, 31 2018 @ 06:28 PM
link   
a reply to: Abednego


The heck we do not even know if God is a male or female looking being.


"We" are made in "Their" image. I always thought that was pretty explanatory.

Can you imagine an eternity without sex?

I can't.



posted on Jan, 31 2018 @ 08:53 PM
link   

originally posted by: Abednego
a reply to: chr0naut

- Parthenogenesis can be inferred by the fact that she became pregnant while being virgin.


- If any physiological problem were exposed even at her birth, this would has been considered an abomination. So her parents might have look for ways for hiding her and teach her about not speaking of her "problem"
(of course this a supposition)

But who knows.


What about getting pregnant before marriage? Wouldn't that also have a certain degree of stigma at the time?

Also, I'm unsure of the use of the word 'abomination' in this context.



posted on Feb, 1 2018 @ 07:05 AM
link   

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: Abednego
a reply to: chr0naut


What about getting pregnant before marriage? Wouldn't that also have a certain degree of stigma at the time?

Also, I'm unsure of the use of the word 'abomination' in this context.


This is just one of many theories about this. We will never be 100% sure until the times comes. A spiritual being coming down from heaven in a cloud or an alien coming down in a spaceship saying my name is Jesus.

I use the word in the context of that time, anything that were not normal was considered a punishment from God.



posted on Feb, 2 2018 @ 07:26 PM
link   
a reply to: Abednego
"Man" is a synonym for mankind. God created mankind male and female. Male and female he created them. Just remember that the Hebrew word for "man(kind)" is "Adam". Which just happens to be also the name given to the first male that was created. That is one of the reasons that allows some people to spread confusion or for some people to be confused by those intent on staying in the dark about this, or unintentionally.

Genesis 5:1,2 (NWT)

5 This is the book of Adam’s history. In the day that God created Adam, he made him in the likeness of God [whereislogic: talking about the male named Adam]. 2 Male and female he created them. [whereislogic: talking about mankind as a whole, sharing additional information] On the day they were created, he blessed them and named them Man.* [Or “Adam; Mankind.”]

The same thing is happening in Genesis 1:27 (2 slightly different but related subjects):

And God went on to create the man in his image, in God’s image he created him; male and female he created them.

First some information about how God created the male named Adam, then some information about mankind and gender. Cause creating the male named Adam was the first step in creating mankind. Creating the first female was the 2nd step of creating mankind and the completion of that creation (of mankind).

Some historical background concerning the veneration of Mary as "the mother of God":

One Myth Leads to Another (and subsequent pages)

Myth 4: God Is a Trinity

What is the origin of the myth?


“The impression could arise that the Trinitarian dogma is in the last analysis a late 4th-century invention. In a sense, this is true . . . The formulation ‘one God in three Persons’ was not solidly established, certainly not fully assimilated into Christian life and its profession of faith, prior to the end of the 4th century.”​—New Catholic Encyclopedia (1967), Volume 14, page 299.

“The Council of Nicaea met on May 20, 325 [C.E.]. Constantine himself presided, actively guiding the discussions, and personally proposed . . . the crucial formula expressing the relation of Christ to God in the creed issued by the council, ‘of one substance with the Father.’ . . . Overawed by the emperor, the bishops, with two exceptions only, signed the creed, many of them much against their inclination.”​—Encyclopædia Britannica (1970), Volume 6, page 386.

What does the Bible say?

“Stephen, filled with the Holy Spirit, gazed into heaven and saw the glory of God, and Jesus standing at God’s right hand. ‘Look! I can see heaven thrown open,’ he said, ‘and the Son of man standing at the right hand of God.’”​—Acts 7:55, 56, The New Jerusalem Bible.

What did this vision reveal? Filled with God’s active force, Stephen saw Jesus “standing at God’s right hand.” Clearly, then, Jesus did not become God again after his resurrection to heaven but, rather, a distinct spiritual being. There is no mention of a third person next to God in this account. Despite attempts to find passages of Scripture to support the Trinity dogma, Dominican priest Marie-Émile Boismard wrote in his book À l’aube du christianisme​—La naissance des dogmes (At the Dawn of Christianity—​The Birth of Dogmas): “The statement that there are three persons in the one God . . . cannot be read anywhere in the New Testament.”

The dogma that Constantine championed was intended to put an end to dissensions within the fourth-century Church. However, it actually raised another issue: Was Mary, the woman who bore Jesus, “the Mother of God”?

Compare these Bible verses: Matthew 26:39; John 14:28; 1 Corinthians 15:27, 28; Colossians 1:15, 16

FACT:

The Trinitarian dogma is a late fourth-century invention

...
Myth 5: Mary Is the Mother of God

What is the origin of the myth?


“Veneration of the mother of God received its impetus when . . . the pagan masses streamed into the church. . . . Their piety and religious consciousness [that of pagans converted to Christianity] had been formed for millennia through the cult of the ‘great mother’ goddess and the ‘divine virgin.’”​—The New Encyclopædia Britannica (1988), Volume 16, pages 326 and 327.

What does the Bible say?

“You are to conceive in your womb and bear a son, and you must name him Jesus. He will be great and will be called Son of the Most High. . . . And so the child will be holy and will be called Son of God.”​—Italics ours; Luke 1:31-35, The New Jerusalem Bible.

That passage of Scripture clearly states that Mary was the mother of the “Son of God,” not of God himself. Could she have carried within her the One whom ‘the heavens themselves cannot contain’? (1 Kings 8:27) She never made such a claim. It is the teaching about the Trinity that has sown confusion over the identity of Mary. By proclaiming her Theotokos (a Greek word meaning “God-bearer”), or “Mother of God,” the Council of Ephesus, in 431 C.E., set the stage for Mary worship. The city of Ephesus where this church council was held had for centuries been at the heart of idol worship celebrating the fertility goddess Artemis.

So it was that many aspects of the worship of the image of Artemis that “fell from heaven,” such as processions, were integrated into Mary worship. (Acts 19:35) Another practice that crept into Christian teaching was the use of images of Mary and others in worship.

Compare these Bible verses: Matthew 13:53-56; Mark 3:31-35; Luke 11:27, 28

FACT:

Mary was the mother of the Son of God, not of God himself. The Trinity myth gave birth to the worship of Mary as the Mother of God

edit on 2-2-2018 by whereislogic because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 3 2018 @ 10:30 AM
link   
a reply to: whereislogic

I think you did not understand the post. It is based on just a supposition, for the purpose of stimulating the debate about a theme in particular.

Not to take it as fact. In your reply you did not even express your opinion about it. You just came with a lot of stuff unrelated to the post.

And in regard of the Council of Nicea, catholic church was created for political reasons, not for spirituality. That is why the bible.that they presented has so many incongruemcies.

They left out hundreds of others books and writings, because they were not good for their purpose.

And most importantly, they did not knew about the oral traditions, the stuff that is not written but is pass from mouth to ear.




top topics



 
2
<<   2 >>

log in

join