Is there a faith (religion) with a female Jesus figure?

[Really_Not_All_That_Bright]

@Pastor_Torch

@kanicbird

Any matriarchal faiths with a female daughter savior figure?

Jesus was a man(male) for many reasons.

Creative license?

@BrightNShiny

Finally, I’m not enough of an expert in Christian theology to know if there’s an equivalence in Hinduism. If my understanding of Christian evangelical doctrine is correct, then I don’t think there’s an equivalence. However, I always thought the theology laid out in the last book of the Chronicles of Narnia was very similar to many Hindu concepts (although that might just be me reading it through a Hindu lens). If so, then one could think of some of the Hindu goddesses as serving the same purpose as Jesus.

I always thought the ascent of the Pandavas (more specifically, Yudhisthira) into the mountains (and towards heaven) at the end of the Mahabharata was in many ways analogous to the New Testament. Of course, he’s not female.

[Guinastasia]

@The_Flying_Dutchman

It is my understanding that RCs have this concept of the immaculate conception, excusing her from the original sin and presumably capable of being sinless at the time of Jesus’ conception.

That pretty well makes her unique amongst humankind, and given the predelection amongst RCs to pray to her for intercession 2000 years after her birth, we should be able to assume that RCs believe that she has been miraculously resurrected like Jesus and not without influence amongst the triumvirate power that is.

Call her semi-divine if you wish, but she sure has as much power ascribed to her as many other godesses in the history of mankind.

That’s not how sainthood works. You can pray to any saint. Basically, you’re asking Mary to pray for you. She’s working through god. A saint, is basically, someone who is in heaven. A canonized saint, the ones WE think of, are ones the Church RECOGNIZES as being in heaven for certain. So Mary is not divine, and that’s considered a incorrect according to Catholic teaching. She’s just the Head of the Saints.

That’s a mistake many non-Catholics make, and a lot of anti-Catholics will charge them with “Mary-worship”, which is false. No proper Catholic worships saints, even Mary. They simply hold her in special esteem, or respect.

Think of the Hail Mary:

*Hail Mary, full of grace,
the Lord is with thee
Blessed are you among women
And blessed is the fruit of the thy womb,
Jesus
Holy Mary, Mother of God
Pray for us sinners
Now and at the hour of death,
Amen
*

Note the “prayer for us” part.

[BrightNShiny]

@Really_Not_All_That_Bright

I always thought the ascent of the Pandavas (more specifically, Yudhisthira) into the mountains (and towards heaven) at the end of the Mahabharata was in many ways analogous to the New Testament. Of course, he’s not female.

That’s interesting. I’ll have to think about that.

I think what trips me up in trying to find equivalences between Christianity and Hinduism is that there isn’t really a notion of original sin (if I understand the concept) in Hinduism, and thus there’s no need for a figure to redeem everyone from the original sin.

[BrightNShiny]

@Guinastasia

That’s not how sainthood works. You can pray to any saint. Basically, you’re asking Mary to pray for you. She’s working through god. A saint, is basically, someone who is in heaven. A canonized saint, the ones WE think of, are ones the Church RECOGNIZES as being in heaven for certain. So Mary is not divine, and that’s considered a incorrect according to Catholic teaching. She’s just the Head of the Saints.

That’s a mistake many non-Catholics make, and a lot of anti-Catholics will charge them with “Mary-worship”, which is false. No proper Catholic worships saints, even Mary. They simply hold her in special esteem, or respect.

Think of the Hail Mary:

*Hail Mary, full of grace,
the Lord is with thee
Blessed are you among women
And blessed is the fruit of the thy womb,
Jesus
Holy Mary, Mother of God
Pray for us sinners
Now and at the hour of death,
Amen
*

Note the “prayer for us” part.

Based on this explanation, it’s probably not correct to analogize directly from Hindu saints to Catholic saints. I don’t think most branches of Hinduism make such a formal distinction over who is answering a prayer, since it all is supposed to ultimately stem from the same source.

[Pastor_Torch]

@kanicbird

@Pastor_Torch

Jesus was a man(male) for many reasons.

…

I just thought you ought to know that.

I do know that, but also that what we have on earth is a reflection of what is in the heavens, which the basic unit is ‘family’, so there has to be a Father Mother Son and Daughter in the family of God. Also what is bound on earth is bound in heaven, so the ‘demotion’ of females on earth through Eve has to equate to a demotion of females in the heavens, so God the Father’s female counterpart (Mother God) had to be demoted also.

The patriarchal faiths have the God in heaven, and is dominant, women are pretty much removed from much of scripture and a ‘mother god’ is pretty much hidden. The matriarchal faiths have their goddess on earth (or the universe/creation) and is about getting grounded, earth based, and also somewhat secretive basically worshiping the Mother who has been put down (to earth) in a position of submission.

Then we have the male child, Christ, who in the patriarchal faith which we call Christianity is the Son, who serves the function of having everything come back together, but if the unit is the family there should be a female counterpart daughter of God equally as important (but also pretty much removed from patriarchal faiths texts), but interdependent with Chirst but would be more hidden as women were in submission by the conditions set by A&E’s actions.

I was hoping for a matriarchal faith savior figure, which one has proposed, along with some Buddha’s figures (and Mary).

I follow your reasoning, but you might want to consider this assertion.

God made man in His image… the use of the word ‘man’ in that text is speciffic to the one man, Adam. (And not all of mankind).

God then put Adam to sleep, and drew (as it were) wo-man out of the man, to make for him a help mate.

So the concept is this: God need not be either male or female, and in fact, is complete in himself. God can create life without aid of a partner. Adam, the original man, may have been so created, and may have been able to birth life by himself. But God choose to split that function between two people, the Man and the woman.

This line of reasoning also suggests that in the after-life, there will be no need for the distinction of male and female, and everyone will again be complete in themselves.

The purpose behind seperating the sexes was to give us an object leson about authority. If two people are going to work togeather one has to take the lead, the other has to follow it. The leader has the greater authority to choose what is to be done, and how. The follower has only to do the work they are given. This team effort breaks down if the leader abuses the follower, or the follower tries to do thier own thing.

The row-boat analogy: If two people are in a boat, and they work togeather, one has to choose which direction to go, the other has only to row the boat. If they work togeather well, they will get where they are going, but if not, they won’t.
If no one rows, there is nothing to stear. If no one stears, they go in circles, either way, they get nowhere. But if the one stearing chooses the direction poorly, they could end up on the rocks, or lost at sea, and never make harbour.

What you are looking for is an oxy-moron because it is never acceptable for the one who rows to mutany against the one who stears. In other words, the saviour of u all can’t be someone who by deffinition has broken the fundamental rules.

[Attack_from_the_3rd_dimension]

@Pastor_Torch

I follow your reasoning, but you might want to consider this assertion.

God made man in His image… the use of the word ‘man’ in that text is speciffic to the one man, Adam. (And not all of mankind).

God then put Adam to sleep, and drew (as it were) wo-man out of the man, to make for him a help mate.

So the concept is this: God need not be either male or female, and in fact, is complete in himself. God can create life without aid of a partner. Adam, the original man, may have been so created, and may have been able to birth life by himself. But God choose to split that function between two people, the Man and the woman.

This line of reasoning also suggests that in the after-life, there will be no need for the distinction of male and female, and everyone will again be complete in themselves.

The purpose behind seperating the sexes was to give us an object leson about authority. If two people are going to work togeather one has to take the lead, the other has to follow it. The leader has the greater authority to choose what is to be done, and how. The follower has only to do the work they are given. This team effort breaks down if the leader abuses the follower, or the follower tries to do thier own thing.

The row-boat analogy: If two people are in a boat, and they work togeather, one has to choose which direction to go, the other has only to row the boat. If they work togeather well, they will get where they are going, but if not, they won’t.
If no one rows, there is nothing to stear. If no one stears, they go in circles, either way, they get nowhere. But if the one stearing chooses the direction poorly, they could end up on the rocks, or lost at sea, and never make harbour.

What you are looking for is an oxy-moron because it is never acceptable for the one who rows to mutany against the one who stears. In other words, the saviour of u all can’t be someone who by deffinition has broken the fundamental rules.

Join date August 2010. Booyah!

Welcome to the Dope Pastor Torch. Good luck.

By the way, what kind of rowboat are you using? Most of the time I just steer with the oars, by putting more or less effort into one stroke, or rowing a shorter stroke. Also, I don’t understand how we jumped from rowing to ‘broken the fundamental rules’. Who’s rowing? Me? My female other half? The Bodhisattva of Compassion? I’m lost at sea here.

[Skald_the_Rhymer]

@Pastor_Torch

So the concept is this: God need not be either male or female, and in fact, is complete in himself.

There’s a problem somewhere in this sentence.

[kanicbird]

@Pastor_Torch

I follow your reasoning, but you might want to consider this assertion.

God made man in His image… the use of the word ‘man’ in that text is speciffic to the one man, Adam. (And not all of mankind).

God then put Adam to sleep, and drew (as it were) wo-man out of the man, to make for him a help mate.

So the concept is this: God need not be either male or female, and in fact, is complete in himself. God can create life without aid of a partner. Adam, the original man, may have been so created, and may have been able to birth life by himself. But God choose to split that function between two people, the Man and the woman.

This line of reasoning also suggests that in the after-life, there will be no need for the distinction of male and female, and everyone will again be complete in themselves.

The purpose behind seperating the sexes was to give us an object leson about authority. If two people are going to work togeather one has to take the lead, the other has to follow it. The leader has the greater authority to choose what is to be done, and how. The follower has only to do the work they are given. This team effort breaks down if the leader abuses the follower, or the follower tries to do thier own thing.

The row-boat analogy: If two people are in a boat, and they work togeather, one has to choose which direction to go, the other has only to row the boat. If they work togeather well, they will get where they are going, but if not, they won’t.
If no one rows, there is nothing to stear. If no one stears, they go in circles, either way, they get nowhere. But if the one stearing chooses the direction poorly, they could end up on the rocks, or lost at sea, and never make harbour.

What you are looking for is an oxy-moron because it is never acceptable for the one who rows to mutany against the one who stears. In other words, the saviour of u all can’t be someone who by deffinition has broken the fundamental rules.

But man at first was male and female (as Eve was within Adam), then woman was removed from what was called man (that which was taken out of man). So man retained the title ‘man’, but is now incomplete, as what is called ‘woman’ is removed.

In much the same way (as earth is a reflection of the heavens), The Father God, would be the Father when combined with Mother as one, the title would be Father, once separated the Father would still retain that title, though the Mother would be removed from Him.

This cause a separation between heaven and earth, between God (Father) and creation (Mother), which comes back together in the new heaven and new earth, as one, through the children of God (us through Christ).

We are only complete in ourselves if we become one with God through Christ, which means we are one with the family of God, and therefor complete because we are part of the family. By and in ourselves, which is the way of this world we are nothing.

Dividing man and woman was God’s plan before the fall, as satisfied Adam (and Eve) beyond what God could do otherwise. It was only outside temptation that caused the problem, with God’s Spirit, that temptation will not happen again.

[Johanna]

@Polycarp

Think of it as effectively a SF-style time loop: she was enabled to raise Him to be what He ended up being by His action reaching back in time to make her what she needed to be in order to raise Him as He needed to be raised.

Sub specie æternitatis.
Very neat.

[Kolga]

@Maggie_the_Ocelot

I am…paralyzed by the sheer number of factual errors.

Seriously. I think I just sort of…stopped and sat there after reading that.