Amie
09-12-2007, 10:17 AM
Okay, this isn't just about that book, it is concerning some stuff that I read on the author's website that concerns me.. not that it's about me, but that I felt concerned, lol! ;)
Anyhow, some of you might already be reading along in the group where I learned about this book and author. I'm gonna cross-post this though, because I am interested in your feedback here. This is 'home' for me after all, heh.
I'm very familiar with the history of goddess worship. "Lilith" is found in the scriptures. She is depicted as a "screech owl" here in Green's literal as well as in other translations:
Isa 34:14 The desert creatures shall also meet with the howlers; and the shaggy goat shall cry to his fellow. The screech owl shall also settle there, and find a place of rest for herself.
She is mentioned in the Talmud and the Dead Sea scrolls among others, and evolved into many different religious female dieties. She was the Egyptian Isis, "Mother of Heaven", and had the same role in Roman times as "Diana".
A source for her story is found between the 8th and 10th centuries, though the tradition surrounding it is ancient and was practiced amongst the Hebrews long before that.
The story is that she was Adam's first wife, created in Genesis 1. As an equal, she refused to lie beneath him. She calls upon the name of God and is carried away. God then sends an angel to inform her that if she continued to refuse to return to Adam and lie beneath him, that she would have to permit 100 of her children to be killed every day. She chose independence saying, "Leave me! I was created only to cause sickness to infants. If the infant is male, I have dominion over him for eight days after his birth, and if female, for twenty days." The angels continued to insist and she swore, "Whenever I see you or your names in the form of an amulet, I will have no power over that infant."
Such was the tradition of the Hebrews. They would put an amulet around the necks of their infants for protection and anytime one died in infancy, such a death was attributed to Lilith. They surely didn't know about SIDS then, nor other things that are probably easily preventable deaths today.
She, like other "strange gods" was eventually demonized. I don't mean that she was spoken poorly of, I mean that she was eventually considered a demon. Demons were not as we see them today in their minds though, demons were lesser gods. They were wild and frightening, and they believed they inspired the wrath of God.
This story was accepted by many as the explanation for the seeming imbalance between the so-called "two" creation stories. In one, women seem equal to men, and in the other, they are not. In the original language I see no evidence that such an imbalance existed.
I wrote a short article explaining that here: http://womenbeyond.com/?c=126&a=1153
Here (http://www.carlenecross.com/content/Fleeing_Fundame/research.asp), Carlene Cross identifies Lilith as the serpent in the garden. This idea is derived from the Babylonian views of Lilith. Cross then credits the snake for "enlightening" Adam and Eve, and implies a negative view of God for explaining the consequences for such "enlightenment".
In the story though, when they bite the apple they immediately loose love for themselves (evidenced by shame) and loose faith in God's unconditional love (evidenced by fear). They've defined themselves as bad, and have utterly disconnected from love, and therefore God. And such was "enlightenment"? I believe it to be "death".
She writes that the couple learned sexual pleasure and procreation after the fall. Who says that there was no pleasure in sex or procreation before the fall and who says that there was pleasure in it afterward just because we know that they procreated?
Sure God pronounced that the husband would then rule over her. Consider the way that they were using their new found wisdom. Wisdom btw, in Hebrew, means having the ability to weigh what is prosperous vs what is not. As well, it carried with it an esteem. So often in the New Testament we are reminded that they saw and experienced the world through flesh. They will have seen that men were stronger than women, and more fitted for hunting/gathering. They will have seen that women were more fitted for childcare and keeping the home. There weren't guns which made them both ample hunters, nor were there grocery stores. There was just reality, and that is how it was.
Considerations for marriage were probably very different then. A man will have looked for a good childbearing woman, while for a woman, a strong man will have been an investment in her livelihood. Of course her desire would be toward him, he, again, was her livelihood. It made sense that he rule, he was biologically adept for it.
This was long before Jesus came on the scene pointing out a spiritual way of seeing things. Back then, prosperity was seen as riches and power and riches and power were understood as God's favor. Women will have been seen as being less favored, unless in the rare case she was able to prosper as much as a man. Women were not oppressed victims, they agreed.
Jesus will have said that prosperity is peace, longsuffering, joy, etc. These things were the fruit of the spirit. He will have put God's favor into a different perspective. There can not be male/female in Christ.
A blood covenant was made by cutting an animal in half. Two people walked between the pieces, ritually saying "If I don't keep my promise, you may do to me what is done to this animal" - and then the animal was burnt. (Per the covenant with Abraham, God walked through the pieces alone)
Sex was seen as a marital covenant. It was very much a blood covenant. Sex was marriage itself in the Old Testament. Though they treated the betrothed as if they had already consummated the marriage, the consummation was the binding factor. If a woman were raped, she lost her ability to be bound to any man. She would be homeless and destitude. The rapist was held accountable to care for her as her husband -- to follow through on the forced covenant. I know that it sounds heartless, and Cross sure amplifies that, but it was a matter of survival then.
Breaking covenant was a serious thing and ever jot and tittle of the law was interpreted with the flesh. This was the rulership of the flesh. That doesn't make it evil, it makes it a mere shadow of a higher reality. When Jesus himself, and through the firstfruits church used a spiritual understanding in intepreting it, everyone was convicted and found wanting -- even and especially the judges who had been judging according to a flesh perspective.
It is important to note that they were in the wrong, yet they were ordained to be as such in working out redemption. The idea that God ever oppressed or victimized women is in err. Jesus didn't come and pull us out of the trash, we were never trash to begin with and that message played out again and again in the New Testament.
YES, there are translation facts that seem to indicate some sort of conspiracy, but they were translated by people who worked for accuracy to the best of their knowledge. They lived in their own time and culture and if something didn't make sense, they worked to make sense of it just like anyone would.
In Paul's letter to the Romans, Chapter 16 verse 1, Phoebe is commended as a "Diakonos", commonly translated "servant" in this Scripture. When referring to men, it is typically translated "Minister" or "Deacon" (you can find examples of such in Ephesians 6:21 and 1 Timothy 3:12).
He goes on to greet Prisca, Junia, Julia, and Nereus' sister, who worked and traveled as missionaries in pairs with their husbands or brothers. He tells us that Prisca and her husband risked their lives to save his. He praises Junia as a prominent apostle, who had been imprisoned for her labor. Mary and Persis are commended for their hard work.
In many translations, Junia is given a male name because she is called "Apostle". Common names in place of "Junia" are "Julius" and "Junias".
And those are just a couple of examples.
We can choose to identify with being victims and oppressed, to which we might see the need to rage or counteract about. Then we become the oppressors and victimizers that we are raging against. Or, we can know that we are not victims, nor were the women in history. We have choices. We might then consider how to use those choices. If we are displeased with something, we might see that we are able to find creative solutions.
As a woman who has experienced abuse in my lifetime, I know that being in a helpless situation does not define me as a victim for life.
I can't imagine living in a culture where staying with the rapist was preferred to not staying with him. It would be terrible for a woman living today to endure, and I find it amazing to reflect on what women chose to go through in order to fulfill their promise to God. They could have walked out and been worshipped as goddesses. Our cultures have changed now and I attribute that to Christ. There is no more need for sacrifice.
I pray that my sisters who are convinced that we were trash and victimized by God himself through his law, find healing and gentle correction. I pray that my sisters who knew in their heart (where God's law lies) already that they were not, find validation.
Perhaps this message will make a difference to some of my brothers as well, and create healing between us all.
There again, my friends may see this as more of Amie's ramblings.. lol!
Anyhow, some of you might already be reading along in the group where I learned about this book and author. I'm gonna cross-post this though, because I am interested in your feedback here. This is 'home' for me after all, heh.
I'm very familiar with the history of goddess worship. "Lilith" is found in the scriptures. She is depicted as a "screech owl" here in Green's literal as well as in other translations:
Isa 34:14 The desert creatures shall also meet with the howlers; and the shaggy goat shall cry to his fellow. The screech owl shall also settle there, and find a place of rest for herself.
She is mentioned in the Talmud and the Dead Sea scrolls among others, and evolved into many different religious female dieties. She was the Egyptian Isis, "Mother of Heaven", and had the same role in Roman times as "Diana".
A source for her story is found between the 8th and 10th centuries, though the tradition surrounding it is ancient and was practiced amongst the Hebrews long before that.
The story is that she was Adam's first wife, created in Genesis 1. As an equal, she refused to lie beneath him. She calls upon the name of God and is carried away. God then sends an angel to inform her that if she continued to refuse to return to Adam and lie beneath him, that she would have to permit 100 of her children to be killed every day. She chose independence saying, "Leave me! I was created only to cause sickness to infants. If the infant is male, I have dominion over him for eight days after his birth, and if female, for twenty days." The angels continued to insist and she swore, "Whenever I see you or your names in the form of an amulet, I will have no power over that infant."
Such was the tradition of the Hebrews. They would put an amulet around the necks of their infants for protection and anytime one died in infancy, such a death was attributed to Lilith. They surely didn't know about SIDS then, nor other things that are probably easily preventable deaths today.
She, like other "strange gods" was eventually demonized. I don't mean that she was spoken poorly of, I mean that she was eventually considered a demon. Demons were not as we see them today in their minds though, demons were lesser gods. They were wild and frightening, and they believed they inspired the wrath of God.
This story was accepted by many as the explanation for the seeming imbalance between the so-called "two" creation stories. In one, women seem equal to men, and in the other, they are not. In the original language I see no evidence that such an imbalance existed.
I wrote a short article explaining that here: http://womenbeyond.com/?c=126&a=1153
Here (http://www.carlenecross.com/content/Fleeing_Fundame/research.asp), Carlene Cross identifies Lilith as the serpent in the garden. This idea is derived from the Babylonian views of Lilith. Cross then credits the snake for "enlightening" Adam and Eve, and implies a negative view of God for explaining the consequences for such "enlightenment".
In the story though, when they bite the apple they immediately loose love for themselves (evidenced by shame) and loose faith in God's unconditional love (evidenced by fear). They've defined themselves as bad, and have utterly disconnected from love, and therefore God. And such was "enlightenment"? I believe it to be "death".
She writes that the couple learned sexual pleasure and procreation after the fall. Who says that there was no pleasure in sex or procreation before the fall and who says that there was pleasure in it afterward just because we know that they procreated?
Sure God pronounced that the husband would then rule over her. Consider the way that they were using their new found wisdom. Wisdom btw, in Hebrew, means having the ability to weigh what is prosperous vs what is not. As well, it carried with it an esteem. So often in the New Testament we are reminded that they saw and experienced the world through flesh. They will have seen that men were stronger than women, and more fitted for hunting/gathering. They will have seen that women were more fitted for childcare and keeping the home. There weren't guns which made them both ample hunters, nor were there grocery stores. There was just reality, and that is how it was.
Considerations for marriage were probably very different then. A man will have looked for a good childbearing woman, while for a woman, a strong man will have been an investment in her livelihood. Of course her desire would be toward him, he, again, was her livelihood. It made sense that he rule, he was biologically adept for it.
This was long before Jesus came on the scene pointing out a spiritual way of seeing things. Back then, prosperity was seen as riches and power and riches and power were understood as God's favor. Women will have been seen as being less favored, unless in the rare case she was able to prosper as much as a man. Women were not oppressed victims, they agreed.
Jesus will have said that prosperity is peace, longsuffering, joy, etc. These things were the fruit of the spirit. He will have put God's favor into a different perspective. There can not be male/female in Christ.
A blood covenant was made by cutting an animal in half. Two people walked between the pieces, ritually saying "If I don't keep my promise, you may do to me what is done to this animal" - and then the animal was burnt. (Per the covenant with Abraham, God walked through the pieces alone)
Sex was seen as a marital covenant. It was very much a blood covenant. Sex was marriage itself in the Old Testament. Though they treated the betrothed as if they had already consummated the marriage, the consummation was the binding factor. If a woman were raped, she lost her ability to be bound to any man. She would be homeless and destitude. The rapist was held accountable to care for her as her husband -- to follow through on the forced covenant. I know that it sounds heartless, and Cross sure amplifies that, but it was a matter of survival then.
Breaking covenant was a serious thing and ever jot and tittle of the law was interpreted with the flesh. This was the rulership of the flesh. That doesn't make it evil, it makes it a mere shadow of a higher reality. When Jesus himself, and through the firstfruits church used a spiritual understanding in intepreting it, everyone was convicted and found wanting -- even and especially the judges who had been judging according to a flesh perspective.
It is important to note that they were in the wrong, yet they were ordained to be as such in working out redemption. The idea that God ever oppressed or victimized women is in err. Jesus didn't come and pull us out of the trash, we were never trash to begin with and that message played out again and again in the New Testament.
YES, there are translation facts that seem to indicate some sort of conspiracy, but they were translated by people who worked for accuracy to the best of their knowledge. They lived in their own time and culture and if something didn't make sense, they worked to make sense of it just like anyone would.
In Paul's letter to the Romans, Chapter 16 verse 1, Phoebe is commended as a "Diakonos", commonly translated "servant" in this Scripture. When referring to men, it is typically translated "Minister" or "Deacon" (you can find examples of such in Ephesians 6:21 and 1 Timothy 3:12).
He goes on to greet Prisca, Junia, Julia, and Nereus' sister, who worked and traveled as missionaries in pairs with their husbands or brothers. He tells us that Prisca and her husband risked their lives to save his. He praises Junia as a prominent apostle, who had been imprisoned for her labor. Mary and Persis are commended for their hard work.
In many translations, Junia is given a male name because she is called "Apostle". Common names in place of "Junia" are "Julius" and "Junias".
And those are just a couple of examples.
We can choose to identify with being victims and oppressed, to which we might see the need to rage or counteract about. Then we become the oppressors and victimizers that we are raging against. Or, we can know that we are not victims, nor were the women in history. We have choices. We might then consider how to use those choices. If we are displeased with something, we might see that we are able to find creative solutions.
As a woman who has experienced abuse in my lifetime, I know that being in a helpless situation does not define me as a victim for life.
I can't imagine living in a culture where staying with the rapist was preferred to not staying with him. It would be terrible for a woman living today to endure, and I find it amazing to reflect on what women chose to go through in order to fulfill their promise to God. They could have walked out and been worshipped as goddesses. Our cultures have changed now and I attribute that to Christ. There is no more need for sacrifice.
I pray that my sisters who are convinced that we were trash and victimized by God himself through his law, find healing and gentle correction. I pray that my sisters who knew in their heart (where God's law lies) already that they were not, find validation.
Perhaps this message will make a difference to some of my brothers as well, and create healing between us all.
There again, my friends may see this as more of Amie's ramblings.. lol!