1. Hello Guest! You are browsing the forums as a guest; you will have limited permissions as a guest so we advise registering to enjoy the forums fully. Remember: we are a Christian ONLY site - any user who is not Christian will not be approved. Blessings, Christian Forum Site Staff
    Dismiss Notice

Ladies of the Bible

Discussion in 'Bible Study' started by Hereford Beacon, Aug 7, 2010.

  1. Ladies of the Bible

    The Bible for most part is male dominated and stand out the most for their deeds. But there is a fair sprinling of females, they stand out because of their faith and calling and many ways made a big impact on the course of history in the Bible.

    To name a few Eve - first woman, Sarah mothe of Jacob and Esau an so being in a sense the mother of a nation. Mary and Martha helped care for Jesus when he was with them. There was of course Mary His mother. And then we ahve my favourite lady Ruth - her faith, obediance and love is a great inspiration.

    I ahve often wondered if people ever remember or how significant a part females played in the Bible.
  2. Rachel gave birth to Jacob and Esau .

    Sarah gave birth to Ishmael and Isaac .

    there would be no bible without women :)
  3. Rahab the Harlot whose faith and actions not only saved her and her family from destruction, but gave her a place in the Hebrews Hall of Faith, as well as a mention in the book of James. Not to mention her inclusion in the geneology of Jesus Christ.
    Your past does not have to define your future.

  4. Thanks for the corrrection, shoould really do posts earlier when i am awake:smiley90:
  5. Nah . that would take the fun out of it . ;) i love how the pixels dance around the screen then join the dance with those in the air .
  6. Cool thread.

    Yes, women are important, biblically speaking.

    Who can find a virtuous woman? for her price is far above rubies.
    Prov 31:10
  7. Nearly all the prominent women paint a picture of the prostitute-virgin bride, which is the church. And since Eve was deceived, the female also represents those who do not see clearly in the scriptures, just as we now see through a glass darkly.

    Hence the female donkey is the Old Testament prophets who did not know the details of Christ, and the male colt is John the Baptist who knew him personally.

    In the most esoteric voice of the priest, (in prophetic recapitulation) the women are also shadows of Christ in the flesh who chose no to be omniscient and hence was 'not seeing clearly' in relation to his previous state. In this voice the prostitute image is Christ bearing our sins in the flesh, and the virgin is his purity in the flesh.

    Their bareness prefigures Christ's desolation prior to the cross, and their fruitfulness is the church.

    The ark is a shadow of Mary in one voice and of Christ in another, as even Mary is a shadow of Christ.
  8. I know lots of women who see more clearly than i do . and sometimes that's even on a good day ;)
  9. An example of a clear seeing woman in the bible was Deborah the prophetess . she even did the part the king was too much a coward to do himself . Yet another Ruth, who saw clearly what love is . And another Elizabeth who saw in Mary the Messiah while she was with child .
  10. You are mixing the sensus plenior with the literal. Rebekah was a virgin, but in sensus plenior she is a shadow of the prostitute as well. The servant 'took' her, which word also means married, and she covered herself when she saw Isaac, impying she was uncovered with the servant. The word play does not indict the literal Rebekah, it builds the picture of the church.

    So the woman as the 'code' for not seeing clearly says nothing about the literal women.
  11. thank you for explaining that . most people read posts literally . so i was a little concerned .

    and i've seen you post that before but didn't understand so thought it best to clarify .

    thanks Bob .
  12. Likewise most of the prophets were male, but they are represented by the female donkey. The female donkey says nothing about the gender of the prophets, only that they did not know Christ as John did.

    Mixing the sensus plenior with anything else is not playing fair ;-)
  13. Rachel and Leah together are the virgin and prostitute.
    Gomer was a prostitute but named her first child "God sows" as a hint of the virgin birth. In this case the word play makes a virgin out of a prostitute. They all prefigure Mary who was suspected of prostitution but was a virgin. Who in turn represents Christ who was accused of sin when he was sinless.
  14. I know that Bob, but i don't think too many people understand it and i'm just learning your understanding of it . so it is good to teach the meaning toward literal reading audiences also . but if you can't i guess that's okay also . i don't mind asking questions .

    so literal and SP are parallel . and typology and SP are parallel . interesting .
  15. I would say that typology is a poor memory of sensus plenior, it's just that by completely separating the two we can have a different conversation. If someone wants to continue to believe that leaven is sin, even though Jesus likens the Kingdom to it, they are welcome to have that irreconcilable problem. I am not going to try to persuade them otherwise. But once you see sensus plenior for yourself, you will likely not fall back on some of the typologies that are different from it.
  16. Thanks for that .
  17. But typology can have double meanings . that's why it's parallel to SP where double meanings are not allowed . typology is all about duality . Christ, Antichrist, Light, Darkness

    the meaning for light or day and darkness and night are different in SP and Typology . they are parallels . and cannot mix . . . but can build on one another .
  18. Typology has no proofs. It is based either in tradition or allegory. I would use the word typology for sensus plenior but it is already taken. Sensus plenior is typology based on rules and is verifiable and reproducible. Typology is only sure when the New Testament authors have used it. And where they have used it, it agrees with sensus plenior.

    This is why I say that typology is just a poor memory of sensus plenior. It is what sensus plenior would be if you forgot the rules yet continued to try to do it.
  19. Sp can have up to four meanings each one derived from one of the four voices (prophet, priest, judge and king). The quadriga is a poor memory of SP.
  20. Not sure about that . i've applied according to this . and there are rules . i just don't bother writing them down . it's a more organic model more complex than what you're presenting . (PM me about this)

Share This Page