I was reading this article and found a biblical translation on the hebrew word for “desire,”* or “teshuqah,”
Dr. Bristow points out that the Hebrew word translated “desire,”* or “teshuqah,” *is neither pleasant nor a romantic word. The word *“teshuqah” *was wrongly translated “desire.” Teshuqah is “an insatiable desire to control a person. Eve was told that Adam would rule over her and that she would “desire” him, meaning that she would want to control him. He would be domineering, yes, and she would also be manipulative, cunning and controlling. Each of them, man and woman, would try to control the other.” This understanding explains the mess we have in relationships today. Not every woman tries to control her man, just as not every man tries to do the same.
Does anyone have a Catholic translation that confirms this?
??? Please hold the sarcasm. I want an official source since I haven’t found one. I could conjecture all day solo scriptura and you can NOT determine this because of women that do it anyway. That would be like condemning or overly criticizing the priesthood because of bad priests.
The second link seems to confirm the post I originally made. It actually makes more sense to me this way. A habit is not necessary to be a religous. However, I do prefer it and also frown on those that seem to act like they’re hip or somthing - especially the older ones. I’ve never seen a young nun or sister without a habit. The Pope John Paul II generation and now Pope Benedict XVI generation seem to be much more orthodox Catholic, which is my arguement for the Orthodox and Catholic to reunite. If this happened and an Orhtodox bishop was elevated to the papacy then a lot of this would reel in i believe. But I have an idea on how to enter space without using rockets too, it just needs to be tested first. Any volunteers?
I believe he means by describing “liberal women” that they are trying to or “DESIRE”, the more agressive meaning of the word as to force I guess their way over men. It’s like women that beleive they should be allowed to become priests and deacons or bishops. Can you imagine, I would love to me a mother and actually have a baby so those daugonened women would stop holding it over my head. But would that look crazy or what.
In Genesis 3 God is reprimanding the serpent, Eve, and Adam. I see this “desire” if we speak about it in the negative sense as trying to control one another as a negative effect of the fall, just like the birth pangs. Men and women were created equal (but not the same) with the plan to become one flesh. If they are both trying to dominate the other then I see this as a negative effect of the fall.
I don’t see this as allowing women to be manipulative or controlling but quite the contrary. In fact if this is the proper usage of the word teshuqa it would seem to make sense. Our initial sinful desires in a relationship as man or woman would be to somehow control the other person. But through God we must overcome our sinful nature and work together as partners in the relationship.
I’ve understood the ‘desire clause’ to be ‘birth insurance’, because it occurs right after we are told the woman’s birth pangs will be multiplied. Well it just makes sense upon hearing this great bit of news that the woman might decide not to have children by shunning the man to avoid this painful part of the curse. Can’t blame her for that. Unfortunately, this would negatively affect the course of humanity as it wouldn’t happen. However, we are told, she will still desire her man. Thus humanity will grow.
Yes, I am describing liberal women, including new church nuns that look more like socialites than acutal nuns. If you have visited liberal catholic websites you would know that Gen 3:16 is something they tell their members to avoid studying or discussing with other, because it lays out the Lord’s plan that in the catholic home the Man is the Head and women are second. As is clearly stated and “thou shalt be under thy husband’s power, and he shall have dominion over thee”. This whole idea that men and women are equals is 60’s feminist propaganda. These radical women also call to avoid I Corinthians 11:3
Every man praying or prophesying with his head covered, disgraceth his head.
But every woman praying or prophesying with her head not covered, disgraceth her head: for it is all one as if she were shaven. For if a woman be not covered, let her be shorn. But if it be a shame to a woman to be shorn or made bald, let her cover her head.
The man indeed ought not to cover his head, because he is the image and glory of God; but the woman is the glory of the man. For the man is not of the woman, but the woman of the man. For the man was not created for the woman, but the woman for the man. Therefore ought the woman to have a power over her head, because of the angels. But yet neither is the man without the woman, nor the woman without the man, in the Lord.
Each sex is capable of obtaining salvation, but they are not the same. The good Lord in his wisdom made them different.
Ecclesiastes 1:10 Is there a thing of which it is said, “See, this is new”? It has been already, in the ages before us.
There have been many heretic throughout the ages, Martin Luther and John Calvin among them. Jesus spoke that there have been many antichrists and be watchful of them because they are like wolves in sheeps clothing. Please be aware that calling that monstrosity known as Lutheranism a church is a violation of the catechism and anyone supporting luther should be anathematized. TAN publishing carries a book on the great heretic
From the Catholic Catechism (with emphasis added):
1605 Holy Scripture affirms that man and woman were created for one another: "It is not good that the man should be alone."The woman, “flesh of his flesh,” his EQUAL, his nearest in all things, is given to him by God as a “helpmate”; she thus represents God from whom comes our help.
I assume you are aware that Martin Luther is the inventor of the catechism. The Catholic Church borrowed the idea. Men and women are different, yet equal, not in the twisted sense of the way the 60’s folks tried to make it. The SSPX is another topic and should be brought to the traditional Catholic thread. My father was of that flavor. If it were up to me we’d all be Orthodox Catholics [capital intended]. Hate festers more hate. The scripture also tells us to seek out peace. Hating will only cost you your soul. Pray for those that offend you instead of judging them. Say what you must I believe, unlike the ideas propagated by the more recent years where charity is confused with permissiveness.
As far as the so called “nuns”. Not my cup of tea either. That generation has scandalized the entire Church of Christ. However, I stay away from non orthodox webseits. I typically will only read the USCCB and the Vatican websites. My father was more in line with the sedevacantist thinking. He and folks like you are what made me embrace a fundamentalist view of the faith, and eventually became a Protestant Fundamentalist Evangelical that condemned Catholics along with other people in non-Christian faiths like Baptists, Methodist, Pentecostals, Catholics, Muslims. In our view non-of you were even Christian, and Catholics were simply apostate pagans that worshiped statues and all. My point is that just because you can say it doesn’t mean it’s true. It took much grace from God to open the door for me to come back home. I too lean towards the TLM, But if you take it the way you see it the Orthodox have a valid reason to believe even you’re a heretic. One example would the the abolition of the permanent diaconate that existed in the early Church, yet remains in the Eastern orhtodox Church and has always been there. Another one would be limiting the laity to the one species of the Eucharist in the Bbody of Christ without the precious Blood of Christ. The Eastern Christians receive both species and still strongly encourage if not require all those who wish to receive the Eucharist to confess their sins right before mass, which would terrify most Catholics in our society today, but I believe it should return to this. Another practice would be to return to the fast as in the Eastern Church
Son, you sound like a bigot. There is one thing to be against something you don’t like. but it is another thing to conjure up intense anger towards those that do it. You are emotionally charging your ideas about this with very strong feelings. This is very irrational and you probably out to consider obtaining professional help. Really. This kind of behavior will get you in great trouble if not taken care of properly. My father was exactly like this and ended up arrested many times in the past because of uncontrollable anger issues. He’s passed on to eternity and i can only hope that he was not culpable for his actions. He too was a traditional Catholic.
Let me add that had he obtained the help he needed he may have been able to finish out his last days in peace with a healthy relationship with his 3 sons. I was on the verge of cursing him in his grave for hurting us so much which helped lead to the suicide of my older brother. True story.
Your father probably saw the modernist writing on the Catholic wall and stood against it. May he rest in peace. If more stood up to the hijinks currently happening in the parishes, the catholic church would be in better shape today. In the bible one can find many examples of men that opposed their fellow man in order to serve God, such as Moses, Noah, and John the Baptist. They served to the point of losing their very lives if it was called for. The modern world is sick with its sins and sicker would i be if I do nothing to stand against it. We must pray and take action, so we may be cast into damnation.