- This topic is empty.
- Posts
Quote (Lightenup @ July 07 2010,23:55) Mike and Rokka,
I agree with you two and see no reason that God the Father couldn't have asexually reproduced His very own offspring from His womb, whatever that means to someone who is God. Perfect begets perfect…the difference, one is very Father and one is very Son. The Father is the source of the Son and not the other way around which is actually a huge difference but both are still perfect. It is interesting to contemplate.
Hi Lu,I am David and just became a member and wrote a few threads a week earlier. Possibly you didn't see them so I will start afresh.
Two words and concepts are important and after reading them in Hebrew then you may want to change your perspective on asexual reproduction.
One God.
One = 'Echad meaning a unity or oneness (of two things in regards to Elohim)God = Elohim (There are other words for God but the word I am addressing is specifically Elohim)
The first usage of 'Echad is Genesis 1:5 …there was evening and morning, ONE day. In order to have a complete day you must have both evening AND morning. A day does not exist without one or the other.
The first usage of Elohim is Genesis 1:1 In the beginning God (Elohim) created….
Elohim consists of two parts Eloah (base or root) meaning goddess (noun, feminine, singular) and “m” the ending (suffix, masc, plural) thus God is ONE God with two essences (male and female). Just as ONE day has two essences (evening/morning) ONE God has two essences (Female/Male).
(I call the male and female aspects “essences” because obviously “God” is not a human and is neither male or female; but God's image has these two essences as seen in Gen 1:27 when we see proof of this when man was created in God's image, male and female.)Just as evening has a separate and distinct purpose than morning in the composition of “day”, the male and female essences of Elohim have their own distinct purposes.
Without seeing this concept people eliminate the feminine essence of God because they don't understand ONE or ELOHIM.
People easily see YHVH as the masculine essence and give Him credit for everything and then subject the feminine essence as His “force” and call His force “He” the Holy Spirit thereby causing great confusion and doubt about her.
Because of errroneous teaching and comments from people and churches who don't know of this essence the confusion and debate gets various responses and speculations of who God is and who the Holy Spirit is.
Isaiah 11:2 points out that SHE is the spirit of YHVH and She is the Power (strength), Counsel, Wisdom, Understanding, Knowledge and the fear of YHVH.
People transpose this and claim that YHVH is in control of His spirit, whereas the opposite is true. 1 Cor 2:11 No one knows the thoughts of God (YHVH) except the spirit of God (Elohim).
In summary, Elohim (God) is one (united, 'Echad) with two essences (male and female). The male essence is YHVH and the female essence is the Holy Spirit.
Don't dismiss the Holy Spirit.
When you look at the 7 spirits within the Holy Spirit you will notice that one of them is Counsel and Jesus said that he would send us the Counselor (as well as comforter and helper) to dwell in us. He also said the only unpardonable sin was against the Holy Spirit. If She wasn't a separate and important essence of Elohim he wouldn't have mentioned Her and if She was a part of YHVH then he would've addressed sinning against God (YHVH) was unpardonable but he didn't; he addressed the Holy Spirit. And because theologians view God as a “He” they also address the Holy Spirit as “He” unfortunately.
Conclusion: Since God has two essences, male and female, Jesus' “birthing” had to be thru the female essence (just as we humans birth thru the female of the species) and not thru the Father in asexual reproduction.
You will see many “scholars” debating the aspects of “begotten” and “firstborn” on this site and ignoring the fact that Jesus is a “son” in all aspects of the word, regardless of how he came into existence he had a beginning and according to the Bible he is the beginning of the creation of God. And with a beginning he cannot be God from whom he came because God has no beginning (or end) and God has no mother or father and thus God has no genealogy….but Jesus does; both as the son of God and as the son of Man.
Thanks for your time and consideration.
David
Could some one that was begotten 'before the ages' also be considered being begotten 'during eternity.'
Also, if someone is 'from eternity' doesn't that mean that eternity existed first?
Is eternity a period of time albeit time unlike the time we know with 24 hours/day and 12 months/year, in other words…could one thing happen after another or before another?
Could things happen 'during' past eternity without having always happened?
And finally…if the Son is begotten during eternity and the seed from which He originated, always existed-yet without life in and of itself, could He be said to have always existed in some elementary form (like a seed-unfertilized)?
Just pondering here…
LU,
That is really funny —
When, before, has anyone ever seen JA use a smiley in this forum —-?
I am creased up like crumpled paper…
Quote (JustAskin @ July 13 2010,16:46) LU, That is really funny —
When, before, has anyone ever seen JA use a smiley in this forum —-?
I am creased up like crumpled paper…
Beware JA,
You know what happens to crumpled up paper, don't you?
Nice simile, btw.
Quote (davidbfun @ July 13 2010,16:28) Quote (Lightenup @ July 07 2010,23:55) Mike and Rokka,
I agree with you two and see no reason that God the Father couldn't have asexually reproduced His very own offspring from His womb, whatever that means to someone who is God. Perfect begets perfect…the difference, one is very Father and one is very Son. The Father is the source of the Son and not the other way around which is actually a huge difference but both are still perfect. It is interesting to contemplate.
Hi Lu,I am David and just became a member and wrote a few threads a week earlier. Possibly you didn't see them so I will start afresh.
Two words and concepts are important and after reading them in Hebrew then you may want to change your perspective on asexual reproduction.
One God.
One = 'Echad meaning a unity or oneness (of two things in regards to Elohim)God = Elohim (There are other words for God but the word I am addressing is specifically Elohim)
The first usage of 'Echad is Genesis 1:5 …there was evening and morning, ONE day. In order to have a complete day you must have both evening AND morning. A day does not exist without one or the other.
The first usage of Elohim is Genesis 1:1 In the beginning God (Elohim) created….
Elohim consists of two parts Eloah (base or root) meaning goddess (noun, feminine, singular) and “m” the ending (suffix, masc, plural) thus God is ONE God with two essences (male and female). Just as ONE day has two essences (evening/morning) ONE God has two essences (Female/Male).
(I call the male and female aspects “essences” because obviously “God” is not a human and is neither male or female; but God's image has these two essences as seen in Gen 1:27 when we see proof of this when man was created in God's image, male and female.)Just as evening has a separate and distinct purpose than morning in the composition of “day”, the male and female essences of Elohim have their own distinct purposes.
Without seeing this concept people eliminate the feminine essence of God because they don't understand ONE or ELOHIM.
People easily see YHVH as the masculine essence and give Him credit for everything and then subject the feminine essence as His “force” and call His force “He” the Holy Spirit thereby causing great confusion and doubt about her.
Because of errroneous teaching and comments from people and churches who don't know of this essence the confusion and debate gets various responses and speculations of who God is and who the Holy Spirit is.
Isaiah 11:2 points out that SHE is the spirit of YHVH and She is the Power (strength), Counsel, Wisdom, Understanding, Knowledge and the fear of YHVH.
People transpose this and claim that YHVH is in control of His spirit, whereas the opposite is true. 1 Cor 2:11 No one knows the thoughts of God (YHVH) except the spirit of God (Elohim).
In summary, Elohim (God) is one (united, 'Echad) with two essences (male and female). The male essence is YHVH and the female essence is the Holy Spirit.
Don't dismiss the Holy Spirit.
When you look at the 7 spirits within the Holy Spirit you will notice that one of them is Counsel and Jesus said that he would send us the Counselor (as well as comforter and helper) to dwell in us. He also said the only unpardonable sin was against the Holy Spirit. If She wasn't a separate and important essence of Elohim he wouldn't have mentioned Her and if She was a part of YHVH then he would've addressed sinning against God (YHVH) was unpardonable but he didn't; he addressed the Holy Spirit. And because theologians view God as a “He” they also address the Holy Spirit as “He” unfortunately.
Conclusion: Since God has two essences, male and female, Jesus' “birthing” had to be thru the female essence (just as we humans birth thru the female of the species) and not thru the Father in asexual reproduction.
You will see many “scholars” debating the aspects of “begotten” and “firstborn” on this site and ignoring the fact that Jesus is a “son” in all aspects of the word, regardless of how he came into existence he had a beginning and according to the Bible he is the beginning of the creation of God. And with a beginning he cannot be God from whom he came because God has no beginning (or end) and God has no mother or father and thus God has no genealogy….but Jesus does; both as the son of God and as the son of Man.
Thanks for your time and consideration.
David
Hi Davidbfun,
Welcome and thanks for posting your thoughts. I'm sorry that I have missed your other posts. I have been away caring for my parents.I have a few comments on your post.
you said:
Quote Two words and concepts are important and after reading them in Hebrew then you may want to change your perspective on asexual reproduction. My perspective on asexual reproduction is that one being reproduces without sexual involvement with another being.
I do not see the Father and the Spirit of the Father as a unity of a female goddess and a male god. I do, however, see God as being complete and in no need of a companion. I realize that in order to make man complete, he had to have a woman counterpart but each has a spirit within them. This spirit is called the 'inner person' within the person. I believe that the Spirit of God is likely the 'inner person' of God.
2 Corinthians 4:16 NET ©
Therefore we do not despair, but even if our physical body is wearing away, our inner person is being renewed day by day.This passage is comparing the Spirit of God and the spirit of man. If the spirit of man is within the man and God is revealed in His creation, perhaps the Spirit of God is within God and is the archetype of how the spirit is within man. God's spirit is of course unique in that although it remains within God, it also pours out of God to fill others through Christ, thus we have God and Christ within ourselves by His unifying Spirit.
1 Cor 2:10 God has revealed these to us by the Spirit. For the Spirit searches all things, even the deep things of God. 2:11 For who among men knows the things of a man except the man’s spirit within him? So too, no one knows the things of God except the Spirit of God. NET
Hope you enjoy the forum, David…stick around!
Blessings,
Kathi/LU/LightenupQuote (Lightenup @ July 07 2010,02:12) Psalm 110
A Psalm of David.110:1 The Lord said to my Lord, Sit thou on my right hand, until I make thine enemies thy footstool. 2 The Lord shall send out a rod of power for thee out of Sion: rule thou in the midst of thine enemies. 3 With thee is dominion in the day of thy power, in the splendours of thy saints: I have begotten thee from the womb before the morning. 4 The Lord sware, and will not repent, Thou art a priest for ever, after the order of Melchisedec. 5 The Lord at thy right hand has dashed in pieces kings in the day of his wrath. 6 He shall judge among the nations, he shall fill up the number of corpses, he shall crush the heads of many on the earth. 7 He shall drink of the brook in the way; therefore shall he lift up the head.
found here: http://www.ecmarsh.com/lxx/Psalms/index.htm
I have also seen v. 3b as:
From the womb before the day-star, I begat TheeI think that places the begetting sometime before the naming of morning in Genesis 1:3, and before the sun existed which was day four of creation.
3 And God said, “Let there be light,” and there was light. 4 God saw that the light was good, and He separated the light from the darkness. 5 God called the light “day,” and the darkness he called “night.” And there was evening, and there was morning—the first day.
What do you say 'day-star' is? Any thoughts?
Dear LU,Liked the topic and the subheading.
When was Jesus begotten?
Before the ages.One of the most important verses I have found to prove this is Col 1:15……firstborn of ALL creation.
So,he was begotten before anything else existed, even time (ages)….making him preeminent.
He is THE BEGINNING.
David
Hi Davidbfun,
I agree that the Son is the firstborn of all creation which naturally makes Him preeminent. I do believe that the meaning of the 'firstborn' is the first procreative act of the Father…He is the first fruit of the Father (before creation). I do not consider the Son as the first 'creative' act, but the first 'procreative' act. The difference is that a procreative act would carry the same nature of the One which procreated Him, the nature of deity. The created act would not carry the same nature of the One that created him, necessarily. Also, the one procreated in an asexual way from an eternal being would also carry the idea of having always existed in the form of an incorruptible seed not yet 'quickened' to life and separate existence. IMOQuote (Lightenup @ July 14 2010,19:16) Hi Davidbfun,
I agree that the Son is the firstborn of all creation which naturally makes Him preeminent. I do believe that the meaning of the 'firstborn' is the first procreative act of the Father…He is the first fruit of the Father (before creation). I do not consider the Son as the first 'creative' act, but the first 'procreative' act. The difference is that a procreative act would carry the same nature of the One which procreated Him, the nature of deity. The created act would not carry the same nature of the One that created him, necessarily. Also, the one procreated in an asexual way from an eternal being would also carry the idea of having always existed in the form of an incorruptible seed not yet 'quickened' to life and separate existence. IMO
Hi Kathi/LU,I agree with your wording concerning create and procreate; with one being the biological act. Since God is not “human” how God goes about “biologically” procreating is unknown, especially as a spirit.
Even though Jesus was “begotten” or procreated doesn't alter the fact that he is the first act of creation because Col 1:16 and John 1:3 says that all things came into being THRU FOR and BY him. Col 1:17 reiterates that he is BEFORE all things. This tells me that he is our Creator (but not our God whom he came FROM).
True again that Jesus is the first procreative act of God as God said that he was the ONLY begotten son of God…and firstborn.
It is interesting to see that the female essence of God is ignored when people respond…and only the Father aspect is addressed. i.e. asexual reproduction (ignoring female essence).
Elohim = female (root) male (ending, plural)
And we are created in God's image, male and female. If we are in God's likeness and we multiply thru the female of the species, why would God be different than what God created us to be?
Kathi you make a good point: Obviously the son of God is “god-natured” just as the son of Man is human-natured.
Being the son of God doesn't make him God whom he came from, nor does it make him exist at the same time God existed even though he came out from the “sperm” that has always existed in God.
You have a lot of deep thoughts:
If “time” is a property for humans and does not apply to God then any discussion regarding “eternity” would be mute because God has always existed.
Nevertheless, since creation has a beginning point and Jesus is the firstborn of all CREATION, he is the BEGINNING. And from that point onward begins “time” AND eternity. That is why the Bible also says that IN Jesus is ETERNAL LIFE (as that is one characteristic or component of Jesus) and The Eternal Life was WITH God. It is not something “EXTRA” that we get when we believe in him….but when we receive him we also receive the eternal life that is part of him.
David
Ye view God with Carnal eyes.
You are thinking of a Carnal Creation because you cannot imagine a Spiritual creation.
Even another one in this forum implying that God has a Womb from which Jesus came and that the holy Spirit is God's Wife.
My, My… What next? A Hay trough round the back of a Public Ale House in Heaven ?
Quote (davidbfun @ July 13 2010,20:27) Quote (Lightenup @ July 14 2010,19:16) Hi Davidbfun,
I agree that the Son is the firstborn of all creation which naturally makes Him preeminent. I do believe that the meaning of the 'firstborn' is the first procreative act of the Father…He is the first fruit of the Father (before creation). I do not consider the Son as the first 'creative' act, but the first 'procreative' act. The difference is that a procreative act would carry the same nature of the One which procreated Him, the nature of deity. The created act would not carry the same nature of the One that created him, necessarily. Also, the one procreated in an asexual way from an eternal being would also carry the idea of having always existed in the form of an incorruptible seed not yet 'quickened' to life and separate existence. IMO
Hi Kathi/LU,I agree with your wording concerning create and procreate; with one being the biological act. Since God is not “human” how God goes about “biologically” procreating is unknown, especially as a spirit.
Even though Jesus was “begotten” or procreated doesn't alter the fact that he is the first act of creation because Col 1:16 and John 1:3 says that all things came into being THRU FOR and BY him. Col 1:17 reiterates that he is BEFORE all things. This tells me that he is our Creator (but not our God whom he came FROM).
True again that Jesus is the first procreative act of God as God said that he was the ONLY begotten son of God…and firstborn.
It is interesting to see that the female essence of God is ignored when people respond…and only the Father aspect is addressed. i.e. asexual reproduction (ignoring female essence).
Elohim = female (root) male (ending, plural)
And we are created in God's image, male and female. If we are in God's likeness and we multiply thru the female of the species, why would God be different than what God created us to be?
Kathi you make a good point: Obviously the son of God is “god-natured” just as the son of Man is human-natured.
Being the son of God doesn't make him God whom he came from, nor does it make him exist at the same time God existed even though he came out from the “sperm” that has always existed in God.
You have a lot of deep thoughts:
If “time” is a property for humans and does not apply to God then any discussion regarding “eternity” would be mute because God has always existed.
Nevertheless, since creation has a beginning point and Jesus is the firstborn of all CREATION, he is the BEGINNING. And from that point onward begins “time” AND eternity. That is why the Bible also says that IN Jesus is ETERNAL LIFE (as that is one characteristic or component of Jesus) and The Eternal Life was WITH God. It is not something “EXTRA” that we get when we believe in him….but when we receive him we also receive the eternal life that is part of him.
David
Hi David,
Thanks for responding.you said:
Quote It is interesting to see that the female essence of God is ignored when people respond…and only the Father aspect is addressed. i.e. asexual reproduction (ignoring female essence). Asexual reproduction isn't about whether the parent is a father or a mother, it is merely a way of reproducing without the act of sex. Do you really think that a God and a Godess had sex to beget a Son?
The Son never refers to the Holy Spirit as a 'Mother' so why would we refer to the Holy Spirit as a 'Mother?
When do you think that the Son was begotten before creation?
The Greeks did.
Worms are Asexual…
Now, we even talking about Gods and Goddesses – yack!!!
This Forum has gotten worse and is getting worse. I thought the idea, especially of the long termers, was that they were going to learn about and come closer to God and Jesus and Jesus' testimony. But the opposite seems to be occurring.
How?, Well, there is only one answer required, needed and known.
When Jesus was born Mary could say “I have given birth to a Son” and the Father could say “This day I have begotten a Son” The child isn't begotten of the father until born of the mother.
Oxy………….Do away with that vatar, i like you other one much better, I know it can seem loke your beating you head against a wall brother, But people here do really care about you , even if they disagree with you at times brother.
peace and love to you and yours Oxy………………………gene
Quote (Oxy @ July 15 2010,03:28) When Jesus was born Mary could say “I have given birth to a Son” and the Father could say “This day I have begotten a Son” The child isn't begotten of the father until born of the mother.
What a GREAT example!!!
Love it.David
Quote (Gene Balthrop @ July 15 2010,07:18) Oxy………….Do away with that vatar, i like you other one much better, I know it can seem loke your beating you head against a wall brother, But people here do really care about you , even if they disagree with you at times brother. peace and love to you and yours Oxy………………………gene
Hi Gene,I kinda like it. I get the same feelings sometimes; like I'm beating my head against a wall.
For example, JA was saying how the site has gotten worse. Since I am new I don't know what it was. so for him it must be like the avatar, too.
I came here because of an article on the Trinity and how well researched it was.
JA is an example of how I used to be; chauvinistic and closed minded. Those traits haven't totally left but I am more tolerant with others views and I am still learning.
Even though I don't like the attacks on the person (character assassinations) versus the ideas I am still learning and forcing myself to learn.
I find that generally the Greek “scholars” attack words for the purpose of attacking versus educating and bringing forth an idea that is constructive or porpuseful (useful)…..more to show that they can do a word study and put down others. Other times they bring forth quite relevant information to the thread. So, to be enlightened we must take the good and the bad (which is called knowledge).
A Christian is to love and that usually means to build up a brother instead of attacking him. Correction is for the idea. Judgment is for the person and I don't want to be involved in judging anyone.
Maybe this is what JA is complaining about. As for the Gods and goddess attack remark made….it could refer to anyone so it is difficult to respond to.
I don't know if it is a NZ thing to not want to be identified by name but usually I sign off with my first name and I like addressing people in a like manner.
As for my previous chauvanistic approach to God: All of the churches and religions I attended make God out to be masculine. Being a male that suited me just fine and helped to fuel my attitude. However, after studying, meditating, praying God opened my eyes to more of His word in the Bible. JA thought that this was a place to further knowledge…and it is. Much information is presented and a person can take it or leave it.
If JA was addressing me re: goddess then he hasn't fully understood. Elohim is a Hebrew word that consists of a male and female essence within the definition of the word itself and is used in Gen 1:1. Just as ONE day consists of EVENING and MORNING God consists of FEMININE and MASCULINE essences as seen in Gen 1:27 when man was created in God's image. (image/likeness/resemblance) This is usually where “scholars” want to debate and split apart the word image and likeness and miss the fact that God has a male and female essence. The word tselem (image) is used and the context follows….male and female. Not only this but GOD is doing the talking and the scholars want to tell you what God really meant…. don't you just love it? lol
Since God is neither male or female and we are here talking about God we have to use human (carnal as someone else put it) terms…duh!!! that is obvious as we are humans. Jesus came from above and explained things to the people and had to retranslate for his disciples because they couldn't understand his heavenly references.
But since we are created in God's likeness it is nice to know what God wants us to know about “Him”. Languages uses pronouns to describe gender. So give me a pronoun for God who is one yet has two essences male and female. The Hebrews used the word “He” to describe G-d and therefore eliminated the feminine essence of God. “They” would be incorrect to use as God is ONE. And for chauvanistic reasons God could NEVER be female.
But if everyone could understand that God is ONE and consists of TWO essences (male and female) the rest of the Bible begins to make sense and less speculation is needed.
for example: Male essence is YHVH (noun, masc). Female essence is Holy Spirit (noun, fem). And just as the day needs EVENING and MORNING to be complete the entity we call God needs the female (feminine) and male (masculine) essences to be complete.
Look at a person's theology and concept of God and you will see how they look at God and how they will apply Bible verses. Does their concept include or exclude a female essence? Does their concept include an offspring as being God? This is where most of our debates come from.
MORNING is not part of EVENING and has its own specific essence and purpose and alone and separate each cannot comprise a full day.
YHVH and HS (Holy Spirit) combined make up the word Elohim (God) whereas God (El) is masc singular and shows the specific purpose of YHVH (an essential PART of Elohim). People demote the Holy Spirit to being a part of YHVH AND identifying HS as “He” but the word is a noun and feminine.
Do people here have a comprehensive systematic theology or do they like attacking words for the show of it? In other words do they see the BIG picture? When you do MICRO (minute/word) managing it should be for the purpose of the MACRO (BIG/overall) goal.
Gene, I leave you with this thought 1 Cor 8.1b Knowledge makes arrogant, but love edifies.
Your brother in love,
David
David,
You speak well for the most part.
You speak of Macro and Micro.
If you say to a innerCity child, 'Where does your breakfast eggs come from', what will that child say?
“From the Supermarket, of course”,
And, indeed it very often does…to their end.However, as an adult, you know that that is not the end, but the beginning of the 'reverse chain of events' that led to that egg being in the Supermarket.
Now, try explaining in Macro, or Micro, to the child.
What happens,… they don't want to know, can't understand, disgusted that it comes out of a hen's bottom, that 'you' just killed a Chick, a lovely fluffy yellow ball-like creature with two stalky little legs with life that the 'mother hen'(?) went to all that trouble of growing inside her for so long…
They vow never to eat another egg.
Then ask them where their Chicken 'Hot Wings' from McDonalds comes from…or the Fish meal, or the Pork luncheon sandwich meat or that tastey Beefburger.
The revelation of truth is often disasteful to those of limited, childish (Not Child-like) minds.
They seek the 'safe path', the 'Broad Road' the 'Macro' Road, the way that means least thought on the matter, the well trodden route with the support of many who can carry them and keep them shielded from the briers, the thorns at the edges that prevent, and deter, them seeing the true road.
And crossing over onto it.
JustAskin has no fear of briers and crosses over onto the broad road to encourage a few to come across, bear the pain of the briers for a liitle while for the Truth will heal the wounds and soften the pain.
David, you are new here. Check through the posts and look for the truth in each posts.
JustAskin condemns only the gainsayers and upholds the truth seekers. Condemn…only as far as making the stated fact. If the person turns, how would JustAskin face them.
No, only 'Admonishment'. It is God and Jesus and the Holy Spirit and the Testimony of Christ and the Scriptures and themselves, that ultimately, Condemns them.
Does JustAskin boast in the Holy Spirit? Yes. In the Holy Spirit, not of the Holy Spirit.
Who are my condemners? Is it not those who do not have the Holy Spirit?
Why?
Because the Spirit of God does not Condemn those who it upholds, else it would be condemning it's own…and only Satan owns that privilege.A mistake, an error, a moment of ignorance, in downplaying a 'Spirited given' revelation is forgiven.
But that one must first come to the realisation of the mistake, error, ignorance, admit it and 'take it back, repent', then the error is cleared.
JustAskin does not need others to agree with him.
JustAskin's mind is clear.
However, it is good, none the less, to find supporters and call them '[Begotten] Brother' and '[Begotten] Sister'.
And as for God and Gender…what of it. JustAskin has no problem here because to me that is a non-discussional point.
But to state only, as JustAskin has stated before, God made Adam as a complete human.
He made eve from Adam after Adam found no animal to be worthy of being a companion. Eve was taken from Adam and called 'Woman', or 'Wombed Man'.
The traits of Woman are taken out of the original man and made into a separate man such that it requires the TWO to come together in union to 'reform' one 'flesh', the metaphorical 'Adam' two persons as one, in the eyes of God, and man.
That is why God abhors Divorce. That is why a man who joins in union with a woman becomes his 'wife', in the eyes of God.
All this, only because of carnal man. A Spirit requires no such separation of traits. Conception, impregnation, birth…are not of the Spirit but of the flesh.
Spirits require no gender. Is there a reference to s female angel?
Wisdom, is spoken of as a female. Why?
Because the scripture writer wrote with a the aim of making his reader 'feel' the trait of wisdom, that it is gentle, understanding, loving, nuturing, etc, and aligned it to what his audience would 'feel'.
That these are like a good ' woman', a motherlike person. Something that makes you want to seek comfort in.
And that is why Solomon chose it of all the things that he could have asked God for. Solomon was but a very young man when he asceeded to his father's throne.
As Scripture says, he was surrounded by battlehardened warriors, devisive, incisive, decisive, councillors who were greater than even what his father taught him.
Where better to go to seek succour in such an environment than in a 'motherlike' restitude, and Wisdom came into it's own and to it's own for Solomon was 'Wise' to make that choice by his own free will. And God blessed him even more for that.
So 'gender' in the spirit realm. What of it?
And, are we not all 'Spirits in a material world'… Bet that would make a great title for a song. Try it but it could be a Sting! And you wouldn't want the Police to arrest you.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
