The Holy Trinity and John 17:3

[savagewind]

1Cor8.6 not 6.8; my mistake.
The God of this aeon is the father. He is masculine, male.

masculine and feminine

You are saying I am wrong?

1 Corinthians 8:6 for reference.

 

[Robert.Evans]

Truly a father is someone a child should want to please. A good father teaches the children right from wrong. The other father does not know right from wrong.
@Windwalker a father is a male figure (I suspect he referenced the wrong scripture)

Yes:

1Co 8:6 yet to us there is one God, the Father, of whom are all things, and we unto him; and one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom are all things, and we through him.
1Co 8:7 Howbeit there is not in all that knowledge

 

[Robert.Evans]

1 Corinthians 8:6 for reference.

Thank you Madam. You are soooo good

 

[Windwalker]

Truly a father is someone a child should want to please. A good father teaches the children right from wrong. The other father does not know right from wrong.
@Windwalker a father is a male figure (I suspect he referenced the wrong scripture)

Again, masculine is not a direct link to "male". I am biologically male, but have a great many culturally feminine traits, as well as many masculine traits. I am both. That the Bible writers chose to speak of God in a masculine pronoun "He" is due to the culture which was Patriarchal. That doesn't "define" God as solely masculine, as I pointed out the "Father" also possesses many feminine qualities as well. When language puts God into a box, that God is not God any longer.

 

[savagewind]

Again, masculine is not a direct link to "male". I am biologically male, but have a great many culturally feminine traits, as well as many masculine traits. I am both. That the Bible writers chose to speak of God in a masculine pronoun "He" is due to the culture which was Patriarchal. That doesn't "define" God as solely masculine, as I pointed out the "Father" also possesses many feminine qualities as well. When language puts God into a box, that God is not God any longer.

I think his point is that a father is not a mother.

 

[Robert.Evans]

Again, masculine is not a direct link to "male". I am biologically male, but have a great many culturally feminine traits, as well as many masculine traits. I am both. That the Bible writers chose to speak of God in a masculine pronoun "He" is due to the culture which was Patriarchal. That doesn't "define" God as solely masculine, as I pointed out the "Father" also possesses many feminine qualities as well. When language puts God into a box, that God is not God any longer.

God is the Father. You are ignoring scripture?

 

[Robert.Evans]

I think his point is that a father is not a mother.

And therefore not feminine, or female. Wisdom was feminine and spirit and soul. But note, in the Greek neuter, the Spirit is neither masculine nor feminine.

 

[Windwalker]

masculine and feminine

And neither. The masculine or feminine qualities of God are how we perceieve and interpret God according to the particular set of eyes we are looking through. These are not inherent qualities of Spirit itself, but our own interpretations of God, our responses to God and the faces we put on "him".

God is the Father. You are ignoring scripture?

I'm not ignoring it. I'm just not mistaking cultural references to God in a patriarchal society as defining God absolutely. In other words, I'm using reason to understand that things like this are contextual, not absolute. I'm also using experience to say God can be understood as masculine, as feminine, or as both, or as neither.

 

[Robert.Evans]

And neither. The masculine or feminine qualities of God are how we perceieve and interpret God according to the particular set of eyes we are looking through. These are not inherent qualities of Spirit itself, but our own interpretations of God, our responses to God and the faces we put on "him".

Whether it is masculine or feminine or both depends on what aspect of level of God you are speaking of. We are speaking of this one here, who also will reflect the highest, and that one is the father, so masculine.

I'm not ignoring it. I'm just not mistaking cultural references to God in a patriarchal society as defining God absolutely. In other words, I'm using reason to understand that things like this are contextual, not absolute. I'm also using experience to say God can be understood as masculine, as feminine, or as both, or as neither.

God is the father. So you seem to be saying that you do not think that scripture is inherent- in other words it does not have to mean, at one level or another, what it says. Is that so?

 

[Windwalker]

Whether it is masculine or feminine or both depends on what aspect of level of God you are speaking of. We are speaking of this one here, who also will reflect the highest, and that one is the father, so masculine.

I really would like you to explain this further what you mean? "This one here". What does that mean? And what exactly do you mean when you speak of levels?

God is the father. So you seem to be saying that you do not think that scripture is inherent- in other words it does not have to mean, at one level or another, what it says. Is that so?

What do you mean "inherent"? Is that a typo? Did you mean "inerrant"? In either case, not being inerrant does not mean it means something different at different levels. It would regardless of it being inerrant or not. Everyone reads through their own filters, so it can never be authoritative objectively. It's all interpreted anyway. But beyond that, I do not believe it is inerrant. No. I believe it is a collection of writings by men who were inspired, speaking their thoughts about God relative to their culture and personal development. I do not believe in the magical version of the Bible that it was inerrantly, and infallibly dictated to divine secretaries taking dictation.

 

[Robert.Evans]

I really would like you to explain this further what you mean? "This one here". What does that mean? And what exactly do you mean when you speak of levels?


What do you mean "inherent"? Is that a typo? Did you mean "inerrant"? In either case, not being inerrant does not mean it means something different at different levels. It would regardless of it being inerrant or not. Everyone reads through their own filters, so it can never be authoritative objectively. It's all interpreted anyway. But beyond that, I do not believe it is inerrant. No. I believe it is a collection of writings by men who were inspired, speaking their thoughts about God relative to their culture and personal development. I do not believe in the magical version of the Bible that it was inerrantly, and infallibly dictated to divine secretaries taking dictation.

Inherent - as from God, correct etc. I don't mean by that that it was not written by man and with many interpolations of course, though that is more the old than the new t.

God is consciousness. That evolves and becomes all things, including reflections of his own Self. So we may see in easy basic terms, many Gods or gods. There is still only One God, Yhvh, and though it is right to think that it is one and one consciousness, it would be wrong to think of one mind of thinking. It moves on. It starts from a point, like a triangle, and then gets bigger. It is the only way it works;

 

[bnabernard]

If God created in his image then Adam was neither male or female but both natures, Eve was taken from Adam later to ' keep him company?'
By that reasoning then God creating 'in his own image' is a reflection of neither male or female but a combination of both natures?

bernard (hug)

 

[Muffled]

If God created in his image then Adam was neither male or female but both natures, Eve was taken from Adam later to ' keep him company?'
By that reasoning then God creating 'in his own image' is a reflection of neither male or female but a combination of both natures?

bernard (hug)

I believe the text does not say that Adam was made in the image of God. It does say that man is created in the image of God.

I believe there is no context for that but the text does consider "man" to be male and female. Adam is considered a human not just a man. Since God is a Spirit the image of God is a spirit but if image here means the view of man that God produced in His thinking then it just reflects on His thinking and not on His essence.

 

[bnabernard]

Wonderful word that 'if'.

I ponder on the implications of being clothed in animal skin.

bernard (hug)

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

Wonderful word that 'if'.

An Ode to If

Oh "if"! fine particle art thee
To make of might necessary
To turn mere possibility
(Once we've assumed contingency)
Into facts, fie! vanity!

Of premise made, but 'twould not stay
Thou movest whence the protasis lay
And creepst most foul from thy bed
Unmark'd to my conclusions head!

One use of "if' and goalposts moved
Assuming all we've left unproved

Be wary of that marker of
Conditionals we'd hate to love
What we've to prove will not be won
By "if" of quiet assumption

 

[Muffled]

Wonderful word that 'if'.

I ponder on the implications of being clothed in animal skin.

bernard (hug)

I believe it is not an "if" but a certainty that God is telling us He created everything.

I believe nakedness causes arousal and that is not a state man wishes to be in all the time.

 

[bnabernard]

Are you saying that after creating the first human God proceded to create imperfection by creating Eve?

bernard (hug)

 

[Ingledsva]

I haven't really had the time that this thread would require but skimming a bit and to chime in: this is false

See http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/morph?l=μορφή&la=greek

You'll note that "nature" is not one of the definitions of morphe. You might also compare this to the lexicon entry for φυσις, which refers to the origin, or the "the natural constitution or form of something as the result of growth". (http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/morph?l=φυσις&la=greek#lexicon)

Although I would also say it's not clear how changing the word from "form" to "nature" would invalidate the conclusion that the passage attributes divinity to Christ.

ING - Even a basic Strong's also says nature.

And Thayer's Greek Definitions adds - (through the idea of adjustment of parts.) So we are not talking a God form - which you folks are claiming. It literally means a morphing into the NATURE of God. Note I highlighted the same in your text. It in no way means God form (as in Jesus is God.) It means morphed into the nature of God.

Php 2:5 Let this same mindset/disposition/sentiment/opinion be in you, which was also in Christ Jesus:

Php 2:6 Who, being in the nature of God, thought it not pillaging/an act of seizing, to be in agreement with/similar to, God:


*

 

[Ingledsva]

Hello all,

Sorry I didn't get back to you sooner.

I'm still recovering, and with a weakened immune system, managed to catch a bad cold.

I will answer you all slowly. Be patient.

*

 

[Muffled]

Are you saying that after creating the first human God proceded to create imperfection by creating Eve?

bernard (hug)

I believe Adam was not the first man created although he might be the first called human. I believe neither Adam nor Eve were perfect.