• CFN has a new look and a new theme

    "I bore you on eagle's wings, and brought you to Myself" (Exodus 19:4)

    More new themes will be coming in the future!

  • Desire to be a vessel of honor unto the Lord Jesus Christ?

    Join For His Glory for a discussion on how

    https://christianforums.net/threads/a-vessel-of-honor.110278/

  • CFN welcomes new contributing members!

    Please welcome Roberto and Julia to our family

    Blessings in Christ, and hope you stay awhile!

  • Have questions about the Christian faith?

    Come ask us what's on your mind in Questions and Answers

    https://christianforums.net/forums/questions-and-answers/

  • Read the Gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ?

    Read through this brief blog, and receive eternal salvation as the free gift of God

    /blog/the-gospel

  • Taking the time to pray? Christ is the answer in times of need

    https://christianforums.net/threads/psalm-70-1-save-me-o-god-lord-help-me-now.108509/

  • Focus on the Family

    Strengthening families through biblical principles.

    Focus on the Family addresses the use of biblical principles in parenting and marriage to strengthen the family.

Is God male, female or both?

JLB

Jesus is the Way, the Truth and the Life
Supporter
Joined
Jul 13, 2012
Messages
38,619
Reaction score
8,101
Therefore 'before/from the foundation of the world' is not a literal statement.

So John 17.5 really means: 'Glorify me with the glory which I had with thee before the foundation of the world' in your perception of the future'. And therefore is not a literal statement either.

And therefore is no evidence of the literal pre-existence of Christ, either.

Correct?

No, I don't completely understand, and neither do you. I suppose, but you can tell me otherwise, of course.

I'm trying to inject 'carnal reasoning'??? 'Human' = carnal. But you're the one doing that!

Carnal reasoning again?

I imagine she must have been, or her children wouldn't have been in the image of God, either.


I imagine she must have been, or her children wouldn't have been in the image of God, either
26 Then God said, "Let Us make man in Our image, according to Our likeness;
27So God created man in His own image; in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them. Genesis 1:26-27

Somewhere within the Us is a female!

JLB
 
Re: The Trinity

So who was the FIRST born?

Him (Jesus) or the female?

Can't you see this is nonsense?
 
Re: The Trinity

So who was the FIRST born?

Him (Jesus) or the female?

Can't you see this is nonsense?

The creation of Mankind is not nonsense!

Genesis 1:26-27 is referring to the creation of Adam and Eve, not Jesus, since He created all things.

15 He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation. 16 For by Him all things were created that are in heaven and that are on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or principalities or powers. All things were created through Him and for Him.

Again, God here is Elohim, which is plural of El -

26 Then God said, "Let Us make man in Our image, according to Our likeness;
27So God created man in His own image; in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them. Genesis 1:26-27

Somewhere within the Us is a female!

Do you see this?

JLB
 
Re: The Trinity

The creation of Mankind is not nonsense!

26 Then God said, "Let Us make man in Our image, according to Our likeness;
27So God created man in His own image; in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them. Genesis 1:26-27

Somewhere within the Us is a female!

Do you see this?

JLB

JLB,

I was with you all the way up to the point you said "Somewhere within the Us is a female!"

Now where do you find that?, here we know "Jesus" is a "male" and the "Father" is a "male", that leaves the "Holy Ghost" described as a "he" :

John 14:26 (KJV)
26 But the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you.

Now where is the "female" in there?
 
Re: The Trinity

JLB,

I was with you all the way up to the point you said "Somewhere within the Us is a female!"

Now where do you find that?, here we know "Jesus" is a "male" and the "Father" is a "male", that leaves the "Holy Ghost" described as a "he" :

John 14:26 (KJV)
26 But the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you.

Now where is the "female" in there?

Ok.

Let's go back to the original question.

Was "the female" created in the image of God?

26 Then God said, "Let Us make man in Our image, according to Our likeness; let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, over the birds of the air, and over the cattle, over all the earth and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth." 27 So God created man in His own image; in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them.


JLB
 
Re: The Trinity

The creation of Mankind is not nonsense!

Genesis 1:26-27 is referring to the creation of Adam and Eve, not Jesus, since He created all things.

15 He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation. 16 For by Him all things were created that are in heaven and that are on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or principalities or powers. All things were created through Him and for Him.

Again, God here is Elohim, which is plural of El -

26 Then God said, "Let Us make man in Our image, according to Our likeness;
27So God created man in His own image; in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them. Genesis 1:26-27

Somewhere within the Us is a female!

Do you see this?

JLB
I think you are reading too much into the text. It is significant that there is mention of the one "God" being paralleled with the plurals "us" and "our." But that Elohim is plural is generally thought just to speak to his majesty and not necessarily his ontological makeup, the nature of his being. It is a word that is used often in the OT with a few nuances in meaning, so we need to be careful here.

Back to the point. All this text is saying is that there is something about both the maleness and femaleness of mankind that relates to the image of God. It does not mean that one of the members of the Trinity must be female. God is ultimately neither male nor female, despite revealing himself to us mainly with language relating to being male and coming in the form of a man--that is not the only language he uses of himself.
 
Re: The Trinity

I think you are reading too much into the text. It is significant that there is mention of the one "God" being paralleled with the plurals "us" and "our." But that Elohim is plural is generally thought just to speak to his majesty and not necessarily his ontological makeup, the nature of his being. It is a word that is used often in the OT with a few nuances in meaning, so we need to be careful here.

Back to the point. All this text is saying is that there is something about both the maleness and femaleness of mankind that relates to the image of God. It does not mean that one of the members of the Trinity must be female. God is ultimately neither male nor female, despite revealing himself to us mainly with language relating to being male and coming in the form of a man--that is not the only language he uses of himself.
God is ultimately neither male nor female,
That's an interesting statement. What is the basis for this, the scripture that you derive this knowledge from?


JLB
 
Re: The Trinity

That's an interesting statement. What is the basis for this, the scripture that you derive this knowledge from?


JLB
The entirety of Scripture. There is nothing to suggest that God is literally male and/or female. There is probably no theologian or Bible scholar that would think otherwise, with the exception of those belonging to Mormonism or some other cult. Mormons use such passages as Gen 1:26-27 to say that the Father is literally a glorified man and once walked this Earth as a man.

There is much that can be said about what being created in God's image means, as it relates both to us and to God, but not that God must literally be male and female.
 
Re: The Trinity

The entirety of Scripture. There is nothing to suggest that God is literally male and/or female. There is probably no theologian or Bible scholar that would think otherwise, with the exception of those belonging to Mormonism or some other cult. Mormons use such passages as Gen 1:26-27 to say that the Father is literally a glorified man and once walked this Earth as a man.

There is much that can be said about what being created in God's image means, as it relates both to us and to God, but not that God must literally be male and female.


God is ultimately neither male nor female,
When you make a statement like this, it is good to be able to have a scripture to reference from.

So, in your opinion the term Father has no significance at all to being male?

So, in your opinion the term Son, carries no value to the reference of being male?

The phrase in Isaiah 9 -

6 For unto us a Child is born, Unto us a Son is given; And the government will be upon His shoulder. And His name will be called Wonderful, Counselor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace.

Has no significance whatsoever, it's just the ramblings of a prophet?

Everything in scripture speaks loud and clear that this age is about The Son of God getting an eternal "Soul mate" for Himself!


Hear the revelation the apostle Paul had about this subject -

31 "For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh." 32 This is a great mystery, but I speak concerning Christ and the church.


Or how about John -


Let us be glad and rejoice and give Him glory, for the marriage of the Lamb has come, and His wife has made herself ready." Revelation 19:7

JLB
 
Re: The Trinity

When you make a statement like this, it is good to be able to have a scripture to reference from.
There simply are no biblical statements on God being a literal male.

http://www.apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=11&article=1165

JLB said:
So, in your opinion the term Father has no significance at all to being male?

So, in your opinion the term Son, carries no value to the reference of being male?

The phrase in Isaiah 9 -

6 For unto us a Child is born, Unto us a Son is given; And the government will be upon His shoulder. And His name will be called Wonderful, Counselor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace.

Has no significance whatsoever, it's just the ramblings of a prophet?

Everything in scripture speaks loud and clear that this age is about The Son of God getting an eternal "Soul mate" for Himself!


Hear the revelation the apostle Paul had about this subject -

31 "For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh." 32 This is a great mystery, but I speak concerning Christ and the church.


Or how about John -


Let us be glad and rejoice and give Him glory, for the marriage of the Lamb has come, and His wife has made herself ready." Revelation 19:7

JLB
Of course there is a significance in the terms used. There are any number of reasons as to why God revealed himself using mainly male terms and what they communicate to us, and we should continue to use those terms. But that simply does not mean that God is literally a male.
 
Re: The Trinity

There simply are no biblical statements on God being a literal male.

http://www.apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=11&article=1165


Of course there is a significance in the terms used. There are any number of reasons as to why God revealed himself using mainly male terms and what they communicate to us, and we should continue to use those terms. But that simply does not mean that God is literally a male.

Everybody is entitled to their opinion, even if their opinion doesn't line up with many many scriptures to the contrary.

JLB
 
Re: The Trinity

Everybody is entitled to their opinion, even if their opinion doesn't line up with many many scriptures to the contrary.

JLB
Everyone is entitled to their opinion, but one really should change their opinion if it doesn't line up with what the Bible says.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Re: The Trinity

There simply are no biblical statements on God being a literal male.

http://www.apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=11&article=1165


Of course there is a significance in the terms used. There are any number of reasons as to why God revealed himself using mainly male terms and what they communicate to us, and we should continue to use those terms. But that simply does not mean that God is literally a male.


God is Spirit. As we see in Jesus all the fullness of God can dwell in bodily form. As in a bodily resurrection. We have been promised a body like Jesus's in the order of Spirit not of the dust of the earth. Paul wrote we don't know what that is but will be like the Lord. God is shown as one who has a figure of what we would term "man". I also believe God the Father sits in bodily form on His throne like the Son. God created mankind. Hence we see a "Father figure". Jesus is seen as a male figure. That doesn't state God the Father was ever human or a man but shows our body form was crafted in Gods image. Head, hands etc... In terms of mankind God created the female form. Male and female He created. But thats mankind not God. However I believe we (mankind) are spirit housed in the tent of the body.



Randy
 
Re: The Trinity

God is Spirit. As we see in Jesus all the fullness of God can dwell in bodily form. As in a bodily resurrection. We have been promised a body like Jesus's in the order of Spirit not of the dust of the earth. Paul wrote we don't know what that is but will be like the Lord. God is shown as one who has a figure of what we would term "man". I also believe God the Father sits in bodily form on His throne like the Son. God created mankind. Hence we see a "Father figure". Jesus is seen as a male figure. That doesn't state God the Father was ever human or a man but shows our body form was crafted in Gods image. Head, hands etc... In terms of mankind God created the female form. Male and female He created. But thats mankind not God. However I believe we (mankind) are spirit housed in the tent of the body.



Randy


Thanks Randy, for your input.

Do you believe that Eve was created in the image of God?


JLB
 
Re: The Trinity

God is shown as one who has a figure of what we would term "man". I also believe God the Father sits in bodily form on His throne like the Son. God created mankind. Hence we see a "Father figure". Jesus is seen as a male figure. That doesn't state God the Father was ever human or a man but shows our body form was crafted in Gods image. Head, hands etc...
There simply is no biblical basis for believing this. There is nothing in the entirety of Scripture to even suggest God has a "bodily form". It is incorrect to think that being made in the image God means that God must have a bodily form. There are any number of things that being made in the image of God means but God having a bodily form is not one of them.




Once again, whether or not God has a bodily form or whether or not God is actually male and/or female is not the topic of this discussion.
 
Re: The Trinity

Originally posted by JLB,

Do you believe that Eve was created in the image of God?

Originally posted by Randy,

God is shown as one who has a figure of what we would term "man". I also believe God the Father sits in bodily form on His throne like the Son. God created mankind. Hence we see a "Father figure". Jesus is seen as a male figure. That doesn't state God the Father was ever human or a man but shows our body form was crafted in Gods image. Head, hands etc...

  • Genesis 1:26 "And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness"


God did not make (past tense) man in His image, but God is rather MAKING man in His image. The "first man Adam" (1 Corinthians 15:45) is simply the first step in that creation process of "creating man... in His image".


Considering the word "make" - the grammar in Genesis 1:26 is in the 'imperfect tense.' Here is Webster's definition of the imperfect tense:

In grammar, the imperfect tense denotes an action in time past, then present, but 'not finished'.

You can look this up for yourself:

  • Genesis 1:26 "And God430 said559 [8799], Let us make6213 [8799] man120 in our image6754, after our likeness1823"


(The bracketed number [8799] stands for the 'imperfect tense.')


The Hebrew says:

  • Genesis 1:26 And saying is the Elohim, 'Make will We humanity in Our image, and according to Our likeness, and sway shall they over the fish of the sea, and over the flyer of the heavens, and over the beast, and over all land life, and over every moving animal moving on the land.'
    [*]Genesis 1:27 And creating is the Elohim humanity in His image. In the image of the Elohim He creates it. Male and female He creates them."


If this is not so, then Paul erred when he said this:

  • 1 Corinthians 15:44 "It is sown a natural body; it is raised a spiritual body. There is a natural body, and there is a spiritual body.
    [*]1 Corinthians 15:45 And so it is written, The first man Adam was made a living soul; the last Adam was made a quickening spirit.
    [*]1 Corinthians 15:46 Howbeit that WAS NOT FIRST which is spiritual ["conformed to the image of His Son", Romans 8:29] , but that which is natural; and AFTERWARD that which is spiritual.
    [*]1 Corinthians 15:47 The FIRST MAN IS OF THE EARTH, earthy: the SECOND MAN is the Lord from heaven.
    [*]1 Corinthians 15:48 As is the earthy, such are they also that are earthy: and as is the heavenly, such are they also that are heavenly.
    [*]1 Corinthians 15:49 And as we have borne the image of the earthy, we shall also bear the image of the heavenly.
    [*]1 Corinthians 15:50 Now this I say, brethren, that flesh and blood ["the first man Adam"] cannot inherit the kingdom of God; neither doth corruption inherit incorruption."


  • Romans 8:29 "For whom he did foreknow, he also did predestinate to be conformed to the IMAGE of his Son [the finished product], that he might be the firstborn among many brethren."


Adam is called "the son of God" (Luke 3:38), but not yet "conformed to the image of His Son".

"The first man Adam" was created out of the dusty clay of this earth, as the "flesh and blood... old man" of scripture, which we are told "cannot inherit the kingdom of God".

The "first man Adam" is but the first step to "the image of the heavenly" which will indeed be "conformed to the image of His Son", the finished product, truly "in the image of God". God is 'making' (in the process of making) mankind into His image, and the first part of that process is, by design, "marred in the hand of The Potter" (Jeremiah 18:4).


  • Jeremiah 18:4 "And the vessel that he made of clay was marred in the hand of the potter: so he made it again another vessel, as seemed good to the potter to make it."


This is all for the purpose of bringing mankind to see his need for a Savior to save him from his "naked... out of the ground... marred... dying" composition.


Here is what the scriptures tell us was all "the first man Adam" was ever intended to be:

  • Romans 5:14 "Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over them that had not sinned after the similitude of Adam's transgression, who is THE FIGURE of him that was to come."


The word 'figure' here is the Greek word 'tupos'. "The first man Adam" was only intended to be a 'tupos', a FIGURE (a type) of the finished product. Look at 1 Corinthians 45 & 46 again:

  • 1 Corinthians 15:45 "And so it is written, 'The first man Adam was made a living soul; the last Adam was made a quickening spirit.'"
    [*]1 Corinthians 15:46 Howbeit that WAS NOT FIRST which is spiritual ["conformed to the image of His Son", Romans 8:29] , but that which is natural; and AFTERWARD that which is spiritual.


If mankind had been made perfect to begin with by God, he would never have needed to be shown his own nakedness. "Nakedness" is the Biblical symbol for man's marred, sinful condition, right from the hand of The Potter:

  • Jeremiah 18:4 "And the vessel that he made of clay was marred in the hand of the potter: so he made it again another vessel, as seemed good to the potter to make it."


In the Hebrew, it is not 'He made it again', but rather, it is 'He IS MAKING it again' into a "new man".

  • Jeremiah 18:4 "And marred is the vessel that HE IS MAKING, as clay in the hand of the potter, and he has turned and he makes it another vessel, as it was right in the eyes of the potter to make."


"He makes it another vessel". And what is the composition of this Biblical "NEW MAN"?

  • Colossians 3:10 "And have put on the new man, which is renewed in knowledge after the IMAGE of him that created him."


It is the new man who being made into "the LAST Adam... after the IMAGE OF HIM that created him" as a "marred vessel" in the "FIRST MAN Adam".


  • Romans 8:20 "For the creature was made subject to vanity, not willingly, but by reason of him who hath subjected the same in hope."


You and I are "the creature". It was our Creator who "made [the FIRST MAN Adam -- and us] subject to vanity"
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Re: The Trinity

God is Spirit ... I also believe God the Father sits in bodily form on His throne like the Son.

I think you should explain this apparent contradiction.

God created mankind. Hence we see a "Father figure".

Why? Israel did not 'see' YHWH as a 'male figure' - although they undoubtedly thought of God in patriarchal terms.

It was Jesus who gave us the 'image' of God as Father.

Jesus is seen as a male figure.

'Seen'? Do you mean that Jesus was only 'seen' as a human and was not really human?

That doesn't state God the Father was ever human or a man

Then what was it that hung on the cross?
 
Re: The Trinity

There simply is no biblical basis for believing this. There is nothing in the entirety of Scripture to even suggest God has a "bodily form". It is incorrect to think that being made in the image God means that God must have a bodily form. There are any number of things that being made in the image of God means but God having a bodily form is not one of them.




Once again, whether or not God has a bodily form or whether or not God is actually male and/or female is not the topic of this discussion.


Chapter and verse please.


JLB
 
Re: The Trinity

I think you should explain this apparent contradiction.



Why? Israel did not 'see' YHWH as a 'male figure' - although they undoubtedly thought of God in patriarchal terms.

It was Jesus who gave us the 'image' of God as Father.



'Seen'? Do you mean that Jesus was only 'seen' as a human and was not really human?



Then what was it that hung on the cross?


Israel did not 'see' YHWH as a 'male figure'
YHWH, The Angel of The Lord, God, The preincarnate Jesus Christ appeared to Samsons parents who described His form as a Man.

Read the whole account for yourself. Judges 13


6 So the woman came and told her husband, saying, "A Man of God came to me, and His countenance was like the countenance of the Angel of God, very awesome; but I did not ask Him where He was from, and He did not tell me His name. 21 When the Angel of the Lord appeared no more to Manoah and his wife, then Manoah knew that He was the Angel of the Lord. 22 And Manoah said to his wife, "We shall surely die, because we have seen God!" 23 But his wife said to him, "If the Lord had desired to kill us, He would not have accepted a burnt offering and a grain offering from our hands, nor would He have shown us all these things, nor would He have told us such things as these at this time."


JLB
 
Re: The Trinity

YHWH, The Angel of The Lord, God, The preincarnate Jesus Christ appeared to Samsons parents who described His form as a Man.

Read the whole account for yourself. Judges 13

What has this got to do with my post or the OP?
 
Back
Top