Is God Male or Female?

Discussion in '2005 Archive' started by Martin, Jun 18, 2005.

  1. Martin

    Martin
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Jan 1, 2005
    Messages:
    5,228
    Likes Received:
    0
    The question of the gender of God, to me personally, is a bit silly. After all the Bible constantly refers to God in the masculine and never in the feminine. That would seem to settle the issue. However there is a movement within wider "Christianity" to refer to God in a different way, in the feminine. No less a institution than Duke University (Divinity School) states, in their catalog:

    This is a disturbing trend because it ignores the very clear teaching on this subject. In this post I want to deal with this issue: Is God a male or a female (I will return to the statement of Duke University later).

    The first point that needs to be raised is biological. Clearly, from a biological view, God is neither male nor female. The Scriptures make it clear that, "God is Spirit" (Jn 4:24). Being a Spirit God the Father does not a physical or biological body. God the Son, Jesus, has a physical resurrected body which is historically male, and the Holy Spirit (like the Father) is only Spirit with no physical body. Therefore we see that in the Trinity (One God, three co-equal, co-eternal Persons) there is only one member with a physical body and that body is male. However we are not left in the dark concerning the Father and the Holy Spirit.

    The Father is refered to in masculine one hundred percent of the time in Scripture. Just one example will do. In Matthew 6:9 the Lord Jesus refers to the Father as "Our Father", a masculine term. If Jesus refers to the Father as "Father" and says that we should "pray...in this way" then that is what believers should do. We should only refer to the Father as "Father" or "Our Father" (etc). We should never call the Father, "Mother". Duke University claims that Luke 15:8-10 shows God as a woman. This is incorrect. Jesus does not say that God can be refered to in the feminine sense, rather He is giving an example. Just like the woman who lost the coin and celebrates when she finds it, so "there is joy in the presence of the angels of God over one sinner who repents" (Lk 15:10). The Holy Spirit is also refered to as "He" (masculine) in both the Old and New Testaments. There is no Biblical basis to refer to God in the feminine sense. Both the Old and New Testaments refer to God in the masculine (Father, He, Him, etc). Therefore that is what we are to do. This modern feminine trend should be rejected by all Bible believing Christians.

    In Christ,
    Martin.
     
  2. Pastor Larry

    Pastor Larry
    Expand Collapse
    <b>Moderator</b>
    Moderator

    Joined:
    May 4, 2001
    Messages:
    21,763
    Likes Received:
    0
    Duke Divinity School should not be used as a test of anything orthodox.
     
  3. Marcia

    Marcia
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    May 12, 2004
    Messages:
    11,139
    Likes Received:
    0
    Martin, I agree with you but this is nothing new. When I had been a believer less than a year, a So. Baptist pastor told me that God is both male and female and he had no problem with any pastor wanting to call God "Mother." He referred to scritpures like that show God's nurturing care and concern (that church, btw, left the So. Baptist fold several yrs. later).

    Even though I was a new believer, I knew those scriptures did not mean God was both male and female. Having been exposed to the "Mother-Father God" of some psychics and spiritualists I had known before, I was alarmed at this pastor's words.

    God has no gender as we do but makes it clear we should refer to him and think of him in masculine terms.

    I think we are going to be seeing more of this kind of thinking (that God can be female).
     
  4. Marcia

    Marcia
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    May 12, 2004
    Messages:
    11,139
    Likes Received:
    0
    I forgot to say it was in 1991 when that pastor told me he had no problem with thinking of God as female.
     
  5. USN2Pulpit

    USN2Pulpit
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 19, 2003
    Messages:
    1,641
    Likes Received:
    0
    After speaking on the roles of a godly father in a Christian family, Ergun Caner once made a point saying, "Is God a woman? - No! Is God a man? - No! He is "Father."

    When I think of all the things a father is supposed to do, I think I find common ground at least in that description with brother Ergun.
     
  6. Archeryaddict

    Archeryaddict
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2004
    Messages:
    317
    Likes Received:
    0
    Many people will say that God is not gender Spesific but I say Baloney.
    God the father is Fully spirit
    Jesus is Fully God and fully man and I am 99.9%certain Jesus is a male
    Jesus, the second seat of the Godhead Calls Him FATHER so what does that tell you?

    when God Came to Abram in the plains of Mamere 3 men appeared to Abram Father, Son, Spirit.
    my Bible says nothing about 2 men and a woman visiting Abram

    I can give an abundance of Biblical examples
    but I want to keep it short.
     
  7. DavidFWhite3

    DavidFWhite3
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 7, 2001
    Messages:
    189
    Likes Received:
    0
    How do you know? Did you go to Duke? Do you know any professors who teach at Duke? Do you know any pastors who were educated at Duke? or is it just your habit to belittle institutions of higher learning because you have none?

    But back to the subject. Is God male or female?

    It says clearly in Genesis 1 that God made humans in the image of God, both male and female. God is not male or female. [language snipped] God is not human, so it is absurd to insist he be male.

    This also reveals the ignorance and shortsightedness of those who worship the bible as if it is God. Another example of the idiocy of Fundamaentalism, proven everyday on this board.

    [ June 19, 2005, 04:48 PM: Message edited by: Dr. Bob ]
     
  8. Soulman

    Soulman
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 12, 2004
    Messages:
    1,088
    Likes Received:
    0
    Take it easy David. Yer blood is boilin.

    God refers to himself as He wants to be known. In His word He refeers to Himself in the male gender. People shouldn't mess with that. Of course He has the attributes of male and female as He created us in His image. But He prefers to be known as the Father.
     
  9. Ben W

    Ben W
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 16, 2002
    Messages:
    8,868
    Likes Received:
    0
    Often God is depicted as an old man in hollywood type movies. yet I suppose subliminally people go along with that.

    It seems to me weird when people usually feminists refer to God as She. I am not sure their is a precedent set for that in scripture, we are created in His image, yet we are not neccessaraly replicas of that image.
     
  10. icthus

    icthus
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 10, 2005
    Messages:
    1,114
    Likes Received:
    0
    The idea that God is both male and female has been around in other "faiths" for thousands of years. Some have also attempted to introduce this "doctrine of demons" into the Christian Faith, especially from the feminist and liberal section of the "Church". There are also some men who support this heresy, so it is not correct to assume that this is something that is promoted only by women.

    In a book called, "The New Eve in Christ", by Mary Hayter, she attemts to show from Scripture that the Godhead is not only masculine. Her reasoning is the distorted understanding of her "proof" texts, and her bent to prove something that does not even exist.

    On page 24, she says:

    "again, the Hebrew term for 'spirit', 'wind', 'breath' of God is feminine (ruch). Swindler lists many references in which he thinks that the feminine Spirit of God is hypostatized, or personified".

    Hayter is right on the Hebrew noun "ruch" as being in the feminine gender, as it is in the neuter gender in the Greek, where the word is "pneuma". However, can we conclude that this is evidence that the Holy Spirit is a female? The gender of a word in a language does not allow us to arrive at a dogmatic conclusion that this is evidence for the Holy Spirit being female, and therefore we have "a Godhead comprising a male and female Deity" (Hayter, p.21)

    It is incorrect to assume, that, from Genesis 1:26, where God creates man and woman in His Image, that this can be taken as referring to His being male and female.

    "In our inage and after our likeness...both words refer here evidently to spiritual resemblance alone, and the duplication of synonyms is intended simply to emphasise the idea of resemblance (cf. the duplication in x.5, 20,31,32; xxv.160" (Dr S R Driver; The Book of Genesis, pp.14-15)

    "So, too, God made man in His own 'image', reflecting some of His own perfections: perfect in knowledge, righteousness, and holiness, and with dominion over the creatures" (Merrill Unger and William White; Expository Dictionary of the Old Testament. pp.398-399)

    Any notion that we are "duplicates" of God, as taught by the Word of Faith Movement, is heresy.

    Like the feminists, who misuse the use of the Hebrew "ruch" to prove that the Holy Spirit is a female; there are those to use the neuter "pneuma" of the Greek, to show that the Holy Spirit is not a Person. It is clear that in both cases, it is the theological positions of both groups that are being supported, and not what Scripture really teaches. Hence the Jehovah's Wintesses refer to the Holy Spirit as an "active force", and some speak of the Holy Spirit in impersonal terms, and use "personification" for references to Him.

    The Personality of the Holy Spirit is confirmed by the many passages which refer personal qaulities to Him. Like, He "teaches", is "grieved", "calls to service", "creates", etc. Language that cannot be used for an impersonal being. Even when we read of "the Spirit itself", as we do in the KJV in Romans 8:26, etc. It is because of a strict translation of the Greek, "all auto to pneuma", which is in the neuter gender. However, the correct reading would be: "the Spirit Himself". In verse 27 Paul speaks of "the mind of the Spirit", and "he intercedes (3rd person) for the saints"; language that can only be used for a Person.

    It is of great importance, that in John's Gospel, we have Jesus Himself refer to the Holy Spirit, not by the neuter "ekenio", which would be the grammatical gender in agreement with the neuter "pheuma hagios". But, we read in places in John, like 14:26; 15:26, where Jesus uses the masculine "ekeinos", even though it is used in connection with the neuter "pneuma". It is my opinion, that Jesus was not so much as showing the Personality of the Holy Spirit, which would have been confirmed even by the use of the neuter "ekeino". But, Jesus is clearly referring to the Holy Spirit as a "Male Person", which the use of the language here would show. The change in the gender from the neuter to the masculine, can only be accounted for by the fact that Jesus intended to show the Holy Spirit, not just as a Personal Being, but a Male Person.
     
  11. Martin

    Martin
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Jan 1, 2005
    Messages:
    5,228
    Likes Received:
    0
    DavidFWhite3 Said:
    How do you know? Did you go to Duke? Do you know any professors who teach at Duke? Do you know any pastors who were educated at Duke? or is it just your habit to belittle institutions of higher learning because you have none?

    ==Duke University is a liberal leaning institution. This I know. I do know several pastors who graduated from Duke and they agree that it has liberal leanings. I can also read their catalog, and other related publications, and see the same trend. Saying that Duke is liberal is not to "belittle" the school, it is just stating what seems to be a very clear direction the school is taking.
    ______________________________________

    DavidFWhite3 Said:
    It says clearly in Genesis 1 that God made humans in the image of God, both male and female. God is not male or female. God is God,

    ==You are, of course, correct in saying that God the Father/Holy Spirit is not male or female in a biological sense (I dealt with this point in my original post). The Son, however, does have a physical body (Lk 24:36-43, Rev 1:12-20) and that is a body of a male (though glorified). However this does not mean people are free to refer to the Father or the Spirit with feminine terms. The Father has always, in the Old and New Testaments, been referred to in the masculine (He, Him, etc). Even the term "Father" is masculine. The Holy Spirit is also refered to, by Scripture, in the masculine. There is no Biblical reason or justification to refer to the Triune God of the Bible with feminine terminology.
    ____________________________________

    DavidFWhite3 Said:
    and if stupid, and I mean unbelievably stupid men think God has to be male, then they must confess that they believe God has a penis, for that, and that alone is what makes a human a male. What a stupid question this is. God is not human, so it is absurd to insist he be male.

    ==I dealt with the biological question in my original post. However it is not "absurd to insist" that God be refered to in the masculine when that is the way He refers to Himself in Scripture, and when that is the way our Lord Jesus taught us to address Him (Matt 6:9). Not only that, but the masculine is how Jesus Himself addressed the Father (Matt 26:39,42, etc). So it is neither absurd nor stupid, to use your terminology, to refer to God in the masculine.
    _____________________________

    DavidFWhite3 Said:
    This also reveals the ignorance and shortsightedness of those who worship the bible as if it is God.

    ==Nobody on this board, that I am aware of, worships the Bible. That seems to be a strawman argument. What we are doing is treating the Bible as God's revelation to man (which is what the Bible claims to be). Paul said, in 2Tim 3:16-17, that, "all Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness; so that the man of God may be adequate, equipped for every good work". In fact when our Lord Himself was tempted what did He do? He refered to the Scriptures. The Scriptures are our source for information about God. Taking what the Scriptures say seriously is not "ignorance", again to use your terminology, it is spiritual wisdom. Why? Because it is obeying the prophets, the Apostles, The Father, the Holy Spirit, and our Lord Jesus Himself. This is not worshiping the Bible, we worship God alone, this is treating the Bible as God's revelation to mankind.
    __________________________________

    DavidFWhite3 Said:
    Another example of the idiocy of Fundamaentalism, proven everyday on this board.

    ==The term "fundamentalism" simply referes to those who hold to the "fundamentals" (the basics) of some teaching. So yes, I am a fundamentalist. Why? Because I hold to the fundamental teachings of Christianity. If that is "idiocy", again to use your terminology, then so be it. However I will happily stand with the saints and with the Word of God.

    In Christ,
    Martin.
     
  12. Pastor Larry

    Pastor Larry
    Expand Collapse
    <b>Moderator</b>
    Moderator

    Joined:
    May 4, 2001
    Messages:
    21,763
    Likes Received:
    0
    Actually, I do have higher education and I am not belittling education at all. However, it does need to be actual education, not the pooling of ignorance about God's word. Duke Divinity School is toward the liberal end of theological schools. They don't object to that. They don't pretend to be otherwise. I am not sure that any knowing person would object to what I said. It isn't a matter of opinion.

    Well, good study on that passage with critical thinkign will easily show that you have completely missed it. (There is where that higher education comes in.)

    Great tactic here ... When you can't win on the merits of the argument, just slam your opponents intelligence. That is always the hallmark of civil discussion. People who have the facts on their side don't have to resort to this kind of tactic.

    I don't think anyone says God "has to be" anything. But God did reveal certain things to us, and it would be the height of arrogance to suggest that God didn't know what he was talking about when he said that. If God wasn't a male, then why did he use male terms? He could have used neuter terms to refer to himself? He could have thrown in a feminine here or there. But he did not none of that.

    Males aren't males because of their (male body part edited) alone. But even more importantly, God told us that he is a spirit and therefore doesn't have a body at all, much less any body parts. When God did take human flesh, it was as a man.

    I agree that it is a stupid question. The answer is abundantly clear from what God said about himself. This is where a place like Duke shows its true colors. When someone says that God is not a male, they are denying the clear teaching of Scripture. Given Duke's view of inspiration, they are not troubled by that. Given the biblical view, it is very troubling.

    Nice personal attacks again. But I am sure that the people who believe God are not ignorant or shortsighted. They do not worship the Bible as if it is God. Nor are they idiots. But God has been very clear about his word, and its truth and value, and about who he is. We should not be questioning that.

    [ June 20, 2005, 05:11 PM: Message edited by: dianetavegia ]
     
  13. LadyEagle

    LadyEagle
    Expand Collapse
    <b>Moderator</b> <img src =/israel.gif>
    Moderator

    Joined:
    Feb 7, 2002
    Messages:
    22,028
    Likes Received:
    1
    I personally was shocked about a newspaper article several years back about Playboy bunnies being on Duke's campus, a *Baptist* institution of higher education.
     
  14. StefanM

    StefanM
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2004
    Messages:
    6,430
    Likes Received:
    72
    http://www.dukenews.duke.edu/resources/quickfacts.html

    Duke isn't Baptist, as far as I know.
     
  15. Martin

    Martin
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Jan 1, 2005
    Messages:
    5,228
    Likes Received:
    0
    Duke is Methodist.
     
  16. LadyEagle

    LadyEagle
    Expand Collapse
    <b>Moderator</b> <img src =/israel.gif>
    Moderator

    Joined:
    Feb 7, 2002
    Messages:
    22,028
    Likes Received:
    1
    Okay, you're right. Thanks for the correction. It wasn't Duke, it was Wake Forest. I would edit it but the time has run out. So, nevermind. [​IMG]
     
  17. Mark Osgatharp

    Mark Osgatharp
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2002
    Messages:
    1,719
    Likes Received:
    0
    Your interpretation of the Genesis statement is incorrect. Paul was inspired and he gives the correct interpretation in I Corinthians:

    "For a man indeed ought not to cover his head, forasmuch as he is the image and glory of God; but the woman is the glory of the man."

    What makes man in God's image is not a common anatomy - because God has no anatomy. What makes man - or should I say male - in God's image is his position of rulership in the created order.

    In other words, it's a man's world. Deal with it.

    Mark Osgatharp
     
  18. icthus

    icthus
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 10, 2005
    Messages:
    1,114
    Likes Received:
    0
    Your interpretation of the Genesis statement is incorrect. Paul was inspired and he gives the correct interpretation in I Corinthians:

    "For a man indeed ought not to cover his head, forasmuch as he is the image and glory of God; but the woman is the glory of the man."

    What makes man in God's image is not a common anatomy - because God has no anatomy. What makes man - or should I say male - in God's image is his position of rulership in the created order.

    In other words, it's a man's world. Deal with it.

    Mark Osgatharp
    </font>[/QUOTE]Mark, all you are doing here is stirring the pot. You are not contributing to this discussion in a level manner, but making some silly remarks, which goes to show that neither do you understand what Genesis 1:26-27 and 1 Corinthians 11:7 are really saying. [​IMG]
     
  19. Archeryaddict

    Archeryaddict
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2004
    Messages:
    317
    Likes Received:
    0
    there is some really Christlike behavior going on here.

    I am under the assumption we are all followers of Christ here so can we please have a civil discussion without all the name calling and the pot stirring
    it is unbecoming of a Christian.
     
  20. Mark Osgatharp

    Mark Osgatharp
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2002
    Messages:
    1,719
    Likes Received:
    0
    Icthus,

    Paul said,

    "For a man indeed ought not to cover his head, forasmuch as he is the image and glory of God; but the woman is the glory of the man."

    That explicitly says man's likeness to God is in his headship. That may, indeed, stir the pot in a day in age when the ungodly heresy of feminism reigns, but it is truth nonethessless and directly addresses the subject of God and gender.

    Mark Osgatharp
     

Share This Page

Loading...