See for more themes.

rebutal on Lisa Cosner 'What’s in a pronoun? The divine gender controversy', Holy Spirit personality, Holy Spirit showing femaleness-love

Q1:What is the Personality of the Holy Spirit? A fair assessment to all readers.

The Creation Science Website has an excellent article "What's in a pronoun? The divine gender controversy" by Lita Cosner, published 20 August 2008. See source link

by Rob Thompson, 17 January 2020.

While respecting copyright and fair use, the Author wishes to "quote" every passage made by Lita Cosner:

(1) : Quote: "God is Spirit (John 4:24), so is biologically neither male nor female, and He does not have a sexual nature".

Correct. God is not referenced anywhere in Scripture as gender male or gender female. In the next world, in heaven and on the new earth, for humans, our biological functions of procreation, is switched OFF, according to Jesus' statements in Mt 22:30.

(2) : Quote: "Some feminist theologians and writers claim that Scripture contains feminine or maternal imagery as well as masculine imagery. Some of this is simply linguistic gender; both Hebrew and Greek, like French and Spanish, use gender for nouns. "

Correct. Feminine grammar case does not depict gender personalities. The Hebrew word ruwach is feminine in grammar case. This does not suggest the Holy Spirit is feminine in terms of gender female.

Some claim Ancient Hebrew came from Edenic days, so perhaps, one should ask why Hebrew divides words into these two groups, grammar masculine and grammar feminine? Rather than dismiss this topic, one should investigate why Hebrew as a language does this, and what are these poetry similes trying to say. Another strange aspect of Hebrew words is there are many words spelt with the same letters, but used as grammar verbs and others used as grammar nouns. In English we make these into new words of meanings, but the Hebrew may not suggest this.

For example, He went to love her, with his love. Have we really two meanings of loving here? Perhaps instead of dismissing Hebrew language as strange, we should try to understand what GOD was saying when this Edenic Language was given to man in the Garden of Eden. Hebrew does not have a word for "LOVE" used as grammar verb or grammar noun, it has two very different words, spelt differently for the same English meaning: love. Thus Hebrew has two words for love, not one. What does this mean? Have we considered this in our Bible studies?

(3) : Quote: "Another type of instance that is claimed as evidence of God being described in feminine terms is in similes and metaphors. However, similes and metaphors always are comparing attributes of one thing with attributes of another they never mean that one thing is literally the other thing. The same principle applies a few verses later when God is compared to an eagle who protects its young (Deutronomy 32:11). It is ridiculous to infer from the imagery that God is female; it would be just as justified in the context to assume that this verse teaches that God has feathers and wings! This is not even simply a question of bad hermeneutics (which it is), but of poor basic reading comprehension, whether intentional or not, on the part of these scholars".

Correct. Similes do not mean they are exactly the same as the thing comparing itself to. Over half of the Bible in this Ancient Hebrew writings is poetry, another linguistic invention from GOD. So it's obvious a simile is trying to tell us humans darkly, something about GOD, who is NOT of matter, time or space. So while similes do not mean they are exactly the same as the thing comparing itself to, similes are comparing something that is real and similar to that made of matter, otherwise it would NOT be a simile. So instead of dismissing poetry similes, we need to investigate what pictures these similes are showing us.

(4) : Quote: "The male imagery used to depict God is fundamentally different from the female similes found in Scripture. God may be like a mother in certain aspects, but He is Father; Jesus prayed to Him as Father and taught His disciples to do the same (Matt 6:9). The Second Person of the Trinity, Jesus Christ, became incarnate as a man, not a woman...."

Correct. Male imagery is fundamentally different to female imaginery. We need to investigate why it is this way, rather than dismiss the imaginery altogether. It's obvious GOD uses this imaginery, so what is GOD trying to teach us?

Quote: ", and Jesus referred to the Holy Spirit with the pronoun 'He' (John 14:16-17)."

Correct. But is this translated correctly or understood correctly?

Here is a Syrian New Testament, also known as the Peshitta. The 'ruwach' or Holy Spirit is written as 'she' because the Hebrew word 'ruwach' is feminine in case.

John 14:26 But she the Holy Spirit, the Comforter whom He will send to you in my Name, She will teach you everything, She will remind you of that which I have told you.

This does not mean the Holy Spirit is a "she", just because of the grammar case of the pronoun when "ruwach" (a Hebrew feminine term) is translated. But than other churches are happy to suggest the Holy Spirit is a "he" just because of the grammar case of the pronoun when "pneumia" (a Greek masculine term) is translated.

There is another matter, that is NOT even considered by readers. We assume we can read Scripture, written in Hebrew culture, into our own culture, as if we clearly understand all the words, all the time. We need to consider other functional terms of the Holy Spirit, in community settings such as "agency or medium" functions of the Holy Spirit.

Joh 16:13 Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth: for he shall not speak of himself; but whatsoever he shall hear, that shall he speak: and he will shew you things to come. 14 He shall glorify me: for he shall receive of mine, and shall shew it unto you. 15 All things that the Father hath are mine:

The "Spirit of truth" may refer to the Holy Spirit administrating the Father's truth, rather than being the "Holy Spirit of Truth" as a single entity. We need to consider if this is a community reference, to more than one member within the Godhead.

(5) : Quote: " It is not even clear if the culture was as patriarchal as is claimed; many ancient cultures worshipped goddesses (see, e.g., Acts 19:27-28) and Paul even had to straighten out the Corinthians about women's proper place in church services (1 Corinthians 14:33-38)".

Correct. Male imagery rules over the home/church.

(6) : Quote: "Jesus was a supernatural virginal conception, and the God who created the universe surely would have no problem in creating a Y chromosome".

Correct. But other details in this verse are left unexplained. The article is careful to leave out difficult passages and is not totally fair to the readers on everything this topic offers.

(7) : Quote: "Some have the good sense to accept that Jesus was physically male, but claim that He had female psychological characteristics, or that he behaved in female ways: He loved children, had special friendships with women, and wept. However, none of these are especially feminine characteristics".

Correct. Personality similarities exist in both genders. The article does not elaborate further though? such as why are there two Hebrew words for love?

(8) : Quote: "The Bible has an overwhelming emphasis that the Saviour of humanity would not only be both God and human, but a male human. Eve understood the prophecy ( of Genesis 3:15) to refer to a male when she misapplied it to Cain in Genesis 4:1. God declares Jesus to be His beloved Son (Matthew 3:17, 17:5), not daughter, and He is called High Priest (Hebrews 2:17), not priestess. In Revelation, Jesus is the Bridegroom of the Church (ch. 21). The overwhelming presence of male imagery applied to Jesus from Genesis to Revelation strongly suggests that the Messiah's maleness was no accident or concession to culture, but central to His nature and mission."

Correct. The Hebrew word born "yalad" actually means "male-born". So the male imaginery is predominate throughout Scripture. There is a reason for this.

(9) : Quote: " Identifying God in female terms leads to a fundamental change in how God is viewed: He is no longer Lord over the world, but a mother birthing it. He is no longer king over his realm, but the world is actually part of his (her?) body. It seems that the evangelicals who wish to simply add mother to the list of names for God in the Scriptures, have no way of preventing this kind of revision of the way in which God relates to the world. The Bible is clear about the "otherness" of God; the creation narrative in Genesis clearly illustrates that God existed before the creation and is completely separate from it. Those who identify God in female terms have no way to prevent this fundamental change in the view of God where the creation becomes part of God (panentheism), and thus in some way humanity becomes divine in this view as well. The way that God relates to His creation corresponds with male roles; He is Father, King, and Master. There is no way to diminish the maleness of these roles without diminishing our view of the nature of God Himself."

Correct. There is a definite risk of this information NOT edifiying the Church, and spoiling a wrong view of GOD. This is why silence has been golden in the past from those studying Scripture.

(10) : Quote: "A truly biblical understanding of God is far from anti-female, because both male and female are created in the image of God (Genesis 1:26-28). Some imagery used in the Bible may even be easier for females to understand and relate to; e.g. the Church as the bride of Christ (Ephesians 5:22-33, Revelation 21:9,17)."

Correct. Such imaginery may help some with their relationship to GOD.

(11) : Quote: If God reveals Himself as Father, King, Lord, etc, it seems obscene to insist on calling Him Mother, Goddess, etc. As Michael Bott argued, "respecting the requested manner of address is good manners at least."

Correct. Perhaps it would be best to not describe GOD in any way at all as gender pronouns, simply the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit. This is most respectful.

(12) : Quote: "Early Christianity and ancient Judaism before it were both light-years ahead of their cultures regarding the treatment of women. The Mosaic law was very pro-woman; it was the first ancient law to punish both parties of adultery equally (Leviticus 20:10) whereas in other cultures of that time only the woman was culpable. The Mosaic law also provided for a woman who was raped by forcing the rapist to support her for the rest of her life, and forced Jewish men to treat females of conquered people with dignity."

Correct.

(13) : Quote: "That Christians with a biblical view of God insist on calling Him by the male names He has given Himself in no way reflects negatively on the biblical view of women, because both men and women are created in the image of God. "

Correct.

(14) : Quote: "The same hermeneutic that allows exegetes to replace 'Father, Son and Holy Spirit' with 'Mother, Daughter, and Life-bearing Womb' would also free humans to reinterpret any part of Scripture to fit with the spirit of the age-including the many parts of the Bible which are explicitly pro-female! If we are free to redefine even one word of Scripture, not one word of it is unchangeable."

Correct. The Internet is rife with Mother, Goddess and other non Biblical names. GOD destested Israel having a Queen of Heaven, in OT times. Since Satan made pagan notions of GOD as a family, does not mean such notions are not Biblical in some manner? Have not our translators "translated Scripture to reinterpret any part of Scripture to fit with their own bias, and fit the text within their own cultural setting"? A good example of this is the Hebrew word "shadday" which does not mean "almighty" at all, but is more likely related to "shad", the meaning of breast. Other strange notions of translators is to split a Hebrew word with noun and verb forms into two different meanings, such as compassion and womb. Should we do this? No. While there is a Hebrew word for "belly" there is no Hebrew word for "womb". This Hebrew word has more likely the meaning of "compassion" for grammar verb uses and "compassion-centre" for grammar noun uses. It seems GOD is trying to make similes for a reason, to bring to us darkly pictures about GOD, but we humans avoid the Hebrew suggestions and our translators "reinterpret any part of Scripture to fit with" their own cultural bias. This is not fair to begin with.

(15) : Quote: CMI contributor, engineer, linguist and Bible translator Kevin May says: I also think that if God were described in feminine terms, men would tend to relate to God in the wrong way. Ancient people used to worship goddesses through sexual intercourse with the goddess' representatives. This would be an appalling way to 'worship' the true God, and a travesty in the use of men's God-given sexual drive. I feel sure that God's use of male imagery and relational terms in his revelation of himself is at least in part to counter this kind of error.

Correct. Well said. In order to preserve Scripture, it is best to leave such matters alone. Silence is golden. However since my own church is no longer silent with these matters, all members baptised into the SDA church have to acknowledge the Holy Spirit as a "he" whatever that term means? So by making public statements we are forced to consider the truth as Scripture presents. So I agree in the past the use of male imaginery helped "counter this kind of error", Satan is now pursuing the other extreme, if the Godhead is all male imaginery, than surely married mono-gender couples should be welcomed into the Church. So if God were described in masculine and feminine terms, men would tend to relate to God in a different way. Perhaps it would be better to study truth as Scripture reveils it, rather than fit GOD in our own current cultural perspectives.

Now the Author will present the topic more completely

With all the affirmations to the well researched aticle, by Lita Cosner; does this Author have a comeback? It's what that is NOT said and NOT published from Scripture is the concern, according to the Author. Some things have been left out.

Notice this public statement that is now a public creed of the Seventh Day Adventist Church, inside the published 28 Fundamentals of the SDA Church:

The Holy Spirit 5

God the eternal Spirit was active with the Father and the Son in Creation, incarnation, and redemption. He is as much a person as are the Father and the Son. He inspired the writers of Scripture. He filled Christ's life with power. He draws and convicts human beings; and those who respond He renews and transforms into the image of God. Sent by the Father and the Son to be always with His children, He extends spiritual gifts to the church, empowers it to bear witness to Christ, and in harmony with the Scriptures leads it into all truth. (Gen. 1:1, 2; 2 Sam. 23:2; Ps. 51:11; Isa. 61:1; Luke 1:35; 4:18; John 14:16-18, 26; 15:26; 16:7-13; Acts 1:8; 5:3; 10:38; Rom. 5:5; 1 Cor. 12:7-11; 2 Cor. 3:18; 2 Peter 1:21.)

Such a public creed is now a baptismal vow for new members entering the church. Before 1980, there was no public creed making so many details:

1. Do you believe in God the Father, in His Son Jesus Christ, and in the Holy Spirit? (Baptismal vow number one, since 1980's)

This was the only public vow a new SDA member had to acknowledge, about the function and personality of thhe Holy Spirit. In days long ago, members of the SDA church had freedom to have variations in their support of certain Bible verses about the Godhead. Today this is no longer the case. Modern SDA members have to acknowledge the Holy Spirit as a "he" whatever they mean by that term? In olden days, SDA people had this counsel from the inspired writings of Ellen White:

"The nature of the Holy Spirit is a mystery. Men may bring together passages of Scripture and put a human construction on them, but the acceptance of fanciful views will not strengthen the church. Regarding mysteries which are too deep for human understanding, silence is golden". (From Trials to Triumph, Page 29)

So clearly since traditions and precepts of men have taken over our the old landmarks of GOD, it is time the matter of this issue be made known. However it would be better to remain silence on the matter and follow the advice of Scripture:

Ps 131:1 ( A prayer of David.) LORD, my heart is not haughty, nor mine eyes lofty: neither do I exercise myself in great matters, or in things too high for me.

DISCUSSION:

(16) : "What is LOVE"?

Most people think "love" is a single Hebrew word in Scripture, but many will be surprised to know there are two Hebrew words of "love".

The first mention of one kind of love is here:

Ge 27:4 And make me savoury meat, such as I love "ahab", and bring it to me, that I may eat; that my soul may bless thee before I die.

The second kind of love is first mentioned here:

Ge 29:20 And Jacob served seven years for Rachel; and they seemed unto him but a few days, for the love "ahabuh" he had to her.

If you do a study of both of these words about love, you will find "ahab" is the maleness-love kind, and "ahabuh" is the femaleness-love kind. These qualities of loving generally fit into the reason why GOD created animals with differences in their styles of loving. Since we are told in heaven, the biological functions of procreation are switched off, there remains therefore the differences in the personalities of loving, we need to consider that is still preserved in each kind.

Gender males tend to show more maleness-love than femaleness-love and gender females tend to show more femaleness-love than maleness-love, but both genders do on occasion show both personalities of love.

The question arises since GOD is not made of matter, nor referenced as gender male or gender female, are there any examples of GOD showing differences in the personalities of love?

John 11:3 Therefore his sisters sent unto him , saying , Lord , behold , he whom thou femaleness-lovest is sick .

Here we see Jesus, femaleness-loving one of His redeemed.

Joh 21:17 He saith unto him the third time, Simon , son of Jonas , femaleness-lovest (ahabah) thou me ?

Here we see Jesus, asking gender male believers to show a deeper response than what maleness-love generally is, the femaleness-love that Jesus showed to His redeemed. Femaleness-love is also referenced as fellowship-love, the nurture kind of loving most churches lack these days.

Joh 5:20 For the Father femaleness-lovest (ahabah) the Son , and sheweth him all things that himself doeth : and he will shew him greater works than these , that ye may marvel

Here we the Father femaleness-loving His Son.

Joh 16:27 For the Father himself femaleness-loved (ahabah) you , because ye have femaleness-loved (ahabah) me , and have believed that I came out from God (Elohiym) .

The femaleness-love is a kind of responding love, the loving one does when one is shown love.

Isa 63:9 In all their affliction he was afflicted, and the angel of his presence saved them: in his femaleness-love (ahabah) and in his pity he redeemed them; and he bare them, and carried them all the days of old. 10 But they rebelled, and vexed his holy Spirit: therefore he was turned to be their enemy, and he fought against them.

This example shows possibly two members of the Godhead, one member, the Holy Spirit is named, possibly showing femaleness-love, but shows that GOD works in co-operation with other members of GOD.

(17) : "GOD as FAMILY"?

Now let us consider GOD as a picture of FAMILY:

Eph 3:14 For this cause I bow my knees unto the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, 15 Of whom the whole family in heaven and earth is named, 16 That he would grant you, according to the riches of his glory, to be strengthened with might by his Spirit in the inner man;

This verse is the only verse in the Bible that describes GOD as a "family". All the members of GOD are named, the Father, Son and Holy Spirit.

Ge 1:27 So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.

So since GOD is not of matter, nor gender male or gender female, but since GOD is family, this has to logically mean that the members of GOD show unique differencess in the way they love; that there exists in the Godhead, different personalities of loving.

(18) : "GOD as functional differences.."?

Now let us consider some functional differences in the Godhead.

Lu 1:35

  • And the angel answered and said unto her,
  • The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee,
  • and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee:
  • therefore also that holy thing which shall be born of thee
  • shall be called the Son of God. (KJV)

    Notice three things in this verse:

  • The power of the Highest is the Father,
  • The Holy Spirit also comes over Mary
  • two Divine Beings in the born process..

    Some scholars cannot say the Holy Spirit and Highest are collective terms of GOD as a whole, but the term "overshadow" is used. To make shadows you require two beings, one functioning as light, the other blocking partially the light, hence two beings.

    This is perhaps the strongest evidence that the Father and the Holy Spirit have contrasting functional descriptors, because these two Beings are together during the mystery we call incarnation. Therefore we can suggest maleness-love is contrasted with femaleness-love, these two terms suggest differences in personalites of loving, within the Godhead.

    (19) : "GOD as FAMILY PARENTS"?

    If GOD is a picture of family, there should be heavenly parents:

    Job 5:17 Behold, happy is the man whom Eloah (The Father) correcteth : therefore despise not thou the chastening of the Shadday (The Holy Spirit)

    Many do not understand the Hebrew word "eloah" is an old name for Father. The Hebrew word "Shadday" is an old name for the Holy Spirit.

    The Hebrew word "shadday" means literally "pressing to the breasts with active arms", could reference how Eastern cultures embrace visitors by the masculine head of the tent, or / and how Eastern mothers embrace their own sons. The Hebrew word shad, means breast. The Hebrew word shadad, means to spoil, according to Jeff Benner from his Ancient Hebrew Research Center.

    Some scholars push "shadday" to mean "almighty", are these translators pushing their own bias upon the Hebrew words?

    Scripture says to read Scripture, word upon word, line upon line, here across the OT, there across the NT. Look up everything on a topic. Isa 28:10.

    Therefore with just three simple verses we have a complete different picture of GOD, using Ephesians 3:15-16, Genesis 1:26 and Luke 1:35. These three jigsaw pieces fit a different picture of GOD, which translators have translated correctly in the KJV. You really don't need any more evidence. This evidence has been in Scripture all along.

    (20) : POETRY SIMILES..

    Similes do not represent something exactly like the thing it respresents, but similes do have to represent something, otherwise they would not be similes. The purpose of similes is to show us a materially pictured object similar to GOD who is not of matter, time or space. What similes must therefore show are pictures of functions that are the same.

    Pr 1:8 My son,

  • hear the instruction of thy father,
  • and forsake not the law of thy mother:

    This is a poetry simile making parallels between members of GOD and members of HUMANS. The functions are similar. Thus the heavenly Father has instructions in the ten commandments, while the Holy Spirit has teachings in the "torah", a Hebrew word for all the teachings across the OT and NT. Both types of directions help humans become children adopted into the family of GOD.

    De 32:11 As an eagle stirreth up her nest, fluttereth over her young, spreadeth abroad her wings, taketh them, beareth them on her wings:

    This simile describe the functional similarities between the way a gender female eagle cares for her young, and the way the Holy Spirit cares for children wanting to support GOD.

    Pr 8:27 When he prepared the heavens, I was there: when he set a compass upon the face of the depth:

    28 When he established the clouds above: when he strengthened the fountains of the deep:

    29 When he gave to the sea his decree, that the waters should not pass his commandment: when he appointed the foundations of the earth:

    30 Then I was by him, as one brought up with him: and I was daily his delight, rejoicing always before him;

    When Jesus created the world, the Holy Spirit was there. These verses speak of wisdom, personified as the Holy Spirit, functionally responding to the Saviours words of creation.

    Ps 33:6 By the word of the LORD were the heavens made; and all the host of them by the breath of his mouth.

    The Hebrew word for breath is the same word for Holy Spirit, so as Jesus spoke the words, the Holy Spirit responded to His directed commands.

    Mt 11:19 The Son of man came eating and drinking, and they say, Behold a man gluttonous, and a winebibber, a friend of publicans and sinners. But wisdom is justified of her children.

    Why does Jesus quote this riddle, using the word "wisdom and her children" if this does not functionally refer to personaility differences in the picture of GOD?

    (21) : VERSES we ignore.. What about specifically strange verses in the Bible, scholars ignore?

    Rev 12:1 And there appeared a great wonder in heaven; a woman clothed with the sun, and the moon under her feet, and upon her head a crown of twelve stars: 2 And she being with child cried, travailing in birth, and pained to be delivered. 3 And there appeared another wonder in heaven; and behold a great red dragon, having seven heads and ten horns, and seven crowns upon his heads. 4 And his tail drew the third part of the stars of heaven,

    Some scholars say Hebrew writes in block logic rather than events sequenced by time, but often we hear the woman pictured here as the church. But this does not fit the timelines, before tail of the serpent swept a third of stars from heaven, place the woman during the time of the war in heaven with Michael and Satan over the angels, some who sinned and some who didn't sin. The woman pictured here must refer to the Holy Spirit who administrates the breath of life in all living things. The Holy Spirit also administrates the followers of GOD, collectively known as "church" or "Zion". Also Eve is functionally a simile of the Holy Spirit, a mother of all living, whose name in Hebrew implies this.

    Psalm 22 begins in Hebrew saying My Strong Authority, my strong authority, why are you leaving Yeshua, and my roaring?

    Muslims claim if Jesus was GOD, how can a divine member of GOD die?

    The answer lies in death defined as when the members of GOD are separated from each other.

    Notice this verse:

    Ps 22:10 I was cast upon thee from the womb: thou art my God from my mother's belly.

    Translated correctly this is a strange verse in the KJV, who is "God" here from my mother's belly?

    Referring back to the two members of GOD during the incarnation of Jesus in Luke 1:35, the reference has to be to the Holy Spirit.

    Does the Holy Spirit have a womb? No. There are two Hebrew words for "rechem" one as a verb means "compassion" and the other as a noun means "compassion-centre", both of these words are spelt the same letters, must have the same or similar meanings, but differences in action. There is techncially no Hebrew word for "womb" but there is for "belly". This is done for a reason, because the Holy Spirit functionally empowers compassion to believers, and nurtures believers in a simile way the traditional meaning of "womb" implies.

    Joh 3:4 Nicodemus saith unto him, How can a man be born when he is old? can he enter the second time into his mother's womb, and be born? 5 Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.

    Jesus is speaking of the second birth all believers have to experience in order to be saved. Is this literal? yes, but it has to be spiritually understood, because GOD is not of matter, time or space.

    We believe the creation was literal, but the matter came out of GOD's hand in a way we do not understand Habakkuk 3:4.

    Ps 51:10 Create in me a clean heart, O God; and renew a right spirit within me. 11 Cast me not away from thy presence; and take not thy holy spirit from me.

    Here is the second birth from the compassion-centre of the Holy Spirit. It is a creative process, the same way animals were once created, when Jesus spoke the words. Except this is a daily recreative process by Jesus, from the Father, so our old nature is not uprooted while our new nature takes over. (Exodus 23:29). Therefore the word "womb" cannot refer to a born again Christian entering a "womb, a second time", as Nicodemus thought, as we enter into the compassion-centre of the Family of GOD every day and receive a daily baptism of His mercy and love.

    (22) : Other DETAILS we ignore..

    Finally let's consider what Science lessons can teach us about the functional differences in the Godhead.

    Joh 3:8 The wind bloweth where it listeth, and thou hearest the sound thereof, but canst not tell whence it cometh, and whither it goeth: so is every one that is born of the Spirit.

    This verse tell us that wind is a medium affect, where the energy of GOD travels through the air functioning as media. This wind is not ordinary wind, but is the Holy Spirit functioning as wind. Thus the medium is something that carries the power of something else, or a Being that represents another Being. The Science of medium properties is important for this allows GOD to create dysfunction, without personally doing dysfunction (Is 45:7). Mediums can produce real images or virtual images depending upon how far or close you are in relationship to GOD. This is best seen in experiments with shadows, which is a simile of "ra", the missing or "sin" we do before GOD.

    For more see

  • Saved cigarette smoker
  • Sin-offering Not unto death

    Therefore the functional work of the Holy Spirit is an agency for the flow of the Father or the Son's power, often as a medium, so GOD can approach fallen mankind, and not destroy mankind with God's direct presence.

    We also often assume the heavenly Father means "father", but this is perhaps not a good English meaning.

    Song 6:11 I went down into the garden of nuts to see the fruits "Ab" of the valley,

    Ge 49:25 Even by the God of thy father "Ab", who shall help thee; and by the Almighty, who shall bless thee with blessings of heaven above, blessings of the deep that lieth under, blessings of the breasts, and of the womb:

    How do we render all sentences containing "Ab" rather than suggesting polysemy?

    Song 6:11 I went down into the garden of nuts to see the "Providers" of the valley,

    Ge 49:25 Even by the God of thy Provider, who shall help thee; and by the Shadday, who shall bless thee with blessings of heaven above, blessings of the deep that lieth under, blessings of the breasts, and of the womb:

    Rather than seeing "ab" as Father, it is more likely "Provider", and Jesus showed Responding Love to the "Father's" Providing Love, because this is how salvation support works on a daily basis. Thus the circuit or spring of GOD is more like a battery, with love completed with a Provider and with love as a Responder, so the completed flow becomes a single source of power from GOD, not as we might suggest three "gods of power". Obviously the pagan notion of "three gods" is wrong, and the idea of a goddess is also wrong.

    This explains why responders do not show themselves as providers, and gives us a clue as to why GOD is seen predominately with maleness-love, because such maleness-love provides, and femaleness-love responds. It also explains why in Hebrew in community settings why masculine pronouns take over feminine pronouns. This strange notion is best explained by this verse:

    Le 18:8 The nakedness of thy father's wife shalt thou not uncover: it is thy father's nakedness.

    Conclusion:

    In summary, there is certainly room in Scripture, for us to consider GOD is trying to show us, from the Hebrew in our Bibles, that there are three personality differences in loving between the divine members of GOD. This picture is not of three gods of power, but a single source of power, as the loving seems to suggest LOVE is a Provider, LOVE is a Responder and LOVE is a Collector. It leaves things far more complex, than the readers want to know. This is why Scripture admonishes "I do NOT exercise myself in great matters, or in things too high for me. Psalm 131:1".

    Next are comments made by other people, on this topic, and how the Author guides people into a different understanding of this truth.

    The Holy Spirit theme

  • Created by Rob Thompson. Hosted since 10/01/2012.

    Visitors ISP GoDaddy. A thin website for browsers.